Only misleading if untrue; not to get argumentative, but, it's only misleading if found to be untrue.

To many the invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression on the part of British and American troops, hence 'victims of Anglo-American aggression' (if they, in fact, directly caused these injuries).

From memory, I do recall some of these images from the invasion period. But that is no help to you in verification.

Whats the knee jerk al-Jazeera hostility about? They report on world events from an Arab perspective, just as western media report from their own little bubble of perception.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

I never said they were. You demonstrate an uncanny ability to miss the point.

Yes. War bad. Real pictures good. We've established that.

The point is that showing real pictures of casualties under the heading "victims of Anglo-American aggression" and not distinguishing "whether the terrorists did this or we did", is misleading and irresponsible.

I would of pulled photographs off of Fox news to make the point about the casualties of war, but they didn't have any. None archived, I looked....maybe fox journalist couldn't make it out of the green zone.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

So essentially, someone with this point of view would believe that Coalition forces are responsible for any civilians the insurgents target? Pretty shaky reasoning, don't you think?

Not hostility. Distrust. Given their obvious bias, I simply wouldn't take anything they say on faith. Not "knee-jerk" either. Al-Jazeera has a distinguished track record of reporting from "their own little bubble of perception."

Let us, at least, have an honest discussion (I have a higher opinion of you than this, above, would warrant).

You know my earlier quote was qualified by the following (which you choose to selectively omit); 'if they, in fact, directly caused these injuries'.

I agree - trust as credible none in their own little bubble.

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

Sorry, this was an oversight. I neglected to put an ellipses after the quote to indicate more was said - I didn't see a need to include the complete quote (at the time, I thought I had the gist of it) since you were discussing what "many" believe, rather than your own thoughts on the matter.

Again, my apologies if I misrepresented your meaning. It was not my intention.

that I care if you respond to me. I don't. But I am going to respond, if I see fit, to you, and your obvious attempts to misrepresent the words of other posters and such "facts" as you see fit to post, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of others who may actually wish to discuss the issues you raise (and I long ago concluded that you do not seek meaningful discussion, but just a platform for propaganda).

Catz

__________________
Job 13:5 (New International Version)
If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom.

Sorry, but I have nothing to say to you, I told you that twice before.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

Can I be on your blacklist too? heh heh

I don't care whether you agree with me or not, but I'm not going to get into name calling. If you prefer not to respond to me that's fine too.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control