Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Korea Times Opinion "Ashamed to Be American"

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Korea Times Opinion "Ashamed to Be American"
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject:

The mods are alive. And they're reading these boards ... maybe a little selectively, but they're not dead! Amazing, isn't it?

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:34 am Post subject:

Bramble wrote:

The mods are alive. And they're reading these boards ... maybe a little selectively, but they're not dead! Amazing, isn't it?

I, for one, hope they crack down on people who pop into discussions and make non sequitur remarks and contribute nothing at all to furthur the discussion.

The fact that my country tortures people is something that makes me ashamed. I can't think of any possible excuse that is good enough to make me proud about it. I don't care if other countries do it or have done it - I guess that means I drank the kool-aid when I was kid, and part of me still does believe that America is better.

And I think it doesn't have to be this way.

We have a president who will stand up and look the world in the eye and "America does not torture," and we all know it might have once been true sometime in history but it no longer is ... then he puts a veto stamp on legislation designed to limit (not eliminate, just put restriction on) the use of such interrogations.

Obviously, it's a lie. The very fact that legislation was drafted shows it is a lie. The fact of the veto shows the govt intends to do more of it.

So, yeah, I'm ashamed of that, even thogh I had no part in it. It doesn't have to continue, though, and I do believe that sometime soon it weill no longer be true. Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe that.

Last edited by The Bobster on Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

But this one seems to have made the news...after all it was on CNN, or so our liberal would have us believe...any links to said video or newstory by CNN?

You can look at CNN, if you want. The Physicians for Human Rights website seems more trustworthy to me - CNN would only be reporting on what they are saying, so you might as well hear it from the source.

Here's Yahoo, though

Ah, here. This might be what you wanted ... glad to help, no need to thank.

That is indeed what I wanted.

1st of all this report has not been verified by an independent group. PHR has consistently demonstrated a very clear agenda and I for one would be wary of taking their word as the sole source.

2nd. "Since only 11 detainees were examined "the findings of this assessment can not be generalized to the treatment of all detainees in U.S. custody"

Why didn't they examine more? Did they find that those 11 were exceptional cases?

3rd. One has to ask the question. How do the authors of this report know for a fact that the torture didn't occur by other groups before they were handed over to the military? After all we are told "the authors did not have access to the detainees' medical histories."

4th. And finally as you noted CNN has not confirmed this report but merely repeated what they were told. When CNN was mentioned I was assuming something along the lines of CNN reporters and photographers entering the prison and interviewing and examining the inmates. Instead they were merely repeating the stuff of a group with an agenda.

Hardly unbiased news.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:33 am Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n04/v2n04-1.htm

From the banner: "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation" ...

I thought you were looking for unbiased sources? Wikipedia:

Quote:

In an article for Political Research Associates, which describes itself as a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society[20], Jean Hardisty and Elizabeth Furdon describe NGO Monitor as a "conservative NGO watchdog group, NGO Monitor, which focuses on perceived threats to Israeli interests", adding that "the ideological slant of NGO Monitor's work is unabashedly pro-Israeli. It does not claim to be a politically neutral examination of NGO activities and practices."[21]

Quote:

they were merely repeating the stuff of a group with an agenda.

Um, isn't that what CNN did with regard to the neocoins and the Buish administration prior to the invasion of Iraq? Why did you think they would suddenly become real journalists?

By the way, if you want to assert that a particular goup 'has consistently demonstrated a very clear agenda" you might want to take a moment and define what that agenda is and maybe toss us a boss regarding evidence with regard to it, which should not be difficult to so if they are all as consistent about it as you say.

And if your sole source of them being biased is the word of another very biased source, then isn't it a little irresponsible to casually toss out a condemnation of their aims, as you seem to have done here?

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v2n04/v2n04-1.htm

From the banner: "Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation" ...

I thought you were looking for unbiased sources?

Well I would settle for mainstream media sources, which don't rely solely on third party claims.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

It's the modern world, dude. There ARE no unbiased sources. Like the Oracle-woman said The Matrix, "You're gonna have to make up your own damn mind." And I have no doubt you already have. You would not be convinced unless trials take place and sentencing takes place ... even while smugly asserting that trials will likely never take place because the powers that be won't allow it.

