Iraq - The Force Feeding Begins

[Alf Roberts]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-827520,00.html

For all those that whine that i dont add comments with links - I have no comment to make. The story speaks for itself.

 

[Spirit]

Indeed the story does speak for itself. If the TV stations are supporting terrorists then they have every right to ban them from transmitting.

for allegedly inciting violence in Iraq

They show men in masks carrying guns, and call them ‘the resistance’. They’re not the resistance, they’re thugs and criminals.

Do you think TV stations in England would be allowed to transmit support for the IRA across the country, encouraging more people to participate in violence and killing? No me either, and I would fully agree with the decision.

IF (I say if as I haven't seen evidence of the suggested wrong doings by these stations) the claims are correct then I see nothing what so ever wrong with this decision.

But muzzling the stations, regarded by many as champions of Arab nationalism in an international broadcast media biased towards the US and Israel,would further alienate the Arab world.

This of course should not be the case and hopefully isn't. Naturally stations should be allowed to transmit whatever they want within the law and should be allowed to express support for whichever political party they chose, however supporting terrorism is a completely different matter and encouraging people to commit violence is a crime in itself, so of course that has to be stopped.

Bah and there was me trying not to post here anymore

 

[Rich]

American declaration of independence <<--- WRONG
the constitution of the united states Bill of rights
"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

i only skimmed the piece but from what i read the US hasn't made a decision yet whether or not to Veto it, if they do not veto it then they are going directly against there own constitution.

 

[Spirit]

Although I see where you are coming from Rich, surely you don't believe it is acceptable for TV stations to broadcast encouragement for people to commit terrorist acts? Freedom on speech is one thing, but encouraging the murder innocent people is not something that should be transmitted publically imho...

It all depends on exactly what they were transmitting I guess - until we see that evidence it's very hard to make an informed decision. If they were actively encouraging terrorism then it's fine to stop that imo, but if they were just expressing support for Sadam then that's their choice and you cannot stop that.

 

[Alf Roberts]

If the TV stations are supporting terrorists then they have every right to ban them from transmitting.

That all depends on the definition of `terrorist'. 1 mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Do you think TV stations in England would be allowed to transmit support for the IRA across the country, encouraging more people to participate in violence and killing? No me either, and I would fully agree with the decision.

Thats not a good example really cos English TV channels would have no interest in promoting IRA activities...also be careful how u take `encouraging more people to participate in violence and killing'. This is reported from a US angle remember.

IF (I say if as I haven't seen evidence of the suggested wrong doings by these stations) the claims are correct then I see nothing what so ever wrong with this decision.

Thats a massive `If'.

Ive read stuff about Al Jazeera and from what i can tell theyre considered a respectable TV channel abait in the Arab World covering all aspects of life from an Arab prospective. They have a considerable viewing audience and i cant imagine they would be so successful if they actively promoted terrorism...ppl just dont like that sorta thing, irrespective what side of the fence ur on. The US has undoubtedly promoted a smear campaign against the channel since day 1.
I also ackowledge that they always get 1st screening of Bin Laden `messages' but u should take into account that hes hero worshipped by millions of ppl in the Arab World and isnt seen as a terrorist at all...infact its the opposite.

I cant help but feel this action will only inflame an already volatile situation. The Iraqis and indeed the rest of the Arab World will see it as US media manipulation/interference....another thing they said they wouldnt do.

i only skimmed the piece but from what i read the US hasn't made a decision yet whether or not to Veto it, if they do not veto it then they are going directly against there own constitution.

Indeed they will be...infact the Bush administration has been testing the fence of its own constitution since it got in The White House. The article from the US soldier i posted touches on this point as well by him questioning the true objectives as to what his paymasters what him to do and how that sits with the constitution that he swore on.

`The Land of the Free' is ringing a little hollow both at home as well as abroad...

 

[Spirit]

That all depends on the definition of `terrorist'. 1 mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

The definition of a terrorist is someone that commits murder or violence against innocent people in support of their cause. Or at least, that's the definition I'm working by!

Thats not a good example really cos English TV channels would have no interest in promoting IRA activities...also be careful how u take `encouraging more people to participate in violence and killing'. This is reported from a US angle remember.

Maybe not, but it still gets the point across that certain things should not be broadcast to the public. I do recognise that it is written by from a biased US pov, but in the lack of any other evidence I'm just going on what I've read so far.

Thats a massive `If'.

