PDA

View Full Version : Iraqis Arrest Four in Berg Beheading



moblsv
05-21-2004, 07:39 AM
Just came across AP - Waiting on full story.

Iraqi police have arrested four people in the killing of American Nicholas Berg and believe a nephew of Saddam Hussein was involved in Berg's beheading, an Iraqi security official said Friday.

moblsv
05-21-2004, 07:42 AM
Here's one

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4953015/

Nightstalker
05-21-2004, 08:08 AM
Great news, I hope those scum get what is coming to them.

eg8r
05-21-2004, 10:50 AM
On the CNN website it is not even the main story...Surprise, the main story is of US troops shooting a convoy. How is this bigger news than the Berg story. The Berg story is a top story, however it only says 2 were arrested. What are they reporting? Even Foxnews does not have the Berg story as the top story. They are still talking about Chalabai. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It just does not make any sense how the Berg story has dwindled away so fast, yet we keep seeing more and more pics of the prison abuse. My gosh, those prisoners were not hurt at all but humiliated and the newspapers cannot run enough stories about it, however when an American is beheaded by the terrorists, the media has done their part to steer clear (as much as possible).

eg8r

pooltchr
05-21-2004, 11:03 AM
Go back and look at the "Is media biased?" thread. Almost 2 weeks ago, I said that the news accounts of what the US troops did would still be in the news when this story would drop from coverage. O-K, it hasn't dropped, but which story is still the lead story?????

Something is VERY wrong here!

Wally_in_Cincy
05-21-2004, 11:06 AM
I happened to catch Dan Rather the day after that thread was started. He was back to the prison story after one day

To be fair I think that was the day Rummy testified so that may have had something to do with it.

highsea
05-21-2004, 11:41 AM
Sh*t, You get halfway down the MSNBC story, and what do you see? A break, and a big red hotlink; Related Story: <font color="red"> WashPost: New photos, Video of Abuse </font color>

It's pretty obvious where they are trying to steer the attention of the reader. Unbelievable.

-CM

Nightstalker
05-21-2004, 12:25 PM
Oh, yeah, there is no bias at all in this situation right?

Anyway, we all know this is a simple media ploy designed specifically to make the President look bad. It is truly pathetic.

Ross
05-21-2004, 05:15 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> On the CNN website it is not even the main story...Surprise, the main story is of US troops shooting a convoy. How is this bigger news than the Berg story. The Berg story is a top story, however it only says 2 were arrested. What are they reporting? Even Foxnews does not have the Berg story as the top story. They are still talking about Chalabai. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

It just does not make any sense how the Berg story has dwindled away so fast, yet we keep seeing more and more pics of the prison abuse. My gosh, those prisoners were not hurt at all but humiliated and the newspapers cannot run enough stories about it, however when an American is beheaded by the terrorists, the media has done their part to steer clear (as much as possible).

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Eg8r, how can you say - especially when arguing against "biased reporting" - that the Iraqis "weren't hurt at all only humiliated"? Is that an unbiased, fair description of what happened to detainees that were beaten, sodomized, left bleeding after being attacked by guard dogs, and in few case, killed by thier guards/interrogators? One of the photos released yesterday shows a pretty US soldier grinning with a thumbs up sign next to the body of an Iraqi who had just been beaten to death in the shower by US interrogators.

And even if it is not what any of want to hear this IS news. When the supposed good guys (US) torture and kill people from the country they are liberating, and you have pictures of this torture, and some of the pictures are sexually graphic, and you have soldiers saying they got orders from higher up, and the higher ups are saying they never gave such orders, and there are Congressional and Senate hearings, and there are ramifications for Bush and Rumsfeld, and ramifications for US success in Iraq, and ramifications for how much legitimacy we will have in complaining if our captured soldiers are tortured (after all we hold other countries accountable to the Geneva convention), how the hell - as an unbiased reporter- are you not going to lead with this story? And it is a story that -- by its nature (hearings, trials, he said-she said, Democrat vs. Republican, etc.) -- will unfold over days andweeks.

