Active Now

SpunkySenior
RosieG
Baba
Kittigate
Slartibartfast
my2cents
Discussion » Questions » Current Events and News » News compares Soleimani to MLK? Why do they hate Trump so much they defend a known terrorist?

News compares Soleimani to MLK? Why do they hate Trump so much they defend a known terrorist?

Comparisons also made to Princess Dianna, Elvis. 

And they wonder why people do not trust the media....


**********Added From NYT Podcast********

“When I asked [opposition activists] why are you there, why are you going [to the funeral], the response was, Gen. Soleimani protected our national security, he transcended politics, he was a national hero. And I was talking to some young people who had attended his funeral and I spoke to a 22-year-old young man, a university student and I asked him ‘why are you at the funeral?’ And he said, knowing Gen. Soleimani was out there made me feel safer, he was like a security umbrella above our country. And that’s a sentiment that I heard over and over.”

The Times liked that quote so much they made it the Twitter teaser for the podcast (greeted with obloquy in the comments). Of course, an authoritarian regime has powers to encourage participation in mass anti-American protests like the funeral.

Host Michael Barbaro followed up excitedly: “What you’re describing feels like the kind of unified national outpouring that is reserved for a small handful of figures in any country, I mean, a beloved president, a civil rights leader like Martin Luther King in the United Statesnot for what our colleagues have described as a general who specializes in covert operations in Iran.”

Posted - January 10

Responses


  • ... And right wing mutts compare Trump's impeachment to Christ's suffering.

    As a moderator, you should know that when repeat extremist junk with no context or attribution you undermine your own integrity and the already limited credibility of this site.


      January 10, 2020 8:31 AM MST
    5

  • 21319
    New York Times and MSNBC are they considered "extremist junk"?  This is who said the remarks. 
      January 10, 2020 10:06 AM MST
    0

  • 2854
    And you think Trump's impeachment should be compared to the crucifixion of Christ? lol
      January 10, 2020 2:10 PM MST
    1

  • 21319
    No.  I have never compared Trump or any other politician to Jesus.....nothing to compare.

    Jesus is my Lord and Savor.

    Trump is just a President. 
      January 10, 2020 2:21 PM MST
    1

  • 2854
    Prove it. Make a post about your peers who do so
      January 10, 2020 2:22 PM MST
    0

  • 2854
    Exactly.

    Trump's people are nucking futs!
      January 10, 2020 2:09 PM MST
    1

  • 6061
    Comparing them as a person would be bad, but as I understand it, the comparisons were of the outpouring of grief that the death caused in Iran, not of the person he was. It's important not to take things out of context and give the impression that the media is pro-Soleimani. We have enough problems with the media without misrepresenting what was said.
      January 10, 2020 10:26 AM MST
    5

  • 21319
    I added the transcript above. I stand by my original sentiment. 
      January 10, 2020 10:57 AM MST
    1

  • 2854
    Of course, you do.
      January 10, 2020 2:11 PM MST
    2

  • 6061
    And I stand by mine. Saying that the people of Iran revered Soleimani the way that Americans revered MLK, in no way implies that the media is defending a terrorist.  I read it as a explanation of who he was and why his death would have consequences, which may or may not be worth it. I
      January 10, 2020 4:49 PM MST
    4

  • 2854

    Republican congressman compared the impeachment process facing President Donald Trump to the trial of Jesus Christ that led to the latter's crucifixion.

    Loudermilk claimed that Jesus, whom Christians believe was executed in the first century A.D. by the Roman Empire, was given more rights in his trial by Pontius Pilate, the imperial governor of Judea, than Congress has given to Trump.

    "Before you take this historic vote today, one week before Christmas, I want you to keep this in mind,When Jesus was falsely accused of treason, Pontius Pilate gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers. During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded this president in this process."


    I find that more disgusting than the NYT reporting on what a 22 university student sad. You have taken this out of context. Barbaro sai, "“What you’re describing feels like the kind of unified national outpouring that is reserved for a small handful of figures in any country, I mean, a beloved president, a civil rights leader like Martin Luther King in the United States — not for what our colleagues have described as a general who specializes in covert operations in Iran."

