Maybe if these people in 3rd world muslim theocracies pulled their heads out of their collective behinds and started realizing that the Mullahs are keeping them down more so than any other foreign country they would realize that any book of rules written by man is best used for toilet paper. And yes, that includes the Torah, the Bible and the Koran. Religious zealots are just ignorant malinformed morons, whether they are wearing a robe or a pair of jeans and a knit tank top. All killing in the name of God.....just laughable to say the least. We should all be Buddists. DD
Theocracies, period, not just the 3rd world and/or Muslim ones. Relying on any of the different flavors of invisible men in the sky as the primary way of making decisions re: how to run a government... simply not a good idea.
Methodist Come on man, I follow no religion, I believe in God and the creator, but I hardly believe that man, whom can't comprehend the vastness or space, can even fathom what god wants, or expects of us. And I certainly don't trust another MAN to know either because they have read some parchment written when dust was an appetizer. Religion was written to control the ignorant masses, and those that are the least educated are the easiest minipulated. Education and free thought are the only ways out for anyone...and theocracies crush that, if you need someone else to supply your morale compass, then that is fine, but if you decide to look inside, I think you will find a greater power, and more accurate morale compass. DD
This incident is nothing short of treasonous. Really, this whole movement by the liberals and the media is treasonous. This entire movement consists of reporting bad news 95% of the time (with some liberals it's 100%) and perhaps even more galling is their incredible persistence with the assumption of guilt on the part of our US troops. This is the equivalent of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Why? Because terrorist groups help recruit new members with stories like the Newsweek fib. They also recruit members with the 40+ front page covers on the New York Times that discussed Abu Ghraib. Recruiting new terrorists and helping stoke the fires of the current terrorists is what the left wing media and the liberals do. This gets US troops killed. Period. The Newsweek story alone has already killed 15 Afghanis. Those are valuable lives that were taken because of gross negligence and a liberal bitterness that is inspired by Bush winning two elections. Sadly, this all started with Jane Fonda and John Kerry during Vietnam. They created an entire resistance movement that undermines the work of our military. By mobilizing the liberals to dredge up every bad story (legit or fake) about our troops, they are doing the propaganda writing work of the terrorists. How can this not be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Lives have been lost because of their efforts. Billions of dollars have been needed to un-do the damage caused by these people. They have distracted our nation from the HONORABLE service that our noble troops are doing overseas. These troops are giving up the comforts of life in the US for the battlefield – a place where you don’t take a shower, you don’t eat good food, you are constantly in danger of being killed, and you are away from your family. They give all that up for our country. How are they repaid by the liberals? Derision and scorn. It’s gross. It’s treasonous. I believe in freedom of the press, but when we are at war, it is important for the press to be responsible in their actions. Newsweek was not. The NYT was not. Our troops’ morale and safety should be carefully considered before any public criticism. It can cost lives. If you support our troops, you respect them as well. You don’t assume guilt until you know the facts. You support them. Sadly, this is not happening with regularity by the embittered left wingers.
Great post - should be required reading for the lefties here in this forum. Hopefully some introspection of their beliefs will occur.
This bit of information has been floating all over the internet... 1. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, in a U.S. State Dept.-issued press release on May 12, said the Newsweek story isn't a chief cause of the riots: " [H]e has been told that the Jalalabad, Afghanistan, rioting was related more to the ongoing political reconciliation process in Afghanistan than anything else." (http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/May/12-273892.html?chanlid=washfile) 2. Story ALREADY reported ... The Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20, 2005: Some detainees complained of religious humiliation, saying guards had defaced their copies of the Koran and, in one case, had thrown it in a toilet, said Kristine Huskey [an attorney in Washington, D.C.], who interviewed clients late last month. Others said that pills were hidden in their food and that people came to their cells claiming to be their attorneys, to gain information. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/10685611.htm From the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York City, NY and linked as a footnote in a Human Rights Watch report: 72.They were never given prayer mats and initially they didn't get a Koran. When the Korans were provided, they were kicked and thrown about by the guards and on occasion thrown in the buckets used for the toilets. This kept happening. When it happened it was always said to be an accident but it was a recurrent theme. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...tanamo+Koran+pages+ripped&hl=en&client=safari
Nice try whag, but Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Scott McLellan all point to this story as contributing to the riots. Myers does not say that the story did not contribute to the riots. Obviously they did. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050517/D8A4LSM02.html
That's an excellent question and one that I don't think has an easy answer. From what I remember regarding embedded journalists the rule they followed is that they wouldn't give out information that could let the enemy know their location, strength and specific destination since that would clearly be putting the very troops they were with in harms way, ironically if I remember right the only one to break that rule was Geraldo Rivera reporting for Fox. Beyond that though I think we're entering dangerous ground and this story is a good example of that. That Muslims would be offended is predictable but there had been scores of stories that predictably would upset Muslims or any other interest group for that matter. For instance when GW Bush referred to the War on Terrorism as a "Crusade" that upset alot of Muslims too so should news sources have not reported on that? I think its a slippery slope when we start censoring or asking the press to censor themselves because what they report might endanger troops. The media has a responsibility to report accurately and also the implications but censorship even self-censorship should be avoided except in the most immediate circumstance.
You don't think aiding the enemy and killing US troops in the process is enough? It's one thing to report Abu Ghraib. It's another to do it like the NYT did it by hammering it 40+ times on the front page. It's also another thing to fabricate lies like Newsweek did. It's real easy to say 'slippery slope' and defend ideals, but the *reality* of this situation is that it is helping the terrorists. Why can't good news ever be reported? Why does the liberal media assume that US troops are guilty each and every time? It's shameful that you would even attempt to defend this behavior.
I agree its not mutually exclusive but to be accurate more often than not means reporting stories that the government doesn't want people to hear. As for reporting the good news that soldiers do I think its something of an exageration that stories like that aren't reported. There are tons of stories about troops helping build schools and hospitals, bring food and medicine to people and just the other day ABC did a great story on a soldier who carried a wounded Iraqi girl to a hospital. The difference is that good news stories aren't controversial so the bad ones get more attention. If it bleeds it leads. I agree the media needs to be more responsible and the rush for getting the scoop has lead to a lot of irresponsible journalism but I don't think censorship is the answer.
I don't defend bad journalism, which this is, but I will defend that thing called the Bill of Rights including the First Ammendment. Perhaps you just find that unpatriotic.
Are lies that kill US troops covered under the freedom of speech? Should they be? Whatever happened to *using discretion* in the media? Why do so many liberals choose to *only* report the negative and blame US troops for everything? Is that a patriotic American? One who aids the enemy in their recruiting drives and damages the morale of US troops?
I'm sure the liberals "made" the troops torture the prisoners. . Fact is, those troops are to be blamed, and it's the media's job to report it. Those troops had the power to act responsibly, but they didn't. Why are you blaming the media? It's like killing a man then blaming the eyewitness who saw you. You commit the act, you pay the price. As for the terrorist groups and Muslims being angry, they have every right to be angry, just like you would be angry if you found out the terrorists were raping American soldiers.