I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" Funny but I think most people from North America believe this as well". So yes, a trial and conviction is necessary. But let's keep this in the thread where it belongs and not go dragging it into other threads...funny didn't you complain about something like this recently?

Wikipedia is hardly a reputable or reliable source. Anybody can edit it. And that particular page was last modified one week ago. Let's see if this still stands a few months from now, or if some other evidence was modified or left out.

Quote:

they were merely repeating the stuff of a group with an agenda.

Um, isn't that what CNN did with regard to the neocoins and the Buish administration prior to the invasion of Iraq? Why did you think they would suddenly become real journalists?

By the way, if you want to assert that a particular goup 'has consistently demonstrated a very clear agenda" you might want to take a moment and define what that agenda is and maybe toss us a boss regarding evidence with regard to it, which should not be difficult to so if they are all as consistent about it as you say.

I provided a link which shows this agenda and evidence

And if your sole source of them being biased is the word of another very biased source, then isn't it a little irresponsible to casually toss out a condemnation of their aims, as you seem to have done here?

Pot...cough...wiki... cough...PRA's article about NGO Monitor...cough...kettle.

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject:

Well, the CNN report was based on a a 121-page report written by licensed doctors, and the editors must have deemed it credible. Not that the media always get things right, but in this case there would be major repercussions if they screwed up ...

Jandar

Joined: 11 Jun 2008

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject:

It's still a good idea to listen to the other side and make an Informed decision about your beliefs. You can identify the twisting and omissions from both sides by reading both sides. A really good example is the Korean press where it is more obvious and blatant, probably because of the lack of experience of these writers, but you can see the attempts at journalism and how they obfuscate the truth.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject:

Bramble:

Quote:

Well, the CNN report was based on a a 121-page report written by licensed doctors, and the editors must have deemed it credible.

CNN just reports that this or that groups saying this or that particular thing. That is enough to be newsworthy. They do not make the claim that the report from PHR is true, just that this is what is being said. Some people might think that something is more likely to be absolute fact because it is spoken on CNN or MSNBC, but I don't think they are any more credible than any other source. Plenty of intances in the their track record would tend to indicate otherwise, actually.

TheUrbanMyth:

Quote:

I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" Funny but I think most people from North America believe this as well". So yes, a trial and conviction is necessary

Pppt...cough...OJ Simpson ... cough...WMDs never found...cough... smoking gun is a mushroom cloud with a 45-minute window...coughcough...shhhzzlt...

Quote:

Wikipedia is hardly a reputable or reliable source.

No, of course not, but that wasn't source I gave - inside the quote from wiki was a statement from another group (PRA) which questions the objectivity of the the group (NGOMonitor) which you had provided to assert that PHR has "an agenda." Well, I didn't need wiki or PRA's opinion to see that NGOMonitor is heavily biased - it's clearly visible from looking at the page of their site.

And that's the point. Your source is biased and so is mine. Gotta make up your own damn mind. I'm keeping mine open, though, and I haven't formed any strong convictions about the accuracy of the torture claims.

Quote:

I provided a link which shows this agenda and evidence

Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

I, for one, hope they crack down on people who pop into discussions and make non sequitur remarks and contribute nothing at all to furthur the discussion.

djkhfawkfhoawehfo;qwhrfwn rt,2q nrolsifhaw or jvq3o j2

Pah pah pah!!!

Just couldn't resist - tehehehe!

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:00 pm Post subject:

Jandar wrote:

It's still a good idea to listen to the other side and make an Informed decision about your beliefs.

You can identify the twisting and omissions from both sides by reading both sides.

A really good example is the Korean press where it is more obvious and blatant, probably because of the lack of experience of these writers, but you can see the attempts at journalism and how they obfuscate the truth.

What are you talking about? Who are you responding to?

Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:08 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Bramble:

Quote:

Well, the CNN report was based on a a 121-page report written by licensed doctors, and the editors must have deemed it credible.

They would get into serious trouble for passing on allegations of this nature if there were no reason whatsoever to believe the accusations are credible. The authors of the report are doctors, they represent a real organization that is probably registered as a nonprofit, and they provided a 121-page detailed report based on examinations of the prisoners. CNN doesn�t say the reports of torture are true, because there�s no way of knowing that�but they couldn�t present this information in this form unless the editors had done some checking. They can�t just put out hoax reports because �someone said something.�

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

Bramble:

Quote:

Well, the CNN report was based on a a 121-page report written by licensed doctors, and the editors must have deemed it credible.

