Protesting too loudly?

[Spartacus]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The link above takes you a webpage where you will read an Iraqi Muslim apologizing for the killing of Nick Berg, and apologizing for the vioolence inherrent in Islam...although he can not go into great detail for he fears for his safety on this topic.

Read further and you will see little concern about Iraqi prisoners with panties on their heads...and that will be contrasted to experiences in that same prison he relates under Saddam.

The prisoner abuse scandal seems to be a much greater concern outside than among Iraqis.

....So why is there so much focus on the scandal outside Iraq?

Is the focus based on a nedd for justice? Afterall the scandal only came to light after the Army was investigating the abuse. The perpetraitors are going to be tried under Military Justice which is fairly barbaric compared to the civilian system.

If this focus by the media is not motivated by a desire to see justice done then what makes it "newsworthy?" The storu has already receive so much coverage in all the media. The photos are horrible and the details brutal and scandalous...but so are many other stories...

Is it wrong to think that perhaps the media gatekeepers want to play this issue up only because it makes the US Adminstration and Military look bad?

Having worked in the news media and partciapted in such decisions, I am inclined to believe at this point that is why the stroy has such legs. Reporters are like sharks when they smell blood in the water...

[Razor-Tongue]

Of course not! If there's anything media likes more than a story about a hero it’s a story about tragedy. This story is purely tragedy, although self inflicted. He was there trying to make a quick buck and became a causality of war, however brutal the death was. The government was in no way responsible, but when something like this happens you have to blame something bigger than just one person. What better target than a government to busy in foreign affairs to realize their own country think they are monsters to let something like that happen? Reporters are just opportunists and this event made the perfect opportunity. “We know who did it, but why? Oh well, lets just blame the government… again.” It makes me sick.

[kwinters]

Why is there so much focus on what America did?

Well, Bush went to war because there were nukes being developed-but there weren't. Then it was because there were chemical and bio weapons-there weren't. Then he decided to defy the UN in order to enfore UN resolutions, which was ridiculous.

Finally, he declared we went to war to end the suffering of the Iraqi people. (Guess he'd forgotten what we did to the fleeing conscripted Iraqis on the Highway of Death)

THEN it turns out that the Americans are actually torturing and killing people in the same place Saddam did it.

It's called hypocrisy, and it should have long media legs.

I am ashamed of what happened, and it is a moral imperative that we completely revealing what happened and holding people responsible. There is no other way to begin to recovery our reputation in the world.

[Razor-Tongue]

Yeah but we were torturing people who needed to be tortured. Its called "have some back."

[Telex]

I tried going to your link but when I clicked it I was immediatly inundated with popups declaring I was the 1,000,000 visitor, wanting me to downlaod a "Free XXX porn Toolbar," and other such things, with no actual website. I suggest you check the link.

But I sincerely doubt 1 supposedly Iraqi internet Blog can speak for the entire country.

The media plays what people will watch. I doubt that some secret organization controls all the television news networks and molds them to support some hidden political agenda. They're after money, and to get money they need sponsors, and to get sponsors they need viewers.

[Razor-Tongue]

And to get viewers they constantly tell me that theres something I urgently need to know... at 10:00pm. I'm getting sick of news so I just watch the daily show.

[Telex]

...that's just super. Is there a relevent point to your post, or are you just trying to raise your post count?

[Razor-Tongue]

I'm just trying to point out that the media is always trying to yank your chain this way or that. I'm sick of it so I pretty much dismiss whatever I hear on the news or read on the internet. For a while they had me worried I was going to get West Nile. That was the last straw, so now I watch the daily show.

[WatsonGlenn]

Well, Bush went to war because there were nukes being developed-but there weren't.

One of the reasons Bush went to war was because of the threat of WMD which did exist.


Then he decided to defy the UN in order to enfore UN resolutions, which was ridiculous.

We now know UN members were making money on the oil for food program. The UN was not enforcing its own rules. The UN does not tell the US what to do. Not yet anyway. Of course if Kerry is elected well.


Finally, he declared we went to war to end the suffering of the Iraqi people. (Guess he'd forgotten what we did to the fleeing conscripted Iraqis on the Highway of Death)

You mean the Soldiers that killed Kuwati babies and raped their mother then set oil wells on fire on their way out. Gee did the get hurt while retreating. Thats too bad.


THEN it turns out that the Americans are actually torturing and killing people in the same place Saddam did it.

