Lawrence O'Donnell Rips Schlussel's Comments About Lara Logan, Ignores Rosen's
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell was disgusted by "many intemperate" comments made about the news that CBS's Lara Logan had been brutally and apparently sexually assaulted while covering the Egyptian celebration that followed President Hosni Mubarak's resignation last Friday.
Not at all surprising, the only one he bothered to read on Wednesday's "The Last Word" was written by a conservative (video follows with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: CBS News correspondent Lara Logan was interviewed by Charlie Rose on February 7th, after she and her crew had been detained by the Egyptian army. She talked about her desire to go right back in and cover the story.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LARA LOGAN, CBS NEWS: Fundamentally it is in my blood to be there and to be on the street and to be listening to people and to do the best reporting that I can. At the same time, I am also aware of the fact that I put my family through a very difficult situation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O’DONNELL: “On Friday, February 11th, the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a '60 Minutes' story when she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.”
So says a CBS News statement released yesterday. The statement continues: ”In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating, before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers. She reconnected with the CBS team, returned to her hotel, and returned to the United States on the first flight the next morning. CBS, Lara Logan and her family intend to make no further statement on this. She is now recovering at home after being treated in an American hospital.”
Making a bad situation worse, there have been many intemperate reactions to what happened to Lara Logan, the worst from conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel who brags about her appearances on the "O'Reilly Factor."
She wrote: “So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks and she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows. This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled. How fitting that Lara Logan was liberated by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the liberation. Hope you're enjoying the revolution, Lara!”
Joining me now author and journalist Farai Chideya of Popandpolitics.com. Farai, I’m a little bit lost. I’m a little bit sickened by what I just had to read. I thought it was hard to be surprised by what can surface on the internet these days. This is surprising.
To begin with, O'Donnell was right to mention Schlussel's piece. It was indeed disgraceful.
But unlike the conservative website the Daily Caller, which wrote about "creepy pundits" wasting no time politicizing the Logan news, O'Donnell failed to mention what NYU journalism professor Nir Rosen posted at Twitter Tuesday.
As NewsBusters previously reported:
"Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson. Where was her buddy McCrystal," he wrote, apparently wishing that former U.S. general Stanley McCrystal and CNN anchor Anderson Cooper had been also sexually assaulted by a mob.
Rosen's disgusting comments got worse from there, even as the fellow at New York University’s Center on Law and Security attempted to rationalize his hatred. "Yes yes its wrong what happened to her. Of course. I don't support that. But, it would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too."
That wasn't enough for Rosen who continued his ranting as he stated why Logan was the target of his hate-filled, sexist tirade: She was not sufficiently against the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"Jesus Christ, at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should at least remember her role as a major war monger," Rosen tweeted.
Moments later, Rosen started to backpedal: "Look, she was probably groped like thousands of other women, which is still wrong, but if it was worse than [sic] I'm sorry."
If O'Donnell was going to mention Schlussel's disgraceful comments, he should have also let his viewers know about Rosen's. By not doing so, he was just as guilty as they were in politicizing this incident.
How sad that in his zeal to bash a conservative blogger as well as his competitor on Fox News, O'Donnell failed to see the obvious hypocrisy in his critique.
As for Logan, our hearts go out to her and her family. We at NewsBusters wish her a speedy recovery and return to CBS.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
SHOCKER!
Submitted by blazermaniac on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:26am.
Leave it to a moron like Lawrence O'Donnell to only mention part of the situation. Of course, he wouldn't mention the comments made by Nir Rosen. He was told only to say what the White House rold him to say. He's still a MORON!
And a DISHONEST moron, to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:42am.
And a DISHONEST moron, to boot.
Lara Logan - indeed we wish you a speedy recovery..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:43am.
.. and if Blonde is around I re-direct my earlier missile directed at Daryl Ratigan towards Lawrence O'Donnell.
(;~. gary
Smearing conservatives is
Submitted by rbosque on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:47am.
Smearing conservatives is what he gets paid for not for being decent or telling the truth. He's a sock puppet to the idiots who sign his checks.
Typical
Submitted by Truestar on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:06am.
I have little doubt that Olbermutt would have done the same as this idiot O'Donnell.
