# CBS reporter raped and beaten by Muslim men.



## Archangel M (Feb 17, 2011)

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/op...84&format=&page=1&listingType=opi#articleFull



> &#8220;[60 Minutes] correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, &#8216;Jew! Jew!&#8217; as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo&#8217;s main square Friday.&#8221;
> 
> Powerful reporting on an important story. Two problems: It didn&#8217;t run until yesterday, and CBS didn&#8217;t run it. The quote is from the New York Post. And it was The Wall Street Journal that reported &#8220;the separation and assault lasted roughly 20 to 30 minutes.&#8221;
> 
> ...





> Larimore wonders if &#8220;Logan&#8217;s attack [is] an anomaly, or is it to be expected from men raised in a culture that treats women as lesser citizens?&#8221; I would point her to the 2008 broadcast on the Al-Aribiya network of a female (!) lawyer arguing that it&#8217;s OK for Muslim men to sexually assault Israeli women, because the Jews have &#8220;raped the land.&#8221; Or this week&#8217;s story of Hena, the 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl raped by a family member, then sentenced to 100 lashes by Muslim authorities for having sex out of wedlock. After 80 lashes, Hena died.
> 
> There are stories like this &#8212; and Logan&#8217;s &#8212; every week, all with the same cultural denominator.
> 
> For the record, Logan isn&#8217;t Jewish. And because she&#8217;s not Muslim, there&#8217;s no possibility she&#8217;ll face the lash.



Perhaps she was not "raped"..the story says "sexual assault" which can range from groping to all sorts of sickening things.


:barf:


----------



## Big Don (Feb 17, 2011)

Nir Rosen deserves a swift kick in the groin, at the very least.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 17, 2011)

Before everyone jumps on the "blame all Muslims" bandwagon, a few points:

1) Everyone knows that the "pro-Mubarak protestors" were government thugs sent out with orders to disrupt and harass, including reporters - a number of reporters have been threatened, detained, or assaulted to date by these people.

2) She was saved by a group of Egyptian women and 20 soldiers.  If all Muslims are to blame for the assault, then all Muslims are also responsible for saving her.

3) **** like this happens here all the damn time.  We just had a thread about a bunch of kids gang-raping a classmate.


----------



## granfire (Feb 17, 2011)

Not to mention hyped up crowds are dangerous.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 17, 2011)

Fair points there EH, aye.

Degradation and objectification of women is proceeding apace back to earlier era's right now and it is happening in a great many places and cultural niches.

However, having a religious faith that gives it legitimacy is not going to help matters.  As I've said before, usually defending it, the Islamic faith is a relatively young one and is going through all the same excesses and mistakes that Christianity did.  The problem is that this is the 21st century and we cannot just stand about and wait for that faith to 'grow up'.


----------



## granfire (Feb 17, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Fair points there EH, aye.
> 
> Degradation and objectification of women is proceeding apace back to earlier era's right now and it is happening in a great many places and cultural niches.
> 
> However, having a religious faith that gives it legitimacy is not going to help matters.  As I've said before, usually defending it, the Islamic faith is a relatively young one and is going through all the same excesses and mistakes that Christianity did.  The problem is that this is the 21st century and we cannot just stand about and wait for that faith to 'grow up'.



1600 years isn't all that young. The majority of the known world wasn't Christianized until about  1000 years ago either...

(the tradition of keeping women down is much older though....)


----------



## billc (Feb 17, 2011)

Of course the muslim brother hood didn't send out any thugs to beat up western reporters.  After all, they are just a secular group who has denounced violence and looks to increase friendly relations with the west.


----------



## granfire (Feb 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Of course the muslim brother hood didn't send out any thugs to beat up western reporters.  After all, they are just a secular group who has denounced violence and looks to increase friendly relations with the west.




Unless you have any proof, you know these types of allegations are considered slanderous. 

Just because it fits your political agenda it does not mean in any shape or form that members of that group were involved, either directly or indirect.


----------



## billc (Feb 17, 2011)

And I would reply that saying that it was people backing Mubarak is equally slanderous. We don't know exactly who it was do we? However, there were reports that they were chanting specific things in the middle of the assault, does anyone know what they were?  I also think that "keeping women down," is less of a problem in the christian west today than it is in the middle east today.  Where are all the femminists when there is this great femminist battle just waiting to be launched to help their sisters in the middle east?


----------



## billc (Feb 17, 2011)

Looking at my post, I don't seem to have said that the muslim brotherhood was involved, quite the opposite if western reporters are to be believed.  I am just reporting the main thoughts that are being reported by the media.


----------



## granfire (Feb 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> And I would reply that saying that it was people backing Mubarak is equally slanderous. We don't know exactly who it was do we? However, there were reports that they were chanting specific things in the middle of the assault, does anyone know what they were?  I also think that "keeping women down," is less of a problem in the christian west today than it is in the middle east today.  Where are all the femminists when there is this great femminist battle just waiting to be launched to help their sisters in the middle east?




Until you walked a mile in high heels or under the burka...


----------



## Carol (Feb 17, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Where are all the femminists when there is this great femminist battle just waiting to be launched to help their sisters in the middle east?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavis_Leno


> *Mavis Elizabeth Nicholson Leno* (born September 5, 1946;[1] San Francisco, California) is an American philanthropist, feminist and the wife of talk show host Jay Leno.[2] They have been married since 1980 and have no children.[3]
> A leading feminist in California,[4] as well as in the United States and internationally, she keeps a low profile in comparison to her husband, choosing instead to work behind the scenes of the non-profit, politically-charged groups she supports and runs.[5]
> She has been the chair of the Feminist Majority Foundation's Campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan since 1997.[2] In 1999, she and her husband, Jay Leno, donated $100,000 to the organization, to further the cause of educating the public about the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban.[6]
> The organization successfully protested the construction of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, which could potentially have brought in billions of dollars to the Taliban.[7][8]


----------



## SensibleManiac (Feb 17, 2011)

> Unless you have any proof, you know these types of allegations are considered slanderous.



We all know how proof and billcihak go hand in hand. Just check some of his past posts.:lfao:

(Sorry Bill I just had to).


----------



## Carol (Feb 18, 2011)

> Larimore wonders if Logans attack [is] an anomaly, or is it to be expected from men raised in a culture that treats women as lesser citizens? I would point her to the 2008 broadcast on the Al-Aribiya network of a female (!) lawyer arguing that its OK for Muslim men to sexually assault Israeli women, because the Jews have raped the land. Or this weeks story of Hena, the 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl raped by a family member, then sentenced to 100 lashes by Muslim authorities for having sex out of wedlock. After 80 lashes, Hena died.



I don't think the concern is from a bash-the-Muslms bandwagon.  I've personally had to have the "I won't travel there alone" discussion a few times in my career, even before 9/11.

The Sharia states in particular tend to have a 'group' mentality that can be particularly challenging for a westerner.  Travel in the Middle East during Ramadan, one is expected to fast and abstain, regardless of one's faith.  At the same time, it is a very festive time.  Our field engineer for the region (a Dutch fellow currently living in Oman) has shared stories about having more Eid invitations than he knew what to do with.  

Where this works against us (as females) is women -- especially western women -- are often subject to harassment and hassles when traveling in Muslim nations, hassles we typically do not face when traveling elsewhere.  I can be denied entry to, and exit from,  Saudi Arabia if I do not have the appropriate sponsor waiting for me at the airport when I arrive.   In other countries, a style of dress that would be considered formal even by Wall Street standards would be considered too risque.  These hassles are amplified further when traveling alone, which is the norm for a business traveler.  

When does routine hassling of western women become something worse?  I don't personally want to find out.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 18, 2011)

granfire said:


> 1600 years isn't all that young. The majority of the known world wasn't Christianized until about 1000 years ago either...
> 
> (the tradition of keeping women down is much older though....)


 
I don't want to sidetrack the thread and I agree that the Koran was penned in about the 7th century (pulling that out of the air there, I am not sure of the exact century) but it was my perception that the faith didn't really 'get going' until more recently? Certainly in terms of the division that most of us are guilty of thinking of as being *the* Muslim/Islamic religion i.e. the 'nasty' one.

Time for some in depth research I reckon ... then again, searching for details of such things on the Net may well get me on a 'watch list' these days .


----------



## CoryKS (Feb 18, 2011)

I always assume that any crowd that I'm in is one beer shy of a riot.  And if the crowd you happen to be in is a bunch of angry men protesting the government, it's reasonable to assume that they're going to be indifferent, at best, to the rule of law.  

Flamers attacking me for "blaming the victim" in 3... 2... 1...