Killing? I had not heard this. Frankly I have seen worse pictures during fraternity initiations. Still its funny that you never saw the US press talking about the torture Saddam commited. You also never say the people of Iraq protesting on the street. They sure have gotten braver in the last year.


It's called hypocrisy, and it should have long media legs.

You're right it is called hypocricy.

[Spartacus]

I tried going to your link but when I clicked it I was immediatly inundated with popups declaring I was the 1,000,000 visitor, wanting me to downlaod a "Free XXX porn Toolbar," and other such things, with no actual website. I suggest you check the link.

But I sincerely doubt 1 supposedly Iraqi internet Blog can speak for the entire country.




Try the link now....The blog also has numerous links to other relevant sites -- in English

[CC]

the media is both left and right, just like politicians......but as someone said for the media it is about making money and they will sink to any level, (9/11 being the biggest shame), for the politicians (who will sink just as low) it is about using the media to put the spin on their public words, while privately speaking of their own agenda...................:O)

[FruitandNut]

Media editors, like politicians, often want to see confirmation of their suspicions in even the most tenuous of 'evidence'. If it is vague and unsubstantiated, that appears not to matter, what matters is that at a quick glance it appears supportive in the abscence of anything else.

When I first saw those 'posed' photographs of 'British troops' roughing up a 'Iraqi prisoner' I could see they were most likely faked - everything Hollywood neat. Faces hidden, early marque of SA80, not used in Iraq 2, T-shirt with the Iraq flag on it, and a vehical that had been no closer than Cyprus. But it suited editorial agendas, so they got in, and the editor eventually got out.

[CC]

But it suited editorial agendas, so they got in, and the editor eventually got out.

"Out" as in "fired"?.............:O)

[FruitandNut]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The link above takes you a webpage where you will read an Iraqi Muslim apologizing for the killing of Nick Berg, and apologizing for the vioolence inherrent in Islam...although he can not go into great detail for he fears for his safety on this topic.

Read further and you will see little concern about Iraqi prisoners with panties on their heads...and that will be contrasted to experiences in that same prison he relates under Saddam.

The prisoner abuse scandal seems to be a much greater concern outside than among Iraqis.

....So why is there so much focus on the scandal outside Iraq?

Is the focus based on a need for justice? Afterall the scandal only came to light after the Army was investigating the abuse. The perpetraitors are going to be tried under Military Justice which is fairly barbaric compared to the civilian system.

If this focus by the media is not motivated by a desire to see justice done then what makes it "newsworthy?" The storu has already receive so much coverage in all the media. The photos are horrible and the details brutal and scandalous...but so are many other stories...

Is it wrong to think that perhaps the media gatekeepers want to play this issue up only because it makes the US Adminstration and Military look bad?

Spart, I like to think it is more to do with the fact that many of us want to feel Christian based democratic values as being a few centuries more advanced and civilised than gratuitously torturing and abasing our fellow man. Political point scoring is a regrettible adjunct to the main, and as I see it, laudible concern.

[KevinBrowning]

Spart, I like to think it is more to do with the fact that many of us want to feel Christian based democratic values as being a few centuries more advanced and civilised than gratuitously torturing and abasing our fellow man. Political point scoring is a regrettible adjunct to the main, and as I see it, laudible concern.

I don't think that's a matter of opinion; Christian-based democratic values are definitely more advanced and civilized than gratuitous torture. What are you saying is the main concern? If you're saying it's the liberation of the Iraqi people and the deposal of a brutal dictator, I agree.

[FruitandNut]

Kev, I am addressing Spart's declared concern about people outside of Iraq (particularly the west and its media), seeing the coalition prisoner abuses as more of an issue than in Iraq. If you read both his full posting first and then my answer, it is self explanitary.

[CC]

Christian-based democratic values are definitely more advanced and civilized than gratuitous torture.

Tell that to the pow's in Iraq......................................:O)

[CC]

....and what about atheist's democratic values? Where do we fit in?..........j/k..:O)

[Spartacus]

....and what about atheist's democratic values? Where do we fit in?..........j/k..:O)

Yes, indeed where?

Democracy would never come about in an atheist country....just look at the experiences of the USSR and Red China....there we see Atheist Democracy in action. Atheists in the US enjoy Democracy because it was theists who made it possible.

[Fyshhed]

Yes, indeed where?
On the recieving end is where. We're the enemy too ;)

[Apokalupsis]

....what nation in the history of the world...was ever founded or influenced by "atheistic democratic values"?

