I haven't seen this mentioned here yet.

"US

 

And now they're giving a marine shit for firing on a unarmed, wounded insurgent after he (the marine) had been shot just the day prior. But they want to fly prisoners to another country to avoid having to observe US law...and on my tax coin? F**k that. I'm sorry to say, but there are some (read: many) people who don't deserve to be called Americans. This just gets uglier and uglier.

 

Oh cmon....

I just read that article and it's 99 percent innuendo 1% fact. That article is more yellow than a spa S.

Matter of fact I call BS to most of it.

I'll bet you all read the NYT as gospel too.

fltsfshr

 

Flts

That is the Times of Ireland, not the New York Times. Is this guilt by association? Or simply a case of killing the messenger because you don't like the message?

 

Mornin Rob

I don't like the message because it was a very slanted piece of journalism presented as undocumented fact.

I consider it another example of the "Kill Bush" syndrome like the one you pointed out in a New York Times piece in another thread.

There needs to be a change in the press and the media, not a new change but a return to an older philosophy. One that separates fact and fiction. One where editorial and news are different entities.

The whole world wants to be blog...damn.

fltsfshr

 

Geez, let's just rulle out ANY newspaper named the Times, you know that they all lie.

I guess we just have to watch Fox News so that we can get the ONLY real news.

You know that the media (other than Fox) ONLY reports the bad things, and never the good things.

 

I find this hard to believe.

 

Fox is just as bad as all the rest. Everything is agenda slanted. At least Fox segments it's news somewhat, CNN just mixes it all together. Either way neither is objective. Everybody's ruled by ratings.

fltsfshr

 

Flts

Goodmorning flts, how is everything in paradise? We could use some of your horrible weather up here.

Those pieces that I posted from the New York Times were editorial/op-ed pieces. I mentioned that and that was also contained in the header of the article. No attempt was made by me or the Times to portray it as anything other than that. If in fact I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

As far as unbiased, factual reporting goes, I think you would be hard pressed to find any news agency today that hasn't let some bias creep into the news. Those that you like are as guilty as those that you don't. The difference isn't in the reporting, the difference is in the reader's or viewer's point of view. I find it striking that most everyone I talk to seems to think that those news providers with views differing from their own are biased, but those news providers with views shared by the viewer/reader are unbiased. It seems mighty coincidental that the only news agencies that any of us think are accurate are the ones that tell us the news the way we want to hear it.

This is not a defense of the article posted above. I too have my doubts about it, and it seems to me that a story as big as this should be easy to collaborate. I would expect to see it shortly in other papers if in fact it is true. Still, I resent the guilt by association. If you don't like the message, don't kill the messenger, and especially don't kill the other messengers because of this one.

 

Deb,
This has been rumored and suspected for quite a while.
Here is a link to a briefing from Human Rights Watch (I know that that some will want to look at this like a commie, pinko org, but they are non-partisan).
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/us1227.htm

For those that do not wish to read the entire article here is an excerpt.
The post that is quote is the Washington Post, another liberal outlet.
The dateline on this article is New York, December 27, 2002