CBS News' Lara Logan Assaulted During Egypt Protests

Originally posted by badgerprints
Yes it happened.
Yes it was a celebrating crowd that did it.
These are some of the people that live in Egypt. Not all of them....but some.

A western female alone in that enviroment has no chance if men with a grudge and the support of a few hundred other men all decide to rape her.

Those were your words.

You insist the 'celebrating crowd did it', so obvioudly you are implicating those celebrating the prospect of democratic reforms with the ousting of Mubarak.

But we just dont know. There isnt grounds for such assertions, as yet.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


That is all very interesting. I had no idea about any of that. My eyebrow is raised too.

Foolish foolish foolish. The lot of them.

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by badgerprints
Yes it happened.
Yes it was a celebrating crowd that did it.
These are some of the people that live in Egypt. Not all of them....but some.

A western female alone in that enviroment has no chance if men with a grudge and the support of a few hundred other men all decide to rape her.

Those were your words.

You insist the 'celebrating crowd did it', so obvioudly you are implicating those celebrating the prospect of democratic reforms with the ousting of Mubarak.

But we just dont know. There isnt grounds for such assertions, as yet.

Notice the term "CROWD" this wasn't a random group of guys walking down the street. It was the MOB. Mobs are not dividible into ideologies. They are a huge unorganized group.Yes bad people were part of the celebrating crowd. And they did bad things.
Are we through with the hair splitting?

Originally posted by Malcram
Of course your comments are less authoritative because I'm presenting the FACT that we DONT KNOW what happened or who did it, while you claim - falsely - that it WAS rape and it WAS pro-democracy protesters.

Perhaps you should read between the lines. What other sexual assaults could be described as "brutal" and "sustained"?

Originally posted by Malcram
You insist the 'celebrating crowd did it', so obvioudly you are implicating those celebrating the prospect of democratic reforms with the ousting of Mubarak.

The implication is in the story...

...she and her team and their security were surrounded by a dangerous element amidst the celebration. It was a mob of more than 200 people whipped into frenzy.

In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew...

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by kosmicjack

 

It just doesn't make sense at the moment to me, naturally I don't think that it's acceptable for any journalist to have to be subjected to the beatdowns/threats that were reported during this revolution, but I am not going to let emotions get in the way of a quest for the truth, so I am just a bit on the fence as to if this happened, and if it happened, how could CBS have put her in this situation knowing that she had been in a tense situation days earlier, in the same place?

Doesn't make sense to me, though I could be wrong... just voicing my concerns on the report..

One word posts are frowned on - but my guess at the short answer is one word - Ratings

It happens all the time. Companies put their employees safety in jeopardy for in return for profits / schedule. I know of a few women here in the states that have had to call an employer's bluff sometimes and say, "Ok - fire me. I don't feel safe going to that area again." But, many do not.

Would a big company risk the life of one of their employees for some ratings / profit? Sure they would - they wouldn't think twice about it and would deny everything and act totally heartbroken if something bad happened. The heads at CBS may very well be totally heartbroken now. But my feeling is they bet her safety for ratings.

Heck - most of the news networks did the same with their reporters in covering this.

reply to post by badgerprints


Strange then that the article itself DID divide the crowd, identifying a 200 strong 'bad element', a mob, AMONG the 'crowd', that was quite different. It also said that as well as soldiers, some women from the crowd went to her assistance.

There was a difference between this mob and the crowd. You seem to want to tarnish them all with the same brush.

And being accurate and factual isn't splitting hairs. I think they call it 'denying ignorance' here. You're just irritated that you made sweeping generalizations and baseless claims and got called on it.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Malcram
Of course your comments are less authoritative because I'm presenting the FACT that we DONT KNOW what happened or who did it, while you claim - falsely - that it WAS rape and it WAS pro-democracy protesters.

Perhaps you should read between the lines. What other sexual assaults could be described as "brutal" and "sustained"?

Why read between the lines? That's just a fancy way of describing guessing. Why not wait for the facts before making definite statements?

To me, it sounds more like she was beaten and groped by some people among a mob distinct from the general crowds. But, we just don't know.

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by badgerprints

 

Strange then that the article itself DID divide the crowd, identifying a 200 strong 'bad element', a mob, AMONG the 'crowd', that was quite different. It also said that as well as soldiers, some women from the crowd went to her assistance.

There was a difference between this mob and the crowd. You seem to want to tarnish them all with the same brush.

And being accurate and factual isn't splitting hairs. I think they call it 'denying ignorance' here. You're just irritated that you made sweeping generalizations and baseless claims and got called on it.

Actually,
I talked a little sense and pointed out that this (brutal behavior) is a part of what humanity is. Sorry I offended you so badly.

I am suprised that you think I'm irritated though. After six years of living in the middle east, a discussion about the people there isn't anything to get bothered about. Mostly, my experiences were better than the topic we've been going over.

reply to post by WingedBull


Not really, all Cairo was a street party. It was all celebration. Any 'bad element' would be 'amidst the celebration'. You cant draw anything conclusive from that.

I'm sure we'll find out in time.

