See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!
Source:
n/a
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Jul 24, 2005
Author: Christine and Zipporah
Post Date: 2005-07-24 23:28:38 by christine
Keywords: censorship--Weigh, Debate
Views: 9365
Comments: 295
Because concerns by several members have been posted to us, both publically and privately, about the free speech "allowed" on 4um, we have decided to create three new categories. The primary hot button is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. We do not wish to censor and we also do not wish to offend (in reality, unavoidable, as what
offends one may not offend another) anyone. With the availability of specific categories, each individual may eliminate an entire subject that he/she wishes not to view via his/her personal 'setup' page.
In the spirit of cooperation, and with the goal of working toward a satisfying and pleasant forum experience for everyone, we'd like to request that you avail yourselves of these specific category selections when posting your articles. The three new categories are:
Israel/Zionism
All is Vanity
Author! Author!
We hope that you all feel that this is an equitable solution.
Christine and Zipporah
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-197) not displayed.
.
.
.
#198. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#195)
The "insurgent" murderers and thugs who carried out Saddam's dirtywork are not "innocent".
Oh, I see. You're one of those "If we killed 'em they musta been bad guys" kind of people. So be it if that helps you sleep after quenching the blood lust.
That must make you one of those delusional "the American military deliberately targets women and children" fairys. I sleep well knowing that the men and women who serve in our military have much higher ethical standards than you.
It seems that the primary issue here isn't "seeing something offensive". I have gotten the impression that while that's spoken, the real issue is the pull between having a likeable forum but being scared of potentially being associated now or in the future with what on a wider basis would end up being know as "THAT site". I.e. at some point, member X is working a major contract, running for office, on the school board, etc... and someone else comes along and, cherry picking topics, states that X is a member at this place where [insert current favorite un PC topic here] is posted. Some folks here may be in a relatively public profession, or want to get into something like politics. It's a legitimate fear, but one that one can easily defend ones self against by making their position known. Wade into battle. Mow that line of reasoning down. Or meerly state in a single post that you don't agree with it and believe it's bullshit. Sure, you might have to put up with some dumbass making stupid comments at times, but your on the record and no one can claim you think or feel otherwise.
Hey, look at that cute little critter...Yaaaa! GET IT OFF! GET IT OFF!!!!
I know that in the opening days of the war we executed 80 plus "decapitation" missions against Iraqi leadership targets. These were 1,000 pound bunker busters up to 15,000 pound daisy cutters. They were dropped in the residential areas where the targets were thought to be. Exactly zero of them actually got the intended target. However, they did pulverize entire blocks of residential dwellings at a time when most people would be home. Did we deliberately target women and children? Damn right we did. You know for a fact that we did. They were considered to be acceptable collateral damage. Now, you can continue to pretend like what we are doing in Iraq is something less than a horrific war crime if you like, but there is nothing that can wash the blood of the innocents off the hands of the US military personnel and their chain of command.
Oh, and by the way... I've never killed an innocent person, nor have I smugly cheered it, as do you.
You sure? Please remember that a WHOLE BUNCH of those "dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats" are the same people who oppose Globalization. They riot and just really show their asses on this subject, especially. Watch for it. Why? Well, frankly they often oppose things for stupid, Marxist reasons. They hate McDonalds, etc, etc.. All kinds of reasons, and imo, many of them are stupid. Okay, so the hippies oppose it too and possibly for stupid reasons. Now, does that mean they are wrong in opposing Globalization or that you are wrong in tacitly agreeing with them? Absolutely not, because you're both obviously right.. However they are right, for the "wrong" reason. reasons we don't agree with, because they don't share our ideology. In this case, I submit: It's their motivation that's suspect, not their position on Globalization itself. This makes them temporary allies. Sort of like Russia in WW2. They're useful today, so we should join with them on this issue.. Tomorrow the issue may be something entirely different. At that point, we can oppose them without penalty. There's nothing hypocritical about it, as we were allied by circumstances in the first place, as opposed to ideology. (Did that make sense?)
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Thanks Jethro.
Beautiful rant.....I'm with ya.
"Collateral damage" is an unfortunate consequence in waging any war.
Give us time.. We're just gettin started. Saddam had decades do do his work. We're spring chickens in comparison. Further, we're taking the war on the road.. It's endless, remember?
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Definitely like your debating style. If you post from South America, many will be envious, whether they'll admit it or not.
You are free to believe whatever you like -- no matter how detached from reality.
Yeah sure. Report me to the SS and send me to the ovens.
You need to shut the fuck up before the whole entire board finds out exactly moronic and stupid you really are. Do you go out without supervision? I hope not or if you do, I hope you live far from me. In closing, if you are so gung ho and supportive of what we're doing in Iraq, ENLIST already!!
No, it doesn't make any sense.
Well "Amen" to that, anyway.
