 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 16 May 05 - 06:20 PM Here we go again. This time, it seems that our distinguished liberal media, in the effort to continue to paint the current campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq as being bad, has now put our troops in harms way by not verifying a story before it ran. How many troops will be harmed because of this little gem? In the meantime, the editors at Newsweek, while sitting in the safety of their offices, have issued an apology, not a retraction but an apology for the story. They say that even though they can't prove that it did happen, they also can't prove that it didn't. This is like a creationist and an evolutionist arguing the existence of God. But this time, they're putting the lives of our troops directly in danger. It's amazing to see liberals in action and their distrust in the US gov't and the military. Now, just do as you do and tell us why the inaccurate and misleading story from Newsweek is all Bush's fault. Hubby This is the ultimate in irresponsibility |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 16 May 05 - 06:22 PM US govt 1599, liberal media 1 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,CarolC Date: 16 May 05 - 06:29 PM They did verify it. But the source they were using within the Pentagon changed his/her story after Newsweek published it. First the source said he/she saw documentation of abuses of the Koran. Then, after the story ran (and after a lot of people got killed), he/she changed his/her story and said he/she wasn't exactly sure whether or not he/she saw it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 16 May 05 - 06:42 PM Well with what's been said and the history of the media and it's reporting, how can we truly believe that the story WAS EVER verified? Just because they lied once means that we can believe them now since they admitted it? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Rapparee Date: 16 May 05 - 06:51 PM Both sides are lying. Both sides lie in war. Get used to it. Figure the truth out for yourself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: artbrooks Date: 16 May 05 - 06:55 PM Unverified stories have always been the key to the "success" of the American media, liberal or conservative (however you care to define those terms). Taking a story that comes from an "inside source" and printing it as factual is just as bad as doing the same with an Administration press release ("an unnamed Whitehouse source says that..."). Just remember, the real reason the media exists is to sell SUVs, toothpaste and tampons, and the more readers they have, the more they sell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Amos Date: 16 May 05 - 07:05 PM You want to know about false press getting people killed, Hub-me-lad, calculate the number who have been left bleeding to death in the sand as a direct result of the false information fed to and promoted by the Bush media machine all through the ramp-up to this war. You've got some nerve twisting the picture like that, I must say; the bloodthirstiness of the Bush, Rice, Rove and their ilk has been responsible for more murder, torture and rape than anyone since Saddam Hussein's bully boys. Thanks for your vote; a pity you now pretend to have a conscience about unnecessary deaths, given that you helped to put the author of so many of them back into office. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,CarolC Date: 16 May 05 - 07:27 PM It's true. They all lie. They're all just a bunch of media whores and pimps. And all of the politicians and bureaucrats and military people lie, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 May 05 - 07:30 PM Does Newsweek count as "Liberal Media"? From what I've seen it looks pretty mainstream, the kind of publication that at least aspires towards the principle that it is right to avoid mixing up news and comment. Or does that count as "liberal"? What's not clear is to what extent the allegations involved are actually true or not. They don't sound particularly improbable, sadly enough, in the light of what actually has come out from the American Gulag, including the Abu Ghraib photographs. I would think that the significant thing for the people involved in the disturbances would not have been what some White House spokesperson said, one way or another, nor for that matter what some American publication printed, but whether they believed that things like this, which have been widely reported, had actually happened. Clearly they did believe that. "Soldiers Killed" - so far it hasn't been actually soldiers getting killed, from what I've seen. Here's what seems to me a pretty balanced report on all this, putting it into context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,CarolC Date: 16 May 05 - 07:34 PM There is no "liberal media". Just corporate media that does whatever it sees as being in its be$t intere$t$. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 16 May 05 - 08:12 PM Following up on McGrath's thought, this reminds me of the Dan Rather-CBS/ bush National Guard Service brouhaha- NO ONE officially pursued the fact that the information given in those memos was correct. Instead they leaped on the fact that it appeared that someone had painstakingly copied the information, trying to make it look like the original. When will we learn to focus on the central issue? And NO. It has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative points of view. It has to do with what is truth. I keep being surprised by how little attention the neo-cons pay to what is right, what is truthful, what is ethical and moral. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Shanghaiceltic Date: 16 May 05 - 08:13 PM During the Falklands war Brian Hanrahan the BBC reporter who was with the main deployment fleet had to be warned about his reporting. In this case he went on air stating the number of our ships that had been hit with 500 or 1000lb airial bombs which failed to detonate because the fuzes had been set wrong. Had the Argentinians been listening to the Beeb they might have re-fuzed correctly and the result would have been very serious. Or maybe they did listen and just think it was BBC propaganda. Either way jouralists have a difficult job to do to report a war. If it was left to the miltary then we would know even less. However when such an inflamatory statement such as the Qurans on toilet seats stroy is released they should somehow be made to take the concequences. Perhaps the profits for the week of that issue should be donated to the families of those affected. Not much but something. Dont forget some of the troops have not been above either falsifying photographs (Daily Mirror) or even actually being involved in taking and posing in them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Joe Offer Date: 16 May 05 - 08:22 PM Whether the allegation of Koran desecration is true or not, I doubt that it will cause the death of one soldier. Radical Muslims have plenty of reasons to hate Americans - some are true, and some aren't. One more reason isn't going to make a difference. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,brucie Date: 16 May 05 - 08:53 PM Media. While we're on the subject, get a load a this: http://www.bushfish.org/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Willie-O Date: 16 May 05 - 09:11 PM I'm sick of stupid assholes like "Susu's hubby". Why the fuck aren't you in Iraq getting shot at like all the poor ignorant kids from your small towns who got sucked into your fucking killing machine by your lying government swine whom you no doubt voted for, you shithead? Fuck blaming the media. It's assholes like you who vote for assholes like Bush and his band of ghouls and then whine about the "liberal media" when a snippet of what is probably true comes out to bite you in the ass. You deserve it. In case you haven't noticed, real people, NOT including U.S. soldiers, have already been killed in the flap from this. But we already know you don't care about them. Oh did I cross the line? Too fucking bad. Blow me. W-O |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,brucie Date: 16 May 05 - 09:23 PM Why you holding back, Willie? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 16 May 05 - 09:39 PM Thanks for the link, brucie. I haven't often seen anything as downright tacky and gauche as the 'Bushfish'. The Christian 'fish' is a small discreet logo; the Bushfish is a monstrous thing, 4" x 8". What is the matter with people! In Christianity the fish is used as a symbol of the Christ and some people in the Letters section were dismayed at the thought that the promoter was saying that Bush "is the Savior"; so much so that the promoter published a disclaimer disavowing the notion. Most of the letters they published were equally appalled. But there are some zealots who drool over the Bushfish. One bit of irony tickled my funny bone though. The writer said he likes the Bushfish then added: "Although I think it looks much better if you rotate it 90 degrees counter-clockwise. Because, frankly... it looks just like a bomb with our beloved President's name on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,robomatic Date: 16 May 05 - 10:03 PM I wouldn't put it past some smart businessman to be putting out the "Bushfish" and the "Darwin" lizard and a bunch of other fishes. That's what being an entrepreneur is all about. I do not classify Newsweek as the "liberal media". It was a blurb in a small story, they had asked the Pentagon to review it before it went to press. Overall, they were imperfect but acted responsibly. They are not responsible for the idiots who go on a rampage at the idlest bidding. Don't forget that dozens if not hundreds died in Nigerian riots when on on-line 'zine made some innocuous comment about the Prophet finding worth in the contestants for a Miss World contest, about a year, year and a half ago. Getting excited to the point of murderous rage is the same but more extreme animal as getting bent out of shape because some guy on the net wants to sell you a magnetic fish. With apologies to Pres. Jefferson: "I tremble for humanity when I reflect that God is just." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Charley Noble Date: 16 May 05 - 10:05 PM Wow! We sure know how to clear ther air here! I did think it a stretch to call NEWSWEEK "liberal media" but then I don't read it much any more except in doctor's waitingrooms. I did note that "conservative" CNN, which I do seem to watch, seemed to delight in targeting NEWSWEEK over this story. Apparently one of the damage control stories is that one of the prisoner's tried to flood his cell by flushing pages of his Koran down his toilet. Too bad he didn't have a Bible! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 16 May 05 - 10:33 PM "Getting excited to the point of murderous rage is the same but more extreme animal as getting bent out of shape because some guy on the net wants to sell you a magnetic fish." robomatic Gratuitous comment, robo. Go check it out. I'm not "bent out of shape" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,brucie Date: 16 May 05 - 10:55 PM Ebbie is one of the sanest people around these parts. Never have seen her get bent outta shape. Always considered and considerate. FYI and IMO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, heric Date: 16 May 05 - 11:03 PM This is getting weird. Ebbie never made a comment about fish in the first place. If that's really her immediately above, her umbrage must be related to her being a rampaging murderous Nigerian? And I find it hard to believe that CarolC would write "They all lie. They're all just a bunch of media whores and pimps. And all of the politicians and bureaucrats and military people lie, too." Ah, well. Maybe so. When the system is up and they can sign in with their own names, I'll believe it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 16 May 05 - 11:08 PM hhahahha Sorry, heric. It was me indeed. And I like the "rampaging murderous Nigerian", although I don't remember that subject. Thanks, brucie. More than you know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, heric Date: 16 May 05 - 11:19 PM Okay then.*fn. (It was in the same post by robomatic that you were objecting to! I can't figger what you are objecting to in his comments.) I guess CarolC was serious as well. . . . *fn. (to steal a quote from Karl Childers.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Stilly River Sage Date: 16 May 05 - 11:28 PM Newsweek is media, but that is about all that was correct in SH's post. Newsweek is sound-bite side middle-of-the-road industrial journalism. SH just wants to try to smear the term "liberal" with the blood generated by some bad journalistic decisions, all in the venue of war created after Bush and Rove and Rice (and their pal Bolton, nominee for the U.N. post) and their monstrous lies. This is no surprise, having read other of his right-wing knee-jerk posts. Yawn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,CarolC Date: 16 May 05 - 11:37 PM LOL, heric. I almost sprayed my orange juice all over my keyboard when I read your post. ;-) But it is true. That is what I believe about the US media, the politicians, the bureaucrats, and the upper echelons of the military. Sorry. (I'll verify this post when I can get back in through the front door. But thanks for assuming the best.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,heric Date: 17 May 05 - 03:21 AM okay then :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,robomatic Date: 17 May 05 - 05:12 AM It's really me. I was not directing the 'bent out of shape' comment at anyone here, but making a general comment on all us folks who draw conclusions without checking the source, be it heard on the street or read on the web. In other threads there have been fantastic allegations made and treated seriously before being blown out of the water. Consider that someone with a 'magnetic fish factory' might very well put together various web sites promoting each one. Sort of like the novelty shop that will sell you red or blue license plate borders or "friends don't let friends vote (-insert-)" on the same rotating rack. It's the other side of capitalism from Lenin's observation that: "You can always buy the rope from the capitalist you are going to hang him with" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: John Hardly Date: 17 May 05 - 07:02 AM I'm confused. So the report of the flushing of the Koran is correct, though denied, but the report that the murderous rampage was in resonse to that report of flushing the Koran is incorrect, though the murderers claimed it as the incitement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: John Hardly Date: 17 May 05 - 07:13 AM "retracted" not "denied" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 07:59 AM Lepus, you have outdone yourself with this ridiculous character! Keep it up. People actually think he is real! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 17 May 05 - 08:03 AM "And NO. It has nothing to do with Liberal or Conservative points of view. It has to do with what is truth." Ebbie, I have thought and thought about your statement above and the only thing that I can do at this point is call it as it is, BS. By this statement, are you saying that no matter the consequences, for the matter of reporting news, you don't care what they print as long as they print the truth? I think that even by journalistic standards, you have to weigh the situation that you're faced with and think about what could possibly happen on the other side of this story being printed. I'm not against speaking the truth. Don't get me wrong. I want the truth to be reported at all times. (It's the liberal spin on the truth that pisses me off.) But when reporting a story that will incite violence or help to educate the enemy or even give them a leveraging tool to use against possible POW's is the ultimate in irresponsibility. Could the enemy just be looking for an excuse? Of course he could and probably is. And in the absence of a good excuse he can just say that Allah made him do it. But to throw fuel on the already sparking fire is just plain foolish. This story, if true or not, does nothing to further any truth about anything out there. It only goes to show that the media is centered on bringing forth as much bad news as they can get their hands on. Why don't we ever hear of the people that are NOT getting attacked? Why not report on the progress of the children that are back in school? Why not report about the endless opportunities that the Iraqies are lining up for to take advantage of? NO. Instead, all we hear about are the three or four people that were killed due to a suicide bomber. We hear about the numerous people that have been killed due to the enemy kidnapping and slaughtering scores of people for supporting the US. Now don't misunderstand me. All of the above is news. And it should be reported. But when the news is filled with nothing but death and destruction, it starts to wear on one's heart and makes one think that that's all that's happening. I don't think that one person that reads this post is really stupid or naive enough to think that there is not ANY good that is happening in the countries of Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, I'd almost be willing to bet that there is more good than bad happening on a daily basis. But if it's never reported, then it's along the same lines of out of sight, out of mind. If it isn't shown on the news then it isn't happening. Is that what everybody in here really thinks? I really hope not. Is all the good that happens in these countries newsworthy? Probably no but you know what? Death and gore sells. If it didn't, then why do you slow down and look everytime you pass a car crash on the highway? Chances are going to be slim to none that you know the person. But you know, in the back of your mind, it makes you feel better about yourself and your situation, whatever it may be, to see others in their plight and moments of greatest tragedy. If you say anything different, then you've got some serious soul searching to do. If you're not going to be honest in here, at least be honest with yourselves. The news media knows this. That's why they always look for the worst and report on it as the rule and not the exception. And if it makes the guy in office that they hate look bad then extra points for them. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 17 May 05 - 08:07 AM Minor thread creep here but who the hell is Lepus? Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,robomatic Date: 17 May 05 - 08:23 AM Number one, and here we could be in for severe philosophical drift, "what is the truth?" The truth comes with a point of view, both physical and psychological. Not for nothing did a well-known physicist, when asked about the color of a car he witnessed in an accident, answer, "the side I saw was green". Now whether as part of an interrogation, or a softening up procedure, someone flushed a Koran, or pretended to flush a Koran, I don't think we can say at present. Whether the story of the flush was intentional in that it was believed, intentional in that it was wished to be leaked, is another facet of this deceptively simple story. What is most clear to me is that it ain't easy to be a journalist. It isn't even easy to try to be a journalist. It is always easy to attack someone trying to be a journalist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: John MacKenzie Date: 17 May 05 - 08:28 AM To hark back to an earlier thread, what other group would react in such a barbaric way to such a small unproven allegation? More Moslem intolerence. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,AMos Date: 17 May 05 - 09:16 AM Your use of the word liberal is puffed up and inaccurate, Hub-me-boy. Here's a thread on the origins of liberal thought. HEre are a few definitons: broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" having political or social views favoring reform and progress tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets Liberalism is a political current embracing several historical and present-day ideologies that claim defense of individual liberty as the purpose of government. It typically favors the right to dissent from orthodox tenets or established authorities in political or religious matters. In this respect, it is sometimes held in contrast to conservatism. Since liberalism also focuses on the ability of individuals to structure their own society, it is almost always opposed to totalitarianism, and often to collectivist ideologies, particularly communism. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_(politics) ANd here's an excerpt on the origins of liberalism as apolitical school of thought: The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal had long been in the English language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776–88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant." The first English-language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" according to the OED dates from about 1801 and comes from the French libéral, "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)". They give early English-language citation, "1801 Hel. M. WILLIAMS, Sk. Fr. Rep. I. xi. 113," presumably Helen Maria Williams, Sketches of the State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated." The editors of the Spanish constitution of Cadiz in 1812 may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to state that they opposed the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy. [edit] Usage of the word liberalism The word liberalism has several different, but generally related, political meanings. In its original political meaning, the term "liberal" refers to a political philosophy, founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights. In the present, a variety of ideologies attempt to claim the mantle of 19th century liberalism, from libertarianism via social-liberalism to American liberalism. Liberals throughout the world understand liberalism as embracing a tradition rooted in the Enlightenment, the American War of Independence, the more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution, and the European Revolutions of 1848, with philosophical roots going back to the Renaissance traditions of empiricism (Sir Francis Bacon), humanism (Erasmus), and pragmatism (Niccolò Machiavelli). The original Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu, attempted to establish limits on existing political powers by asserting that there were natural rights and fundamental laws of governance that not even kings could overstep without becoming tyrants. This was combined with the idea that commercial freedom would best benefit the whole of the political order, an idea that would later be associated with the advocacy of capitalism, and which was drawn from the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The next important piece of the triad of ideas of liberalism, was the idea of popular self-determination. Most liberals support a combination of these ideas, although many would ascribe more importance to one of them than to the other two. Note that the use of hateful generalizations is not included. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,robomatic Date: 17 May 05 - 09:26 AM Amos: Assuming it hasn't already been done, your post would be suitable for starting a thread on what constitutes liberal, and someone else could do the same for conservatism, and those across the pond could respond with the English version of same: From Iolanthe: "I often think it comical, fa laha la fa laha la. How nature always doth contrive, fa laha la la That every boy and every girl that's born into the world alive Is either a little liberal, or else a little conservative Fa, la, la." - Gilbert And Sullivan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Big Mick Date: 17 May 05 - 09:32 AM Your blindered vision continues to show you for the intellectual lightweight you are, Susu's Hubby. And it also shows your proclivity for shifting the premise to suit your view of "truth". Amos exposed the false premise and you have neatly ducked it. Old trick, really. But I will draw you back to it. I would like to know why this incident of twisting information, which has caused a riots, and a people who already hated us to hate us more, is any worse than the lies and deceptions which were used by the administration (who now, in the best traditions of bigotry take the high road) to take us into the war which has killed so many? It is this kind of ideological "morals of convenience" which is exposing the right for the bigots they are. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: John Hardly Date: 17 May 05 - 10:20 AM Not worse, Mick. The same as. And the point is that it should be equally unacceptable but is not. Instead, it is rationalized as "might be true anyway". Rather than being equally outraged at the damage Newsweek's careless "journalism" incited, the anger is instead turned toward someone who dares call Newsweek on it. Instead Newsweek is defended because it's no worse than...(fill in the right-wing blank). I strike you as a bigot, eh? Amos' convenient redefinition of "liberal" doesn't change the poliical reality of which sid is which. It is Amos' (and others who would likewise obfuscate -- {much as I love amos}) who has entered the false premise into the discussion. SH's POV view does not automatically qualify him as an intellectual lightweight not a bigot. Here, robo, is a discussion re: liberal/conservative from the distant past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 17 May 05 - 10:25 AM Mick, Amos, Quit trying to change the subject. If a subject change is what you want, go start your own threads. Amos, you are an intelligent man. Your forever spouting off literal definitions does absolutely nothing for me. I am aware of what the literal definition is. It's just like using the term cock, or ass, or queer. We all know what the literal definitions are but when you hear it, honestly, what do you think? You know, in fact, I wish the term "liberal" would actually be accurate in describing what the majority of you believe today. But sadly, what you actually believe is pure hatred and jealousy of the highest order. You just seem to hide behind the facade of the "problems of the common man". Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,brucie Date: 17 May 05 - 10:29 AM "Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed..." There is a fallacy in the thread title 1) The Liberal media did not send soldiers to Iraq--fact 2) The Liberal media did not send soldiers to Iraq--fact 3) The Liberal media did not send soldiers to Iraq--fact SH, work on the above mantra. Make it your own. PS Unless times have changed substantially, which papers/TV stations/radio stations are 'liberal'? Inquiring minds wish to know. (I will get an idea who to read/view/listen to. Thanks ever so much. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 11:29 AM "But you know, in the back of your mind, it makes you feel better about yourself and your situation, whatever it may be, to see others in their plight and moments of greatest tragedy. If you say anything different, then you've got some serious soul searching to do. If you're not going to be honest in here, at least be honest with yourselves." susu's hub See, no matter how often or even WHO says that, I don't believe it and seriously question the character of the person who does feel that way. Judging by my own experience in life, the times when I have been sad the whole world has seemed sad and hopeless; when I see an accident my heart sinks; when I hear a siren I could weep. And it's not because I am so soft hearted or sensitive- it's that I recognize that our life here is tenuous and without guarantees. So go ahead and suggest that I have some serious soul searching to do. I've already done it and will continue to do so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: frogprince Date: 17 May 05 - 11:51 AM "Why don't we ever hear of the people that are NOT getting attacked? Why not report on the progress of the children that are back in school? Why not report about the endless opportunities that the Iraqies are lining up for to take advantage of? NO. Instead, all we hear about are the three or four people that were killed due to a suicide bomber. We hear about the numerous people that have been killed due to the enemy kidnapping and slaughtering scores of people for supporting the US." The population of Iraq is just about one-fourteenth that of the U.S. We are not hearing of 3 or 4 deaths daily; more like 19 here, 60 there, daily. Imagine for one moment that this, multiplied by 14, is happening in the U.S. on a daily basis. Then tell us that you would be thinking just as much about the "children who are back in school" as you would about the stark horror of the situation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: mg Date: 17 May 05 - 12:09 PM I am more inclined to believe it happened than it didn;'t and i am horrified..this is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't even consider doing as the backlash could be and will be and is enormous. Something is really rotten in intelligence, etc. I can't fathom some of the things that have been done... And for anyone at newsweek or in the military or the public to think this kind of religious abuse won't have dire consequences to a profoundly, and often fanatically religious people, they are too dumb for me to contemplate even. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 12:33 PM "Just because they lied once means that we can believe them now since they admitted it?" This above sentence should apply to the people who are ACTUALLY getting People killed... ......The present Administration not a Newsweek magazinge article!! In my opinion it should read: " Because the Whitehouse lied about WMD's means that we cannot believe them now since they won't admit to it." Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... Yeah right...keep saying that over and over and then click your heels three times and the FACTS will disappear, like the WMD's did! The ultimate in irresponsibility....is not a Magazine report.....Violence and hatered breed Violence and hatered.... and in all honesty, come on now...do you really think that after the pictures emerged from Abu Ghraib that flushing a Quran down a Tiolet is beyond thinking about.. get a grip. Sorry......me thinks the White House protesteth too much on this one....in fact it is the ultimate in hypocrisy.. Donald Rumsfeld, who most definetly should have beed dimissed from his position after the prison Scadals came to light, standing there saying what he said about a Newsweek article...is the ultimate in just plain arrogance and blind hypocricy. This WAR...and it's toll on Human Life isn't something that the Rightwing, Pro Bush crew can pin on the Left Media....you wanted War, you got what you wanted...... Time to fess up and admit that FACT The Scapegoat hunt continues but cannot and never will detract from the Actual Source of WHY people are dying.... WE ARE AT WAR AND IT HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT WE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION! I think that as time goes on the Quarn incident will pale in comparison to what is actually going on at Guantanamo Bay. Then again if they just hold all these Prisoners there forever without trial....we might get lucky and no-one will ever really know! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: CarolC Date: 17 May 05 - 12:50 PM Hi heric. This is me verifying my 16 May 05 - 07:27 PM post in this thread. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 12:52 PM Yah, why can't America invade a foreign country without suffering casualties? Its just not fair! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Giok Date: 17 May 05 - 12:59 PM Sort of rings a bell across the pond in this UK that I live in, where we went to war on the basis of a lie, and it is killing our boys too. Not so many I know, but that's because we've got the quiet bits, which is the opposite of the zones allocated to the allies after WW2, where the Americans got the pretty bit, the Brits got the shitty bit, and the French got the bit nearest home. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: DougR Date: 17 May 05 - 01:20 PM McGrath sees NEWSEEK as pretty much "mainstream." Not surprising for a liberal to think so. Most liberals also see The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, even London's The Guardian as being "mainstream." Of course they also define "mainstream" as liberalism. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 17 May 05 - 01:30 PM Doug, You make sense to Republicans. Take comfort in that. IMO, Newsweek is right-wing journalism. The Eastside Other was liberal press, IMO. Oh how we differ. C'est la vie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 17 May 05 - 01:42 PM Dang. Sorry, again. Guest 11:29 was me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: just john Date: 17 May 05 - 02:04 PM (Yeah, how dare anybody report stuff?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: artbrooks Date: 17 May 05 - 03:11 PM Susu's Hubby: Amos has defined the word "liberal" for you. His definition is correct. It is unfortunate that some people have decided to lump together all of the things they hate and attempt to redefine a perfectly good word to cover all of them. There are very few people who meet each of the criteria in this redefinition, but those who choose to pervert the language seem to believe that anyone who fits one must fit them all. The reality is that "liberal" means a person who thinks for himself and respects the rights of others to do the same. It isn't unusual for an individual "liberal" to own guns and abhore the death penalty, or to advocate some degree of gun control and, under some circumstances, favor the death penalty. Other "liberals" favor both affirmative action and immigration control, while others are both practicing Christians and understand the need for birth control and abortion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 03:19 PM "Susu's Hubby", the guy new to the forum two months ago knows all the posters and their political leanings" Doesn't anyone but me find this a bit fantastic????? Mick, Amos, Quit trying to change the subject. If a subject change is what you want, go start your own threads. Amos, you are an intelligent man. Your forever spouting off literal definitions does absolutely nothing for me. I am aware of what the literal definition is. It's just like using the term cock, or ass, or queer. We all know what the literal definitions are but when you hear it, honestly, what do you think? You know, in fact, I wish the term "liberal" would actually be accurate in describing what the majority of you believe today. But sadly, what you actually believe is pure hatred and jealousy of the highest order. You just seem to hide behind the facade of the "problems of the common man". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Don Firth Date: 17 May 05 - 05:04 PM Of course the purpose here is to continue pressing the right-wing campaign to redefine the word "liberal," not with any kind of precise, meaningful definition, but with vague associations to things that a large enough segment of voters regard as negative. For example, this is the kind of tactic that Karl Rove used when he managed George W. Bush's campaign for governor of Texas: associating one of the most popular governors in Texas history, the fairly liberal Ann Richards, with "promoting the homosexual agenda" in the minds of the large number of religious fundamentalist Texas voters. There was no basis in fact for this. Nevertheless, with his typical regard for the truth, Karl Rove had volunteer campaign workers descend on church parking lots on Sundays and stick fliers under windshield wipers saying that Ann Richards had a policy of hiring homosexuals in her administration. She had no such policy, either pro- or anti-homosexual. But "repeat an outrageous lie often enough and loudly enough and people will believe it." Karl Rove (quite possibly the reincarnation of Niccolo Machiavelli) is still Bush's political advisor for obvious reasons. The administration in power (no matter which way it leans, right or left) and the press should always be in fundamental opposition. The administration wants the public to go along with its policies, no matter how ill-advised. It is the job of the press to point out when and how the administration is trying to con the public. The more secretive and dedicated to special interests an administration is, the more it is the responsibillity of a free press to expose what the administration is up to. This makes government and a free press natural enemies. The administration complains bitterly whenever the press exposes its sculduggery and it invariably accuses the press of being biased in favor of the "out-cumbents." Occasionally the press goofs, and that's the administration's opportunity to pounce on them like hyenas. Dan Rather and CBS should have checked the provenance of the documents about Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) more carefully, and Newsweek should have done more digging on the Koran incident and other abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Graib. But--you will note that the administration's (or its supporters) response to this is to attack the "liberal media," not actually dig into the truth or falsity of the allegation. The point is to muddy the waters and divert the public's attention from the real issue. One of the current administration's policies is "The truth be damned!" Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 17 May 05 - 05:14 PM The Guardian is pretty mainstream in fact, and the same goes for the Tory supporting Daily Telegraph. Left bank and right bank mainstream, but it's the same river. I suppose the Telegraoh might count as a bit left wing in some places across the water... I don't follow the US press closely enough to know too much about the other publications you list, Doug. The New York Timnes I've seen from tiume to time, and that doesn't exactly look left-wing. What would count as a mainstream publication Doug? .............................. "one of the prisoner's tried to flood his cell by flushing pages of his Koran down his toilet. That sounds very like the kind of traditional case where injuries to prisoners are explained as self-inflicted. Except that in this case the explanation is so remarkably unlikely that literally no one in the Muslim world will believe it - all it does it confirm that a copy of the Quran actually was desecrated in an American jail, which has to mean that it was done by a guard or "interrogator". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 17 May 05 - 05:16 PM Well, I am 57 years old. I have been reading since I was about five--newspapers, books, etc. I stopped trusting newspapers, televisions, radios by the age of sixteen. I recognize bullshit when I read it, view it and hear it. Think about this: How many papers ya gonna sell if you don't appeal to popular opinion? So, what do these 'organs' of the media have to appeal to? If you said "POPULAR OPINION", you win the free trip to Boise for five days and two nights. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Bobert Date: 17 May 05 - 06:41 PM Liberal media? What a joke... This entire non-story has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it... Retraction? No, jus' another distraction... Okay, lets jus' fir one instance lay the blame on 14 folks dieing because of a short paragraph in one of the 3000 Anerican meagazines... So like ya' gonna blame Newsweek fir the hundred thousand folks that have been killed in Bush's wars??? Give me a break, hubby... This ain't rocket surgery here... Let me ask you one question... Do you actually have any original thoughts? You sound to me like a on-the-payroll Bushite shill... I mean, I have never heard one danged thought come out of you that isn't 100% Karl Rove-ish partisan... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Amos Date: 17 May 05 - 06:44 PM Hub: I am not redefining anything -- all the definitions I cited come from external, recognized collections, such the OED, or more modernly the Wikipedia web site. It is folks like your good self and your hellish moronic loudspeaker like dear old pillhead Limbaugh and the Shrieking Harridan of the West, who have turned "liberal" into a curse word defining anyone who doesn't think unilateral invasions is a very American policy. A few links on the dramatization and falsifications perpetrated by extremist righ commentators like yourself, Hub-me-lad: More ethically challenged right wing commentators Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How it Distorts the Truth . Excerpt: "One of the great values of Conason's book is that it corrects some of the most brazen misconceptions about the tradition of Liberalism. This is enormously important today because right-wing commentators have falsely portrayed Liberals as unpatriotic hate-mongers who, lacking any ideas or positive agenda of their own, are only capable of attacking those who disagree with them. This tactic is likely to be a central feature of the Bush 're-election' playbook -- that and "attack the media for not telling the truth about Iraq." Conason recounts how Liberalism has contributed to the social and economic well being of the United States. Social Security, the diminishment of poverty among the elderly, the Civil Rights movement, extending enfranchisement to women and minorities, and environmental safeguards were all instigated and propelled forward by Liberals. Conservatism, on the other hand, has invariably sided against health and occupational standards for workers, regulatory oversight for financial markets, and public works programs that transformed this country from an agricultural economy to an industrial one." Documentation of Ann Coulter's falsehoods can be found starting here among many other places. I would say much more, but I have more pressing things to handle just now. I just want to go on record as saying that you not only misassess the actual usage of the word and its history, but you misunderestimate me, too! :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Amos Date: 17 May 05 - 08:44 PM edia reports blamed Newsweek alone for violent Muslim demonstrations; Joint Chiefs chairman disagrees Following reports that a retracted May 9 Newsweek item contributed to violent protests in Afghanistan and Pakistan, several news accounts simply echoed the White House's claim that Newsweek was responsible for the deadly violence while omitting evidence undermining that claim. The CBS Evening News, CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, National Public Radio's (NPR) Morning Edition, and The Washington Post all failed to note that top military officials have contradicted White House claims about what caused the recent violence. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers stated on May 12 that the violence was "not at all tied to the article in the magazine," which alleged that U.S. investigators found evidence that interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, "flushed a Quran down a toilet." On the May 16 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Bob Schieffer stated that the Newsweek story "led to a week of violent anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan in which at least 15 people were killed." On the May 16 edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports, CNN correspondent Barbara Starr reported that the article "touched off riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leaving at least 15 dead," while host Wolf Blitzer declared: "Unfortunately, there are dead people out there as a result of that report." On that evening's edition of Special Report, host Brit Hume stated that "The story triggered protests in which 17 died," and Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron similarly reported: "The story sparked violent anti-American protests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Palestinian territories. Seventeen people were killed." On the May 17 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, host Steve Inskeep noted that the Newsweek story "led to violent demonstrations in the Islamic world," while arts reporter Neda Ulaby reported that "reaction to the story was almost immediate: Riots exploded, and scores of people were injured. Fifteen people died." And Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz stated in a May 17 article: "The May 1 item triggered violent protests last week in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and other countries, in which at least 16 people were killed." In fact, top U.S. military officials contended that other factors led to the violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Myers noted in a May 12 Department of Defense news briefing, according to Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, the violence "was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Quran" but was "more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President [Hamid] Karzai and his Cabinet is conducting in Afghanistan." Myers directly noted Eikenberry's belief that the violence "was not at all tied to the article in the magazine." Not all news reports ignored other elements that apparently contributed to the violent protests. For example, in his report on the Newsweek controversy on the May 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, NBC News correspondent David Shuster aired Myers's remarks that Newsweek was not to blame. Shuster added that "the reputation of American interrogators has been awful for more than a year. Last spring, there were the abuses at Abu Ghraib, and since then, there have been stories about Guantánamo Bay." Moreover, NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams's report on the May 16 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News documented an assessment by Barnett Rubin, director of studies at New York University's Center for International Cooperation, that Karzai's openness to "a long-term military relationship with the United States" may have also contributed to the violent protests: WILLIAMS: While the debate wages over Newsweek's journalism, some experts on the region say last week's protests have long been simmering and involve more than just the Quran