Thread Options 
|
#276290 - 11/18/04 01:41 AM
Liberators Not Criminals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,189
Land of Steady Habits
|
Liberators - Not Criminals
Over the last 10 days U.S. Marines and soldiers have fought a courageous and successful battle to free Fallujah from the iron grip of 5,000 terrorist thugs. True to their history, our warriors, in the face of heavy resistance, overwhelmed and destroyed the enemy who had "dug in" throughout the city.
While most Americans cheered, our "main-stream" media has repeatedly emphasized the negative, using every opportunity to point out that some "insurgents" escaped or that there were civilian casualties. The Washington Post went so far as to print a front page story entitled, "With the Insurgents: In Hideout, Foreign Arabs Share Vision of Martyrdom." As one reader asked, would the Post, in a previous era, have felt compelled to write stories from the perspective of the enemy killing our soldiers - "With the Nazis Repelling Allied Invasion of Normandy!"
Not to be outdone, ABC last night highlighted a story about a U.S. Marine who shot a wounded jihadist in a Fallujah mosque - suggesting our Marine was a war criminal. The Marine is heard on a video yelling, "He's faking! He's faking!" before he shoots the man once. On Hardball, Chris Matthews highlighted the story last night and a U.N. bureaucrat has already called for an investigation of "U.S. crimes against humanity" in Fallujah. You can expect more of this drivel in the days ahead from reporters hoping to win Pulitzers at the expense of the men who are dying.
Before the "hate America" crowd here and abroad gets in too big of a frenzy, let's review some facts. There have been systematic war crimes in Fallujah, but not by U.S. troops.
Our men found torture chambers and rape rooms as they liberated the city. The thugs killed on the ABC video were fighting from a mosque in clear violation of international law that prohibits using houses of worship. The jihadists have routinely "booby trapped" the bodies of their fighters and the Marine squad entering the mosque had lost one of their own to such a device earlier in the battle. The Marine currently being crucified reportedly was himself shot in the face the day before by a wounded terrorist who was pretending to be dead.
The Marine Corps is currently investigating the incident and I trust them to reach a fair conclusion. But what sickens me is how quickly the "chattering class" and the radical Left assume our own military is evil. They can't wait to report our alleged mistakes while always ignoring our successes. The U.S. goes to extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties, even when it costs us more in shed blood.
Our enemy seeks out civilians to torture, rape and behead. Our enemy, supported by our own media elites, constantly warns us not to offend Muslims by touching one of their mosques, but the commentators and second guessers ignore the growing evidence that mosques are now the preferred location to store the weaponry used against our soldiers.
The Marines shown on ABC last night grew up in your hometown. They have been walking through narrow streets where every shadow hides a potential killer and where a woman in a veil is a potential human bomb. They have buried their buddies who, like them, were just trying to do their job and allow the Iraqi people a chance to be free. It is an easy call for me and most Americans - we will stand with these men over their detractors any day of the week.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276291 - 11/18/04 04:24 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
good article.
everyone should be thanking a soldier, past or present, everyday for the freedoms that they have here.
my brother will be going to iraq in the next couple of months with the army. i am so proud of him.
my girlfriend's brother was in iraq at the start of the war, he was in the first convoy into iraq.
the media attention that is stirring up is totally uncalled for because without the soldiers, they wouldn't have that freedom of speech.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276292 - 11/18/04 04:37 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,925
So Cal
|
Fraudman, you make some excellent points. It sickens me as well to see sensationalism become another tool for terrorists to justify their hatred of the U.S. and our citizens. This is the difference that our self-serving media fails to report: Our soldiers are fighting against other soldiers and against terrorists; the terrorists are at war with everyone in the world that associates with the U.S., whether that person is a soldier, civilian, man, woman, or child.
The news media claims they are merely feeding the public's news appetite. One problem is that the menu offers the same garbage prepared in a hundred different ways. Another problem is the dumbing down of society (the staying power of shows like Jerry Springer attest to this). Instead of presenting "just the facts" and letting the individual form his or her own opinion, people are allowing themselves to be spoon-fed the "facts" and a predetermined opinion.
