PDA

View Full Version : Interesting wording used by the Times

IowaSkinsFan
08-22-2003, 04:47 AM
Whenever you read a story in the news about a suspect being taken into custody regarding a crime, they always use the word "alleged" as in the alledged suspect. This is based off the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

I was reading the Times article (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030821-114545-7681r.htm) on the capture of 'Chemical Ali' and they had this to say about Iraq's Alleged WMD program:

The capture could provide coalition forces with new information about Iraq's hidden weapons of mass destruction and about the organized resistance to the U.S. and allied troops in Iraq.


Please note that nowhere in that quote does it say "Iraq's ALLEGED hidden weapons of mass destruction", just that they are hidden. I get the impression reading this article that the Times believes Iraq has WMD and that they are hidden and they hope through interrogation of Ali that some insight may be found as to the location of the hidden WMD.

Why would a major National Newspaper write an article about a weapons program that they can't even prove exists? HHmmmmm?

Can anyone tell me what large Right Wing news company owns the Times? They need to be called and told that Iraq has no WMD. Their research is sorely lacking credentials of any kind I would say.
bfauble83
08-22-2003, 04:49 PM
They need to be called and told that Iraq has no WMD.


Can YOU prove that?
Skinzaholic
08-22-2003, 10:01 PM
Um... I think robert is speaking rhetorically here.
IowaSkinsFan
08-23-2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Um... I think robert is speaking rhetorically here.

And.........with a minor dose of sarcasm.

Thanks Skinz! I was afraid after awhile that no one was going to get my point.
bfauble83
08-23-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by robert11273
And.........with a minor dose of sarcasm.

Thanks Skinz! I was afraid after awhile that no one was going to get my point.

I sure didnt'...:smash:
NCskinsfanatic
08-23-2003, 11:47 AM
I believe that if it is in the news paper it just has to be true.but seriously,i also believe that we are correct in assuming Iraq had these weapons prior to the latest war.I also believe either through being told when and where we would search(un inspectors)and moving them to neighboring sympathisers they want be easily found.Thus making us look stupid in the world wide court of opinion.
Skinzaholic
08-23-2003, 12:12 PM
Thank you NCskinsfanatic... finally someone with some sense speaks about this WMD situation!

Funny how many people in the USA support Saddam so much... They march against our government and demand to see proof of WMD (thus insinuating that Saddam is an honest man)... but I dont think the many, many families of 9/11 need much proof.

That is why I consider those types of people traitors.

When I am the President... they will be exiled.
Spence
08-25-2003, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Skinzaholic
When I am the President... they will be exiled.
President of what, the Three Stooges Fan Club?:D
IowaSkinsFan
08-26-2003, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by Spence
President of what, the Three Stooges Fan Club?:D

Come on now Spence, are you worried about having a challenger for your seat?
Spence
08-26-2003, 09:18 AM
I'm never running for President.
IowaSkinsFan
08-26-2003, 09:23 AM
Not again, you mean?
Spence
08-26-2003, 10:22 AM
Not old enough to run yet. Don't make me an old man before my time! It'll happen soon enough and I'm not all that eager for it to begin. As John Mellencamp wrote: "Growing up leads to growing old and only then to dying. And dying to me don't sound like all that much fun."
IowaSkinsFan
08-26-2003, 11:04 AM
Not old enough to be President, not married, how old are you?

BTW, isn't that age requirement on the presidency a form of Age discrimination?
Spence
08-26-2003, 11:15 AM
It is age discrimination, surely. The courts cannot do anything about it, however, because it is in the Constitution. The courts can interpret the Constitution, but they cannot change it. That's a political process.
IowaSkinsFan
08-26-2003, 11:19 AM
True dat, true dat!
Skinzaholic
08-26-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Spence
The courts can interpret the Constitution, but they cannot change it. That's a political process.


True... but they sure can change it to interpret anything they want it to!