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. |