1
   

Do we need a mandatory 7 day waiting period on news stories?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:35 am
McG:
Quote:
Books are just paper and ink. It's the message inside that matters and no one can desecrate the message to a true follower of a book.


Hearts and minds, man. What else do you think is going to win the war on terror? We've discussed this plenty of times before.

You are right that the message of the Koran isn't desecrated to the true believers, no matter what the US soldiers do; that doesn't mean it isn't insulting and wrong to do.

ALso

Quote:
Censoring events is not the same as censoring the press.


Yes it is, definitionally, seeing as you cannot actually censor an event, only what is written or said about said event.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:36 am
Oh please. Save the sensitivity for someone that cares.

As Boortz said today...

IS IT JUST ME ....

... or are some of the rest of you getting just a little bit tired of all of the butt kissing we're delivering to disgruntled Muslims out there. This whole flap over the faulty Newsweek story is starting to get under several different patches of my skin.

Reuters is reporting from Islamabad that the Pakistani government remains unhappy with Newsweek. Well, don't feel pregnant, Pakistan. But Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad pushes things just a bit with his statement that we need to work harder at understanding the sensitivities of the Islamic people. He says "The apology and retraction are not enough. "They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."

Sorry, pal. I'm not buying it. I getting just a bit beyond the point where I'm all bent out of shape trying to understand Islamic sensitivities. If there is something about your religion that should make me feel badly about poor Muslims getting their feelings hurt, you had better get it out there on the table now. All I see is a religion that seems to take great pleasure in passing condemnations and "death sentences" on various people around the world for all sorts of meaningless infractions of some great system of Islamic law.

I'm just not going to get all worked up worrying about the sensitivities of devotees of a religion that will stone a woman to death for adultery, while letting the man go unpunished.

Sensitivity would not be the word to describe how I feel about a religion that is in some way involved in more than 95% of the actual shooting conflicts and wars around the world.

Muslims shoot school children in the back! Remember Chechnya? They brag about bombs in schools in Israel! Tell me again about how I need to be sensitive?

The daughter of a devout Muslim gets violently raped. The devout Muslim takes a knife and, in front of the entire family, cuts his daughter's throat because she has dishonored her family .... by being a rape victim. Yeah, sport. Let me just pour out my sensitivities to this practitioner of the religion of peace.

There's a school on fire outside Riyadh. It's a girls school. The girls are trying to escape! But wait! Their faces aren't covered! It's the Islamic defenders of the faith to the rescue! They block the doors to keep the young Muslim girls from escaping ... from a burning building. The dignity of the great and wonderful religion of peace must be protected, even if young women burn to death! Yeah ... my respect for your sensitivities is on the way.

Those insurgents who are killing innocent civilians in Iraq? The suicide bombers in their cars and trucks? Haven't you heard? Most of them are from Saudi Arabia. They're crossing borders to kill innocent women and children because they don't like the idea of people being able to chose those who will rule them. I'm feeling so sensitive to that.

Tell you what: When you stop killing your own daughters; when you stop trying to lock young girls into burning buildings; when you eschew shooting school children in the back; and when I can look in a newspaper and read that Muslims are NOT involved in one way or another in revolts, insurrections and hot wars around the world --- and when you're not working so hard to kill American civilians --- and when you start to show some tolerance and respect for the world's other religions .. then maybe I'll feel a bit more worm and fuzzy toward your incredible religion of peace.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:37 am
Yeah, well, this fits in perfectly with your self-description of being a selfish Jerk, so who is surprised, McG? Noone.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:39 am
I haven't the least doubt that you don't give a rat's ass about anybody who does not actually live under your roof.

Appeals to how bad someone else is are particularly witless, in that they inferentially authorize any bahavior which just barely falls short of the condemned behavior.

And, of course, you have completely avoided the issue of the treatment of people taken into custody, subjected to humiliation at the least, and torture at the worst, for whom no due process of law has ever been provided.

But of course, one can expect that the right are never dedicated to any of the freedoms espoused in our polity--until the police actually kick in their doors . . .
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 11:58 am
History sure repeats itself. Look at how Boortz compares to like-minded idealogues of the past.

Quote:

I draw my conclusions from the incontrovertible evidence that the Jewish people has given to us Germans.

