North Korea Nuclear Test

[Apothos]

Sorry, but unless you provide documentation from an apolitical, non-biased, non-partisan source, what you have said is nothing but an assertion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

And here, here, here, here, all link back to the first.

I've neither seen nor heard the President say that God told him to invade Iraq.

Next time you go around to his house for lunch, perhaps you could ask him.

[Exekutor]

Great sources you got there Thats just paelestinian(sp?)/arabic propaganda and you really believed it? Thats like watching that Hisbollah Tv channel and believing them ...

[C777]

Sorry, but unless you provide documentation from an apolitical, non-biased, non-partisan source, what you have said is nothing but an assertion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressr ... bush.shtml

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

And here, here, here, here, all link back to the first.

I've neither seen nor heard the President say that God told him to invade Iraq.

Next time you go around to his house for lunch, perhaps you could ask him.

You fail on several points with this information:

1. The BBC and the Guardian are not unbiased sources. They've never provided any balanced view of George Bush.

2. You cite an article by Al-Jazeera, a terrorist propaganda machine.

3. All the articles say is that someone else said that President Bush made the statement. It is also contradicted by someone else who also attended the meeting by none other than Mahmoud Abbas himself according to the Taipei Times:

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said on Friday. "I have never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003."

So what we are left with is a "he said, he said" situation. So unless you have something that quotes George Bush directly and not a statement made by hearsay, my post still stands.

[CBJ]

1. The BBC and the Guardian are not unbiased sources. They've never provided any balanced view of George Bush.

A "balanced" view being what? One that agrees with your view of him? Sorry, but a news report from the national media of a country that generally takes a favourable view of the US government (even if the general populace are less enamoured) is about as unbiased as you are going to find in reality.

So what we are left with is a "he said, he said" situation. So unless you have something that quotes George Bush directly and not a statement made by hearsay, my post still stands.

Since anything anyone posts here is, by definition a quote of a quote, which is in turn going to have to be a media report since people who go to dinner with the president aren't known for posting transcripts on the internet, you are clearly demanding the impossible here.

[Apothos]

The BBC and the Guardian are not unbiased sources. They've never provided any balanced view of George Bush.

There is no such thing as an unbiased source. In this case bias is irrelevent anyway, as they have someone on film unscripted apparently quoting George Bush.

2. You cite an article by Al-Jazeera, a terrorist propaganda machine.

No more than FOX news is the republican party's propoganda machine. But that's also beside the point, they're reporting on someone elses report, hence the "all link back to" after the links.

So what we are left with is a "he said, he said" situation.

Which, as already stated by CBJ, is all you're ever going to get.

While it is impossible for me to be one hundred percent sure he said it, it is also impossible for you to be one hundred percent sure he didn't, but perhaps i should have phrased it:

I'd be more worried about leaders who have nuclear weapons who have reportedly claimed to have been spoken to by their invisible friend called god.

to make sure i didn't inadvertently insult those of an insecure nature, as that was not my intent, nor was "America bashing".

[C777]

1. The BBC and the Guardian are not unbiased sources. They've never provided any balanced view of George Bush.

A "balanced" view being what? One that agrees with your view of him? Sorry, but a news report from the national media of a country that generally takes a favourable view of the US government (even if the general populace are less enamoured) is about as unbiased as you are going to find in reality.

So what we are left with is a "he said, he said" situation. So unless you have something that quotes George Bush directly and not a statement made by hearsay, my post still stands.

Since anything anyone posts here is, by definition a quote of a quote, which is in turn going to have to be a media report since people who go to dinner with the president aren't known for posting transcripts on the internet, you are clearly demanding the impossible here.

To your first point: as one poster has already pointed out, the President is not America. So just because a news network may have a favorable opinion of the US does not translate into a "balanced" view of its President. I wonder how many hits I would come up by using the phrases "Bush lied," "Bush misled," or "sexed-up intelligence" would I find for British news sources? How many for the BBC or the Guardian? As for my view of the President, why is my view important? I've never stated what my view of him is because I believe would fall outside the scope of any forum hosted by Egosoft. But, that's my standard.

To your second point: The American media has no difficulty quoting George Bush directly for a story. Reporters ask him questions at press conferences. He even has dinners with reporters and other journalists. I'm not buying your argumentation. It's not impossible to get direct quotes from him.

Let's say Kim Jung-Il had a meeting with foreign officials of a different country, and someone from that meeting that Kim Jung Il said one thing, but another person also in the same meeting denied it. This is reported to the media who sends it across the wire. Do we automatically conclude that Kim Jung Il actually made such statements even though they cannot be corroborrated as fact? If not, then why is the same situation not afforded to George Bush? That's right, he's George Bush, that COWBOY! Anything that was supposedly said by him(no direct quote) but can't be proven is TRUE and FACTUAL.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that a person definitely made a statement which cannot be corroborated and also been contradicted by someone who actually spoke with said person.

My post still stands.

[esd]

I believe would fall outside the scope of any forum hosted by Egosoft.

Why? This is Off Topic, where people are free to discuss pretty much anything as long as it doesn't exceed the bounds of taste and decency - basically, stick to the rules.

No-one's rule-breaking in this thread, and this thread has nothing to do with Egosoft whatsoever, other than the fact that several users are having a discussion on their forum.

As an American, I'd have thought you'd support such freedom of speech?

[CBJ]

To your first point: as one poster has already pointed out, the President is not America. So just because a news network may have a favorable opinion of the US does not translate into a "balanced" view of its President.

My post specifically said "US government", not "America". The view of America in general held by either the UK press or the general public is not relevant to the discussion. I also did not mention anything about any news network having a favourable opinion; I said that the country (and by inference from my comment in parentheses, specifically the government of that country) in which those press organisations are based has a generally favourable view of the US government.

I wonder how many hits I would come up by using the phrases "Bush lied," "Bush misled," or "sexed-up intelligence" would I find for British news sources? How many for the BBC or the Guardian?

You'd also find exactly the same sources saying very similar things about the UK government. There are two possible conclusions to be drawn from this. One is that these news sources are inherently anti-government and that the reports are completely made up, and the other is that these governments did actually lie, mislead or sex-up information to some extent. Most people would probably agree that the truth lies somewhere in between, with no-one being entirely blameless. The fact that no WMDs were found in Iraq suggests that someone, somewhere did some misleading or sexing-up, and there are few people other than the governments involved who would have much to gain by doing so. On balance, therefore, it seems sensible to give at least some credence to the press in this case.

[muppetts]

'You cite an article by Al-Jazeera, a terrorist propaganda machine.'

That is only your opinion, that is not a fact.

Just because they show the other side of the coin which is usually a large number of civilains killed by bombs from the US or Israel, does not make them a propaganda machine, just because they have a Arab name does not make them terrorists.

No one is innocent in this new 'world war', you just bought into the propaganda machine run over your side of the fence.

As for North Korea, they will never be invade, China will never allow it and the US would never risk getting on China's bad side. It will be up to China to sort this mess out and since NK just made the premier of China look like a dick, you can be sure he will be having a word in the ear of your favorite dictator.

Don't suppose there is any proof that they tested a Nuk?

[Krusade]

Nope all that's known so far is that there was a large(ish) underground explosion which NK claim was a nuke.

[C777]

I believe would fall outside the scope of any forum hosted by Egosoft.

Why? This is Off Topic, where people are free to discuss pretty much anything as long as it doesn't exceed the bounds of taste and decency - basically, stick to the rules.

No-one's rule-breaking in this thread, and this thread has nothing to do with Egosoft whatsoever, other than the fact that several users are having a discussion on their forum.

As an American, I'd have thought you'd support such freedom of speech?

I do, but please read my entire thought with one small edit:

As for my view of the President, why is my view important? I've never stated what my view of him is because I believe it would fall outside the scope of any forum hosted by Egosoft. But, that's my standard.

I am allowed to restrict the things that *I* can say, can't I?

[C777]

'You cite an article by Al-Jazeera, a terrorist propaganda machine.'

That is only your opinion, that is not a fact.

And I should have posted my reasoning for my statement. I believe that it's rather odd that they seem to be the only network to be first to get tapes from Al-Qaeda and crew. In my opinion, they are terrorist sympathizers and propagandists.

[CBJ]

I am allowed to restrict the things that *I* can say, can't I?

Of course you are.

[Tsar_of_Cows]

Though this is an interestiong dcebate over how much of a wacko George W. is, it may not be outwith the scope of the forum, but is it not outwith the scope of this thread, which is about North Korea and paranoid ramblings about how we're all going to die in a nuclear apocolypse?

[Zathos]

IMHO I think this NK thing is a 'national pride' issue. Now they are considered a nuk power the huge investment associated with a program like this will probably subside before an effective delivery vehicle is developed.
Similar thing happened when India and Pakistan were in the same race. Once they did initial testing and saber rattling normal service was resumed.

[C777]

to make sure i didn't inadvertently insult those of an insecure nature, as that was not my intent, nor was "America bashing".

Gee, thanks for the personal attack.

Ok, since I won't be purchasing any more games from Egosoft now, would someone please remove my account from the forum as I really don't like being personally attacked by agents of Egosoft whether they are paid or not.

[Zathos]

to make sure i didn't inadvertently insult those of an insecure nature, as that was not my intent, nor was "America bashing".

Gee, thanks for the personal attack.

Ok, since I won't be purchasing any more games from Egosoft now, would someone please remove my account from the forum as I really don't like being personally attacked by agents of Egosoft whether they are paid or not.

Sorry mate, but now you are just looking to play the victim
This is a big world with many differing views and cultures. Even though we are speaking the same language (sort of) doesn't meen we understand each other.
I don't read anything in these posts as personal or anti. They are opinions and we all have em

[muppetts]

'You cite an article by Al-Jazeera, a terrorist propaganda machine.'

That is only your opinion, that is not a fact.

And I should have posted my reasoning for my statement. I believe that it's rather odd that they seem to be the only network to be first to get tapes from Al-Qaeda and crew. In my opinion, they are terrorist sympathizers and propagandists.

No, having good sources does not make you a terrorist sympathizer. Yes they show images the west would rather they did not, the same way 9/11 is constantly replayed beyond the morbid on western TV as a justification to almost anything it seems (other than actually targeting the people who did it).

You are merely brain washed by our media, you have been told who the bad guys are and who the good guys are and you are happy that that is the situation. Suicide bombers are terrorists; A10 Tank Busters are democracy and freedom.

Most news agencies would be happy to get high level news sources in the PLO, Hamas, Al-Qaeda etc.

If CNN thought they could get an interview with Bin Laden they would jump for it. Many western news agencies have interviewed 'terrorists', or factions in a war before.

The news has more than one side and blaming one agency of looking more at one side than the other is hypocrisy, as our TV news has done it for years.

We are the good cowboys, them Indians, sly and not to be trusted. it would be laughable if it was not so deadly.

[mbthegreat]

sorry just came back to this thread and read through the last few pages, people desperatly trying to defend themselves when they have been proved to be wrong make me laugh

anyways, does anyone know what the nuke commision or whatever it called have to say about it?

[Syklon]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... index.html
the plot thickens...

certainly does seem to be a fair amount of confusion on how big it actually was or not