Message Board User's Guide,
What the hell goes on here? The Army is enticing Iraqi reporters to print favorable stories? And what a slip shod operation it is; the Army’s not even planting the stories they want. Thank God, nothing has ever happened like this before in our history. What if someone tried to broadcast a Radio Free Iraq? Oh wait didn’t we do that in Europe? In fact haven’t we done that around the world? No matter, this is happening under President Bush, so let’s shoot the SOBs perpetrating this travesty. These out and out traitors are trying to, “..build popular support for U.S.-led stabilization efforts and erode support for Sunni Muslim insurgents.” Get Kerry on the case, he’ll make it 1970 all over again. Wait, he’s already trying to do that.
While we’re at it lock up GEN Schwarzkopf, He misled the Iraqis about a sea born assault in Kuwait during the Gulf War. And reporters from the NY, LA and Washington Times, CNN and just about everyone else pushed these LIES!
How about a “Schwarzkopf Lied and thousands died,” campaign? I’m sure the small point that thousands of our enemies died, and probably hundreds, possibly thousands of our and our allies’ troops didn’t, doesn’t mean anything to some. Some like those who think that building support for US efforts and undermining the insurgents through legally encouraging Iraqis to report on favorable stories is somehow worth complaining about. Who knows, those Iraqi reporters may have gone to journalist schools in the US? If they had, it would take at least a few hundred dollars to get them to ever say anything positive about the US.
Somehow, how comments about the nascent Iraqi press have anything to do with the actions and attitudes of the powerful, long established US media, the focus of this thread, escapes me. Then again, it does provide another cut and paste opportunity.
"BAGHDAD - Two U.S. soldiers who went missing after an attack on their checkpoint were found dead on Monday night, and a senior Iraqi defense official said their bodies showed signs of "barbaric" torture. "Coalition forces have recovered what we believe are the remains of the soldiers," U.S. military spokesman Major General William Caldwell told a news conference in Baghdad on Tuesday"
Any bets on the NY Times devoting their front page for the next 50 days to this prisoner abuse, as they did with Abu Ghraib. This actually involves torture, not the trumped up charge of torture. Don't hold you breathe.
I'm sure some of the usual suspects on this board will express almost as much outrage as the Times will. Like the Times, they support the troops too. I just not sure which troops.
And as a follow up to the above story of the despicable actions of the Iraqi press reporting positive stories; has anyone notice that captured documents show the insurgents felt the reporting by the Iraqi media was negatively impacting the little reign of terror. No such comments about the US media. In fact has the US media even given any ink to the hundreds of raids, and hundreds of enemy killed, and the thousands of valuable intelligence documents sized since the US sent Al-Zarqawi's on his date with the virgins?
A quick perusal of today's New York newspapers is telling. The Times, in a column on the front page above the fold informs on the two missing soldiers while over at the Neo-Nazi York Post, representing those from the "culture of life", their cover deals with, as usual, an important story of the day. To wit, Michael Strahan, ace NY Giant defensive lineman, is involved in a nasty dispute with his estranged wife.
Upon being asked how long this will take, Mr. Strahan is qouted as saying, "might be 6 days, could be 6 weeks, perhaps 6 months but I doubt it".
When asked of the ferocity of his wife's lawyer, his tough guy reply is "bring 'em on" as this unfortunate disagreement is "in it's last throes."
The Wahabis are in Saudia Arabia, an undemocratic country, a monarchy ruled by a royal family, kept in power soley on the strength of our involvement there, our great ally in the Middle East.
Their new main main was in Washington a few months back and Boy George was photographed holding his hand and kissing him lovingly. When they smooched, was the picture of the kid from The Blue Lagoon running though their heads or is that the sole property of The Wrong Reverend.
Kid, I think someone has been ‘Messin with your mind.’ What has either of your posts to do with the subject?
Do you actually think the Times will devote even 1/10 the trumped up coverage they gave Abu Ghraib to this real atrocity? Not unless they can find an anti American spin to put on it. But then again, James Dao is still on the Times staff and no one can selectively edit a story like he can. He can make pro mean con and stop mean go.