    Barbaro was describing the sentiment of a 22-year-old and how he was being perceived. 

    You'll get more credibility in your rediculous posts if you make a post against people like those people comparing Trump to Jesus Christ.
      January 10, 2020 2:21 PM MST
    1

  • 21319

    The problem is with the last part of the statement after mentioning MLK...." not for what our colleagues have described as a general who specializes in covert operations in Iran."  This implies that it is not true. That Soleimani was not a general who specialized in covert operation for Iran. A general who did not murder protesters 2000 Iranian protesters shot in the head.  This evil man made that call.  So yes, he was commenting on what this Iranian man said but it went too far.  To pretend that this man was not the terrorist that Obama declared him to be.   Now I would have not problem with it if he said..."not the terrorist/general with Iranian blood on his hands.....as his recent actions have proved him to be."  Then it would not be as bad.

    Also I posted the transcript above.....before you answered.

    As for the politician comparing Jesus' trial to the impeachment. What was being compared was the trial and the impeachment procedures. NOT Trump to Jesus. And no one implied that Trump was getting the same punishment as Jesus. 
    But I do not like it. I do not like it when Pelosi does it either.  I do not put much stock into anything a politician says.  

    But the media is supposed to have a higher standard. So my questions tend to point out when media does this type of stuff. 

      January 10, 2020 2:58 PM MST
    1

  • Oh just stop.

    Reporting on Iranian reaction to the death of a widely known public figure isn't "defending a known terrorist." 

    But you really have no interest in journalistic standards or basic fact checking, and you never will. All this righteous outrage covers up the fact that you repost this propaganda from right wing newsfeeds with no attribution.

    You play this game all the time, and then expect the rest if us to take you seriously as a moderator.

    Any discussion with you is wasted effort. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at January 10, 2020 7:03 PM MST
      January 10, 2020 3:16 PM MST
    4

  • 21319
    As I explained the next line by the NYT host implies that this guy was not the evil terrorist he was known to be. 

    Notice NYT is not covering the current Iranian protesters who are now chanting "Death to Soleimani" perhaps he was not as beloved as MLK at all. But this young Iranian was smart enough not to say on to American media something that would get him killed or imprisoned in Iran.
      January 12, 2020 8:22 AM MST
    0

  • 5488
    Cherrypicking a single media story to suit your agenda and then broadly overgeneralizing about all media, all while bemoaning the standard of reporting, just reeks with irony.  This post was edited by Don Barzini at January 10, 2020 7:04 PM MST
      January 10, 2020 3:59 PM MST
    3

  • 21319
    This is 2 media sources. NYT and MSNBC. Shows a history the media cannot even condemn a terrorist if it would imply Trump got a win. 

    When Obama killed Osama, we were not told how the Taliban/Islamic State/Al Quaida etc loved him. And how he was a religious scholar.  We said good he got that terrorist. 
      January 12, 2020 8:17 AM MST
    0

  • 5488

    While the collective media will not be defended by me, it is clear that no reasoning outside of your own bias can compute with you. But suffice it to say you either refuse to admit that you are, in fact, doing EXACTLY what you are accusing “the media” of, or aren’t cognizant in the least that you are. 
    I’ll leave it at irony, knowing a truer assessment will draw the ire of moderators. 

    Let‘s come to grips with an ideal that one who constantly sows lies, insult and disrespect toward virtually everyone will inevitably be treated the same way by those parties.
    I present “The Golden Rule”, M2C; one might wonder how you, a believer in Christ, reconciles your support of one who obviously has no intention of observing it. Irony? 

     

    This post was edited by Don Barzini at January 12, 2020 9:47 AM MST
      January 12, 2020 9:41 AM MST
    0

  • 1861
    I don't think any responsible person .. for or against Trump ... would ever compare Soleimani to MLK.  He was obviously a brutal killer.