As I said on the other thread - the beheading is also a major story. It was the lead story when it happened and Iraqi reaction was one of the lead stories over the next couple of days. Then the suspicion that it was that guy Zakari or whatever his name is was another front page story. And when the suspects are captured, that gets front page coverage too. In between, what are the reporters going to write headlines about? Berg still dead? Suspects still not captured? The terrorists are still disgusting human beings?

We all expect terrorists to act like terrorists. The gruesome nature of Berg's killing of course made this more of a story. But, by definition terrorists blow people up, they kill innocents, they are the bad guys. Similarly, when our soldiers kill dozens of suspected insurgents and sometimes "collaterally" kill civilians in the process it is news for only a few hours. Then that story also fades the next day. It doesn't fade because of a "conservative bias" to hide stories unflattering to the US. It fades because we've grown to expect this in times of war. However, we don't expect our soldiers to torture, sexually abuse, and beat to death detainees while laughing and taking pictures apparently at times for shixxs and giggles. At least I don't. And that is why it is a bigger story - not because of some "liberal conspiracy." Just like the reading of the names of the war dead wasn't evidence of an anti-Bush "liberal conspiracy."

Ross
05-22-2004, 01:20 AM
A new media report waiting for its "liberal-biased anti-Bush administration conspiracy" label:

"Pentagon: 33 death cases being investigated in Iraq, Afghanistan
WASHINGTON(AP) The Pentagon has begun criminal investigations of at least 37 deaths involving detainees held by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials said Friday. There are 33 cases involved, the officials said, eight more than the military reported two weeks ago.
The officials said they could not immediately say for sure the exact number of deaths involved.

Eight pending cases have been classified as homicides involving suspected assaults of detainees before or during interrogation sessions, a senior military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

..."

I just can't understand why the media keep making such a big deal of the silly hijinks of a few soldiers. Don't they know that it doesn't count when our soldiers beat unarmed naked men to death?

highsea
05-22-2004, 02:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> I just can't understand why the media keep making such a big deal of the silly hijinks of a few soldiers. Don't they know that it doesn't count when our soldiers beat unarmed naked men to death?
<hr /></blockquote>

I couldn't agree with you more, Ross. We need to be focusing on the socio-economical-cultural-political ramifications of the cumulative societal loss caused by the satanical murder of millions of unborn fetuses promoted by the vast right-wing-military-industrial-complex of christianist fanatical oilmen zealots.

That's the real problem.

-CM

Ching_Ah_Chung
05-24-2004, 01:20 PM
got busted? damn...

Ching_Ah_Chung
05-24-2004, 01:25 PM
come to Allah's.

Signature

HEY! me a muslim ain't no beef with that do you?

TomBrooklyn
05-24-2004, 01:43 PM
Which laws will the alledged beheaders be tried under: the laws of the western invaders or the laws of the invaded country, the Sacred Laws of Islam, and/or normal Muslim jurisprudence?

More info (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371) for those who are who are non-bigoted enough to at least tolerate, if not embrace, cultures other than their own.

TomBk

eg8r
05-24-2004, 02:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r, how can you say - especially when arguing against "biased reporting" - that the Iraqis "weren't hurt at all only humiliated"? Is that an unbiased, fair description of what happened to detainees that were beaten, sodomized, left bleeding after being attacked by guard dogs, and in few case, killed by thier guards/interrogators? One of the photos released yesterday shows a pretty US soldier grinning with a thumbs up sign next to the body of an Iraqi who had just been beaten to death in the shower by US interrogators.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't believe what I posted was biased, simply because I was stating the majority of what has been shown to us.

