TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Censorship
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Censorship

Again, you "liberal" europeans show your love of censorship:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=180326

As you can plainly see, opinions are suppressed on this "trance" web-site. All this time I thought people that listened to trance would be more open-minded about free speech, but I guess not.

Re: Censorship

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Again, you "liberal" europeans show your love of censorship: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=180326 As you can plainly see, opinions are suppressed on this "trance" web-site. All this time I thought people that listened to trance would be more open-minded about free speech, but I guess not.

This was "suppressed" because your "opinion" on the matter was extremely off-base and insulting, not to mention unsubstantiated and far-reaching without merit or support.

IOW, it was fucking idiotic of you to post it. You should have thought about your ridiculous and unfounded correlation between the 9/11 deaths and Iraqi prisoners being tortured prior to your posting it.

It is further idiotic of you to post a new thread on a thread that was closed as a result of your idiocy. I surmise the mods. will intervene pretty soon here, and I would also surmise they will give you a fair warning before performing similar acts in the future, if they have not already done so. I certainly don't speak for them, but they have been shown to be pretty wise and consistent on similar matters in the past.

So, time to be a good "grown-up", stop whining, get over it, and try to make stronger arguments in the future.

It is your opinion that my argument was off base.

I made the thread because I wanted to make a point that all we've heard about for the last week straight is about the Iraqi prisoneer abuse and I only wish the liberal media would give as much attention to the abuses done to the US and it's citizens or for that matter what Saddam did to millions of his citizens.

It was the same exact argument that Joe Scarborogh made on Scarborogh country last night on msnbc. I don't see him getting censored...

Opus, if you are an American you need to start sticking up for us, it's people like the ones on this web-board that are attacking us, not with bombs, but propoganda. You need to stand up and join me in defending our country because this anti-American propoganda is killing our fellow countryman.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen It is your opinion that my argument was off base. I made the thread because I wanted to make a point that all we've heard about for the last week straight is about the Iraqi prisoneer abuse and I only wish the liberal media would give as much attention to the abuses done to the US and it's citizens or for that matter what Saddam did to millions of his citizens. It was the same exact argument that Joe Scarborogh made on Scarborogh country last night on msnbc. I don't see him getting censored...

Putting the argument of Saddam vs. US torture aside for a moment, this is not the same argument your pictures of 9/11 implies in your previous thread. So without rehashing my point about an unsubstantiated connection between 9/11 deaths and Saddam, perhaps you could enlighten me on just exactly what you meant by posting 9/11 deaths vs. a number of U.S. military and private contractors torturing Iraqi prisoners.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Opus, if you are an American you need to start sticking up for us, it's people like the ones on this web-board that are attacking us, not with bombs, but propoganda. You need to stand up and join me in defending our country because this anti-American propoganda is killing our fellow countryman.

Us and them
Good and bad
"Defending your country"

Yeah your totally making yourself sound better and more resonable.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Opus, if you are an American you need to start sticking up for us, it's people like the ones on this web-board that are attacking us, not with bombs, but propoganda. You need to stand up and join me in defending our country because this anti-American propoganda is killing our fellow countryman.

What is more anti-American?

1. Military and private contractors deliberately stooping down to the level of terrorists by torturing Iraqi prisoners

-or-

2. Having that darned "liberal" media expose such atrocities as well as expose Administration officials like Rumsfeld deliberately withholding such vital info. from Congress as well as the President, not to mention the failure of our Joint Chief of Staff in the Pentagon not see the important 53-page memo about these atrocities?

By seeing the actions of those torturers involved, I just don't know how much more un-American you can get. How on earth could you possibly think otherwise?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Putting the argument of Saddam vs. US torture aside for a moment, this is not the same argument your pictures of 9/11 implies in your previous thread. So without rehashing my point about an unsubstantiated connection between 9/11 deaths and Saddam, perhaps you could enlighten me on just exactly what you meant by posting 9/11 deaths vs. a number of U.S. military and private contractors torturing Iraqi prisoners.

Ok, maybe my point wasn't clear. Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was to show a satire about how the media and masses blast us with these Iraqi prisoner abuse with front page headlines for 7 days straight, yet even the 9/11 jumpers got less press coverage. How often have you seen front page headlines with pictures showing Saddam's tourture men rape a woman and kill her in front of her family? How about the Cole bombing? I think it was talked about for about 2 days total. Um, the Madrid bombings, I only saw it on the news for about three days and even then they censored the pictures. The media is biased against the United States, that was my point.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 What is more anti-American? 1. Military and private contractors deliberately stooping down to the level of terrorists by torturing Iraqi prisoners -or- 2. Having that darned "liberal" media expose such atrocities as well as expose Administration officials like Rumsfeld deliberately withholding such vital info. from Congress as well as the President, not to mention the failure of our Joint Chief of Staff in the Pentagon not see the important 53-page memo about these atrocities? By seeing the actions of those torturers involved, I just don't know how much more un-American you can get. How on earth could you possibly think otherwise?

