Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,107
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jan 5, 2013 4:36:02 GMT -5
So that qualifies someone to lie to the American public?....or coat everything in five layers of lip gloss
Qatar is pro-western Tony.....or haven't you been told that because it suits someones agenda.
This hated Arab is actually your friend and could do more to perpetuate peace in the region than any amount of bombs.......by telling the truth.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583 
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 5, 2013 6:37:04 GMT -5
So that qualifies someone to lie to the American public?....or coat everything in five layers of lip gloss All (or nearly all) governments lie, including your own, Spell. But I fail to see how a private cable-company, pushing-away a Muslim-owned channel that is sure to arouse the ire of many of its subscribers, is in any way a 'lie' or 'coating' the truth. No need to be insulting nor condescending, Spell, merely because I applaud the stiff-arming (pushing-away) of an Arab news source. Personally, I partake of a much larger and broader spectrum of international news sources than my (or even your) average fellow citizen. Please do not mistake an anti-Muslim perspective with naiveté, nor inflexibility outside that domain, eh? I, too, play on the macro level, as well as the micro - not always well, but I'm a player myself, and I do not require a simplistic lesson in the benefits of diverse and unrelated and independent sources for my information pertaining to world affairs. Speaking only for myself, I do not wish the United States to be 'friends' with autocratic Arab slave-traders (the Qatari government), nor do I believe that it is possible for there to be peace in that region, other than to kill-off the Jews of Israel and give the land to the Palestinians, which I do not support. I have no problem with us 'using' Qatar in a logistics or forward-bases relationship but I have no desire to see us getting (or remaining) overly 'chummy' with them, beyond the minimums necessary for us to retain operations-staging privileges from there. But, more to the theme for this thread... I applaud Time-Warner's dropping of Current TV, attributable to Al Gore selling it to al-Jazeera... We've done just fine throughout history without an Arab Flavor to our news, and we'll get by just fine without it in future, as well... Anybody who wants their perspective can access it directly over the Internet... But in Time-Warner's shoes, I'd do the same thing... no sense in pi$$ing-off subscribers and stockholders and the Board... Basically, they (al Jazeera and its spawn) are not wanted, by most, and Time-Warner knows it... Their decision was probably motivated as much by good business sense (in this climate) as it was by political considerations. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 14, 2024 13:14:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2013 8:39:10 GMT -5
I suspect it will fare little better than the efforts to combat years of well-funded Christianophobes who have dominated the media landscape. :-\ Let's face it, the US MSM has an agenda and no major religion has any part in it. That includes Islam. agreed. the agenda is to sell products to people with money. It's amazing sometimes, the number of people I talk to who don't get that. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2013 12:29:41 GMT -5
"Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you're stupid. Did you hear that? - Stupid." - Arthur Sylvester, former Assistant Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, circa mid-60's. Yes. We learned that lesson during the Vietnam War, and it changed - perhaps forever - the extent to which the American People trust their government. and now, we have imbedded journalists and corporate media. problem solved.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2013 12:30:08 GMT -5
agreed. the agenda is to sell products to people with money. It's amazing sometimes, the number of people I talk to who don't get that. i wish i had a buck for every time i have repeated it. |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 5, 2013 13:11:09 GMT -5
I like how Time Warner dumped Current immediatley. Idiots. At the risk of sounding antisemitic, you'll note that something like 95% of all American media outlets are owned by members of a certain... eh... 'unnamed group', that might not be too favourable to al Jazeera.  Not saying your wrong here but need verification..links ..what ever to back up that statement or will ask for a delete and apology... "something like 95% of all American media outlets are owned by members of a certain... eh... 'unnamed group', " Your inferring that 95 % of these organizations are owned by Jews...no beating around the bush...I do not believe your even close with those suggested % .. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2013 13:13:07 GMT -5
At the risk of sounding antisemitic, you'll note that something like 95% of all American media outlets are owned by members of a certain... eh... 'unnamed group', that might not be too favourable to al Jazeera. Not saying your wrong here but need verification..links ..what ever to back up that statement or will ask for a delete and apology... "something like 95% of all American media outlets are owned by members of a certain... eh... 'unnamed group', " Your inferring that 95 % of these organizations are owned by Jews...no beating around the bush...I do not believe your even close with those suggested % .. i took exception, too, ftr. but this argument is so volatile i decided just to leave it be. |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jan 5, 2013 13:32:18 GMT -5