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 18, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't want to sidetrack the thread and I agree that the Koran was penned in about the 7th century (pulling that out of the air there, I am not sure of the exact century)


 
Muhammad had his first "revelation" in AD 610 (interstingly, he was convinced that he had been possessed, or at least encountered, an evil spirit and was going to kill himself; it was his wife Khadijah that convinced him it was actually an encounter with an angel). Further revelations didn't occur until AD 612 and apparently lasted until his death in AD 632. While Muhammad supervised the recoring of the individual Surahs he did not himself _write_ any of them as far as I am aware. Many people claim Muhammad was actually illiterate so what effect this supervision would have is debateable (personally, I think this wasn't the case since he was a merchant and would likely have had at least rudimentary reading and writing skills; regardless though, he had others write down the verses for whatever reason). 

Muhammad also had a habit of having people insert new material in texts that had already been recorded. The verses were recorded on a variety of materials such as parchment, papyrus, palm leaves, flat rocks and animal bones. There is also the probability that some of the verses of the Qu'ran were actually lost at the Battle of Yamama. 

It was Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, that had the Qu'ran verses collected into one place. Once this was done Abu Bakr gave the text to one of Muhammad's widows. Oddly, the text was kept under wraps and not copied or spread fo several years. Meanwhile, different versions of the Qu'ranic text were in circulation. It was the third Caliph, Uthman who actually codified the Qu'ran and made this text the official version. This was done since areas such as Damascus and others had their own traditions regarding the text (I blieve there were four versions of the text in existence at the time, but it could have been more). Uthman formed a committee, got out the text that Muhammad's widow had apparently kept hidden since Abu Bakr entrusted her with it and had them revise the text and then distribute it throughout the empire with the orders that every other version of the Qu'ran, whether complete or a partial collection of verses, be destroyed. 

One _very_ important thing to keep in mind when actually reading the Qu'ran is the abrogation theory. Namely, the later verses abrogate the earlier verses when they stand in conrtadiction. Unlike, for example, the Catholic view that there is no contradiction in the Bible because God is the source of all truth and so cannot contradict himself the Muslim view is quite different. God in Islam is not bound by anything, even his own nature, and so is free to change his mind. (I don't have my notes with me now but IIRC there is even a verse in the Qu'ran where Allah actually says this.) Any discussion of Qu'ranic interpretation that doesn't take abrogation seriously is not going to get an accurate picture of the religion. While some individual Muslims reject abrogation it is still the view of the religion in general. 



> but it was my perception that the faith didn't really 'get going' until more recently? Certainly in terms of the division that most of us are guilty of thinking of as being *the* Muslim/Islamic religion i.e. the 'nasty' one.


 
You might want to study a bit of history about the spread of Islam, particularly as it spread westwards. 



> Time for some in depth research I reckon ... then again, searching for details of such things on the Net may well get me on a 'watch list' these days .


 
I seriously doubt this, but if this is a real concern a trip to the local library, or better still, to a near by university library would be easy enough.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 18, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> ....but it was my perception that the faith didn't really 'get going' until more recently?



Islam grew more rapidly and displaced native religions more rapidly as it spread than in comparison to Christianity.  It took 300 years for Christianity to gain widespread acceptance, before it began to spread in earnest.  By comparison, Islam was spread by conquest to much of Africa, the entire middle east, and parts of central Asia, India and Europe within a few centuries.  The reconquista of Moorish Spain was completed as late as 1492.  The Ottoman Turks threatened Europe with conquest as late as 1683 with the Siege of Vienna, where their defeat by the Habsburgs marked the turning point in their incursions into Europe.

The Muslim world was more humane, and more advanced than their Christian counterparts, for the entire early and middle ages.  The seat of science and culture in the world in 1200 was in the Muslim world, not in Europe.  The decline in power started in earnest in the late 1700's, and the ascendance of Europe at the same time.  This was epitomized by the centuries long decay and eventual dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after WWI.  

Even so, the rise in radical religious belief and behavior is the product of the last century, and mostly the last 40-50 years.  In the 50's-60's, the widespread Arab movements were nationalist in character, not religious.  We've seen a recent surge in fundamentalism and extremism in Islam that is not demonstrated by their past history.  It's a new development, not the old mark of a religion that never grew up.


----------



## granfire (Feb 18, 2011)

CoryKS said:


> I always assume that any crowd that I'm in is one beer shy of a riot.  And if the crowd you happen to be in is a bunch of angry men protesting the government, it's reasonable to assume that they're going to be indifferent, at best, to the rule of law.
> 
> Flamers attacking me for "blaming the victim" in 3... 2... 1...




LOL, I don't think it's 'blame the victim' when there is a shred (or more) of truth to it. 

it's a group phenomenon. You see that in any large gathering where the emotions run high. And naturally there is always the small element of people who take a situation like this for their own gratification. be it the free TV or setting a cop car on fire. Or groping an outsider.


----------



## granfire (Feb 18, 2011)

SensibleManiac said:


> We all know how proof and billcihak go hand in hand. Just check some of his past posts.:lfao:
> 
> (Sorry Bill I just had to).



:bow:


Touche!


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 18, 2011)

Thanks EH - partially you speak of things I already knew i.e. the general background of the Near and Middle East and the tales of the humane religion of peace (I'd take my supply of salt with me on that particular journey). After all, I was a historian .

What I do not know about is the various threads and schisms of Islam and when the revisionist messages of 'death to the infidel' began to flame. That latter is, as I thought, very recent.

Thank you for taking the trouble to dig that up for me.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 18, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> What I do not know about is the various threads and schisms of Islam and when the revisionist messages of 'death to the infidel' began to flame. That latter is, as I thought, very recent.


 
Well, kind of. But since the beginning Islam has viewed the world as divided into the dar-al Harb and the dar-al Islam, the House of War and the House of Submission. Interestingly, the dar-al Harb is also referred to as the dar-al Garb, that is, the House of the West. Probably not exactly a coincidence. 

The dar-al Harb are those lands that are not under Shari'ah, have not had some kind of non aggression treaty with Islam and/or are not part of the dar-al Islam. In the dar-al Islam non Muslims are considered dhimmis and are second class citizens who are forced to abide by several rules which are often designed to humiliate them. Wearing distinctive clothing that identifies one as a non-Muslim, not being able to wear other clothing that is usually associated with the Muslim inhabitants of a certain country, not being able to build a house taller than those of Muslims in the same community, not being able to build a church taller than a local mosque, not being able to do even normal upkeep on churches or other houses of worship, having to hang identifying pictures or signs on their house so others knew non-Muslims lived there, and, of course, being forced to pay the jizya (the special tax that was levied for the privilege of not abandoning one's own faith). 

Not being able to carry weapons for one's own self-protection is a very common prohibition that dhimmis must face, as well. That means relying totally on the local Muslim authorities for their personal safety. This protection was known to fail at times and there have been several slaughters of dhimmis throughout history. Likewise, the murder of a dhimmis by a non-Muslim carries no death penalty according to many (though not all; I can think of one off hand) Muslim schools of jurisprudence. 

Bernard Lewis points out that the development of what we face now with regards to Islam began after the defeat of the Muslims at the battle of Lepanto in 1571. It was at this turning point that Muslim culture and learning began a steady decline and the Western way of warfare, learning, and culture came to ascendency even over traditional Muslim methods. The culmination came when Turkey was founded as a secular state by Ataturk with its laws based not on Shari'ah but the Swiss Constitution (and its laws governing religion having more in common with those in post-Revolutionary France than any Muslim country). Ataturk himself was the one who abolished the Caliphate in 1922. This was to have unforeseen consequences which we are dealing with now. 

The Caliphate was an icon of the glory of Islam and reached back to the earliest days of the religion being founded in the days after Muhammad's death. Its abolishment ended the Muslim ideal of a single leader who wielded both political and religious authority at the head of a single Muslim community. Indeed, any attemtp to view Islam solely as a religious institution ignores not only its own teachings but its history, as well. Islam has always seen itself as a political community as well as a religious one. There is no separation of Church and State in Islam because there is no Church in Islam. 

With the abolishment of the Caliphate the normal means of waging jihad changed. The normal means of doing so was under the authority of the legitimate ruler, in the case of Sunni Islam that is the Caliph (for the Shi'as it's the Imam, but that's a whole different matter). In the normal order of things, Jihad was a collective responsibility. Some Muslims would directly take part in combat, others would engage in support roles, still others would engage in jihad by somply going about their lives and being the best Muslims they could be. 

