Kidnapped WSJ Reporter: Your thoughts?

matt · 01-31-2002, 02:51 PM

Reporter's Kidnappers Extend Deadline

Do reporters belong in the midst of a war?

Should the US military be responsible for rescuing US reporters in distress?

Any thoughts?

verbatim · 01-31-2002, 03:45 PM

they have no reason to be there. they shouldnt be there. as much as it is their job to report the news, some things can get left out. and the us should not help these schmucks, if they go running into the fire, they cant reasonably expect not to get burned. besides, its their own damn fault.

01-31-2002, 04:35 PM

You're retarded, verbatim. I can't believe I just read that shit from you.

Quote:

they have no reason to be there.

Uh, except that they can get places that the military can't, and they have played a big role in gathering information to hunt down terrorists (like the reporter that bought the 2 al Qaeda computers for $1,100 of his own money, then handed them over to the government). Yeah, NO reason to be there at all.

Quote:

as much as it is their job to report the news, some things can get left out.

You're right. I really don't care about Gary Fucking Condit, and I don't give two fucks if Noelle Fucking Bush got arrested for a fake prescription. I don't even want to know Noelle Fucking Bush's name. I don't want to know Chelsea Fucking Clinton's name. Leave the kids of politicians alone. It wouldn't make the news if David Fucking Ham got caught with a fake I.D. or was ugly or if he had a fake prescription, so I don't see why MSNBC has to have it on their front page.

Quote:

and the us should not help these schmucks, if they go running into the fire, they cant reasonably expect not to get burned. besides, its their own damn fault.

For reference, this is the part that I found particularly retarded. It leaves me hoping that you get killed by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem - you know, for deserving to die because you were so stupid as to go some place where you might get killed. Like all the people that died in the World Trade Center on 9/11 deserved to die because they went to work in a building that had been previously targeted. That's seriously the most fucking idiotic thing I've ever read on the Cellar. Are you fucking serious? To quote Al Pacino, YOU CAN GET KILLED WALKING YOUR DOGGIE! Does that mean you deserve it? No, it most certainly does not.

If a government doesn't protect its citizens, it is failing to serve its most vital purpose. The government will not go in and rescue him, in this case, because it will endanger him more than just sitting back will. If they were certain that he were going to be killed, I am sure that they would attempt a rescue. Why? Because that's what the government is supposed to do.

Daniel Pearl obviously made a big fucking mistake. He didn't know any better. He went for an interview and now may very well die because of that. Well, I'm sure you, in your INFINITE FUCKING WISDOM, would NEVER make any mistakes.

"Their own damn fault" my ass. I'd like to see you claim that after your mother or wife or daughter or "female friend" got gang raped for walking down the wrong alley, you fucking idiot.

MaggieL · 01-31-2002, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
You're retarded, verbatim. I can't believe I just read that shit from you.
"Their own damn fault" my ass. I'd like to see you claim that after your mother or wife or daughter or "female friend" got gang raped for walking down the wrong alley, you fucking idiot.

This is the same riff we heard from you about the drunk driver who was shot trying to break into a house where he didn't live.

"What if it was your daughter?" Well, it wasn't Verbaitm's daughter, nor was it mine. It was an adult US citizen who, with his eyes open, and being well-paid for it, decided to cover a war from inside the war zone, in a country where kidnapping and assasination are routine political operations.

"Daniel Pearl didn't know any better"? That's just plain silly. He's 38 years old. He's the South Asia Bureau chief for the WSJ. He was trying to get an interview with Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, because he thought Gilani was connected to Al Quaida, and specifically to the Richard Reid shoe-bomb attack.. He didn't know that this was dangerous? The military should now "be responsible" for saving his bacon?

The guys who put the grab on him say they're going to shoot him unless all the Pakis who ran across the border to help out good old Mullah Omar and got their butts locked up are turned loose again to raise more hell. Now they've blinked and extended the deadline, probably because they've figured out that it's Not Going To Happen, and that they've just added themselves to the antiterrorist hitlist, (or been moved up it if they weren't there already). The military and the CIA will probably do what they can to save his ass. The bad news is there isn't a hell of a lot that it makes sense to do.

Pearl took a big risk playing for a big prize, and crapped out. Why do you fly off the handle when people end up facing the consequences of their actions? What is that about?

Nic Name · 01-31-2002, 07:14 PM

You're a doll.

verbatim · 01-31-2002, 07:15 PM

Quote:

He didn't know that this was dangerous? The military should now "be responsible" for saving his bacon?

You damn straight its not their domain. He walked in their, its his responsibility to get out. The US never intended on helping out every single person who got in to trouble, its been a favor for its citizens. Once your off US turf, you're part of someone else's world. Their world, their laws. SO as any half-educated person could tell you, you cant expect the same protection. He knew this, and he did (willingly) cover the news in the middle east, so it is his fault. He knew what the fuck he was doing, he got his ass into trouble. Back off, dave, Im just expressing my opinion.