Those are both extremely Anti-american ideals. But. Don't you get it, it's people like Dervish that see these headlines and use it as fuel to add to their anti-American fire.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Those are both extremely Anti-american ideals. But. Don't you get it, it's people like Dervish that see these headlines and use it as fuel to add to their anti-American fire.

I'm not anti-american atall.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Ok, maybe my point wasn't clear. Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was to show a satire about how the media and masses blast us with these Iraqi prisoner abuse with front page headlines for 7 days straight, yet even the 9/11 jumpers got less press coverage. How often have you seen front page headlines with pictures showing Saddam's tourture men rape a woman and kill her in front of her family? How about the Cole bombing? I think it was talked about for about 2 days total. Um, the Madrid bombings, I only saw it on the news for about three days and even then they censored the pictures. The media is biased against the United States, that was my point.

I can't tell you how often I saw those pictures of people jumping on 9/11. Those pictures were in the news a helluva lot, so where were you?

As for the Madrid and Cole bombings, I believe they were talked about a great deal more than you are attempting to persuade. I certainly recall seeing the Madrid coverage for at least a week or two, as well as the pictures of the dead and injured. Again, where were you?

The reason why the media is latching onto these pictures is pretty simple: it's unbelievable that Americans, let alone military men and women would act in such a way. The public wants so badly to hold themselves to such high standards. It is my assertion that this is the very essence why the public does not want to believe in a great many misleading actions this current Administration has done, but I digress. The important fact of the matter is these actions are completely un-American, as you yourself agree to, and it is quite sensational to cover.

Furthermore, it is becoming all too evident just how scandalous this is, and much more will be revealed in the coming days and weeks as they follow up the chain as to just how far this miscommunication/willful ignorance has gone. To drive home the message of just how scandalous this is, the media is going to jump all over it with as much sensationalism as possible. Is that the right thing to do? In my opinion, absolutely, because it was the MEDIA itself that broke the story to the public, not the Administration itself. Are the pictures getting too much playing time? Perhaps, but sheesh, it is hardly "liberal" minded to do so.

How many times did you hear about Monica Lewinsky?

I've posted this before, but Bill Clinton's "draft dodging" received 13,641 major news stories during his election campaign, while GW Bush's desertion merit only 49 during his 2000 campaign. Is that a liberal slant in any way?

The media is hardly liberal, but it is sensationalistic. Like any business, it's after the $, and it's ratings through sensationalism are the means to that end.

And next time you post pictures of that sort to explain a symbolic message, please try explaining yourself a little better. They had multiple meanings, and as shown, some folks received the wrong impression (myself included).

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Ok, maybe my point wasn't clear. Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was to show a satire about how the media and masses blast us with these Iraqi prisoner abuse with front page headlines for 7 days straight, yet even the 9/11 jumpers got less press coverage. How often have you seen front page headlines with pictures showing Saddam's tourture men rape a woman and kill her in front of her family? How about the Cole bombing? I think it was talked about for about 2 days total. Um, the Madrid bombings, I only saw it on the news for about three days and even then they censored the pictures. The media is biased against the United States, that was my point.

Your point was far from clear!

hence that threads closure.

The media will blast us with what ever sells thier papers and whatever gets us tuned to thier news channel -
Sensationalism.

i hardly think the media is biased against any one person or any one country, they are biased to one thing - making money!

At the time of the terrible events at the WTC, the media was focused on the plight of America and the victims and victims familes and extremly biased against Turkey and Iraq and supported the following wars.
BUT as soon as an innocent victim gets killed in iraq or turkey the media is then covering that and biased against the countries involved in the conflicts.

The Media will always sensationalise whatever they think will sell.
They don't give a flying fuck for the ppl involved in the news they tell.

Two of my pet hates - The Media & Religion
I would love to see Honest Journalism and a Religion that helps more people than it harms but that is just a dream that shall never come true.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Those are both extremely Anti-american ideals. But. Don't you get it, it's people like Dervish that see these headlines and use it as fuel to add to their anti-American fire.

Dervish is hardly anti-American, and he is hardly your problem. I believe these disgusting individuals who willfully tortured prisoners give plenty of fuel on their own. Combine that with Bush invading a country on false pretenses (WMD?); Rummy believing we'll be welcome with "open-arms"; Rummy supposedly knowing that WMD are located "somewhere around Tikrit"(nothing found, of course); Rummy, Cheney, and the rest of the neo-cons listening steadfastly and unwaveringly to a known criminal, liar, and conman, Ahmed Chalabi (whom is still on our payroll and serving his own interests in the Iraqi Governing Council) who got us into this mess in the first place, despite the criticism from the Pentagon and State Dept.; and now Rummy and the DOD failing to let Congress and his President know the atrocities of these tortures.

