 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
 Discussion Forums
 Talk Talk Talk
 Acoustic Guitar Player for World Peace (Page 9)
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! This topic is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Acoustic Guitar Player for World Peace |
|
LoopySanchez Member |
posted 01-21-2003 03:40 PM
   
I didn't type it into a translator, but I suspected that the quote was along the lines of "Praise be to Allah". It's been used in as a war cry for Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and I seriously doubt if its context was any different when uttered by the anti-American speaker at this rally. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be able to protest peacefully and speak any opinions they want to. That's the beautiful thing about our nation--The very fact that people who hate it can live without fear of imprisonment, and can actually voice their hatred openly to anyone who will listen does more to defeat their own words than any attempt to repress them ever could. My main point is simply that there was a blatant display of sympathy for the Islamic terrorists spoken at this rally, and there was outright condemnation of America. Some small degree of it deserved? Quite possibly. But attacking one nation's role in the world while pretending that our enemies are somehow morally superior does a disservice to everyone. My ultimate goal was to point out that the major TV news media will not portray that side of the story, but if instead of a radical left-wing, anti-American, anti-white rally (Some of the speakers have at previous times endorsed a "Kill Whitey" philosophy), it had been the polar opposite, I contend that the coverage would have dominated the airwaves in all the ways I listed. I do apologize if my poor analogy of the Islamic war cry to the words of Hitler was cause for offense. I was merely attempting to draw from extremes on the left and right to make my point about unbalanced coverage of radical speech clearer. America's not perfect. The people who use religious doctrine to justify destroying America while at the same time condoning behavior that prevents their cultures from promoting religious and economic freedoms that have made America something worth hating are not perfect either. Perhaps on this small point we can all agree? Peace, LS |
|
Ethel the Monkey Member |
posted 01-21-2003 04:04 PM
Loopy, it sounds like you believe that none of the people in the US who protested against war in Iraq are doing it out of love for their country. While I imagine that there are probably some US haters who participate in these protests, I would suggest that there are many, many more who are doing it precisely because they love this country, and they feel that it is being harmed by our current government. But it's not really for us to say what's in the hearts of others, is it? [This message has been edited by Ethel the Monkey (edited 01-21-2003).] |
|
MediocrePlayer Member |
posted 01-21-2003 04:05 PM
quote: Loopy, I agree w/ almost every single thing you said in this last post of yours. I just meant to clarify the meaning of a word so that you dont get offended next time you encounter it (Its not a way cry by any chance.) If anybody is trying to show sympathy for the terrorists, then as you said, it will be so easily seen as stupid and sick. And its exactly guys like this jerk who feed the US vs. Islam thing. [This message has been edited by MediocrePlayer (edited 01-21-2003).] |
|
DharmaBum Member |
posted 01-21-2003 04:26 PM
To an extent, i think we do all agree that "if it bleeds it leads". But, so much is in the ear or eye of the beholder. When you hear "allah ahkbar", you hear an islamic war cry. I hear the tent-revivalist-type of verbal praise of some god. The same banal utterings that the faithful blather for our TV evangelists. Just a different language. Similarly, you were apparently able to observe TV coverage of clinton and not have grown painfully tired of hearing the name Monika. Others wonder why no one ever heard the names of the bimbos that got Newt and his first successor bounced from even the sewers of the House. It's all a matter of perspective, but i'd say that 99% of the perceived 0political bias of network news is in the eye of partisan beholders. The other 1% is demographics. |
|
Arch Monkey Member |
posted 01-21-2003 04:36 PM
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of the people at the protests are as patriotic as you are. If some of the attendees had said "Kill Whitey" in the past I'm sure that they were not in Washington to say that during the protest. Does the fact that they said that somehow diminish the statement made by the other 199,998 people? The News story is that 200,000 showed up to protest the war. That's why they went there, that's what the day was about. The UN ambassadors from France, Russia and germany protested the US timing on this issue. Were they trying to be "anti American"? Perhaps Tom Brokaw should have qualified the report with the following descriptions "The land of rude waiters", "vodka swillers" and "sausage eaters". Cheers, Rob |
|
Don Peters Member |
posted 01-21-2003 05:04 PM
