The completely "unsubstantiated and denied by the Pentagon" gang-rape allegation is a nice touch. Way to spice it up.

You got to be fucking kidding me.

Out of curiousity, is it even possible for the US military to sue for libel/slander? I'm not a lawyer, I was just wondering if there was some sort of constitutional safeguard that made it safe to do stories like this even if they turn out to be completely false, as I am positive it will be.

This is, after all, the second nationally published story accusing the military of gang-raping of Muslim women, and the first one (Boston Globe) turned out to be completely ludicrous at first glance. The media keeps launching these kamikaze attacks and pretty soon the military will be immunized against all manner of bad press.

So NBC is saying things like "one rumor appearing in papers now", and they think that's hard hitting news? That's responsible journalism? They're no better than a catty junior high school gossip.

They're like fuckin' People magazine, only people don't end up dying over lies about Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie.

"The media keeps launching these kamikaze attacks and pretty soon the military will be immunized against all manner of bad press"

Excellent point Alex_fs. If a real 'My Lai' occurs someday nobody is going to believe a word of it.

I am firmly reminding myself that the "reporters" have never served; that they have been taught to despise the military; and that they want our troops to be as vile as Milosevic's irregulars in Bosnia.

When it comes out that none, not one, of these rumors is true - well, maybe a dog did scent something explosive about a Koran - nobody at NBC will be held responsible. Dead people - unless they died at US hands - aren't interesting.

Somehow or other, my temper is still slipping its leash.

quick google search turns up a dog, koran story from 2003, NBC is reporting a neat urban legend spawned from that.

Even the original story seems suspect.

Terry Moran admitted reporters dislike the military and American power as a holdover from Vietnam. They are eager to tear it down at a moment's notice.

Forget the Koran. They're repeating rumors of troops gang raping a woman.

The source? A female terrorism suspect.

I guess she's more credible than Juanita Brodderick was.

Seriously, can a news organization be any more irresponsible than this? I'm almost speechless.

Several people have pointed out, quite rightly, that the people rioting and killing in the Middle East over these stories are fully grown humans who ought to be held accountable for their actions. Very true, but their response to the Newsweek story (and these new allegations) was utterly predictable. The people in the MSM who decided to run these stories had to know that they would provoke a violent reaction that would undo much of what the US has paid in blood to accomplish, and make further progress enormously more difficult. Not to mention they would probably get some people killed.

Ann Coulter points out that the editors at Newsweek and WaPo are the same people who chose not to run Michael Isikoff's story on the Lewinsky affair. Their reason? In one of the tapped phone conversations, Monica said, "If this story ever goes public, I'm gonna f'in kill myself." Newsweek's editors didn't want that blood on their hands. Oh yeah, and they didn't have a second source to confirm what they'd already heard from Monica's own slightly soiled lips.

Like Dianna, I think my temper is slipping its leash. It's time to name these people for the lying, traitorous tools that they are.

Motherfuckers.

Now this is enough to get one really pissed. Time to start looking at ways to bring down NBC, in much the same way that NBC is scrambling to bring down this country.

Glad something's finally got you animated again to fight for Evil, Bill.

Frankly, you were turning into a Chaotic Good Halfling Ranger there for a while.

The press is contemptuously and irresponsibly repeating every rumor fed to them by terrorists and their sympathizers.

Hoist the Black Flag, Ace.

On the other hand, can this portend anything other than the death of the MSM? Methinks we are witnessing the death throes of the liberal media cabal.

And Ace, you're on such a roll today that I'm not even going to mention the loose stooled nature of that mixed metaphor with the wagons and the poker.

Oh wait. I just did.

Ah, well. Someone's got to be on your tits. For the sake of motivation, I mean.

Fuck you MSM and all your ilk. What's it going to take for you to realize that an American soldier will unselfishly blow himself up if it means saving just one other life. A scumbag terrorist gladly blows himself up in order to kill as many others as possible.