That last point, BTW, is debatable. There are reports that Bush knew about the tortures, but did nothing about them:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...-home-headlines

quote:

White House officials revealed that Bush was made aware in late December or early January of allegations of abuse at the prison.

Now as Occ pointed out to me in another thread, he may have been aware of the allegations without knowing the results of the investigation, but this shit was reported on CNN back in January:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/20/sprj.nirq.abuse/

So they mean to tell me that the President did not see these pictures? I guess I have to concede that possibility, considering Bush himself doesn't read the paper or news, and has staff members read selective headlines and stories to him every morning.

So to sum up, we've got plenty of un-American problems to deal with, and I personally believe a number of those problems stem from our current Administration itself, let alone our military.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I've posted this before, but Bill Clinton's "draft dodging" received 13,641 major news stories during his election campaign, while GW Bush's desertion merit only 49 during his 2000 campaign. Is that a liberal slant in any way?

Bush released his records and he did not desert so there isn't any proof for that claim, and that is why there were so few stories.

Fuzzy, this is the big boy's table.

Maybe you should go sit at the children's table.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Bush released his records and he did not desert so there isn't any proof for that claim, and that is why there were so few stories.

This is getting off topic, but let's look at what was released in terms of Bush's records:


Jan. 6, 1973 USAF Dental Exam Record for 1st Lt. George W. Bush:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...b10673dent.html

Memorandum of Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, Jr. (Ret.) (Analysis of Military Payroll Records for George W. Bush for service from 1972 to 1973) (undated memorandum):
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...73lloydmem.html

USAF Reserve Personnel Record Card for 1st Lt. George W. Bush (Covers period from 27 May 1972 to 26 May 1973):
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...3usaf-rprc.html

ARF 1st Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973):
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...-73arfspe1.html

ARF 2nd Statement of Points Earned by 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1973):
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...b73arfspe2.html

Military Payroll Records of 1st Lt. George W. Bush (1972-1973):
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/...3milpay-p1.html

These are SELECTIVE records that were released. We are still missing:

-Bush's DD-214
-Any pages from Bush's flight log
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Anything proving service by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973

Plus, I personally want to know just how Bush got into the Texas Guard in the first place, considering he scored a 25% on his entrance exam. I also want to personally know why our patriotic wartime President asked to stay in the U.S., and not wish to serve his time over in the Vietnam War?

Bush has yet to answer the following events, despite the selected records he's given to the press:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain615317.shtml

quote:

In 2000, Mr. Bush said he missed the physical because his family doctor was in Texas. But, as Time magazine reports, Air Force surgeons must perform the physicals and there was no surgeon shortage in Alabama. In March 2004, the White House said Mr. Bush did not need the physical because he was not flying. Regardless of these speculations, there is no record of any investigation in Mr. Bush's file. As Moore concludes, "A pilot simply did not walk away from all of that training with two years remaining on his tour of duty without a formal explanation as to what happened and why." Pay stubs released in February show that he was paid for enough days in Alabama to be judged "satisfactory," but that he did not do any duty between April 16 and October 28, 1972, and that he failed to show up for training in December 1972, February 1973 and March 1973. There is nothing in the records from that key period beyond those pay stubs � no evaluations from either Mr. Bush's Alabama supervisors or his Texas ones. In fact, Mr. Bush's Texas evaluators wrote on May 2, 1973 that, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187th Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." But no Alabama records exist. And Mr. Bush's official discharge papers include no evidence of any duty between May 1972 and October 1973, when he left the Guard.

There's also the question on him moving to Alabama without permission:

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunher...ion/7932511.htm

And I've posted all this before, but it's pretty damn obvious that Bush and the Pentagon are stonewalling the hell out of this issue:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/brea...te=200431401040

quote:

At the National Guard Bureau, now headed by a Bush appointee from Texas, officials last week said they were under orders not to answer questions. The bureau's chief historian said he couldn't discuss questions about Bush's military service on orders from the Pentagon. ��If it has to do with George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Vietnam War, I can't talk with you,� said Charles Gross, chief historian for the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C. Rose Bird, Freedom of Information Act officer for the bureau, said her office stopped taking records requests on Bush's military service in mid-February and is directing all inquiries to the Pentagon. She would not provide a reason. Air Force and Texas Air National Guard officials did not respond to written questions about the issue. James Hogan, a records coordinator at the Pentagon, said senior Defense Department officials had directed the National Guard Bureau not to respond to questions about Bush's military records.

Is that enough "proof" to the claim for you?

Jeez, Opus--you should be a trial lawyer!

