It was Al Jazeera that chose to not show the Hassan video. They had the video.
Why was it that Al Jazeera always runs footage of people getting killed but they didn't show Margaret Hassans?
and this question (which is an obvious attempt to avoid the fact that your using Hassan as proof of a claim about the MSM was complete bullshit) here...
The station initially said it would air parts of the video, but then a spokesman said it would not. "We don't show acts of killing," said Jihad Ballout. "We've never done it before, outside war."
notice that it contradicts your claim that they "always runs footage of people getting killed"
now, I've asked a few questions myself what you have COMPLETELY ignored... how about it?
The station initially said it would air parts of the video, but then a spokesman said it would not. "We don't show acts of killing," said Jihad Ballout. "We've never done it before, outside war."
You know something about it they don't? Maybe you work for Al Jazeera and know the real reason, so why don't you share it with everyone before the helicopters come and get you?
I was asking you why thought they didn't run it. Not for the The station's explination, it is B.S because much like most of what you posted. Because they show killings plenty. Guess what sparky, if I want to change topic's I want to talk about I do. You don't get to decide. Had you bothered to not dance around the question as ususal I would have told you why I thought they were related. They are related because Al Jazerra didn't show the video because they knew it would piss off alot of moderate Muslims. They show Abu Grihab and the Marine footage on a constant loop. They are used as a tool for the Muj. If you buy their explination that they don't show killings then you're quite guillible. The MSM here is less I believe about some agenda and more about sensationalism. That's why you'll note I posted a story about a Marine getting fired on by a "dead" insurgent that for some odd reason didn't make the papers.  The point is that they both are there to report events they just are selective in how they do it which is fine and dandy if they have some balance and perspective. They don't. And if you don't think that video along with a story adds more perspective you're daft. Ya think Al Jazeera didn't run it because they were worried about offending the family? Ya think the MSM didn't because of the same? Why is it that it's something bad we've done it's o.k to show it? If it's something bad the enemy does it's not? How about showing both and letting the people decide ? Isn't that the job of the press?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 2, 2004 at 07:36am.]
so, you DOget Al Jazeera on your cable system. Interesting.
Guess what sparky, if I want to change topic's I want to talk about I do
You didn't change topics. You changed the parameters of the exact same question when your original question didn't work out for you the way you wanted, sparky.
You don't get to decide
what horseshit. You begin by asking why the MSM didn't show something, and when the OBVIOUSanswer made you look like a fool, you switched it to why Al Jazeera didn't whow it, since they were the one's who, you know, actually had it. That you are trying to pass this off as some sort of "chage of subject" is absurd. The subject is the media showing a video of Hassan. Same subject.
They are related because Al Jazerra didn't show the video because they knew it would piss off alot of moderate Muslims.
If you had already decided what the answer was (regardless of what the answer actually may be), what the fuck are you asking me for?
Ya think the MSM didn't because of the same?
Now hold on, are you bouncing back to the old subject again?
the MSM didn't have it, Al Jazeera did.
Are you really so stupid as to think that they are going to give it to the MSM if they are'nt showing it themselves?
but thanks for showing that you really weren't changing the subject at all, just changing to parameters of the question to fit your bullshit. Sorry, but changing it back again isn't going to make it fit any better.
BTW, you didn't ask for my opinion, you asked why they didn't show it. You didn't ask why I THOUGHT they didn't show it, you asked why they didn't show it. There is a difference, just as there is a difference between discussing why the MSM didn't show it and why AJ didn't show it.
You got it when it was about MSM, you got it when it was about AJ, you got it. Sorry you didn't like it, tought shit. You don't get to decide what my opinionis.
yea rob, you might actually have to think... and we all know that bodine can't stand to have to do any of that. He's got the Bible telling him what to think for him.
But you quoted Al Jazeera, so you must agree with their statement. If this is wrong, please correct me, and give your own statement.
I agree it's their statement. That's why it's called a quote.
I don't know why they didn't show a video when they couldn't positively confrm what it was, but I'm glad they showed the CARE organization the respect they deserve.