Not saying your wrong here but need verification..links ..what ever to back up that statement or will ask for a delete and apology... "something like 95% of all American media outlets are owned by members of a certain... eh... 'unnamed group', " Your inferring that 95 % of these organizations are owned by Jews...no beating around the bush...I do not believe your even close with those suggested % .. i took exception, too, ftr. but this argument is so volatile i decided just to leave it be. If you do a google search you will on the topic , you find that it is filled with such claims..all by anti semetic organizations.."Jew Watch ".."The unjust media " and on and on..same figures that Virgil posted..95/96%..internet is full of it and to just take what is posted there and then repost on a site like this as fact..no discussion ..and actually try to disguise in a cute way as he did..not mentioning specifically but subtle way..I will take exception..call him on it..waiting for the links and proof.... If he feels this way , thats his business and sickness..but let him prove his claims or keep his sick claims in Canada..we have enough of it here on our own..no need to import more of this BS... |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 5, 2013 20:22:31 GMT -5
"... and now, we have imbedded journalists and corporate media. problem solved." There are probably more positive than negative aspects to 'embedded' journalists, as opposed to a looser media presence in combat zones. Most of our media has been 'corporate' in nature for as long as such media have existed. I don't see your point in this context. |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 18:31:54 GMT -5
Current TV staffers rip Al Gore for sale to Al JazeeraPublished January 08, 2013 - New York Post - via Fox News Just call him Al Gorezeera. Monday morning, the still shell shocked staff at Current TV was called to an all hands staff meeting at its San Francisco headquarters, which was teleconferenced to their offices in LA and NYC, to meet their new bosses, The Post reports. That would be two of Al Jazeera’s top guys: Ehab Al Shihabi, executive director of international operations, and Muftah AlSuwaidan, general manager of the London bureau. Ominously missing was the creator of Current, the self proclaimed inventor of the Internet and savior of clean energy, Al Gore, although his partner, Joel Hyatt, stood proudly with the Al Jazeera honchos. “Of course Al didn’t show up,” said one high placed Current staffer. “He has no credibility. He’s supposed to be the face of clean energy and just sold [the channel] to very big oil, the emir of Qatar! Current never even took big oil advertising—and Al Gore, that bulls---ter sells to the emir?” ... “We all know now that Al Gore is nothing but a bulls---ter,” said one staffer bluntly. “Al was always lecturing us about green. He kept his word about green all right—as in cold, hard cash!” www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/08/current-tv-staffers-rip-al-gore-for-sale-to-al-jazeera/
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Jan 8, 2013 19:07:43 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 19:07:55 GMT -5
don't know why they should rip into him. honestly. AJ is completely reputable in terms of World News. they are head and shoulders above most US operations, which are shills for entrenched interests, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 19:09:39 GMT -5
"... and now, we have imbedded journalists and corporate media. problem solved." There are probably more positive than negative aspects to 'embedded' journalists, as opposed to a looser media presence in combat zones. for the military? i am sure that is true. see Stockholm Syndrome. for getting the real story from an unbiased perspective? you would have to be on acid to think that.Most of our media has been 'corporate' in nature for as long as such media have existed. I don't see your point in this context. clearly. |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 20:06:33 GMT -5
"... for the military? i am sure that is true. see Stockholm Syndrome. for getting the real story from an unbiased perspective? you would have to be on acid to think that..." Yes. For the military. Vietnam taught us not to permit uncontrolled journalist activity in combat zones because of the demoralizing impact upon folks on the home front. One does not fight a war with one hand and demoralize the home front with the other. We can fight and squabble amongst ourselves all the live-long day about whether or not we should be engaging in a particular war or whether or not Perspecitve A or B is truthful or accurate or biased or unbiased, but I, for one, would rather not see us undermining our troops by demoralizing the home-front folk while operations are underway. I'm just as capable as the next guy of mistrusting our government and throwing metaphorical rocks at our leadership when they get us into something that we should not have gotten into, but neither do I wish to be considered a Fifth Columnist and Weakener of the National Will once a rumble has begun. Once the shooting starts, I reserve to myself the right to work to get the fighting stopped and to get our people out of harm's way, but I do not wish to see Uncontrolled Journalism undermine the home front (and therefore harm our military folk) the way it has on occasion in the past. My first macro-level political loyalty is to the nation at-large but my second macro-level political loyalty is to its military. We should not be giving a communications conduit to an autocratic slave-trading state which - in the event of a broader Islam-versus-the-West struggle - will be in the enemy camp. Well, I'm glad that one of us knows what you're talking about, anyway...  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 20:16:15 GMT -5