During the Vietnam era I attended my share of antiwar demonstrations. The most extreme people present always seemed to get control of the microphone for a while and express views that 98 percent of those who were there to express their displeasure with America's foreign policy wouldn't have agreed with. It seems to be the nature of the beast. And those who supported Johnson's policies and Nixon's would point to the extremist comments at such events as evidence that all of those who demonstrated were disloyal leftist maniacs. That's also the nature of the beast. Saddam is an unmitigated *******. That doesn't make people who oppose what I view as an unwise and unconstitutional military action unpatriotic. The guys who drafted our constitution would be astonished and disgusted by the idea that one guy could decide that this country would launch a war. The concept of a single leader whose wisdom we are supposed to trust and defer to is more or less exactly what our revolution was fought to oppose. I didn't hear of any demonstrations in my community or I would have gone to swell the ranks. |
|
LoopySanchez Member |
posted 01-21-2003 07:00 PM
By no means should my last posts be equated with banging a war drum. I too have my doubts about what the endgame would be if we invade Iraq, even if the proof of Saddam's non-compliance with the terms of surrender is already there. And like many others in this forum, I also worry about what North Korea will be doing while we're focused on Saddam. I don't think that all those who oppose war with Iraq are unamerican, treasonous, or any other unflattering terms you can think of. But those who set the agenda for their protests and took control of the microphones seemed to use a good portion of the event as an opportunity to randomly bash their country and its leaders while giving a free pass to nations with truly tyrranical dictators and histories of terror sponsorship. And I didn't hear anything about the crowd voicing objection to any of the more radical speakers. But everyone there, like Carol says, knows what's in their own heart. Again, thank God they can think it, express it, and act on it without losing their freedom or their life.
Keep it funky, amigos! Don |
|
Arch Monkey Member |
posted 01-21-2003 10:22 PM
quote: I think I would have too Don, I've been in this country nearly five year. Its about time I had an FBI file |
|
STEVEO Member |
posted 01-21-2003 10:44 PM
quote:
All I want is to visit my Brother in the land of OZ......................... Oh Yea whatch what you say, Big Brother is listening I'm probablie<sp> a Communist in there eye's now don't get labeled a Public Terorist<sp> and all you have to do is Raise yer vioce against the Goverment!!!! I found out the Hard way this past year.... The Scum Sucking Dawgs |
|
Village Idiot Member |
posted 01-22-2003 06:03 AM
Count your blessings, Steveo. You might not be able to go to Australia, but you do have a pretty comfortable life here. Under your circumstances, consider yourself fortunate. |
|
samchar Member |
posted 01-22-2003 06:54 AM
quote: Yes, there is another side the story. The "news" of reporting an anti-war protest isn't that 200,000 are in Washington. There are 200,000 people gathered in all kinds of places all the time saying all kinds of stuff. I suspect 200,000 gather at Disney World every day too, but it isn't news. What makes this gathering news is that it demonstrates a notably active segment of the population that is so-called "anti-war". Now, you cannot fairly report THAT phenomenon without some balanced account of how representative that phenomenon is or how so-called "pro-war" the country is that the protest is attempting to change. Even if just a sentence or two to put the event in perspective. Balanced perspective. Otherwise, there is no difference between spewing random data and the news. As I said before, I don't think media is biased on purpose. I think the problem is actually in the editing. Once they get their random nuggets down to "just the facts", the facts remaining on their sheet tend to be from a liberal's point of view. Because, at least with the major networks, conservatives account for some number less than 15-20% of the staff, if that. Compare that to the general population and it's a staggering gap and reporters approach stories from their own frames of mind. Regardless of how representative the media is, stories can be balanced, but it takes effort. If I were a reporter, it would take specific effort for me to seek out the liberal side of a typical story, because I'm not liberal and only a few of my friends and associates are. Oh well, you get the point. And if you don't, apologies. |
|
Arch Monkey Member |
posted 01-22-2003 09:08 AM
No Samchar there is no other side. There are 200,000 sides and that's just for the people who showed up. While it would be nice to put in the point of view of each and every person who claims to have a stake in this, that wouldn't be news either. If you want equal coverage, get 200,000 of your pals and head for Washington. Actually, since conservatives, by definition aren't social activist you could probably get equal coverage with much fewer people, maybe a couple of thousand. Personally I don't see how a person could be a good reporter and also be what Americans call a conservative. Conseratives, also by definition are somewhat closeminded. I'm not saying it is bad to be conservative, Just that if you are you're probably not cut out to be a reporter. |
|
TDR Member |