Bush has killed 10's of thousands. Under 8,000 graves have been found in Iraq and not all of them are attributed to Saddam.
They're useful today, so we should join with them on this issue.. Tomorrow the issue may be something entirely different. At that point, we can oppose them without penalty. There's nothing hypocritical about it, as we were allied by circumstances in the first place, as opposed to ideology. (Did that make sense?) It's makes a lot of sense. Well reasoned.
willie's another sharkfin--you know, kill all the GD "ragheads."
If I had to reject every position on issues that was embraced by people that I disagree with, there would be no position left to adopt. People who claim to reject the anti-war position because leftists are anti-war are as irrational as can be.
too late ;)
it's appalling, that mentality. really.
You are seriously deluded.
"But what is Hope? Nothing but the paint on the face of Existence; the least touch of truth rubs it off, and then we see what a hollow-cheeked harlot we have got hold of." Lord Byron
In closing, if you are so gung ho and supportive of what we're doing in Iraq, ENLIST already!! Excellent point. I find it interesting how many of the gung-ho war-mongers spend their time posting safely on the internet instead of getting their asses to Iraq, where they could really act on their strong beliefs. Instead, they're like.... "let's YOU go kill them rag-heads."
In closing, if you are so gung ho and supportive of what we're doing in Iraq, ENLIST already!! Excellent point. I find it interesting how many of the gung-ho war-mongers spend their time posting safely on the internet instead of getting their asses to Iraq, where they could really act on their strong beliefs. Instead, they're like.... "let's YOU go kill them rag-heads." Age/gender are not a factor anymore. Remember the article on the short, 50+ year old woman that was sent to Iraq a few months ago. And, we've read other articles of men older than that being sent to Iraq.
Now you're splitting hairs.. Regardless: n : growth to a global or worldwide scale; "the globalization of the communication industry" [syn: globalisation] Many Leftists are most certainly opposed to Globalization. Look at the labor unions, for crying out loud. They're not upset about Industry at all. They just want to be overcompensated for the small role they play in it. Again.. even if you were right, it was an example to illustrate the utility of a temporary alliance. I know this bothers you, but we don't have permenant enemies and permenant allies. People and circumstances change daily.. We DO however, have permenant interests. If a temporary alliance would help us acheive those, I fail to see the harm. Admittedly, though.. it will take a change in thinking and a change in approach. I think this is fine. Far too many people simply use "the left" or the "liberals" as a reverse moral compass to avoid thinking for themselves.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Any guff from these geezers and they'll have a tough time looking for their heart meds...
You TEll 'em..!! "...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Hey! It's my old buddy Willie. Tell me Willie, what's the best part about
being a dimwitted bot & neocon stooge? Is it the buy-one-get-one-free dates
with Gannon or the ability to breathe with your head up your ass?
willie green = sharkfin (now i'm a jane fonda clone)
I feel bad that I swore at Willie but there are and will be heavy consequences of our actions overseas. We can no longer be arrogant and pretend that nothing is happening. Some people are on some sort of groove that this is a good idea. If it is a good idea then they need to state specifically in what way this has benefitted the United States. I am sure he will be hard pressed to explain this to a person who has lost a loved one in Iraq. For what it is worth I know a family that lost their 20 year old son in Iraq. They will never get over it. This boy was born on Christmas Day, from here on out the family will spend depressing holidays coping with his tragic loss.
Some people are on some sort of groove that this is a good idea. If it is a good idea then they need to state specifically in what way this has benefitted the United States. I am sure he will be hard pressed to explain this to a person who has lost a loved one in Iraq. For what it is worth I know a family that lost their 20 year old son in Iraq. They will never get over it. This boy was born on Christmas Day, from here on out the family will spend depressing holidays coping with his tragic loss. No need to apologize.. for this is a very emotional topic.. its SO easy for these arm chair warriors to make judgements about the COLLATERAL DAMAGE ..HEY it's war.. so what's the big deal? Well it is a big deal.. I lost a close family member to war.. and it never leaves you.. And Americans are losing young men and some young women and now middle aged men.. which is horrible but what of the Iraqis.. the innocent ones? They lose children.. babies.. they lose sons and daughters.. mothers.. sisters.. they SEE their families blown to pieces.. we see them MAYBE nicely tucked away in a coffin.. they see the pieces of their children on their walls and on the streets.. they see the suffering until their family members die.. of course the arm chair warriors dont care or perhaps they dont think that far outside their little worlds...for afterall its only collateral damage.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I can never get over looking at the image of 12 year old Ali who lost both his arms and legs in a bombing raid. That boy NEVER did anything to me or anyone else in the United States.
Right.. why do you think the administration keeps those photos out of the sight of the common American? IF most would see them, they'd see the inhumanity of all this.. and then they'd have to face the people.. one thing they dont want.. isnt a controlled media great?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I think the wheels are gonna come off when the sheeple see the effects of Depleted Uranium..I think that sh!t is gonna come home..
