Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tweek128:
Regarding Foxnews, if you look at their actual news reporting--not their opinion or "analysis" pieces--they stand up to cnn or msnbc. Have you actually read Foxnews' work, or do you simply accept what their competitors and detractors say regarding them and find no evidence to the contrary? Now this may seem like a foolish question, but the core of it is, do you know they are "tabloid" news because you know firsthand, or because that's the conventional wisdom of what you've read?

---

Quote:

---

The difference is that we have not had situations in other cities as you had in Basra, with the detention of British servicemen.

---

Quote:

---

Further, open warfare is different from terrorism. While open warfare may be unleashed upon buses, police stations, schools, and children, that does not change the fact that they are not conducting open warfare. They are conducting terrorist operations. Suicide bombers in cars, roadside ieds, and random attacks on soft targets is not open warfare.
If insurgents conduct themselves as terrorists, they are terrorists. How can you say otherwise? Would you disagree with my definition in the earlier post regarding targetting innocent civilians?

---

Quote:

---

Regarding the articles on the Iraqi police, I find it interesing that the dateline is from, strangely enough, Basra. From the WaPo article:

---

Quote:

---

But the bottom line is, you trust them more than I do, so would you agree it's pointless to discuss them much further?

---

Quote:

---

As for David Kelly, he was an example where what he said was taken out of context and against the meaning of how he had intended it. The reporter shaped what he heard to suit the story he wanted to write, and to me that is a black mark on their credibility.

---