Gitmo abuses confirmed

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course it's a Friday afternoon dump, the best time to release some news and have it not get much coverage. The Bush adminstration always does this.


Brought to you by one of those partisan Republican conservatives at DailyKos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/3/195345/7020

[The Duke]

jfern leavews out the fact that the abusers were disciplined, just as the Abu Ghraib abusers were.

[Richard]

It is a pity that it wasn't released on a Monday.  I agree with jfern.  I admire those brave soldiers that had the balls to "abuse" the Koran.  I see nothing wrong with it.

[Joe Republic]

I agree with jfern.

Uh oh.  This does not bode well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern leavews out the fact that the abusers were disciplined, just as the Abu Ghraib abusers were.

I hadn't heard that part. But perhaps they'll find some lowly enlisted men to blame it all on.

[??????????]

"Abuse" is such a subjective term really. Flushing a couple of Korans down the toilet doesn't bother me very much, neither does Abu Gharib.

[opebo]

"Abuse" is such a subjective term really. Flushing a couple of Korans down the toilet doesn't bother me very much, neither does Abu Gharib.

Wait till the secularists get control of this new all-powerful unchecked State.  We'll feed you to the lions.

[dazzleman]

Yawn.

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

But everybody else should show these people obsequious respect.  What a load of bulls**t.

[Richard]

"Abuse" is such a subjective term really. Flushing a couple of Korans down the toilet doesn't bother me very much, neither does Abu Gharib.

Ditto.  I've seen worse done at frat parties.  Tied up naked with a few other people?

*shrug* OOOH, the world is going to END!!!!

[opebo]

Yawn.

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

But everybody else should show these people obsequious respect.  What a load of bulls**t.

It has nothing to do with respect, it has to do with a transparent system of implementing State force, with third party oversight.  Without that, we're all in terrible danger - certainly far more than from a few 'terrorists'.

[Jake]

Better to just eliminate those at the base and rid ourselves of this constant problem. Maybe release them on an aircraft and shoot it down.

[Gabu]

Yawn.

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

But everybody else should show these people obsequious respect.  What a load of bulls**t.

Personally, I think that attaching the word "abuse" to this action that doesn't even directly do anything to those involved whatsoever is an incredibly stupid thing to do that degrades every real form of actual abuse and torture that occurs in the world.  Physical and psychological abuse are serious things.  But simply treating a book with something that its owners consider a lack of respect?  I mean, come on.

But maybe that's just me.

[12th Doctor]

Of course it's a Friday afternoon dump, the best time to release some news and have it not get much coverage. The Bush adminstration always does this.

Funny that you should mention that, because it was the Clinton Administration that had acctually mastered that tactic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

Ah, yet another strawman. Who here said that was perfectly OK? Show me exact quotes and not just blind claims that's what liberals believe.

And this is from someone who doesn't even give a  about the Koran.

[The Duke]

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

Ah, yet another strawman. Who here said that was perfectly OK? Show me exact quotes and not just blind claims that's what liberals believe.

And this is from someone who doesn't even give a f**ck about the Koran.

Tally up the front page stories in the NYT about Gitmo then tally up the number of stories about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban.  Take a guess which got more coverage.

[Palefire]

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

Ah, yet another strawman. Who here said that was perfectly OK? Show me exact quotes and not just blind claims that's what liberals believe.

And this is from someone who doesn't even give a f**ck about the Koran.

Tally up the front page stories in the NYT about Gitmo then tally up the number of stories about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban.  Take a guess which got more coverage.

Oh, oh pick me, pick me.

My guess would be the one that American Forces were involved in, because the NYT though that maybe (just maybe) Americans would be more interested in buying newspapers with stories about Americans in them as opposed to the Taliban at a time in which very few people knew who the Taliban were. Does that make their choice right - no. Does it make it wrong - no. Does it make it Liberal - no. Does it make it conservative - no. Does it make for selling more newspapers - yes, which does, in an odd sort of way - make it a more conservative choice.

[The Duke]

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

Ah, yet another strawman. Who here said that was perfectly OK? Show me exact quotes and not just blind claims that's what liberals believe.

And this is from someone who doesn't even give a f**ck about the Koran.

Tally up the front page stories in the NYT about Gitmo then tally up the number of stories about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban.  Take a guess which got more coverage.

Oh, oh pick me, pick me.

My guess would be the one that American Forces were involved in, because the NYT though that maybe (just maybe) Americans would be more interested in buying newspapers with stories about Americans in them as opposed to the Taliban at a time in which very few people knew who the Taliban were. Does that make their choice right - no. Does it make it wrong - no. Does it make it Liberal - no. Does it make it conservative - no. Does it make for selling more newspapers - yes, which does, in an odd sort of way - make it a more conservative choice.

We had 40 consecutive days with Abu Ghraib on the front page of the NYT.  How many consecutive days were the USS Cole and Khobar Towers bombings on the front page?  The Cole and Khobar obviously affected Americans, as mnay were killed in these attacks.

[Palefire]

It's OK for Muslims to wantonly murder thousands of innocent people, destroy monuments to other religions, and express the most vile forms of racial hatred toward practitioners of other religions, particularly Jews.

Ah, yet another strawman. Who here said that was perfectly OK? Show me exact quotes and not just blind claims that's what liberals believe.

And this is from someone who doesn't even give a f**ck about the Koran.

Tally up the front page stories in the NYT about Gitmo then tally up the number of stories about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban.  Take a guess which got more coverage.

Oh, oh pick me, pick me.

My guess would be the one that American Forces were involved in, because the NYT though that maybe (just maybe) Americans would be more interested in buying newspapers with stories about Americans in them as opposed to the Taliban at a time in which very few people knew who the Taliban were. Does that make their choice right - no. Does it make it wrong - no. Does it make it Liberal - no. Does it make it conservative - no. Does it make for selling more newspapers - yes, which does, in an odd sort of way - make it a more conservative choice.

We had 40 consecutive days with Abu Ghraib on the front page of the NYT.  How many consecutive days were the USS Cole and Khobar Towers bombings on the front page?  The Cole and Khobar obviously affected Americans, as mnay were killed in these attacks.

I don't know (and that wasn't what you asked for a guess on originally) - but I would imagine that both Khobar and Cole recieved quite a bit less coverage, because new information was not being released with the same frequency. Not that both happenings didn't receive a good deal of coverage. Putting the same story out, over and over again, most likely wouldn't sell newspapers either.

[The Duke]

My initial question was not what is most relevant.  It was the fact I attempted to demonstrate with that question that matters.  That fact is that certain people care when Americans abuse Muslims, but don't care when Muslims abuse other groups.

That fact is shown to be true by the disparity in coverage between the Muslim abuses of Buddhists and the American (much more minor) abuses of Muslims at Gitmo.

You declared my comparison invalid, as the abuses of Buddhists did not affect Americans.  So I found you an example of an abuse of Americans.  Even though the abuses by Americans were very minor (abuses of a mere book) and the abuses by Muslims were very major (killing hundreds of people) there was still more coverage of the abuses by Americans.

[Jake]

A question, how many days was a story about 9/11 on the front page of the NY Times? Just interested.

[Palefire]

My initial question was not what is most relevant.  It was the fact I attempted to demonstrate with that question that matters.  That fact is that certain people care when Americans abuse Muslims, but don't care when Muslims abuse other groups.

That fact is shown to be true by the disparity in coverage between the Muslim abuses of Buddhists and the American (much more minor) abuses of Muslims at Gitmo.

You declared my comparison invalid, as the abuses of Buddhists did not affect Americans.  So I found you an example of an abuse of Americans.  Even though the abuses by Americans were very minor (abuses of a mere book) and the abuses by Muslims were very major (killing hundreds of people) there was still more coverage of the abuses by Americans.

Actually, I was just noting that the use of the NYT to make your point was invalid - because they are in the business of selling newspapers to Americans, and as such bow to certain market pressures and particle realities. If your point is that Americans are, for the most part, more interested in what other Americans are doing than people from other nations. Then I agree with you 100%. People in this country have no control over other governments and do not pay taxes to fund the actions of other governments. While I think it is a very positive thing to be informed about what is happening elsewhere, I think it is rather fanciful to expect the American people (and thus the American media) to be as interested in things they can not control as things they can exert some small control over. Not every thing is a conspiracy – sometimes it’s just business.

[The Duke]

So I found you a story of Muslims killing Americans that STILL leaves your whole argument invalidated.

Once I bring up Khobar, its no longer an issue of representing or not representing something Americans find relevant.  And given the most recent circulation numbers, if the #1 concern of the NYT is to sell newspapers, tey're coming up shorter and shorter each quarter.

[Palefire]

So I found you a story of Muslims killing Americans that STILL leaves your whole argument invalidated.

Once I bring up Khobar, its no longer an issue of representing or not representing something Americans find relevant.  And given the most recent circulation numbers, if the #1 concern of the NYT is to sell newspapers, tey're coming up shorter and shorter each quarter.

I think all newspapers are coming up shorter these days - you know, the internet and all that jive. The only point that I'm making is that Americans are more interested in Americans, which Khobar doesn't make invalid, nor does anything else - because it's true. I don't think you're arguing that point though. As such, it affects news coverage. The side bar point I made was that a story can only stay alive as long as new information is being produced. Once a story has been told, it's very hard to revisit it without new information. That's a large part of why some stories, such as Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, stay alive for so long. They match up with both criteria. They deal with Americans and there is new information being generated. I don’t see anything sinister in that. Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are both news worthy – as are all the other things you mentioned. If new information was produced on any of them I would expect the NYT to cover them; and I’m sure they would.

[Ebowed]

"Abuse" is such a subjective term really. Flushing a couple of Korans down the toilet doesn't bother me very much, neither does Abu Gharib.

Abuse isn't really that subjective of a term; either it's abuse or it isn't.  As someone who has a strong dislike of Islam and the Koran, I don't particularly mind the fact that they were flushed, but what if they did that to our Bibles?  Abu Gharib on the other hand was a serious deal.  Those pictures were ing scary, and it's sad that the Bush administration touts Iraq as a success.

[??????????]

"Abuse" is such a subjective term really. Flushing a couple of Korans down the toilet doesn't bother me very much, neither does Abu Gharib.

Abuse isn't really that subjective of a term; either it's abuse or it isn't.  As someone who has a strong dislike of Islam and the Koran, I don't particularly mind the fact that they were flushed, but what if they did that to our Bibles?  Abu Gharib on the other hand was a serious deal.  Those pictures were g scary, and it's sad that the Bush administration touts Iraq as a success.

Those pictures were juvenile hazing. They certainly weren't torture and the only reason we were inflicted any damage due to them were because the liberal media published the photos. The media is a huge threat to our freedom nowadays as they are attempting to undermine every war effort we make. If they had done such things in WW2 the editors would have been jailed for treason.