Posted on 02/17/2011 7:29:30 AM PST by kristinn
Dateline — Egypt:
“[60 Minutes] correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, ‘Jew! Jew!’ as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo’s main square Friday.”
Powerful reporting on an important story. Two problems: It didn’t run until yesterday, and CBS didn’t run it. The quote is from the New York Post. And it was The Wall Street Journal that reported “the separation and assault lasted roughly 20 to 30 minutes.”
But CBS? They sat on their own story. For five days, as reporters reveled amid giddy celebrations in Tahrir Square, and as President Obama praised President Obama’s handling of the Egyptian crisis, CBS reported nothing.
Only when other media had the story did CBS break the news that its own chief foreign correspondent was the victim of “a brutal and sustained sexual assault.”
Five days of silence — not even “60 Minutes” coverage of the Egypt story. No mention of the “mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy” who attacked their own reporter.
How is that not news?
SNIP
Having 200 “good guys” gang assault a female reporter while screaming “Jew! Jew!” doesn’t fit the narrative. Is that why CBS sat on the story?
Or is it the cultural issue? A rape in a bar is a sex crime. But a pack of political protesters who rape a “Jew” in public is a story about culture.
SNIP
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
If a tea partier had even looked at her cross eyed they’d been screaming bloody murder.
Amazon.com, "Breathing the Fire", Kimberly Dozier
When rape is caught or reported, "sex between a man and woman not married to each other" can be proven by testimony, physical evidences of bodily scars/bruises, torn clothing or pregnancy of the victim. Then the Sharia laws are enforced.
Sharia Law: The rapist will be punished to death if force on the victim is proven.[9]
Clear enough. But exactly how can "force on the victim" be proven? The answer must surely rank as one of the most insane and sexist laws in human history.
(A) "Proof of Zina (adultery) or Zina Bil-Jabr (rape) liable to Hadd shall be one of the following:
(a) The accused makes confession or
(b) There are at least four Muslim adult male witnesses"[10]
(B) "Proof of adultery or rape liable to Hadd shall be one of the following:
(a) The accused makes confession, or
(b) There are at least four Muslim adult male witnesses."[11]
(C) "Punishment will take place when Zina or rape have been proved by witness."[12]
(D) Sharia Law rejects the witness of women in Hudood cases.[13]
(E) "The evidence of women is originally inadmissible on account of their weakness of understanding, want of memory and incapacity of governing."[14]
Because such "proofs" are almost impossible to obtain and because circumstantial evidence is not accepted, a rape cannot be proved as rape in a Sharia court. Instead, "sex outside marriage" is proved for the woman by her complaint or physical scars or torn cloths or pregnancy etc. Then the law of "Punishment for Sex Outside Marriage" i.e. stoning to death for married adulterers and flogging and exile for unmarried adulterers are applied to the rape-victims.[15] On the other hand, a rapist has simply to deny the crime and go scott free. As the New York Times reports: "Ms. Lawal, a divorced woman, identified a man as the father of her child. The man denied the charge, swore on the Koran, and was deemed innocent by the trial court. No one suggested DNA tests."[16]
But DNA tests have no place in Hudood Laws either. The BBC reported that Zafran Bibi of Pakistan "went to the police to register a case of rape, but she herself was instead sentenced to death for having an adulterous affair."[17] About conducting a DNA test to identify the rapist, the Dawn reports: "Justice Ali Nawaz Chauhan of the Lahore High Court has observed that the DNA test is not acceptable as evidence to establish the offence of Zina under the Hudood laws which require a direct testimony in such cases.."[18]
You can read all about it here: http://www.aina.org/news/20081117111817.htm
You’ve captured the insanity of this perfectly. Sharia law would find her guilty of inciting Adultery and she would be stoned to death.
In the meantime, the MSM are so intent on maintaining their libtard cred that they sit on, then minimize the story because it doesn’t fit the script they’ve pre-written about poor, oppressed, freedom loving Muslims throwing off the yoke of Western oppression.
Imagine if the story was about a group of GIs sexually assaulting an Egyptian reporter, say a senior Al Jazeera correspondent (if they’d let a woman hold that position). The graphic details would be in the lead sentence of every headline story on every major newspaper in the land, and if there was any video (and when isn’t there, nowadays) it would be broadcast, unedited, while newsreaders on every network tried to contain their glee while somberly intoning that the following video may be disturbing to some viewers.