Indeed it is, but it is still an IF and until it is answered definately it is a view that has to be taken into account as well.

I don't know anything about the TV stations myself, so am not in a position to judge. I am merely playing Devil's Advocate to a certain extent here and assuming the US's pov, as it would be wrong to assume the US are doing wrong here until it is proved that way. There is a lot of US bashing going on atm and whilst I am not saying any of it is unjustified, I still work by an old system of justice that says innocent until proven guilty. Until I see solid evidence that the US has committed a 'crime' of sorts then I'm not going to pass judgement.

Indeed they will

Actually IF the TV stations are encouraging terrorism they I'd imagine one way or another they won't be because I'm sure in in the declaration of independence somewhere it also states that in participating in terrorist acts you forgoe your right to freedom of speech. Otherwise terrorist from Bin Laden down would have their own world wide TV stations encouraging murder on a massive scale and they would be protected and allowed to do so...

When (or if) I do actually get to see the programs they were broadcasting I'll make up my mind as to whether they deserve the criticism they are getting or not, but until then I'm not gonna close my mind to any possibilities

 

[Alf Roberts]

The definition of a terrorist is someone that commits murder or violence against innocent people in support of their cause. Or at least, that's the definition I'm working by!

Well Mr Bush certainly fits that bill then.

I see the definition of `terrorist' as an issue of perspective. Take Gaza for example. If some1 from Hamas shoots an Israeli hes a terrorist...if an Israeli sniper shoots a Palastinian thats just out shopping (it happens with alarming regularity) hes a...well what is he? In my book hes a fucking terrorist as well.

Maybe not, but it still gets the point across that certain things should not be broadcast to the public. I do recognise that it is written by from a biased US pov, but in the lack of any other evidence I'm just going on what I've read so far.

Yes ur right certain things shouldnt be shown on TV...but is it really Americas place to tell the Iraqi ppl what they can & cannot watch? I dont think it is...

I don't know anything about the TV stations myself, so am not in a position to judge.

Isnt it on ur dads NTL? ....i'm only joking with ya before u throw a wobbly

Actually IF the TV stations are encouraging terrorism they I'd imagine one way or another they won't be because I'm sure in in the declaration of independence somewhere it also states that in participating in terrorist acts you forgoe your right to freedom of speech. Otherwise terrorist from Bin Laden down would have their own world wide TV stations encouraging murder on a massive scale and they would be protected and allowed to do so...

I dont actually get what u mean here at all. Are u suggesting that the US's declaration of Independence can have influence over foreign TV channels?

 

[Cutter]

That all depends on the definition of `terrorist'. 1 mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Freedom fighter connotes someone fighting against forces of political or military oppression.

Taking the IRA (and all other republican and loyalist "paramilitary" groups in Ireland) as an example, if they confined their "war" to targeting UK troops and politicians, you could legitimately call them "Freedom Fighters". However, as they have no problem with bombing innocent children and pregnant women in shopping centres (e.g. Omagh), and are also almost all involved up to their eyeballs in drug dealing & distribution and protection rackets, then in my view, and no doubt those of the substantial majority of people, they are rightly seen as cowardly murdering terrorists.

Similarly, with Hammas and similar groups. If their attacks were confined to Israeli troops and politicians, you could call them freedom fighters. However, as they prefer to indoctrinate impressionable (typically male) youngsters with little formal education into bombing busloads of innocent children, then they too are perceived as merely being another bunch of cowardly murdering terrorists.

The carpet bombing of European cities during WW2 proved one thing - it hardened public attitudes towards the aggressor. All these "freedom fighters" who bomb innocent citizens should not be surprised when those self same citizens have no sympathy for them and call for their own leaders to take punitive measures in retaliation.

As to the whole freedom of speech thing, well, most countries have laws preventing such things as incitement to murder, race hatred etc. Try standing in some public US place spouting race hatred and claiming constitutional immunity under the free speech amendment and see how long you last...

Freedom of speech measures are designed to allow citizens to criticise governments and their related bodies without fear of physical or other retribution. They are generally not designed to allow people to spew forth and spread hatred, anger and violence. A fact some people seem to forget...

