Amnesty International Declares War on US


PDA






ravinraven
May 26, 2005, 06:38 AM
I heard on O'Reilly a while ago that Amesty International is threatening our leaders with kidnapping should they enter a foreign country. This will encourage people in other countries to assassinate or otherwise harm our folks if they go to some places.

I have a few non-THR activities in mind for these RED bastids.

What say you?

rr

If you enjoyed reading about "Amnesty International Declares War on US" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
steveno
May 26, 2005, 07:05 AM
give the Secret Service some extra ammo

ravinraven
May 26, 2005, 08:04 AM
And an additional thought. If these arsewholes are at war with us, aren't their members in this country enemy combatants and need a ride to Gitma??

rr

slowworm
May 26, 2005, 08:16 AM
Why not check out the Amnesty site to see what they actually say instead of relying on some dope of a commentator?

Getting accurate news from O'Reilly is like getting gun literature from VPC or sex education literature from NAMBLA.

Oh, and just to point out that I don't particularly like Amnesty either. But I would rather slam them from their own statements rather than from some half baked commentator who is about as objective as NPR. Same problem, different side.

Coronach
May 26, 2005, 08:21 AM
Not having my copies of Janes Defense Weekly on hand, I cannot say for sure, but I think we can take 'em.

Mike ;)

mete
May 26, 2005, 08:24 AM
Amnesty Int is a group that has on a number of occasions made up stories .They are not credible but unfortunately the media gives them lots of coverage.

slowworm
May 26, 2005, 09:02 AM
Amnesty Int is a group that has on a number of occasions made up stories .They are not credible but unfortunately the media gives them lots of coverage.

Which really gets down to the heart of the problem at the end - the death of critical thinking in this country.

I don't believe anything I hear until I can verify it from a number of different sources. If the media says such and such State Dept Report said blah blah blah I'll go and find the report and read it if it's important enough.

So, hands up who researched the Amnesty site to confirm what O'Reilly said?

How about hands up those who took O"Reilly at his word?

How do you now O'Reilly didn't make it up?

How about those who think Fox news is not biased and NPR is? Well, heres a news flash folks, they are both heavily biased towards different ends of the political spectrum. Just cos they say what you want to hear does not make them unbiased nor does it make them right.

It's like the old joke about knowing a politician is lying because his lips are moving. If they are on the Media in any way on any side the same thing applies.

Justin
May 26, 2005, 09:08 AM
No fan of Amnesty International, but if you think that you can trust O'Reilly for any sort of honest news or commentary you are sadly mistaken.

Henry Bowman
May 26, 2005, 10:13 AM
How about those who think Fox news is not biased and NPR is? Well, heres a news flash folks, they are both heavily biased towards different ends of the political spectrum. Just cos they say what you want to hear does not make them unbiased nor does it make them right. Excuse me? Please separate out the conservative commentary provided on Fox News channel from the news reported by Fox News. Comparing news to news, Fox News is about as unbiased as you can get. NPR mixes in commentary, spin or slant in what they present as "news." I have no problem with NPR (or other main stream media) presenting liberal or otherwise biased commentary, if it is delineated from "news." The problem I have with NPR is my forsed subsidy of it.

slowworm
May 26, 2005, 10:37 AM
Henry,

I agree with much of the seniment you express. Yes, NPR is in many ways worse than Fox, but then Fox is not innocent either since they are still expressing political viewpoints in the very news that they choose to cover (or ignore) in the first place regardless of the commentary surrounding it.

When I see a shot of a reporter on TV and the back of the interviewees head as he speaks I know that there has been a cut and edit in the sequence to join 2 disconnected statements together.

The audio is seemless and the cut to the reporter is used to hide the edit since it would be obvious if the cut included the interviewee. Why not show the cut and see that the 2 statements are seperate? Why do they need to hide this?

It is to make it appear that something was said that in reality was spoken at different times with the preceding and following context cut out. Fox uses this technique so Fox is also obfuscating its reporting and removing what in all likelyhood is important context.

It is, after all, all about ratings and eyeballs not about objectivity and impartiality.

To me it is like saying Fox is better than NPR is like sying my daughter in high school is a little bit pregnant but your daughter is very pregnant making you a worse father than me. They are both still pregnant and the better/worse senitiment counts for little when you strip away the preconceptions and labels.