"... for the military? i am sure that is true. see Stockholm Syndrome. for getting the real story from an unbiased perspective? you would have to be on acid to think that..." Yes. For the military. Vietnam taught us not to permit uncontrolled journalist activity in combat zones because of the demoralizing impact upon folks on the home front. One does not fight a war with one hand and demoralize the home front with the other. We can fight and squabble amongst ourselves all the live-long day about whether or not we should be engaging in a particular war or whether or not Perspecitve A or B is truthful or accurate or biased or unbiased, but I, for one, would rather not see us undermining our troops by demoralizing the home-front folk while operations are underway. I'm just as capable as the next guy of mistrusting our government and throwing metaphorical rocks at our leadership when they get us into something that we should not have gotten into, but neither do I wish to be considered a Fifth Columnist and Weakener of the National Will once a rumble has begun. i couldn't disagree more. the most important test of journalism is in times of war, because they are the most serious and consequential undertakings a country can endure. and, candidly, i am both shocked, disappointed, disturbed and a little angry that after the Iraq War particularly (and VietNam, if you are one for history) ANYONE could question that. there is nothing patriotic about supporting a war that should not be fought. and there is nothing "Anti-American" about questioning the rationale behind such a war. period. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 20:19:23 GMT -5
PS- i agree completely with what you said about the VietNam war and the role of journalism in that war, Tony. and i also agree that the way that journalism has "gone" since that time is absolutely related to that war. what we disagree on is that this is in any way a good thing.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 20:34:11 GMT -5
"... i couldn't disagree more..." Clearly. You are concerned with the purity and utility of journalism under wartime conditions. I am concerned with the welfare and safety and morale of our troops and the home-folk while combat operations are underway. There is some considerable merit in both ends of that spectrum, but, sadly, one cannot have it both ways, for all practical purposes. Consequently, I tend to err in favor of our troops. Oh, I don't question it. I choose to consciously and deliberately sacrifice the horrific images that such free-wheeling journalism in a combat zone provides, in favor of the safety and well-being and morale of our troops, until the shooting stops. Oh, we are in complete agreement there. Personally, I saw the Invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 as about as close as one can come to a Righteous War, if there is such a thing, and I saw the Invasion of Iraq as a needless and unjustified expenditure of blood and treasure and costing us a needed focus upon finishing the job in Afghanistan in a timely manner and then getting the hell outta there. While the Iraq War was underway, in the blogsophere, I argued with the best of 'em that Iraq was a humbug and that we should get the hell outta there, but I also condemned the actions of those who went overboard to put-up imagery certain to inflame the Iraqis-Arabs-Muslims, simply because they saw it as an aid to ending the war more quickly. Personally, I saw that as foolhardy and uncaring of the lives of our own people already in harm's way. There are varying schools of thought on that 'conflict' of opinions as well, but there's mine, for whatever the hell it's worth... And I'm opposed to giving a potential Enemy or Hostile Body a foothold in our own media infrastructure. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 20:51:13 GMT -5
"... i couldn't disagree more..." Clearly. You are concerned with the purity and utility of journalism under wartime conditions. I am concerned with the welfare and safety and morale of our troops and the home-folk while combat operations are underway. There is some considerable merit in both ends of that spectrum, but, sadly, one cannot have it both ways, for all practical purposes. Consequently, I tend to err in favor of our troops. i have never been able to understand how it favors the troops to support ill-begotten wars. but, sadly, this position is nothing new to me. i think it would be easier to accept if it was done with the apparent solemnity of your post. but generally it is presented with such fanfare that dissenters of the war are made to feel not only uncomfortable during wartime, but actually threatened for their personal safety. meanwhile, the happy warmakers get all the Freedom Press they could ever ask for. sickening, imo. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 20:55:30 GMT -5
