Slashdot Mirror

The short answer is, that the group, as a whole, was not unarmed. If you look carefully, one of the guys has something that looks exactly like an RPG. It's definitely not a camera. It's a shame that he journalists were killed, but they were walking around in a warzone with people carrying weapons.

What's difficult for me to understand is why everyone who saw the first video hasn't seen the video clip with the RPG in it as well.

The explanation is simple: the group wasn't unarmed. If you look carefully at the video, one of the guys is carrying something that looks exactly like an RPG. Here's a close-up. It's definitely not a camera. So it's a shame that the two photographers were killed, but they were walking around in broad daylight in a warzone with someone slinging a weapon over their shoulder.

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed"

How about we just correct this outright. The Iraqis were armed and they were not civilians.
 

"When I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there," he said. "You just don't walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight."

Source

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed"

Geneva convention et al are quite clear in this regard. They are to be treated as unarmed civilians.

You appear to have attracted your desired 'intelligent responses' to your post, but they don't seem to back up your position.

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed", and the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV...

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.

When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason -- they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.

Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but:

1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...

2. ...if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.

People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.

Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.

Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.

Especially considering the email that said they thought it was like watching "a little LMSD soap opera,". While the statement could have been taken out of context("testing this is cool, this is like 'a little LMSD soap opera'"), it kind of implies they looked at something.

.
Guess what - you walk around with weapons taking shots at helicopters, they're going to call in for permission to counter and if received, counter. I know, doesn't play to the whole "collateral murder" URL though, does it? No flamebait there!

You mean the guy turning around at 3:45 doesn't have an RPG? Look at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

Now, some that guy is now behind that wall where the camera operator is crouching taking a picture of an allied APC http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 (possible it seems for bragging rights later based on that photogs other shots). If I were wanting to blow that up I'd crouch by the wall for cover to observe then move and fire - the pilots appear to believe the armed men are going to fire imminently and clearly become urgent to remove the threat. The taking of photos is the precursor to the RPG being used.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

You mean the guy turning around at 3:45 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=3m40s doesn't have an RPG? Look at http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php, still believe that.

That guy is now behind that wall (ie they have cover WRT the convoy) where the photog is crouching taking a picture of an allied APC (http://www.scribd.com/doc/29487634/Centcom-FOIA?page=41 ; possible it seems for bragging rights later). If I were wanting to blow that up I'd crouch by the wall for cover to observe then move and fire - the pilots appear to believe the armed men are going to fire imminently and clearly become urgent to remove the threat.

The pilots urgency is warranted IMO. The helicopters were called in as support, they are supporting and taking out an active threat in the process of targeting allied vehicles - if they weren't doing that then they'd be covering a medevac a minute or so later.

The insurgents don't react to the presence of the two helicopters as they are about 2000m or so away, observe the delay between the helo firing (sound) and the impact of the bullets in the video's view. Also note at one point one of the helo pilots states he lacks a shot due to wall cover and the other that he has a low azimuth warning preventing weapons firing. In short they are at distance and flying low.

This guy. http://i41.tinypic.com/343tb0j.jpg Please read the link below it where the anigif zoomed capture is from. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201889.php

Except for the guy with the AK-47 (3:43 in the video) and the guy with the RPG (3:35 in the video). The guy with the RPG ducks behind the building, and then someone (could be the same guy or maybe the cameraman -- it's hard to tell) points *something* around the corner of the building at the approaching Bradley vehicles that had just been engaged in a firefight minutes before (necessitating calling in the air support).

I'm sorry you can't see it, but the rules of engagement were followed. Two Reuters reporters decided to embed themselves with a group of people who were armed in a combat zone. Bad things happened. In retrospect, it was a sad situation. Hindsight being 20-20 and all.

In the heat of the moment, everything they did was checked and re-checked by their command chain to coincide with the rules of engagement. The audio shows they were repeatedly requesting permission up the command chain for the clear to fire. Commanders reviewed the information available against the rules of engagement, and determined they should be allowed to fire. That's why they were determined to have complied with those rules in this situation.

Just because Wikileaks can now review the video in "super-zoom" and "super-slo-mo" and determine that the pilots and gunners might have been able to discern whether the reporters were carrying cameras on straps instead of guns on straps does not make them liable for murder. It doesn't change the fact that these were people walking in a combat zone, with other people who had weapons, and were standing in a position waiting for a column of American vehicles to come into range.

Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."

Or, more succinctly, "War Sucks."

