CBS Reporter Sexually Assaulted by crowd in Egypt

[thescorpion]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Lara Logan was stripped, punched and whipped with flag poles.

[Crotch_Ripper]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Anyone hear about the rumored ban for asking stupid questions involving real assault/rape?

I'm only jealous that you beat me to it

[rapey]

"It is not typical behavior for Islamic men (which has been suggested by bigots worldwide). "

Why do people can't stop calling people bigots? Isn't the VERY idea of believing people to be bigots without hearing two side of the story being "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs." (from Wiki)

Who ever said it was typical?

Still, seeing that women there aren't treated as equals, and 55 women are raped per day in Egypt (source womensphere...don't know if I should believe it or not). You would THINK people of religion (not just Islamic) would be the LAST to commit a serious crime.
That's all I"m saying on the religious part, which is in response to your comment.

"In fact, most of the men who took part would have been appalled and disgusted if they read about it in the newspaper. However, as soon as the grim protesting became wild victory celebration, pent-up emotions combined with the contagious and intoxicating feeling of group dynamic and bad things happened."

Sorry, did I misread? (probably, English isn't my first lang).
That's your excuse for the rapist? "would have been appalled"/"pent up emotions"/"intoxicating feeling"??
Pent up emotions=FREEDOM, and the result is rape?
intoxicating feeling=FREEDOM...

and would have been appalled? I might be reading this the wrong way, but that is really messed up... How would you feel if someone told you "oh, sorry I was caught up in the moment and decided to rape you, but I'm really appalled..."


What happened was something that could have - and does - happen any time "mob mentality" takes over. Similar things have happened at large rock concerts and sporting events in the country where you live. The fact that it happened in Egypt is almost irrelevant.

Yes, In most less desirable countries. Raping someone in broad daylight...
It was only UNTIL the army and a group of females showed up was the ordeal over...
My question to you.... How many of the MALES tried to stop it? how many of them were actually "appalled" or "disgusted"

Like i said before, if this happened in let's say the US, all the middle east and terrorists would be screaming for US blood (I'm not a US ciz or in the US btw)


"I do want to take a minute to mention the real bright spot in this sad and sordid tale. The group of Egyptian women who stepped in and saved Ms. Logan from the mob. Although I will never know their names or faces, they have my admiration and respect. For women in that society to stand up physically or otherwise to men takes guts on a level that I cannot imagine."

That's the problem, thinking that female have to stand up..
The problem isn't the FEMALES, it's the MALES. I feel it depressing that people view it this way instead of thinking that the males who were involved should have their jewels shot off...
On another note, do you really think that's what happened? a gang of males without morals raping someone, and a group of women interferes....do you really think what the news says? Aren't you forgetting the soldiers that came with them? Which means that whether or not the group of females was there was irrelevant .



The world isn't doing enough...
I imagine if the punishment was to shoot off the offender jewels....
More people would be on this site...since it should be a fantasy...

wanna bet that after a few more days, this incident will die down? People who committed the crime in the "quest for freedom" will walk free. And the SAME thing will happen again and again.

I go back to my first post on this forum...this world is screwed.
If people are trying to "defend" the offenders by using "would be appalled".... it's hopeless

[DorianBlack]

Right now any discussion of motivation or the mood of the crowd is purely speculation. True some of it is reasoned speculation based on knowledge of the region, the cultural forces, and the specific circumstances. Sadly most of the speculation is more about personal prejudices, agendas, sexism, and sexual preferences (recognized or not) than anything else. Here is what we know for a fact;

1) The woman in question was in Cairo to interview some one for CBS when the news broke that Hasni Mubarak was stepping down and turning over the government to his Vice President. She then left the interview to go join the celebration occurring at "Freedom Square" among what she assumed were peaceful protesters made up of students, women, and families.

2) Shortly after President Mubarak's announcement, for some reason the military released its cordon around the square. The allowed counter-protesters, gangs, criminals, and other violent elements free access to the square.

3) Rumors were rampant about how Israel and other neighbors would seek to take advantage of the power vaccuum.

4) At some point, the woman in question as separated from her camera crew, producers, and security detail by the rush of the crowd.