What's interesting to me is the difference between Schlussel's comments and Rosen's comments---not that both of them weren't contemptible and insensitive in the extreme. But Rosen, whom I presume is well versed in political correctness and sensitivity towards females, comes off as a typical neanderthal, sexist, pig. And this guy was an NYU journalism prof???? It's fitting and delicious that this fraud had to resign.
On the other hand, Schlussel is a conservative commentator with a blog, and as insensitive as her commentary was, her ire appears to be based on her viewpoint of Islam generally, and the circumstances in Egypt particularly---not on the fact that Logan happens to be a woman.
Either way, both commentaries should have been featured, but of course that would be absurd for a jag off hack like O'Donnell to even consider. He's a typical MessNBC whore, with zero intention to ever be "fair and balanced".
Lawrence O'Socialist.....
Submitted by adamsmith on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:31am.
Olbergoebbels Lite....................The Song Remains the Same............
What about Jim Hoft et al?
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 5:28am.
Schlussels statements were repulsive, so were Rosen's. He didn't mention Jim Hoft or Robert Stacy McCain either? Their statements were really sickening. Why didn't you mention those two, Noel?
Amanda Carrington
McCain and Hoft
Submitted by Truestar on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:26am.
I've read McCain's and Hoft's statements, and though they could be percieved as callous, they seem to me to be reality based, as opposed to just some (as you seem to think) sickening attack on a female victim.
I don't speak for Mr. Sheppard, but I think he didn't include those commentaries because Hoft and McCain were asking reasonable and relevant questions about why Logan ended up in such obvious danger. That's as opposed to Prof. Rosen, who immediately highlighted Logan's gender.
Well Idiot
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:24am.
You may disagree with what Hoft and McCain said, but they were not nearly as disgusting as what Rosen said. He also didn't bring up what Simone Wilson said. So what is your point?
You are calling me an idiot
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:46am.
I said what Rosen said was disgusting. It is despicable. He should have been fired. But, How can you can defend those pieces of sh!t Hoft and McCain, that actually said she deserved to be raped. There is no excuse for that.
Amanda Carrington
They ACTUALLY said that?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:10am.
I think you need to look up that word. They did not ACTUALLY say she deserved to be raped. I'm sure MMFA told you they did but those ain't the facts. Yes, you are still an idiot.
yes they did
Submitted by goldwaterfan on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:13am.
You are an idiot. Can't you read?
Amanda Carrington
Prove it LIAR
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:24am.
Sorry to steal a line but PROVE IT LIAR. Give us the quote. I read both articles and not a single line said "Lara Logan deserved to get raped." Not one. So you are not only an idiot, you are a damn LIAR.
gwf,
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:53am.
I think you are reading a lot into their statements - happens all the time but they said nothing of the sort. At best I would say there opinions could have waited a couple of days but what they said was that she took a risk but potentially ignored the depth of the danger because of the inability of the media and the left to correctly relate the true level violant and misogynistic attitudes of a large portion of the Islamic world.
You see the attack was on the left, Islam and the media. The only thing derogative about Lara Logan was a charge of being naive.
Quote them directly and give
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:09am.
Quote them directly and give a link to their quote, not a second or third-hand link, but a primary source link. Back it up.Oh sweet!
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:22am.
Here's Pervmo, man without a link, demanding a primary source link!!!!!
Pot meet kettle. Or as I'm fond of saying at Incestmo, jello.....wall.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
LOL - now he thinks he's Vince Lombardi
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:49am.
.
Blonde
Submitted by Agnostic on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:49am.
your history with satchmo aside I thought satchmo was giving some pretty good advice to someone who is expanding the context of someone else's writing beyond the intent or meaning of the original article.
Understood, Agnostic
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:07am.
For a non-responsive troll like Satchmo, I just found this demand (with such dictatorial requirements) to be on the sublime side of ridiculous. Particularly inasmuch as there is never a link from Satchmo to back up some of his most absurd claims about his "facts".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Name one. I've given links a
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:21am.
Name one. I've given links a number of times. Name one of these "absurd claims".Seriously?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:40am.
How about:
Me:
Because if I told an off-color (sexual) joke, ethnic or racial joke, or a "faggot" joke in front of a roomful of co-workers, I would be fired. Because my employer would be subject to sexual harrassment charges.
Satchmo, you are clearly nuts, believing this nonsense you type here. We live in a somewhat polite society, where there are rules, both written (laws) and unwritten....and all of your "facts" exist only in your head.
