Slashdot Mirror

They're not sending the films out with patrols. They're showing them at base theaters

Well, that's great, then. Any of those troops out there at some God-forsaken FOB can just catch a ride back to the main base for their movie nights out. They don't need entertainment in their little tent camps. They have the Taliban for that.

BTW, I'm not picking on you. It's not your idea, and I'm sure you're right about how it really works. I'm a retired Air Force guy, and if I understand correctly, most of us in-country are still pretty much base-bound. If so, this cartoon characterizes the inequities of campaign life: The REMFs get all the good stuff, the guys at the pointy end pretty much get the shaft. And the guy who was the subject of TFA did what it takes to fix this one little inequity. I hope he doesn't catch the shaft himself, since 300,000 counts of willful copyright infringement probably exposes him to something like 300 death sentences.

Long, long ago, I heard that it was wrong to fight ruthless dictators in oil-rich countries. It was wrong even if the dictator in question had viciously attacked his own people, supported terrorism and harbored terrorists. It was a sure sign of Western racism because the people who lived in that country aren't white. Even the fact that the UN had imposed sanctions against that country, like they have against Libya, was not a mitigating factor.

Dictators in non-white, oil-rich countries should be free to hurt whomever they want, for whatever reason they want, in any manner they want, inside their own country and, using terrorist attacks, in other countries. That's what we learned. But apparently the lessons were forgotten.

Maybe it's because the anti-war protests were mostly phony all along.

They told me if I voted for John McCain that these war policies wouldn't change, that we'd still have troops in Iraq and Afganistan for years, and that the President might even attack other oil-rich countries. And they were right!

Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.

That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.

That boggles the mind.

I can see why your mind is boggled since it is pretty certain that you are completely mistaken as to the intent.

It's more likely that the intent is to provide another source of news and views for the mass of Muslims & Arabs who are not committed to the violent Islamists cause. It might be a good thing if they had sources other than the hateful lies of the Islamists, and the government controlled media in the Middle East, which tends to spew some pretty vile things which you can see here. Muslim spokesmen regularly say that most Muslims want to live in peace. Maybe they will be more favorably inclined to so do, and to not assist the extremists, if they have access to news which sticks to being factual, or at least programming that doesn't regularly refer to Westerners as Crusaders, pigs and monkeys, call for the reconquest of Spain, applaud the exploits of terrorists bombing pizza parlors & pubs, etc. It is hard enough getting balance out of the American & European media. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this reported in the mainstream media. Arthur Chrenkoff's column listing good news from Iraq was practically unique, and not for lack of material. It is clear that if we don't speak up for ourselves, few if any there will.

The NY Times is a very biased source. They have a record of intentionally misrepresenting the facts , and that is just one case of many (a truly horrible case, at that). I find it difficult to believe what they print, as it is very obvious that the paper has a very strong bias and is willing to print lies and half-truths in order to promote an agenda. I'm disappointed whenever SlashDot links to that rag.

Or worse, regurgitated corporate PR releases.

Funny, that's what I thought journalists already did.

But at least there's an army of bloggers out there, willing to brave life and limb in the world's trouble spots, telling you how it really is from their armchairs.

Absolutely. If it weren't for all the brave journalists in Iraq, and covering the last election, we would have no clue what was going on.

Take the torture quiz. Just skip down to the quiz and see how many you get right. I got 8 out of 10.

LOL - He didn't break anything. The news was out there for months. It just wasn't getting a lot of play in the media. Then the pictures appeared and blamo! tons of coverage.

Take a "quiz" to see if you can separate facts from fiction with the whole "torture scandal".

Here's a good question for you:

8. How were the pictures made public?

A. Discovered after months-long investigations by reporter Seymour Hersh and 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes
B. Handed to Hersh by Gary Myers, his old pal from the My-Lai court martial who was coincidentally representing SSG Ivan Frederick, the highest ranking individual charged with torturing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, immediately after the preliminary hearing in which they were released to the defense
C. Handed to a representative of 60 Minutes by relatives of SSG Frederick
D. Discovered posted on weblogs operated by the guards

Hint, it's not A, B, or D.