[ QUOTE ]
And even if it is not what any of want to hear this IS news. When the supposed good guys (US) torture and kill people from the country they are liberating, and you have pictures of this torture, and some of the pictures are sexually graphic, and you have soldiers saying they got orders from higher up, and the higher ups are saying they never gave such orders, and there are Congressional and Senate hearings, and there are ramifications for Bush and Rumsfeld, and ramifications for US success in Iraq, and ramifications for how much legitimacy we will have in complaining if our captured soldiers are tortured (after all we hold other countries accountable to the Geneva convention), how the hell - as an unbiased reporter- are you not going to lead with this story? And it is a story that -- by its nature (hearings, trials, he said-she said, Democrat vs. Republican, etc.) -- will unfold over days andweeks.
<hr /></blockquote> I don't think you need to "lead" with this story for weeks at a time, when no new information is being given. All that is being said is that they are going to show a couple more photos, with the complete intent on stringing along the viewers/readers. Very little new information comes out each day but you continue to see it near the top of the headlines. Do you like to be continually beaten over the head? I don't. The beginning of the first sentence in this paragraph almost makes me think you feel a bit sorry for the detainees because we were trying to liberate them...I don't think we were particulary trying to liberate those who try to murder our soldiers.

After all that, do you really think this is more important news than Berg being beheaded? Why should we be forced to follow the rules when our enemy is not (this is a rhetorical question because I do understand and agree with the moral responsibility)? This should never have happened, however, the absolute majority of the information that we have been told about the detainees is no where near as bad as the beheading.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said on the other thread - the beheading is also a major story. It was the lead story when it happened and Iraqi reaction was one of the lead stories over the next couple of days. Then the suspicion that it was that guy Zakari or whatever his name is was another front page story. And when the suspects are captured, that gets front page coverage too. In between, what are the reporters going to write headlines about? Berg still dead? Suspects still not captured? The terrorists are still disgusting human beings?
<hr /></blockquote> I guess we just had different news coverage, but to think Berg was the main story for a "couple" days is crazy. It was the lead story one day, but starting drifting back soon after. Even the NY Times mentioned it first on the 11th page of the newspaper. How about that for a lead story.

The sentence that I have bolded is exactly what I was stating above in this post. Why is it alright for the detainee photos to be shown a few at a time, when we are learning nothing new (The detainees were still humiliated, do we need to see 5 more pictures about it each day)? This is a double standard.

[ QUOTE ]
We all expect terrorists to act like terrorists. The gruesome nature of Berg's killing of course made this more of a story. But, by definition terrorists blow people up, they kill innocents, they are the bad guys. Similarly, when our soldiers kill dozens of suspected insurgents and sometimes "collaterally" kill civilians in the process it is news for only a few hours. Then that story also fades the next day. It doesn't fade because of a "conservative bias" to hide stories unflattering to the US. It fades because we've grown to expect this in times of war. However, we don't expect our soldiers to torture, sexually abuse, and beat to death detainees while laughing and taking pictures apparently at times for shixxs and giggles. At least I don't. And that is why it is a bigger story - not because of some "liberal conspiracy." Just like the reading of the names of the war dead wasn't evidence of an anti-Bush "liberal conspiracy." <hr /></blockquote> In the section that I bolded, do you believe that a person walking onto a bus and blowing up innocent women and children for the sake of blowing them up on purpose is the same thing as collateral damage in a war in which we are trying to kill enemies and innocent people are killed on accident? My gosh, if this is a correlation you are trying to make, tell us now? The suicide bomber's goal is to kill innocent people on purpose, do you believe that is the same as us killing and innocent person on accident? The outcome is the same, I agree, but is that the issue?

eg8r

Ross
05-24-2004, 05:32 PM
Ok eg8r, we disagree. I see a number of reasons why the prison abuse story has greater media "legs" than the beheading - you apparently don't. It's just like events surrounding Clinton's bj and his lie to deny it were front page news across the nation for many, many weeks. And news from the Martha Stewart trial displaced the prison abuse as the lead story on Friday. Any time there are hearings and guilt or innocence to be decided, the media knows the public will keep reading about unfolding developments. I just don't think it is very productive to cry "bias" every time the media reports news that is not a comfortable fit with our own worldview.

And, no I don't think we are worse than the terrorists. The first cause of the Iraq war is Saddam Hussein, not the US. The first cause of the misery the Iraqi people are going through now are the misguided insurgents, not the US occupation. Nevertheless, I hold my country to a higher standard. For me, being better than the terrorists just doesn't help me minimize the meaning of any atrocious behaviors committed by anyone who is a representing my country.