You:
Yes, really. Even though you cannot differentiate from public and private (we were discussing "hate speech" laws, you see, which I don't think exist), you still have the right to say it, and it is not illegal to say it. And no, your employer would not be subject to sexual harrassment charges.
That's an absurd claim. Totally unsubstantiated, merely a whim of your fever brain...You've yet to refute the subsequent substantiated cite I made, which refers to harrassment (specifically language of a sexual or racial nature) in the workplace being covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
You fail, again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Please be specific. Which
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:01pm.
Please be specific. Which claim is absurd? That hate speech laws don't exist in the US? That off-color jokes aren't illegal? You changed the subject from hate speech laws - the public arena - to off-color jokes in the workplace - the private arena. Telling an off-color joke does not equal sexual harrassment. Again, anyone can charge another with anything, that doesn't mean it happened or that intent was there. There is a burden of proof that would have to be met. So please be specific: which claim?There, bolded it for you
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:35pm.
To remove all doubt.
The workplace is not, as you erroneously claim, "private".
In fact, I challenge you to cite some case law to support your idiotic claim. Sexual, racial, and ethnic statments, including jokes, comprise a significantly "hostile" workplace. Which, is covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
So let's see your cite.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Really? A private business
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:04pm.
Really? A private business that is private property and not the purview of the state is not private? And you accuse me of making absurd claims???I totally forgot that our jails are overcrowded with comedians, movie and television screenwriters, and the staff of The Harvard Lampoon. How silly of me to not remeber that.
Look, you are an ignorant person. There's nothing I can do about that. The subject was hate speech laws. There are no hate speech laws in the US, and it is not illegal to tell off-color jokes. Off-color jokes are not hate speech, nor are they sexual harrassment. You are guilty of the argument from ignorance fallacy.
Kidding, right?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:15pm.
Walk up to any African American in your workplace and just say "Hey, N(word)"
Get back with us on your successful defense of free speech in the workplace.
Is it illegal? Would you be
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:40pm.
Is it illegal? Would you be so kind as to cite the state or federal statute that states saying, "Hey, Nigger" is illegal?
Admins: Incestmo is now throwing around the N word
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:50pm.
Stop the racial slurs, Incestmo. You're putting everyone here in a bad light, you sad little bigot.
By the way, I never said
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:08pm.
By the way, I never said there is free speech in the workplace. This is the crucial difference between public and private and knowing where and when our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are protected.
Where I work
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 8:40pm.
The faggot would had punched your punk a$$ out. If someone else didnt first. But we wouldnt "fire" you. : )
Let's see your cite backing up your claim
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:15pm.
Because "private" businesses are still subject to State and Federal Laws, including those which govern sexual harrassment, wherein innappropriate speech by employers and employees falls under the Civil Rights act as it pertains to a hostile workplace. Matters not whether it is a "private" company, nor a public company, nor a governmental agency for that matter.
You are the one who made the ignorant claims, Pervmo, not I. We're not talking about comedy clubs, you twit. We're talking workplace law.
You are the one who DEMANDED a cite....well, now that I've hoist you upon your own petard, you can either cite some case law supporting your ignorant (and wholely wrong) position, or you can just admit defeat.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
→ Easy there, Blonde!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:22pm.
It is, after all, a consensual act between Satchmo and his petard.
I know it's his own petard, CA
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:28pm.
But the question, then, would be, is said petard of legal age? How exactly is Satchmo's petard related to Satchmo? Is the non-consensual act of hoisting said petard make it any less humiliating for the haulee? I, of course, as the hoister am perfectly pleased.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No, we were not talking about
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:53pm.
No, we were not talking about workplace law; we were talking about the US's non-existent hate speech laws. You then confused public and private by saying someone would be fired for making an off-color joke, and you tried to include off-color jokes under the rubric of hate speech. Companies do not make law. That someone would be fired on private property by the private entity does not constitute illegality.
No one is going to jail for making an off-color joke, be it sexual, ethnic, or racial in subject, no matter how tightly you wish to cling to Title VII out of your ignorance, and no matter where it occurs. Your ignorance of the Constitution, civics, and the law is sad.
