skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Don't forget how many troops we still have over in the Muslim heartland. Of course every American politician is going to side with the crazy mob. Sure, posturing is important but we are starting to compromise the values that this country was founded on. What kind of message does it send to the troops when Clinton eases up on one of the core reasons those troops are in those countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sure, posturing is important but we are starting to compromise the values that this country was founded on. What kind of message does it send to the troops when Clinton eases up on one of the core reasons those troops are in those countries? He's not easing up on anything. Hell, this story doesn't even have a direct quote, so how do you really know what he said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I wasn't sure where to put this........... I thought this pretty good piece that some on here should read. http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann02132006.html highlights include I cannot say whether the official Western culture of piety, enthusiastically promoted worldwide, played a role in the reaction to the cartoons. I do know that Western piety has left the West without a leg to stand on in this dispute. It is no good trumpeting rights of free expression, because these rights are now supposed to have nebulous but severe limitations. From the moment Western countries started criminalising topless posters in locker rooms, hate speech, emotional abuse and many other sins of impurity, free expression was at the mercy of Western piety. It cannot be invoked against piety of another sort.The point here is not that the West is hypocritical. Maybe it is; maybe it is just inconsistent: who cares? Hypocrisy is among the most harmless of sins; indeed that it has become such a fetish is one more indication of a culture of piety. The point is rather than the West has put ideological weapons in the hands of those it now wants to repel, and thrown away the weapons that might have proved useful in such an effort. The most basic notions of the rule of law -- that you should not be punished for what you cannot help, like the feelings you have, that no one should be expected to obey laws so vague that the criteria of obedience are mysterious -- were thrown away years ago. They cannot be picked out of the trashcan and held up as shiny Western ideals just because it is now convenient to do so. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Boo hoo, Sarge.Why don't you go riot if your neocon religion was so offended. Exposing a shady, possibly illegal government program that may be affecting American lives (of course, we don't know because they refuse to tell us) and publishing cartoons that are horribly offensive to a group that is likely to react violently are two different things, and drawing a parallel is just immature. Just showing the hypocracy involved here I'd just as soon see them hauled into court and sent to jail. But to people like you, it's OK to publisize a top secret program that has to do with national security, but not to publisize some cartoons because it might offend someone :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Quote: Originally Posted by rincewind Exactly. Too many people confuse the right of free speech with the need and tact to print or say anything you'd like. Just because you're allowed to say doesn't mean you should. This is may take on it. David Gregory may disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Exactly. Too many people confuse the right of free speech with the need and tact to print or say anything you'd like. Just because you're allowed to say doesn't mean you should. It's one thing to say they shouldn't publish those cartoons; it's another thing to say that the publishers should be punished or censored. The right of free speech also includes the right to print offensive material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Just showing the hypocracy involved hereI'd just as soon see them hauled into court and sent to jail. But to people like you, it's OK to publisize a top secret program that has to do with national security, but not to publisize some cartoons because it might offend someone :doh: Did you even read my post? Or do you only read the posts that can further fan arguements? I am a person 'like' Dave, and i said it was wrong. JRock is right, you do like sensationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 It's interesting the debate that worms thru this over the which laws that these Eu newspapers have supposedly broken. As far as i know, there is no international law governing free speech or free press or anything. The laws each of them may or may not have broken would haqve to originate in their own country. To wonder what the ACLU will do, as nelms did, is not really applicable, since they are concerned with American Civil Liberties. I would surmise that the US press is practicing a wise bit of self control in not publishing these cartoons. Let's face it, right or wrong, these lunatics are burning stuff down and killing people over them. Its not wise to stick one's face into a nest of angry bees just for the sake of sticking your face in. Anyone who wants to see the cartoons can easily do so on the internet. I have, you have. I think maybe some might view this as weakness on the part of the American press, I don't see prudence as weakness. I think in principal, we stand behind the EU nations who have chosen to run the cartoons. As a whole, i believe we condemn the violence and utter craziness that has ensued over these cartoons. These radicals want nothing more than to start their Jihad. These cartoons have drawn more to their cause. Granted, their cause is insane, but the fact is they're doing it just the same. Part of wartime means that one must be careful of what one says and does. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" is true, and what is also true is that you dn't want to publish, say, or do anything to igve the enemy any more reason to fight, or give anyone any more reason to be sympathetic to their cause. There is a saying,, no one hates war more than a soldier. If war is the only avenue left, then make it as quick and as painless as possible. And one of the ways you do that is to not give the enemy any more reasons to fight than he already has... be they reasons we consider insane or not. I don't blame the Danish paper for publishing the cartoons. It's their right, and it's the right of those offended to demonstrate, and boycott,, peacefully. they have taken it way beyond that, and to republish the cartoons isn't a wise thing to do, not out of fear of them, but out of common sense. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Not pleasing all the people all the time and publishing a cartoon of Mohammed, let alone a cartoon of Mohammed as a terrorist, are not the same thing. These cartoons were uncalled for, and it was irresponsible to publish them, regardless of the potential reaction. Pair that with the fact that you can't trust civility amongst radical Muslims, and these publishers either knowingly cause riots or were too stupid to realize that they were going to cause riots. I could quote more than half of the posts in this thread to illustrate my point. I chose this one for the 2nd sentence. The same thought keeps going through my head: It's not illegal to be stupid. Should the publishers be chasitised? Sure. Should they be CONVICTED of anything. No. Failing a complete shutting of the trap, Clinton should at least chose his language better, if he did actually say what the article says he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I see the total war as inevitable. I dont think there is any hope we can convince the majority of Muslims in the world to be peaceful, tolerant, and respectful of those that dont agree with them. So I agree with iheart. There is a catalyst. My disagreement is that lacking one wont prevent this inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Also guys, do realize these riots turn into more then just about the cartoons I posted an article a few weeks ago about how some riots turn into people protesting jobs going to foreingers or another tribe, or some other percieved injustice It is easy to control the ignorant herd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Is anybody else getting confused with two threads about the same subject going at the same time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I agree that they should have used better judgement and not published the cartoons. I do find it funny to see some of you arguing this point who argued against it in the prison scandal case in regards to publishing those photos. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 I could quote more than half of the posts in this thread to illustrate my point. I chose this one for the 2nd sentence. The same thought keeps going through my head: It's not illegal to be stupid. Should the publishers be chasitised? Sure. Should they be CONVICTED of anything. No. Failing a complete shutting of the trap, Clinton should at least chose his language better, if he did actually say what the article says he did. There's no direct quote. I seriously doubt he said "convicted," though. For the record, unless they charge them with something related to the riots, which would be a stretch, then I don't believe they should be convicted of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Also guys, do realize these riots turn into more then just about the cartoonsI posted an article a few weeks ago about how some riots turn into people protesting jobs going to foreingers or another tribe, or some other percieved injustice It is easy to control the ignorant herd Hokie, why do you even bother ? No one cares unless a Muslim is doing something newsworthy. Or Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 He's not easing up on anything. Hell, this story doesn't even have a direct quote, so how do you really know what he said? Sure there may not be a direct quote but I am debating solely based on the title of this article. If in fact a former president of the United States is calling for the prosecution of people for the publication of printed materials, well, then that tells me he didn't undertand that oath he took. He doesn't understand what free press and free speach actually mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Just showing the hypocracy involved hereI'd just as soon see them hauled into court and sent to jail. But to people like you, it's OK to publisize a top secret program that has to do with national security, but not to publisize some cartoons because it might offend someone :doh: Sarge, I'm not going to let you hijack this thread by giving you an all out response as to why I'm glad the program was exposed. Let's just say that telling the people about the government potentially spying on them, thus keeping an overbearing executive in check, and purposely inciting the Muslim population are completely different, and again, your comparing them is immature sensationalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sure there may not be a direct quote but I am debating solely based on the title of this article. If in fact a former president of the United States is calling for the prosecution of people for the publication of printed materials, well, then that tells me he didn't undertand that oath he took. He doesn't understand what free press and free speach actually mean. Clinton chooses his words wisely. I don't think anyone can deny that. Therefore, I'm going to believe that the article is probably wrong. If it was a direct quote, I'd believe it. If it alluded to him saying that ANYWHERE within the article, I'd believe it. If it wasn't simply the title of an article from a Pakistani newspaper's website, I might believe it. However, being that none of those are the case, I just don't believe that's what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sure there may not be a direct quote but I am debating solely based on the title of this article. If in fact a former president of the United States is calling for the prosecution of people for the publication of printed materials, well, then that tells me he didn't undertand that oath he took. He doesn't understand what free press and free speach actually mean. He took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States. We're not dealing with US issues here... (thank God) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sarge and Chopper, the offseason is long. Take it down a few notches please. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sarge, I'm not going to let you hijack this thread by giving you an all out response as to why I'm glad the program was exposed. Let's just say that telling the people about the government potentially spying on them, thus keeping an overbearing executive in check, and purposely inciting the Muslim population are completely different, Here is what the editor of Jyllands-Posten had to say. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html . By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 20, 2006 Author Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sarge, I'm not going to let you hijack this thread by giving you an all out response as to why I'm glad the program was exposed. Let's just say that telling the people about the government potentially spying on them, thus keeping an overbearing executive in check, and purposely inciting the Muslim population are completely different, and again, your comparing them is immature sensationalism. This leads to an interesting question. Can one hijack their own thread? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 This leads to an interesting question.Can one hijack their own thread? :laugh: Sure they can. It's been done before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Clinton chooses his words wisely. I don't think anyone can deny that. Therefore, I'm going to believe that the article is probably wrong. If it was a direct quote, I'd believe it. If it alluded to him saying that ANYWHERE within the article, I'd believe it. If it wasn't simply the title of an article from a Pakistani newspaper's website, I might believe it. However, being that none of those are the case, I just don't believe that's what he said. I think I will decide not to believe it either. I like Clinton. I'll just say that Peter King wrote this article to somehow keep Art Monk out of the HOF and proceed to another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 20, 2006 Share Posted February 20, 2006 Sure they can. It's been done before. No it hasnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.