I choose to consciously and deliberately sacrifice the horrific images that such free-wheeling journalism in a combat zone provides, in favor of the safety and well-being and morale of our troops, until the shooting stops. that is a rather interesting position. so, you are saying that providing an iron lid, sanitized view of the war, no matter how atrocious and illegal it is, is somehow in the service and defense of those fighting it? wow. my personal position is that i would like our troops to be so demoralized by a conflict that they would simply refuse to fight it. i am trying to decide which of us is more idealistic. |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 21:11:39 GMT -5
I choose to consciously and deliberately sacrifice the horrific images that such free-wheeling journalism in a combat zone provides, in favor of the safety and well-being and morale of our troops, until the shooting stops. that is a rather interesting position. so, you are saying that providing an iron lid, sanitized view of the war, no matter how atrocious and illegal it is, is somehow in the service and defense of those fighting it?wow. Absolutely. It may or may not be in the best interests of the nation at-large, depending upon the particulars of the war-in-question, but it does, indeed, prevent our troops and home-front folk from becoming demoralized... A lesson that we understood well enough in WWII, that we forgot in Vietnam, and that we re-learned in time for the Gulf War of 1991 and beyond. I will remember this about you in future exchanges. Have you served in the US military yourself, by any chance? There is idealism in both perspectives, albeit at opposite ends of the spectrum, with respect to support for our kids in uniform, once the shooting starts. |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 21:21:11 GMT -5
"... i have never been able to understand how it favors the troops to support ill-begotten wars..." It does not. But it does even MORE harm to our troops, to give aid and comfort ( including excessive propaganda-imagery that is likely to inflame or embolden or enrage) to the enemy while our kids in uniform are still in harm's way. There is lifting your head and your voice in protest over our involvement in a given war, and leaning hard on your fellow citizens and your leadership to make an end of it... And then there is going out of one's way to demoralize our own troops and to actually give that aid and comfort to the enemy... I'm entirely in favor of ( and have vigorously participated in) the former... I'm entirely and bitterly and viscerally opposed to the latter... |
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 8, 2013 21:41:18 GMT -5
Not saying your wrong here but need verification..links ..what ever to back up that statement or will ask for a delete and apology... "something like 95% of all American media outlets are owned by members of a certain... eh... 'unnamed group', " Your inferring that 95 % of these organizations are owned by Jews...no beating around the bush...I do not believe your even close with those suggested % .. i took exception, too, ftr. but this argument is so volatile i decided just to leave it be. I'll have to remember to fly off the handle the next time somebody claims the GOP is the "party of old white men".  SCANDAL! HOW DARE THEY!  I demand 50 apologies in tribute! |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 22:46:28 GMT -5
"... i have never been able to understand how it favors the troops to support ill-begotten wars..." It does not. But it does even MORE harm to our troops, to give aid and comfort ( including excessive propaganda-imagery that is likely to inflame or embolden or enrage) to the enemy while our kids in uniform are still in harm's way. never been able to follow that logic, either. it emboldens the enemy to fight unjust wars. no amount of support for the injustice will embolden them less. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 22:50:00 GMT -5
A lesson that we understood well enough in WWII, that we forgot in Vietnam, and that we re-learned in time for the Gulf War of 1991 and beyond. WW2 was a just war, imo. the stakes were real. the enemy was real. and we had a war declaration. every war since then has not had a war declaration, a real enemy, or real stakes. please don't borrow moral capital from a just war to purchase unjust ones. you are not the first of course. the "Axis Of Evil" phrase was no accident. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 22:58:25 GMT -5
Quote:
"...my personal position is that i would like our troops to be so demoralized by (such) a conflict that they would simply refuse to fight it..."
I will remember this about you in future exchanges.
will you remember to quote me in context next time, as well? i was referring specifically to wars that are atrocious and illegal when i said that. and yes, i stand behind it 100% in those circumstances. in fact, i regard it as my moral and patriotic duty as a citizen of this nation...and as a human being. i won't be complicit in war crimes out of a sense of patriotic duty, Tony. neither should anyone else.
the degree to which immoral regimes can operate out in the open is in the complicity of their fellow countrymen. our duty in a free society is to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent atrocities. and make no mistake about it, the Iraq War was an atrocity generating situation.
for more information, see Taxi To The Dark Side.