Originally posted by Malcram
Why read between the lines? That's just a fancy way of describing guessing.

It is not guessing at all. It's called paying attention and reading comprehension, realizing that sometimes a lot can be said without saying it.

Originally posted by Malcram
To me, it sounds more like she was beaten and groped by some people among a mob distinct from the general crowds. But, we just don't know.

You cannot seriously believe that "brutal" and "sustained" refers to groping. You seem hellbent on downplaying this as much as possible.

REDACTED

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by Malcram
Why read between the lines? That's just a fancy way of describing guessing.

It is not guessing at all. It's called paying attention and reading comprehension, realizing that sometimes a lot can be said without saying it.

Originally posted by Malcram
To me, it sounds more like she was beaten and groped by some people among a mob distinct from the general crowds. But, we just don't know.

You cannot seriously believe that "brutal" and "sustained" refers to groping. You seem hellbent on downplaying this as much as possible.

Funny, you seem to be the one insisting a 'sexual assualt' was rape and that its right to conclude that. I'm
saying we dont know and theres no point guessing. Im downplaying attempts to reach premature conclusions.

You asked me how a brutal and sustained sexual assault could be interpreted and I offered the alternative interpretation that it could refer to a savage beating with sexual overtones in that some groped her while this was going on.

Either way its tragic. Im not downplaying it at all. Im just not supporting jumping to conclusions without all the facts.

Originally posted by Malcram
Islam and the Koran aren't concrete 'things' with set natures, which are 'bad'. They are ideas and are fluid and many different flavours in various parts of the world. Even the Koran itself can be subject to radically different interpretations, with some seeing jihad as an internal, personal, spiritual struggle, while others see it as an external physical battle.

That is the whole round and round of the situation.

The book is subject to interpretation, but the book dictates that there is severe punishments for not following the book to the letter. So no one dares try to change it’s interpretation for fear of death. To be a true Muslim you have to learn the language so that you can read the book in it’s native tongue free from the influence of the social disposition of an interpreter. It can not be altered for fear of death.

And the more violent interpretation will win out because people that follow the violent interpretation will be more subject to punish people that try to stray from it. The people that follow the less violent version will not fear punishment as much when they shift over to the more violent version, as the people that follow the more violent version fear punishment if they go the less violent interpretation.

That tends to gravitate the followers to the more violent interpretations.

So…… it is subject to interpretation….. but… the interpretation they are following will put them to death for further interpreting it.

So, the only way to change the interpretation is kill the people that are enforcing the current interpretation.

Sometimes a culture can not peacefully reform, so you have to make the followers fear you, and what you will do to them if they don’t change the interpretation, more than they fear the response from their leaders if they vary from the accepted interpretation. Two different cultures can not always live in harmony together. Sometimes, one has to wipe out, or change the other to survive. That is a fact of life. We don’t have a choice in the mater. Wiping out/changing another culture isn’t always wrong. Sometimes it’s called self preservation.

Multiculturalisim does not work!!!!!!!!

Wow, you'd think that after what happened to Anderson all these news personnel would be a little more cautious.

According to her profile, Lara Logan is South African born, age 39 and married to a government defense contractor. She has a 2 year old son.

No wonder Ms. Logan was easy pickings for the Egyptian mob.

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by WingedBull

 

I don't think its doubtful at all, in fact I think it was inevitable. This was the period after he had resigned and thousands upon thousands more poured into the streets to celebrate.

Pro-mubarak people had lost, politically and in the street battles, but they don't have Mubarak tattooed on their foreheads. They can easily move among the crowds at that point. And it wouldn't surprise me if they took some revenge on the media they felt had contributed to their downfall.

The point is though, we just dont know. But the OP acts like he does, and condemns without justification. There were groups of released and paid criminals, secret police and other regime thugs on the streets, even after the battle was over. Yet the OP maligns all the protesters.

edit on 15-2-2011 by Malcram because: (no reason given)

Has there been a statement from ANYONE in the anti- Mubarak camp condemning the attack on the female journalist?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Yeah, another example of such a civilized world in Muslim lands. Such respect for human life and right to self, dignity, and pursuit of God-given freedom to travel the Earth. Well, that is, unless you do not conform to what Egyptians constitute as being worthy of their respect. I say withhold travel/tourism, foreign aid, respect. We saw where all those billions went over the late 20-30 years . . . into a dictators bank account! So much praying before our cameras, yet, what does this tell us?Stay away from nEgypt folks, if you are not Egyptian . . . please look at the pyramids over the internet! Don't go there to be beaten and raped!

I used to have to categorize sexual attacks when they happened, and sexual assault can be name calling, groping, anything.

Usually if it involves penetration they use terms like molestation or rape, in this case if she was raped, usually we'd have said sexual assault and aggravated rape.

There was a lot of anti-American sentiment in the crowd, and towards American media. With everything that had been happening, I have to wonder if she had a death wish. There were male reporters that were not going out in that mess, with good reason.

sooner or later the "press" or "news" as you have it will learn to GTFO of the way... tired of seeing oh the poor reporter...