With no Caliph jihad must take place under the emergency conditions that Islamic Jurispridence schools have developed over the centuries. Under these conditions jihad is an _individual_ responsibility with each Muslim in the immediate area of conflict being required to fight. This emergency jihad also does away with the required rules and regulations that govern combat including how combat was carried out, by whom, who was considered a non-combatant, etc. and most importantly for this conversation _who had the authority to call for jihad in the first place_. The emergency form of jihad does away with all of the traditional distinctions the jurists made. Not just able bodied men but the sick, women and even children are responsible for jihad. Not just the members of the invading army were to be attacked but every non-Muslim was a potential target. What is more, it is no impossible for the normal method of jihad to be called since there no longer is a central authority figure in Islam since the Caliphate has been abolished. 

What we are dealing with with much of the Muslim _terrorists_ is a conception of jihad that has developed in the last 100-125 years or so. It views the dar-al Islam as any area where there is a majority of Muslims and/or which was once a part of the historic dar al-Islam. Any non Muslim countries within these historic confines, as well as any other states that support them, are seen as aggressors. With the erasing of the usual lines of distinction because of the "emergency state" of jihad (which has existed much longer) is that any and all non-Muslims from a country that supports or is an allay with a country in a "traditionally Muslim" area are now legitimate targets and may be attacked in any way possible. Which should shed some light on why the U.S. and Israel aren't exactly popular in the Mid-East. (The whole oil thing is really secondary, IMNSHO.)

This view of jihad and the dar al-Islam leaves little room for a more historical view of how jihad was carried out or of tolerance for "people of the book," that is Christians and Jews (although, truth be told, some of the praising for Islamic tolerance of non-Muslims is a bit on the exaggerated side). Additionally, with no Caliph anyone in a position of authority in Islam can issue a fatwah calling for jihad, as long as such a war can be described in defensive terms (which is why Bin Laden _always_ paints the U.S. as the aggressor). Fortunately, since there is no Caliph, anyone is also free to ignore such a fatwah. But that situation is definitely a two-edged sword.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 18, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> ...the tales of the humane religion of peace (I'd take my supply of salt with me on that particular journey). After all, I was a historian .



It's comparative, of course.  Laws that governed non-Muslims, as Chris has pointed out, would be intolerable today.  Of course, during that same time period, the Church in Spain was forcibly converting Jews and Muslims, and eventually made those converts and their descendants (conversos) the primary target of the Inquisition.  The Muslims come out better by comparison, not by modern sensibilities.


----------



## Flea (Feb 18, 2011)

To address the question posed in the original link, I think CBS buried the story out of respect for Logan.  She probably asked them to.  Who in their right mind would want their employer to literally tell the world that they had been brutally beaten and gangraped by an angry mob?

When you have a very public job like hers you know that having a very public personal life is a risk you take.  But nobody should be forced to go public with something like that.  I applaud CBS for their tact and discretion.  It's a shame the other networks couldn't have that kind of decency.


----------



## granfire (Feb 18, 2011)

Flea said:


> To address the question posed in the original link, I think CBS buried the story out of respect for Logan.  She probably asked them to.  Who in their right mind would want their employer to literally tell the world that they had been brutally beaten and gangraped by an angry mob?
> 
> *When you have a very public job like hers you know that having a very public personal life is a risk you take.  But nobody should be forced to go public with something like that.  I applaud CBS for their tact and discretion.  It's a shame the other networks couldn't have that kind of decency.*




Well, it's news.

I am not sure of the merit of it. Or value, or importance, however you want to call it. maybe it's an important reminder that life isn't all happy-happy-joy-joy during a revolution.

Then again, does it have any importance in the bigger picture?


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 18, 2011)

granfire said:


> Until you walked a mile in high heels or under the burka...


 
I'll try 10 feet in high heels, before a snap my ankles. The burkha's a different story, maybe we can ask some of our Ninjutsu friends what their experiences are.


----------



## granfire (Feb 18, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> I'll try 10 feet in high heels, before a snap my ankles. The burkha's a different story, maybe we can ask some of our Ninjutsu friends what their experiences are.



A for effort!


----------



## Flea (Feb 18, 2011)

granfire said:


> Then again, does it have any importance in the bigger picture?



In general, no, not enough to justify publicly humiliating Logan in one of the most intimate ways by disclosing that.  But it's well worth pointing out journalism can suddenly morph into an "action profession" with as much risk and stress as what LEOs and firefighters go through.  When the protest got ugly, they knew what they were walking into and a few of them paid the ultimate price.  Yet they kept on walking into the Square for the full 18 days because the world needed to know what was going on.  For that, they truly are heroes.


----------



## granfire (Feb 18, 2011)

Flea said:


> In general, no, not enough to justify publicly humiliating Logan in one of the most intimate ways by disclosing that.  But it's well worth pointing out journalism can suddenly morph into an "action profession" with as much risk and stress as what LEOs and firefighters go through.  When the protest got ugly, they knew what they were walking into and a few of them paid the ultimate price.  Yet they kept on walking into the Square for the full 18 days because the world needed to know what was going on.  For that, they truly are heroes.




I also think that it is often not made clear that journalists have become targets in the recent past, as the story of Danial Pearl so drastically shows.
But you are right: they are heroes when they take their role serious and go above and beyond to gather the truth. Sadly, too many don't and wait for the 'news' to reach them via ticker.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 19, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Before everyone jumps on the "blame all Muslims" bandwagon, a few points:
> 
> 1) Everyone knows that the "pro-Mubarak protestors" were government thugs sent out with orders to disrupt and harass, including reporters - a number of reporters have been threatened, detained, or assaulted to date by these people.
> 
> ...


 
Dead on target and right.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 19, 2011)

granfire said:


> Well, it's news.
> 
> I am not sure of the merit of it. Or value, or importance, however you want to call it. maybe it's an important reminder that life isn't all happy-happy-joy-joy during a revolution.
> 
> Then again, does it have any importance in the bigger picture?


 
Imo the "bigger picture" is composed of lotsa "smaller pictures".So YES to me? This is absolutely crucial.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 19, 2011)

it bears repeting




Sukerkin said:


> Fair points there EH, aye.
> 
> Degradation and objectification of women is proceeding apace back to earlier era's right now and it is happening in a great many places and cultural niches.
> 
> However, having a religious faith that gives it legitimacy is not going to help matters.  As I've said before, usually defending it, the Islamic faith is a relatively young one and is going through all the same excesses and mistakes that Christianity did.  The problem is that this is the 21st century and we cannot just stand about and wait for that faith to 'grow up'.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 20, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> it bears repeting


 

Hmmm...I think that the "inference" which can be gleaned from this post is applicable to behaviour as a whole,and not specifically to what we Westerners misunderstand about the development of and practitioners of Eastern Orthodox Islam.

In the vein of egregious religious excesses? I wholeheartedly agree with you.However that area is not at all the sole or dominant province of Islam.I might remind you of the gang raping of teens and preteens by their peers,the shootings that became daily occurences in this nation since the 80's,Katrina and the horrific blatant racism and institutionalized ineptitude demonstrated thereby,Jenna 6,loony tune nut jobs like Birthers and Deathers,the Bush Administration's gigantically preposterous and shameful attempts to exploit the deaths of former NFL star Pat Tillman and spin a heroic story about the rescue of the young military POW Jessica Lynch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch  the courage of Gabrielle Gibbons,and literally thousands of other stories that shame this great nation of the USA; and in so doing? Caution ourselves--all of us--about the language and stance we use when judging others and realize that much of the judgement that we levy upon others is equally applicable to ourselves. So YES,fight egregious violations in whatever form they exist...but realize that we ALL have to "grow up"; just because one teen is bigger taller hairier and older than another teen doesn't obviate the fact that they're both teens and they have that hellacious puberty and the subsequent decade to go through.That is essentially what human civilization as a global whole has to do.Imho at any rate.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 20, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Hmmm...I think that the &quot;inference&quot; which can be gleaned from this post is applicable to behaviour as a whole,and not specifically to what we Westerners misunderstand about the development of and practitioners of Eastern Orthodox Islam.
> 
> In the vein of egregious religious excesses? I wholeheartedly agree with you.However that area is not at all the sole or dominant province of Islam.I might remind you of the gang raping of teens and preteens by their peers,the shootings that became daily occurences in this nation since the 80's,Katrina and the horrific blatant racism and institutionalized ineptitude demonstrated thereby,Jenna 6,loony tune nut jobs like Birthers and Deathers,the Bush Administration's gigantically preposterous and shameful attempts to exploit the deaths of former NFL star Pat Tillman and spin a heroic story about the rescue of the young military POW Jessica Lynch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch  the courage of Gabrielle Gibbons,and literally thousands of other stories that shame this great nation of the USA; and in so doing? Caution ourselves--all of us--about the language and stance we use when judging others and realize that much of the judgement that we levy upon others is equally applicable to ourselves. So YES,fight egregious violations in whatever form they exist...but realize that we ALL have to &quot;grow up&quot;; just because one teen is bigger taller hairier and older than another teen doesn't obviate the fact that they're both teens and they have that hellacious puberty and the subsequent decade to go through.That is essentially what human civilization as a global whole has to do.Imho at any rate.


