1 Michael Moore's minutemen.

2 Well said. It is revolting and stomach-turning the way our media tries to slant and manipulate such news. Some in our media are as much scum as the terrorists are.

3 Hey, I'm all for Red-on-Red incidents. You guys forget that the Shiites are only cooperating because Bush is giving them a free hand to set up an Islamic Republic (or, at the very least, the prerequisites for it in the constitution) in Iraq. Even if we withdraw relatively soon and the Iraqi forces put down the insurgency, we'll be back in a few years. You can thank our brave crusader for democracy, Bush, for that one. If he put aside his religious (and false) conviction that "the human soul yearns to be free" he might have actually accomplished something, but alas.

4 this is really sad. tired of hearing news like this.

5 >>>>If he put aside his religious (and false) conviction that "the human soul yearns to be free" he might have actually accomplished something, but alas. That used to be called Liberalism. But alas, most so-called Liberals today are actually Leftists. And most so-called conservatives today are JFK Liberals.

6 Started with Wilson, actually, Carlos. Its called Wilsonian Utopianism - every little group gets its own slice of land and democracy, and everything magically works out.

7 Well said Jesusland Carlos. The liberals like MiB would be perfectly at home in a communist state, say like Cuba. MiB wrote: "(and false) conviction that "the human soul yearns to be free" " You may disagree with President Bush but you are a complete fool if you don't believe that humans have a basic and innate desire to be free. Look no further than the Chinese or Cubans who risk everything to leave their communist countries. They embody the very essence of a "soul" seeking freedom.

8 Where is the bias or attempt at manipulation? The term used was "suicide bomber," which is a pretty widespread coinage and covers the meaning intended. If the perps had represented a group whom the press despises, for example if these had been fundamentalist Christians who blew themselves up in an abortion clinic, I think the word used would be the same--"suicide bomber." I could be wrong, but it makes a nice thought-experiment anyway. In my mind's eye I'm picturing the press handling a hypothetical anti-abortion bombing differently, but mainly in that they would focus on the motives of the individual attackers rather than ascribe the incident to "ongoing tensions over the question of abortion." The reason why they're not doing that in the case of the mosque bombings has to do with their emotional distance from the readership. Understandably, nobody in America cares who did it, so the press just lumps it under the rubric of "sectarian violence."

9 Abortion clinic bombings and Klan killings are about as common as Ted Kennedy observing the catechism of the Church. ItÂ’s funny to me how many times the left trots these two out to try and twist and turn them into some kind of rationalization for mass murder. It obviously pains them a great deal to call a Muslim mass murder what he/she is. I wonder why.

10 Brad, They don't call it "murder" because "murder" is too vague for people who deserve to be paid for journalism. It doesn't have anything to do with who does it. If I make a bomb vest and detonate myself down at the courthouse, the papers aren't going to report this under the head, "Disgruntled Seattle Man Murders 70 at Courthouse." This would be misleading and everybody, including you and Dr. Shackleford, would assume that I went on a rampage with a gun. Murdering people with bombs is more spectacular than other methods so "bomber" trumps "murderer" in journalese, which is why the papers called Timothy McVeigh a bomber, not a murderer even though he was just the sort whom they would want to demonize.

11 I see the Religion of Peace™ is working out well for these folks.

12 If the perps had represented a group whom the press despises, for example if these had been fundamentalist Christians who blew themselves up in an abortion clinic, I think the word used would be the same--"suicide bomber." When was the last time some christian blew up an abortion clinic? Not since the Crusades it would seem. Eric Rudolph, by the way, wasn't even a christian: "I prefer Nietzsche to the Bible" http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-rudolph-cover-partone_x.htm But that won't keep Lefties from spouting their cliches. We have facts, they have cliches. lol!

13 I would appreciate it if you Leftists would let me know exactly how many people have been murdered by all these so-called Christians at every abortion clinic in the US. Plus any other murders committed by these same people related to any doctors who worked at these clinics. A grand total, please, because surely it must be in the thousands, right. Someone out there, please give me an accurate number. Facts now, not bull. I'm eagerly awaiting a response.

