[dcolton]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Suprised this hasn't been posted yet. During a time of war, should the US censor the media of occupied nations?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by dcolton:
During a time of war, should the US censor the media of occupied nations?

No.


Doesn't stop them from doing so though.

[Developer]

Originally posted by dcolton:
During a time of war, should the US censor the media of occupied nations?

I would probably say yes if the paper is inciting violence against coalition troops.
American soldiers are people too whose lifes are as precious as everybody else's.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
No.


Doesn't stop them from doing so though.

It's that whole "Liberate them but don't free them" thingy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Developer:
I would probably say yes if the paper is inciting violence against coalition troops.
American soldiers are people too whose lifes are as precious as everybody else's.

From the article, though, no actual copy from the paper was provided, only the coalition's POV on what the paper was doing:

The Coalition Provisional Authority accused the paper's editors of printing articles that incited violence against U.S. and other coalition troops -- a violation of coalition regulations.

The building was sealed, and anyone caught attempting to publish the paper could face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Sadr is the son of Shiite imam Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, a prominent leader assassinated in 1999. A vocal critic of the American occupation of Iraq, he has a substantial following in the Shiite district of Baghdad that now bears his father's name.

In July, Iraqi police closed a newspaper they accused of running a "clearly inciteful" article calling on Iraqis to kill "all spies and those who cooperate with the U.S."

Note that that last example was of a different publication, closed down in July.
I would be interested in knowing the exact content that precipitated the action in this case, beyond some vague CPA accusations.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Developer:
I would probably say yes if the paper is inciting violence against coalition troops.
American soldiers are people too whose lifes are as precious as everybody else's.

And what exactly constitutes 'inciting violence against coalition troops'? Voicing concern over the continuing occupation? So what's the alternative opinion? Support for the troop presence?

This is a hazy phrase which ultimately boils down to the 'coalition' attempting to silence any kind of opposing opinion. In other words this is quite plainly, censorship.

But again, no surprises there.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
It's that whole "Liberate them but don't free them" thingy.

So we let them incite violence and perhaps send hidden messages to killers to commence killing?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So we let them incite violence and perhaps send hidden messages to killers to commence killing?

proof? linky? read my post above.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
And what exactly constitutes 'inciting violence against coalition troops'? Voicing concern over the continuing occupation? So what's the alternative opinion? Support for the troop presence?

This is a hazy phrase which ultimately boils down to the 'coalition' attempting to silence any kind of opposing opinion. In other words this is quite plainly, censorship.

But again, no surprises there.

Of course there are no suprises for you. It is a time of WAR. People die...and no matter what side you are on...you should realize that if the paper is inciting violennce, no one benefits. But of course, you probably have the same opinion/ support/ sympathy for Iraqi terrorists as you do the Palestinian Terrorists.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Of course there are no suprises for you. It is a time of WAR. People die...and no matter what side you are on...you should realize that if the paper is inciting violennce, no one benefits. But of course, you probably have the same opinion/ support/ sympathy for Iraqi terrorists as you do the Palestinian Terrorists.

do we have to have these "you're a terrorist sympathizer" bullcrap speedbumps getting in the way of discussion in EVERY thread you're in?

read my post above. Nothing of the content of what the paper printed was provided.

That's the really cool thing about censorship and eliminating people's free speech: you get to accuse them of all sorts of things but don't have to actually prove it or anything.

[Lerkfish]

(be a pepper) I'm a terrorist sympathizer, we're a terrorist sympathizer, wouldn't you like to be a terrorist sympathizer, too....(/sung to the tune of "be a pepper")

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
That's the really cool thing about censorship and eliminating people's free speech: you get to accuse them of all sorts of things but don't have to actually prove it or anything.

Exactly my point. Thank you Lerk.

You can't seem to deal with my arguments, dcolton. You can keep telling yourself that I'm a terrorist, but really it just goes to show that you can't oppose my points, so you try and stifle them with your bullsh1t accusations --> Exactly like what the coalition is attempting to do in Iraq.

It's cool though, keep at it, it's quite amusing.

[zachs]

Apparently, this is what was so bad, that warranted shutting down the newspaper:

The letter cited what coalition officials described as false reports, including a Feb. 26 article that said a rocket "fired by an (American) Apache helicopter" was responsible for the deaths of 53 Iraqi police recruits, and not a car bomb, as occupation officials had said. In the same edition, the letter noted, a headline to a different article critical of the U.S. occupation in Iraq read: "Bremer follows in the footsteps of Saddam.""

Since when is reporting an alternate version of an official story inciting violence? How does comparing Bremer to Saddam encourage attacks? Bremer may disagree, but that certainly does not justify closing down the newspaper because it expresses differing viewpoints.