5) While separated she was assaulted physically for anywhere from 30 minutes to more than an hour.

6) Several people attempted to save her beforehand when they saw someone being assaulted. These people were themselves assaulted and had to seek medical attention.

7) Finally a large group consisting of women and the military were able to intervene and extract her from the square.

8) She was rushed back to the Four Seasons hotel where she was examined and sedated by a doctor.

9) She then was rushed back to the US where it was further announced there had been a sexual assault.


Those are the facts. That's it. So far as I know no cell phone footage (still or video) of the assault has emerged, but I have also not gone looking for it. None of her attackers have come forward to give their side of the story. None of the women or military personnel who rescued her have come forward.

[rapey]

Thanks for the facts

Only point I don't know is point 6 (Wasn't on BBC at least)

NYdailynews mention this:
"Lara Logan's attackers in Cairo beat her with fists and flag poles, according to a new report.

The mob, which tore the CBS war correspondent away from her crew and security detail, viciously stripped and battered her for up to 30 minutes, leaving her covered in red welts, The Sunday Times of London reported.

Some of the wounds initially looked like bite marks, but later proved to be from "aggressive pinching," the Times reported, citing American sources.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_lara_logan_cbs_reporter_covering_egypt_revolt_s uffered_30_minutes_of_hell_in_cai.html#ixzz1Ed2mEf ol"

Obvious, it's the news...read and believe half of it

So, my understanding is that there are a few versions, just wait and see I guess.

I still stand to my point that the US government/media isn't putting enough effort to make the offenders pay
In fact, shouldn't the new Egypt government be doing something (yes, I know, still in turmoil)

[DorianBlack]

The NY Daily is referencing a report by the NY Post (which is pretty much not a news paper as we think of them in the US) which cited the Sunday Times quoting unnamed medical personnel who said her wounds were consistent with objects like the flag poles used in the square.

It's still speculation and racy innuendo. This is a case of downplaying the assault so the readers can feel okay about feeling aroused.

[Lil-Mac]

Originally Posted by igor

But keep going with your strawmen it is quite entertaining seeing the hole your digging yourself into for everyone to see.

The only hole that has been dug is the one your ethics and morales are buried in.

[DorianBlack]

Originally Posted by RayPistonprowl

As I am still a noob, I would like clarification about the topic of 'real rape'?

This is an interesting question as at least one person evidencing great offense at a discussion of this topic was an active participant in discussing historical instances of mass rape and genocide. Those instances were 'real rapes' with real women (and girls) who were victims. Some of them are now dead, but some aren't. There's also a thread where victims are encouraged to come forward and relate their experiences. Is that 'real rape?'

My question about this story has less to do with the incident itself than how it has been handled by the main stream media. I am perplexed at how relatively quiet they have been on the matter. I get that they are trying to protect a fellow journalist and her privacy and also it is common practice for the victim's identity and details of sexual assaults to not be reported. This story is just a bit different though. This is an international incident and the victim is well known, high profile and "a journalist."

The main stream media keeps repeating the same sterile story over and over again with inane little additions to make it seem that they are continuing to work the story. If that is really all there is to the story then that is great. What is interesting is that there have been many reports from outside their little club that either suggest or out right state that there is far more to the story and that Ms. Logan's fate was far worse. My question; if there is NOTHING to these other reports why hasn't CBS come out and vehemently denied these reports categorically? It makes me think that there is at least a modicum of truth in them. It is usual in circumstances where false information is flying around for the "legit" press to jump all over the false reports. One would think that in this case where it is in regard to a colleague, they would be that much more likely to discredit those other reports. One has to wonder if they aren't hedging their bets, waiting to see if more evidence comes to light. If it does, they can adjust their story and claim they were being sensitive to Ms. Logan and if it doesn't they just stick to their original story. If however they were to blatantly deny these other stories and they were later proved to be even partially true, they would have a HUGE credibility problem.

My sense is that with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think that if my suspicions are correct, it illustrates a HUGE double standard for the media. Normally they are more than happy to jump all over a story about a celebrity and claim freedom of the press when called out for invading their privacy. They were all to happy to go into graphic detail when Congresswoman Gifford was shot and weren't too concerned about embarrassing Tiger Wood's wife with graphic details of his infidelity but now that it is one of their own, you can hear crickets chirping!

