KrustyKidd

Sorry Jdobbin but I see nothing nefarious occurring there. Which particular segment makes your case?

You did not. You gave links to talk shows, not news reports. As it stands, you base your opinions in this case on your mood ring.

Like every other news agency on the planet has distorted something at one time or another. Funny how they are all the same when it all comes down to it. Jdobbin So you just say these things or, have you a link to the news where the above was reported? I mean, you are not saying that CNN distorted this so, please provide you proof that Fox has distorted the truth in their news reporting in the above cases and deserves comments such as the above. Also, you forgot to provide proof to back this comment up as I asked a few posts aggo. Jdobbin

What they distorted Not even sure if this is a distortion for the left or the right as cow hormones don't seem like a politically charged subject. However, the CBS piece on 60 minutes where Dan Rather used fake evidence to railroad Bush certainly was a political distortion as wasCNN's falification of abortion polls. So why the vilification of Fox when they are simply like the others?

And the podcsts of Colmes on Fox saying that Obama was a hero are also illuminating but, none are news reporting but rather opinion

That is correct. However, that is Glen's site, not Fox. So, you will find articles that Glen feels advances his show and, his POV. Some of the articles may come from him, columnists or even people who have written him but, it is not news from Fox News. I should like to add that this is rather puzzling that you didn't know this. Here is the actual link to FOX NEWS (not to be mistaken for Beck's opinion show) Jdobbin It is a news channel that also has opinion shows such as Beck and all. Just as CNN has Larry King. As for being the station of the right, can you provide actual news comparisons that we can see side by side with say CNN news reporting?

Nope. Fox News is news. Talk show hosts on Fox News are just entertainers like Oprah, Dr Laura etc. They host phone in shows where people can give their viewpoints and should not be confused with a news show as they do not profess to report rather, they purport to discuss and analize events and politics. That you confuse entertainment with actual news reporting is concerning to a certain degree as you seem to represent a good percentage of many misinformed people who are unable to discern between opinion and actual factual news reporting. You can get your news from Fox herre. You can get podcasts of Glen Beck (not a news caster but a talk show host) here. Similarly, you can google O'reilly (also not a reporter rather a talk show host) as well as any of the others. For a complete Left Wing spin on politics and news you can google Alan Combs who also is not a reporter on Fox but rather another talk show host.

Hate to break it to everybody but Beck and all are talk show hosts, not news media. And, profess to be nothing more, even Left Wing host Alan Combs doesn't pretend to be nothing more than a talk show host. On the other hand, O'reilly professes to give in depth analysis and does with a fair degree of impartiality however, it is not news, just interactive entertainment. At the top of every hour, Fox does provide news reporting which is just as accurate (or inaccurate) as any other news agency.

You said; What he said.......... These very same principals are universal as being directed to human rights throughout the wolrd thourgh the UN definition of racism. Unless it is immature semantics on your part, the ideals contained transend countries and form a basis for humanity. So, do you only support those who support the constitution? If so, your support network is without most Muslims. I have proven you have protected those who commit racism by omission and, I only ask you to cite where others have committed racism according to your constitution. If you don't take this question seriously, then why are you here on an internet forum expecting to be taken seriously?

Try reading the thread then if you are confused. I address the brown part in my second last post.

No kidding. 'Shocking' is a word used to sell papers. These women were living for a purpose which transends their own mortal lives. Statues will be erected to them in the Planetary hall of Freedom, citing their bravery despite the morons who don't understand the danger they are in and, live with day to day. Possibly beside the giant one of Bush The Great who freed fifty million people, more than any man in history.

Golly. According to your logic she, and women like her are frumpy housewives who have no clue of the danger they are in. No offence, but you seem to not be able to fathom the sacrifices and bravery these intellectual ground breaking women are attempting to carry out in their quest to achieve the equality you revere so much in you constitution. As you should be aware, the Taliban do not adhere to this document nor the UN version. Your inability to credit these women with knowledge of the danger is sexist to say the least and, makes you a racist according to your own revered document.

Red and gray chips. Hmmmmm, doesn't quite connect all the dots. I have a conspiracy theory that has a complete timeline with perpetrators, motive, planners, financing and even video. All things being equal, until anybody can provide the same evidence, I'll go with the official version.

What she said Tango. You've roped a falling leaf. Get off it or, ride it to the ground.

Aside from rereading your constitution (which states racism as being against religion among many other things) I suggest you read the thread prior to making comments. Argus did not generalize brown people rather responded to another poster who did. The brown part meaning when the world gravitates towards one race. The only problem with that idea is the brown people think Homosexuals should all be killed - as painfully as possible. Now, please provide proof that Muslims adhere to your constitution which dictates; Tango's constitution........... Not many Muslim countries do so, we can condemn them based on fact, not rhetoric. Unless of course, most Muslim countries adhere to your constitution or, the UN definition of racism which I provided earlier.