 
Yes, I know, I've heard it all before; the US is a place of great evil and therefore we cannot call any religion that uses terror to further it's agenda on it's ********. Let me ask you a few questions mate;When was the last time a man was executed is the US for being gay?When was the last time a woman was stoned to death for being an adulterer in the US?When was the last time that someone was sentenced to death for witchcraft in the US?When was the last time an author was publically marked for death by the powers that be in the US?When was the last time the US President publically expressed his desire to destory another race or country?By the way, in your rant, you failed to list nut jobs like Bill Ayers, a good friend of our president, whose mandate was death to all who disagreed with his rhetoric in the 60s and 70s. The rampant racism of organisations tike the new Black panthers who tried to intimidate votrs in polling stations in the last election. You fail to mention the attorney general, who gave these racists a pass, even though there was more than enough evidence to prosecute. You fail to mention organisations, funded by the taxpayer to the tune of 2 thirds of a billion dollars, who are pleased to offer pimps advise on how to take care of their underage sex worker's unwanted pregnancies.Just a few more examples for you to ad to your diatribe. You seem to have missed them.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 22, 2011)

Acting like animals, no matter by who and for what reason means that they are still animals and should be treated as such.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Feb 22, 2011)

Flea said:


> To address the question posed in the original link, I think CBS buried the story out of respect for Logan.  She probably asked them to.  Who in their right mind would want their employer to literally tell the world that they had been brutally beaten and gangraped by an angry mob?
> 
> When you have a very public job like hers you know that having a very public personal life is a risk you take.  But nobody should be forced to go public with something like that.  I applaud CBS for their tact and discretion.  It's a shame the other networks couldn't have that kind of decency.



If true, I would consider it hypocrisy.

They're perfectly comfortable throwing other peoples lives in front of the camera, pestering their subjects for emotional reactions at a time when they're vulnerable. All for some drama they can stick their name on. And suddenly something happens to them and they realize _'oh man I really don't want this splattered on national tv'_.

What's good for the goose....


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> But you are right: they are heroes when they take their role serious and go above and beyond to gather the truth. Sadly, too many don't and wait for the 'news' to reach them via ticker.


 
No I would not say she is a Hero in any way shape or form.
I would say the opposite actually.
I think it is revolting that she placed herself in the situation to begin with.
I am horrified by her experience, and regret that she was in the position and that animals attacked and assaulted her, and grateful that true heros in the women and men that saved her and prevented further harm from happening stepped up in the crowd.
lets get it right here...
She left her family, her kids to do a story and put herself in harms way unnecessarily..
She was not the only one who could do this job, and she selfishly chose her job over her family and her obligations to her kids. Thats not heroic thats selfish.

The women and soldiers who crossed their own people to save her and prevent further harm to her when she meant nothing to them, and who purposely put themselves in harms way to do the right thing because noone else was, thats heroic.

I get a bit tired of hearing the term hero thrown around so loosely now days...
I do not consider her a hero at all, I consider her a victim of a horrible tragedy.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 22, 2011)

If you go willingly into an area where you KNOW people may want to harm you and aren't adequately prepared to defend yourself, you are a fool. Having bodyguards just doesn't count as being prepared to defend yourself.


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> No I would not say she is a Hero in any way shape or form.
> I would say the opposite actually.
> I think it is revolting that she placed herself in the situation to begin with.
> I am horrified by her experience, and regret that she was in the position and that animals attacked and assaulted her, and grateful that true heros in the women and men that saved her and prevented further harm from happening stepped up in the crowd.
> ...


would you say the same thing about a guy? Like Daniel Pearl...



> The women and soldiers who crossed their own people to save her and prevent further harm to her when she meant nothing to them, and who purposely put themselves in harms way to do the right thing because noone else was, thats heroic.


I don't know where you come from, but folks who violate other people are not 'my people', I think the people stepped up didn't consider them to be 'their' people either.
But yes, stepping up against a mob is heroic.



> I get a bit tired of hearing the term hero thrown around so loosely now days...
> I do not consider her a hero at all, I consider her a victim of a horrible tragedy.



I don't think I said she was a hero. A champion for her profession, maybe...
The point is, the news does not come to you, you have to go out and find it, be you man or woman. 
I have no idea how prepared she was or how she ended up in the situation. Do I think it was the wised move on her side to go there? Probably not, even though Egypt had a reputation of being open to the West and accustomed to such things as working women.

Then again human nature is still close to the primate that once inhabited caves: It takes little to unlease that animal, much less still when bad behavior is condoned  and supported by law, or those in power.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> would you say the same thing about a guy? Like Daniel Pearl...
> 
> *Sex doesn't matter, obligation to kids goes to both parents.*
> 
> ...


 
You may not have called her a hero directly, but Flea did, and you were tossing the Hero term in association with her as well in your comment.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> would you say the same thing about a guy? Like Daniel Pearl...


Was he brave to be doing the job he was, where he was? Certainly. Does that automatically make him a hero? I don't think so.


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2011)

Big Don said:


> Was he brave to be doing the job he was, where he was? Certainly. Does that automatically make him a hero? I don't think so.




Didn't say he was a hero. I was referring to Ms Logan being called selfish for being the in the place she was. 

Like I said, a champion for the profession, maybe, hero, I don't know. (I do agree, Hero-dom is too quickly assigned these days)
However, while it is easy for us to get news from all the corners of the world with a mere click of the mouse, there is still somebody who has to make it available.

And if you look at it closely, you will have to agree that news, access to _quality_ news is essential for the democratic process. 
I think some people have realized that. Some of those try to stifle it to cement their position, others try to spread the events of the world. Naturally that does put them in the cross hairs of the former. 

It has been mentioned that journalists have in recent decades become targets themselves, contrary to their predecessors who could follow the troops into combat without increased risk to their lives.(that is not my opinion, it came up during the Daniel Pearl incident)


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> You may not have called her a hero directly, but Flea did, and you were tossing the Hero term in association with her as well in your comment.




If you didn't put your comments in the quote box quoting you would be easier....

So you do call Mr Pearl selfish, too?

So I am guilty of not expressing myself clearly in terms of what a hero is. 

However, I don't do cute in a context like this. I think it is insulting to lump the attackers and rescuers together as 'their own people' That is lumping decent folk together with thugs. In any country this is not ok.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> She left her family, her kids to do a story and put herself in harms way unnecessarily..
> She was not the only one who could do this job, and she selfishly chose her job over her family and her obligations to her kids. Thats not heroic thats selfish.



Then every soldier, every policeman and every fireman with a family is "selfish".  

Or is it only women that get this special judgment and opprobrium when they have a job that involves potential danger and leaving the home?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Then every soldier, every policeman and every fireman with a family is "selfish".
> 
> Or is it only women that get this special judgment and opprobrium when they have a job that involves potential danger and leaving the home?


 
It has nothing to do with sex, damn you people sure want to try to vilify anyone who messes with your precious little thoughts on the world don't you?

I put children first period. When I make a statement about kids it appleis equaly to both parents, not a man, or a woman individually... I mean really can you never argue the points without trying to paint your opponent as a sexist, or racist, or some other Ist?
ridiculous

As to the comment about Soldier, Policemen, Firemen etc... there is a bit of a difference, and in certain circumstances yes they can be selfish based on their choices. 

It would be a case by case scenario to discuss them all and I think that it is un necessary to do so at this time, because if you cant look at a situation and realize it then your not going to be worth arguing it with in the first place.

The major difference is this reporter had a choice.
Soldiers do not have choices for the most part.
Policemen and Firemen enter into a field that is inherently with a certain degree of danger.
This reporter chose to per herself in harmsway unnessecarily, and if it effected just her that would be one thing, but this effects her kids. That to me was completely avoidable, and she went out of her way to put herself in harms way. Unacceptable in my opinion.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> If you didn't put your comments in the quote box quoting you would be easier....
> 
> So you do call Mr Pearl selfish, too?
> 
> ...