Does such a thing exist? OK, today sure. But only due to the spawn of such values from a Christian based philosophy. The governments formed that were influenced on atheistic philosophies...resulted in oppression and slaughter.

I submit, that "atheistic democratic values" could not exist today, w/o the influence from "Christian democratic values".

[CC]

I submit, that "atheistic democratic values" could not exist today, w/o the influence from "Christian democratic values".

I really can't argue with that. We have a unique society that does allow for a non-believer to share many of the same morals as any christian faith without atheism being the driving force. How ever, I was pointing out (obviously not very well) that neither democrats or republicans, or christians for matter, corner the market on following good morals.....................:O)

[CC]

Democracy would never come about in an atheist country....just look at the experiences of the USSR and Red China....there we see Atheist Democracy in action. Atheists in the US enjoy Democracy because it was theists who made it possible.

See above..........The USSR and China are not examples of atheistic democracy. As Apok pointed out, (and I agree) there can be no such thing as a democratic atheistic country. That is because it (much like religion in other parts of the world) is wrongfully used to keep the populace from thinking and reacting to their own beliefs...........................:O)

[Slipnish]

Spartacus
....So why is there so much focus on the scandal outside Iraq?

Because we are supposed to be the GOOD guys. Remember the whole, "turn the other cheek" philosophy? "Do unto others?" :?:

Oh, wait I forgot. God told Bush to invade Iraq. Guess that makes it okay... :evil:

[Apokalupsis]

How ever, I was pointing out (obviously not very well) that neither democrats or republicans, or christians for matter, corner the market on following good morals.....................:O)
To that, I can agree. ;)

[Apokalupsis]

Because we are supposed to be the GOOD guys. Remember the whole, "turn the other cheek" philosophy? "Do unto others?" :?:

Oh, wait I forgot. God told Bush to invade Iraq. Guess that makes it okay... :evil:
1) Turn the other cheek isn't a societal philosophy, it's a religious philosophy. The US isn't a nation of Christianity, it's a nation of democracy.

2) Turn the other cheek as a religious philosophy, is misunderstood by those who do not practicie it. ;)

3) In this instance, for the 2nd phrase, it should be: "Do unto others, before they do unto you." ;) j/k

[Spartacus]

1) Turn the other cheek isn't a societal philosophy, it's a religious philosophy. The US isn't a nation of Christianity, it's a nation of democracy.

2) Turn the other cheek as a religious philosophy, is misunderstood by those who do not practicie it. ;)

3) In this instance, for the 2nd phrase, it should be: "Do unto others, before they do unto you." ;) j/k


The OT advises "If your enemies come in the middle of the night to kill you, rise up and kill them first" Sund military advice.

As far as "turn the other cheek" That s fine on a persona level. But enemies do more than "slap people on the cheek". Enemies come to kill your loved ones, destroy your society, etc. When one is entrusted with protecting a nation, it just does not work to tun the other cheek. The Ten commandemnts say "Thou shall not commit murder". Christ never once admonished ROman soldiers to stop being soldiers....and he had many encounters with them....even said one Centurian had more faith than all of Israel.

[FruitandNut]

The OT advises "If your enemies come in the middle of the night to kill you, rise up and kill them first" Sund military advice.

Yes, but after you have blown the smoke away for the magnum, it is surely time for sound reflection on how the state of affairs came about, and if a repetition could be avoided. I believe it was Churchill who said that, 'Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.'


As far as "turn the other cheek" That s fine on a persona level. But enemies do more than "slap people on the cheek". Enemies come to kill your loved ones, destroy your society, etc. When one is entrusted with protecting a nation, it just does not work to tun the other cheek. The Ten commandemnts say "Thou shall not commit murder". Christ never once admonished ROman soldiers to stop being soldiers....and he had many encounters with them....even said one Centurian had more faith than all of Israel.

While Jesus did not remonstrate against the soldiers, he was more positive about peacemakers.

[Slipnish]

The OT advises "If your enemies come in the middle of the night to kill you, rise up and kill them first" Sund military advice.

As far as "turn the other cheek" That s fine on a persona level. But enemies do more than "slap people on the cheek". Enemies come to kill your loved ones, destroy your society, etc. When one is entrusted with protecting a nation, it just does not work to tun the other cheek. The Ten commandemnts say "Thou shall not commit murder". Christ never once admonished ROman soldiers to stop being soldiers....and he had many encounters with them....even said one Centurian had more faith than all of Israel.