Whether or not a person agrees with this war and current offensive in Fallujah, our troops still deserve our support. They are facing danger and sacrifice that most of us will never know. It is through great sacrifice that we are fortunate enough to freely express our opinions in the first place.
_________________________
I've just writed a wrong.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276293 - 11/18/04 04:43 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Whether or not a person agrees with this war and current offensive in Fallujah, our troops still deserve our support. They are facing danger and sacrifice that most of us will never know. It is through great sacrifice that we are fortunate enough to freely express our opinions in the first place.
Good point. Even if a person does not support the war he or she should still support our troops who are over there doing their job and putting their lives in danger.
Supporting the war and supporting our troops are two different issues.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276294 - 11/18/04 04:49 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The same holds true for law enforcement. I get sick of hearing people criticize police for using force to apprehend a criminal. Violent arrests would not happen if the subject did not run or resist law enforcement. I know there ARE some instances of "too much force" but in most cases, the subject gets what he or she asks for and deserves. Members of law enforcement are trying to protect themselves as well!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276298 - 11/18/04 06:09 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
So people can't choose to change the channel?
People can't choose to not have this broadcast into their homes on public airwaves. That is why the government regulates it. Their regulations explicity prohibit the type of language contained in that movie, and that is why some affiliates chose to air something else.
In my opinion there should be some exception for material of redeeming value. This wasn't just a Richard Pryor stand-up routine, and I think there should be allowances for quality material that is graphic by necessity and for a purpose. But under the current regulations, there aren't.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276299 - 11/18/04 06:09 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I happen to agree that prime time shouldn't be showing the violence shown in Saving Private Ryan. This is one of the most blood soaked films of all times, and while it is a great movie and has a lot of good things in it, it should NOT be shown while children are watching television.
This movie was rated R. That means if you are under 18 you shouldn't be watching it. Plenty of people under the age of 18 are watching television at 8pm. Without commercials, this is a 3 hour movie. That means it must be run through the entire PRIME TIME, which means children under age 18 are watching. The movie was rated R because of PROLONGED INTENSE REALISTICLY GRAPHIC SEQUENCES OF WAR VIOLENCE and for foul language.
Affiliates have the right to listen to their viewers and advertisers and not play this. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of choice.
ACtually rated R doesn't mean a person under the age of 18 should not be watching it. What it means is that anyone under the age of 17 unless they are accompanied by a parent cannot see the movie in theaters or rent it. If they are watching it at home with parental consent then ABC has no problem. If it was NC17 then you'd have something. Under no circumstances can a child under the age of 17 go into a theater or rent that movie even if they are accompanied by an adult.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276301 - 11/18/04 06:12 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I happen to agree that prime time shouldn't be showing the violence shown in Saving Private Ryan. This is one of the most blood soaked films of all times, and while it is a great movie and has a lot of good things in it, it should NOT be shown while children are watching television.
This movie was rated R. That means if you are under 18 you shouldn't be watching it. Plenty of people under the age of 18 are watching television at 8pm. Without commercials, this is a 3 hour movie. That means it must be run through the entire PRIME TIME, which means children under age 18 are watching. The movie was rated R because of PROLONGED INTENSE REALISTICLY GRAPHIC SEQUENCES OF WAR VIOLENCE and for foul language.
Affiliates have the right to listen to their viewers and advertisers and not play this. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of choice.
If you want to gripe why don't you gripe about movies like "Childs Play" and "Nightmare on Elm Street" being played at 8:00pm on cable. That is just gory violence for the heck of it. That's what we should be sickened by and trying to protect our children from instead of a movie that teaches a very good lesson about war and history.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276302 - 11/18/04 06:34 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
there are enough viewing controls out there now to use on programs that YOU do not deem reasonable for people in YOUR home audience.
you also do not have to own a television. that is a priviledge, not a right to own and view televisions.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276304 - 11/18/04 06:57 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 606
New England
|
Quote:
People can't choose to not have this broadcast into their homes on public airwaves. That is why the government regulates it.
