Speakeasy forum

General discussion

If you needed further proof which side the NYT is on :-(

by Evie / July 15, 2006 11:29 PM PDT
The Media Are the Enemy

New York Times photographer Joao Silva was right there in the room as a member of Muqtada al-Sadr?s ?Mahdi Army? tried to kill American troops

Assistant Managing Editor for Photography Michele McNally comments on this one:

A sniper loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al Sadr fires towards U.S. positions in the cemetery in Najaf, Iraq.

Michele McNally: ?Right there with the Mahdi army. Incredible courage.?

As another blogger noted, it would only be incredible courage if the photographer felt unsafe among the enemy!
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: If you needed further proof which side the NYT is on :-(
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: If you needed further proof which side the NYT is on :-(
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
I must disagree Evie.
by Kiddpeat / July 15, 2006 11:35 PM PDT

Sitting quietly next to a terrorist sniper while he tries to kill American troops is very dangerous. Those troops have snipers also, and they are MUCH better than the one the reporter was next to. That's just one way the Americans kill terrorists.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) ;-)
by Evie / July 15, 2006 11:40 PM PDT
In reply to: I must disagree Evie.
Collapse -
by duckman / July 16, 2006 12:27 AM PDT
In reply to: I must disagree Evie.

The US is targeting the media

Collapse -
Didn't actually need further proof...
by EdH / July 16, 2006 12:20 AM PDT

but some do. If they have eyes to see and a willingness to look.

Collapse -
Aahh the simplicity of it all. It's not as if journalists
by Ziks511 / July 16, 2006 1:51 AM PDT

have been Killed in Iraq and elsewhere by the terrorists or anything. Try asking the family of Daniel Perle just how pro Al Qaeda he or his colleagues or his newspaper were. Oh yeah, you can't, he's dead, along with about a dozen of his colleagues, none of them killed by our side.

It takes such guts, such fortitude, such fearlessness, to write like you do from the safetyConnecticut. I currently have my best friend being chased out of Israel by Hezbollah. She's living at present in a bomb shelter, her archaeological dig open to the elements and no way to cover it as the Israeli's move up tanks (good, just so you know) because of Hezbollah attacks condemned in the New York Times (good, since you can't tell). She's leaving tomorrow, the road out escorted or even transported by the Israeli army will be the most dangerous part of the journey. Funny she doesn't share your prejudices in reading material, she's actually there. Then to Jerusalem to save as much of the material as possible, finish catalogueing, and photographing it and pass it along to the Israeli Archaeology Authorities. Her response. It's the fault of Hezbollah that she can't finish the dig, cover everything up to protect it from weather damage and probable pilferage.

My opinion, it's the fault of Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, the insurgents, the terrorists, Wahabism, and the school system in Pakistan that is anti-western, anti-American, pro-terrorist.

It's so easy to put words in other people's mouths and then react as if that's what they really think. It's cheap and dishonest too. There isn't a moderate or a liberal who would approve of any of this, or who approves of the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Al Sadr whom I'd like to see a piano fall on right now, and every other nasty you care to mention.

None of this is coming from a government like for example North Viet Nam who played a far more cunning and for them costly game, and who did get foreign journalists on their side. What appeared in American newspapers then were mostly stories of Democratic and Republican Administration excesses in pusuing the anti-war movement or illegal acts like burglarizing Daniel Ellesberg's psychiatrist's office, or Watergate. None of that was Anti-American, or even particularly liberal, it was just reporting the news. Even that doesn't make the newspapers liberal, or Anti-American, or pro Hanoi. It just means they were following a story.

Yes, again from the Viet Nam War, the rules for the underdog appear different from those applied to the US. The US is expected to show better levels of conduct because the US is expected to be more civilized than a third world country.

Now I don't think this applies to terrorists. Terrorists, even well organized terrorists, have no country to represent, or to represent them. Their actions are by definition inhumane, beyond ethics, and they themselves are reprehensible. Their actions are deliberately inhumane so as to attract as much attention as possible. Terrorism, since you ask(!?) is a 19th Century Russian invention meant to attack an absolutist monarchy. Mostly it was directed at the Monarchy viz the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand and his wife that started World War 1.