I read an article .. I'll see if I can find it .. I didnt post it.. it is saying that the soldiers who've developed brain cancer.. is due to .. sarin gas exposure.. which of course probably not the case even within the article it was reported that cancer is not a side effect of sarin exposure.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Actually I saw that. But I think when people come back from Iraq they are 'contagious' so to speak.
Well, given that argument, since most of Islam sees Bush as a madman, he likewise deserves to die in their eyes. And if they do manage to kill him, it's as justified as our capture and caging of Saddam. Right?
Sure seems so.
LOL! You too? Actually, I give Willie higher marks than Sharkfin. He makes a coherent arguement and he get's his point across. He's just a big grump, mostly.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Comments (239 - 295) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestEven if it means the extermination of a few hundred thousand innocent Iraqis along the way?
#199. To: Willie Green (#198)
The "insurgent" murderers and thugs who carried out Saddam's dirtywork are not "innocent".
#200. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#199)
You're one of those "If we killed 'em they musta been bad guys" kind of people. So be it if that helps you sleep after quenching the blood lust.
#201. To: Starwind, christine, all (#145)
#202. To: Willie Green (#200)
That must make you one of those delusional "the American military deliberately targets women and children" fairys.
#203. To: Willie Green (#200)
#204. To: Willie Green (#194)
I'm gonna respectfully disagree with you there. "Lesser of two evils" excuse. Ain't no way I can side with the dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats...
#205. To: Jethro Tull (#187)
#206. To: timetobuildaboat (#188)
#207. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#202)
They were considered to be acceptable collateral damage.
I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
I also believe that you greatly exagerate "collateral damage" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
#208. To: Willie Green (#207)
"Collateral damage" is an unfortunate consequence in waging any war. I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
#209. To: gengis gandhi (#193)
#210. To: Willie Green (#207)
I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
#211. To: Willie Green (#207)
I also believe that you greatly exagerate "collateral damage" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
#212. To: Willie Green (#207)
I also believe that you greatly exagerate "collateral damage" to give aid and comfort to the enemy.
#213. To: Jhoffa_ (#204)
a WHOLE BUNCH of those "dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', antiwar hippie 'Rats" are the same people who oppose Globalization.
(Did that make sense?)
They're not opposed to "globalization".
They're opposed to industrialization in any form: domestic AND international.
A bunch of enviro-whacknuts who think they can return to some kind of communal, 18th Century agrarian utopia.
#214. To: Lady X (#212)
I hope you live far from me.
#215. To: Willie Green (#207)
I believe that such casualties were minimized, and were far fewer than the atrocities Saddam Hussein inflcted on his own people.
#216. To: Jhoffa_ (#204)
This makes them temporary allies. Sort of like Russia in WW2.
#217. To: Jhoffa_, Willie Green, Jethro Tull, Mr Nuke Buzzcut (#208)
#218. To: christine, Jhoffa_ (#216)
#219. To: Lady X (#212)
You need to shut the fuck up before the whole entire board finds out exactly how moronic and stupid you really are.
#220. To: Mr Nuke Buzzcut, gengis gandhi (#218)
#221. To: Willie Green (#213)
They're opposed to industrialization in any form: domestic AND international. A bunch of enviro-whacknuts who think they can return to some kind of communal, 18th Century agrarian utopia.
#222. To: Lady X (#212)
Lady X's post to Willie Green,
#223. To: Freedom William, Lady X, Willie Green (#222)
Lady X's post to Willie Green,
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#224. To: Willie Green (#213)
No, it doesn't make any sense. They're not opposed to "globalization".
globalization
#225. To: robin (#223)
And, we've read other articles of men older than that being sent to Iraq.
“Under this roof are the heads of the family of Rothschild, a name famous in every capital of Europe, and every division of the globe." -Benjamin Disraeli
#226. To: Lady X (#212)
#227. To: Willie Green (#214)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#228. To: Jhoffa_ (#224)
I think this is fine. Far too many people simply use "the left" or the "liberals" as a reverse moral compass to avoid thinking for themselves.
#229. To: Zipporah, Freedom William, christine, robin, Willie Green (#226)
#230. To: Lady X (#229)
I feel bad that I swore at Willie but there are and will be heavy consequences of our actions overseas. We can no longer be arrogant and pretend that nothing is happening.
#231. To: Zipporah (#230)
#232. To: Lady X (#231)
#233. To: Zipporah (#232)
#234. To: Lady X (#233)
#235. To: Zipporah (#234)
#236. To: Willie Green (#194)
Saddam was a malicious SOB who deserves to die, no matter what reason Dubya uses.
#237. To: christine (#217)
willie's another sharkfin--you know, kill all the GD "ragheads."
#238. To: christine (#228)
(now i'm a jane fonda clone)
.
.
.