But that's just me - what do I know? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
05-25-2004, 05:52 AM
We agree to disagree. You are right, I don't see all your points (quite obvious you are not seeing mine), and frankly I feel your previous post was a bit double-sided. You say there is no reason to continue talking about Berg because he is dead. Fine, then why continue talking about detainees when there is no new information?

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
05-25-2004, 06:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>..... to think Berg was the main story for a "couple" days is crazy. It was the lead story one day, but starting drifting back soon after. Even the NY Times mentioned it first on the 11th page of the newspaper. How about that for a lead story......
<hr /></blockquote>

Are you serious? Man that is so sad.

Although I did not see it, I heard that USA Today had that same picture of the prisoner standing on the bucket with the electrodes prominently displayed again yesterday. To me it's obvious what they are doing.

Ross is right about a couple of things though. The prison story has more legs because of the ramifications and the ongoing trials and investigations.

and also because it is not something we expect from our soldiers. The things that make the news are the unusual and the unexpected.

eg8r
05-25-2004, 07:56 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ross is right about a couple of things though. The prison story has more legs because of the ramifications and the ongoing trials and investigations.

and also because it is not something we expect from our soldiers. The things that make the news are the unusual and the unexpected. <hr /></blockquote> This may all true but it still is not a good explanation of an unbiased media. There is no way in the world that the beheading of Nick Berg was that miniscule that it is barely even in the news anymore. There were very very limited out cries in the media for Arab nations to denounce those actions, the American media has, for the most part, let it slip on by.

Here is an article I read from the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal email... [ QUOTE ]
The Abu Ghraib Obsession
"Today's press," writes Michael Barone, "works to put the worst possible face on the war" in Iraq. Is this an exaggeration? We'd have to say not. Consider the press's obsession with the Abu Ghraib prison abuses. Sure, it's a big and important story, but as others have pointed out, it's far from the only story in Iraq. Why, for example, did it get so much more coverage than the murder by terrorists of American civilian Nick Berg?

We suppose one could argue that point <font color="blue"> (Ross is doing a fine job) </font color> . But the surest sign that the journalistic obsession with Abu Ghraib has gotten out of hand is the way news stories on unrelated topics ritually invoke it. Today's New York Times has a good-news story, about an enemy defeat in Karbala. The article explains that "the retreat came at a time when the American military was being forced to defend itself in light of the prison scandal at Abu Ghraib." As if Times readers wouldn't already have heard about this.

It gets worse. Here are the first three paragraphs of a May 17 Associated Press dispatch:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on Monday praised a Supreme Court justice of a half-century ago for his commitment to "intellectual integrity" as chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials of accused war criminals.

Rehnquist made his remarks at the annual meeting of the American Law Institute, two days before the court-martial of Army Spc. Jeremy Sivits, the first soldier to stand trial for allegations of abuse of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.

Justice Robert Jackson accepted President Truman's invitation in 1945 to prosecute 22 German defendants accused of charges that included conducting harmful medical experiments on humans. Many of the Nazi defendants argued they were following orders from their superiors.

What in the world does the Sivits court-martial have to do with the Nuremberg trials? Well, both were legal proceedings, and both took place in the Northern Hemisphere, but that's about it. Yet not only does the AP's delightfully named reporter Hope Yen feel obliged to cite Abu Ghraib; she does so before she even mentions Justice Jackson, the subject of her article.

These Abu Ghraib non sequiturs are reminiscent of the way John Kerry constantly mentions his service in Vietnam, even when talking about things that have nothing to do with his service in Vietnam. "I served in Vietnam" is the one thing Kerry wants to make sure everyone knows about him. "Our soldiers abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib" is the one thing our press corps wants everyone to know about America. <hr /></blockquote> This article makes a great point that the prison scandal is not only the top news story on its own, but it is being embedded into every other story.

eg8r

Ross
05-25-2004, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Even the NY Times mentioned it first on the 11th page of the newspaper. How about that for a lead story. <hr /></blockquote>

This doesn't sound plausible. Source?

eg8r
05-25-2004, 12:34 PM
I believe I heard it on the Boortz show, but I was unable to find it in his notes.

eg8r

Qtec
05-25-2004, 12:45 PM
This is on the homepage of Boortz.com.