    I think the main objections anyone has with his killing is that the Trump administration says there was an "imminent" threat to take him out .. but they are hard pressed to explain why now or what it was?  This guy was a problem for a long, long time.  Trump seems to want to act on his own without consulting Congress.  It's part of their job to be involved in these types of decisions.  Checks and balances seem to have gone out the window.  That rightfully scares a lot of people who fear for our democracy.

      January 10, 2020 2:36 PM MST
    3

  • 1175
    I am..well, not pleased, but perhaps relieved to see that I am not the only person who runs into reflexive bias/double-standards/cherry-picking/hypocrisy issues in discussions like this.

    I am somewhat pleased to see other 'Muggers who possess the logic, empiricism, and cognitive skills to recognize the same patterns I observe.
      January 12, 2020 9:47 AM MST
    0

  • 3091
    It's all about how different people see things.  The people at the New York Times are perfectly normal to themselves.  They're also perfectly normal to people who live in their part of the political world so they don't see it as them defending a known terrorist.  People who live in your part of the political world are also perfectly normal to themselves so the way you see it is just how people in your part of the political world are always going to see it.  It's just about having a different point of view.  American liberals and American conservatives are always going to talk past each other because they don't even speak the same language and the way they think is so different that they'll never understand each other.

    If you're the kind of person who rolls their eyes at left or right slants in journalism then these are your places to get your news: https://apnews.com and https://www.reuters.com 
    They're nice and boring straight news so people who aren't liberal or conservative see them as neutral.
      January 12, 2020 2:19 PM MST
    1

  • 1175
    I partially disagree.

    The problem with what some people see as "normal" is the inherent bigotry/hypocrisy in it.

    I'm OK with calling Soleimani a "terrorist" if we also call the US Presidents and generals who carried out their orders in the US invasion/occupation of Iraq (with the concomitant lawless indefinite detention and torture of captives) "terrorists" or President Nixon and generals who carried out his orders in the bombing campaign of Laos (which produced many more deaths than Soleimani is responsible for) "terrorists."

    If the construct is what the US does is OK because it's the US doing it, but because Soleimani was a F***ing Hadji Iranian, therefore it's bad and he deserved to be killed, then I consider that blatantly hypocritical and highly immoral.

    One problem in getting people to be morally consistent in the way I outline above is it goes against fundamental human nature. There is a robust body of research indicating we view the negative actions of people or institutions differently depending upon whether they are done by a perceived in-group or a perceived Other.

    When We do bad, it's an isolated incident, forced upon Us by circumstance, and not indicative of Our enduring character. When The Other does Bad, it is part of a general pattern of Badness which is willful, enduring, repeated, and unchangeable in The Other.

    And, of course, when an actor does Good, our perceptions of the good action flips. The in-group does it because they are inherently Good. The Other did it as an isolated incident forced upon it by circumstance.

    This same logic applies to news media "slant" as well. I'm reasonably sure the person who complained about NYT/MSNBC "bias" (and I'm NOT claiming they don't have biases or blind spots) is perfectly comfortable and does not even notice similar actions by The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and so forth. If The Other Side gets the news wrong, it's because they're American-hating Liberals who can't stand Trump. If Our Side gets the story wrong it's because they were doing "the twirl" for Roger Ailes made an innocent mistake not indicative of any bias.

      January 12, 2020 2:55 PM MST
    0

  • 3091
    I was trying to the answer the question the way My2Cents wrote it and I still think the reason is because the My2Cents sees it (along with probably most conservatives) is that they're defending known terrorists and I'm also pretty sure the New York Times doesn't think it's defending terrorists.

    Hypocrisy is just part of what it seems that a lot but not all liberals and conservatives are but since they're still perfectly normal to themselves they don't notice their own hypocrisy while it's pretty obvious to people on the other side or to people who aren't liberal or conservative.  The way I see them is nothing more than my side good, other side bad.

    So, a person on one side can bash someone on the other side for only getting news from a source that matches the other side's bias and then in the next sentence say they only get their news from real news sources (which is always a news source that matches their own bias) and then they'll go on with life never noticing that they just did the exact same thing they accused someone from the other side of doing.
      January 12, 2020 3:29 PM MST
    1