Alf Roberts said:
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.
Alf Roberts said:
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.
Alf Roberts said:
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.
Alf Roberts said:
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
Alf Roberts said:
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.
Thur said:
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 said:
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.
rich said:
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.
rich said:
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