Jesus also never said anything about Jeep Cherokees, so what's yer point? :?: To follow that train of logic takes us nowhere fast.

Besides, Christianity is more rooted in the NT, not the OT. Jesus was the redeemer, remember? He was there to do away with the old and usher in a new era, as I recall...

[Slipnish]

1) Turn the other cheek isn't a societal philosophy, it's a religious philosophy. The US isn't a nation of Christianity, it's a nation of democracy.

2) Turn the other cheek as a religious philosophy, is misunderstood by those who do not practicie it. ;)

3) In this instance, for the 2nd phrase, it should be: "Do unto others, before they do unto you." ;) j/k

I understand your position on the societal/religious philosophy, but given Bush's views, I am not so sure that it applies. Bush did call it a "crusade" after all. ;)

<blockquote>If this text is not speaking about self defense, what does the Lord mean when He says "not to resist an evil person" and then adds "But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"? Admittedly this appears to be a pacifist text. H.N. Ridderbos does help us out in this area when he says:

Jesus specifically mentions the right here , even though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)
At a closer look this passage deals with how one must respond after being insulted. This is not a passage dealing with what one must do when being physically attacked and having one’s life being threatened. It is, however, one that reinforces the idea that "revenge" is not to be left in the hands of the individual victim. Personal revenge and even "lynch-law" is certainly out of the question. The Lord has already set up the means to deal with punishing the offender by the sword of the state. It is a passage that teaches one must have patience when wronged. As the great Reformer John Calvin says:
When wrong has been done them (believers) in a single instance, he (Christ) wishes them to be trained by this example to meek submission, that by suffering they may learn to be patient. (John Calvin. "Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke" Calvin's Commentaries. Baker. p. 299)

Do these passages forbid self-defense? They do not deal with it nor do they forbid it. Let us, then, turn the other cheek…and briefly look at some passages that do deal with self-defense. </blockquote>

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 3 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This guy is certainly no pacifist, but in reality, was the 9-11 incident an Iraqi sponsored event? Have we acted in the best terms of that philosophy, given that the President and his cronies are all members of that particular faith? Even though he did (allegedly) say God told him to invade Iraq, is this consistent with the philosophy he operates under? A man who states he prays every day?

Whereas I agree with your first point, Bush is NOT directed by Democracy, but to some degree certainly from his Christian ideals.

My point remains. ;)

[FruitandNut]

Bush jnr. called Iraq 2 a crusade, using the word in the populist cliched meaning, not the religious. He clearly is not a diplomat or a deep thinker, and those who vet and write his speeches need a general educating about the middle east.

[Spartacus]

Bush jnr. called Iraq 2 a crusade, using the word in the populist cliched meaning, not the religious. He clearly is not a diplomat or a deep thinker, and those who vet and write his speeches need a general educating about the middle east.



As do all Americans. Many think the oil we use comes from there...when the majority comes from SOuth America and the only effect oil there has on us is at it relates to the world market.

Also many Americans view the source for terrorism as the United States policies there and the existiance of Isareal as a state-- rather than a dysfuntional Arab society.

[FruitandNut]

....and what about atheist's democratic values? Where do we fit in?..........j/k..:O)


I feel that there is a legitimate place for good humanitarian atheist views in the formation of democratic policy, but it is unlikely to be thoroughbred in nature. Indeed there are already atheists involved in policy making, they seem to be just as capable of screwing up as Christians, in that department. After all atheists come into a world whose social practices are steeped in religious traditions. Just what is unadulterated atheism? Judeo-Christian values also have some basic earlier sociologial values wired in. In the western world it is hard to see humanitarian atheist values as being much different to good Christian values, except for the God thing. In effect western atheism, it seems, would follow much of the ethos of the 'Ten Commandments' - minus numero uno.

Even in the heated debate over abortion, there are atheists and Christians for, and atheists and Christians against.

[CC]

good points........oddly enough, since I was raised as an atheist I guess, (and after seeing much hypocrisy in people who claimed to be beleievers) I've never viewed the world as "steeped in religious traditions. Come to think of it, aside from the birthdays of my immediate family, I'm not a very traditional kind of guy. (oh that's right, every year I always seek to out-do myself on valentine's day on the things I do my wife. I've written poems, put our baby pictures (a little messing with the computer made it appear as we were in the picture, but my wife is ten years younger than me and ten years wiser than myself.............:O)