Nitwit, huh? But are not jokes written by screenwriters then told by actors occurring in the workplace? Are not the jokes being written by the writers and editors of the Lampoon not occurring in the workplace? Do you not understand the logical (well, illogical) extension of your argument? Do you understand the scope of your ignorance here?
And I've never once asked you to cite anything.
Spin away, Pervmo
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:11pm.
Everyone here is perfectly capable of reading MY ACTUAL WORDS....not your reading deficient take on those words.
I never said (actually, in my original post I referred to myself) anyone would go to jail (YOU IMPLIED THAT, TWIT)....I said I'd be terminated, and rightly so, for making racially or sexually inappropriate comments (jokes) in the workplace.
Nice dodge, though....going for Comedy Club material.
I haven't confused anything, and you've yet to prove that there is such a thing as a "private" workplace, wherein the laws of the land (in this case, the Civil Rights Act, specifically concerning a hostile work environment) are null and void.
Keep spinning.
Of course I know you didn't ask ME to cite anything....yet you DEMANDED of another poster, in no uncertain terms to CITE WHAT YOU WANTED HIM/HER to cite. I merely called you out on your own hypocricy.
How do you enjoy swinging from that petard, Pervmo, now that I've hauled you up there for the second time in the space of a couple of posts? Want to go for round three?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"I never said (actually, in
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:34pm.
"I never said (actually, in my original post I referred to myself) anyone would go to jail..."
At least you finally admit you jumped in and had absolutely no idea what the topic was, and that you are ignorant of public and private. I couldn't have possibly had the foresight to see you would have been confused by the word "laws" and think that means being fired by an employer.
LAM SON: "Satchmo if what you say is true then why are there hate speech laws? Why can't I tell sexual jokes or make racial comments anytime or anyplace I want. "
Me: Hate speech laws don't exist. You can make sexual jokes/racial comments anytime or anyplace you wish.
You: You can be fired for an off-color joke!!!!
I think ignorance may have been too kind; ignorance can be fixed.
And I don't think hypocrisy means what you think it means. Just because you believe every single one of my posts should contain some link to something or other does not make me a hypocrite for telling someone to provide a link to a baseless claim. Yep, you are beyond ignorance.
I rest my case.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:40pm.
Nice run you've had here Satchmo, posing as a lunatic faux-libertarian. I now know you're a plant. You don't even argue as well as a liberal wingnut. You're just a wingnut.
Your standard "I don't think hypocrisy means what you think it means" is just too freakin' funny. Shall I link it for you? The definition of hypocrisy? Since you seem to be allergic to finding your own cites.
Just because you believe every single one of my posts should contain some link to something or other
Precisely where, did I say that? I challenged you to back up ONE assertation (albeit multiple times) which you have failed to do, because, as we all know here, it can't be done.
There is no admission on my part. Why should I admit something you said I said, but which I clearly didn't? You're becoming unhinged.
I know exactly what "the topic" was/is.....furthermore, all of your attempts to change "the topic" hasn't worked. I've destroyed each and every single one of your dodges.
Thank you for playing. You are dismissed.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
There is no doubt you are not
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:02pm.
There is no doubt you are not cognizant of your admission, but it was there all the same. It is unbelievable that someone would believe an off-color joke is illegal.
*rolls eyes*
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:36pm.
Please find for me, using my own words, where I said telling an off-color joke was illegal. I said it would get one fired! You're the one who is so busily attempting to move the goal posts, and put alternative words and meanings into what I have actually written. Of course you won't be able to do that any more than you'll be able to cite any case law supporting your position that it's perfectly fine to make sexual/racial comments in the workplace without consequence, as you posted waaaay back when. You wrote it, back it up, trollboy.
Must suck to be you. Hoist 4 times now in one thread, upon your own petard. Enjoy your time here.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's ok Blonde*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 6:54pm.
All of us are witnesses and we even recorded incestmo's fall for the archives.
Sure. You said I made an
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:57pm.
Sure. You said I made an absurd claim, and I asked you to be specific. You then highlighted in bold this: "you still have the right to say [an off-color joke], and it is not illegal to say [an off-color joke]." Now, if you think this is an absurd claim, which you did since you highlighted it, then you must be under the belief that telling an off-color joke is illegal. Otherwise, why would you have picked it when I asked for an example of an absurd claim?