[ QUOTE ]
ALWAYS REMEMBER
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."
<hr /></blockquote>

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Q

eg8r
05-25-2004, 12:58 PM
Well, with a little more searching, I found a little bit different information. This is from Dennis Prager with townhall.com. Article (http://http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040518.shtml) ... [ QUOTE ]
On the day The New York Times reported the savage murder of Berg -- in the most subdued fashion of any major paper in America (just one column on the front page, with a photo, the smallest of three front-page photos, at the bottom of the column) -- <font color="blue"> its lead editorial was yet another in a series denouncing the Bush administration for prison abuses in Iraq.</font color>
<hr /></blockquote> I guess your best bet is to just head down to your library and take a look at the paper. You might not think the picture is so little, or maybe the column so narrow, however it is hard to believe it was given the same exposure as the prison scandal, and this is on the first day the video is available. We know what happened a day or two after that, Berg became an after thought.

Another recent example would be the sarin gas (not lethal since the terrorists did not know what they had). Why was that pushed under the rug so fast? The NY Times stated only traces were found of the gas. I guess somewhere between 3/4 and a full gallon is considered only "traces". Well, those traces could kill up to 60,000 people. I guess to the mainstream media that is only a "trace". Don't worry though, the prison abuse scandal pictures are still rolling (and we are learning nothing new), the media will not let us forget that ever happened. What do you think the media's agenda is for running this story into the ground, and giving slight notice to Berg and the sarin gas?

eg8r

eg8r
05-25-2004, 01:07 PM
That is real smart of you Q. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Is that all you have to share? LOL, it almost pains me to think you have ever done any research on the BBC articles you quote.

However, maybe I am to quick to think maybe you just shot off this post without reading the rest of my posts, maybe a careless shot in the dark. I will give you that. Since you did not bother to finish doing "your homework" by reading the rest of what I posted, I will tell you also, go get the paper and take a look at it yourself. The source is the NY Times, go look at it and come back and let us know if my correction was wrong also.

eg8r

eg8r
05-25-2004, 01:16 PM
Here is another example of the media's "coverage" the day the video was shown... [ QUOTE ]
Sadly, the distortions continued. With few exceptions, the Berg beheading was at best a two-day TV story, an obstacle to get around, a white-noise distraction from The Scandal. Berg died. The media's take: sad, but so what ( <font color="blue"> One could also believe this was Ross's take after reading what he posted </font color>) ? That shouldn't register in public opinion. On the very night the Berg story emerged, ABC's "Nightline" couldn't spend more than a few minutes on Berg before Ted Koppel was back to soliciting John McCain to explain what horrific treatment Americans might dish out next.

By the second night, even though NBC was showing the Berg photo in the show's introduction (sitting in front of his captors), but the newscast itself was sticking to prison abuse, prison abuse, prison abuse. Dan Rather was touting a new CBS poll showing "public support for the war in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level yet" and "the president's overall job approval rating in the latest poll is at a new low, 44 percent."

One wishes Rather had not skipped the other salient points about the CBS poll. By 57 to 37 percent, Americans surveyed didn't want any more prison abuse pictures to be released. And 49 percent said the media have spent too much time on the prison abuse story, compared to a mere 6 percent who think it's been undercovered. [/b]Not only were those poll results not aired, they don't seem to have caused anyone to put the brakes on the careening Abu Ghraib Express.

When it came time to sum up the week, the Sunday morning TV shows were predictably harping on prison abuse and mostly left the Berg story out. The weekly news magazines glossed over Berg in varying degrees. U.S. News &amp; World Report's cover read "Inside the Iraq Prison Scandal. The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. Why the System Broke. The Psychology of Torture." Inside the magazine carried 10 pages of Abu Ghraib coverage but gave just about three-fourths of a page to the Berg killing. Time carried a Bush/Iraq cover with no mention of Berg. It carried five different Abu Ghraib articles and one sidebar on Berg.