[Logic]

Originally posted by zachs:
Apparently, this is what was so bad, that warranted shutting down the newspaper:



Since when is reporting an alternate version of an official story inciting violence? How does comparing Bremer to Saddam encourage attacks? Bremer may disagree, but that certainly does not justify closing down the newspaper because it expresses differing viewpoints.

Of course it does. It's the American version of the free press.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zachs:
Apparently, this is what was so bad, that warranted shutting down the newspaper:



Since when is reporting an alternate version of an official story inciting violence? How does comparing Bremer to Saddam encourage attacks? Bremer may disagree, but that certainly does not justify closing down the newspaper because it expresses differing viewpoints.

see? now you see why I wanted to know the exact content under scrutiny.

also interesting from the article:

"That chain you see on the door is one of the American symbols of freedom," Ali Alyassari, the editor, told The Washington Post after leaving the Al-Hawza office. "Do you think this is political freedom?"

"What is happening now is what used to happen during the days of Saddam. No freedom of opinion. It is like the days of the Baath," said Hussam Abdel-Kadhim, 25, a vendor who took part in the demonstration, referring to the Baath Party that ruled Iraq for 35 years until Saddam Hussein was ousted a year ago.

Many newspapers and television stations have cropped up since the fall of the Hussein regime. However, a law passed by occupation authorities in June states that a news organization must be licensed to operate in Iraq and that license can be revoked if the outlet publishes or broadcasts content that foments civil disorder, violence, or "advocates alterations to Iraq's borders by violent means."

In July, the coalition closed another Baghdad newspaper, Al-Mustaqila, and arrested its office manager for publishing an article July 13 calling for "death to all spies and those who cooperate with the U.S."

In September 2003, the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council banned two Arabic television networks, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, from broadcasting in Iraq due to coverage that was considered irresponsible. The ban on Al-Arabiya was lifted in January

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Of course there are no suprises for you. It is a time of WAR. People die...and no matter what side you are on...you should realize that if the paper is inciting violennce, no one benefits. But of course, you probably have the same opinion/ support/ sympathy for Iraqi terrorists as you do the Palestinian Terrorists.

You must be doing something right, because they are out to get you in this thread.
Gang-like.

Watch your back, they like to snipe like little b*tches.
It must be WW. Whitehouse-withdrawls, and it is only going to get worse as the elections near and it becomes painfully clear that their man isn't going to win.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Logic:
Of course it does. It's the American version of the free press.

"As long as I don't write about the government, religion, politics, and other institutions, I am free to print anything."
-- Pierre-Augustin Beaumarchais, French comedy writer

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You must be doing something right, because they are out to get you in this thread.
Gang-like.

Watch your back, they like to snipe like little b*tches.
It must be WW. Whitehouse-withdrawls, and it is only going to get worse as the elections near and it becomes painfully clear that their man isn't going to win.

too much medication or not enough medication?

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
and it is only going to get worse as the elections near and it becomes painfully clear that their man isn't going to win.

Just like Bush in 2000, right?

[Lerkfish]

BOT:
One wonders at the concept of censoring Iraqi press while simultaneously piping in coalition-friendly broadcasts sponsored by our govt.

I'm puzzled how controlling the media in this way is much different than Saddam?

Where's the beef? (in terms of free democracy for Iraq)

[zachs]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
BOT:
One wonders at the concept of censoring Iraqi press while simultaneously piping in coalition-friendly broadcasts sponsored by our govt.

I'm puzzled how controlling the media in this way is much different than Saddam?

Where's the beef? (in terms of free democracy for Iraq)

But...America is righteous. How dare you say the U.S. did something wrong..you're a terrorist sympathizer!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
too much medication or not enough medication?

Personally I think it is, as it's name says, a very passing and barely noticeable thingy...

[swrate]

right, are we terrorists? we don't wear colts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dcolton:
Of course there are no suprises for you. It is a time of WAR. People die...and no matter what side you are on...you should realize that if the paper is inciting violennce, no one benefits. But of course, you probably have the same opinion/ support/ sympathy for Iraqi terrorists as you do the Palestinian Terrorists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must be doing something right, because they are out to get you in this thread.
Gang-like.

Watch your back, they like to snipe like little b*tches.
It must be WW. Whitehouse-withdrawls, and it is only going to get worse as the elections near and it becomes painfully clear that their man isn't going to win.

no, its coW bush Western,
hear the bull its

Wouldn't many US citizens call for resistance if a foreign army decided your MP was a dictator?
"get you gang like?"
Iraq press.... yes, of course, we are the terrorists because we fear baby bush may cheat on the elections again.


it makes lots of sense, lol
PS: the word terrorist is trendy by posters with weapons ...