Personally, I'm still waiting for you guys to have a point of some sort.
I agree it's their statement. That's why it's called a quote.
But you used it as the basis of your argument.
I don't know why they didn't show a video when they couldn't positively confrm what it was, but I'm glad they showed the CARE organization the respect they deserve.
Once again, irrelevant. What about respecing Chris Berg and his family?
Why do they pick and choose which beheadings to air? I think you know the answer, you're just having a hard time being honest about it.
Personally, I'm still waiting for you guys to have a point of some sort.
I can't speak for Luv, but my point is, Al Jazeera isn't news, it's biased propaganda.
So, you DO get Al Jazeera on the cable! Impressive!
No
It's irrelevant.
I don't even have cable.
I don't watch Jeopardy, but I know of Ken Jennings.
The media wether it be Al Jazeera, The MSM (NBC, CNN, NYT, LA Times, FOX, CBS, etc. etc. etc). all have an agenda. A Marine was fired on by a "dead" insurgent the other day. Is that not news worthy? Do people realize over half fo Iraqi's are registered to vote? I realize every story wether it be positive or bad cannot fit into the coverage each day.
Again, I'll ask. How do people think the troops percieve the coverage?
Just so you know, Nowdays they have access to pretty much what we get as far as national channels CNN, NBC, etc. They also have internet access and some newspapers.
No most of the FOB's have them thanks to sattelite technology. The M&R tents or trailers on any FOB have T'V's and internet so when they are not out on ops they usually have access to it. My Friend was telling me that they got back from on op in time to watch Monday Night football on Tuesday morning. So they do have access to the MSM as they usually have CNN etc. on when they have downtime.
Kinda shot your whole premise to hell....I mean, they are NOT happy over there, and they want to see improvements made now, for their own safety.
Where the hell did I ever say they were happy to be there? Â Nobody wants to be there. Most are doing thier job admiribly. Yea complaints in the military, now there's a new phenomenon. I have no problem with them grilling Rummy. I also think it's odd to hear those complaining the loudest are the same ones who voted for a guy who cut their funding.
No more off-the-cuff honest questionsfrom his own Troops...!!!
Those questions were anything but honest or off the cuff. An embedded reporter by the name of Edward Lee Pitts admitted to having prepped and worked on questions that his guys would ask and then made sure to get his guys chosen to ask those questions.
Rumsfeld handled himself nicely. He explained about the logistics and physics problems they were having and added that he was sending the specially armored Humvees that he recently noticed protecting the White House to Iraq.
The reporter has even admitted in the past that problems such as these are nothing new to war. He spoke in one report of the problems in Vietnam and how the soldiers had to reinforce their own vehicles with whatever they could find.
Basically, Rumsfeld was set up, but handled the situation well.
It is now the job of a reporter to set-up the sec. of state that he dislikes by having soldiers ask underhanded questions that he is too afraid to ask?
"It is now the job of a reporter to set-up the sec. of state "
Well. you have the wrong cabinet postion, but I guess, to you they've all earned the right to have brown-nosing sycophants for troops. Rummy wears a suit and not a uniform, so I suppose he'll never have to ride in exposed Humvees.
Rummy's a big boy. He can handle it.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Dec 9, 2004 at 04:41pm.]
From what I get of the story, the media was barred from the discussion, so he got someone else to ask the question.
That is correct. The media gets many chances to ask any question that they wish. This was a time for Rumsfeld to speak directly with the soldiers and see what was on their minds, not the mind of some underhanded reporter trying to create a story. What Rumsfeld was trying to accomplish was an unstaged, unplanned, unscreened discussion with the troops. The reporter screwed that all up for his own glory of getting a story.
I appologize for the cabinet mistake. We can also debate how protected they actually are in an up-armored Humvee or we can debate the mobility of the "exposed Humvee" verses the up-armored Humvee if you wish or we can debate what happens if the troops were to wait in Kuwait for the up-armor kits, but none of that changes the fact that what the reporter did was wrong. He was there to report, not to plant ideas in a persons head.