Newsweek was the worst of all. The cover carried the hot authors of the evangelical "Left Behind" novel series on the cover, with a top-of-cover plug for "The Truth About (U.S.) Torture." Inside the magazine, there was no Berg article. <hr /></blockquote> I am sure it is quite obvious one would have to travel over to some of the Conservative websites to get this info since there is no way in the world the liberals would admit to it.

Also, why is there very little mention of the military investigations that have gone on since January? Does anyone on this board really think the news people were the ones to break the story. I don't remember for sure, but I believe there was not one single mention of the military investigations, that have gone on for months, in the first week of the prison stories.

eg8r

eg8r
05-25-2004, 01:29 PM
http://ihateliberals.com/images/UnfinishedBusiness-X.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~does not visit the site this link came from, but I was forwarded to it /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r
05-25-2004, 01:40 PM
Here is another one.

http://www.boortz.com/images/funny/052504_what_media_bias.gif

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
05-25-2004, 01:47 PM
<font color="red">PRISON </font color>
<font color="blue">TORTURE </font color>
<font color="red">2004 </font color>

"CNN, all Abu-Ghirab, all the time"

"Your network for wall-to-wall coverage of a guy with panties on his head"

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ross
05-25-2004, 03:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Well, with a little more searching, I found a little bit different information. This is from Dennis Prager with townhall.com. Article (http://http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040518.shtml) ... &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
On the day The New York Times reported the savage murder of Berg -- in the most subdued fashion of any major paper in America (just one column on the front page, with a photo, the smallest of three front-page photos, at the bottom of the column) -- <font color="blue"> its lead editorial was yet another in a series denouncing the Bush administration for prison abuses in Iraq.</font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

OK, the "page 11" claim is not true. I'm glad that is out of the way.

Now the evidence that the media is liberally biased is that the front page article with picture of Berg was more subdued than other papers? The NYT front page is ALWAYS more subdued than other papers. (It isn't called the "gray old lady" for nothing. And I think you must know this.) And if the NYT is more subdued in its coverage then wouldn't if follow that the other media were flashier than the NYT's front-page-with-picture coverage? IMO, not a real good argument for a GENERAL media bias to underreport the story.

Then you cite Prager's complaint that the "lead editorial" on the same day was critical of the Bush administration for the prison abuses. This is so weak. First, the editorial page is separate from news pages for a reason. The Wall Street Journal has extremely conservative editorials - but that is not evidence that the WSJ's news coverage is conservatively biased, and you don't hear liberals making such claims. You don't judge a papers news reporting by its editorials. Second, it would be unrealistic to expect to see an editorial about a terrorist act the day the act happened. Editorials usually follow the news cycle by days or weeks, since they are commenting on the writers interpretation of the news. Prager is really fishing for arguments here.

Eg8r, you are obviously bright and could tell the difference between valid evidence and arguments and bogus ones if you really wanted to. But it seems you so want to prove a point that you say things like the Iraqi prisoners weren't really hurt and the NYT's buried the Berg story on the 11th page, both claims you should have been suspicious of right away. And when called on these incorrect assertions, you then dig up Prager's transparently weak and slanted arguments. Do you honestly not see your own biases in marshalling your "evidence of liberal bias"? There's some real irony there if you open your eyes to it.

Oh well, I tried. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Ross
05-25-2004, 03:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Berg died. The media's take: sad, but so what ( <font color="blue"> One could also believe this was Ross's take after reading what he posted </font color>) ? <hr /></blockquote>

Eg8r, please don't do that.

highsea
05-25-2004, 10:34 PM
http://stupidonymous.blogspot.com/ArabCartoon.jpg

highsea
05-25-2004, 10:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> Which laws will the alledged beheaders be tried under: the laws of the western invaders or the laws of the invaded country, the Sacred Laws of Islam, and/or normal Muslim jurisprudence?

More info (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371) for those who are who are non-bigoted enough to at least tolerate, if not embrace, cultures other than their own.