Agreed; however, I want to make the point that the FCC has not explicitly set down a set of rules that defines exactly what is decent and what is indecent.
I would also like to point out that ABC's stance on "decency" is not all that reputable, in fact, it smacks very much of a recent Democratic Senator who ran for Presidential Office.
Monday night, America was treated to a shameless plug of "America's Housewives" via a skit between Terrell Owens (Wide Receiver, Eagles) and Nicollette Sheridan (Supporting Actor, Desperate Housewives). In this skit, Sheridan wears nothing but a towel, and removes said towel and leaps into Owens' arms after it has been inferred that the two will have sex.
Now, I'm no prude, and to be perfectly honest, I was more offended by Emmitt Smith's frontside during the broadcast than the lovely Ms. Sheridan's backside during the pregame; however, we're talking about ABC's obligation to "decency" here, so I'll try to stay on topic.
So, on one hand, there are ABC affiliates who, in the name of decency, would not air "Saving Private Ryan", yet would air this sexually explicit skit? Is blood and guts along with the "f" word so morally repugnant that we would forego an oscar caliber film for a clearly indecent advertisement during primetime?
_________________________
Respect It.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276305 - 11/18/04 07:09 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Supporting the war and supporting our troops are two different issues.
I still don't get this comment.
If you did not agree with invading Iraq, then you either just did not think it was strategically the correct thing to do OR you thought it was a horrible atrocity. If it is the latter, then how can you possibly support our troops. If it is the former, then you should support the war and the troops. You strategically stated your case that we should not go to war (as some in the administration did), but once the war commenced, you support it.
So, how can you possibly support our troops, but not support the war. That is akind to saying, I support the players on the University of California football team, but I hope they lose every game. Maybe your vernacular is inprecise. Maybe you don't agree strategically with the war, but you hope we win the war and get as many of our men and women out safely as possible. How you say that on a bumper sticker may be your problem.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276306 - 11/18/04 07:19 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Agreed; however, I want to make the point that the FCC has not explicitly set down a set of rules that defines exactly what is decent and what is indecent.
Actually, there is a list of words, many - if not all - of which were included in the movie.
Quote:
...on one hand, there are ABC affiliates who, in the name of decency, would not air "Saving Private Ryan", yet would air this sexually explicit skit? Is blood and guts along with the "f" word so morally repugnant that we would forego an oscar caliber film for a clearly indecent advertisement during primetime?
The affiliates had no idea this was coming through the feed, or else many of them likely would have made the same decision not to air. The movie was known ahead of time. The skit was not.
I believe it is wrong to blame anyone but ABC and the MNF producers for that skit. I believe it is wrong to blame anyone but Congress and the FCC for rules that hold programming such as Saving Private Ryan to be indecent while allowing programming such as Desperate Housewives.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276307 - 11/18/04 07:20 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,934
here and there
|
I think what they are trying to say if fairly simple.
They support the troops, the soilders did not choose to go anywhere, they were ordered to go. They are doing their job, so many people who don't like the idea of being in iraq still support the troops.
(It's more like saying, I don't like football, but i hope UC wins their games.) Is that too hard to understand??
_________________________
I am the ringmaster of my domain!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276308 - 11/18/04 07:27 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Get off of Desperate Housewives. It is no worse than all of the night time soap operas from back in the 80s or what FOX has shown in primetime for the last 16 years. Until the government is ready to regulate crap like gory horror movies on cable then you all don't have a gripe about Saving Private Ryan or Desperate Housewives. Saving Private Ryan isn't gratuitous violence for the sake of it like gory horror movies and Desperate Housewives is actually tamer than many of the shows that were around in the 80s. It's not like they show anything. It is suggestion, but that's it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276309 - 11/18/04 07:28 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
What happened to letting the marketplace decide?