[dcolton]

Of cours you people don't understand. It is war and the goal, when in a war...IS TO WIN! Doesn't matter if Lerk or LBK or any other person or group of people oppose the war...IT IS WAR and the goal is to win...to limit the death toll of Coaliton forces, and to [b]STAMP OUT[b] the enemy.

What if secret messages are being printed in the paper? Do we allow that. What if the paper gets bold and incites more violence? But it doesn't matter...because people like you guys aren't worried about American lives, stability or anything else. You just want an excuse to bash Bush and America.

You just don't get it. We are at war. Military and civilian lives are lost EVERYDAY. Any little thing the US and the provisional government can do to prevent death is justified...whether you like it or not...

Or do you prefer letting the terrorists do whatever they please and cause even more bloodshed?

Swrate,

I would consider a bomb a weapon. What do you consider it to be?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You must be doing something right, because they are out to get you in this thread.
Gang-like.

Watch your back, they like to snipe like little b*tches.
It must be WW. Whitehouse-withdrawls, and it is only going to get worse as the elections near and it becomes painfully clear that their man isn't going to win.

Yep. I didn't know I had to be a card holding liberal when I switched to apple.

[zachs]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Of cours you people don't understand. It is war and the goal, when in a war...IS TO WIN! Doesn't matter if Lerk or LBK or any other person or group of people oppose the war...IT IS WAR and the goal is to win...to limit the death toll of Coaliton forces, and to STAMP OUT the enemy.

And shutting down a newspaper accomplishes this...how?

What if secret messages are being printed in the paper? Do we allow that. What if the paper gets bold and incites more violence?

What violence has it incited in the past?

But it doesn't matter...because people like you guys aren't worried about American lives, stability or anything else. You just want an excuse to bash Bush and America.

Well here we go with the "you're anti-American!!" rhetoric. Again.

You just don't get it. We are at war. Military and civilian lives are lost EVERYDAY. Any little thing the US and the provisional government can do to prevent death is justified...whether you like it or not...

Again, please show evidence that this newspaper was inciting violence.

Or do you prefer letting the terrorists do whatever they please and cause even more bloodshed?

Do you have any arguement, other than to insinuate that anyone opposed to this war is sympathetic to the terrorists? Any at all?

[swrate]

I don't consider press to be a "bomb" unless there is evidence the censored newspaper incited to murder and to be violent.
The article which caused that newspaper to be closed is not mentioned.

Take away freedom, there will be a resolution to say no, and one more reason for the shias to engage into mortal combat.imo

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
[B]Of cours you people don't understand. It is war and the goal, when in a war...IS TO WIN! Doesn't matter if Lerk or LBK or any other person or group of people oppose the war...IT IS WAR and the goal is to win...to limit the death toll of Coaliton forces, and to [b]STAMP OUT the enemy.

What if secret messages are being printed in the paper? Do we allow that. What if the paper gets bold and incites more violence? But it doesn't matter...because people like you guys aren't worried about American lives, stability or anything else. You just want an excuse to bash Bush and America.

You just don't get it. We are at war. Military and civilian lives are lost EVERYDAY. Any little thing the US and the provisional government can do to prevent death is justified...whether you like it or not...

Or do you prefer letting the terrorists do whatever they please and cause even more bloodshed?

Swrate,

I would consider a bomb a weapon. What do you consider it to be?

dude, where's my CAR???!!!!

read further up, you'll see a link that there were no secret messages, no incitement to violence, merely editorials complaining about the US occupation and comparing Bremen to Saddam.

You really need to get a grip. If you go off every thread and accuse people of being terrorists or being terrorist sympathizers, you are going to pop that little vein in your neck in no time.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
dude, where's my CAR???!!!!

read further up, you'll see a link that there were no secret messages, no incitement to violence, merely editorials complaining about the US occupation and comparing Bremen to Saddam.

You really need to get a grip. If you go off every thread and accuse people of being terrorists or being terrorist sympathizers, you are going to pop that little vein in your neck in no time.

There goes Lerk with the personal insults again. Never ceases, but when I fight back...he tells on me.

Whether you like it or not...we are in a warzone in Iraq. War means people are trying to take your life away - without predjudice. Complaining about the occupation and comparing Breman to Saddam IS inciting violence, whether it is implied or not. Fostering hate and criticism of a benevolent occupying force IS inciting terrorism. It isn't constructive and is devised only to breed contempt. As you like to say...everything isn't so black and white!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
benevolent

you must be right.

