CNN Drops Reza Aslan Following Anti-Trump Tweets

[PubliusVentidius]

Reza Aslan is all around awful. I stopped reading his book ''Zealot'' at literally the first page, he wrote ''roman phalanx'' (the romans didn't fight in phalanx formation ) and that turned me off. Good thing it was a preview on Amazon and I didn't buy it.

 

[MilesAbove]

I love Aslan, even when I disagree with him. Cuckservative Snowflakes can't handle him.

 

[MilesAbove]

Reza Aslan is all around awful. I stopped reading his book ''Zealot'' at literally the first page, he wrote ''roman phalanx'' (the romans didn't fight in phalanx formation ) and that turned me off. Good thing it was a preview on Amazon and I didn't buy it.

At the Battle of Cynocephalae in 197 BCE, the Romans defeated the Greek phalanx easily because the Greeks had failed to guard the flanks of their phalanx and, further, the Greek commanders could not turn the mass of men who comprised the phalanxes quickly enough to counter the strategies of the Romans and, after this battle, the phalanx fell out of use. There are some historians who argue the phalanx was already obsolete by the time of Cynocephalae and the Greek commanders failed to use it effectively in that battle because its use was no longer properly understood. However that may be, the Romans themselves took up the phalanx formation and succeeded in using it to effect during the period of the Roman Republic before the formation was discarded in favor of the three-line Roman Legion with which the Roman Empire conquered the known world.

 

[KONE]

I love Aslan, even when I disagree with him. Cuckservative Snowflakes can't handle him.

lol I know right? I can't believe those CUCKservatives (haha get it? it's the 'cuck' meme used against them, fucking owned) don't tolerate an Islamist who eats human brains on live television and told someone he hopes they get raped

What a bunch of SNOWFLAKES (again, using their own memes against them, owned as hell)

 

[PubliusVentidius]

At the Battle of Cynocephalae in 197 BCE, the Romans defeated the Greek phalanx easily because the Greeks had failed to guard the flanks of their phalanx and, further, the Greek commanders could not turn the mass of men who comprised the phalanxes quickly enough to counter the strategies of the Romans and, after this battle, the phalanx fell out of use. There are some historians who argue the phalanx was already obsolete by the time of Cynocephalae and the Greek commanders failed to use it effectively in that battle because its use was no longer properly understood. However that may be, the Romans themselves took up the phalanx formation and succeeded in using it to effect during the period of the Roman Republic before the formation was discarded in favor of the three-line Roman Legion with which the Roman Empire conquered the known world.

Yeah but Aslan was talking about the siege of Masada in 70 CE, at that time the romans were fighting as legions with short swords, they didn't have the triarii anymore.

 

[MMAAAM]

lol I know right? I can't believe those CUCKservatives (haha get it? it's the 'cuck' meme used against them, fucking owned) don't tolerate an Islamist who eats human brains on live television and told someone he hopes they get raped

What a bunch of SNOWFLAKES (again, using their own memes against them, owned as hell)

Lol, well done.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I need to honor my voice. I am not a journalist. I am a social commentator and scholar.

Scholarly work...

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

CNN , and all US msm, never really went after the Cheney/Rummy admin and the Iraq war claims.

Some self censorship of Saddam just so they could protect their reporters and the Iraqis who assisted them doesn't make them liberal, it just means they felt a responsibility towards people they employed.

The US gov (including Rumsfeld) supported Saddam for awhile.

I didn't suggest it made them liberal. I suggested that it admitted to systematically hiding facts disadvantagous to Saddam over an extended period of time. Hardly as pro-US as you made it out.

 

[Peteyandjia]

So CNN doesn't drop him when he practicisd cannibalism

Never heard of this guy, I don't watch CNN, but who the fuck are they hiring over there

 

[MMAAAM]

Never heard of this guy, I don't watch CNN, but who the fuck are they hiring over there

Only the worst of the worst apparently.

 

[MicroBrew]

I didn't suggest it made them liberal. I suggested that it admitted to systematically hiding facts disadvantagous to Saddam over an extended period of time. Hardly as pro-US as you made it out.

