Posted on 10/08/2004 6:22:16 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
GROZNY, October 8 (Itar-Tass) - Russian federal troops have eliminated four bandits in Chechnya’s Kurchaloi region. According to preliminary data, one of the four men was a foreign mercenary, an Afro-American.According to a source in the regional headquarters of the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus, work is in progress on the dead man’s documents, including a passport and a driver’s license.
The body of the story contains this information. As there are no native Africans within 700 miles from Caucasus, it was a dead [pun intended] giveaway for the not-so-dear departed. If he did come from US, it is dangerous in the terms of the possible use of his likes by Al Quaeda here. The importance of this last link, IMHO, justifies the title inclusion.
Only good Jihadi bandit is a dead Jihadi bandit.
You're not in the newspaper business, I can tell!
Ya gotta connect to the reader - bring it home.
'U.S. Black' does that better than 'foreign mercenary', at least for Americans.
How I earn my living is irrelevant to this discussion.
Ya gotta connect to the reader - bring it home.
Wasn't that done in the article itself?
'U.S. Black' does that better than 'foreign mercenary', at least for Americans.
Can't I be trusted to glean that "vital" piece of information by reading the article itself? My question was "Why did the original poster feel compelled to put it in the thread title?"
I don't seem to be getting an answer from the original thread starter, so I'll ask you:
What is the relevance of the man's race to this story?
I have mentioned it a few times but I dont hear much about it. There is a large number of african-americans who have converted to islam.
If(when) muslims start attacking in America like they do in Israel what side will all the converts fight on?
Wow, sorry I was posting this on another thread and it posted here...strange...
I'm sorry, but again I find myself laughing out loud very inappropriately.
According the US government, Iraqis and Palestinians are considered white people.
Should we expect to see headlines modified thusly:
Car bomb goes off in Baghdad (white Iraqi), or
Suicide bomber kills 3 at an Israeli checkpoint (white palestinian)
I didn't think so.
I'm sure team kerry will insure his absentee ballot was postmarked on time....
Only what I asked. "What is the relevance of the man's race to the discussion?"
That a black American fighting with (probably Al Queada tied terrorist) is just par for the course?
The article mentioned specifically that this was "preliminary" information. And the article specifically mentioned the man's race. In the body. My question was "Why do you feel that the man's race was important enough information to be added after the fact in parentheses to the title of the thread?"
You don't find it unusual enough to be news?
I find that adding a description of the man's race to the thread title when it wasn't there in the first place might violate the spirit if not the letter of FR policy. And I question why the original poster did it when the information was readily available in the body of the article.
Nobody is saying any thing racist here
I didn't say they were. All I want is an answer from the original poster to my question about why the man's race was added to the threadline when it wasn't there in the original article.
Yes, I acknowledged that previously in this thread.
As there are no native Africans within 700 miles from Caucasus, it was a dead [pun intended] giveaway for the not-so-dear departed. If he did come from US, it is dangerous in the terms of the possible use of his likes by Al Quaeda here.
His "likes"? What do you mean by that? Please elaborate.
The importance of this last link, IMHO, justifies the title inclusion.
I'm still struggling to understand the relevance of the man's race to the discussion and why it is important enough to add it to the title of an article where it wasn't there originally. That's a question I'd like the original poster of this article to answer for me.
It is information that is available in the body of the story. Why did you feel compelled to add it in parentheses to the threadline?
Because there are more Americans on FR than Russians or Chechenyans (sp?).
Then why not just say "American" instead of "US black"? Why is the man's race relevant?
Bump. Your participation and/or comments would be welcome in this thread.
I think the headline was dull - most people would skip the article.
Identifying the merc as an American in the headline creates reader interest.
Sheesh!
P.S. Do you really think folks would be less likely to read the story if it read 'American Indian' or 'Chinese-American' or 'Red-headed Georgia Cracker'?
I'm guessing you don't get a lot of shootouts in Chechnya’s Kurchaloi region between black American men and Russian forces. If it was a white American, I would probably just assume he was an American of Chechneyan or Russian descent. But his ethnicity rules that out, which makes me more curious about his reasons for being over there.
Why are you so sensitive?
Hey don't even fight it with this group. They love to rebuke the "r" word by playing on the I'm an Irish immigrant or I'm Polish so they can spread the hate around. You are correct there was no need for the mention of "black" unless it was purposeful.
Ratings.
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.