Out of curiousity, is it even possible for the US military to sue for libel/slander? I'm not a lawyer, I was just wondering if there was some sort of constitutional safeguard that made it safe to do stories like this even if they turn out to be completely false, as I am positive it will be.

Probably not. You can only defame an individual, so sufficiently large groups of individuals have no legal protection because each member is semi-anonymous. For example, if I say, "Everyone who reads Ace of Spades is ghey," then you know I'm talking about Jeff B., Megan, hobgoblin, and some other people. I've basically called each of them "ghey."

Whereas, if I were to say, "Everyone who reads Instapundit is ghey," well, that's just ridiculous. No one's seriously going to think that, say, Michael Thorpe of Hoboken, N.J., is ghey because he is one of the tens of billions of people who read Instapundit.

That said, I don't know if there are any hard-and-fast rules on whether groups smaller than millions but bigger than a dozen can be defamed. Thus, it's possible that the set {U.S. military personnel who have served at Camp X-Ray} is small enough to be defamed.

It wasn't a Koran that got flushed. It was a Korean, so stop whining.

Bill is fighting FOR evil? He may be a big old crab, but I wouldn't go that far.

that's teh ghey pompous.

And I notice you didn't exclude yourself from that list.

If it was a Korean and not a Koran I'm guessing the Korean was from the North. The Dear Great Magnanimous Leader with a cherry on top has apparently asked his country to take the Weight Watcher's challenge. A Southerner would be too fat, damn capitalism and all, to fit.

What's it going to take for you to realize that an American soldier will unselfishly blow himself up if it means saving just one other life

compos, that kind of courage and valor is something that is just not understood by the left-leaning members of the MSM. It is so foreign to their thinking that they conjure excuses to explain it (brainwashed is a common expression. pawns is another).

They do not understand it at all, and at this stage in their lives they probably never will.

It is a big part of what makes them so despicable. Their smug, self-centered view of right and wrong.

This is GREAT NEWS! The MSM just keeps digging itself in deeper and deeper. Like the Enegizer Bunny they just keep going, and going and going until no one of any sense listens to them anymore. (kinda like now but even more so).

So let 'em talk all the shit they want, they're alienating the public so fast it's simply unbelieveable!

Couple of questions -

1) By what process is a Koran consecrated? For all the talk of 'desecrating the Koran' there are Korans and books that happen to contain language from the Koran, I think.

I mean, given the stringent guidelines for handling the Koran given to the US Military guarding the rabble ... er, religious scholars ... held at Guantanamo, I think Amazon's book shipping department is going to have a big can of Jihad opened up on it. There's more descrating goin' on there than at Gitmo, sales-volume wise.

So, anyway, I know from my participation in a Jewish wedding ceremony (I'm Lutheran, orthodox and practicing) that there is "the Torah", which is sacred and installed at the synagogue, and then there's books with the same words in it that you can use as a coaster in a pinch if you need to.

I mean - really - how do we know that Stunt Korans weren't switched during the desecration and that no actual Holy Books of Islamic Verse were harmed during the interrogation of the prisoner?

Does the issue of torture then become 'The perception of the detainee" rather than the possibility of risking Allah's own wrath at the desecration of His holy words?

I don't know ... a search 'consecration' and 'koran' (and 'qur'an' ) if the simple act of binding a document together imbues it with God's Own Consecratedness ... then, fuck it, one burst sewage line at Amazon's shipping depot and we're screwed.

btw - this is one area where Juan Cole could reach into his actual area of expertise and do some 'splainin'

and INDC Bill is every inch the halfing, but I'm not so sure about the 'good' ... my Paladin sense tingles when ever he approaches.

Bumperstickerest -

Your crappy oddball stand-up routine - that you do in every lame comment (Amazon, Koran - HAR!) - blows. Just friggin' blows. I mean, they're like the corny jokes my drunk old uncle would do at the dinner table, punctuated by passing gas between courses.

ANd the thing is, everybody hated my uncle - and it wasn't because of the gas.

I understand why you comment anonymously, buddy. Really.

I mean, besides the small balls.

Seriously, Bill, where did you take those Jerry Stiller lessons?

Anyway, whoever it was, you DON'T have to wear the manssiere 24/7.

It's really fucking with your sense of humor.

Bill -

I see you're putting the extra time you now have on Thursdays to good use. "Crappy Oddball Standup Routine" ... heh ... indeed ... bit of projection in there Bill, a little bit of projection.

Since you're - well - you, I spoze it's worth pointing out that major religions sometimes have separate rituals and ceremonies to consecrate an object or space for religious use.

So, the question of 'desecrating a Koran' would lead the non-halfling to consider what constitutes consecrating a Koran in the first place

And, given your Powers of Googling and Original Reportage Quotient, you'd no doubt learn that Amazon sells the Koran.

Taking into account the Muslim sensitivities involved in "Koran Desecration" , the notion that a major US distributor is sending out Islam's most holy text with free shipping {egregious gas passing}, and possibly boxed with The Satanic Verses {egregious gas passing}, and a copy of "Hustler: A Retrospective" {egregious gas passing} should be worrisome, or at least something to think about.

Nah.

As for my resemblance to your drunk uncle - dude -there's a better than 50/50 chance that uncle was your father.

Show some respect.

Fight! Fight!

Will you two rent a room already?

Bumperstickerest -

Show you some respect? Show you some respect? Are you friggin' kidding me?

I've never said an unkind word to you, yet you've attacked me out of the blue at PW incessantly in the past month or so, specifically harping on me as "unfunny," which was kind of odd, considering that I was never making any jokes in the context of my comments, and most of my recent posts on my blog have been about medical analysis and squirrels.

So, the question I've sort of had had is, "why is this guy on my jock? Did I unknowingly sleep with his sister?" Followed rather quickly by, "Wait a minute, who is Sheckles the stand-up clown to attack me for being unfunny?" You're like Carrot Top with a computer.

So if you're going to review my performance, I'm going to turn around and review you. To expect anything else is to be a dissonant weirdo with no concept of how humans typically react after you insult them.

I'm familiar with the Koran's rules about an infidel touching the book (original observation), and I'm also familiar with your quirky, oddball "look at my clever weirdness routine," your list of wacky talking points, which I frankly tolerated and found benign - until you started shitting on me.

Then I really started noticing how much you reminded me of that old amateur stand-up that strains for the wordplay groaners, like an old dad (or uncle) that embarrasses the shit out of his kids while trying to be cool with their friends.

Whenever I read your bits, I think of a some douchebag doing a really bad Seinfeld voice, riffing stuff like, "And peanuts, ever noticed how peanuts are nuts, but they look next to nothing like peas? Not even green! What's with that?! But they call them pea- nuts! I think that they're lying to us."

Dude, you're about as funny as cancer.

Cancer of the balls.

There's my review of you, to return the effort.

You want me to show you some respect? Blow me, Sheckles. Blow me like your little balloon animals.

And Dogstar, once again, my timing is off in responding in force.

And I wear a "Bro."

Ummmm ... yeah ...

Given your characterization of my posts at PW as an 'attack' you've developed a Sullivan-esque tendency to read what you want to read rather than what was written. For an example of this you could look up Sullivan's 'analysis' of Glenn's posts about torture and then go read what Glenn actually wrote.

But, this being a 3rd party's comment thread, and your desire to be Arbiter of Comments, le'ts clarify a couple of points, m'okay:

* PW is Jeff's site.

* Those comments were made as either contemporaneous feedback about the show

or were

* suggestions regarding the Citizen-Journalist Report in threads posted by Jeff asking for questions or feedback - free to be used or not by the on-air talent.

My repeated suggestions regarding your being punched in the nuts had to do with changing the timbre of one of the voices on the air since, geniuses that you are, the notion of identifying yourselves during an internet radio broadcast hadn't occured.

And your voices happen to be fairly similar to a general audience.