[DorianBlack]

Originally Posted by coach

My question about this story has less to do with the incident itself than how it has been handled by the main stream media.

Originally Posted by coach

The main stream media keeps repeating the same sterile story over and over again with inane little additions to make it seem that they are continuing to work the story.

First off, I have no idea what anyone means when they say "mainstream media" as its a made up phrase usually used to denigrate a news organization not covering a story some one thinks needs coverage or supposedly espousing a bias with which the speaker does not agree. I've heard MSM ("Main Stream Media) used by people on the far left when talking about "chem trails" and "mind control experiments." I've heard MSM used by the far right when talking about a vast one world conspiracy to create a single race. So using that phrase will not win you any points with me.

Second I think you give far too much credit to our current cable and print news outlets at least here in the US. Most of them are horribly under-staffed with pretty people more enthusiastic about entertaining than reporting. The amount of actual reporting being done is a small fraction of what it was even 25 years ago. Instead we are bombarded with hour and hour of analysis and opposing viewpoints and rehashing of what's already been discussed. The cable channels do this because its cheaper than paying reporters to actually go out and find out what happened.

Third your examples are not relevant since Gabrielle Gifford was shot, not raped. For better or worse, we as a society are a thousand times more advanced when it comes to helping people deal with the trauma of gun violence. Elin Nordegren (the wife of Tiger Woods) is a person who chose to marry a professional athlete with a certain reputation who traveled probably 250 days out of the year for tournaments, promotions, appearances, and his design business. But in any event, its still moor because the MSM pretty much kept their mitts off her and the children during the run up to the divorce. The person being rung out to dry was Tiger, who was the serial cheater.

Fourth the "many reports from outside their little club" you seem to cite consist entirely of internet rumors and rather disgusting erotic fantasies disguised as discussions. The same thing happened when Jessica Lynch was captured, to her later horror and the shame of the Iraqi doctor's and other medical staff who saved the life of a foreign invader in the middle of the battle. In fact the staff attempted to deliver her back to the advancing American forces because of their superior medical equipment, but US forces fired on their clearly marked ambulance forcing them back to the hospital. Of course multiple "reports" were convinced not only that she was gang raped but were convinced many of her injuries were the result of her sexual assault.

So its entirely possible the media might be waiting for reliable confirmation before jumping the gun on the "Egyptian men are savages" band wagon.

Mainstream - adjective
belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group.

In this instance I am referring to the group of large news conglomerates that are widely accepted in the US and western society as being legitimate sources of news.

I am not sure why that was so difficult to understand and I don't see where I made any reference to a particular political position. I simply used the term instead of listing the various news media outlets that we are all familiar with and I am quite sure everyone here well understood my meaning. Just to be clear, I am considering bloggers, social forums, gossip papers, TMz and other such sources to be outside the "mainstream." I wonder where you got the impression that I cared in the least to "make any points" with you? I don't know you and quite frankly, I found your reply to be condescending, rude and egotistical.

What is also intriguing is that at the end of your diatribe, you pretty nearly made the same point that I was making...that being that the "mainstream media" isn't what it once was and it is quite possibly we have not heard the whole story in this instance. I was simply trying to make the point that CBS, ABC and the like seem to be sitting on this story and waiting to see what they have to report rather than getting out in front of it and taking a more aggressive angle, thereby allowing speculation and rumor to run rampant. One has to wonder why.

Originally Posted by DorianBlack

First off, I have no idea what anyone means when they say "mainstream media" as its a made up phrase usually used to denigrate a news organization not covering a story some one thinks needs coverage or supposedly espousing a bias with which the speaker does not agree. I've heard MSM ("Main Stream Media) used by people on the far left when talking about "chem trails" and "mind control experiments." I've heard MSM used by the far right when talking about a vast one world conspiracy to create a single race. So using that phrase will not win you any points with me.