Except for the guy with the AK-47 (3:43 in the video) and the guy with the RPG (3:35 in the video). The guy with the RPG ducks behind the building, and then someone (could be the same guy or maybe the cameraman -- it's hard to tell) points *something* around the corner of the building at the approaching Bradley vehicles that had just been engaged in a firefight minutes before (necessitating calling in the air support).

I'm sorry you can't see it, but the rules of engagement were followed. Two Reuters reporters decided to embed themselves with a group of people who were armed in a combat zone. Bad things happened. In retrospect, it was a sad situation. Hindsight being 20-20 and all.

In the heat of the moment, everything they did was checked and re-checked by their command chain to coincide with the rules of engagement. The audio shows they were repeatedly requesting permission up the command chain for the clear to fire. Commanders reviewed the information available against the rules of engagement, and determined they should be allowed to fire. That's why they were determined to have complied with those rules in this situation.

Just because Wikileaks can now review the video in "super-zoom" and "super-slo-mo" and determine that the pilots and gunners might have been able to discern whether the reporters were carrying cameras on straps instead of guns on straps does not make them liable for murder. It doesn't change the fact that these were people walking in a combat zone, with other people who had weapons, and were standing in a position waiting for a column of American vehicles to come into range.

Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."

Or, more succinctly, "War Sucks."

First, someone had an RPG (or, what sure looks like one). I think they were pretty justified in firing, then.

Who's running the propaganda?
Find your still frames here:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

Definitely looks like an AK-47 and an RPG to me.

such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

What disturbs me is how quickly people judge a video when they were two airships meaning you're only seeing one view from one of the apaches. Other people are calling in RPGs and AK47s ... and those that were pulling the triggers were acting on that information. Personally, from watching the video, I saw very unfortunate movement by a photographer with a very large camera (405-415 on the wikileaks site) that at first looks exactly like an insurgent with an RPG trying to get an unseen angle on a gunship. Only after I was told that they were photographers was my imagination allowed to see that as a very large lens camera (and you conveniently can't see those frames where the RPG looks more like a camera at the site you linked to). And even then, with the low resolution Youtube footage, who's to say what it looked like to those there? Missing something like that could cost not only your life but also the lives of people flying with you.

I'm not trying to excuse what happened but I am saying that a series of mistakes were most likely made in those videos that lead to the unfortunate deaths of at least a couple innocent people.

And this is war.

If you're a United States citizen, you paid for that gunship. You paid for that scenario. Don't get me wrong, you also paid for the scenario when real insurgents trying to kill innocent people were stopped. That scenario just isn't interesting to us though. You see it as a byline on a newspaper but those stories are just something to yawn at these days. I was for the war in Afghanistan and I knew that things like this video would happen. I was not for the Iraq war because these scenarios were not worth ousting Saddam. Friendly fire happened in Desert Storm and probably every large scale conflict before that as long as guns have been involved. Do you think a reporter was never killed accidentally by United States forces in Vietnam or even World War II (commonly viewed as one of the few 'justified' war)?

I'm glad everyone got to see one of the faces of war. I'm sad that these people wrongfully died but I'm glad that this rightful outrage might cause us to really reconsider what half or more of us had decided when our elected Commander in Chief brought us into both these wars. I don't get it. I was ~20 years old during our invasion of Afghanistan and people just seemed humdrum "Hey, let's go to war, I won't be dying in it" and I'm still a little bit confused about that sentiment. How many of these conflicts must we have before we realize that declaring war means that civilians -- not just soldiers but women and children -- will die as some direct result of this war?

War is war. At some point the US populace just decided that war is different today. And then once we started two wars, we forgot about them. Just declared victory and tucked them away. Our soldiers are still dying, this is still happening. Wake up.

And lastly, I would like to point out that like soldiers, these reporters did know what they were entering when they entered a war zone. Again, not to absolve the Coalition forces but to quote Reuter's official word on the footage:

There is no better evidence of the dangers each and every journalist in a war zone faces at any time.

And as Newsweek added:

These newsmen knew what they were getting into; it's the public watching the video now that has been caught unawares.

such as, the FACT that the "civilians" were actually enemy combatants. For more details:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

So Reuters is now considered to be the journalistic branch of Al Qaeda?

They kind of screwed up the facts.

Here's some shots of the video with the so called "civilians" (actually armed insurgents) and shots of the Pentagon report explaining the results of the research:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

This is a non story, a grab for attention.