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Fuzzy, this is the big boy's table. Maybe you should go sit at the children's table.

Blow me.

Maybe you should shut the fuck up.

Wooohooo! I'm going to grab a beer and some doritos. This is going to be entertaining!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Is that enough "proof" to the claim for you?

I supose.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen I supose.

Thank you for the acknowledgement. Now I'm willing to stear back to the main topic if are are. I hope that I showed that the torture pictures are worth examining and discussed, and I hoped the point about the media being not so much political but sensationalistic was fairly well made by me and Wicked Neo. Do you have anything further to add, or a refutation to make?

there is this one person on this board i cannot stand, his name is fuzzygreen...

hats of for opus who stand to argue against him

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen Opus, if you are an American you need to start sticking up for us, it's people like the ones on this web-board that are attacking us, not with bombs, but propoganda. You need to stand up and join me in defending our country because this anti-American propoganda is killing our fellow countryman.

First of all, i guess it's ignorant people like you who makes people hate america. If you where the only american i had met in my life, i sure would be anti america too. you don't give a blanty shit about anything that doesn't think like america. fortunaly, i know better, and is not anti american. but ffs i can critisize america, without beeing totally anti america. actually i would say there is rather few "anti americans" on this board, far more anti arabic (for example you).

and if you don't realise the awfulness in american "liberators" torturing iraqi people... i guess you would be pretty pissed of if someone came and invaded US to liberate you, and tortured your fellow countrymen. would you think the media would be biased if they reported about it?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew you don't give a blanty shit about anything that doesn't think like america. and if you don't realise the awfulness in american "liberators" torturing iraqi people... i guess you would be pretty pissed of if someone came and invaded US to liberate you, and tortured your fellow countrymen. would you think the media would be biased if they reported about it?

I just learned a new adjective: Blanty. I like it, though I can't find it in the dictionary!

Secondly, and with the disclaimer that I do believe that what those soldiers did was terrible and wrong and certainly hurts America's image worldwide...

So far as we know (And I hear that there are worse pictures to come), there was no bodily harm done to these prisoners, rather they were made to do humiliating and embarassing acts that look more like fraternity hazing than torture to me. That doesn't make it right, but let's not overstate the situation. Again, they were not physically brutalized, they were merely put in humiliating and embarassing situations, so far as we know at this point.

And let's not also forget context. The prisoners are not innocents, rather these are the same people that were rioting in the streets, murdering contractors, smashing their bodies with sticks and hanging their remains from bridges in the streets, and then celebrating about it. Much worse things could've happened to them than to just be put in stupid, embarassing situations.

But, with that said, I certainly don't condone the actions of the few soldiers who are getting egg all over the face of the U.S., and I will reserve further judgement until more evidence comes out that will proove/disproove whether or not any serious harm was inflicted on the prisoners. Unfortunately, it sounds like it could get worse, but until it does, my stance is thus: The Americans were clearly wrong, however the prisoners were certainly not innocent--i.e. both groups are worthy of disdain.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I just learned a new adjective: Blanty. I like it, though I can't find it in the dictionary! Secondly, and with the disclaimer that I do believe that what those soldiers did was terrible and wrong and certainly hurts America's image worldwide... So far as we know (And I hear that there are worse pictures to come), there was no bodily harm done to these prisoners, rather they were made to do humiliating and embarassing acts that look more like fraternity hazing than torture to me. That doesn't make it right, but let's not overstate the situation. Again, they were not physically brutalized, they were merely put in humiliating and embarassing situations, so far as we know at this point. And let's not also forget context. The prisoners are not innocents, rather these are the same people that were rioting in the streets, murdering contractors, smashing their bodies with sticks and hanging their remains from bridges in the streets, and then celebrating about it. Much worse things could've happened to them than to just be put in stupid, embarassing situations. But, with that said, I certainly don't condone the actions of the few soldiers who are getting egg all over the face of the U.S., and I will reserve further judgement until more evidence comes out that will proove/disproove whether or not any serious harm was inflicted on the prisoners. Unfortunately, it sounds like it could get worse, but until it does, my stance is thus: The Americans were clearly wrong, however the prisoners were certainly not innocent--i.e. both groups are worthy of disdain.

I dunno, this argument of defining "torture" is a little too Clintonesque for me (definition of "is"?)

In light of today's testimony, I do appreciate the fact that Rummy made a full apology and fessed up to being ultimatately responsible. It's truly the first time I heard anyone in this Admin. take responsibility for anything negative. Aside of the apology, however, Rummy went back to his old self of dodge and befuddle.

One other thing to note - Bush still has yet to read the 53-page report. Will he ever read anything, damnit?!?

About the bodily harm thing, apparently some British troops have been beating prisoners up. But right now there are serious question marks about it being true.

But whatever the truth in this matter is the damage has been done.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.