I never said there wouldn't be consequences (that is, potentially being fired) for telling sexual/racial jokes or making sexual/racial comments at work. LAM SON and I were having a discussion about law and hate speech. It is not my fault that you could not recognize the topic and context, and that you were unable to follow a conversation. You jumped in with something off-topic and irrelevant, as you are wont to do. You continued to harp on this off-topic nonsense, and continued to display your ignorance.
FAIL
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:23pm.
Toodles.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
What?
Submitted by Truestar on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:42am.
Sorry to intervene, but where in the hell did McCain or Hoft "actually" state that Logan deserved to be raped? All they've done is question why she ended up in such a position of danger, and that perhaps she didn't care about the dire circumstances that might endanger herself. That's called consequences of her own actions. I admire Logan for her committment to her profession, but there are indeed consequences that relate to her job, which she has willingly accepted.
So I have to wonder...How in the world is that equivalent to McCain or Hoft (and Schussel for that matter) saying she deserved to be raped? They've said, "actually", that she knew the obvious dangers involved with her job in Egypt. I think that's a fact. It certainly doesn't mean that McCain or Hoft, or anyone else, thinks she "deserved" to be raped.
I don't think you're an idiot, but your above statement is making me wonder.
The descendants of Ishmael
Submitted by RocktheJungle on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 8:38am.
Debbie Schlussel comments may have come from this paticuliar subject when she called the Egyptians savages.
Genesis 16 11And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.12And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Verse 12 give a great indication of what the Middle East is like today , huh?
→ Indeed it does
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:27pm.
Ishmael hates his little brother for the small sliver of land he now possesses.
Ishmael invented for himself a new god in order that he might justify his hatred and perpetrate the coming of a false messiah, after whom the whole world will marvel.
Ayatollah Khamani claims he is currently in contact with the 12th Imam, who has returned after 1,000 years absence. (according to Beck)
If they ever start talking "Peace and safety" , then comes "Sudden destruction"
Look up, for your redemption draweth nigh.
Boy, Lawrence is up there in
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:36am.
Boy, Lawrence is up there in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton territory on the B/S meter.
His feigned outrage, replete with up close and personal camera angles, uncharacteristic every man self control under such exigent circumstances surely is deserving of bestowment of some sort of journalism award to be named in his honor.
Oh wait, not five minutes later Larry is back to his true left wing bomb thrower/junk yard dog persona we've all come to expect and loathe.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Celebration, Noel? A woman is
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:37am.
Celebration, Noel? A woman is sexually assaulted and it's a celebration? Good grief.Please elaborate
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:40am.
I have no idea WTF you are talking about.
At least you have something in common
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:27pm.
Neither does he.
~Pervmo
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:11pm.
A "celebration" is what CBS called it in their statement about the attack.
Ignorant putz.
No! Did they really? /sarcasm
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:39pm.
No! Did they really? /sarcasm
No Incestmo, /idiocy
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:55pm.
What an embarrassing response.
You get caught with your pants down (again), and still can't admit your mistake. So you try to spin it into a "joke."
Pitiful.
How could I have been caught
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:38pm.
How could I have been caught with my pants down when I was the first one to post in the open thread yesterday? That post was about CBS' use of the words "celebration" and "jubilation", and very similar to this one. And that Noel would use it a day later makes it a bit worse. Go troll somewhere else.
Then explain, this, Incestmo:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:41pm.
"Celebration, Noel?"
They were celebrating. Then came the assault.
Get it now, freak?
~Muslims celebrate with acts of violence
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:54pm.
They protest with acts of violence. They observe their religious beliefs with acts of violence. Anyone see a common thread, here?
Incestmo, don't bust Noel's chops for using the media's own terms in an article about the media. It makes you look even more stupid than you did already. Not an easy feat.
Bru~
Submitted by GG_NB on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 7:25pm.
You're right. If anyone saw many of the "celebrations" that went on even while reporters were talking to the crowd, you get a feel for it. I saw one reporter with the "jubilant" crowd where it was as evident as could be -- you could feel it through the TV -- the crowd could easily flip from rowdy-happy to savagely harming him. I sat there thinking: "dang, let this interview end soon -- they are about to flip to the dark side on him, even though they are supposedly celebrating." He did end the interview, all the while chirping about how happy the crowd was, but I think he was pretty scared. He was in a cowering postion, holding his mic low, by the time he quickly tossed it back to FOX. The crowd got more and more aggressive and harder and harder for him to manage -- and it became less and less joyful and more and more pressing. You could see the blaze in their eyes. Sure, there are cultural differences that people can point to in explaining this; but there are also universal truths. That particular crowd would easily "go there" if given the opportunity. The only calm, truly "happy" presence in the crowd was one woman.