Also came across this site:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/201878.php

Video Shows Reuters Camerman With Insurgents Being Killed [BUMPED/UPDATED: Vidcaps Show Weapons]

UPDATE 4/06/2010 AM: I've uploaded a moving image created by Ryno which clearly shows weapons being carried by the so-called "civilians" who were killed along with the news that we have photos of rifles and grenades at the scene.

UPDATE 4/06/2010 PM: We've added important info to the new post linked above, including the fact that an RPG was found at the scene. Click here for more recent updates.

Funny enough they did think of this pre 9/11 infact this law isn't new it dates all the way back to 1951 but let not let facts get in the way of ripping on states or people views. Refrence http://ace.mu.nu/archives/298135.php

The one reason to not like Star Trek is its political system. I mean, a socialist utopia. http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/287079.php Theres no business, theres no enterpreneurship anymore.

I guess none of us are safe or have any real protections... we just need to always make sure popular opinion is on our side. In your twisted view of how government works, I mean.

Yes, that is actually true, unfortunately. Government in any case is just an extension of the will of the people, even in the worst case of a monarchy, if the people collectively decided not to do what the King wanted, then the king would have no power (although often a brutal dictator doesn't need the direct support of more than 30% of the people).

United States history is full of instances of smaller groups of people being oppressed by larger groups. The civil war was the North trying to force its will on the South; we had full on SLAVERY for many years, we oppressed the Native Americans, we destroyed the Hawaiian culture and language (and are still forcing our will on the native Hawaiians, who feel underrepresented in their attempts at sovereignty), persecuted pacifists during WWI with the Espionage Act (EE Cummings was arrested for declaring he didn't actually have a hatred of the Germans), persecution of communists, even before McCarthy era, open mob violence against Jehovah's Witnesses (for reasons such as their refusal to say the pledge of allegiance), open mob violence against the Mormon's along with political persecution against both, discrimination against gays, discrimination against polygamists............... I'm sure if you look you can find many other cases.

More and more these days people are becoming of the opinion that persecuting others just because you don't like them is a bad idea, and, as you put it, protecting people from the tyranny of the majority, protecting fundamental civil rights is actually a good idea. These are things that can only happen if enough people support them. That ought to be the true American Way

To give you an idea of how things have been throughout history (paraphrased from Irving Stone) between Paul Revere and Abigail Adams, about a famous drawing he drew about the Boston Massacre:
Abigail: Why did you draw that picture? You know it is not what happened.
Paul: I know, but it helps people see the evils of monarchy.
Abigail: Those poor soldiers will be punished because of it, and it's not their fault! How would you feel if someone made such a picture of you, and you were punished because of it
Paul: That won't happen, I have too many friends.

John Adams apparently became very unpopular in Boston after his successful defense of those soldiers. But that is ok, he did what was right. Sometimes heros step up to the challenge, but it is not something we can depend on. Society only works when we agree to follow what makes it work.

I spent way too much time on this post. You better enjoy it. ;)

Indeed, the casting is done.

No trolling, just have a laugh.

There are many people who are foreign exchange students, VISA workers, and others who are able to use AT&T service with no SSN.

At least one of the SIM-cards used by Mumbai terrorists was purchased in the US (New Jersey)...

No, I'm not saying, it should be necessary to submit everything to a cell-phone provider — that's how things are in less free countries like India or Australia. But it is still interesting...

Here's the story. I guess they didn't die though. I remembered it wrong.

From the NY Post:

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.

Read the rest of the NY Post story. Are you saying everyone involved was lying and your partisan talking-points are right instead?

Do you care which is true and which is false?

Nobody accused Obama of "being a terrorist." Palin criticized his association with William Ayers, one of many eye-opening assocations Obama had that the press gave him a pass on. Obama did things like run a commercial mocking McCain for not using a computer, which was actually due to his war injuries that make it painful to type. Yet, these negative ads were glossed over by the press--only McCain got criticized for going negative with his campaigning. You'd think that Obama had never said anything bad about McCain or ran a negative ad. I even saw one claiming McCain was going to ban abortion.

Frankly, McCain was going negative because his campaign was desperately trying to get any kind of news attention. Obama dominated coverage all year long. I remember in the summer when Drudge Report breathlessly reported each leg of Obama's trip through Europe like he was already president. It was as though McCain didn't even exist. The Associated Press even ran articles defending Obama from McCain's attacks, and one of them cited a liberal thinktank group that praised Obama's tax plan (without mentioning the group's political affiliation, of course). The same author of that piece went onto write an op-ed claiming that bringing up Obama's affiliations, like Ayers, was an attempt to portray him as un-American, which was vaguely "racist" (huh?).