posted 01-22-2003 09:17 AM
Somebody said if you want the real news, don't watch TV, read the papers. I don't know that the papers are giving us the full story either. Or that they have no bias. If you want all sides, you have to search it out. Fortunately it is there. If 'big media' is too far to the right, you can search out Christian Science Monitor or The Nation or The New Unternationalist, Mother Jones, Utne Reader, or lots of online sources. Public Citizen for instance. And there's foreign sources. BBC and CBC. Al Jazeera, if you want to know what those guys are saying. Eye of the beholder? Absolutely. At the same time I thought the press was hounding Clinton mercilessly over White Water and 'travel gate' and pushing impeachment, some folks were railing about the "liberal media". The media is biased whenever they say what you don't want to hear. Still you can't deny John Gibson and Shep at Fox news are tools of the vast right wing conspiracy. Not too subtle in their war mongering either. And CNN, in prime time gives us Connie Chung and nothing but fluff, followed by Larry King and more fluff. Come on. Nero fiddles. |
|
DharmaBum Member |
posted 01-22-2003 10:41 AM
Sam: Seriously, consider the logical extension of your last comment. You think that, to give the "other side" of the story regarding the protests, a network must point out that 231,000,000 americans did NOT attend the rally in DC? I expect most viewers will be aware that there are more folks at home, at work, or whatever, than can possibly attend such events. I understand what you're saying, but feel that it likely asks for the obvious. The newscasters similarly made no effort to tell us that, on September 11, 19 muslims hijacked ariplanes and committed attrocities, while 470,000,000 went about their regular business and didn't kill thousands of people. Again, the issue of bias originates in the mind of the viewer. Many folks will feel that, by running wall-to-wall coverage of a month-old missing person case, the networks are intentionally limiting coverage of the anti-war demonstrations. You feel their bias is evidenced by some failure to account and explain that millions of folks were NOT at the demonstration. Kind of a no-win situation. Seriously, Sam, among the industries that recognize significant financial gain from a nice little war (not just defense contractors) are the network and cable news departments. It provides them the opportunity to go wall-to-wall, and their advertising rates can be jacked. Entire news shows are born to cover the event, and a whole new cadre of expert talking heads will make their bid for permanent jobs. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that the economic windfall of war effects their coverage. But, it would be plumb foolish to think that they would try to influence public opinion against a war. Similarly, would we expect the other economic beneficiaries of war, such as Lockheed or Raytheon to exert influence to deter war? I think the fact that network news gets fire from both sides is a pretty good indicator that the "bias" is in the minds of the critics. A much better beef with the networks would be their endless fascination with crime and celebrity stories. Even there, i have to acknowledge, that they give the folks what they want. |
|
SouthernFried Member |
posted 01-22-2003 10:44 AM
Ask any Liberal leaning folk about talk radio...it's obvious to them, that it's conservative. They will state it in no uncertain terms  Ask any Conservative leaning folk about Mainstream TV and Newspapers...it's obvious to them, that it's liberal. They will state it in no uncertain terms Both sides are correct. When you viewpoint is not being supported, or actively being put down. You know it. Ask any journalism major in college, why they are there. They will usually cite..."I want to make a difference...I want to right the wrongs in society". All well and good, but, journalism is about reporting the facts. People who go into journalism these days, go into it to make a difference...to right wrongs..etc. They are "activists", and they have agendas. Their agendas show up in their reporting. It's no great "conspiracy"...it just seems the reasoning behind people chosing this career. This excludes the ones who just wanna be famous and show everyone what nice hair they have Journalism and reporting now reflects these agendas. It's frustrating, but, with the advent of the Internet, and "alternative" media outlets to the "big 3", you have more sources for news than ever before. The bias's are still there. The agendas are still there. But, at least you now have the opportunity to hear differing bias's and agenda's. This has upset some, especially those who have lost market share because of it, or don't like seeing opposing opinions getting airplay. But, it's been a great thing. There have been active campaigns to shut down several of these alternative sources. So far they have failed. I credit this increased airplay of both viewpoints for the success of the current conservative movement. As a card carrying member of the "Evil right wing conspiracy"...I'm smiling more these days SF [This message has been edited by SouthernFried (edited 01-22-2003).] |
This topic is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 All times are PT (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c