The new terrorism was invented by Yasser Arafat.

Were there a foolproof way of differentiating Al Qaeda from the average Afghan or any other captive in US custody, I would suggest the death penalty in all cases. But there is no foolproof way. I truly wish there were, for every terrorist in every country, including Canada which has its Sikh terrorists who blew up a 747 in mid Atlantic killing about 300. I would round up Armenian terrorists, even though I support their cause. I would round up Kurdish terrorists, even though I support their cause. I would happily see Hammas decimated (in this case reduced to 1/10th), Hezbollah obliterated, Al Qaeda obliterated, Wahabbism denounced by the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, its practitioners rounded up and the terrorists among them executed. I would also see Western funding for a non religion based education system in Pakistan and a truth campaign by respected Islamic scholars clerics and imams who are not Anti-Western to start with, people with experience of the West speaking out and contradicting all the lies that are taught and believed in most Islamic countries about the West.

Western Oil Companies have bribed and lied and cheated there way through the Middle East. Britain and the United States have changed governments there as it suited them, why shouldn't those in the Middle East feel that they are the pawns of Western interests. Sadly this belief comes to its fullest strength just as the Western domination is ending.

Maybe what is needed is a species of Truth and Reconciliation commission.

The one group who are not at fault in this whole sorry mess are the fictional "liberal media" who are viewed as the devil by Islamists and terrorists everywhere.


Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Can you make a concise point?
by duckman / July 16, 2006 3:39 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yes. Concise but imprecise.
by Ziks511 / July 23, 2006 2:12 PM PDT
Collapse -
That's what is so striking about your thinking Rob. You do
by Kiddpeat / July 16, 2006 3:58 AM PDT

not hesitate to castigate arm chair observers while writing from the comfort of your arm chair. You are like a sports fan. You think that because you, allegedly, know someone on the scene, that you are on the scene in the thick of the action. From your front line position, you can fearlessly castigate those with opinions and perspectives that you don't like.

It may strike you as a good thing to sit quietly while a sniper lines up his or her sights to kill American troops. Most Americans would not be able to do that. You claim to be the great historian. What respected journalist sat quietly next to German or Japanese troops while they prepared to kill Americans? Just one name Rob. You should be able to do that.

Collapse -
All that foam and spittle and...

you still didn't get around to addressing the left recline of the New York Times.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) I said that and my post was zapped
by duckman / July 16, 2006 4:06 AM PDT
Collapse -
i said was boreing but pulled
by Mark5019 / July 16, 2006 4:17 AM PDT

they leave his crap up and pull our responces

Collapse -
You said ''foam and spittle''?
by JP Bill / July 23, 2006 2:26 PM PDT

And your post was zapped?

That is strange.

Collapse -
Of course I did, I don't think it exists, but because it
by Ziks511 / July 23, 2006 2:15 PM PDT

conflicts with your point of view you can't see it.


Collapse -
What an imagination!
by Edward ODaniel / July 24, 2006 8:53 AM PDT

do you really even convince yourself?

Collapse -
I suspect Rob tries, but ........................
by Kiddpeat / July 24, 2006 2:29 PM PDT
In reply to: What an imagination!


Collapse -
All that bandwidth
by Evie / July 16, 2006 7:47 AM PDT

Did you say anything important?

Collapse -
Importance is in the eye of the beholder.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / July 17, 2006 1:34 PM PDT
In reply to: All that bandwidth

It's clearly not a "knee-jerk" post, like so many here. JMO.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Clearly a kneejerk
by Evie / July 17, 2006 11:15 PM PDT

Some verbal diarrea is just more abundant. JMO.

Oh! Did you catch the ad hominem (or was that ad feminam?!) attack? Didn't think so.

Collapse -
If you attack a white rapper in an argument...
by EdH / July 17, 2006 11:34 PM PDT
In reply to: Clearly a kneejerk

is that "ad eminem"?