 

[Rich]

The problem you have is perspective
the line a TV station has to consider is dependent on the perspective of its audience, take for example the pictures on Al Jazeera of wounded and captured soldiers, we the RIGHT were shouting human right violation, and disgust asking for there to be a complete ban on the station etc etc, yet earlier that very same day the US/UK TV stations had shown pictures of coalition soldiers taking prisoners, and included an American soldier beating a suspect to the floor (this is war I realise that) but you cannot have it one way and not the other another, Al Jazeera TV base station in Baghdad was targeted by the US and shot at killing 12 journalists if I remember correctly they were then held in the building for 2 days without food and medical supplies. This is before a tank shot at the hotel where another Arab station had its journalists.... the official story is that the thought they saw a sniper!!!
So as an Arab station and as the only station the OTHER side has to broadcast is it right to gag them to suppress information, to act as a big brother state and not follow the rules set down in all modern westernised countries?

It’s an extremely difficult argument as it depends wholly on perspective and your stance of who is right who is wrong and the part of the world you live in.


on a side note and a slightly different issue Al Jazeera is one or was one of the only stations to show pictures of the Israeli soldiers bulldozing houses and removing people from there houses so that they could build settlements in the west bank, it also had reporters with the Amnesty guys who were recording the targeting of ambulances but the Israeli’s, and they covered the holding of children at gunpoint by Israeli soldiers to force other members of there families out of hiding in apartments and buildings, these pictures which have helped display some of the otherwise unreported incidents in the area,.

 

[Alf Roberts]

Yes Thuring i know what the westernised interpretation of `Freedom Fighter' is...but that doesnt really cut any ice `on the ground' so to speak. Ppl's involved in such problems tend to simplify these things as an `us & them' situation...well thats how i see it anyway.

 

[Spirit]

Well Mr Bush certainly fits that bill then.

I disagree, Mr Bush has killed Iraqi soldiers in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives. There were other selfish reasons for the war as well I know, but regardless of them he still achieved that goal too.

I see the definition of `terrorist' as an issue of perspective.

I don’t. Anyone that kills innocent bystanders is a terrorist. Soldiers getting killed is part and parcel of war – by signing up to fight they are recognising they may lose their life.

Yes ur right certain things shouldnt be shown on TV...but is it really Americas place to tell the Iraqi ppl what they can & cannot watch? I dont think it is...

No I agree it’s not, however whilst Iraq is under the occupation of the Americans, for what is (apparently) their own safety, it is the American’s responsibility to protect the Iraqi civilians and part of that is to prevent terrorist acts within the country.

Isnt it on ur dads NTL? ....i'm only joking with ya before u throw a wobbly

Actually no My dad can’t get NTL in his area where as the city house that I own can

Are u suggesting that the US's declaration of Independence can have influence over foreign TV channels?

No, but you are by suggesting they will be in breach of it if they make this decision. If it doesn’t have influence in this situation how can they be breaching it? All it does anyway is just re-iterate human rights, and my point before about how certain things should not be shown on TV shows how imo this integrates with the right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech measures are designed to allow citizens to criticise governments and their related bodies without fear of physical or other retribution. They are generally not designed to allow people to spew forth and spread hatred, anger and violence. A fact some people seem to forget...

the line a TV station has to consider is dependent on the perspective of its audience, take for example the pictures on Al Jazeera of wounded and captured soldiers, we the RIGHT were shouting human right violation, and disgust asking for there to be a complete ban on the station etc etc, yet earlier that very same day the US/UK TV stations had shown pictures of coalition soldiers taking prisoners, and included an American soldier beating a suspect to the floor (this is war I realise that) but you cannot have it one way and not the other another,

I don’t have a problem with this at all – either these things should be shown on TV or they shouldn’t but that’s a different debate. No-one should be allowed to support the murder of innocent people regardless of whether it is a UK, US or Iraqi television station.

Al Jazeera TV base station in Baghdad was targeted by the US and shot at killing 12 journalists if I remember correctly they were then held in the building for 2 days without food and medical supplies. This is before a tank shot at the hotel where another Arab station had its journalists.... the official story is that the thought they saw a sniper!!!

I’m not fully aware of the details of this situation so can’t really comment, but if this is true and there was no sniper at all, then the US soldiers did the wrong thing here and should take the blame for that.

It’s an extremely difficult argument as it depends wholly on perspective and your stance of who is right who is wrong and the part of the world you live in.

I have to say I disagree with this. You principles and morals should not depend on whom the situation refers to. Imho the murder of and support of murder of innocent people is very wrong regardless of who is doing it. I would criticise the US or UK for doing this equally as much as I would the Iraqis. Basic Human Rights are what they are and should be with held to the best of everyone’s ability in every situation

 

[Alf Roberts]

No, but you are by suggesting they will be in breach of it if they make this decision. If it doesn’t have influence in this situation how can they be breaching it? All it does anyway is just re-iterate human rights, and my point before about how certain things should not be shown on TV shows how imo this integrates with the right to freedom of speech.

