She is a shallow, empty-headed, idiot that has been too indoctrinated in the liberal concepts of self-loathing to be able to think clearly. On the other hand, maybe she is just a bitch.

This is just too delicious! Liberal journalists being targeted by terrorists after schreeching about how our forces target them! How much better can it get?

Wow, for a moment there I was excited for victory. If the *insurgents* have taken to using infernal Powerpoint, then we have a real good chance at routing them.

As for the actual tactical advice contained therein, I'll leave it to real soldiers to explain why so many details are dead wrong. Who's writing their "training manuals," Steven Seagal?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Umm....That's a hoax. It's in English, which it might surprise you to find out is NOT what the Jihadies speak as a first tongue. The cited Web site where this was found does not exist. The attention to not causing collateral damage is not in evidence in the actual tactics of the Jihadies.

Further, if it were true it would not be a cause for particular outrage on the part of the press or public given that the Jihadies have already shown that they target journalists and aid workers. That terrorists target journalists would not be news; that US forces did so would certainly be news. Western journalists have no standing to call for the Jihadies to do anything; western journalists, being you know western, have standing to call on western powers to alter their behavior. Duh.

Dude you are sooo fucking desperate to prove that those who aren't totally singing in the choir must hate America you grab every straw that blows off of that strawman and hold it up like its OJ's fucking bloody glove.

But Von, it could be true as it is in the realm of what these guys have done before, Dan Pearl etc., so we'll remain neutral as to whether or not its literally true.

Iblis - Certainly. The point remains, so fucking what? I assume that you and Ace are not actually arguing that journalists should expect the same targeting protocol of US forces as they expect from the Jihadies. So what is the point in this exercise?

Von, first remove head from ass, go over to the nearest window, open it and breathe some fresh air.

Ok, back now? Good.

The point is that the MSM is constantly accusing the US Military of deliberately targeting pressies, which is untrue, but is silent in the face of evidence that the Jihadis do deliberately target non-symp pressies.

Western journalists have no standing to call for the Jihadies to do anything; western journalists, being you know western, have standing to call on western powers to alter their behavior. Duh.

Huh? What the hell is this "standing?" In the legal sense, journalists certainly have standing (injury in fact + causal connection + likely to provide redress) to demand the Jihadis stop killing them.

Injury in Fact: the journalists have suffered an injury in fact because they've, y'know, been killed.

Causal Connection: the journalists' injuries have a causal connection to the Jihadis because the Jihadis were the ones who killed them.

Likely to Provide Redress: the journalists' complaint (that they keep getting killed) would likely be redressed by a favorable response from the Jihadis. Imagine if the Jihadis said, "Oh, wow. We never looked at it from your point of view. It does suck to be beheaded, doesn't it?" and they promised not to do it anymore. That would go a long way toward redressing the journalists' (understandable) objection to being beheaded.

So, standing doesn't seem to be your objection, vonKreedon. I suspect you mean to say that, while the U.S. military cares about the opinions of western journalists and is willing to listen to their complaints, the Jihadis really don't care. But that's got nothing to do with the journalists; that has to do with fundamental differences between Jihadis and American soldiers. What's not clear is why you think this justifies the apologetics and subservience journalists show to Jihadis and the hostility they show to Americans.

Essentially, vonKreedon, your argument -- that the journalists should attack the U.S. military rather than the Jihadis, because they can't change the Jihadis' behavior but they can affect the soldiers -- reminds me of a guy I once knew. This guy had a tough boss, who was always unfair to the guy and treated him like crap. The guy knew he couldn't lash out at his boss, though. But, after a tough day at work, the guy would beat the crap out of his wife because his dinner was cold.

That guy was an asshole. So are these journalists.

Unfortunately there are no openable windows near me, so I just shoved my head through one. This doesn't seem to have improved my thought processes.

Now to your point, or really points.

1. the MSM is constantly accusing the US Military of deliberately targeting pressies This does not seem to be true. I'm aware of two(2) such assertions from western journalists, care to cite a constant stream of such assertions?
   
2. I have to break the rest of the sentence down :
   but is silent in the face of evidence that the Jihadis do deliberately target non-symp pressies.
   
   
   
   1. As I said above, that Jihadies target journalists is hardly news or something that those reporting have ny standing with which to call for the terrorists to change their behavior, so your point about silence is irrelevant given that these journalists ARE reporting about the Jihadies killing aid workers, children and other non-combatants.
      
   2. The media is NOT silent about being killed by insurgents. Most of the cites I found have expired, but I will offer the following two examples of MSM stories picked up from MSNews Services:
      ABC News picks up a Reuters feed
      and
      Washington Times picks up a UPI feed
      and
      The Guardian picks up an AP feed
      
   3. There are members of the MSM who are NOT sympathetic to the insurgents!?! Stop the presses, now that is news!
      
   
   

Von Kreed-

Do Western powers have 'standing' to call on Western journalists to alter their behavior?

Retired Air Force General Thomas McInerney, a Fox News military consultant, was "frankly astonished."

"It may be legitimate to investigate whether there may or may not have been an incident in which U.S. troops have targeted journalists, but there is no question at this point that major media figures are targeting the men and women of the United States military in Iraq, repeatedly and with no evidence," he said.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-lip24.html

Ok, some loose shit in my previous post, particularly that I said I would offer two examples and then offered three. Oh well.

Pompous - By standing I mean that western journalists are a western constituency and so have political standing from which to call on the western forces to alter their behavior.

That you see this as the journalists attacking the U.S. military is interesting; should the U.S. military target reporters? I trust that we can agree that the answer is no. Given that the military should not be targetting reporters, then any reports of such targetting is not an attack; for anyone to stay silent who believed that such targetting was occurring would be a deriliction of duty as a citizen irregardless of the person's journalistic status.

Max - Certainly for journalists to allege that the US military is targetting journalists should not be done without solid evidence. And the General is right that this is a legitimate area for investigation. Now, I don't think that he is correct that there is NO evidence of such targetting. For instance, during the 3rd ID pacification of Baghdad one or more tank rounds were fired at the Palestine hotel, killing two journalists and damaging an office of alArabiya TV. AlArabiya has been particularly hard hit by US military fire, having lost at least three journalists and their Bagdhad bureau in addition to the Palestine hotel office.

This does NOT mean that the US military is targetting journalists, but it is evidence that the General believes to be non-existent, and as evidence should be worthy of journalistic investigation without the journalists being called names.

Ok, I've got to get my focus back on work.

Umm....That's a hoax

Umm, Vonkreedon, I think ABC is buying it also.

At least according to this. And this.

It could be true.

Don't you people know there's a war on?

Back to providing an alternate theory of why Linda Foley would lie about US sevicemen targetting journos. Could it be she is a publicity hound seeking a name for herself , so that future employers will say "oh ya, that Linda Foley."
Rather then taking the enemies side.

The thing is, I don't think she is capable of taking sides. That would require self knowlege and personal courage.