Basically, when McCain stayed positive, he was ignored by the press. When he went negative, he was bashed by the press. Couple that with media studies showing an emergent slant in journalist political beliefs, you can't help wonder just how many percentage points the press actually cost McCain. You might even be a Democrat and be glad that Obama won--but it's still something you should wonder about.

The most glaring example would be the mortgage crisis--Obama shot up in the polls, and McCain's campaign never recovered. However, if you go back through history, you actually find that many Democrat social programs (like the Community Reinvestment Act) pushed banks into making high-risk loans to poor people who couldn't pay them back, all in the name of "social justice." Several Democrats served at Fannie Mae, and the biggest recipient of donations from Fannie Mae was...Barack Obama. You even find out that both Bush and McCain warned about the coming crisis in 2003, but they were blocked and criticized by Democrat Barney Frank.

None of that was reported to any reasonable degree by the press. Republicans were blamed for something that Democrats were equally responsible for, if not moreso. I think this is the most frustrating aspect of the 2008 election--that the party which was mostly responsible for the economic crisis was rewarded for it with the presidency and a bigger majority in Congress. Now we have a one-party supermajority of people who voted for the government bailout when the public didn't want it.

Governments work best when they do little. Clinton and the GOP Congress kept each other busy through bickering, and that made them leave us alone. I wanted McCain because I didn't want another one-party government like we had under Bush. McCain also has a history of bipartisan legislation and working with Democrats. Obama has no such history, and he's already appointing people who are aggressively partisan. The Democrats are kicking out anyone who doesn't think like they do--Lieberman's committee position is under threat. I don't think it's going to be a very good presidency when the hype dies down and Obama has to actually do stuff.

Please let me know who the "socialist/communist" candidate is in this election so that I can be sure to vote against him or her. Thanks. Oh yes and I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Ask Joe the Plumber - the guy who dared to actually question Dear Leader - whose supporters rummaged through data on him held by various Ohio government agencies.

Dare to bet against that tip being true?

when your political enemies run the media as a propaganda arm of their party, then whistle innocently or cry "tinfoil hat" when anyone points out the obvious.

Citation, please? Certainly a lot of room for debate that the media is performing propaganda solely for either party, or that there is a monolithic bias to the entire industry. Yes, conventional wisdom says that Fox News slants conservative, and PBS slants liberal, and shame on BOTH of them for it.

When your political enemies start arresting people for wearing "give peace a chance" t-shirts in the mall.

I assume you're referring to the case of Mr. Stephen Downs, in Guilderland, NY? Yes, the dispute reportedly arose from his wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" t-shirt. However, the facts of the case are that he was arrested for refusing to leave private property, and charged with trespassing. The charges were later dropped against him, and the guard who signed the trespass complaint was fired. You can read a good summary of the case law, and why malls aren't considered public property in the sense of free speech protections over at Slate.

When your political enemies create "free speech zones", and their partisan court appointees uphold the obvious constitutional breach

The same free speech zones used repeatedly by both the Democrats and Republicans at their conventions? Let's be intellectually honest at least - neither party is interested in having their elaborately planned proceedings disrupted by minor inconveniences like disagreements.

When your political enemies engage in domestic surveillance which makes watergate look like piss in the ocean.

I assume you're talking about the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program here? Which was, rightfully, exposed & subjected to intense scrutiny & oversight? I'll agree that these programs were disgraceful - but to pretend that nobody in the democratic-controlled congress knew about the programs (or indeed, has continued to vote for bills that support them, such as the recent FISA amendment) is flat-out dishonest.

When your political enemies give rise to a multi-billion dollar industry of astroturfing campaign firms trying to "manufacture" "public support" for their intolerant, totalitarian positions.

Yes, because Democrats never astroturf in the interests of winning a campaign, right? The name David Axelrod sound familiar? (Hint: Chief media strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.) Again, let's not pretend that one side does it, and the other doesn't.

You have to fight dirty too. The age of honor is over.

No, what you should do is throw every stinking, corrupt one of the bunch - Democrats & Republicans - out of office. They represent YOU, so what does it say about you that you turn a blind eye towards ugly tactics in the support of your own principles, and decry them when used by your "political enemies"? The ends do not justify the means. The ends should be achieved by honorable men & women representing their constituents in a conscientious manner. "Eye for an eye" tactics sure don't seem to be the "change" and "reform" both candidates are promising us.

Parent is nothing butastroturf. Either slashdot's liberal bias is real, or the sockpuppets are already running the show around here, like they are over at digg and reddit.