It’s the Times who kept the ridiculous anti American Abu Ghraib story on the front page for over 50 consecutive days with editorials and opinions to match, erroneous as much of their reporting and conjecture was. So, unless you’re saying the New York Post isn’t supportive enough of the war, I miss the point of your referencing the “Neo-Nazi” Post. Still, I’d be more interested in the Post’s editorials and op-ed columns over the next few days then what their headlines are. Especially in comparison to the claptrap that, no doubt, will be spewed from Putz Sulzberger’s fast fading folly of a paper. Hopefully, the once venerable “Grey Lady’ soon will be out of her misery and confined to the trash heap of journalistic history along with the likes of star reporter Jayson Blair and ‘the documents are false, but the story is true’ anchor Dan Rather.
Your second post is a typical liberal knee jerk reaction of an anti Bush bigot and has nothing to do with, well anything really. But, as I have often maintained, name-calling and ad hominen attack trump reason or facts when many liberals try to defend the position.
File this under "real atrocity", or should we say "atrocities":
WASHINGTON, March 16, 2005
25% of the 108 are "as possible abuse by U.S. personnel". 25% of 108 is 27 people. 27/65000 is 0.04%. Although of course every life has value, this seems like a very low number to me, given that we are talking about a war-related prison, not a white-collar prison/country club. Additionally, it is certainly possible that some of these 0.04% were not passive peace-loving non-violent prisoners.
Don't get me wrong, I do not favor prisoner abuse or torture.
- Bill '66
2 of 130,000...although every life has value, to some of us, this sounds like a very low number (numbers can be used many different ways, more than 100,000 Iraqis killed out or 23,000,000, on a percentage basis that might appear, once again to some, as not that signifigant), given that we are talking about an invading/occupying army in an invaded/occupied county, not a white collar country club. It is also certainly possible that some of the 130,00 are not either peace loving or non-violent.
When the tortured turn into torturers and the hunted turn into hunters, be not suprised by the grim results.
Shannon, your blame America first bias has really distorted you ability to make even an iota of sense.
The 108 deaths in military prisons in two countries in over a two-year, period equates to a rate of less then one death per 1,000 prisoners per year, from all causes.Your article says one quarter was investigated as POSSIBLE abuse. That is one death per 5,000 prisoners per year as a POSSIBLE result of abuse. Assuming a quarter of the investigated deaths was caused by abuse – a very generous assumption – that’s one death per 20,000 prisoners per year. And although it seems you can’t grasp it, these prisoners are for the most part hostile combatants not protected by the Geneva Convention in fact expressly excluded from protection by that accord, even if it were applicable in this war. Like pirates, these combatants could be executed if we so wished. The same Geneva Convention that liberals constantly say we must adhere. The one that differentiates between and seeks to protect soldiers, like we have in Iraq, and expressly excludes forces that operate as the insurgents do.
You posts does however support my allegation that the media is all too happy to attack the US and its policies whenever they can -even if you're too biased to see it. To that end they'll print stories of such not events as you site above, or Abu Ghraib.
Not the alleged treatment of these enemy combatants, but your response to the barbaric murder of American prisoners. Typically, you attack the President and try to obfuscate the facts. The facts are; we are fighting murderous, fanatical thugs who given the opportunity would separate all of us, even an apologist like you, from our heads; if we hadn’t been fighting, and don’t continue to fight them in the Mid-East they would surely have already been fighting us here; it is by the grace of God and the professionalism of our intelligence services and our armed forces that we have, thus far avoid more devastation here.
Like some others, your support of the troops amounts to besmirching them at every opportunity and crying crocodile tears over their service only to politicize their sacrifice and attack the administration. Ideologically, you seem the ‘love child’ of Cindy Sheehan and Mike Berg, a truly pathetic position, spawned by pathetic figures!
Keep on cutting and pasting.
More of the same
Just look at Bush's ratings. look at the CT primary.
One way or another, for one reason or another, one day or the next, the war is over.
Premature invasion, too little troops, terrible management, graft, Abu Ghraib, bombing the wedding, Osama still loose,
lack of protection for the troops, all the bs optimism, no understanding of the culture, ignoring the roots of terrorism, etc. etc. etc.
Like it or not, it's over.
I knew I liked you..short, concise & to the point..
I had the very same discussion at dinner last evening...
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!