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 23:10:42 GMT -5
"... please don't borrow moral capital from a just war to purchase unjust ones..." I did no such thing; that is your own personal interpretation, and I do not subscribe to it. Given that I did no such thing, then the observation that I was not the first becomes meaningless. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 23:19:00 GMT -5
"... please don't borrow moral capital from a just war to purchase unjust ones..." I did no such thing; that is your own personal interpretation, and I do not subscribe to it. Given that I did no such thing, then the observation that I was not the first becomes meaningless. then what "lesson" did you mean by HERE: Today at 6:11pm, TonyTiger wrote:
"A lesson that we understood well enough in WWII, that we forgot in Vietnam, and that we re-learned in time for the Gulf War of 1991 and beyond."the implication i took is that all of these wars were morally equivalent, and therefore, the means used to justify them (and to motivate people to support them) were equally justified. if that is not what you were saying, then please help me understand what you WERE saying. |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 23:30:12 GMT -5
"... will you remember to quote me in context next time, as well?..." I will. And I already have. Who gets to decide which war(s) are atrocious? You? Who gets to decide which war(s) are illegal? You? The gist of your previous was that if you conclude that a given war is either atrocious or illegal, that you are in favor of demoralizing our troops to the point where they mutiny. That is a slippery slope down which most Americans are unlikely to join you except under the most extreme circumstances. I include myself in that 'most Americans' reference. You have that right. Agreed. Obviously. Agreed. Whereas I see it as " Our duty in a free society is to take whatever measures are necessary to prevent atrocities insofar as this can be achieved without giving aid and comfort to the enemy and without jeapordizing our countrymen in uniform or breaching the trust that they place in us to support them." Virtually every war triggers an atrocity here and there. Other than mistreating a number of Iraqi prisoners and pissing on a handful of Korans and dead bodies, the killing of an odd taxi driver, mercs shooting a dozen or so Iraqis while on convoy escort duty, and one highly publicized rape and family-killing, I'm not sure what so-called atrocities you're referring to here; certainly nothing anywhere near as profound and widespread as what the Iraqis did amongst themselves as they descended into civil war. None of the several things that can be laid at the feet of US troops were 'righteous' but all of that is a finger-nail -thin sliver compared to the 'atrocities' and 'war crimes' committed by so many other countries around the world, most especially including those of our dear Arab or Muslim colleagues and so-called allies. A blip on the scope - entirely unimpressive, as a symptomology. |
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Jan 8, 2013 23:37:08 GMT -5
" the implication i took is that all of these wars were morally equivalent..." And there is where you made your mistake of assuming (with no reasonable basis) that I was invoking a moral equivalency. I was focused purely upon the mechanics of Press Censorship as an aid to increasing Safety and maintaining Morale. I have no idea why you would construe anything beyond what was written. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,702
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 8, 2013 23:38:59 GMT -5
will you remember to quote me in context next time, as well? Who gets to decide which war(s) are atrocious? You? Who gets to decide which war(s) are illegal? You? no. i think that the standard we should use is the one we used to prosecute those who were responsible for the late great unpleasantness.The gist of your previous was that if you conclude that a given war is either atrocious or illegal, that you are in favor of demoralizing our troops to the point where they mutiny. i find mutiny against war crimes to be entirely morally justified. don't you?That is a slippery slope down which most Americans are unlikely to join you except under the most extreme circumstances. after 150 unauthorized "wars" in our name, i am kinda worn out of being complacent, Tony.Virtually every war triggers an atrocity here and there. Other than mistreating a number of Iraqi prisoners and pissing on a handful of Korans and dead bodies, the killing of an odd taxi driver over 100 men were beaten to death in Abu Gharib. unless you are willing to stand for the brutal beating and torture of innocents, i would suggest that you not treat this matter lightly., mercs shooting a dozen or so Iraqis while on convoy escort duty, and one highly publicized rape and family-killing, I'm not sure what so-called atrocities you're referring to here; the death of 100k Iraqi civilians, including nearly 50k children comes to mind. oh, i know- collateral damages, right? but for what? for WHAT TONY? Iraq never did a thing to us. it is like declaring war on Iceland.certainly nothing anywhere near as profound and widespread as what the Iraqis did amongst themselves as they descended into civil war. ...for which we supplied the "dual use weapons". go team go!None of the several things that can be laid at the feet of US troops were 'righteous' but all of that is a finger-nail -thin sliver compared to the 'atrocities' and 'war crimes' committed by so many other countries around the world, most especially including those of our dear Arab or Muslim colleagues and so-called allies. A blip on the scope - entirely unimpressive, as a symptomology. there you go again. but you won't get away with it. not with me. Diliwar didn't deserve what he got. and if he were an American, you might consider taking up arms against the bastards who did it, too. and this, my friend, is precisely the "motivation" that worries me. it is the sort of motivation that doesn't die tomorrow, or next year, or even in a generation. it is a recipe for endless violence against us, imo. we need to stop engaging in unjustified conflicts. period. |
|