But now that Obama has been caught astroturfing without required notices, consider how he'd prefer is opposition not have free access to do similar stuff on the Internet in four years. But then, paid advertisements without notices are already illegal.

I read a blog about this very subject a couple of days ago, the author of which actually was approached by a similar if not the same study (link at bottom).

The author has some amazingly good points - whether or not you like and/or agree with him, it's a simple fact that these "studies" almost always come out the same way and are represented the same way. Don't believe for a second that there is anything "scientific" or "impartial" about any "psychological study".

Liberals = "open to change" and Conservatives = "fearful" is the way these studies always represent people (and I wonder if liberal-leaning academics have anything to do with this?)

You can just as easily say Liberals = "immature, childish" and Conservatives = "mature, rational" with the same data - but you'll never see that because people can't swallow it.

Take it or leave it. I'm Independent myself and don't feel fear or the need for "change".

Original article: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/273695.php

I thought this was interesting. Apparently, the "hackers" used Ctunnel.com to proxy to Yahoo! mail accounts, and everything they did is completely traceable.

We are not communicating on at least a couple levels. I promise I'm not completely stupid - just dense sometimes.

I'm certainly willing to posit both points; thus my willingness to continue the discussion.

But go somewhere like little green footballs or huffpo and tell me that there is a lot of discussion going on that encompasses a wide range of view points.

Give me a sec...

By "huffpo" I assume you mean huffingtonpost.com (or at least Google thinks so). The top story a few minutes ago on both were basically about Palin, LGF solidly for and Huffpo against but contained a scattering of comments such as this, which so far as I could see were not getting slamed or shot down in any way:

Kudos to Palin
Worked hard for her community while raising five kids.
Whats more deserving that?

She might not be a gifted verbal diaretic but at least she's trying.

Even though the LGF site did seem monoculturally pro-Palin, that may be because they rapidly drifted semi-off-topic into a discussion about evolution and creationism in which a fair variety of positions were expressed and, so far as I could tell, respected.

I go to church. Sure - there are certain things we hold in common, but politics is one place where there a very wide array of positions and they are all respected. There are places like that on-line, there are places that are not like that. People who belong to the places that don't allow true discussion and the representation of lots of ideas are full of people who think 'everyone' thinks like them. And once again, I don't know real world places like that.

The next time you're in church, try preaching a little of the Gospel of Satan and see how far you get. Or go to your local vegan restaurant and order a steak. Be sure to make it clear you don't want some tofu steak-a-like. Ask for it still bleeding.

The fact that you can have friendly, unheated discussions about politics at your church is no different than the occasional football talk that occurs from time to time on most politics sites.

Go to the Jawa report and have a nice discussion on why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq or socialized medicine.

No need, google turned this one up for me as the top link.

--MarkusQ

And here's the original Dilbert comic for that line

http://ozguru.mu.nu/Photos/2005-11-11--Dilbert_Unix.jpg

Get yourself a better computer.

http://ozguru.mu.nu/Photos/2005-11-11--Dilbert_Unix.jpg

http://graymonk.mu.nu/archives/2007/01/roman_navy_on_t.html

http://graymonk.mu.nu/archives/2007/01/superb_models.html

Look at the oars in all three cases. They are almost exactly the same length throughout each ship.

http://graymonk.mu.nu/archives/2007/01/roman_navy_on_t.html

http://graymonk.mu.nu/archives/2007/01/superb_models.html

Look at the oars in all three cases. They are almost exactly the same length throughout each ship.

The wording of the argument sounds a lot like the "No true scotsman" logical fallacy.

Face it, both muslims and christians have done horrible, unspeakable things. This in no way says that your average muslim or christian is about to cut someone's head off or burn someone at the stake. Also, those awful things that muslims in very conservative societies are doing are very similar to what certain parts of christianity are doing. Anyone who cherry-picks their literal interpretations of a book written centuries ago is going to get *something* wrong.

I liked the last pope better than this guy. As I recall, the last pope was the one to pardon Galileo and admit that science may have some merit...

Or defense contracts for companies owned by Nancy Pelosi's husband..

Or billions in subsidies to Fortune 500 agribusiness companies.

There can be no funding for frivolities like the human exploration of space when so many of the needs of the Permanent Bipartisan State of Porkistan remain unmet...

No, GTE.

Glenn Greenwald!

Sockpuppet!

Are you talking about that memo that Rather had supposedly from Bush's stint in the nat. guard that was clearly written in MSWord with all default settings. Absolutely not what was in use in the pre-PC days of typewriters and word processors that were machines, not programs.