[zachs]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There goes Lerk with the personal insults again. Never ceases, but when I fight back...he tells on me.

Um...what "personal insults"?

Whether you like it or not...we are in a warzone in Iraq.

Didn't know that.

War means people are trying to take your life away - without predjudice. Complaining about the occupation and comparing Breman to Saddam IS inciting violence, whether it is implied or not.

What an absurd idea. Criticism of the government, and in this case Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are the government, is one of our fundamental freedoms. By denying people that right, we are doing exactly what Saddam did - like it or not.

Fostering hate and criticism of a benevolent occupying force IS inciting terrorism. It isn't constructive and is devised only to breed contempt. As you like to say...everything isn't so black and white!

BENEVOLENT occupying force? Take a look here, then come back and say that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
There goes Lerk with the personal insults again. Never ceases, but when I fight back...he tells on me.

Whether you like it or not...we are in a warzone in Iraq. War means people are trying to take your life away - without predjudice. Complaining about the occupation and comparing Breman to Saddam IS inciting violence, whether it is implied or not. Fostering hate and criticism of a benevolent occupying force IS inciting terrorism. It isn't constructive and is devised only to breed contempt. As you like to say...everything isn't so black and white!

so...they're allowed to have a "free" press as long as they completely agree and support the occupation. If they veer from that fawning support, they're accused of inciting violence....am I understanding you correctly?

This is why you accuse me and other posters here of being terrorist sympathizers, because we do not unwaveringly support the Bush administration policies as mindless fawning sycophants?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by zachs:
[B]
What an absurd idea. Criticism of the government, and in this case Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are the government, is one of our fundamental freedoms. By denying people that right, we are doing exactly what Saddam did - like it or not.

Not in a time of war. Freedom of the press is even limited in the US during war. Do you value peace? Do you value life?

BENEVOLENT occupying force? Take a look here, then come back and say that.

How about we treat the Iraqi's like the Jews treat palestinians? How about evertime some little punk throws a rock at an American soldier, we shoot them. Why don't we rape and pillage. Raze everything meaningful and suck the spirit right out of the Iraqi's.

Why restore electricity to a higher level? Why worry about food and drinking water...why put American lives in jeopardy to make sure everyone is fed. Why spend billions restoring Iraq? YES, WE ARE A BENOVELENT OCCUPYING FORCE! Iraq is going to be better than pre-occupation. Where is the thanks?

[

[zachs]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Not in a time of war. Freedom of the press is even limited in the US during war. Do you value peace? Do you value life?

I value peace. I value life. I also value freedom.

How about we treat the Iraqi's like the Jews treat palestinians? How about evertime some little punk throws a rock at an American soldier, we shoot them. Why don't we rape and pillage. Raze everything meaningful and suck the spirit right out of the Iraqi's.

Yup. That's it! That's the way to liberate the Iraqi people!

Why restore electricity to a higher level? Why worry about food and drinking water...why put American lives in jeopardy to make sure everyone is fed. Why spend billions restoring Iraq? YES, WE ARE A BENOVELENT OCCUPYING FORCE! Iraq is going to be better than pre-occupation. Where is the thanks?

Stop deluding yourself into thinking we are benevolent. We are not, and it's shown by the over 10,000 Iraqis who have been killed.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
I value peace. I value life. I also value freedom.



Yup. That's it! That's the way to liberate the Iraqi people!



Stop deluding yourself into thinking we are benevolent. We are not, and it's shown by the over 10,000 Iraqis who have been killed.

You have a fixation with 10,000 people who have died.
How many have died at the hand of Saddam Hussein? Can you count that high?

Do you now how many innocent people died during WWII from American Bombs?
It's called LIBERATION and the destruction of a horrible dictator.
Do you think we were wrong to join WWII when we did? Should we have not waited and then acted after being attacked by Japan? I think the important thing is, we did act, and because of the USA, millions of Jews, and others were saved from a lunatic and his reich.

There is a new REICH, and now they are using terrorist techniques to attack. They don't have a homeland, they exist in all sorts of places and are given aid by all sorts of leaders.
We are attacking them at the source.

How would you liberate them? Like Clinton? Send a few cruise missles to an EMPTY camp?
Bomb an aspirin factory?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
benevolent

In what way?

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You have a fixation with 10,000 people who have died.
How many have died at the hand of Saddam Hussein? Can you count that high?

Do you know how many people have died under other regimes? Regimes that we support?

Do you now how many innocent people died during WWII from American Bombs?
It's called LIBERATION and the destruction of a horrible dictator.
Do you think we were wrong to join WWII when we did? Should we have not waited and then acted after being attacked by Japan?I think the important thing is, we did act, and because of the USA, millions of Jews, and others were saved from a lunatic and his reich.