But the reason for hiding it was to protect their reporters and Iraqi sources, it wasn't because they were ideologically biased in favor of Saddam.

Both the 1st Gulf War and the Iraq war, CNN and all the networks went soft on reporting the collateral damage caused by the Allies. Some of this was because if they were truly were honest , then the US gov. would not have allowed them to embed their reporters with the US armed forces. But even with minimal embedding, they can still get there and report critically but they gave the Allies a huge pass.

After the Vietnam war, all American MSM essentially took a pro US foreign policy reporting stance. They have shirked reporting critically on all the atrocities committed by US backed forces around the world , including here in the Western Hemisphere.

 

[Falsedawn]

But..but...what about his freeze peach!?!?!?!?!

 

[KONE]

But..but...what about his freeze peach!?!?!?!?!

:^)

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

But the reason for hiding it was to protect their reporters and Iraqi sources, it wasn't because they were ideologically biased in favor of Saddam.

Both the 1st Gulf War and the Iraq war, CNN and all the networks went soft on reporting the collateral damage caused by the Allies. Some of this was because if they were truly were honest , then the US gov. would not have allowed them to embed their reporters with the US armed forces. But even with minimal embedding, they can still get there and report critically but they gave the Allies a huge pass.

After the Vietnam war, all American MSM essentially took a pro US foreign policy reporting stance. They have shirked reporting critically on all the atrocities committed by US backed forces around the world , including here in the Western Hemisphere.

Actually, the relationship between US media and the US military was so frayed after the Vietnam War that the military spent a good deal of time and energy coming up with strategies to improve it. In 1989, on the eve of the First Gulf War, a media discussion panel on PBS famously posed the question whether a military reporter should warn US troops of an ambush or simply report on the results. Only Canadian Peter Jennings of all the top journalists involved said he would try to warn US forces.

By the time of the Iraq invasion, the US military felt so worried about journalists that they took to embedding them, hoping to create a chemistry between US troops and journalists.

As far as atrocities, I remember seeing Abu Ghraib all over CNN and other media all the time, as well as the video of a marine who shot an enemy who was pretending to be dead (not an atrocity but reported as such). And of course the chief executive news director of CNN, Eason, explicitly accused the US military of targeting journalists t that time.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting that there is no pro-US bias nor that some events haven't been whitewashed, but that overall the situation was always much more complex than you make it.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It astounds me he got a platform to begin with.

He routinely lies about his credentials and claims many different degrees pertinent to religious studies, despite holding none

He is one of the most disingenuous voices on Islam, and on religion in general.

 

[Pwent]

Never heard of this guy, I don't watch CNN, but who the fuck are they hiring over there

This guy, Kathy griffin and the lady who gave Hillary debate questions in advance

 

[nostradumbass]

It astounds me he got a platform to begin with.

He routinely lies about his credentials and claims many different degrees pertinent to religious studies, despite holding none

He is one of the most disingenuous voices on Islam, and on religion in general.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Good. He is right that Trump is a piece of shit. But as a journalist, he needs to at least keep up the appearance of impartiality. They need to be as objective as they can. It was the right move to fire him.

He's not a journalist. No background in journalism and has never worked in the field. He had a reality show.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

He's not a journalist. No background in journalism and has never worked in the field. He had a reality show.

Yeah, I think that really wasn't the point. CNN is a news network. If this guy is their employee, and he is going to tweet or whatever the fuck and show that he is obviously not objective, then they should fire him.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yeah, I think that really wasn't the point. CNN is a news network. If this guy is their employee, and he is going to tweet or whatever the fuck and show that he is obviously not objective, then they should fire him.

It is the point. They're a network. They do news and they do other stuff, like Anthony Bourdain's show and Aslan's. Bourdain isn't objective. Jeff Lord isn't objective. Lewandowski wasn't objective when he was on. Etc. They have journalists, who are expected to maintain a certain level of objectivity, and non-journalists in various roles who are not.