Eh? What are u talking about? Ive never mentioned Americas Declaration of Independence at all....u did, hence why im asking what that has to do with foreign TV stations. Get ur facts straight before u start accusing ppl of stuff....or have u just got muddled up again?

 

[Spirit]

American declaration of independence
"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

i only skimmed the piece but from what i read the US hasn't made a decision yet whether or not to Veto it, if they do not veto it then they are going directly against there own constitution.

That is what Rich posted and

Indeed they will be...

That was your direct response - you even quoted his above paragraph when responding. So no, you didn't directly mention it yourself but you certainly agreed with what Rich had to say about it. Seems my facts are straight thanks

 

[Alf Roberts]

i only skimmed the piece but from what i read the US hasn't made a decision yet whether or not to Veto it, if they do not veto it then they are going directly against there own constitution.

Indeed they will be

Btw, Americas `Declaration of independence' & its `Constitution' are not the same thing....and I was clearly referring to the latter.

Anyway, u still havent said what Americas DoI or its Constitution has to do with the running of foreign TV stations...

 

[Spirit]

I was responding to those who said it did have something to do with it. It wasn't me that related the two in the first place. The impression I get from Rich's post is that when he refered to the DoI and the constitution he was refering to one and the same thing, hence why I also assumed you were. That's how his post reads anyway but regardless it's hardly a significant point to quibble over.

As I said, I was merely responding to the posts that link this situation with the DoI and the consitution and making my point as to why I disagreed with those who thought they would be breaching it, which is perfectly clarified by this paragraph (when reading the first 'it' as the DoI, or consitution, or whatever )

All it does anyway is just re-iterate human rights, and my point before about how certain things should not be shown on TV shows how imo this integrates with the right to freedom of speech.

 

[Alf Roberts]

Well maybe u shouldnt go assuming things then and as i said, get ur facts straight before accusing ppl.

 

[Spirit]

Rich's post reads as if he is talking about the same thing - he quotes a section of the DoI then just says they are breaking their own consitution. Reading that gives the impression when he says constitution he is refering to the section he has just quoted of the DoI.

But anyway so what?! So we both interpreted a 3rd party's post in different ways, there are no "facts to get straight" it's just a simple case of crossed wires so why do you take it upon yourself to get all defensive?? If you can't sort out a simple misunderstanding, that doesn't even affect the debate, in a friendly manor then I suggest you don't take part at all.

And on that note I'm going home. nn

 

[Alf Roberts]

Rich's post reads as if he is talking about the same thing - he quotes a section of the DoI then just says they are breaking their own consitution. Reading that gives the impression when he says constitution he is refering to the section he has just quoted of the DoI.

Well to u maybe but that isnt the case. He quoted an amendment to the DoI that would fly in the face of the Constitution. It reads pretty simple to me.

But anyway so what?! So we both interpreted a 3rd party's post in different ways, there are no "facts to get straight" it's just a simple case of crossed wires so why do you take it upon yourself to get all defensive?? If you can't sort out a simple misunderstanding, that doesn't even affect the debate, in a friendly manor then I suggest you don't take part at all.

Well im sorry Spirit but if u accuse me of something due to u misunderstanding a simple statement then i think i have the right to defend myself. U say its `only crossed wires'...and it would of stayed simply crossed wires if u hadnt made ur foundationless accusation. All ive said is `think before u post'. U was wrong, be man enough to accept that fact.

 

[Rich]

my bad i ment the Constitution

thats the Constitution of the United states the Bill of Rights first amendment


"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

i didnt mean the DoI



NOW you 2 having a go at each other is fucking shit SO ether get back to what the original post was about of ill delete all the posts and close the thread coz this is getting fucking stupid. if you wanna bicker do it in PM

 

[BBStr@nge]

I am still amazed that any sane and rational person could find anything good about what GW Bush did in Iraq.
He is a murderer, a non-elected terrorist.
Yes I said terrorist. He fits that bill perfectly.
"Bush has done good things" what utter shit.
He is a liar and a murderer.
"but he freed Iraq" - he is stealing it's wealth.

Who is gonna protect us from the real madman?
You know the white, wholesome, god fearing maniac?