What if the reporter was to have planted a question like, "Given John Kerry's appalling lack of respect for all things military, just how much of a disaster would he have been as President?"Â Would you have still given him a "Kudos"?
And yes, he is a big boy and did handle himself nicely.
"Given John Kerry's appalling lack of respect for all things military, just how much of a disaster would he have been as President?" Would you have still given him a "Kudos"?
How would not that be an objective question. Did someone say Rumsfeld had an "appalling lack of respect for all things military."
"And yes, he is a big boy and did handle himself nicely."
If more are needed, send them. 15,000 out of the 19,000 Hummers in theatre are already armored. The ones that aren't are used on bases and are rail or piggybacked to get to their destination. They've been unarmored for years mainly because of weight considerations when deploying forces. Also because the original version and some thereafter did not have adequate power not to mention it cuts the effective range of the vehicle. I logged allot of miles in the unarmed version. They are slow to begin with. Speed vs. armor is a tradeoff that military heads have argued for 50 years over. We can't all ride in tanks but if it helps save injury or death do it. But again I got the impression that the unarmored ones were only being used on FOB's etc. The sad part is that in many cases it might not do much good. Some of the IED's are powerfull. I saw a picture sent home that showed an M1 Abrams that flipped over from and IED. If it can flip over an M1 nothing will help.
In WW2 the Sherman was way too lightly armored so the troops welded tank treads and sandbag holders. Then they had to improvise hedgerow devices too. Our forces are better at improvising than any force in the world.Â
I am not hearing glowing reviews of the new "Stryker" vehicles. That are desgined specifically for this type of fighting. Does it mean we should halt ops? The boots will figure out how to modify them and then some contractor will adopt it and charge out pants off to fix it.
The question is fine. The reporter did it in a slimey way. It's also perhaps not the best thing to advertise to the enemy that all the hummers aren't armored.
I answered this question...
here...
crabgrass 11/30/04 5:16pm
It was Al Jazeera that chose to not show the Hassan video. They had the video.
and this question (which is an obvious attempt to avoid the fact that your using Hassan as proof of a claim about the MSM was complete bullshit) here...
crabgrass 12/1/04 2:13pm
notice that it contradicts your claim that they "always runs footage of people getting killed"
now, I've asked a few questions myself what you have COMPLETELY ignored... how about it?
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 1, 2004 at 03:27pm.]
Man, you're pathetic when you're on the ropes.
it's the same reason that you keep claiming I didn't answer your question when you know I had.
Yes, it's called spin and you got busted.
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 1, 2004 at 03:36pm.]
The station initially said it would air parts of the video, but then a spokesman said it would not. "We don't show acts of killing," said Jihad Ballout. "We've never done it before, outside war."
That's your answer?
Isn't that just a little contrary to the facts?
No, that was their answer.
You know something about it they don't? Maybe you work for Al Jazeera and know the real reason, so why don't you share it with everyone before the helicopters come and get you?
I don't know, my cable system doesn't get Al Jazeera, does yours?
I was asking you why thought they didn't run it. Not for the The station's explination, it is B.S because much like most of what you posted. Because they show killings plenty. Guess what sparky, if I want to change topic's I want to talk about I do. You don't get to decide. Had you bothered to not dance around the question as ususal I would have told you why I thought they were related. They are related because Al Jazerra didn't show the video because they knew it would piss off alot of moderate Muslims. They show Abu Grihab and the Marine footage on a constant loop. They are used as a tool for the Muj. If you buy their explination that they don't show killings then you're quite guillible. The MSM here is less I believe about some agenda and more about sensationalism. That's why you'll note I posted a story about a Marine getting fired on by a "dead" insurgent that for some odd reason didn't make the papers.  The point is that they both are there to report events they just are selective in how they do it which is fine and dandy if they have some balance and perspective. They don't. And if you don't think that video along with a story adds more perspective you're daft. Ya think Al Jazeera didn't run it because they were worried about offending the family? Ya think the MSM didn't because of the same? Why is it that it's something bad we've done it's o.k to show it? If it's something bad the enemy does it's not? How about showing both and letting the people decide ? Isn't that the job of the press?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on Dec 2, 2004 at 07:36am.]
so, you DOget Al Jazeera on your cable system. Interesting.