Quote:

Uh, except that they can get places that the military can't, and they have played a big role in gathering information to hunt down terrorists (like the reporter that bought the 2 al Qaeda computers for $1,100 of his own money, then handed them over to the government). Yeah, NO reason to be there at all.

They do not have any logical reason to be there, other than to be a pain in the ass and get themselves into trouble. There are certain people who can handel pressure, and people who cant. Our friend Daniel Pearl cannot handle this pressure, the dude with the computer could. And if they are so damn good at diggin up shit on our enimies, why arent they working at the fucking Pentagon? Then the military would be obliged to help them. And besides, its not like our generals are sitting on their asses in front of the tv watching to find out where to drop the bombs. Our military can think on its own, the media need not help.

Im not advocating that we ditch all our overseas citizens, they just need to fucking behave and not get themselves into shit. The US has its priorities elsewhere.

tw · 01-31-2002, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mmesker
Do reporters belong in the midst of a war?

First, this WSJ reporter was not in a war zone. He was in a major Pakistani city when he was kidnapped.

Second, yes reporters absolutely belong in war zones. To say no is to be totally ignorant of VietNam. Would you advocate the death of 50,000 Americans in a blind belief that George Jr was telling us the truth? We knew Nixon lied only because some reporters in the war zone who managed to have the truth reported.

"Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming ... We're finally on our own ... This summer I hear the calling ... Four dead in Ohio..."

Amazing that the NY Times or Washington Post were accused of being liberal, anti-American, and communist because they were the few news publications to print what we now know was the true story - from and in the war zone.

The question of whether to protect reporters is asked in a Fred Friendly sponsored forum so often repeated on PBS where famous people become hypothetical actors in a no-win situation.

BTW, there is one man in those scenarios that demonstrates an inability to grasp the full problem - Gen William Westmoreland. And who is on the panel? A 60 Minutes reporter that Westmoreland foolishly sued over VietNam.

Do we have a problem with the truth? Yes, we don't have enough reporters in the Middle East. It is why the stories we see in the news don't provide viewpoints that the Middle East has seen daily in their satellite TV news. It is why we don't see the upcoming disaster if we continue to support extremist right wing Israelis in the extermination of another people. If Pakistan is a war zone, then so is Israel, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somolia, Kashmir, India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Phillippines, Singapore ....

Are we to remain ignorant of those regions also. Unfortunately we have so few reporters in 'war zones' that we are already ignorant of wars that could easily drag us in.

01-31-2002, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MaggieL
Pearl took a big risk playing for a big prize, and crapped out. Why do you fly off the handle when people end up facing the consequences of their actions?

Are you fucking serious? He wasn't MURDERING someone, Maggie. He wasn't breaking any fucking laws. He was, as tw said, in a major Pakistani city, looking to hook up with someone who had granted him an interview. The problem I have with him "facing the consequences of [his] actions" is that the consequences are WAY out of proportion to the actions, which is EXACTLY the way it was with the drunk guy, save for the fact that Daniel Pearl has done NOTHING wrong whereas the drunk dude could probably be charged with tresspassing and breaking and entering.

I do not believe that Daniel Pearl's actions merit a death sentence. Period. That's the problem I have with it. Just like I would never argue that you should be put to death for expressing your opinions or being inquisitive.

jaguar · 01-31-2002, 11:33 PM

Its a journo's job, particularly foreign correspondents to report news, particularly because often they are the only (supposed to be anyway) unbiased source of information of currant events. Not unreasonably to expect the US govt to help the poor bastard out either.

MaggieL · 02-01-2002, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Are you fucking serious? He wasn't MURDERING someone, Maggie. He wasn't breaking any fucking laws. He was, as tw said, in a major Pakistani city, looking to hook up with someone who had granted him an interview.

Of course, I'm serious. Look at *who* he was trying to interview, and where. It wasn't just "someone", some random Pakistani; he wanted to interview Gilani specifically *because* he believed the guy was involved with Al Quaida.

Was there supposed to be some warning label somewhere that said, "Caution: trying to interview terrorists can get you kidnapped by murderers"? The consequences were a perfectly forseeable result of his actions. And, speaking of warnings, Pakistan has been on the state department terrorisism warning list, *explicitly* because of Al Quaida since **last May**.

Just beause he wasn't breaking a law doesn't mean he wasn't knowingly accepting a deadly risk. If I decide to get "inquisitive" about nitoglycerine and blow off my hand, should I whine that my "actions didn't merit it", since I was only curious I don't deserve such a severe penalty?

Look, I'm not saying the military, or the spooks (ours, and also the Paki variety, now *there's* a nice bunch of guys) shouldn't help him *if they can*. But there's really not a whole lot they can do to repair a situation that Pearl created all by himself.