 
I don't know, or at least remember enough about Mr. Pearls situation to even comment..
at this point I only remember vague details. a horrible situation for sure, but I cant comment beyond that without reviewing it.

all this talk from me about her being selfish, and then others bringing soldiers, policemen, and firemen into the mix... trying to get me to make a mistep and contradict myself..
I will say this. I have curtailed certain action that would put me at unnecessary risk for the sake of my kids. I also find myself drawn to certain activities that I enjoy that put me at unnecessary risk and constantly fight between doing what I want, and what I should do for the sake of those that depend on me.
Its a hard line to keep tabs on for onesself. It doesnt mean it doesnt exist. But it still is a fact.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> It has nothing to do with sex, damn you people sure want to try to vilify anyone who messes with your precious little thoughts on the world don't you?



I asked you to justify your conclusion, because your logic applies to people I was pretty certain you would not thus apply it to.  One potential difference was sex, particularly with your wording, hence the question.  Your answer to that question would determine whether or not you were sexist here.



LuckyKBoxer said:


> The major difference is this reporter had a choice.
> Soldiers do not have choices for the most part.
> Policemen and Firemen enter into a field that is inherently with a certain degree of danger.
> This reporter chose to per herself in harmsway unnessecarily, and if it effected just her that would be one thing, but this effects her kids. That to me was completely avoidable, and she went out of her way to put herself in harms way. Unacceptable in my opinion.



Again, soldiers in America are volunteer, thus all 3 professions are entered into by choice.  They all will affect their children if they are harmed, and harm is an inevitable possibility of their choice.  So are they all selfish?


----------



## granfire (Feb 22, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I don't know, or at least remember enough about Mr. Pearls situation to even comment..
> at this point I only remember vague details. a horrible situation for sure, but I cant comment beyond that without reviewing it.
> 
> all this talk from me about her being selfish, and then others bringing soldiers, policemen, and firemen into the mix... trying to get me to make a mistep and contradict myself..
> ...




Fair enough.

however, some people do believe that the mission of their occupation is important enough to everybody, including their children.
That includes Police and Firefighters who strife to make their neighborhood safer, Soldiers who defend the freedom of their country (hopefully) and sometimes a measly civilian journalist, because they believe that without truth you don't have liberty.

I did not follow the situation (I do question the wisdom in sending females into this particular area to cover almost exclusively male events) and don't know how reasonably they had to consider being in harms way during this assignment. (Yeah, I know, there is no wood working without flying chips, no revolution really without some excess...)


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I asked you to justify your conclusion, because your logic applies to people I was pretty certain you would not thus apply it to. One potential difference was sex, particularly with your wording, hence the question. Your answer to that question would determine whether or not you were sexist here.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, soldiers in America are volunteer, thus all 3 professions are entered into by choice. They all will affect their children if they are harmed, and harm is an inevitable possibility of their choice. So are they all selfish?


 
Once again if your not smart enough to make the distinctions then your not worth discussing it with.
You are the one on a witchhunt, not me. I tell you what though give me a specific example and I will answer you on what I think, right after you say whether you think they are being selfish or selfless. Be specific so there can be no misunderstanding the situation too. OR is that too much to ask of you?
I stand by my statements, and like I said if your smart enough you will be more then able enough to come up with situations in all three professions, and in the reporting profession where people make selfish decisions, and where people make selfless sacrafices.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 22, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Once again if your not smart enough to make the distinctions then your not worth discussing it with.



*What distinctions?  *You have made none!  You've avoided discussing it beyond saying "it depends", without bothering to say what it depends on!  It comes across like avoiding the issue because you don't like how your words make you look.

Explain yourself!  That's all I'm asking you to do.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> *What distinctions? *You have made none! You've avoided discussing it beyond saying "it depends", without bothering to say what it depends on! It comes across like avoiding the issue because you don't like how your words make you look.
> 
> Explain yourself! That's all I'm asking you to do.


 
um no I don't have to explain myself. I already told you to feel free to give me whatever specific examples you want and Ill address them.
If you cant handle that then tough luck.
I have dealt with smart asses like yourself more then often enough to understand how you operate. So once again its in your court, give an example and ill address it, if not then move on and realize you have no ability to force me into a corner.
like I said it depends.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 22, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Yes, I know, I've heard it all before; the US is a place of great evil and therefore we cannot call any religion that uses terror to further it's agenda on it's ********. Let me ask you a few questions mate;When was the last time a man was executed is the US for being gay?When was the last time a woman was stoned to death for being an adulterer in the US?When was the last time that someone was sentenced to death for witchcraft in the US?When was the last time an author was publically marked for death by the powers that be in the US?When was the last time the US President publically expressed his desire to destory another race or country?By the way, in your rant, you failed to list nut jobs like Bill Ayers, a good friend of our president, whose mandate was death to all who disagreed with his rhetoric in the 60s and 70s. The rampant racism of organisations tike the new Black panthers who tried to intimidate votrs in polling stations in the last election. You fail to mention the attorney general, who gave these racists a pass, even though there was more than enough evidence to prosecute. You fail to mention organisations, funded by the taxpayer to the tune of 2 thirds of a billion dollars, who are pleased to offer pimps advise on how to take care of their underage sex worker's unwanted pregnancies.Just a few more examples for you to ad to your diatribe. You seem to have missed them.


 

Well...

...firstly I neither was ranting nor was I unleashing a diatribe.I'm pointing out that wrong is wrong no matter who does it.I don't see anywhere in any of my posts in MY LIFE that I have opined that the US is a place of great evil.I am pretty sure that YOU posted that,and--all on your own--reached the conclusion that I was saying what in actuality you literally posted.Lol.Furthermore,I can tell that you either have a very limited grasp of history in certain areas and that you're certainly more Right of Center than perhaps the average U.S. citizen is.So I will speedily reply to your comments with actual historical fact (an issue that I have a great deal of facility with,since it's one of my main focuses of study at my university and I will receive a Ph.d. in a branch of said study in 5-7 years,God willing):

1.





yorkshirelad said:


> Yes, I know, I've heard it all before; the US is a place of great evil and therefore we cannot call any religion that uses terror to further it's agenda on it's ********.


 
Answer: Anybody using "terror" in the general sense that most civilians understand and dread its meaning needs to be not only called on it but rigorously and vigorously opposed,imho.HOWEVER...you're conflating two different issues."Religion" is NOT "government".Even "religious governments" are not entirely "religious" or entirely "governmental" in function.The government of the USA is likely very nearly as religious as any fundamentalist Islamic government...it's just that the USA is more tolerant and expansive in its views.NOT LESS RELIGIOUS.This massive but subtle mistake by you and people espousing similar viewpoints leads to the other horrendous logical mistakes that forever torpedo the extreme positions and generally inaccurate stances that you are taking in this conversation. So before you continue to press this conversation? Actually learn what the definition of RELIGION is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion and then we can continue.

With the Hayes-Tilden Compromise,the Federal Government of the United States sanctioned the second Civil War in the USA which ended Reconstruction.The reason that this "second civil war" is overlooked by most historians is because this wasn't a civil war fought by Whites v other Whites,it was literally the Southern racist Whites (with the collusion of the Northern government) which waged war,campaigns of terror--including religious terror,as it was thought that God ordained the White race to rule the earth and that Black people were an accursed people derived from a Biblical course laid down upon the son of one of God's prophets,with even more egregious "biblical" reasons justifying wholesale slavery of Black people as being the divine will of God--and every form of barbarism against the Blacks of the South,who were enjoying the peace of democracy and who--with likeminded Whites--brought unheard of social,educational,and political parity to the South along with the return of a burgeouning and more powerful economy than ever.All of this was halted by the government santioned wholesale slaughter and terrorism of every sort.You and anyone else may dispute this point if you wish,but you will be in a position significantly more perilous than a man who argues against the practical existence of the force that we refer to as Gravity...every available FACT is against you,and arguing the point prove your ignorance rather conclusively."It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool,than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."--Abraham Lincoln.