Since you side with those who revere the words upon the Canadian Constitution you should berate Muslim countries and those from there who view documents like that as mere toilet paper rather than chase down phantom racists. If and when you can pull the log from your eye by addressing the worst cases of racism then you will be fit to call those who obey those words on that constitution if and when they actually make an infraction. As it stands, you are hardly qualified to judge other posters as racists as you omit the greater sins of other regimes whom you protect with your silly charges. Argus did not say that all brown people are Muslim Terrorists. You did. He said "You oppose any condemnation of brown people no matter what they do" and; "It's NOT just a few Muslim fanatics. In every Muslim nation where surveys have been taken, the majority of the population, in some cases a very large majority, wants Sharia law and a theocratic government NOT democracy. Even in the UK, forty percent of respondents wanted Sharia law. You cannot sanely dismiss all that as "just a few fanatics". What he states is fact, not racism. If you do not know the facts, ask and he will provide them to you I am sure. I know them, I agree with him. If you can prove that what he said is racist rather than a fact then please, provide your facts because as it stands, you are distorting and twisting other posters words in order to fashion a world in which countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and such have better than the lowest human rights (remember that document and the values contained within you revere so much?) records on the planet. Well below Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet you, rather than address real human rights sins invent them in others on an internet forum.

Qutbists are, by stated goals and methodology terrorists. Not 'some' Muslims, 'all' Muslims, or, even 'most' Muslims but, certainly, 'all' Qutbists are Muslims. That aside, your citation of human rights within the constitution of Canada places you as a right winger in this case who has selective toleration for those who hold any belief which does not incorporate any toleration for endorsement of all human rights as stated by the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which states; This discrimination is practiced by many Muslims within Canada and, most Muslims outside of Canada residing in predominantly Islamic countries. Believe it or not, you are anti Muslim by your stated core beliefs which, humorously enough, flies in the face of the alter you kneel before. Correct. And, aiding and abetting those of them that are violating the human rights of anybody is aiding and abetting racists. Therefore, one must be very very careful in whom they call a racist and, those whom they defend. Unless you are absolutely sure that those whom you defend are either neutral or, pro gay, Muslim, gender, Christian, Jew or open to national origin rights then you run the risk of being a racist yourself by only seeing and supporting one side and chastising the other. So, are all those whom you defend by holding up the constitution of our country pro woman's and gay rights? Do they ever utter a word of distaste against those whom believe something other than they? In the case of the UN definition of racism, many, certainly, as a society, do not. In Canada, they certainly do not either. And, to hold up a legal document on racism as an attack on errant blanket statements against those whom place an entire religion as terrorists is wrong as those on both sides practice racism in one form or another. It's just not your form of racism but, racism it is.

Thank you. That would include me, not those who practice any belief that places women, homosexuals, other religions, beliefs or any nationality ahead of their own. So, we agree that any that believe that their religion allows them to force anything on others is wrong hence, any radical is our enemy which would include many Christians, Muslims and others of varying ethnic origins who desire to control others. I chose the word 'Qutbist' as it best describes those Muslims who are the enemies of all you hold dear. Any left leaning individual who tolerates or, allows through omission of their inhuman acts while chastising their own who fight these vermin are aiding and abetting these enemies of civilization. So, I take it that you are with the rest of us, just semantics is our separation point?

You didn't answer the question. Please do.

Myself, I oppose Qutbists who are by religion believers in the Muslim faith although not all Muslims are Qutbists. In fact, less than one tenth of a percent of Muslims are Qutbists however, all Qutbists are Muslim extremists. Wondering, 'we' being who and, do you speak for all those 'we?'

There is nothing shocking about her death. While not inevitable, she, and others like her know the risks and, believe in what they are doing. Where on earth you get the idea I am insulting them is beyond me. I insult Qutbists and those who do not understand the sacrifices brave women like her carry out as well, I condemn those with cliche like sayings such as the title of this thread which is designed to gain an emotional reaction to someone who is not aware that this often happens to women in positions of import in Afghanistan. It is saddening but, in an area where this happens all the time to women willing to face danger to do what is right, this is not a rarity, hence, not a shock.

Are you puzzled and surprised that a woman who held political status in Afghanistan was attacked and killed? If so then you were shocked and had no clue as to the danger they are in. If you are not surprised that women who hold positions of power in Afghanistan are in danger and are often attacked and killed then you are not as dull as those who were shocked to hear she was killed.

Educated women in a position of power are a natural target for pigs like the Taliban. The women are doing two things that threaten every hillbilly inbred belief those animals have both political and social. To say that this shocks progressive women who are committed to bringing Afghanistan out of the stone age is to degrade their intellect to a level lower than the Taliban knuckle draggers.

Of course however, it is a natural position for the Left to take. Until of course, Muslims come into power and conduct repressive policies. No it's not. The Left is by nature a backer of the underdog. At present and prior, it has been Muslims. When people begin to be imprisoned, killed, exiled then they will find the new underdog to back.

Article Seems the ROE were at the unit level if they could be changed that quickly rather than IDF wide. Possibly you might want to blame the soldiers (or possibly their immediate NCOs) as that seems to be where the problem (if any) lay seeing as how everybody from the Israeli military to the head of that course knew nothing about any such orders.