Quote:

I believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" Funny but I think most people from North America believe this as well". So yes, a trial and conviction is necessary

Pppt...cough...OJ Simpson ... cough...WMDs never found...cough... smoking gun is a mushroom cloud with a 45-minute window...coughcough...shhhzzlt...

OJ Simpson was found guilty in a civil trial...that's good enough for me

Quote:

Wikipedia is hardly a reputable or reliable source.

Quote:

I provided a link which shows this agenda and evidence

You showed a quote from a biased source that made a claim about another group having an"agenda" that is anti-Israel.

NGOMonitor, in the quote you reference, appears to be talking about a group which might or might not be afflilated with the PHR group that is under discussion. You've pointed this out - the fact that we are actually talking about different people - yet you still wish to submit the statement about their "agenda" as evidence of some kind to discredit the group making the present statements about torture? Do you really think that's a valild way of disproving these assertions, to point to a biased source which is talking about a different group altogether?

WHAT? PHR-I is a branch of the same group. Here's an article which makes that clear.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/988478.html

As for being biased against Israel, here's a quote.

" "We're not Doctors Without Borders; we are involved in violations that Israel is responsible for" said PHR chairman Danny Filk"

He also states that "We're not a philanthropic organization." What the heck? What are they there for then? Aha here's another quote from PHR director Hadas Ziv that makes it clear. "We learn about the policy requests made of us, and then we attack it, all the way to the High Court." So they are political activists using the Palestinians as pawns in their political games.

So in other words their primary purpose is to smear Israel under the smokescreen of providing medical assistance. His choice of words makes that very clear. He could have said, 'we are involved in providing medical assistance to those who require it in Israel' or something along those lines

Their website says not a word I can find about Israel, so your contentions do puzzle me. They are doing work in Darfur, Mexico, El Salvador, and AIDS/HIV outreach in various places - not a word anywhere about Israel, pro or anti. Oh, I won't claim that they are free from bias - as I've said that's hardly possible - but I don't think their bias lies in precisely the "agenda" you are speaking of.

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject:

Quote:

WHAT? PHR-I is a branch of the same group. Here's an article which makes that clear.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/988478.html

I've looked hard and the article doesn't seem to mention any affliations with other groups. It's irrelevant, though. Different people, as I said.

Quote:

As for being biased against Israel, here's a quote.

Quote:

" "We're not Doctors Without Borders; we are involved in violations that Israel is responsible for" said PHR chairman Danny Filk"

It's a fact that there have been violations of accords and Israel is responsible for a lot of them. Like it or not, Iarael has violated the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere. These are facts we all have to accept, even you. Accepting facts that are known does not indicate bias - it might indicate the opposite of bias, actually.

Quote:

He also states that "We're not a philanthropic organization." What the heck? What are they there for then?

This kind of cherry-picking and selective and in this incomplete quotation is sort of just a little bit vile - which is to say, I've seen worse - but it is still beneath you, TUM. The same paragraph, completing your sentence: "and we did not come to provide services in place of the state," makes it very clear what they are there for: their goal is impel the Israeli state to meet its obligation to provide for people under its purview, not to do the work that the Israelis ought to be doing for the Palestinians.

There's no point in going further because A) the torture report we are talking about does not even involve Israel, so it's useless to go looking at Israeli news sources (unbiased? I think not) because there's no relevance here; and B) These are different people, as I said before. When I go to the website that refers to this document about torture by the US at Guantanamo, I can plug into a search engine and look for these words: "PHR chairman Danny Filk" and I find ...

No items found matching your query.

It's a different group of people. And strangely enough, or perhaps not, when I look around for names of people in a leadership role I came across a name that doesn't the least bit Palestinian or even similar:

PHR Executive Director Leonard Rubenstein

I look around some more and I see names like :

Chief Executive Officer Frank Donaghue

Dr. Jonathan Fine

PHR Deputy Director Susannah Sirkin

Sudan Campaign Director Karen Hirschfeld

Health Action AIDS Media Relations Coordinator Kate Krauss

Senior Global Health Policy Advisor Eric A. Friedman, JD

None of the names ion the article you linked correspond to any names I've been able to find on the website - it's a different group, and there might be soe tenuous connection in some way or other (though I haven't seen it), but you cannot castigate one group of people for sins committed by some others.