If you don't think Pearl deserves a death sentence, maybe you can get the WSJ editors to forward an email expressing your opinion to the people who are threatening to kill him if their buddies aren't released; apparently the WSJ has an addy for them. I hope he's getting a good interview; if they *don't* kill him he'll certainly get that big story he was looking for.

In the meantime, maybe he can find somebody to sue. That'll work.

Griff · 02-01-2002, 08:59 AM

Unfortunately dhs view is also Bushies, as he said the other night,"some governments may be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will." We will therefor commit troops for any reason at all. No matter that sending troops into Pakistan would be provacative if not destabilizing of that government, which as extreme as it looks from the West, is about as moderate as presently possible. Lets not forget we're talking new nuke power with a nuke neighbor/ enemy. Its bad enough that we support Israel no matter what, are we willing to do the same for India? This could easily turn into the East/ West Muslim vs Judeo-Christian war Bin Laden prays for every day. Reporters know the score, if the Pakistani gov invites the FBI in for assistance thats one thing but an univited troop insertion is just crazy.

verbatim · 02-01-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

The problem I have with him "facing the consequences of [his] actions" is that the consequences are WAY out of proportion to the actions, which is EXACTLY the way it was with the drunk guy, save for the fact that Daniel Pearl has done NOTHING wrong whereas the drunk dude could probably be charged with tresspassing and breaking and entering.

His consequences are whatever they feel like. He has no say, neither does anyone else. He is over on *their* land, trying to talk to *their* people. This is an area that is almost an organized anarchy. People tend to do whatever the hell they want to, and if someone goes poking into their business, then buddy here is gonna get himself killed. End of story.

Quote:

I do not believe that Daniel Pearl's actions merit a death sentence. Period. That's the problem I have with it. Just like I would never argue that you should be put to death for expressing your opinions or being inquisitive.

You dont believe that, but they do. And thats the problem, they can do whatever they want. They dont have to answer to anybody. He should have known he was travelling to hell and back, its his own damn fault.

matt · 02-01-2002, 02:15 PM

WSJ Reporter Daniel Pearl allegedly killed

???

verbatim · 02-01-2002, 02:17 PM

Its a sad day. To Daneil, my hopes that he is still alive, somewhere. And to those fuckers who killed him, your screwed anyways. Kiss your ass goodbye.

jaguar · 02-01-2002, 07:20 PM

You do realise this is only going to get worse right?
*sighs*

01-31-2002, 02:51 PM	#1
matt At last! A dead star! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: DeKalb, IL Posts: 87	Kidnapped WSJ Reporter: Your thoughts? Reporter's Kidnappers Extend Deadline Do reporters belong in the midst of a war? Should the US military be responsible for rescuing US reporters in distress? Any thoughts?

01-31-2002, 03:45 PM	#2
verbatim Vice-President of Resentment Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Pennsultucky Posts: 199	they have no reason to be there. they shouldnt be there. as much as it is their job to report the news, some things can get left out. and the us should not help these schmucks, if they go running into the fire, they cant reasonably expect not to get burned. besides, its their own damn fault. __________________ <-- I'm with stupid

01-31-2002, 11:33 PM	#9
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Its a journo's job, particularly foreign correspondents to report news, particularly because often they are the only (supposed to be anyway) unbiased source of information of currant events. Not unreasonably to expect the US govt to help the poor bastard out either. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

02-01-2002, 08:59 AM	#11
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	no no no no Unfortunately dhs view is also Bushies, as he said the other night,"some governments may be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake about it: If they do not act, America will." We will therefor commit troops for any reason at all. No matter that sending troops into Pakistan would be provacative if not destabilizing of that government, which as extreme as it looks from the West, is about as moderate as presently possible. Lets not forget we're talking new nuke power with a nuke neighbor/ enemy. Its bad enough that we support Israel no matter what, are we willing to do the same for India? This could easily turn into the East/ West Muslim vs Judeo-Christian war Bin Laden prays for every day. Reporters know the score, if the Pakistani gov invites the FBI in for assistance thats one thing but an univited troop insertion is just crazy.

02-01-2002, 02:17 PM	#14
verbatim Vice-President of Resentment Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Pennsultucky Posts: 199	Its a sad day. To Daneil, my hopes that he is still alive, somewhere. And to those fuckers who killed him, your screwed anyways. Kiss your ass goodbye. __________________ <-- I'm with stupid

01-31-2002, 07:14 PM	#5
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	You're a doll.

02-01-2002, 02:15 PM	#13
matt At last! A dead star! Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: DeKalb, IL Posts: 87	WSJ Reporter Daniel Pearl allegedly killed ???

02-01-2002, 07:20 PM	#15
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	You do realise this is only going to get worse right? sighs __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)