Key word: after. Our entry into World War II wasn't a pre-emptive strike.

There is a new REICH, and now they are using terrorist techniques to attack. They don't have a homeland, they exist in all sorts of places and are given aid by all sorts of leaders.
We are attacking them at the source.

Their source is not Iraq.

How would you liberate them? Like Clinton? Send a few cruise missles to an EMPTY camp?
Bomb an aspirin factory?

I didn't hear any significant talk about "liberation" until after we invaded.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
Do you know how many people have died under other regimes? Regimes that we support?
You want to hang that on Bush?
What about Clinton? Did he suddenly stop all support for these regimes you suddenly want to discuss? Can you stay on topic?

Key word: after. Our entry into World War II wasn't a pre-emptive strike.
Just think how many we could have saved if it were pre-emptive!


Their source is not Iraq. (He supported Al Queda, but that isn't why we invaded them, as much as you would foamanate that we did... He lied, and because the UN resolutions were not working, acted legally to remove the regime.)



I didn't hear any significant talk about "liberation" until after we invaded.

WTF? Does the word "CRACK" have any meaning to you? Like you must be on something to come back with that one...

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
(He supported Al Queda, but that isn't why we invaded them, as much as you would foamanate that we did... He lied, and because the UN resolutions were not working, acted legally to remove the regime.)

Never mind the fact that Colin Powell has admitted that there is no concrete evidence of an Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Never mind the fact that plently of other contries have violated UN resolutions.

Never mind any of that.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
You want to hang that on Bush?

I never said I wanted to hang it on Bush. But he did triple aid to Uzbekistan in 2002. You know, the country whose government arrests, tortures, and kills thousands each year.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
I never said I wanted to hang it on Bush. But he did triple aid to Uzbekistan in 2002. You know, the country whose government arrests, tortures, and kills thousands each year.

Nice sidetrack from the issue at hand.

BTW: Did you know that 88 percent of Uzbekistanians are muslim?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/uz.html

Enjoy.

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Nice sidetrack from the issue at hand.

My point is, why are we tripling aid to a country that oppresses its people, at the same time denouncing Saddam for doing the same?

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by zachs:
My point is, why are we tripling aid to a country that oppresses its people, at the same time denouncing Saddam for doing the same?

I think you should write your congressman.

Can you answer my question? Did Clinton stop this?
Who cares about this with the thread at hand. Begin your own rogue regime thread...

Sheesh. It is obvious you have nothing to say on topic!\\

[Lerkfish]

I"m really confused how any of this has to do with the US government censoring Iraqi press.

BOT:
A lot more could be accomplished by Iraq having an unmolested press, at the moment.
After all, weren't we supposed to be winning the "hearts and minds"?
State-controlled propaganda masquerading as press they've already had enough of. How about we let them have something different?

[zachs]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I think you should write your congressman.

Can you answer my question? Did Clinton stop this?
Who cares about this with the thread at hand. Begin your own rogue regime thread...

Sheesh. It is obvious you have nothing to say on topic!\\

Wanna get back to the issue at hand? Then how about you explain why we should or shouldn't be shutting down newspapers that simply publish views that are critical of the ruling government. I've already explained why I thought that shouldn't happen.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"m really confused how any of this has to do with the US government censoring Iraqi press.

BOT:
A lot more could be accomplished by Iraq having an unmolested press, at the moment.
After all, weren't we supposed to be winning the "hearts and minds"?
State-controlled propaganda masquerading as press they've already had enough of. How about we let them have something different?

Maybe we can just wait a bit, until they have their own governement in place, and then let those in power decide?

What is with these "Microwave-minds" in here.

Go read a history book, on occupations and the freedom of the press.
This isn't new here, and anything you can scrape up to sound bad, you will.

I will agree with the fact that you are "confused", and it happens quite often.
Do you drink enough water? Drink more. It's good for the brain.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Maybe we can just wait a bit, until they have their own governement in place, and then let those in power decide?

What is with these "Microwave-minds" in here.

Go read a history book, on occupations and the freedom of the press.
This isn't new here, and anything you can scrape up to sound bad, you will.

I will agree with the fact that you are "confused", and it happens quite often.
Do you drink enough water? Drink more. It's good for the brain.

Thanks for picking up the slack while I was gone ghost!
I did notice that there never was a response to my last post....I wonder why?

Anyway. We're on the same page buddy. To everyone else,..welcome to the real world.

[zachs]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Thanks for picking up the slack while I was gone ghost!
I did notice that there never was a response to my last post....I wonder why?

Please read

Thanks.