Not proven fake? He, or someone he knows, wrote that shit at home, printed it, and photocopied it a bunch to make it look old.

And as for Don'tTaseMeBro guy, he knew exactly what he was doing. Just watch that shit again. He WANTED to provoke it that far -- he only got tased because he began to fight back. It's also important to note that the whole debacle was NOT a free speech issue. It was a disruption. He IS free to voice his concerned, ANY such concerns, but he was in fact INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS TO DO SO. That's the key to it all -- you are essentially free to do or say whatever you want until your freedoms begin to encroach upon the freedoms of others. Kerry's speech was not HIS forum, nor was he supposed to rant. Rules were, ask a question, Kerry would answer it. He ranted. You don't follow the format, you must leave. You fight with security officers.. well, things happen. The tasing might have been excessive, but it was NOT a violation of his free speech to have him removed.

All that aside, though.. the memo WAS a fake. Here's a quick google search-located gif to prove it.. massive lulz strike you for over 9000 damage.
http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/cbs-word-overlay.gif

nevah leave it, we like you there

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/189302.php

http://caughtinthexfire.mu.nu/archives/snl_bee.jpg
What a waste of a talent. Thanks, dope!

deaths of 600,000 Iraqis

STFU, liar. That "600k dead" figure that you and your fellow travelers like to parade around has long since been debunked.

The Islamist goal? I suspect 99.9% of the Islamic community would disagree with you. I think you mean the Islamic terrorist's goal.

Did you not see the video from that prison in Iraq?
Guess what, there's going to be a few morons in every bunch. Do you really believe these dozen or so people out of an active military of 1.4 million (not including 860,000 in the guards) are representative of our military? If they were, you'd have a lot more evidence. What is also important to note is that several of these soldiers have had trials, been found guilty, and are serving time. We take care of our problems unlike our enemy.

And do you really know what goes on in Guantanamo Bay?
Yes. They are processed, which includes a medical checkup by the best doctors in the world. They get to send a postcard to their family to let them know where they are and that they're safe. They get clean laundry, prayer mat, soap, shampoo, a toothbrush, toothpaste, and a one-quart canteen. Each detainee is given a Koran in their language, and a surgical mask. The surgical mask is used as storage for the Koran. There is a recorded call to prayer that is broadcast five times a day. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. 64% of the detainees get "comfort items" that inclue perfume oil and prayer beads. There's plenty more, but you get the idea.

via Global Security

How our our captured soldiers treated? We've had very few, but the enemy has gone out of their way to violate the Geneva Convention, has tortured and left beheaded bodies in the street, burned and left bodies hanging from a bridge. Do I need to go on?

We're not perfect but we sure as hell are doing our best to protect ourselves from an enemy who won't be happy until we're living under sharia law.

Which really sucks, since the cars idle at 7000 RPM.

"Who cares? The only good arab is a dead arab. I pray they slaughter this arab piece of filth and then our soldiers in turn slaughter them. Death to all arabs!" On the Jawa Report site http://blog.mu.nu/cgi/splorp.cgi?entry_id=177291 and then their contact info is "Tips, complaints, fatwas, and death threats should be sent to Editor in Chief, Sith Master, Admiral, and Pimptastick Blog Master: Dr. Rusty Shackleford at mypetjawa-at-gmail-dot-com If you can't figure out what to do with the 'dot' or 'at', I really don't want to hear from you. Sith apprentice biyatch Howie mchlhwrd-at-gmail-dot-com Cross-dressing pimps and shemales in no particular order Demosophist freewheeling-at-verizon-dot-net"... "news site"??!?!?! What bullshit!

Whoa. Google News relisted Jawa Report after the noise those guys made. I have therefore written to Google about it "Look at this article above http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/177712.php This is a hate site indeed. You should have NOT relisted it in google news. There is a picture of weeping men, and the content of the site makes fun of their suffering. The Middle East in a culture in which men don't weep for a light reason, there must've been a good cause, such as an immense suffering. This is a hate site. Please delist it from Google News." I don't know from what event exactly this picture comes, this "news site" does not care to mention, but those guys don't look detained, and they don't look "islamofascist" (seems islamofascist is now just a racist all-inclusive term, a la "sand nigger", no accuracy nor substantiation required), my guess is that they are innocent Iraqis who had just lost dear relatives to a bomb, and those scum on this "news site" are mocking them in a racist fashion. Please go to Google News and make your objection. This is not a new site. This is racist scum. http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/request.py