I didn't anticipate that when I first started listening to that particular interview. It wasn't even on my mind, as I settled in to hear how joyful the people were on the streets; but it was dark and stark...it's the same feeling women get when they know they are in a dangerous situation and feel creeped out and scared about staying where they are -- it's that gut instinct that protects us. Women do often have that intution; they know when something isn't right and something could turn quickly in a bad direction.
There's a permeating evil in Egypt that will be hard to overcome. There's evil everywhere in the world, but there's a ramped up version of it in the Middle East.
I hope light and right can overcome it, but we shall see.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
*
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:13pm.
Oops, the dreaded NB double post.
Vote for the American in November
I think there is medication
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 11:36am.
I think there is medication for that now. :-)
Once again, Satchmo successfully demonstrates...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:09pm.
...reading incomprehension.
Good grief is right.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Let the games begin
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 9:47am.
.
Manner of delivery doesn't change existing substance.
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:13am.
Telling the truth about Islam and how it views and teaches its followers to treat women is not in and of itself disgraceful, though I will concede that how it is done can be sometimes. I submit it is even more disgraceful to continue to deny the reality that exists concerning how females are treated by Muslims.
Women are slaves in the Islamic world. They are not treated as equals but like property. Their rights are almost nonexistent and punishments severe - even for being raped. You see, it is their fault (in Islam's eyes) because they intermingled with men.
We must have the courage to speak the truth about Islam and the female role within it. Doing so here saw black people liberated from the clutches of slavery but it did not come easy and it did not come by ignoring it or making apology for it. It came because no longer did good men stand idle so evil could flourish unabated.
Saudi Arabian House of Saud declared it would "take time" for changes in this arena after 9-11. Well, it has been a decade. Patience is a virtue, but like all good things, too much of it can be a very bad thing. This is one of this examples.
All the people of this world, must speak, must admit, these truths. Islam enslaves women and it is past time to see them freed. Nobody wants to be a slave and only cowards look the other way in the face of it. There is no more cowardly actor than the mainstream media.
Sometimes, one specific incident can constitute a major turning point. A women refusing to sit in the back of bus comes to mind. I submit this particular hapenning could rival it, if only media stood up and did the right thing by shouting it from the rooftops.
This is how muslims treat
Submitted by johnsonl on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:17am.
This is how muslims treat women. Get used to it, ladies, because sharia law supports it.
The Treatment of Women in the Muslim World
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:36am.
Let's stop tap dancing around this issue.
Isn't it time for a network to do an in depth, investigative one hour report on the treatment of women in Muslim society, so we can better understand them? What happened to Logan can be used as a starting point for discussion for the one hour special. She could be interviewed if she is willing.
I think this would be a very good time for that.
Of course...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 11:03am.
no one should ever have to endure such vile, inhumane treatment, but I'm more focused on the role of the left-wing media in Egypt and their true purpose. A President who suffered a serious mid-term election defeat at the hands of the Tea Party, Republicans, and Independents, and who had dropped precipitously in the polls, needed to be rescued by the leftist media that elected him,...but never vetted him. They have a massive stake in seeing him re-elected and I believe, as Rush does, that their main focus on events in Egypt was to portray Obama as the sole reason why Mubarak was over-thrown.
The left's motto is never waste a crisis, especially if you can falsify, lie, spin, and deceive the American people. Whether it allows you to cover-up your primary role in causing the housing market crisis and subsequent implosion of the American economy, or to project a false image of a naive and incompetent American President as the key operative in securing 'freedom' for the Egyptian people so as to re-enervate his re-election campaign, they will stop at nothing.
It would be too easy to say that the Obama administration simply fooled the American lamestream media. These are his minions doing his bidding on a daily basis to undermine the very capitalistic system that employs them, for the purpose of securing endless total power for the Democrat party. They assist him, they cover for his incompetence, they lie for him, they spin his mistakes; in short, they are him.
We all know the inhumane treatment muslim women are subjected to in Islam. But are we all as perceptive regarding the media's role in leftist politics, both domestic and foreign?