If there weren’t any real details to print they’d just do a Haditha and ask the anti-American locals what happened, without doing any fact checking. If a commentator dared warn against pre-judging the accused GI’s, he’d be blackballed as a sexist, hate filled misogynist whose prejudice against the Religion of Peace rendered him unfit to appear on television.
We are in 1984 territory here. Orwell was off by a quarter century, but he was right.
What would you think about some African tribes woman coming to this country and walking around bare breasted?
Do you think it would be prudent for her to walk around that way in a crowd? at a political rally? in a crowd after an NBA championship game?
In our culture it is considered inappropriate for women to bear their breasts. In Egypt it is considered inappropriate for women to show any part of their chests or bodies.
An engineering assumption. I know that the times are not uniformly distributed and that it was not a single server queue. But in the absence of details...
I think she should sue, although she probably won’t. A lot of people were cheering when the male reporter (Anderson Cooper?) got beaten up, too, which I thought was wrong. Whether you like him or not, he didn’t deserve it.
But I think he was also there because the foolish, pro-Islamist, pro-Obama networks wilfully ignored the danger because it didn’t fit with the image they wanted to project. Many having to pay some money in a settlement would make them more realistic. But I doubt it.
Exactly. Heck, if somebody called her a nasty name at a Tea Party, we'd be hearing about it 24/7.
No it wasn’t but, you have to remember liberals live in a whole other world. I’m sure this woman never in a million years thought they would turn on her like that. Now the western world on the left has gotten a wake up call. If this happened to her this would even happen to muslim friendly little Katie Couric. But, the left think they are immune to this type of treatment, because they are so PC. I got news for the left, they hate your guts too and would kill you in a heartbeat if given the opportunity.
YES
I cannot honestly say much about all of it, the MSM lives by sacrificing others for sensationalism.
How many years have we seen the weather idiots out in a raging Hurricane? They believe they have this built in armor and are exempt from uprisings, acts of god or those that tell them they are misguided.
A beautiful woman has been hurt severely and will carry the scars forever, if anything I hope Islamic Global Jihads gets so bad she has the opportunity to arm herself with a flamethrower and gives them something back.
And I especially hope many Americans see this for waht Islam is capable of, and that it CAN happen in America.
Even if an African woman were walking around the average American crowd or political rally wearing nothing but her grass skirt, I seriously doubt that anybody would assault her; and heck, at sports event victories, women are always flashing their bosoms, so I suspect even that wouldn’t bring on a mass group assault by crazed fans.
Also, women in Egypt dressed quite normally until fairly recently. The full-body cover-up started to come back about 10 years ago, but many middle-class Egpytian women in the cities (and this happened in Cairo) still wear exactly the same clothing as Western women of their age and show the same amount of uncovered body.
The fact that this crowd reacted this way shows them for what they are, Islamist savages. And she did nothing to provoke it or “deserve” it in any way.
If you define that as:
sane; understanding of common sense; ability to properly assess human nature, cultural tendencies; possess ability to resist the charm of unfounded “hope” in decision making, and evaluation of expected outcome of a series of events....
Then yes, guilty as charged.
She learned the hard way and got off easy.
Don't blame it on the locals.
Right....just men being men, huh? /sarc
I am just shaking my head back and forth..I had no idea this woman was naked walking down the streets of Egypt..
You're right - we'd be hearing about it EVEN if there was a rumor someone had called her a nasty name... not that the MSM is one-sided - I'm sure they have an excuse THEY believe for the bias in their coverage...
No, wait. That can't be right because the DNI is getting its information from The Media.
Well, the liberals are known for their circular logic. Some call it hypocrisy.
I'm not advocating not to have them there but I don't think the Logan incident should be viewed as an isolated event in the context of news coverage in hostile Muslim environments.
Couldn’t they have four adult Muslim men perform DNA testing. Actually, under the “rules” of “evidence” any one individual, Muslim or not, could perform the testing and then show the result to four Muslim men. Have the four Muslim men testify to what they were told. Apparently, the Prophet - may his tribe increase! - does not forbid hearsay testimony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.