The really sad thing is that with the age of the internet it is so easy to go and get other viewpoints and often get to original source documents and press releases to find out what was actually said.

ravinraven
May 26, 2005, 10:51 AM
I didn't realize that O'Reilly made this whole thing up. I've just been so lost for a reliable news source since Dan Rather departed, that I fell for him.

I wonder what it cost him to get those two guys to talk about it on his show, And how in the world did he get it onto Boortz. Boortz hates him.

I do love to mention O'Reilly and see how many immediately drop the topic and start bashing Sweet Old Bill. S.O.B. does mean Sweet Old Bill, doesn't it?

Thanks for helping me get my jollies for the day. There ain't a lot going on around here and it's too cold to mow the lawn.

rr

Waitone
May 26, 2005, 11:25 AM
Issue regarding Bill O aside, here is a little info on Amnesty International http://discoverthenetwork.com/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6185

AI's 2004 Annual Report
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n10/v2n10-4.htm

Henry Bowman
May 26, 2005, 11:29 AM
but then Fox is not innocent either since they are still expressing political viewpoints in the very news that they choose to cover (or ignore) in the first place regardless of the commentary surrounding it. true. All news reporting has some bias. Some media outlets, however, go out of their way to insert bias. Fox makes an effort to reduce it.



When I see a shot of a reporter on TV and the back of the interviewees head as he speaks I know that there has been a cut and edit in the sequence to join 2 disconnected statements together. Maybe, maybe not. Some interviews (higher budget) are shot with 2 or more cameras.

2nd Amendment
May 26, 2005, 11:33 AM
Amazing how FOX is biased because they are less leftist than the competition. I suppose this does indiate they are biased AND I suppose it does indicate their bias is somewhat less than, say, NPR. They lean only slightly left, as opposed to requiring a prop to keep from falling over...

roscoe
May 26, 2005, 12:25 PM
I heard on O'Reilly a while ago that Amesty International is threatening our leaders with kidnapping should they enter a foreign country.

Ha ha ha! You think Amnesty International has a crack suicide squad for just such tasks? Holy cow, you really gotta employ better critical faculties than that.

Yeah, I can just see the Amnesty International tactical kidnapping squad pulling balaclavas on, adjusting night-vision goggles, sharpening their Cold Steel RRK knives, filling the magazines of their MP5s, while they listen to Terri Gross on NPR.

Waitone
May 26, 2005, 12:31 PM
No, but I can see Interpol working with other international LE groups to pull our guys into the World Court. . . . .kinda like they threatened with Rumsfeld.

Gung-Ho
May 26, 2005, 12:46 PM
Amazing how FOX is biased because they are less leftist than the competition. I suppose this does indiate they are biased AND I suppose it does indicate their bias is somewhat less than, say, NPR. They lean only slightly left, as opposed to requiring a prop to keep from falling over...

What you have to understand is the fact that the "Thin Blue Line" here is just going through withdrawals over losing Dan Rather. :D Personally after watching network news for years and seeing how they needed to be propped up to keep from falling to the left, O'Rielly is like a fresh breeze.

slowworm
May 26, 2005, 01:04 PM
O'Rielly is like a fresh breeze.

Depends if you want accurate news or entertainment.

HankB
May 26, 2005, 01:33 PM
It burns me up when a biased source like Fox is regarded as "news."

Don't any of you Fox defenders remember late last year when their prime-time news anchor was using forged documents from a dead man in his attempt to influence a presidential election? Or the time their main news anchor ran stories about exploding GM pickup trucks, while neatly omitting mention of the bomb the network's testers had rigged the truck with? Back in '94, the same anchor ran stories - repeatedly! - about the semi-auto ban, while showing film of machineguns being fired. And then after the Dems lost 50+ seats in the House, the Canuck anchoring the news went on the air and chided the voters for behaving like children throwing a tantrum.

No network that tolerates this ought to be dignified with the word "news" in its programming.

(Eh . .. what's that? These stories weren't on Fox, but came from CBS, NBC, and ABC with Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings respectively? Mmmm . . . that's very different.)

Never mind.

The problem I have with NPR is my forced subsidy of it. +1 on that.