Second I think you give far too much credit to our current cable and print news outlets at least here in the US. Most of them are horribly under-staffed with pretty people more enthusiastic about entertaining than reporting. The amount of actual reporting being done is a small fraction of what it was even 25 years ago. Instead we are bombarded with hour and hour of analysis and opposing viewpoints and rehashing of what's already been discussed. The cable channels do this because its cheaper than paying reporters to actually go out and find out what happened.

Third your examples are not relevant since Gabrielle Gifford was shot, not raped. For better or worse, we as a society are a thousand times more advanced when it comes to helping people deal with the trauma of gun violence. Elin Nordegren (the wife of Tiger Woods) is a person who chose to marry a professional athlete with a certain reputation who traveled probably 250 days out of the year for tournaments, promotions, appearances, and his design business. But in any event, its still moor because the MSM pretty much kept their mitts off her and the children during the run up to the divorce. The person being rung out to dry was Tiger, who was the serial cheater.

Fourth the "many reports from outside their little club" you seem to cite consist entirely of internet rumors and rather disgusting erotic fantasies disguised as discussions. The same thing happened when Jessica Lynch was captured, to her later horror and the shame of the Iraqi doctor's and other medical staff who saved the life of a foreign invader in the middle of the battle. In fact the staff attempted to deliver her back to the advancing American forces because of their superior medical equipment, but US forces fired on their clearly marked ambulance forcing them back to the hospital. Of course multiple "reports" were convinced not only that she was gang raped but were convinced many of her injuries were the result of her sexual assault.

So its entirely possible the media might be waiting for reliable confirmation before jumping the gun on the "Egyptian men are savages" band wagon.

[DorianBlack]

Originally Posted by coach

What is also intriguing is that at the end of your diatribe, you pretty nearly made the same point that I was making...that being that the "mainstream media" isn't what it once was and it is quite possibly we have not heard the whole story in this instance. I was simply trying to make the point that CBS, ABC and the like seem to be sitting on this story and waiting to see what they have to report rather than getting out in front of it and taking a more aggressive angle, thereby allowing speculation and rumor to run rampant. One has to wonder why.

You can't argue incompetence and conspiracy in the same paragraph, which you appear to be doing. I will agree with you on incompetence since I see it every time I turn on the cable news and John Stewart has been made wealthy because of it. I can't then immediately switch gears to suggest there is an active cover up on information we've already established they probably don't have because they're incompetent.

Originally Posted by coach

Just to be clear, I am considering bloggers, social forums, gossip papers, TMz and other such sources to be outside the "mainstream."

You do realize the difference between gossip and news, right? News is the reporting of facts which can be verified and corroborated by any independent authority. Gossip is a repeated statement that cannot be verified or corroborated. Prior to the internet apocryphal stories such as "wiener dog in the microwave" or "the girl with spiders in her hair" were passed word of mouth. These days people go on message boards, social media websites, twitter, and a host of other places and just toss it out into the ether.

[igor]

Originally Posted by Lil-Mac

The only hole that has been dug is the one your ethics and morales are buried in.

Again your presenting an argument no one is making when it has been explained to you very clearly that is not the case.

Claiming I am "blaming her" and "not putting the blame where it belongs".

But I have clearly exposed your claims have no merity by your lack of replies to the very specific and simple questions I have given you.

If you ever feel you actually want a discussion feel free, so far you have just conveniently ignored wwhat is being said and continued with your "you are a bigot and stupid" one liners.

[StalkHer]

(Apologies for bumping an old thread.)

Here it is; Lara Logan has begun to speak about her assault in Cairo.

“For an extended period of time, they raped me with their hands,” Ms. Logan said...

This statement is probably as close to the truth as we will ever know. Was she actually raped? If she was she doesn't appear to be admitting it right now.
No doubt a sustained groping and touching of intimate areas can be as bad as or worse than rape. We will have to watch 60 minutes this Sunday to hear the story and read her body language. There will probably be no further shocking facts revealed.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...PC9x0DEdE8EQjN

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/bu...a/29logan.html

[igor]

Technically anything that penetrates is rape iirc by law, objects, fingers etc.

Thing is the way she described it makes it sound like it wasn't just innapropriate touching and possible the occasional 2 fingers - it could mean multiple fingers from different men + in the ass too.