I don't think you were being dishonest, but I did try to tell you before that we're talking about different folks. Why didn't you pay attention?

The Bobster

Joined: 15 Jan 2003

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

OJ Simpson was found guilty in a civil trial...that's good enough for me

Buuuut ... "If the glove don't fit, you MUST acquit." And they did.

OJ Simpson was found innocent of the crime of murder in a criminal court of law. Civil courts don't decide guilt or innocence, but rather responsibility. Therefore, he was found to be responsible for his wife's death in a separate civil trial, but he is legally innocent of the crime, having been tried and found to be so by 12 good, possibly honest, but very likely essentially clueless members of the community of Simi Valley. He is free and at large.

Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:03 am Post subject:

The Bobster wrote:

WHAT? PHR-I is a branch of the same group. Here's an article which makes that clear.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/988478.html

As for being biased against Israel, here's a quote.

Quote:

" "We're not Doctors Without Borders; we are involved in violations that Israel is responsible for" said PHR chairman Danny Filk"

It's a fact that there have been violations of accords and Israel is responsible for a lot of them. Like it or not, Iarael has violated the human rights of Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere. These are facts we all have to accept, even you.

And what about the ones that Palestinians have been responsible for?

And what about the Palestinians whose competing factions have violated each other's rights?

Quote:

He also states that "We're not a philanthropic organization." What the heck? What are they there for then?

This kind of cherry-picking and selective and in this incomplete quotation is sort of just a little bit vile - which is to say, I've seen worse - but it is still beneath you, TUM. The same paragraph, completing your sentence: "and we did not come to provide services in place of the state," makes it very clear what they are there for: their goal is impel the Israeli state to meet its obligation to provide for people under its purview, not to do the work that the Israelis ought to be doing for the Palestinians.

What? If they are not a philanthropic organization, of course they are not there to provide services for the state. It amounts to the same thing. As far as I was concerned, the entire statement proved my point, I simply didn't feel like typing the entire thing out by hand. I included the remark about the "philanthropic organization" because it seemed that some people were still not clear on this point.

There's no point in going further because A) the torture report we are talking about does not even involve Israel, so it's useless to go looking at Israeli news sources (unbiased? I think not) because there's no relevance here; and B) These are different people, as I said before. When I go to the website that refers to this document about torture by the US at Guantanamo, I can plug into a search engine and look for these words: "PHR chairman Danny Filk" and I find ...

No items found matching your query.

That's awfully strange. Because when I type "Danny Filk PHR Chairman" into Google (remove the quotes when you do that) I get a whole slew of hits

It's a different group of people. And strangely enough, or perhaps not, when I look around for names of people in a leadership role I came across a name that doesn't the least bit Palestinian or even similar:

PHR Executive Director Leonard Rubenstein

Why would he HAVE to be Palestinian/

I look around some more and I see names like :

Chief Executive Officer Frank Donaghue

Dr. Jonathan Fine

PHR Deputy Director Susannah Sirkin

Sudan Campaign Director Karen Hirschfeld

Health Action AIDS Media Relations Coordinator Kate Krauss

Senior Global Health Policy Advisor Eric A. Friedman, JD

None of the names ion the article you linked correspond to any names I've been able to find on the website - it's a different group, and there might be soe tenuous connection in some way or other (though I haven't seen it), but you cannot castigate one group of people for sins committed by some others.

The article I linked to calls them PHR which is the exact same name of the group.

I don't think you were being dishonest, but I did try to tell you before that we're talking about different folks. Why didn't you pay attention?

As I said before they appear to be a branch of the main organization which is why we seem to be getting different results when we search. After all why PHR would let an entirely different group use its name unless it were affliated with it? Since for all they know this group could be engaged in activities that run counter to their mission statement. That being said, if PHR doesn't object to what this branch says, I think it's fair to assume that they share the same views.

Anyway, going back to the torture reports, I asked a question which has still not been answered. They only examined 11 prisoners and from that concluded "the findings of this assessment can not be generalized to the treatment of all detainees in U.S. custody".

Now you may say that even one is too many and yes I would agree. But if these are issolated cases, then that makes the point that torture is not routine

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe