Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Borislav Herak (not verified) on Sat, 07/30/2005 - 11:06.
For the record, here is exactly what Bill wrote in an earlier message directed to me ("You STILL aren't reading very carefully," Wed, 07/27/2005 - 18:56):
"Now, Anonymous (was that you Borislav?) wrote 'IWPR fired Chris Stephen', a simple, objective mis-statement of fact. I dare to correct it, and I am told this wasn't the 'important point'. Important enough for you to (inaccurately) invoke, but not important enough for me to correct. Very interesting."
Only the parenthetical comment was a question. (No. I was not the Anonymous poster.) But in the third sentence of Bill's paragraph, Bill clearly was assuming (wrongly) that Anonymous was me. Therefore, Bill's third sentence asserted: "Important enough for YOU [i.e., for ME, Borislav] to (inaccurately) invoke," also referring back to an earlier post of mine ("Perjury, Propaganda, and the Former Yugoslavia," Wed, 07/27/2005 - 10:29).
In this sentence, Bill clearly was asserting that it was I who had originally invoked the IWPR-Chris Stephen incident. And there are no two ways about it.
Now Bill follows up the entire chain with his "This is a final warning. We have a no-censorship policy on this site, but that only applies to political content, not stupidity."
It is good that the World War IV Report has a no-censorship policy. But then were does Bill’s FINAL WARNING come from? Moreover, my posts are STUPID, and STUPIDITY is to be barred from the World War IV Report's website? Since when? Were the World War IV Reporters to apply this principle universally at their website, I’d hate to see what might be left.
What is more, Bill had directed everyone's attention to post elsewhere by Andras Riedlmayer, and reported that the Riedlmayer "provides an in-depth explanation of how the 8,000 figure is arrived at"--the phrase "8,000 figure" referring to the number of Bosnian Muslims alleged to have been killed during after the evacuation of the Srebrenica 'safe area" ("...Which you apparently didn't read very carefully," Wed, 07/20/2005 - 17:03).
So I checked the Riedlmayer post and found that it sorely lacked an explanation for how the 8,000 figure was arrived at--short of Riedlmayer's simply taking as gospel truth other sources for the 8,000 figure, which are themselves open to honest questioning.
On the basis of checking the Riedlmayer, I wrote (a) that "Riedlmayer does not provide an in-depth explanation of the actual sources" ("Reading Very Carefully," Thu, 07/28/2005 - 14:15); and, later, (b) that in my opinion Riedlmayer provides "only the most meager discussion of this methodology. And no solid reason for anyone to accept the sources of the 8,000 figure. Short of ex cathedra-type reasons..." ("Bill's [sic] Uses Cuteness to Mask His Unreliability," Fri, 07/29/2005 - 10:44).
Now, you tell me. Are these really no more than "disingenuous time-wasting distractions," "stupidity," and "crap"?
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of May First
Bill Says He Despises Cuteness
For the record, here is exactly what Bill wrote in an earlier message directed to me ("You STILL aren't reading very carefully," Wed, 07/27/2005 - 18:56):
"Now, Anonymous (was that you Borislav?) wrote 'IWPR fired Chris Stephen', a simple, objective mis-statement of fact. I dare to correct it, and I am told this wasn't the 'important point'. Important enough for you to (inaccurately) invoke, but not important enough for me to correct. Very interesting."
Only the parenthetical comment was a question. (No. I was not the Anonymous poster.) But in the third sentence of Bill's paragraph, Bill clearly was assuming (wrongly) that Anonymous was me. Therefore, Bill's third sentence asserted: "Important enough for YOU [i.e., for ME, Borislav] to (inaccurately) invoke," also referring back to an earlier post of mine ("Perjury, Propaganda, and the Former Yugoslavia," Wed, 07/27/2005 - 10:29).
In this sentence, Bill clearly was asserting that it was I who had originally invoked the IWPR-Chris Stephen incident. And there are no two ways about it.
Now Bill follows up the entire chain with his "This is a final warning. We have a no-censorship policy on this site, but that only applies to political content, not stupidity."
It is good that the World War IV Report has a no-censorship policy. But then were does Bill’s FINAL WARNING come from? Moreover, my posts are STUPID, and STUPIDITY is to be barred from the World War IV Report's website? Since when? Were the World War IV Reporters to apply this principle universally at their website, I’d hate to see what might be left.
What is more, Bill had directed everyone's attention to post elsewhere by Andras Riedlmayer, and reported that the Riedlmayer "provides an in-depth explanation of how the 8,000 figure is arrived at"--the phrase "8,000 figure" referring to the number of Bosnian Muslims alleged to have been killed during after the evacuation of the Srebrenica 'safe area" ("...Which you apparently didn't read very carefully," Wed, 07/20/2005 - 17:03).
So I checked the Riedlmayer post and found that it sorely lacked an explanation for how the 8,000 figure was arrived at--short of Riedlmayer's simply taking as gospel truth other sources for the 8,000 figure, which are themselves open to honest questioning.
On the basis of checking the Riedlmayer, I wrote (a) that "Riedlmayer does not provide an in-depth explanation of the actual sources" ("Reading Very Carefully," Thu, 07/28/2005 - 14:15); and, later, (b) that in my opinion Riedlmayer provides "only the most meager discussion of this methodology. And no solid reason for anyone to accept the sources of the 8,000 figure. Short of ex cathedra-type reasons..." ("Bill's [sic] Uses Cuteness to Mask His Unreliability," Fri, 07/29/2005 - 10:44).
Now, you tell me. Are these really no more than "disingenuous time-wasting distractions," "stupidity," and "crap"?
Not in my opinion.