Rebar
May 26, 2005, 01:33 PM
O'Rielly is correct:
Amnesty International branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a human rights failure Wednesday, calling it "the gulag of our time" as it released a report that offers stinging criticism of the United States and its detention centers around the world.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=789402

To call America's prisons the "the gulag of our time" is utterly rediculous. There are real gulags in the world, like in China and North Korea, where hundreds of thousands are unjustly imprisoned and worked to death:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,1136483,00.html
http://www.laogai.org/hdbook/hb_intro.htm\
They both execute thousands each year, for the most trivial reasons. Or no reason, the North Koreans imprison everyone in a family, out to three generations, for a supposed crime by one member, and very few survive their terms.

For Amnesty International to accuse America of this level of abuse and murder, destroys their credibility. It's an obvious ploy by the left-wing moonbats running it to smear Bush and his policies. It also gives a propaganda coup to the islamofacists, which in turn will increase the danger to our servicepeople, and to Iraqi and Afgani civilians.

So yes, I would say that Amnesty International has indeed declared war on America.

ravinraven
May 26, 2005, 01:42 PM
"
Quote:
O'Rielly is like a fresh breeze.


Depends if you want accurate news or entertainment."

...Sweet Old Bill says he's not a news reporter. He's a commentator. He comentates on the news. Therefore, he's expressing his opinions on the various things that happen and are reported.

If he thinks somebody is a "pinhead" that doesn't make the guy a pinhead. On the other hand, if a news reporter said: "Today we have learned that Joe Blow is a pinhead."....well, that smells a bit different. Either Joe Blow is a pin head or he's about to become very rich.

rr

MechAg94
May 26, 2005, 02:00 PM
O'Reilly's show is not a News show, it is an Commentary/Editorial Show. People watch that show not just to hear some news, but to hear Bill's take on the news and hear him interview guests about it. You have to filter the facts and opinions. If you are looking for just news, stop watching shows that are purely opinion based. :)

I will agree with the other poster, when I first watched Fox News 4 or 5 years ago, it was O'reilly's show. It WAS a "breath of fresh air" compared to the other news channels available. His format is completely different. I don't watch his show hardly at all now. I do like spot where he reads all the letters critical of him. Pretty unique.

Rebar
May 26, 2005, 02:11 PM
Here is the actual text of what O'Reilly said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157733,00.html

He does have a point.

Mongo the Mutterer
May 26, 2005, 02:29 PM
Kudos Hank B.

The Socialist Mainstream Media (SMSM) is losing their death grip on the political process and American life in general. Used to be they could set the entire agenda, tell us what to think about that agenda, and ignore anything but the agenda.

Go to my blog to see Newsweek's Japan edition cover with our Flag in the trash. That is what these transnational socialists believe... not what they tell us. :fire:

Boats
May 26, 2005, 02:37 PM
It took most of the thread but kudos to Rebar for actually pointing out what a gulag is all about.

You can't work most of those Guantanamo detainees to death, because they lack the skills to make anything anyone wants. :evil:

Standing Wolf
May 26, 2005, 04:35 PM
Getting accurate news from O'Reilly is like getting gun literature from VPC or sex education literature from NAMBLA.

Well said!

I figure if it's on television, it's probably dishonest, dumb, or both.

ceetee
May 26, 2005, 10:09 PM
He does have a point.

Which one?

I mean, which point is "the one"?

Seemed like mostly horse puckey to me. This is America, and he's entitled to his opinion, but saying that because AI "does not support or oppose regime change" means that AI is "soft on Saddam Hussein"... or knocking Planned Parenthood (one of the few organizations taking a truly pro-active action to fight crime)... that plants him strictly in the tin-foil-hat brigade to me.

Don't bother, REBAR, I'm not gonna read it.

Rebar
May 26, 2005, 10:19 PM
Don't bother, REBAR, I'm not gonna read it.
Then what's your point, asking a question then stating you're not going to read the answer? Hardly "high road" behavior.

stevelyn
May 27, 2005, 10:26 AM
O'Reilly is like a fresh breeze.

Yup, while you're standing downwind from a barnyard.

Sean Smith
May 27, 2005, 10:37 AM
Amnesty International means well, but they have an unfortunate habit of acting like fruit loops. They seem to have no sense of proportion; they are as hysterical about alleged small-scale infractions by the US, as they are about massacres, slave labor camps, ethnic cleansing, female circumcision and so forth elsewhere.

:confused:

Gung-Ho
May 27, 2005, 11:36 AM
Yup, while you're standing downwind from a barnyard.

I would prefer the barnyard over some of the stuff that drifts off the Thin Blue Line.

If you enjoyed reading about "Amnesty International Declares War on US" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!