If people don't like this, they won't watch. If no one watches, no advertising money and network won't show it.
Uh what do you think happened? Advertisers said we won't give you money and they played something else in several markets.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276310 - 11/18/04 07:29 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
I happen to agree that prime time shouldn't be showing the violence shown in Saving Private Ryan. This is one of the most blood soaked films of all times, and while it is a great movie and has a lot of good things in it, it should NOT be shown while children are watching television.
This movie was rated R. That means if you are under 18 you shouldn't be watching it. Plenty of people under the age of 18 are watching television at 8pm. Without commercials, this is a 3 hour movie. That means it must be run through the entire PRIME TIME, which means children under age 18 are watching. The movie was rated R because of PROLONGED INTENSE REALISTICLY GRAPHIC SEQUENCES OF WAR VIOLENCE and for foul language.
Affiliates have the right to listen to their viewers and advertisers and not play this. It's not a matter of censorship, it's a matter of choice.
ACtually rated R doesn't mean a person under the age of 18 should not be watching it. What it means is that anyone under the age of 17 unless they are accompanied by a parent cannot see the movie in theaters or rent it. If they are watching it at home with parental consent then ABC has no problem. If it was NC17 then you'd have something. Under no circumstances can a child under the age of 17 go into a theater or rent that movie even if they are accompanied by an adult.
Exactly my point! It shouldn't be BROADCAST to homes and televisions where anyone under age 17 could be watching without a parent. Guess what, it was.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276311 - 11/18/04 07:32 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
So people can't choose to change the channel?
People can't choose to not have this broadcast into their homes on public airwaves. That is why the government regulates it. Their regulations explicity prohibit the type of language contained in that movie, and that is why some affiliates chose to air something else.
In my opinion there should be some exception for material of redeeming value. This wasn't just a Richard Pryor stand-up routine, and I think there should be allowances for quality material that is graphic by necessity and for a purpose. But under the current regulations, there aren't.
I happen to agree with you on that...there is so much garbage already on the tube with no redeeming value whatsoever. I believe the movie could be shown with ample warning in advance and at the end of EVERY commercial break (just in case someone tunes in late).
And the issue of the news coverage of the Marine who shot a wounded jihadist in a Fallujah mosque - suggesting our Marine was a war criminal overshadowed what was, to me, a more heinous act. The murder of the abducted CARE worker Margaret Hassan (that BTW even Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera would not air). 
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276313 - 11/18/04 07:32 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
I think what they are trying to say if fairly simple.
They support the troops, the soilders did not choose to go anywhere, they were ordered to go. They are doing their job, so many people who don't like the idea of being in iraq still support the troops.
(It's more like saying, I don't like football, but i hope UC wins their games.) Is that too hard to understand??
Yes, it is hard to understand. If you disagree with the war, you should not support troops who go blindly where they are told. You should petition them to mutiny or move to Portugal.
To say:
1) I disagree with this war,
2) we should not be over there,
3) but I hope our troops kill the Iraqi soldiers before the Iraqi soldiers kill our troops, is idiotic.
MaGee, you have not assisted in clearing this up whatsoever.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#276314 - 11/18/04 07:36 PM
Re: Liberators Not Criminals
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
Get off of Desperate Housewives.
Insert obvious joke here.
Quote:
It is no worse than all of the night time soap operas from back in the 80s or what FOX has shown in primetime for the last 16 years.
I didn't say it was worse than anything anyone broadcast. I used it as an example of programming that is allowed despite being indecent and having no redeeming qualities, as compared to a movie that, while violent, has very redeeming qualities.
Quote:
Until the government is ready to regulate crap like gory horror movies on cable then you all don't have a gripe about Saving Private Ryan or Desperate Housewives.
Since the public doesn't own cable lines, I don't think your case is very strong. But for the record, I don't have a gripe with the movie. The current regulations do.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index