TomBk
<hr /></blockquote>

Which laws would you want to be tried under? Here's you normal Muslim Jurisprudence.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/main615986.shtml

-CM

eg8r
05-26-2004, 06:11 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> In between, what are the reporters going to write headlines about? Berg still dead? Suspects still not captured? The terrorists are still disgusting human beings?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r(quoting another source and adding note about Ross' comment from above):</font><hr> Berg died. The media's take: sad, but so what <font color="blue"> ( One could also believe this was Ross's take after reading what he posted ) </font color> ? <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ross:</font><hr> Eg8r, please don't do that. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Whether you are stating fact or trying to explain what reporters are thinking, it simply came across that way when I read it.

eg8r

eg8r
05-26-2004, 06:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Now the evidence that the media is liberally biased is that the front page article with picture of Berg was more subdued than other papers? The NYT front page is ALWAYS more subdued than other papers. <hr /></blockquote> Don't miss the point of the post...Of all the articles on the front page, Berg was not the headline story (He was the smallest story). The main point is about the NY Times (not the NY Times vs. every other paper) and what they chose to run as their headline story on the day the Berg murder was shown on video. If you cannot accept the fact that they were choosing to let it slip by and keep the readers focus on the Prison scandal, then I don't think you are trying very hard.

[ QUOTE ]
And if the NYT is more subdued in its coverage then wouldn't if follow that the other media were flashier than the NYT's front-page-with-picture coverage? IMO, not a real good argument for a GENERAL media bias to underreport the story. <hr /></blockquote> This is laughable at best. So are you saying a news paper is trying to be "flashy" by putting the top news story on the front page? THE NICK BERG VIDEO CAME OUT THAT DAY, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED "FLASHY" TO MAKE IT A HEADLINE STORY. Most all the other media felt it was important. I hope I am mis-reading your post.

[ QUOTE ]
Then you cite Prager's complaint that the "lead editorial" on the same day was critical of the Bush administration for the prison abuses. This is so weak. <hr /></blockquote> There was no "then you cite Prager's complaint" I was finishing off the sentence in the quote. The whole quote was from Prager?

[ QUOTE ]
First, the editorial page is separate from news pages for a reason. The Wall Street Journal has extremely conservative editorials - but that is not evidence that the WSJ's news coverage is conservatively biased, and you don't hear liberals making such claims. <hr /></blockquote> Are you going to argue some point that I brought up, or are you childishly going to argue the fact that I quoted from Townhall.com? This is childish. Do you have anything to say about the information that was provided? Do you have any comment on whether or not the NYT article that Prager is referring to was condemning of Bush? Did you bother to do anything prior to making this reply? Did you even read the fact that my quote came from townhall.com which I have found to be nearly 100% conservative on most issues?

[ QUOTE ]
Prager is really fishing for arguments here.
<hr /></blockquote> Which part do you think he was fishing for...The fact that the Berg article was tiny and not a headline, or the fact that the prison article might have been condemning of Bush?

[ QUOTE ]
But it seems you so want to prove a point that you say things like the Iraqi prisoners weren't really hurt and the NYT's buried the Berg story on the 11th page, both claims you should have been suspicious of right away. And when called on these incorrect assertions, you then dig up Prager's transparently weak and slanted arguments. Do you honestly not see your own biases in marshalling your "evidence of liberal bias"? There's some real irony there if you open your eyes to it.
<hr /></blockquote> Once again, you state it is transparent, however you never mention anything else. The 11th page issue I did think was odd, and I should have checked into that a little bit more, however, is the main point any different...The Berg story was not important enough to be the main, headline, story of the day? Has that changed at all? How was the prison scandal more important on that fateful day?

I don't see my bias marshalling anything, and if I remember correctly, I have stating in this thread at one point, that if someone would want to see this information, you would have to travel to a conservative site to read it. We all don't get the NYT but that does not mean the NYT chose not to run the Berg story as the headline. Am I being biased when I state the NYT thought the prison abuse scandal was the headline on the sad day the Berg video was made available? Is that being biased? I think you are just trying to make me look that way, because your argument does not hold ground on this subject.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
05-26-2004, 06:41 AM
Why did the Brits let them get away with that I wonder.

I'm sure TomBK would say that our culture is not necessarily better than theirs, just different. Surely we would be wrong to impose "our values" on such a modern progressive society.