I didn't machete my way through that verbal thicket. I've learned better. Wondering if DK really did or just wanted to get the needle in.

Collapse -
I suspect the latter ...
by Evie / July 17, 2006 11:39 PM PDT

... typical.

The word Connecticut caught my eye so I read that part. On skimming one could see that nothing was said about the journalist being in a room with a terrorist shooting at Americans, so I ignored it.

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Not to you. I could only say something important to you
by Ziks511 / July 23, 2006 2:34 PM PDT
In reply to: All that bandwidth

in a few words if I agreed with you, which by and large I don't. Though unlike the majority here, I do make note of times I agree with people I am normally in disagreement with, and thank them for their posts when I appreciate the point made.

I find the 3 word to 3 sentence posts here lacking in substance and nuance. Of course nuance is a bad word in the conservative world so you tend to avoid it. To me the usual NT post looks more like sniping than communication. Little of substance short of "I love you" can be said in 3 words. Even "you're an idiot" is open to disagreement, interpretation, or editing by the moderators. Just to be clear that was an example not directed to anyone at all.

I enjoy other peoples more extensively expressed opinions here, it gives a much clearer point of view and I find I tend to disagree less the longer and clearer the post.

It also baffles me that a fairly clear moderately long post is castigated not for substance but for length. Reporters find themselves in all kinds of strange and dangerous places, and usually "Survive to file the story?" is the number one commandment.

Any way, I'm neither making friends here, nor making headway on the understanding front. Its all becoming pretty pointless, which doesn't mean I won't continue, It just means I'l probably be doing it less to the relief of the loudest here.

May some species of enlightenment reach you at sometime or another.


Collapse -
Besides, I've already put my money where my mouth is.
by Ziks511 / July 23, 2006 3:00 PM PDT
In reply to: All that bandwidth

I've got 200 pages of manuscript and interviews written, and the work continues apace. I've got a list of Nathan's students, I've already interviewed his ex-wife and his wife at the time of his death. If any of you can keep your patience until publication day, you can see first hand if I can deliver the goods or not.

Of course not sniping and badmouthing for a year or so is a lot to ask, but at least I'm putting myself on the line, actually trying to produce a publishable work, rather than resorting to self amusement on SE.


Collapse -
SE is not an essay writing contest ...
by Evie / July 23, 2006 10:53 PM PDT

... nor is it endearing yourself to a group to refer to this forum/discussions as merely "warming your chops" for something *important*.

The reason you got the response you did to your rant was just that -- it was a rant, containing little if any substance related to the subject of the thread with a personal attack or two thrown in the mix.

The thread was about an American journalist being IN THE ROOM with the enemy taking sniper hits at Americans. He didn't just "find himself" there. This has nothing to do with your archeologist friend, Hezbollah, Vietnam, and whatever else you threw into your post.

Collapse -
One can only hope that...
by Edward ODaniel / July 24, 2006 9:01 AM PDT

you researched the "facts" for the book MUCH better and more thoroughly and from more credible sources than most of the blather you disgorge here.
ALSO that it tracks better with the actual topic.

Collapse -
Plain treason
by dirtyrich / July 23, 2006 3:54 PM PDT

these journalists have forgotten what nation they belong to. Try them and hang them for treason.

Collapse -
I do wonder
by dirtyrich / July 23, 2006 10:59 PM PDT

if the US had inadvertantly taken the journalist out with the sniper, if the NYT would have whined about the US killing non-combatants. I'm guessing they would...
Oh, and the US would have been performing a service to the nation in this circumstance.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) As with so many other "innocent" non-combatants :-(
by Evie / July 23, 2006 11:04 PM PDT
In reply to: I do wonder
Collapse -
They have already mentioned just...
by Edward ODaniel / July 24, 2006 8:56 AM PDT
In reply to: I do wonder

such things with regard to a Lebanese Journalist with Hezbollah and don't forget their articles around the time if the Italian incident about "targetting journalists".

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?