NYTs: Video Said to Show Marines Urinating on Taliban Corpses

[Kilmer17]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/wo...s.html?_r=1&hp

KABUL, Afghanistan — A video showing four United States Marines urinating on the bodies of three dead Taliban fighters provoked anger and condemnation on Thursday in Afghanistan and around the world. American officials said they feared the images could incite anti-American sentiment at a particularly delicate moment in the war effort.

The NYTs ran 32 consecutive front page stories about Abu Ghraib. Think this story will have that kind of staying power?

[twa]

No,since it is simply lower rank involved.... but it will get play

Dumb jarheads .....video?

[Predicto]

The NYTs ran 32 consecutive front page stories about Abu Ghraib. Think this story will have that kind of staying power?

Nice try at injecting "liberal media bias" into the discussion at the start.

The answer is no, because it is nowhere near as systematic a problem and no reason to think it goes up the ladder of command.

The NYT didn't run 32 consecutive stories on the soldiers who deliberately murdered Iraqi civilians either.

[Dan T.]

How moronic do those guys have to be to do something like that and actually videotape it? What a disgrace.

[Kilmer17]

Nice try at injecting "liberal media bias" into the discussion at the start.

The answer is no, because it is nowhere near as systematic a problem and no reason to think it goes up the ladder of command.

The NYT didn't run 32 consecutive stories on the soldiers who deliberately murdered Iraqi civilians either.

You've already researched it and decided this?

The Abu G story had legs in the NYTs because it was a way for them to smear Bush.

[Predicto]

You've already researched it and decided this?

The Abu G story had legs in the NYTs because it was a way for them to smear Bush.

Sure it was. That was the only thing that mattered about Abu Ghirab. Smearing GWB. Nothing else significant about it.

Look, even twa is agreeing with me.

[dockeryfan]

The Abu G story had legs in the NYTs because it was a way for them to smear Bush.

lol

[Kilmer17]

Sure it was. That was the only thing that mattered about Abu Ghirab. Smearing GWB. Nothing else significant about it.

Look, even twa is agreeing with me.

It was far and away the most important thing to the NYTs.

I find it funny that you have quickly dismissed this event. Im sure lots of right wingers said the same thing in the early days of Abu Ghraib.

[Henry]

It was far and away the most important thing to the NYTs.

No it wasn't.

[Predicto]

It was far and away the most important thing to the NYTs.

I find it funny that you have quickly dismissed this event. Im sure lots of right wingers said the same thing in the early days of Abu Ghraib.

I haven't dismissed this event. You asked for our predictions, we are giving them to you.

Hey, you played the passive aggressive posting card and it blew up in your face. Not my fault.

[twa]

Look, even twa is agreeing with me.

I agree with Kilmer on liberal bias, there just ain't enough to milk here

[Kilmer17]

I haven't dismissed this event. You asked for our predictions, we are giving them to you.

Hey, you played the passive aggressive posting card and it blew up in your face. Not my fault.

"The answer is no, because it is nowhere near as systematic a problem and no reason to think it goes up the ladder of command."

Ummm, this is your quote which pretty much dismisses the event.

[Dan T.]

Kilmer, your trolling skills seem a bit rusty. You feeling okay?

[ixcuincle]

I love our troops but you can't do that

Sorry, just can't

[Larry]

It was far and away the most important thing to the NYTs.

I find it funny that you have quickly dismissed this event. Im sure lots of right wingers said the same thing in the early days of Abu Ghraib.

I find it funny that you demand that Predicto conduct research and establish proof before making assertions, but then you have no trouble announcing that you know, and have ranked, the motivations of a corporation.