It's funny that you'll link to an article that incriminates your side of the argument.
The article says that things have been returned. How does that mean the museum wasn't looted in the first place?
Did I say it wasn't looted? No. Can you read and understand? No.
The point being that anti-american bigots like you and hassan will do what what you like to slander the US. Doesn't matter if the truth takes it on the chin to meet your goal.
Oh and it's not a crime for the US Military to not include a non-military building on its list of buildings to secure when entering a city. But ... there you go again.
Blaming the people who did the looting would not be possible would it?
Don't be silly. I didn't say you said it wasn't looted. You said the reports of looting were overstated. The article you linked to doesn't support this opinion in the least.
The same amount of looting occurred as was suspected. Luckily a lot more than originally thought has returned.
Why not just tell the truth and advance the discussion instead of stretching everything to try and 'win' an argument?
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
The point being that anti-american bigots like you and hassan will do what what you like to slander the US. Doesn't matter if the truth takes it on the chin to meet your goal.
My opinion was and is that the U.S. didn't do enough to protect this museum. The article you linked to supports this opinion as well.
That's two strikes for you in one post. Calling me an anti-American bigot is strike three, but since that's conjecture and opinion there's no way to prove it was strike three. I'll just say it's foul.
So you'd be willing to pick other people to die for a book?
Are you drawing a conclusion here? I'm confused. Someone said that the original text of the E of G was more valuable than a few lives, and you said "Yours?" and I said "Yes."
Where did the part come in where I get to have people killed and what does this question have to do with whether or not I think that a text like that is important enough for me to die to protect/preserve it?
Where did the part come in where I get to have people killed and what does this question have to do with whether or not I think that a text like that is important enough for me to die to protect/preserve it?
Because that's what we were talking about. Sacrificing lives to protect material things.
It's disappointing how eager so many here were to lap up and anti-american tripe. Ever so critical of rumors of WoMD but this lie was embraced as is and repeated. You all should be ashamed but you wont be.
Anti-American journalists and the museum looting that wasn't.
BY ROGER KIMBALL
Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
It was horrible. An outrage. A tragedy. "Iraqi looting 'a loss to mankind'_" said the BBC. "U.S. Army ignored alert on museum looting risk," ABC reported.
In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd skirled about coalition forces "guarding the Iraqi Oil Ministry building while hundreds of Iraqis ransacked and ran off with precious heirlooms and artifacts from a 7,000-year-old civilization." Oh dear. Everywhere one turned, the major media had the same story: Thousands upon thousands of rare, priceless, irreplaceable artifacts had been "taken or destroyed by looters." One hundred thousand objects, according to some reports; 270,000, according to one story in the London Observer.
The Iraqis were looting themselves, but responsibility for the outrage was placed squarely at the feet of the Americans. On April 13, the Washington Post grimly informed readers that "it has become increasingly clear that the looting that was sparked by the fall of Saddam Hussein's government--largely unchecked by U.S. forces--has wreaked more damage on Iraq's civilian infrastructure and economy than three weeks of U.S. bombing." The Post went on to quote an Iraqi museum official who keened: "Our heritage is finished. Why did they do this? Why? Why?"
"Why" is exactly the question that needs to be asked. Not "Why did they do this?" but "Why is the press so gullible?" A few weeks ago the collective countenance of the fourth estate was, like Hamlet's Denmark, contracted in one brow of woe. Oh, those savage Americans: What they didn't bomb they stole, or allowed others to smash and steal.
But wait. That story plays brilliantly but, as the London Guardian reported June 10, "it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks." It wasn't the crazed Iraqi populace that denuded the museums but careful Iraqi curators, who spirited the swag away into vaults and secret storerooms before the war even began. Yes, there have been a few important losses. But there weren't 270,000 items missing, or (the most frequently reported number) 170,000. One museum official put the number at 47 items, but that was later revised down to 33. Meanwhile, the museum that was supposed to have been destroyed is scheduled to reopen next week. Stay tuned for further reductions.
About face, folks: The tape with the self-righteous denunciations has been taken off the reel while the new tape, full of self-righteous media navel-gazing, is cued up.
Instead of recriminations, we have a bumper crop of explanations and self-exculpations. Variations on "the fog of war" top the list: "So difficult here in the heat of battle being shot at we hardly know which side is which as we bravely try to get out the news to a panting public_._._."
Well, there has certainly been plenty of fog. But the fog has primarily swirled around in great patches of anti-American sentiment. Fifteen minutes ago, when recriminations about an unprecedented historical loss were all the rage, it was all the fault of the Yanks and in particular the administration of George W. Bush. Quoth Prof. Zinab Bahrani from Columbia University: "Blame must be placed with the Bush administration for a catastrophic destruction of culture unparalleled in modern history."