14 Wow, there is a lot of hatred on this board. And a lot of hatred in America. I always wondered what fueled it, and I think a lot of it has to do with bad journalism. From FOX News to Al Jazeera, we give the public the most dumbed down version of what is going on in the world. These manupulating agencies decide that we can only handle one or two views of what is going on. I cringe whenever I see that mock sincerity in a reporter's or anchor's eyes. I started reading a little more of "The Economist". It seems to have well informed reporters that aren't afraid to write the entire story. And they also provide an educated viewpoint, which really opens up issues for intelligent debate. The Christian Science Monitor does a good job of this also, despite the name (never judge a publication with its obvious religous connection). Other publications like WSJ, NYT, and the Washington Post seem to do alright for the most part, but never seem to really dig deep enough and find out the true motives and bring real objectivity to their stories. But they too often succumb to the temptation of sloppy, Red vs Blue journalism and don't mind lowering the intellectual bar if it means that more emotions will get riled up and therefore, more copies will sell. We need to stop consuming this kind of media. We want it to reaffirm our deeply held beliefs that our political party is great and our religion is the best, but it is really degrading the American culture. It takes a lot of guts to step outside and say, "Maybe my answers aren't right". But I don't think this type of journalism will ever get away from the spotlight in the near (or far) future. Every blog I visit is biased, and this one is no exception. I rarely ever visit a blog twice because of this. I've stopped watching Bill Orielly because I don't like the way he smirks at his viewers and interrupts his guests, intentionally trying to provoke a response; he's a bully. I stopped reading Al Franken because he is too vidictive to his opponents, and too lenient to his friends; he's a hypocrite. This type of media is poison for us, but we can't get enough of it. Please don't read it or watch it anymore. I'm kind of glad I'm away from it all. If I was back in the states, I might be inclined to find a group of people that agree with my ideas and sit tight. Being overseas forces me to talk to and tolerate people I might have brushed off in the past. Well, I gotta go to bed, it's late here. Sorry if this didn't make a whole lot of sense, but I read a lot of inane posts, and I thought you could at least read one of mine as well.

15 Tony reads the NYT, Washington Post, and WSJ, but disapproves their lack of in-depth reporting and their failure to delve deeply into the subject matter(like the Bush/Rovian plot to implode the WTC), but approves of the Economist and its dedication to uncover the truth along with the CSM. By the time I got through reading that screed, I was laughing so hard I damn near wet myself. Tony, you have been in Europe too long, as your mind is losing its ability to comprehend. Hurry home!

16 JJ, you beat me to it......of all the media sources Tony writes about, the one which he finds to be an example of fine journalism is The Economist? Huh? That magazine may have a fancy sounding name, but it's as biased and anti-conservative as magazines get. "Educated viewpoint" my butt. One look at the headlines on the cover and it's immediately clear where they're coming from.

17 That's why I don't read any of that crap. If I buy a paper, it's because I'm cleaning my windows or lining my bird cage. Every single one is biased in one direction or another yet, they all call themselves "unbiased". Ptooey. If I read a link to one of their stories, I see it only for its entertainment value. If I want opinion, there are millions of blogs out there. It's the only place you can get real people's opinions and you can always tell who's thinking for themselves and who's just regurgitating the stories from the "papers of record". Tony is guilty of the very thing he's accusing others of. Reading the paper.

18 Actually chez, a study by John Derbyshire in China showed that only 10% of the people there put freedom and liberty at the top of their wish list, and only 1% of those felt strongly enough about it that they did whatever they had to do to get out of China. Ninety percent had propsperity at the top of their list. I'm betting most peoples everywhere are similar: Think with the belly instead of the brain. What I find curious is a female suicide bomber wearing panty hose. Doesn't seem like kosher (sorry) Islam to me.