story. RUBIN: From the very beginning, the demonstrators also said that they didn't want any permanent U.S. bases on Afghanistan, which was a reaction to some statements by President Karzai that he would discuss a long-term military relationship with the United States. Excerpted from http://mediamatters.org/items/200505170003 A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 May 05 - 08:55 PM "Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... " This is the most asinine thread title (and twisted concept) ever. I know that Limbaugh and Hanity and other folks are trying to make it sound as if "liberal" Newsweek made up the Koran-in-the-toilet story just to get Muslims riled up and soldiers killed, but I am amazed that people buy into this BULLSHIT. Yes, the source is now backpedalling and leaving Newsweek swinging from a limb, but is the Koran in the toilet story so hard to believe? The Taguba Report (he's a soldier himself folks) documented "sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses" of Muslim detainees at Abu Ghraib, purportedly to set "favorable conditions" for subsequent interrogation. The report contains the famous photos of the abuse show Iraqi detainees stripped naked, hooded and arranged in a number of sexual or humiliating positions. Other photos and videos are mentioned, but are not included, and have not been so famously publicized because they are so graphic (including a video of a teenage boy screaming as he is sodomized). The report documents instances of detainees being punched, slapped, sodomized with a broomstick or chemical light (on video, with sound), and threatened with electric shock, loaded weapons and dogs. Now Newsweek reports on something if not milder, certainly no worse, and when their source backs off, you claim that it is Newsweek and the "liberal media" that are responsible for Muslim rage? Are you really saying that it is Newsweek's reporting, and not the abuses themselves that are to blame? If so, are you prepared to start a thread entitled "General Taguba getting Soldiers Killed... "? Reminds me of Rathergate. Dan Rather was run out of town on a rail, and made to look as if he made the whole thing up. Okay, maybe the memo in Rather's hand was not the original, but the woman who typed the original says that the contents are accurate. But the twisted bellowings of Hannity et al. get people with poor (or lazy, or ideologically blinded) critical thinking skills to come away thinkng that the whole thing was the fault of "The Liberal Media". Now you actually believe that Muslim resentment of the USA is the fault of "The Liberal Media"?!?!?!?!? Sheeesh. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Bobert Date: 17 May 05 - 09:06 PM Bottom line: Another Karl Rove dirty trick to try to silence anyone who might speak out against his boy... Frankly, I'm gettin' a little tired of Karl Rove's juvilineistic dirty tricks but worse than them... ... I'm equally tired of hearing and seeing just how many mindless Americans fall for them... Hub included. Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 17 May 05 - 09:14 PM I don't want to start a thread with Coulter's name in it so I'll post my question here. Why is that SOME people slag Hillary Clinton, for instance, and are able to stomach Ann Coulter? Surely, surely, Coulter comes across as MUCH harder, nastier, more cynical, than Clinton? Ann Coulter was a guest on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno a couple of weeks ago. She was wearing a skimpy - and I mean skimpy - black mini-dress that was sending some kind of message- I just don't know what the message was. I cannot imagine a guy finding it sexy; the material appeared serge-like and harsh. She wasn't nasty on the show- she made disparaging remarks about "Liberals" but they were meant to be funny. Maybe she knew that the audience would not be receptive. There was one funny bit: a video that showed her making a speech (wearing a normal outfit) when two men wielding cream pies coming on stage sprang into action. They didn't hit her- her speed in leaping away from the lectern was impressive and kind of cute. She seemed quite proud of that. My point is: Why do SOME people prefer Coulter to Clinton? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Susu's Hubby Date: 17 May 05 - 09:39 PM "Now you actually believe that Muslim resentment of the USA is the fault of "The Liberal Media"?!?!?!?!?" Tia, Nowhere in the above posts did I ever try to make the tie between the resentment by muslims being caused by the liberal media. Stop reading what you want to hear and actually take a moment and comprehend what you are reading. You would make great strides as a human if you would do so. Amos, I'm a little disappointed in your latest attempt at making sense of the story. So let me get this straight..... 1. You don't believe anything that Bush or his administration does or says. 2. Newsweek posts the article. 3. Violence erupts in Afghanistan. 4. Severe backlash and anger towards Newsweek. 5. Newsweek apologizes and retracts story after any damage that was done is done. 6. Joint Chief makes statement that may further explain some violence in Afghanistan. 7. Now you see it as a way to maybe somewhat exonerate your liberal media so NOW you believe what one of Bush's "cronies" is saying. Right there is another example where you talk out of both sides of your mouth. You might want to stick to posting your definitions and leftward slanted news stories. Hubby |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: John Hardly Date: 17 May 05 - 09:39 PM Ebbie, I don't know. I don't find many of the "journal-tainment" wags from the right to be very enjoyable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,CarolC Date: 17 May 05 - 10:12 PM Ebbie... men have been bestowed with two brains, but only enough blood to operate one of them at a time. I think that, and Ann Coulter's legs, pretty much explains it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 10:27 PM I have never seen Ann Coulter. I am a guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 17 May 05 - 10:30 PM So my finely striding human friend - exactly what incident does your initial post refer to? Is it the deadly riots by Muslims purportedly over the Newsweek story? If it is, don't you suppose the rioting Muslims are doing so just a teentsy bit out of resentment at their treatment? And if it is the Newsweek story that caused the riots, and if Newsweek is, as you say "the liberal media" isn't the tie between Muslim resentment and the liberal media (that you thoroughly disavow) completely apparent? Or perhaps you didn't mean to make this tie? Oh, I think I'm comprehending just fine. And trust me, it is NOT what I want to read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 17 May 05 - 10:31 PM TIA of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,brucie Date: 17 May 05 - 10:44 PM Words from one of the most respected news people, ever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,AMos Date: 17 May 05 - 11:03 PM Hub-me-boyo, You are talking BS again. All I did was point out that YOUR goddamned assessment in the inflammatory title of this thread, which you started, is not the opinion of the Joint CHiefs of Staff. This was a false picture, which you promulgated and forwarded in order to inflame people by feeding them untruth. The fact according to a brief I have read recently, is that American guards at Guantanomo ARE accused by their prisoners of acts of gross disrespect to the Qu'uran, although these charges are not supported by any verification. But you are msising the whole point. 1. If American guards are in fact blaspheming the Qu'u'ran, they have less brains than their commander-in-chief about how cultural forces work. They deserve, if this is true, to be exposed. Newsweek -- if they reported a reliable story -- should be commended for airing the truth. Or do you think our forces should be free to commit these offenses at will? 2. If the story was NOT correct, in spite of the supplementary testimony, then they did the right thing by withdrawing it. But in neither case did your headline title reflect the truth of the matter. The story by itself did not cause any deaths and the Joint Chiefs, who tend to be far more realistic than their C-in-C, were right about it. In short, the way you named this thread is an intentional distortion. You're just ragging, Hub, and you have no more respect for true causes than the journals you despise. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Bobert Date: 17 May 05 - 11:12 PM Chill, Amos... Hubby ain't really worth it since he is on Karl Rove's payroll, or should be... Not one single independent thought in hubby's mind... You should feel sorry for someone so utterly brain washed... Like I said, not *one* indepenent thought... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 17 May 05 - 11:40 PM Wars and the training for wars get soldiers killed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 18 May 05 - 12:19 AM 4. Severe backlash and anger towards Newsweek. Yeah that's it. They were reeeeaallly pissed at Newsweek. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 18 May 05 - 12:23 AM Is Newsweek gonna be invaded? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 18 May 05 - 01:04 AM Hubby, what gripes me is the bigotry of the headline. Newsweek may or may not be liberal, but it is not the Liberal Media. You may have heard that our neighboring city, Spokane WA, has been having a bit of embarrassment with its mayor. Still, I don't think it would fair to start a thread titled Republican Male Leaders Proposition High School Boy. What do you think? clint -- and it's not "a" liberal media, either; "media " is plural. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,wisdom of the ages Date: 18 May 05 - 02:07 PM "Don't blame the mirror if your face is crooked." --Old Russian proverb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Bobert Date: 18 May 05 - 08:07 PM And here's the real joke. Ahhhhh, like how many folks in Afganistan are readin' Newsweek? Like none... Okay. Question 2... How many folks, other than American troops, have ever heard of Newsweek????? None... This isn't real news. This is nuthin' but another Karl Rove dirty trick to keep the realities of his boy's failures off the front page... Ain't workin'... Guess what, hubby and others? You may not be waking up but lots of Americans are and they don't like what Bush and Karl Rove are up to... I'm hearin' it in the streets and I'm hearin' from folks who still have the Bush stickers on the backs of their cars... Yer boy has pushed the envelope and and marginailized the balance of his term unless his gets his head outta Jerry Falwell's posterior... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: dianavan Date: 18 May 05 - 09:52 PM Yeah, blame it on Newsweek. What a joke! There are plenty of real reasons for rioting and one little blurb about the Koran isn't really gonna make it break it. I'm no fan of Newsweek but, heh, Bush and Rove have to have someone to blame, don't they? Like Brucie said, how many in the Middle East, actually read the article? Naw, the Bush admin. saw the Muslim demonstrations in the making and quickly deflected the blame. What amateurs! Blaming it on mainstream media and calling it liberal. What? Anything that isn't right-wing fundamentalist is liberal? Talk about bending the truth... Do you think flushing the Koran is more upsetting than invading Iraq and calling it a crusade? Do you think flushing the Koran is any worse than torturing prisoners? Get a grip! Muslims are not quite as stupid as that. They definitely have reason to riot but that little one liner is not the cause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: TIA Date: 18 May 05 - 10:40 PM And the latest news - Newsweek's source now says that the incident DID happen, and is reported in some miltary document, just not sure which document, so can't verify. Once again, just like Rathergate, the dittohead robots will remember only that Newsweek "retracted", and not pay a bit of attention when the essential facts are known. (just heard the word on radio, will find link for any doubters). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Mr Happy Date: 19 May 05 - 09:42 AM List of those responsible for getting Soldiers Killed: [no hierarchy of perpetrators] Politicians International Capitalist Businesses The rich & powerful Administration of armed forces National Government Media to name but a few, can we think of others? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Mr Happy Date: 19 May 05 - 09:44 AM Also: Racism Religious intolerance |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: heric Date: 19 May 05 - 10:18 AM -The Designer of the Human Race -Charles Darwin -King James, Richard Clyfton, John Robinson, and William Brewster |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 19 May 05 - 10:26 AM Soldiers families? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 19 May 05 - 10:37 AM Friendly fire? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Wolfgang Date: 19 May 05 - 04:52 PM And here's the real joke. Ahhhhh, like how many folks in Afganistan are readin' Newsweek? Like none... (Bobert) Sorry, but that's a stupid argument. They read it in their local newspapers, they hear it in the radio, they see it in TV, they hear it from their mullahs. If an outrageous act happens in say India, I need not have heard the name of the Indian publication before when I read it in my local paper. I think the reaction of some of the commentators here is as far from the target as Susu's hubby's first post and thread title was. When the news came out of that article and that allegation the riots in Afghanistan (of people that have never heard of Newsweeks and probable couldn't read it even if they had it in their hands) have killed close to a dozen Afghani people. But SH is worried not about the already real deaths but about the potential US troops deaths. The danger to US troops is hardly increased by the article above the present level in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is other (lesser? in SH's world?) people who suffer the consequences of the incident and/or the reporting about it. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Mr Happy Date: 19 May 05 - 09:00 PM Occupational hazard! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: heric Date: 19 May 05 - 09:17 PM Not to get y'all riled up. Those guys shouldna a done that. But for perspective: Flushing disrespects the Koran. Beheading people desecrates it. I'm more upset about the beheadings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Bobert Date: 19 May 05 - 09:17 PM Bull, Wolfgang.... Had Karl Rove not focused in on it the Afgan people never would have known about this... Hey, get yer facts right. This was one paragraph well surrounded by lots of other stuff inside one of the somw 3000 magazines printed in the US.... Give us a break... Your arguments are hopelessly weak... I mean, like go to Afganistan and listen to how many folks talk about US magazines??? If it weren't for Karl Rove, this would be a complete non-issue... or less... This creep will desperatly drag up anything he can find to take the heat off his boy.... His philosophy of defense is having a strong offense and he uses it daily... Like I said, give us a danged break.... Like go to Afganistan and come back and tell us just how many folks there are subscribin' 'er payin' any attention to US magazines... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 19 May 05 - 10:05 PM (Pravda means Truth. Izvestia means News.) Â "Ïðàâäå" íåò èçâåñòèé, à â "Èçâåñòèÿõ" íåò ïðàâäû. Literally, it means "There's no news in Pravda, and there's no truth in Izvestia" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 19 May 05 - 10:06 PM The Russian line didn't work so well, huh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: TIA Date: 19 May 05 - 10:15 PM You mean that's NOT Cyrillic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 05 - 12:13 AM That's not the problem, brucie. We were just stunned by your footwork. :!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Peace Date: 20 May 05 - 12:53 AM I'm stunned, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 05 - 06:17 PM Drives me crazy, how administrations and governmental officials can pretend that breaking news is just coming out. I realize they hope something unpleasant will just kind of go away, but in a 'free' society they certainly can't count on it. Why don't they do some damage control by publicising something - and its solution - themselves. That way they would make some points and earn some credibility. According to the article, the Defense Department reacted correctly. The Chicago Tribune Thursday 19 May 2005 " Washington - The International Committee of the Red Cross documented what it called credible information about US personnel disrespecting or mishandling Korans at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and pointed it out to the Pentagon in confidential reports during 2002 and early 2003, an ICRC spokesman said Wednesday. "Representatives of the ICRC, who have played a key role in investigating abuse allegations at the facility in Cuba and other US military prisons, never witnessed such incidents firsthand during on-site visits, said Simon Schorno, an ICRC spokesman in Washington. "But ICRC delegates, who have been granted access to the secretive camp since January 2002, gathered and corroborated enough similar, independent reports from detainees to raise the issue multiple times with Guantanamo commanders and with Pentagon officials, Schorno said in an interview Wednesday. " Following the ICRC's reports, the Defense Department command in Guantanamo issued almost three pages of detailed, written guidelines for treatment of Korans. Schorno said ICRC representatives did not receive any other complaints or document similar incidents following the issuance of the guidelines on Jan. 19, 2003. " They COULD Have Made Points |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: artbrooks Date: 20 May 05 - 07:31 PM Corrected link. The ICRC investigates complaints, makes a report, more stringent guidance is issued and the complaints stop. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Ebbie Date: 20 May 05 - 09:00 PM Thanks for the correction, artbrooks. Don't know what I did wrong. Here is what I meant when I said that they evidently did the correct thing after it was brought to their attention: "Following the ICRC's reports, the Defense Department command in Guantanamo issued almost three pages of detailed, written guidelines for treatment of Korans. Schorno said ICRC representatives did not receive any other complaints or document similar incidents following the issuance of the guidelines on Jan. 19, 2003. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Wolfgang Date: 21 May 05 - 04:54 AM Bobert, you are just not well informed. It has been all over the European press that reports about the content of the newsweek article reaching Afghanistan has spawned deadly riots there. Four dead after anti-American riots erupt in Afghanistan (in a liberal British newspaper) You are about as myopic as Susu's hubby is. He speaks about US soldiers killed due to that article which is wrong and at least over here has never been reprtedand and you rant off about Rove as if you had never read about riots in Afghanistan after that article. And your argument about people in Afghanistan not reading Newsweek is still silly. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Giok Date: 21 May 05 - 08:26 AM I agree with Joe Offer on this one Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 May 05 - 09:33 AM I'd be inclined to think that if there had been an article in Newswek saying that a US Government internal investigation has determined that this desecration of the Qu'aran did not occur it would have been just as likely to spark off riots. The point is, the allegations had been reported widely, and are probably seen by most people around the world as pretty plausible, in the light of the recent record of the USA when it comes to the way prisoners are treated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Ron Davies Date: 21 May 05 - 09:36 AM As usual, Wolfgang is correct. Interesting that both the Left and Right can be myopic, on the same topic, in different ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 May 05 - 01:48 PM Wolfgang, You are partly right. But very wrong. If the people in Afghanistan didn't read it in Newsweek then it is their own media that is to blame. They were under no obligation to repeat the allegation. If Newsweek was wrong to run the story based on the word of one informant, how much more wrong were they to take Newsweek's word for it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: CarolC Date: 21 May 05 - 02:00 PM Maybe this sort of thing is the real reason Afghans are pissed off with the US... Bush hails Afghan ties, but abuse stirs outrage WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush on Saturday emphasized close ties with Afghanistan two days before he was to meet with an angry President Hamid Karzai, who has demanded control of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan after a report of prisoner abuse. Karzai, a staunch U.S. ally who will visit Bush at the White House on Monday, said he was shocked by a U.S. Army report described in The New York Times on Friday. The report detailed abuse in 2002 at the Bagram detention center in Afghanistan, including the deaths of two inmates. It said one prisoner was chained by his wrists to the top of his cell for days and had his legs pummeled by guards before he died. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: dianavan Date: 21 May 05 - 02:01 PM The flushing of the Koran was not the reason for the riots. It may have been the 'straw that broke the camels back' but it didn't cause the riots. Its been building for a long time. At least the people of Iraq have the courage to stand up for what is right. More than I can say for Americans. Wonder what would happen if I flushed a bible down the toilet on American t.v. Probably nothing. I think one of the talk show hosts should try it. Hey, maybe thats a way to get Bush to confess. We could tie him up and tear pages out of the bible one by one and flush them down the toilet. Would the Americans riot? I doubt it. This is a disgusting war. I hope America is proud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 21 May 05 - 02:46 PM Well I seem to remember a media backlash against Sinead O Connor because she tore up a picture of the Pope on TV. I agree with you Dianavan. While the O connor's backlash didn't result in riots or people dying it did offend some People and their Religion. If an Iraq Paper published photographs of American POW's in Prison and told how the Bible was thrown down the Toilet and published Photographs of them being stripped naked ect....you know thrown on top of one another blindfolded and led around on a leash, I won't go on, I am sure we are all aware of the details by now. Bet ya there would be a backlash....some may even take to the Streets but I don't think the baclash would be about the Photographs or the abuse of the POW's, I think the issue that would be taken to the streets would be the Bible being flushed down a Toilet. When People took to the Streets in this Country and around the World demanding Peace before this War even started...they were labeled Traitors or Hippies and stinky Liberal Commies.. and worse! They can attempt to shift the the blame on whoever/whatever they wish. The blame however lies with the Administration that invaded Iraq based on a Lie....they even got rewarded for lying by getting back in for another 4 years to keep the lies going. Yeah Newsweek is to blame...yeah right...if it makes them feel better saying that....fine. Go right ahead. Let them tell themselves that each night. Let them tell themselves that all the People that are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan daily wouldn't be if Newsweek had just been a tad more responsible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST Date: 21 May 05 - 03:01 PM Any us'ers planning on travelling outside their country in the near future, could be advised to get a t shirt printed up stating how you voted in your last election. You aren't flavour of the month, and that's a shame for some of you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: DougR Date: 21 May 05 - 07:42 PM Anyone here tried flushing the Quoran down a toilet? It's a fair sized book, and most toilet openings are pretty restricted. I think the casualties reported were civilian, not military. At least that is what I have read and heard. I think it likely that the rioting was caused by Taliban supporters who incited the crowds after the Newsweek article appeared in print. Riots likely would have occurred had their been reports of the Quoran being spat upon, or thrown in the dirt. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: frogprince Date: 21 May 05 - 07:56 PM Earth to Doug: have you ever tried to flush a roll of toilet paper down the toilet, without tearing it into pieces first? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 May 05 - 08:02 PM Is the suggestion that this kind of incident hasn't happened, or that people in Afghanistan and other countries are only going to believe it happened when there is a story in a reputable American magazine reporting it? Plenty of editions of the Qu'aran which are pocket-size. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff Date: 21 May 05 - 08:07 PM Dear Hubby, There would not be any controversy or blatant misuse of the media and blatant use of the anti-media if George W Bush did not steal two elections and plunder us all into war and depression! Sincerely, Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Liberal Media getting Soldiers Killed... From: Bobert Date: 21 May 05 - 08:26 PM Bull, Dougie... That is nuthin' but Karl Rove propaganda... Karl Rove knows that he has gotten his boy indeep poop and is flailing away at the press at every juncture trying to make his boy's decision's look maoral and the press's immoral... Problem is that it the opposite. His boy has made the bad calls and refuses to own up to them... Okay, lets look at Newsweek. What was it saying in the run-up to the invasion about folks who were credible and had another story to tell? Not adanged thing! And Newsweek's owner, the Washington Post? Not a danged thing. The Post even printed a story last August about how it had failed to do the good journalism during the run-up to the invasion. They said that they had fallen into some "culture"... Hmmmmm, here you has credible sources refuttin' all of the lies that Bush & Co. were using to whip the masses up into a nationalistic lather for war that were being ignored because they were is some kind culture???? Like give me a break... So I wrote the Washington Post and asked them, seein' as the admitted to bein' is some kind of culture in the run-up to war what they had done to change the odss that they might be cuaght up in the next, ahhhhh, culture before the next run-up to war... I've been waitin' since last Augusr for their anawer... Just as the American people have been waitin' over 3 years for Bush's answers... But what in the heck do we get from thre Post, Newsweek and Bush? Well, I'll tell ya what. Zip, nada, nuthin'. That's what we get... And so now Bush snaps at Newsweek??? Like go figure??? Nesweek was one of his lackies in the run-up to war??? Like what's this about??? Well, I'll tell ya.... ....it's about Karl Rove sacrificin' lambs to protect his boy... Nuthin' more 'n nuthin less... Don't like hearin' it than move to Mars 'cause its the truth. You know it, I know it and the world knows it... This is a bogus attack on Newsweek... You wanta attack integrity? Bush and Rove are two big, big, unmissable targets... Bobert |