Where do you suppose Prof. Bahrani is now? Busy writing an apology? Don't hold your breath. Columbia University is the institution that also gave us Nicholas de Genova, the prof who publicly said he hoped the Iraq war would result in "a million Mogadishus"--i.e., a million American soldiers dead and dragged naked through the streets.
But don't single out Columbia. That's what establishment academic culture is like in America and Europe today. It's the received opinion--not the only opinion, but the dominant one, the agenda-setter. Go to virtually any college or university in America or Western Europe: Anti-Americanism is a growth industry, so thriving that it is simply taken for granted: It's the state of nature.
And these days the assumptions that inform university attitudes also shape media culture. When NPR or the BBC or the New York Times goes to war, it goes with the lectures of people like Prof. Bahrani ringing in its ears and sentiments like those espoused by Prof. de Genova stirring its heart. As one disabused reporter from the Guardian put it: "You cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed."
The story of nonlooting of the Iraqi museums gave us a glimpse into that heart of darkness. That tragedy has collapsed into farce. Now playing: the saga of weapons of mass destruction. Plenty of those, I predict, will be found, and then we'll be treated to long analyses of exactly why the media got that wrong, too. Stay tuned.
Mr. Kimball is managing editor of The New Criterion.
It's disappointing how eager so many here were to lap up and number) 170,000. One museum official put the number at 47
[snip: scott's post.]
those, I predict, will be found, and then we'll be treated to long analyses of exactly why the media got that wrong, too. Stay tuned.
Mr. Kimball is managing editor of The New Criterion.
Firstly, it's the Manchester Guardian, not the London Guardian.
Secondly, I saw an interview with the Director of the Baghdad Museum on TV last month and he listed the things stolen and smashed. As far as I can make out, either the article posted above is full of lies, or the Director of the Baghdad Museum of Antiquities (or whatever it's called) is lying. My money's on the article the fascist guy posted.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
It's funny that you'll link to an article that incriminates your side of the argument.
The article says that things have been returned. How does that mean the museum wasn't looted in the first place?
Did I say it wasn't looted? No. Can you read and understand? No.
The point being that anti-american bigots like you and hassan will do what what you like to slander the US. Doesn't matter if the truth takes it on the chin to meet your goal.
Oh and it's not a crime for the US Military to not include a non-military building on its list of buildings to secure when entering a city. But ... there you go again.
Blaming the people who did the looting would not be possible would it?
Originally posted by Scott
Did I say it wasn't looted?
Don't be silly. I didn't say you said it wasn't looted. You said the reports of looting were overstated. The article you linked to doesn't support this opinion in the least.
The same amount of looting occurred as was suspected. Luckily a lot more than originally thought has returned.
Why not just tell the truth and advance the discussion instead of stretching everything to try and 'win' an argument?
Originally posted by Scott
The point being that anti-american bigots like you and hassan will do what what you like to slander the US. Doesn't matter if the truth takes it on the chin to meet your goal.
My opinion was and is that the U.S. didn't do enough to protect this museum. The article you linked to supports this opinion as well.
That's two strikes for you in one post. Calling me an anti-American bigot is strike three, but since that's conjecture and opinion there's no way to prove it was strike three. I'll just say it's foul.
Originally posted by Scott
Did you bother to read the article?
No, I invented a quote that's miraculously identical to a portion of the article. Verbatim, like the old diskettes. Miracle.
Originally posted by midwinter
Yes.
So you'd be willing to pick other people to die for a book?
Originally posted by groverat
So you'd be willing to pick other people to die for a book?
Are you drawing a conclusion here? I'm confused. Someone said that the original text of the E of G was more valuable than a few lives, and you said "Yours?" and I said "Yes."
Where did the part come in where I get to have people killed and what does this question have to do with whether or not I think that a text like that is important enough for me to die to protect/preserve it?
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Where did the part come in where I get to have people killed and what does this question have to do with whether or not I think that a text like that is important enough for me to die to protect/preserve it?
Because that's what we were talking about. Sacrificing lives to protect material things.
From Tragedy to Farce
Anti-American journalists and the museum looting that wasn't.
BY ROGER KIMBALL
Thursday, June 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
It was horrible. An outrage. A tragedy. "Iraqi looting 'a loss to mankind'_" said the BBC. "U.S. Army ignored alert on museum looting risk," ABC reported.
In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd skirled about coalition forces "guarding the Iraqi Oil Ministry building while hundreds of Iraqis ransacked and ran off with precious heirlooms and artifacts from a 7,000-year-old civilization." Oh dear. Everywhere one turned, the major media had the same story: Thousands upon thousands of rare, priceless, irreplaceable artifacts had been "taken or destroyed by looters." One hundred thousand objects, according to some reports; 270,000, according to one story in the London Observer.