I begin with the moral qualities of the Jews that they love to bring up. Never was the level of public morality lower than during the time in which your racial comrades had nearly complete control over film, the stage and the arts. I remember with disgust the so-called educational films and similar such depravity for which there was sensational propaganda. Other Jews praised such things to the heavens, and still other Jews kept the police from stopping these general attacks on public morality. The damage done to our youth by Magnus Hirschfeld [a prominent Jewish sexual researcher] alone, and the fact that the rest of Jewry tolerated him, is by itself sufficient to justify the harshest measures against the Jews. But Magnus Hirschfeld was no unfortunate single case, but rather one of a legion of Jewish corrupters of the youth, sexual criminals, pseudo-scientists, playwrights and novelists, painters and sculptors, theater and cabaret director, publishers and distributors of pornographic literature. They competed with each other to produce their filth, surpassing each other in obscenity, making easier the work of their racial comrades seeking to dominate an unnerved and powerless people rendered susceptible by such "art." The absence of moral rules was called freedom, and unrestrained drives were proclaimed to be the right of the young.

What do "decent Jews" say about such incontrovertible facts of the recent past? Were the poor parents of these boys and girls to haul such pigs from the muck and drive them through the streets in a pogrom, it would not be hard to understand, for the poisoning of young souls is worse than bestial murder.

More than that, your racial comrades intentionally and cold-heartedly preached and encouraged the murder of the unborn children of our people through abortion. The racial hatred Jews had for their Aryan host people extended to the growing life in a mother's womb. Jewish scoundrels made this part of the programs of political parties. How many millions of unborn children and how many hundreds of thousands of mothers fell prey to the greed and racial hatred of Jewish doctors? The Jews kept the number secret by controlling and influencing the official statistics of the German Reich. To my knowledge, no "decent Jew" raised his voice against such organized murder.

The picture would be incomplete were I to be silent about the criminal side of a "decent Jew." This has long been concealed by the cloak of Christian or Marxist brotherly love. There is no crime, from pickpocketing to bank robbery, from train robbery to brutal murder, from drugs to the defilement of corpses, from document forgery to perjury, from embezzlement to counterfeiting, in which the names of your brethren are not written large as perpetrators or accomplices in the history of criminality. These "poor widows' sons" were then represented by Jewish attorneys before Jewish judges. Presented as the victim of circumstances, they received mild sentences, which were in turn covered up by the Jewish journalists of the Jewish press.

But he who called the Jew a Jew and described his drives as Jewish, on the other hand, was given draconian sentences by those same courts for religious incitement.

....



Despite these incontrovertible facts, you Jews are impudent enough to appeal to the tolerance of a people and simultaneously incite other peoples to wage war against it.


Source: The Decent Jew (1937)

This rhetoric just keeps being recycled with new targets and new justifications. I hope we, as a society, have learned something.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:00 pm
On a completely side note about the whole issue...

The First Amendment that gives a protestor the right to burn the American flag in front of me without permiting me to smash him for basically crapping all over the flag my father and my grandfather fought for and were buried under is the same Right that allows an artist to put a crucifix in a vial of piss and call it art.

This same Right also makes the supposed "Flushing of the Koran" (Which is patently impossible due to the size of the Koran and the narrowness of the pipes.) neither a crime, nor anything to get incensed about.

When Palestinians terrorists occupied the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem and used pages of the Bible for toilet paper, where was the outrage about THAT event that we see about THIS particular occurance that no one can prove EVER hapened.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:02 pm
Once again, this ignores that the outrage by Americans comes from the treatment of the people who were subjected to calculated humiliation. That is, however, something which the right is unwilling to address.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
I haven't the least doubt that you don't give a rat's ass about anybody who does not actually live under your roof.

Appeals to how bad someone else is are particularly witless, in that they inferentially authorize any bahavior which just barely falls short of the condemned behavior.

And, of course, you have completely avoided the issue of the treatment of people taken into custody, subjected to humiliation at the least, and torture at the worst, for whom no due process of law has ever been provided.

But of course, one can expect that the right are never dedicated to any of the freedoms espoused in our polity--until the police actually kick in their doors . . .


Just remember, not convicted or charged does not mean innocent. Ask OJ.

There is not one "innocent" person in camp X-ray that has not been duly investigated to such extent that they were sent there. They have all received there due process. US military due process. They are terrorists and terrorist sympathisizers. They would kill you if given the chance, not just insult you, but kill you. Cut your throat and saw your head off while you gasped your last breath. Then they'd go after your wife and children giving them the same treatment.

You want me to feel sorry for them? Not gonna happen.


Your over-reaction is typical.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:05 pm
Quote:
There is not one "innocent" person in camp X-ray that has not been duly investigated to such extent that they were sent there. They have all received there due process. US military due process. They are terrorists and terrorist sympathisizers. They would kill you if given the chance, not just insult you, but kill you. Cut your throat and saw your head off while you gasped your last breath. Then they'd go after your wife and children giving them the same treatment.


Or, they are innocent of any crime. You have no way of knowing, yet you presume to judge them.