Furthermore,do you not recall that European slavery used religion as the fuel for its primary social,military,political and economic thrusts,and the slavers' deliberate twisting of Scriptural truth--with the full collusion and support of every major European religious establishment--lead to 400 years of terror and horror known as THE SLAVE TRADE? Despite the fact that the Friar who hit upon the importation of Africans to various islands...a man named las Casas,IIRC...was actually trying to save the lives of the indigenous populations that were kind enough to share with him their island? The rapacious Powers That Be manipulated the sensibilities of the average European and invested them with a comprehensive sense of superiority toward people of color which they were told was divinely given to them;and White Supremacy was born.This sense of entitlement led to the most atrocious excesses in human history,such as the Slave Trade,and--excepting the brief,shining,magnificent but consistent examples of people like the French workers and their Revolution,and the dazzling revolutions of Jean Jacque Francois Touissaint L'Ouverture,and before him people like Zumbi dos Palmares and Boukman and the mightiest of all,the indomitable Queen Nzinga--government,religion and race joined together to feast upon literally hundreds of millions of people until the '50s wherein the official U.S. government position was repudiated de jure but not de facto (legally but not in practice) and the 70's wherein the predations of Western governments were dramatically decreased but still not ended.Insofar as slavery is concerned? It continued past the 14th Amendment,continued past the end of Reconstruction (in fact,freedom from Northern intervention into Southern political affairs so that the South could return to slavery and in return the North would receive the president that they wanted was THE HEART of The Hayes-Tilden Compromise) and then another hundred years before slavery (called "sharecropping" for awhile) ended effectively with the World War but "apartheid" called Jim Crow and  2nd class citizenship rose in its place throughout the USA.Apartheid/Jim Crow was officially assaulted in the 50's (Brown v Board of Topeka Kansas I and II) but still is not functionally destroyed to this very day. Have a care as to the extremity of your claims,and be aware of your history before you make claims as extremely unfactual as yours.

2.





yorkshirelad said:


> By the way, in your rant, you failed to list nut jobs like Bill Ayers, a good friend of our president, whose mandate was death to all who disagreed with his rhetoric in the 60s and 70s.quote]
> 
> Answer: You are amazingly and entirely incorrect in this area as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 22, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> 4.
> 
> Answer: all the way up to this present year.
> 
> ...


 
I don't have anything to add or detract from the other arguments, but in regards to this, I think what he meant was a gay person being killed for being gay and not having any charges brought against him/her for doing it.
maybe I am wrong.
But I seem to remember stories of accused homosexuals being killed under the systems there without issues..
and while people here in the States do all matters of disgusting and horrifying acts, the last I checked its still illegal to kill a person based on their sexuality no matter what, and you will be charged if they can catch you.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 22, 2011)

Let's stick to what is happening NOW eh? It get's old when every argument devolves into "oh yeah?!?! well...well...well YOUR religion/country/etc. did so and so 400 years ago!!!" None of us were alive then and the current gvt/religions no longer stone raped women...well MOST religions/gvts.


And "executed" (as I read it) meant killed by a governmental/religious institution a la how gays are killed as a matter of "law" by some middle eastern gvts.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 22, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Let's stick to what is happening NOW eh? It get's old when every argument devolves into "oh yeah?!?! well...well...well YOUR religion/country/etc. did so and so 400 years ago!!!" None of us were alive then and the current gvt/religions no longer stone raped women...well MOST religions/gvts.
> 
> 
> And "executed" (as I read it) meant killed by a governmental/religious institution a la how gays are killed as a matter of "law" by some middle eastern gvts.


 

I trailed the actions and issues in question literally to the moment that I am writing this post and beyond,so we're not talking about an isolated incident from 400 years ago that has no modern day vibrant reality.Today,as I returned home,I--all 5'7" 158 lbs. of me--terrified a White woman (about 5'9" 180lbs) so badly by merely saying:"HELLO" that she clutched her person,shrank back in fear from me...and bounced off of the vending machine behind her.

We were in the University lunch room.Hundreds of people there.Within twenty paces was a L.A. Sheriff.She watched me walk over to the vending machine next to her and get my bottled water without saying a word to me.I looked up and said:"Hello." with a smile.Look at my videos.I'm not exactly The Predator.Shriek in terror,grab purse and shrink away from me,she did (said that last sentence in my Yoda voice).The systemic inequalities and persecutions that still exist are merely the intractable core of the imperialism racism sexism elitism and few other "-isms" that gave rise to slavery and the Holocaust in the first place.Therefore,I am speaking of the here and now...and tomorrow and next year and my lifetime and my kids' lifetime too,until a systemic change is enacted for the betterment of all of us.That systemic change can't be effected if we ignore the root and the many branches of the problem...so,although I'm sure you mean well,you're committing a gigantic fallacy by not acknowledging as essential the legacy of slavery to the second by second actions of today.That'd be like trying to disassociate the successful Revolutionary War from the workings of our government and nation on a daily basis.


But I take your point and will address them accordingly,as long as you see the vibrant and immediate second-by-second connection in mine.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 23, 2011)

Whilst I applaud and agree with your point on the necessity of historical perspective to properly understand 'today's' world, I think what Angel was trying to head off was yet another drive down the blind alley of mutual recriminations that often spawns from such beginnings.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 23, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> > ...firstly I neither was ranting nor was I unleashing a diatribe.
> >
> > So now it begins
> >
> ...


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 24, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Whilst I applaud and agree with your point on the necessity of historical perspective to properly understand 'today's' world, I think what Angel was trying to head off was yet another drive down the blind alley of mutual recriminations that often spawns from such beginnings.


 
That's understandable and I do agree such a detour isn't benefitting anyone.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 24, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> > Do you recall the origins of the European slave trade? It seems that in certain parts of the African continent it is still a booming industry.We Europeans learned many things about buying and selling people. Fortunatley enough, we stopped the practise. If only that was the case in Africa
> ...


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 24, 2011)

But back to the purpose of this thread...whoever did this to the CBS reporter or whoever would do this to anyone? Firing squad.Same day.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 24, 2011)

> What agenda do I have,Mr.yorkshirelad? Maybe you can enlighten me.I don't recall coming to this thread,agenda in hand or head,consutling it,and going:"Hmmmm..." before posting.Maybe you can enlighten me on my own thoughts and actions.


 
You have a leftist agenda! I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear.



> A few crucial points here: The Skinheads like the KKK are a group that was formed with avowed racist philosophy as part of their core.That racist philosophy is known as White Supremacy.The (actual) Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was designed to protect the Black and Latin underpriviledged in Oakland and branched out to many areas that had ghettos and intense persecution of Black and Latin people purely do to our race and culture.


 
Funnily enough, the above text sounds just like the argument Hitler and his brown shirts made.



> Second,as previously stated,those 3 idiots weren't Panther members.They were just stupid people doing stupid things.The fact that they threatened whomever regardless of race tends to repudiate the idea that they were racist...just stupid and perhaps violent.


 
Really, I've personally witnessed racist skin heads kick the crap out of white people. Using your logic, this ceases to make them racist. 



> As stated earlier,I am neither a member of the Left or the Right,but I'd be closer to a Centrist...like most U.S. citizens are.Please have accurate facts to garland your comments with when you are attempting to engage in discussion with me.


 
My opinion of your mentality came from all the examples you used in your diatribe about the ills of th US. They are all examples of so called right wing attrocities. It doesn't take a mindreader to deduce that your an extreme leftist.



> Rachel MadDOW,not MadDUX,is indeed a champion of the Left but she got there by being a reporter of very high standard and generally extremely accurate fact-finding and reporting.She is indeed biased toward her perspectives,as most of us are,but her journalistic integrity prevents her from making the stupidly racist fulminating excesses typical of national Right wing figures like Rush Limbaugh and others


 

The piece you chose to quote was indeed by Maddow, and unless you are an uber leftist you will agree that she has all the journalistic integrity of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

By the way, just because slavery mas been banned in many African countries, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Niger banned slavery in 2003 and yet it is estimated that approximately 8% of the populace are still slaves. Think about it, if we were comparing that to the US populace that would be 24 million people. *Africans are still enslaving Africans. It's a fact!!*


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 24, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> You have a leftist agenda! I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear.


 
I am not amazed that you are not keen enough to realize that I know my mind far better than you ever will.I am not a Leftist,I am much more of a Centrist than apparently you are.However,if it gives you a warm fuzzy to feel that I'm rockin a Leftist agenda? Have at it.



yorkshirelad said:


> Funnily enough, the above text sounds just like the argument Hitler and his brown shirts made.


 
If you are referring to the Skinheads and the KKK I referenced in my post? You are correct.If you are referring to The Black Panthers? You are merely demonstrating that your grasp on recent American history is Bachmannesque in its rampant inaccuracy and untruth.The Black Panther Party was formed because Black people and people of color were factually being terrorized,colonized and occupied in our own section of our own city...and they did so with impunity.Hughey P.Newton and Bobby Seale hit upon the idea of patrolling the police and--strictly following the letter of California law--made it a point to inform each and every person that they saw racist police officers violating of their rights,oftenitmes in the midst of the OPD attempting to violate said rights.This resulted in the precipitous drop of rapings,murders,pimpings,drug dealing,and every type of horror and excess that you can and probably can't imagine.

