posted on September 27, 2001 05:30:51 PM new
Military disinformation is the course of the day during "war" time. The government will lie to the people and the rest of the world. We all know that. I understand the need for military disinformation but it's a little embarassing when the lies are so transparent.
I remember during the Gulf War seeing a clip of a patriot missle. The missile went up to intercept a scud, veered off course, and fell back down on Tel Aviv. There was no question what happened, it was clear from the video. That clip was shown many times afterwards, but only up to the point where the patriot began to veer off course. The news sources said the damage to Tel Aviv was done by a bit of falling scud missile.
What is un-American about expressing an opinion?!
I agree with that remark in principle, but can it be applied ad absurdum? For example, is burning a U.S. flag a patriotic thing to do, because it demonstrates freedom of expression?
Re: Maher, he can say what he wants, but he can pay the consequences too. I expect his show will be replaced by some flag-waving, bible-thumping, trumpet-blowing propagandist. I'm thinking, cross between Doctor Laura, Martha Stewart and Norman Scwartzkoph. Good old-fashioned values.
posted on September 27, 2001 05:51:41 PM new
Interesting about the use of the word coward. When I went in to get a haircut this afternoon, my barber and I began to discuss the WTC attack and the "war." What began as a conversation soon turned into a diatribe from him about the war. He's a conservative republican, and someone that no one would accuse of a lack of patriotism. He believes that we should do everything possible to get bin Laden, lots of anger, and generally supportive of the military, but he brought out two points that I hadn't anticipated from him. First, he said that he couldn't understand why they were calling those guys who crashed into the WTC cowards. "They're not cowards," he said, they're fanatics who are dedicated to a cause and they're very smart. We shouldn't underestimate them or pretend like they're something else." He then compared them to the Japanese kamikaze pilots and went into a long description of muslims as he understood them. The second point that he brought up dealt with the country here. "But I'm as concerned at what's happening here with the government as over there. If you don't watch em, they'll take all our freedoms away."
Those are the opinions of what you would call a very average, conservative guy from the heartland.
posted on September 27, 2001 06:18:26 PM new
Hmmm. How about we call them Thugs for Allah. Or perhaps Muslim Thugs.Somewhat reminiscent of the Kali groupies, don't you think?
posted on September 27, 2001 06:31:14 PM new
Hi,Linda_K. I wanted to answer your question about Bill Maher.Are you saying you feel they have no right to pull their advertizing? He has the right to say whatever he wishes, but they don't have the right to pull their business if they feel his statements were unpatriotic?
I think that an advertiser on a commercial station has the right to pull its advertising. I'm a bit leery of news that I get via a commercial station anyway because I factor in the possible influence of its advertisers. It's the curtailment of the right of the individual person on the street to make comments without running the risk of being called a traitor that concerns me. I've never been one to feel that our choices should be limited to either/ortype options - love it or leave it, for us or for the terrorists,etc. This becomes a sticky wicket - is a flag sewn on the butt of someone's jeans traitorous but patriotic if it's made into a shirt or sewn on the cuff of jeans as a decoration? Was the Republican Congress traitorous in making Clinton look weak and dragging him through the muck for so long because he tried to get a little nookie on the side - maybe our tax dollars would have been spent more wisely by beefing up our security. I just don't see a simple definition here.
posted on September 27, 2001 06:36:01 PM new
Assasins - has historical validity for that part of the world. Even if they do smoke opium instead of hashish now.
They were showing a kid on TV a couple days ago scrapping the raw opium off of the cuts made in the unopened buds of poppies. He was getting maybe 2/3 of it. I would have thought it would be precious enough to be careful harvesting it but obviously not. Those poppy heads were tennis ball size. I have never seen a poppy that healthy looking in the US.
posted on September 27, 2001 06:36:44 PM new
Well, I'll go along with that, toke. As long as its clear that they don't represent the mainstream of muslim culture. I wouldn't want someone to misinterpret our comments as being politically incorrect and report us to someone.
posted on September 27, 2001 06:39:12 PM new
Inshallah...
BTW, that was phonetic, because I have no clue how to spell it...heard it plenty in Beirut, though.
edited to say: If anyone believes the terrorists represent mainstream Muslim culture...I don't care what they think, because they obviously don't (think).
[ edited by toke on Sep 27, 2001 06:41 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2001 06:48:19 PM new
LOL! I've decided that it doesn't much matter what you say, it's all about what someone thinks you've said.
posted on September 27, 2001 06:49:21 PM new
"Military disinformation is the course of the day during "war" time..."
Absolutely.
Before all this happened, and there were discussions about Clinton compared to Bush, one of the criticisms of Clinton had to do with honesty. More than a few people stated that they wanted a president who was honest, wouldn't lie, etc. I said back then that you'd never want a president who wouldn't/couldn't lie, that would be very bad. When something like this comes up, a Churchill is best - he was a great liar, he knew when to and how to. Nixon/Clinton type liars give liars a bad name.
But the thing about the Air Force One codes wasn't military disinformation, it was just political-type lying, and so clumsy.
posted on September 27, 2001 06:57:31 PM new
Yes, donny. It's essential to be able to make a distinction between the two different types. Many domestic issues are not a matter of national security, though directly or indirectly that spin will likely be used to promote them.
If you ask your barber whether he's a combat veteran he'll affirm that he is, I'd say. And his concerns are real, genuine, and appropriate for a true conservative patriot as compared to the simple rah-rah republican Clinton hater who wouldn't recognise a constitutional issue without being told.
posted on September 27, 2001 10:04:37 PM new
As a matter of fact, Ken, from references that he has made, I'm sure he was in the service, but they were made in passing and it would have been awkward at the time to follow up. Yes, he's very genuine and always colorful, and at times amazing perceptive. He is what I would describe as one of the good guys. The backbone of the nation.
posted on September 27, 2001 11:42:52 PM new
elfgifu: "People commit suicide everyday. I have never before heard it described as an act of courage..."