You didn't change topics. You changed the parameters of the exact same question when your original question didn't work out for you the way you wanted, sparky.
what horseshit. You begin by asking why the MSM didn't show something, and when the OBVIOUSanswer made you look like a fool, you switched it to why Al Jazeera didn't whow it, since they were the one's who, you know, actually had it. That you are trying to pass this off as some sort of "chage of subject" is absurd. The subject is the media showing a video of Hassan. Same subject.
If you had already decided what the answer was (regardless of what the answer actually may be), what the fuck are you asking me for?
Now hold on, are you bouncing back to the old subject again?
the MSM didn't have it, Al Jazeera did.
Are you really so stupid as to think that they are going to give it to the MSM if they are'nt showing it themselves?
but thanks for showing that you really weren't changing the subject at all, just changing to parameters of the question to fit your bullshit. Sorry, but changing it back again isn't going to make it fit any better.
Damn, all that dreck to avoid answering a question. Slippery C. Strikes again.
Now
hold on, are you bouncing back to the old subject again?
Too bad, sorry if you don't like it tough you don't get to decide what someone else talks about.
the MSM didn't have it, Al Jazeera did.
Are you really so stupid as to think that they are going to give it to the MSM if they are'nt showing it themselves?
Well ABC had it and decided not to use it. They share footage all the time it's pretty common.
If you had already decided what the answer was (regardless of what the answer actually may be), what the fuck are you asking me for?
I was asking for your opinion on why they didn't. Since it was too hard for you to comprehend forget it, It's not worth it.
Â
The fact is, your OPINION on why Al Jazeera didn't show it is just that.
So, how many non-war killings have you seen on Al Jazeera? Have you actually seen on it yourself?
Too bad, sorry if you don't like it, tough. You don't get to decide if I gave my opinion or not. You got my answer, you don't like it too bad.
Well, okay... now your cable system gets Al Jazeera AND you work at ABC. Amazing.
You got my opinion on this... several times.
BTW, you didn't ask for my opinion, you asked why they didn't show it. You didn't ask why I THOUGHT they didn't show it, you asked why they didn't show it. There is a difference, just as there is a difference between discussing why the MSM didn't show it and why AJ didn't show it.
You got it when it was about MSM, you got it when it was about AJ, you got it. Sorry you didn't like it, tought shit. You don't get to decide what my opinionis.
[Edited by molegrass on Dec 2, 2004 at 09:17am.]
Hey, Rob, maybe you should put crabs on ignore. He isn't worth your time.
yea rob, you might actually have to think... and we all know that bodine can't stand to have to do any of that. He's got the Bible telling him what to think for him.
I don't know, my cable system doesn't get Al Jazeera, does yours?
No, but I can read. And all the news reports, even Al Jazeera's own web site, has stated they have shown the beheadings.
They've shown beheadings going all the way back to Nick Berg.
Now, are you to tell me that Nick Berg was a "War Killing" and this poor lady was not?
He's got the Bible telling him what to think for him.
You've got Al Jazeera.
Now, are you to tell me that Nick Berg was a "War Killing" and this poor lady was not?
I'm sure he'll try.
Nope, it's Al Jazeera telling you that. My cable system doesn't get Al Jazeera.
You are talking about the MSM here, right?
Not me, it's you are the one who knows all about them and why they do things.
BTW, they don't even know for certain if the video is of her or not.
Nope, it's Al Jazeera telling you that. My cable system doesn't get Al Jazeera.
But you quoted Al Jazeera, so you must agree with their statement. If this is wrong, please correct me, and give your own statement.
You are talking about the MSM here, right?
No. I'm talking all news sources. It's a fact.
Not me, it's you are the one who knows all about them and why they do things.
That's strange, it was you that quoted them.
BTW, they don't even know for certain if the video is of her or not.
Who is "They"?
I agree it's their statement. That's why it's called a quote.