Schlussel
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:28pm.
Yesterday, Balboa brought up Schlussel's disgusting comments, which I had not yet read, and I brought it up twice, (with a link) thinking maybe NB would post something condemning of her.
Additionally, we find today, that CBS may have refused to report the story for five days because the sexual abuse of women does not fit into the narrative of a peaceful group of youths triumphing over oppression.
~Whoa....
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:35pm.
Wait, wait a sec. You mean to say the attack wasn't a ratings ploy?! Oh, my.
Cool,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:35pm.
That doesn't surprise me in the least.
After all, under Islamic law, a rape charge requires four witnesses (all male) to even have a chance at successful prosecution, and often the woman making the charge is blamed and winds up being killed.
That is one of the many barbaric policies of this 7th Century "religion" the MSM would rather people not dwell on, as they are doing their damndest to convince us that this primitive and violent political movement somehow has a place in a civilized world.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
→ BTW . . .
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:42pm.
Were there absolutely NO male CBS jopurnalists who were assaulted?
Oh yeah, cameraman Mark Strassman was attacked and it was reported on 2/2/11.
So it's not as though CBS has a policy of not becoming "part of the story". It's just that the attack on Strassberg fit perfectly into the "Mubarak did it" narrative.
Cool Arrow,
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 2:09pm.
I was watching a clip of her on television this morning, Lara I mean, talking about her own guilt, as a mother, regarding putting herself in dangerous situations. She spoke about feeling that she had a duty, an inherent drive, to report what is going on.
That, I can and do, respect. Indeed, I would consider that to be not only dedication, but also quite courageous.
We will see just how true her words really are. For if she really meant that, she is going to want to report the ugliness she endured right along with the reasons for it.
I read about the "Jew! Jew!" chant claims. I also read about possible "internal damage" she sustained. As ugly as it is, those two tidbits fit together - as in her beating and abuse was about punishment, not about sex. Sodomy is about punishment in that neck of the woods and it is not uncommon.
At this point, it is so difficult to tell what is really true but I will say, without regret or reservation, that someone who opines about feeling compelled to report, regardless of danger to themselves, would, no doubt, want the true story told even though it is quite personal in nature. CBS has a history of fabrication and cover up, there is no doubt about that, but it just might be that she has demanded some time to recover so that she can tell this story herself. I find that to be quite possible based on her own interviews.
I am so very saddened that this happened, whatever actually happened, to this woman. But then, I could care less that she is a reporter. In my eyes, that has exactly ZERO to do with it. I am just as sickened by the stonings, whippings, acid attacks, beatings, rapes and honor killings, which are all accepted as right and proper within that religion (and I use that term loosely there, that happen to so many females (and even some males) day after day after day.
Let's just say that; NO! Some things are simply not subject to the politically correct "tolerance". Barbarism is Barbarism. Period. I am not going to be browbeaten into silence about it and from the looks of it, a growing number of people here in this country look at it the same way.
It is time to tell the truth. Whatever it may be, about whatever the subject matter is. I think the attacks and there have ben many, on the "members" of the "press" might just see a turning point on this front. I do hope that is the case. It would be change I can believe in.
Islam is bigotous, violent, opressive and brutal. Wicked as that statement is, sometimes truth hurts. It will only get better if the courage to say it out loud is demonstrated. A question for you friend, and to others here; Does this courage still live within the hearts of Americans? Or, is it such an endangered species that even this groteque display of evil will not bring it out in the open?
→ Agreed, Ashrak
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 3:42pm.
She is a good reporter, and I too can understand her feeling a need to be on site for history.
Schlussel and Rosen were way out of line in their taunts.
Exploration and revelations
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:20pm.
Exploration and revelations regarding the barbaric treatment of women in the Arab world is a worthwhile discussion to have. However, the same cannot be said regarding Lawrence O'Donnell. While he's certainly worthy of our contempt, I think the attention he gets on this and other like-minded sites only serves to egg him on. He's insignificant and irrelevant -- let's make sure he stays that way by completely and totally ignoring him.
Larry The Tool
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:22pm.
Larry "We don't need no MSNBC, we don't need no lib thought control.": "All in all, you're just a brick in the wall".
LARRY!
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 1:39pm.
LEAVE US KIDS ALONE!