Did the people who held hands and jumped from the top of the WTC act courageously or cowardly?
Desparation brings out both cowardice and bravery in people. Perhaps "self-murder" would better describe those that selfishly refuse to go on with life, but only that individual can set the limit of desparation they can endure.
Did you happen to see the film footage of that "coward" who had Dr. Kevorkian set him up on the suicide machine, just because he didn't want to live through the rest of the cycle of ALS?
Which one of us is fit to set the standard for all the world to follow?
posted on September 28, 2001 02:57:02 AM new
I don't have a problem with the advertisers pulling their ads out of Maher's show. That's their right, the same as it is Maher's right to say what he did.
What bothers me, and it's something I think we should all be concerned about, is that it was WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN Ari Fleisher, who, I assume, speaks for the White House. He said "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."
Do any of us really want the White House, the president, or the ruling party deciding what we can and can't say?
It's not like Maher gave away military secrets. He was giving his opinion, nothing more and nothing less.
Advertisers, television personalities, who was a coward and who wasn't are not the important thing here. Doesn't anyone else get this?
posted on September 28, 2001 04:40:40 AM new
Not to worry. Ari has been getting kin of full of himself lately and mispoke. The official white house version of his statement now reads ""There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that".
But how about censoring the Congressional hearings on Ashcroft's request for powers?
MEDIA COVERAGE OF ASHCROFT HEARING RESTRICTED BY REPUBLICANS IN VIOLATION OF HOUSE RULES... After Ashcroft finished speaking [at a House hearing in which Democrats indicated that some of what Ashcroft was requesting was unconstitutional and excessive (“Past experience has taught us that today’s weapon against terrorism may be tomorrow’s law against law-abiding Americans,” Dem Conyers said.)], committee Democrats called civil liberties and free-speech advocates to testify, including representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, which have echoed some of Conyers’ concerns. But while Ashcroft’s testimony was open to television cameras, the committee’s Republican staff ordered camera crews to leave, including those of C-SPAN, the public interest network available on cable television systems nationwide, NBC News’ Mike Viqueira reported. Print reporters and members of the general public were allowed to remain, meaning the speakers’ comments could be reported, but none of them would be available for Americans to see or hear for themselves. House rules state, “Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by a committee or subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings shall be open to coverage by audio and visual means,” Viqueira reported. --NBC, 9/24/01(The original link was http://msnbc.com/news/632335.asp, but the story is no longer there. 9/26/01)
posted on September 28, 2001 05:05:45 AM new
krs - Then I have to say the camera crews failed both themselves and us by refusing to leave so that they had to be physically removed if that's what it took to put them out. Then the stink of what amounts to a closed door session would be brought to the public's attention. Now any record of the statements made is a he said I said transcription that can be challenged, not a phsycal record.
posted on September 28, 2001 05:32:10 AM new
Maybe, though they might have avoided arrest by following the order to leave. Still, it shouldn't depend on the will of any camera crew, it's a violation of the house rules which presumably are agreed to by the whole of the house of congress, and it's censorship by one party of that house.
posted on September 28, 2001 05:58:18 AM new
Joyz--
After I posted, I wished I had said that suicide is rarely an act of courage. I don't have any interest in debating the merits of euthanasia or assisted suicide (and I suspect that you and I would agree on it anyway), and no one can or should debate the choices (if that's what they were) of those souls who jumped from the towers. I referred, in my post, to suicide as a choice in most circumstances. I'm sure many will want to tell me stories of exceptional circumstances in which real people made a courageous choice to die for others--I'm not so stupid as to be unaware of such cases. However, on the whole, I believe that the choice to commit suicide is usually a choice made to avoid pain, misery, an unacceptable life and that such a choice leaves those loved ones who survive you to deal with the aftermath. Therefore, I believe that suicide is generally, to some degree, a cowardly choice. In the case of these hijackers, I believe it was an act of supreme cowardice. This in no way means that I undervalue their determination, intelligence or cunning, but they remain cowards.
Edited to add (because I had to leave in the middle of my post):
As for those who jumped from the towers and those who chose to down Flight 93, the choice between two immediate and certain deaths is not what I would term suicide.
Similarly, in the case of one who throws himself on a grenade to save another (or any other such scenario), I believe that to be a choice to save a life rather than a choice to commit suicide. It's just not the same thing at all.
[ edited by elfgifu on Sep 28, 2001 06:49 AM ]
posted on September 28, 2001 06:02:10 AM new
Well, as I said in the "Politically Correct" thread, I think it needs to be acknowledged that the men who commit suicide to further their cause certainly aren't "cowards". Fanatics, homicidal maniacs, low-life scum, perhaps, but not cowards.
The people who CONVINCE and SEND those men to commit suicide and then watch the resulting carnage from their safe locations, on the other hand, truly are cowards. The cowards are the terrorist leaders who live in luxury while the rest of their countrymen starve to death, who convince impressionable youths that America should be destroyed because it's America's fault that they are starving.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 28, 2001 06:42:33 AM new
Evidently it's a great honor to be selected to join the cadre of suicidal soldiers, something akin to the Japanese approach to the same thing. There was a news show in which a 20 year old ws followed through parts of his training prior to his eventual death on a mission in Egypt ( think it was). One thing that stood out in the report was his father's description of the great pride he had in his son because of his having successfully completed his assignment and the honor that the son had bestowed on the family, and another was the younger brother's affirmative response when asked if he would like to follow in his brother's footsteps. The brother, though only eleven, was clear in his wish to be able to have such a thing as his goal in life.