I don't know why they didn't show a video when they couldn't positively confrm what it was, but I'm glad they showed the CARE organization the respect they deserve.
Personally, I'm still waiting for you guys to have a point of some sort.
So, you DO get Al Jazeera on the cable! Impressive!
and besides, if they DID show Berg, how does that fit with your claim that they don't show thinks like Hassan's death?
I agree it's their statement. That's why it's called a quote.
But you used it as the basis of your argument.
I don't know why they didn't show a video when they couldn't positively confrm what it was, but I'm glad they showed the CARE organization the respect they deserve.
Once again, irrelevant. What about respecing Chris Berg and his family?
Why do they pick and choose which beheadings to air? I think you know the answer, you're just having a hard time being honest about it.
Personally, I'm still waiting for you guys to have a point of some sort.
I can't speak for Luv, but my point is, Al Jazeera isn't news, it's biased propaganda.
So, you DO get Al Jazeera on the cable! Impressive!
No
It's irrelevant.
I don't even have cable.
I don't watch Jeopardy, but I know of Ken Jennings.
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
and besides, if they DID show Berg, how does that fit with your claim that they don't show thinks like Hassan's death?
Oh, they show deaths all right. They have no trouble with that. But only when it serves their purpose.
I wasn't making an argument. Luv2 was.
I'm not defending Al Jazeera. I don't think they should show them.
But why don't the MSM show all the American corpses coming home?
what's the difference between Hassan and Berg?
what's the difference between Hassan and Berg?
You tell me.
::slams head on desk::
I think you know the answer, you're just having a hard time being honest about it.
a lot of liberals have a problem being honest.
The media wether it be Al Jazeera, The MSM (NBC, CNN, NYT, LA Times, FOX, CBS, etc. etc. etc). all have an agenda. A Marine was fired on by a "dead" insurgent the other day. Is that not news worthy? Do people realize over half fo Iraqi's are registered to vote? I realize every story wether it be positive or bad cannot fit into the coverage each day.
Again, I'll ask. How do people think the troops percieve the coverage?
Â
Bill,
Just so you know, Nowdays they have access to pretty much what we get as far as national channels CNN, NBC, etc. They also have internet access and some newspapers.
No most of the FOB's have them thanks to sattelite technology. The M&R tents or trailers on any FOB have T'V's and internet so when they are not out on ops they usually have access to it. My Friend was telling me that they got back from on op in time to watch Monday Night football on Tuesday morning. So they do have access to the MSM as they usually have CNN etc. on when they have downtime.
[Edited by on Dec 7, 2004 at 07:35am.]
Kinda shot your whole premise to hell....I mean, they are NOT happy over there, and they want to see improvements made now, for their own safety.
Where the hell did I ever say they were happy to be there? Â Nobody wants to be there. Most are doing thier job admiribly. Yea complaints in the military, now there's a new phenomenon. I have no problem with them grilling Rummy. I also think it's odd to hear those complaining the loudest are the same ones who voted for a guy who cut their funding.
No more off-the-cuff honest
questionsfrom his own Troops...!!!
Those questions were anything but honest or off the cuff. An embedded reporter by the name of Edward Lee Pitts admitted to having prepped and worked on questions that his guys would ask and then made sure to get his guys chosen to ask those questions.
Rumsfeld handled himself nicely. He explained about the logistics and physics problems they were having and added that he was sending the specially armored Humvees that he recently noticed protecting the White House to Iraq.
The reporter has even admitted in the past that problems such as these are nothing new to war. He spoke in one report of the problems in Vietnam and how the soldiers had to reinforce their own vehicles with whatever they could find.
Basically, Rumsfeld was set up, but handled the situation well.
So did Pitts.
Kudos to a reporter who did his job. He may have saved some lives.
[Edited by on Dec 9, 2004 at 04:20pm.]
Kudos to a reporter who did his job.
It is now the job of a reporter to set-up the sec. of state that he dislikes by having soldiers ask underhanded questions that he is too afraid to ask?
Damn straight.
From what I get of the story, the media was barred from the discussion, so he got someone else to ask the question.