The Iraqis were looting themselves, but responsibility for the outrage was placed squarely at the feet of the Americans. On April 13, the Washington Post grimly informed readers that "it has become increasingly clear that the looting that was sparked by the fall of Saddam Hussein's government--largely unchecked by U.S. forces--has wreaked more damage on Iraq's civilian infrastructure and economy than three weeks of U.S. bombing." The Post went on to quote an Iraqi museum official who keened: "Our heritage is finished. Why did they do this? Why? Why?"
"Why" is exactly the question that needs to be asked. Not "Why did they do this?" but "Why is the press so gullible?" A few weeks ago the collective countenance of the fourth estate was, like Hamlet's Denmark, contracted in one brow of woe. Oh, those savage Americans: What they didn't bomb they stole, or allowed others to smash and steal.
But wait. That story plays brilliantly but, as the London Guardian reported June 10, "it's nonsense. It isn't true. It's made up. It's bollocks." It wasn't the crazed Iraqi populace that denuded the museums but careful Iraqi curators, who spirited the swag away into vaults and secret storerooms before the war even began. Yes, there have been a few important losses. But there weren't 270,000 items missing, or (the most frequently reported number) 170,000. One museum official put the number at 47 items, but that was later revised down to 33. Meanwhile, the museum that was supposed to have been destroyed is scheduled to reopen next week. Stay tuned for further reductions.
About face, folks: The tape with the self-righteous denunciations has been taken off the reel while the new tape, full of self-righteous media navel-gazing, is cued up.
Instead of recriminations, we have a bumper crop of explanations and self-exculpations. Variations on "the fog of war" top the list: "So difficult here in the heat of battle being shot at we hardly know which side is which as we bravely try to get out the news to a panting public_._._."
Well, there has certainly been plenty of fog. But the fog has primarily swirled around in great patches of anti-American sentiment. Fifteen minutes ago, when recriminations about an unprecedented historical loss were all the rage, it was all the fault of the Yanks and in particular the administration of George W. Bush. Quoth Prof. Zinab Bahrani from Columbia University: "Blame must be placed with the Bush administration for a catastrophic destruction of culture unparalleled in modern history."
Where do you suppose Prof. Bahrani is now? Busy writing an apology? Don't hold your breath. Columbia University is the institution that also gave us Nicholas de Genova, the prof who publicly said he hoped the Iraq war would result in "a million Mogadishus"--i.e., a million American soldiers dead and dragged naked through the streets.
But don't single out Columbia. That's what establishment academic culture is like in America and Europe today. It's the received opinion--not the only opinion, but the dominant one, the agenda-setter. Go to virtually any college or university in America or Western Europe: Anti-Americanism is a growth industry, so thriving that it is simply taken for granted: It's the state of nature.
And these days the assumptions that inform university attitudes also shape media culture. When NPR or the BBC or the New York Times goes to war, it goes with the lectures of people like Prof. Bahrani ringing in its ears and sentiments like those espoused by Prof. de Genova stirring its heart. As one disabused reporter from the Guardian put it: "You cannot say anything too bad about the Yanks and not be believed."
The story of nonlooting of the Iraqi museums gave us a glimpse into that heart of darkness. That tragedy has collapsed into farce. Now playing: the saga of weapons of mass destruction. Plenty of those, I predict, will be found, and then we'll be treated to long analyses of exactly why the media got that wrong, too. Stay tuned.
Mr. Kimball is managing editor of The New Criterion.
Originally posted by groverat
Because that's what we were talking about. Sacrificing lives to protect material things.
whhooo!!! hold your horses... Are you saying this is not a factor in most wars?
Originally posted by Scott
It's disappointing how eager so many here were to lap up and number) 170,000. One museum official put the number at 47
[snip: scott's post.]
those, I predict, will be found, and then we'll be treated to long analyses of exactly why the media got that wrong, too. Stay tuned.
Mr. Kimball is managing editor of The New Criterion.
Firstly, it's the Manchester Guardian, not the London Guardian.
Secondly, I saw an interview with the Director of the Baghdad Museum on TV last month and he listed the things stolen and smashed. As far as I can make out, either the article posted above is full of lies, or the Director of the Baghdad Museum of Antiquities (or whatever it's called) is lying. My money's on the article the fascist guy posted.
whhooo!!! hold your horses... Are you saying this is not a factor in most wars?
What about that sentence would lead you to believe that's what I was saying?
(today)
the guardians mea culpa here
(three days old)