The 'punch in the nuts' comment became a 'bit' ... sort of a recurring theme ... gee, I'm sorry if you didn't get the bit ... it's not like that ever happens ... right? ... people not recognizing comedy GOLD as it happens and having the practioners of said comedic GOLD having to explain patiently to the groundlings the Auric nature of their Comedy

I forget, you're the Jew, right, Michele's the pagan, and Jeff is a former Episicopalean seminarian .. .right?

Oh, you could go back and reread those comments sections and perhaps glean that I wasn't actually wishing you physical harm.

Or you could relisten to your broadcasts and my suggestions regarding questions and think that maybe the interviews could have gone more smoothly ... or something ... I don't know.

But, anyway, there you are and here I am ..

I look forward to your hyper-masculine response, some comments about balls, and hope that my presence in comment threads dredges up enough memories of your dysfunctional family dinners that you can finally achieve that break-through it seems you so desperately need.

If it helps with the visualization therapy, I speak in more of a John Laroquette baritone than a thin nasaly Seinfeld manner, but with a vaguely mid-Western accent.

Cheers -

Bumperstickerest -

You're misrepresenting yourself.

Given your characterization of my posts at PW as an 'attack' you've developed a Sullivan-esque tendency to read what you want to read rather than what was written.

The "punch in the nuts" comments were obviously light and in jest, and I took absolutely no offense to them. Their repetitive nature was kind of lame in that same "HAW! HAW! flog the dead donkey" way, but it's not like it bothered me, other than its mild cosmic affront to the Great Comedic Spirit of Originality.

On the other hand, calling me "Bill 'Dead Air'" and repeatedly taking swipes at me for "not" being "funny" sounds more like an insult, but maybe I'm just like Sullivan, with my silk sarong wrapped too tightly. Hell, you even pissed off Goldstein once with one of your snide comments. Or do you forget? Of course you do. I really don't have the time or inclination to dig up the comments.

The only thing worse than a Sullivan freak-out is distorting facts to allege a Sullivan freak out, which is just gob-smackingly vile. You remind me of Barbara Boxer. She essentially labeled Condi Rice a liar, Rice responded that her integrity was impugned, and then Boxer whined about Rice "attacking" her.

You know, except Barbara Boxer tells better jokes, I'm sure.

So, wise up and steer clear of me or continue with the cracks. Personally, I hope that you do the latter, as I can envision scads of fun deconstructing and reviewing your efforts in return.

PS - "balls"

where's the ability to post pictures?

I need to put up that Fark "Oh, no. Not this shit again" picture.

Bumpersticker, Bill's been flying straight here for several weeks. We're all happy and chummy again. You just trying to get a rise out of him here so we'll pile on?

It'll take more than that. I've got to say that this time Bill seems in teh right.

Well, again, there's what I wrote and what you think I wrote ... as gob-smackingly vile as the notion of checking memory against fact might be, it certainly is worth doing.

And, Bill, ifyou're going to take Great O-ffense at an offhand AD&D related crack at the bottom of a post, after another person started the AD&D riff ... and then taking the time to remember comment threads from several weeks ago, then ... well, gee ... go the distance and find the AD&D related comments I made here.

As to the 'steer clear' comment or risk a deconstruction of Bill from INDC ... somehow that doesn't seem a terribly grim proposition.

Given your exhibition here, you need the practice ... I can carry you for a few rounds if it will help the Blogosphere.

Cheers,

Heh. I'm not gonna take offense at a dumb D&D reference per say, I'm just tired of you playing speedbag with my nuts. Last straw and all.

As far as my threat of deconstruction goes: sure, it may not be as horrific as, say, being locked in a room and forced to listen to you do your crappy stand-up routine, but see how long your carefree fun on the internets lasts when some jagoff takes random swipes at you, telling you how unfunny you are ...

... especially, you know, when you're actually trying to be funny. Bring the jokes, Sheckles.

PS - I worked in another balls reference for you.

no, Bill, we both know better.

The balls reference was for you.