Hitler was simply looking for a scapegoat as he ascended to power...and first he blamed Black people,then he blamed European Jews.Just as first he gassed and incinerated Black people,and then European Jews.There is NO correlation between Hitler and The Black Panther Party.Only the deluded such as yourself would make such a fantasticlly,wildly false and absolutely historically unsupportable conclusion.




yorkshirelad said:


> Really, I've personally witnessed racist skin heads kick the crap out of white people. Using your logic, this ceases to make them racist.


 

Actually,if you used my logic...your logic would be VALID.Instead you merely point out how poor your logic,grasp of history,and deductive powers are.However,if you listen to what the Skinheads THEMSELVES say when they explain why they attacked another White person? INEVITABLY they state that they believe that the other White person is a "race traitor",and they hate "race traitors" even MORE than they hate Black people.They are specifically saying themselves that they have no race hate toward the White person or people they are violating.The only exception that they sometimes make is regarding Europeans Jews,whom they violently despise for controlling the media and "killing Christ",among other things.

So it's not MY logic that suggests that their violent attacks toward Whites aren't motivated by racism,it's THEIR logic and THEIR MANY TIMES AVOWED STATEMENT.Maybe you can use your amazing telepathic powers to peer into their minds and determine their true thoughts and motivations,the same way that you did the White version of Ms.Cleo with me and were able to tell me my TRUE political allegiance...to the LEFT.



yorkshirelad said:


> The piece you chose to quote was indeed by Maddow, and unless you are an uber leftist you will agree that she has all the journalistic integrity of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
> 
> By the way, just because slavery mas been banned in many African countries, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Niger banned slavery in 2003 and yet it is estimated that approximately 8% of the populace are still slaves. Think about it, if we were comparing that to the US populace that would be 24 million people. *Africans are still enslaving Africans. It's a fact!!*


 
By now,it's not a surprise that you are wrong on everything that you've stated here.

1.Rachel Maddow is many times more factual,balanced,and fair than Rush and Sean will ever be.And she's smarter,too.She doesn't fall into fits of catastrophic stupidity and allow it to spew from her mouth and onto nationwide airwaves.If we were to compare and contrast the maaaany stupidities of Rush and Sean and compare them to the significantly more minor and fewer in number lapses by Rachel Maddow? We'd run out of cyberspace before we could finish cataloguing the immense ludicrousness of Rush and Sean.We'd never get to the geometrically fewer in number and intensity lapses by Rachel,and unlike either Rush or Sean? When Rachel makes an error and she's made aware of it...she actually does on-air RETRACTIONS.She has and will always have infinitely more journalistic integrity than Rush and Sean who are effectively Far Right shock jocks dressed up as political commentators.

Regarding ANY fact on the African continent,I previously warned you: you are incredibly ill-equipped to do combat with me on any point.If I take issue with you on ANY area,it's because you are overwhelmingly factually incorrect.And you are abominably incorrect regarding Niger too.

I tried to tell you earlier: I have family from Nigeria,Mali,and Niger too.Ghana as well.I have family scattered throughout the continent.Your argument is that Africans enslave Africans.That is NOT the case.First,the Western definition of slavery and the African definition of slavery are sharply different.The African definition of slavery would be closer to the Western definition of indentured servant.Is it horrible,inexcusable,terrible? YES YES YES.With all my heart I would wish it to be destroyed and happily flog anyone who abuses people with this horrific system.Secondly,these matters are often confused with age old caste systems like the Taureg,which add Arabic an European flavored racism chauvinsim and classism to the mix and confound traditional structures of slavery (which should be 100% abolished whether they're "indentured servants" or not) with the newer forms of Arabic an European slavery.Essentially,the lighter skinned rule exploit and terrorize the darker skinned people,but the darker slavers never actually deny the humanity of their slaves.Never is there chattel slavery.These are ESSENTIAL to the mindset that we in the West take when we think of slavery,and these are not the case in the Motherland.Furthermore,Western slavery is race specific;African slavery is not.

Any time you see any form of slavery in Africa that is race specific,denies humanity,and equates the slave with an object like an article of clothing or a mule in the "denial of humanity" sense as European chattel slavery did? You are looking at something and almost always someone who is non-African racially...no matter what they may claim naitonally.This information isn't available to people who don't have direct bloodlinks,the historical information and context,the language facility,and more that I have and which you utterly lack.

It would behoove you to ASK me something about the Motherland before you resort to a Google search which will result in giving you insufficient data about what REALLY goes on in the Motherland...which you will then espouse here and I will then call you on and do an embarassingly thorough job of destroying your misconceptions and misperceptions about.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 25, 2011)

No, there is absolutely NO slavery in Africa today. None, None at all. How dare you?


----------



## Big Don (Feb 25, 2011)

Black people don't have a monopoly on slavery...The British government       had realized as early as the 1640&#8217;s how beneficial white slave labor was       to the profiting colonial plantations.        Slavery was instituted as early as 1627 in the British West Indies.        The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series of 1701 records 25000       slaves in Barbados in which 21700 were white slaves.
Somehow, centuries later, their descendants aren't still complaining about slavery at every turn.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> Rachel MadDOW,not MadDUX,is indeed a champion of the Left but she got there by being a reporter of very high standard and generally extremely accurate fact-finding and reporting.



bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaa

(deep breath)

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

and again, ANY credibility yu  MIGHT have had just got flushed down the crapper.

please, keep posting, i need the laughs


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

Qft





big don said:


> black people don't have a monopoly on slavery...the british government       had realized as early as the 1640s how beneficial white slave labor was       to the profiting colonial plantations.        Slavery was instituted as early as 1627 in the british west indies.        The calendar of state papers, colonial series of 1701 records 25000       slaves in barbados in which 21700 were white slaves.
> somehow, centuries later, their descendants aren't still complaining about slavery at every turn.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> 1.Rachel Maddow is many times more factual,balanced,and fair than Rush and Sean will ever be.And she's smarter,too.





really Slick?

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/rachel-maddow-lies-fox-shirley-sherrod
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/once-again-rachel-maddows-claims-ruled-false/
http://www.google.com/search?q=madd...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


lord PLEASE keep posting, its like having that inflatable punching clown i had as a kid back....


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

Hey Slick,
calling it the "motherland"?

thats classic

I have been there, have you?


----------



## granfire (Feb 25, 2011)

I hope you guys wear speedos for this mud wrestle fest. ^_^


I think we were originally stuck on whether the remark of selfishness leveled against Ms Logan was sexist....

and not who is more guilty in the slave trade (which btw, I think it's semantics if you call it servants or slaves. And it's alive and kicking, and I think it's an illusion to call it non-race specific, especially when Sudanese kids from the black south end up in the predominately Arabic north) I think a lot of those who use the slave/race card these days would fall on their tuchus if they had the actual facts as they played out over the centuries....

But that is a Galaxy away from the original topic.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 25, 2011)

true.

in a return to the topic:
i hope she is ok, but she should have known that crowd was going bad


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 25, 2011)

Big Don said:


> No, there is absolutely NO slavery in Africa today. None, None at all. How dare you?


 

1.If you're going to look to engage me in discussion about the Motherland,at least get your quotes and your facts straight...as you and yorkshirelad continually demonstrate your ineptitude at both.



ATACX GYM said:


> Any time you see any form of slavery in Africa that is race specific,denies humanity,and equates the slave with an object like an article of clothing or a mule in the "denial of humanity" sense as European chattel slavery did? You are looking at something and almost always someone who is non-African racially.


 

2.Do you have distant relatives in these areas? Are you moving them elsewhere? Are you visiting them? No? I AM.So don't tell me WHAT I DARE.Got it? Good.I hope and pray and assume that you and yorkshirelad are attempting to be helpful and that we all absolutely repudiate in any way shape or form any kind of slavery...despite our different racial backgrounds,I hope that we have the HUMAN commonality of reviling any loathesome creature(s) that would do such a thing.But your approaches display more of your arrogance and ignorance than what I hope is our common revulsion at this horror.




Big Don said:


> Black people don't have a monopoly on slavery...The British government had realized as early as the 1640&#8217;s how beneficial white slave labor was to the profiting colonial plantations. Slavery was instituted as early as 1627 in the British West Indies. The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series of 1701 records 25000 slaves in Barbados in which 21700 were white slaves.
> Somehow, centuries later, their descendants aren't still complaining about slavery at every turn.