19 Hucbald, please tell me how a people can have prosperity without liberty?

20 You know, that's pretty messed up. I was just pointing out an opinion that I had, and you guys pounced on me like hungry hyenas on a injured zebra. Jesus, I don't know why you guys hate others so much. It's really weird. I didn't say I didn't read the WSJ and NYT or find all their articles worthless, I just said they seem to kneel to the consumer more often than keep their journalistic integrity high. I am more cautious when I read them. But don't assume I let my guard down when I read other news sources that I respect. You immediately found something you didn't like about my post and decided to attack me without giving me the benefit of the doubt. Holy crap. If you have valid arguements against some of the publications I mentioned, please give me reasonable answers why, not flamebait. What you guys wrote could have been written in a much less venomous tone and I would have read and taken it in. But this anger just builds these walls of ignorance. Oh well. I didn't want to bring this up (because I didn't want it to color my arguements), but the reason why I am in Europe is because I am stationed here. I enlisted in the USAF for 6 years after 9/11 happened, and I have since been to Korea, Germany, and Iraq. I don't want you to suddenly agree with me now, I just wanted to inform you so that you knew the conditions on why I am here. I am stationed at Spangdahlem AB, Germany with the 52d Communications Squadron. Obviously, I am in the wrong place. I walked into the snake pit of partisan extremists. Looks like I won't be posting here anymore. I seriously hope that you don't treat your friends, family, or neighbors who think differently than you like you treat the guests on this board.

21 Hucbald, Concerning the pantyhose, I was surprised by this as well when I was in Baghdad. The women are not under extreme Islamic rule over there, so they are allowed out without head covering, and can wear pants and skirts and go walking without a man. I wasn't in Afganistan, but I've seen pictures my friends sent back, and talked to people that have been there and they told me it's much more strict over there (I hear they don't like people who convert from Islam too much either).

22 Tony, you are too sensitive. We're used to dealing with leftists and trolls, who come here to flame us. But really, we were just trying to help you, if you found the Economist to be in-depth. It's not, unless you are into Euro speak.

23 Tony, have a good cry, get yourself a Kleenex, then pull yourself together, because you're just too sensitive man.

24 Chez Diva: "You may disagree with President Bush but you are a complete fool if you don't believe that humans have a basic and innate desire to be free. Look no further than the Chinese or Cubans who risk everything to leave their communist countries. They embody the very essence of a "soul" seeking freedom." Right. Thats why the Afghanis and Iraqis are well on their way to voting away their freedom. The absurd claim that people yearn to be free is false. Some people do, to be sure, and I am happy for them. But all? Nowhere close. Just watch Iraq and Aghanistan. There is a reason the founding fathers were all against democracy - reason #1 is that when you leave a choice open to "the people," you don't often get whats best. But Iraq's constitution is a horrible pulp that will not prevent any power-hungry imam from pushing Islamofacism on the country.

25 Atheists condemn Christianity on the strength of atrocities like the Albigensian Crusade. Yet if we were to tote up the casualty count achieved by the officially atheistic regimes the world has seen, the atheists have the Inquisitors beat by a mile. Notorious atheist butchers like Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Enver Hoxha slaughtered their own people at an unheard-of rate. When it comes to piling up a body count, atheists take second place to none.The world's actual experience with atheist regimes is that they are likelier to bring in hell on earth before they bring in heaven.

26 Iraqis are denied the right to manage their own affairs. Democracy and human rights have been denied to Iraqis, not because Iraqis do not like democracy and human rights, but because the U.S. feared democracy. The U.S. considered sovereignty as the duty of the U.S. to take possession by conquest. The US conquered Iraqi sovereignty by the barrel of the gun. The bombing of Iraq and the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians are straight-out war crimes. The conquest of Iraqi resources, including oil, and the protection of Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people were the main reasons for the occupation of Iraq. The cowardly self-styled Arab governments have collectively failed in their basic duty to condemn the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and to defend not only Iraqi sovereignty, but also their own sovereignty against foreign domination. If Iraq is "sovereign" nation, why the U.S. continues to build fourteen big military bases around the country? Who gave the U.S. permission to do so? Why George Bush and his lackey, Tony Blair sending more troops to Iraq? Why the U.S. refuses to give the Iraqis control of their oil revenues? It would be great if Iraq were able to liberate Palestine with this army of more than 200,000 U.S-British soldiers and state of the art weaponry now under its disposal? All sounds very familiar old imperialism.

27 Tehnically, one isn't an atheist if one worships one's own self, as murdering dictators do. Don't try to pass Communists off as being the same as other atheists, because they aren't. Idiot.

28 >>>>>If Iraq is "sovereign" nation, why the U.S. continues to build fourteen big military bases around the country? Germany and Japan and Turkey, etc., and a host of other countries have U.S. bases too. Does that mean they aren't sovereign nations? Come back when you have something to say.

29 Don't bother with him Carlos, he won't even bother to read your retort, as he's busy wrapping his house in tinfoil.