"It is now the job of a reporter to set-up the sec. of state "
Well. you have the wrong cabinet postion, but I guess, to you they've all earned the right to have brown-nosing sycophants for troops. Rummy wears a suit and not a uniform, so I suppose he'll never have to ride in exposed Humvees.
Rummy's a big boy. He can handle it.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on Dec 9, 2004 at 04:41pm.]
Nowadays people are more inclinded to "Kill the reporters".
Gotta point?
It's not honest if someone's feeding questions.
He's a slimey fucker if you ask me.
I hope he's next to get kidnapped and lose his head.
The Guardsman didn't have to ask the question.
And you don't have to be dark and foul-mouthed. What the hell's your problem. sicko?
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Dec 9, 2004 at 05:03pm.]
Just hoping he can get the big story he's looking for.
The thing is, humvees were never meant to be armored vehicles.
From what I get of the story, the media was barred from the discussion, so he got someone else to ask the question.
That is correct. The media gets many chances to ask any question that they wish. This was a time for Rumsfeld to speak directly with the soldiers and see what was on their minds, not the mind of some underhanded reporter trying to create a story. What Rumsfeld was trying to accomplish was an unstaged, unplanned, unscreened discussion with the troops. The reporter screwed that all up for his own glory of getting a story.
I appologize for the cabinet mistake. We can also debate how protected they actually are in an up-armored Humvee or we can debate the mobility of the "exposed Humvee" verses the up-armored Humvee if you wish or we can debate what happens if the troops were to wait in Kuwait for the up-armor kits, but none of that changes the fact that what the reporter did was wrong. He was there to report, not to plant ideas in a persons head.
What if the reporter was to have planted a question like, "Given John Kerry's appalling lack of respect for all things military, just how much of a disaster would he have been as President?"Â Would you have still given him a "Kudos"?
And yes, he is a big boy and did handle himself nicely.
"Given John Kerry's appalling lack of respect for all things military, just how much of a disaster would he have been as President?" Would you have still given him a "Kudos"?
How would not that be an objective question. Did someone say Rumsfeld had an "appalling lack of respect for all things military."
"And yes, he is a big boy and did handle himself nicely."
Then what's the problem?
That's what's wrong with it.
"Just hoping he can get the big story he's looking for. "
I'm hoping you can get some therapy.
That's true sociopathic behavior.
If more are needed, send them. 15,000 out of the 19,000 Hummers in theatre are already armored. The ones that aren't are used on bases and are rail or piggybacked to get to their destination. They've been unarmored for years mainly because of weight considerations when deploying forces. Also because the original version and some thereafter did not have adequate power not to mention it cuts the effective range of the vehicle. I logged allot of miles in the unarmed version. They are slow to begin with. Speed vs. armor is a tradeoff that military heads have argued for 50 years over. We can't all ride in tanks but if it helps save injury or death do it. But again I got the impression that the unarmored ones were only being used on FOB's etc. The sad part is that in many cases it might not do much good. Some of the IED's are powerfull. I saw a picture sent home that showed an M1 Abrams that flipped over from and IED. If it can flip over an M1 nothing will help.
In WW2 the Sherman was way too lightly armored so the troops welded tank treads and sandbag holders. Then they had to improvise hedgerow devices too. Our forces are better at improvising than any force in the world.Â
I am not hearing glowing reviews of the new "Stryker" vehicles. That are desgined specifically for this type of fighting. Does it mean we should halt ops? The boots will figure out how to modify them and then some contractor will adopt it and charge out pants off to fix it.
The question is fine. The reporter did it in a slimey way. It's also perhaps not the best thing to advertise to the enemy that all the hummers aren't armored.
Â
Â
"The question is fine. The reporter did it in a slimey way."
The Guardsman didn't have to be a part of it if he didn't want to. I've heard it got a pretty good ovation
"It's also perhaps not the best thing to advertise to the enemy that all the hummers aren't armored."
Can't be that big a secret. They're fired upon regularly.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on Dec 9, 2004 at 05:52pm.]