 

3.What you fail to mention is this: of course for the most part the initial attempts at forced labor were practiced upon the White population of the White slavers.But White forced labor was more difficult to acquire because the Whites could escape,it was more difficult to inculcate the same lower and middle class Whites from which these slaves were culled to develope a revulsion toward (instead of a sympathy for) these White slaves,White slaves could escape and hide amongst the White populace (and foment resistance) far easier...and MOST IMPORTANTLY WHITE SLAVERY WAS NEVER AN ARTICLE OF SPECIFIC DEMAND.Slaves didn't=White people as a comprehensive and general theme.Inhuman slaves NEVER=White people.Prisoners of war back in the day regardless of race oftentimes became the slaves of the victors in war.But White folks made SLAVERY and BLACK PEOPLE and INHUMAN SUBHUMAN CHATTEL synonymous.The same Power Class that all of us--regardless of race--despise for their ineptitude and wastrelness now.Same exact Power Class that is the cause for the overwhelming majority of problems of all stripes of the USA and benefits from it.SAME EXACT CLASS THAT CAUSED SLAVERY.So you and I,Big Don and yorkshirelad,should have faaar more to be in lockstep and agreement about instead of disagreement about.Yet you seem to utterly miss this point.

And oh yeah...another reason that nobody else except the European Jews complains anywhere near as much as we Black people have? Might have something to do with the near total destruction of and near total depopulation of an entire civilization.100 million Africans taken and dead during the Slave Trade...6 million Jews and several hundred thousand Black people by Hitler...21,000 in your count for Barbados.And your count is highly SPECULATIVE.HIGHLY.It's almost 100% certain that these Whites were not CHATTEL slaves and even if they were? The policy of chattel slavery specifically singled out Black Africans.So I'm not at all surprised to note that you very specifically hedged dodged ducked and quite conveniently forgot to talk about the several MILLION Black people as slaves during the time of Barbados' slavery age. I'm sure that there were a few thousand Germans who perished during Nazi Germany too.Their struggles and pains in no way is comparable to or denigrates the geometrically worse treatment that Black people and European Jews faced; nor is the converse the case.The German citizenry who perished or who were immorally persecuted should not have their stories in any way slighted due to the massively greater suffering of others.But there is no way to say sensibly..."Well these Germans didn't complain like you did so shut up European Jews!" That's at best a demonstration of abominable stupidity and insensititivity...and that's exactly what you did,Big Don,with your links and quotes and the ludicrous assumptions you derived therefrom.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"--Abraham Lincoln. You guys need a heavy dose of silence.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 25, 2011)

granfire said:


> I hope you guys wear speedos for this mud wrestle fest. ^_^
> 
> 
> I think we were originally stuck on whether the remark of selfishness leveled against Ms Logan was sexist....
> ...


 


Twin Fist said:


> Hey Slick,
> calling it the "motherland"?
> 
> thats classic
> ...


 
Africa is the birthplace for humanity.There is no more accurate or better place to refer to as The Motherland.Not only have I been to THE MOTHERLAND,I'm going back.Slick.And I'm going into the hot zones.Slick.Where have you been? Slick? Ohhh and I'm putting it on Youtube so that there will be PROOF of this.Slick.And you?

Granfire? That speedos joint was hilarious! Lol. Your observations about the Sudanese south,the slave trade,and the "euphemism" of servants/slavery is quite accurate.If you're forced to dispose of your labor and time and you haven't committed a crime that sends you to prison,there is no hope or framework of justification for such an action.

I do think that we need to stay on topic of this thread....and I think that were I or my loved ones in Ms. Logan's position? I would first be concerned with her,contact the American Embassy and inform them of the incident (sans Ms.Logan's name) and greatly urge them to spread the news to travellers via various media outlets.Idk if Ms.Logan or her people thought of that,and Idk if doing so would have exposed Ms. Logan to the insensitivities and stupidities that some people can display sooner and worse or more often...but I would have done something like that or suggested something like that.


I don't think Ms. Logan was selfish.I think she was TRAUMATIZED...which impacts our thinking accordingly.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 27, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> I am not amazed that you are not keen enough to realize that I know my mind far better than you ever will.I am not a Leftist,I am much more of a Centrist than apparently you are.However,if it gives you a warm fuzzy to feel that I'm rockin a Leftist agenda? Have at it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

Mr "african studies" has opinions, and those opinions have zero credibility, and he did it to himself.

saying Madcow is a reputable journalist

saying slavery was all becasue of white people

sayign there is no more slavery in africa

best to stop feeding the troll


----------



## Big Don (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> Mr "african studies" has opinions, and those opinions have zero credibility, and he did it to himself.
> 
> saying Madcow is a reputable journalist
> 
> ...


 But, but, he's my hero:


> martial artist with experience ranging from boxing kenpo MT TKD TSD and  firearms,knife and stickfighting,European fencing,iaido (seite-ryu)  hapkido shaolin chuan fa combat chuan fa hung gar hwarangdo judo  freestyle wrestling all the way to capoeira (the real fighting kind)


 Sorry, but, that peaked my "nutcase radar"


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 27, 2011)

Sorry, the first half of my last post was a quote from Atacx and it was posted in error. I was too eager to reply. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.



> I would first be concerned with her,contact the American Embassy and inform them of the incident (sans Ms.Logan's name) and greatly urge them to spread the news to travellers via various media outlets.Idk if Ms.Logan or her people thought of that,and Idk if doing so would have exposed Ms. Logan to the insensitivities and stupidities that some people can display sooner and worse or more often...but I would have done something like that or suggested something like that.


 
I would think after a well known journalist is sexually assaulted in a foreign land in public, the above would've already been done, especially considering the media coverage. You could try calling the embassy though, just in case:rofl:


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

Big Don said:


> But, but, he's my hero:
> Sorry, but, that peaked my "nutcase radar"




yeah, 14 styles and under the age of 30......


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 27, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> ATACX GYM said:
> 
> 
> > I am not amazed that you are not keen enough to realize that I know my mind far better than you ever will.I am not a Leftist,I am much more of a Centrist than apparently you are.However,if it gives you a warm fuzzy to feel that I'm rockin a Leftist agenda? Have at it.
> ...


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 27, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> Sorry, the first half of my last post was a quote from Atacx and it was posted in error. I was too eager to reply. Shooting fish in a barrel comes to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think after a well known journalist is sexually assaulted in a foreign land in public, the above would've already been done, especially considering the media coverage. You could try calling the embassy though, just in case:rofl:


 

One might THINK such and such was the case but none of us know for certain unless we're able to acquire some kind of objective empirical confirmation,or whatever.The call to the embassy could result in properly informing the embassy accordingly which can then provide the specifics on kinds of information about an area that a net search may not reveal..and could be very very salient to thousands of people.That's why such a move might be sensible.Of course,I'm not surprised that you're too dense to note such a possibility.

Remember Abe Lincoln's sage advice about remaining silent? He was talking about people like you.Lolol.


----------



## ATACX GYM (Feb 27, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> yeah, 14 styles and under the age of 30......


 

What makes you think that I'm under 30? And of course if there is any doubt about my martial ability,well...we can do a number of things.You can check the link on my sig for my Youtube Channel. We can exchange videos.If you still believe that I lack any genuine skill or ability,we can spar.I love sparring.I mean that without an ounce of rancor or bravado.I'd also like to see if any of you have videos and especially if you spar.

And keeping this thread on topic? I don't think that Ms.Logan was being selfish.Like I said,I think that she was likely traumatized.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 27, 2011)

ATACX GYM;1370quote=yorkshirelad;1370227 said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## elder999 (Feb 27, 2011)

ATACX GYM said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Ph.d's are not indicative of superior intelligence,they're reflective of the fulfillment of a generally very rigorous course of study in a specific discipline or disciplines..


 

Kind of depends on what the Ph*D.* is *in*, doesn't it? 

I mean, I'm a little biased, so, physics or bioengineering? Yeah-a rigorous course of study *and* superior intelligence-of *one* sort, anyway, as there are several different _types_ of intelligence.

"African studies?"....not so much.

Generally, though, they *all* mean _*P*iled *H*igher and *D*eeper_ to me..... :lfao:



ATACX GYM said:


> What makes you think that I'm under 30? And of course if there is any doubt about my martial ability,well...we can do a number of things.*You can check the link on my sig for my Youtube Channel. *


 
And see your very under-30 looking image? :lfao:


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 27, 2011)

already watched your videos.It took six videos on alternating maces before i actually saw the technique......

 Just out of curiosity, who did you learn American Kenpo from? 

Back on topic, she should have known that was a possibility. Arab men are not known for treating women well.... everyone knows this. Look at Paris


----------