Pathetic

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:06 pm
I am not overreacting, nor do i deny that many, and very likely most, were terrorists or associated with terrorist organizations. What i am pointing out is that they have not had due process, despite your unsupported and groundless claim that they have, and this is inimical to the beliefs which underpin our society. I don't care what their values or behavior are. I do care what Americans do, especially when they are acting in the name of, or under the orders of the government of my native land. Even military due process requires a hearing with the provision of defense attorneys. The several reports of the descration of the Quran which are current in the press over the last two years have come from people who were detained without due process, and who were subsequently released, never having had any due process of law.

EDIT: Your logic is that of the lynch mob.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:07 pm
Fedral
Quote:
This same Right also makes the supposed "Flushing of the Koran" (Which is patently impossible due to the size of the Koran and the narrowness of the pipes.) neither a crime, nor anything to get incensed about.


Unless you tear the pages out and flush them. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:07 pm
Fedral wrote:
On a completely side note about the whole issue...

The First Amendment that gives a protestor the right to burn the American flag in front of me without permiting me to smash him for basically crapping all over the flag my father and my grandfather fought for and were buried under is the same Right that allows an artist to put a crucifix in a vial of piss and call it art.

This same Right also makes the supposed "Flushing of the Koran" (Which is patently impossible due to the size of the Koran and the narrowness of the pipes.) neither a crime, nor anything to get incensed about.

When Palestinians terrorists occupied the Church of the Nativity in Jerusalem and used pages of the Bible for toilet paper, where was the outrage about THAT event that we see about THIS particular occurance that no one can prove EVER hapened.


Come on Fedral,

The issue here is what US soldiers are doing as part of interrogation (or torture depending on you use definition of these terms). I support the right of anyone expression of free speech. I don't support them by uniformed representatives of my government who are conducting harsh interrogations on prisoners.

There is a huge difference. If you don't think so... then what do you think should happen to an army officer in uniform burning as US flag.... (incidently I would probably agree with you).


There, I thought so.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 12:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fedral
Quote:
This same Right also makes the supposed "Flushing of the Koran" (Which is patently impossible due to the size of the Koran and the narrowness of the pipes.) neither a crime, nor anything to get incensed about.


Unless you tear the pages out and flush them. Rolling Eyes

Cycloptichorn


Then there should have been ample evidence in finding a Koran with riped out pages ... this from the same 'insensitive military' who only allows Muslim interpreters or visiting Muslim clerics to touch or search detainees Korans, and only then after donning clean white gloves.

ebrown_p wrote:

Come on Fedral,

The issue here is what US soldiers are doing as part of interrogation (or torture depending on you use definition of these terms). I support the right of anyone expression of free speech. I don't support them by uniformed representatives of my government who are conducting harsh interrogations on prisoners.

There is a huge difference. If you don't think so... then what do you think should happen to an army officer in uniform burning as US flag.... (incidently I would probably agree with you).


As to a military man burning the flag, one has to remember that military personel do not enjoy all the Rights that you or I enjoy. I was in the militry and dont remember a specific regulation against it, but I would be willing to bet there IS a regualtion against it SOMEWHERE in the UCMJ.

As to the 'harsh treatment' or 'torture' supposedly inflicted on these detainees, I don't condone it, but if unpleasant methods are being used to gain information and results in the capture of more terrorists all I can say is what I used to say to the members of my squad in the Army.

I knew some of them were breaking regulations now and again, but all I said to them was this:
Don't let me catch you breaking regs. If I catch you, I will have to say something to the Sergeant, so don't let me catch you doing anything wrong. If I catch you, I will say something, so don't ... let ... me ... catch ... you.

With Gitmo, all I can say is if we catch you torturing prisoners, I will object and hold you accountable, so don't let me catch you.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 01:00 pm
I specfically stated an officer in uniform. Soldiers in uniform are serving and representing the United States. As a citizen of the United States, what they do matters to me. (What they do on their own time out of uniform is their own business providing they don't sleep with the wrong person Wink.

But let me put bring it close to the main thread this way.

The indpendent press is the best way to stop government abuses. It was designed this way, and has historiclaly worked this way.

In my opinion, the abuses at Gitmo and other prisons are some of the worst in our times. You may disagree with this, but that is my opinion.

The free press is the best hope that people like me have had to ensure that our country acts justly. It has always been that way.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 01:05 pm
As a side note to what Fedral has just written: when i was in basic training (1970), we were given a half-day of instruction on how to behave if ever we were made prisoners of war, and how to resist indoctrination techniques. The second half of that day was devoted to instruction in our obligations under the Geneva Convention and the proper handling of prisoners of war.

I have been mystified for quite some time now as to whether or not this practice has been continued.
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 01:23 pm
Setanta wrote:
As a side note to what Fedral has just written: when i was in basic training (1970), we were given a half-day of instruction on how to behave if ever we were made prisoners of war, and how to resist indoctrination techniques. The second half of that day was devoted to instruction in our obligations under the Geneva Convention and the proper handling of prisoners of war.

I have been mystified for quite some time now as to whether or not this practice has been continued.


I had the same class when I went through Basic and AT in the '80s and since then, I have done some research ...

Yes, there are very strict rules about the treatment of enemy soldiers during time of war.

The difference between the people we fought in WW I, WW2 and Korea and the people we are fighting now is that THEY ARE NOT SOLDIERS.

Soldiers are required to wear their uniforms and conduct themselves AS SOLDIERS. They are required to follow the terms of the Geneva Convention themselves, just as they are required to follow those rules when they are captured.

The people we are capturing are un-uniformed insurgents and due to their actions, are not covered under the rights due unto soldiers by the Geneva Convention.

Soldiers are required to wear their countries uniform, avoid targeting civilians, avoid targeting or combating around schools, religious worship centers, and hospitals. When captured, they are required to provide their captors with their Name, Rank, Service Number and Date of Birth.

The people we are capturing are doing NONE OF THE ABOVE.
They have no uniforms and actively hide among civilians.
They deliberately target civilians in many of their attacks.
They are take refuge in and militarize schools, mosques and hospitals.
When captured, many wont give any information at all.

They in no way shape of form can qualify as soldiers (uniformed combatants). The fact that we are giving them any rights afforded to soldiers is a GIFT, not a requirement.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 02:20 pm
I hastily read through the pages and someone else may have already posted this. If so I apologize for the repeat.

But Newseek has officially retracted the story and admitted it was not factual.

Not surprisingly, other liberal media sources are putting out their own propaganda how Newsweek was in fact correct regardless of whether they had any facts to back up the story.

Then the Bush Administration requested that Newsweek do what it can to undo the damage it has done with the story. They have not presumed to tell Newsweek how to do that, but suggested a place to start would be by publishing the orders and instructions given all U.S. servicemen on treatment of the Qu'ran.

And finally, not surprisingly, the liberal press corps is now complaining that the White House is presuming to tell Newsweek how to write its story.

(All this has been in the radio and television news today. It is probably also published somewhere, but I have seen that yet so have no link to post.)

During WWII, there was a prominent slogan posted everywhere: "Loose lips sink ships." The press corps at that time took that very seriously and virtually every reporter demonstrated patriotic restraint in what and when they published information so that people would not be unnecessarily killed.

The modern press corps should take a chapter from that page.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 02:47 pm
Foxfyre,

There are two different questions here. It is clear that you side with the government in the question of whether the Quran was actually desecrated or not.

But where do you come down on the other question?

Is descrating the Quran by uniformed US troops wrong. If the allegations were true, would this be this constitue wrongdoing on the part of the military?

I get the feeling that McGentrix and Fedral don't think so. Are you willing to hop into bed with them on this.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 02:51 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Foxfyre,

There are two different questions here. It is clear that you side with the government in the question of whether the Quran was actually desecrated or not.

But where do you come down on the other question?

Is descrating the Quran by uniformed US troops wrong. If the allegations were true, would this be this constitue wrongdoing on the part of the military?

I get the feeling that McGentrix and Fedral don't think so. Are you willing to hop into bed with them on this.


Just remember I only like cotton sheets and I have to have the fan on...
0 Replies
 
Fedral
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 May, 2005 02:57 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Foxfyre,

There are two different questions here. It is clear that you side with the government in the question of whether the Quran was actually desecrated or not.

But where do you come down on the other question?

Is descrating the Quran by uniformed US troops wrong. If the allegations were true, would this be this constitue wrongdoing on the part of the military?

I get the feeling that McGentrix and Fedral don't think so. Are you willing to hop into bed with them on this.


There is a BIG difference between 'wrong' and 'criminal'.

While I believe that burning the flag is WRONG, the judgement by the Courts is that it is not CRIMINAL.

While I also believe that placing a crucifix in a bucket of piss and calling it art is WRONG, it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, CRIMINAL. (Unless of course you steal the crucifix from my house... and even then, the act of placing it in a bucket of piss isn't criminal, only disrespectful.)

Even if it was true that the Koran was put in the toilet (And nothing that I have seen convinces me that it actually happened) it may have been wrong, but it wasn't criminal .... splitting hairs perhaps, but with the hair splitting that others in this thread have made, I am entitled.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 11:35:40