# 24 - Muslims upset about nuclear attacks



## mrhnau (Jan 19, 2007)

Thought this was interesting...

Muslims protest 24

This caught my attention



> "Over the past several seasons, the villains have included shadowy Anglo businessmen, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists, and even the (Anglo-American) president of the United States," the network said. "The show has made a concerted effort to show ethnic, religious and political groups as multidimensional, and political issues are debated from multiple viewpoints."



Couple of things stand out... first, its a TV show! Its fiction! During the Cold War, we frequently had movies about Russians. We had shows about Vietnamese war, about every war we have fought. Many of these shows/movies have been fiction. Get over it! I don't see Russians, Germans, Anglo businessmen protesting... Fundamentalist Islam is causing alot of global problems these days, so they are the "enemy" of the era. Are you suprised that this group is being represented on TV now?

Second, you are protesting a TV show! how about protesting the fundamentalist who are flying planes into our cities? Or those nut jobs bombing embassies around the world? If those guys were not doing these acts of terrror, I imagine they would not be represented on 24!

I understand all of Islam is not this way, but those guys have sure made themselves heard over the years. One of these days the sensible Muslims are going to get these guys under control. Peace will never come via suicide bombings and other forms of terror attacks... I do hope this happens before some kind of attack represented in 24 actually happens.


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2007)

I've only seen a few issues of 24, and I have to say it would make Beria or Himmler proud. Muslims are all evil, dusky terrorists. Torture works. It's kinda sexy. Heroes do it.

Typical "fair and balanced" Fox coverage :barf:


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 19, 2007)

I don't watch 24 because the actions of Jack Bauer are offensive to me as an American. The ends does not justify the means. But, you make a hit show, and suddenly the citizenry become blinded or acquiecent to terms like 'Extrodinary Rendition'. There are plenty of reasons to be upset with the propaganda of this program. 

I am saddened that Mr. Sutherland participates with this program. Seems to me his father took some public stances against such behavior. I further understand his grandfather was also a fine example of liberty, in someway.


----------



## matt.m (Jan 19, 2007)

Not every Muslim is a terrorist however since the 70's all terrorists acts have been committed by Muslims.  You know, it is sad really, if the good would put the bad in check we would not be having these problems.

The last I checked we have a lot of movies showing the Japanese, Korean, and German WWI, WWII, Vietnamese, Gulf War etc.  So why should this be different?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 19, 2007)

> Not every Muslim is a terrorist however since the 70's all terrorists acts have been committed by Muslims. You know, it is sad really, if the good would put the bad in check we would not be having these problems.



They what now?  Terrorist groups exist in all areas, in all religious denominations.  Fundamentalist Christians have been known to engage in terrorism, abortion clinics being a target there.  PETA has been connected to terrorist groups.  Here is just a quick sampling of non-muslim terrorist groups:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unibomber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Liberation_Front

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_in_the_abortion_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Liberation_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 19, 2007)

Personally...I like the show....but I recognize it is all TV...and you know if 2 out of 6 seasons the bad guys are middle easterner's/Muslims...my thoughts on it are get over it already....if it is offensive to you, don't watch it, feel free to write your own plot and submit it to them where the bad guys are someone else....but there will always be a bad guy in the show so suck it up and move on and stop whining already...
Muslims aren't always the bad guys in real life and not all muslims look like they are portrayed on TV...but in the end it is just TV...and I have yet to hear of an instance of violence because someone watched TV and the man next to him looked like the bad guy on the show...
But I am also a White Angle Saxon Christian so maybe I have the wrong perspective...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 19, 2007)

tellner said:


> Typical "fair and balanced" Fox coverage :barf:



I don't watch the show, I found it boring, it couldnt keep my short attention span past a commercial break, but... Im sorry, I didn't know _*"Entertainment"*_ was required to be "Fair and Balanced"... 

When did that start?  Regardless, I will remember that, the next time they air TVNATION on Comedy Central.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 19, 2007)

matt.m said:


> Not every Muslim is a terrorist however since the 70's all terrorists acts have been committed by Muslims.



WHAT???

What about the freakin IRA?  Are you telling me THEY are Muslim?

Oh, wait... not Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, MY BAD.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 19, 2007)

Ho-hum.  Another day, another protest.    Hopefully, this one won't result in dead nuns.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 19, 2007)

matt.m said:


> Not every Muslim is a terrorist however since the 70's all terrorists acts have been committed by Muslims.


 
No kidding?  I didn't know Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim.  And the Aum Shinrikyo cult?  They were Muslim?  Dang, learn something new every day.

Lamont


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 19, 2007)

Libs complaining about the media. Thats rich.


----------



## Blindside (Jan 19, 2007)

Blotan Hunka said:


> Libs complaining about the media. Thats rich.


 
Muslims are "libs?"  Okey Dokey.


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2007)

The Basques of ETA are Muslim? Wow. And the Irish, the Aryan Nations, the Klan, Operation Rescue, Army of God, the Sardinian seperatists, FARC and the other revolutionary groups in Latin and South America? You learn something new every day...


----------



## tellner (Jan 19, 2007)

And I suppose it follows that since "libs" are the ones who are upset about this, the "cons" are in favor of hatred, prejudice and lies? If truth and justice are "liberal" positions - according to you - it certainly says something about self-identified "conservatives". It's not something I'd care to be associated with, but hey, knock yourself out. It also supports the view that the two sides are brutish, hateful, tyrannical religious fanaticism and fascist theocracy on one side and the progressive, enlightened, tolerant and just society ruled by reason and compassion on the other.


----------



## Neal (Jan 19, 2007)

Sometime art imitates life and other times life imitates art.
Anyone ever watch Egyptian TV, Palestinian TV, Syrian, Saudi or Iranian TV, they play 24/7 of the most hateful anti-semetic (Elders of Zion) and anti-western propaganda.

If some folks spent sometime to see what hateful TV is all about, 24 is a non-issue. You folks should spend some time to see what Extremist Muslims and CAIR-USA Muslim rights group bankrolled by Wahabi Saudi $. These same people forbid any religion besides Islam in Saudi Arabia. Its a crime to practice Christianity or judism.

Two wrongs don't make a right but 24 did nothing wrong. The same Muslim protesters won't grant the exact rights they want for themselves.


----------



## searcher (Jan 20, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Fundamentalist Christians have been known to engage in terrorism, abortion clinics being a target there.


 
I am a Fundementalist Christian and I believe I know to which group you are referring.   I will say that they can call themselves Christian, but they are not.   It is not Biblical to act as they do.   I can call myself a banana all day long, but I will never be a banana.  

I will be the first to say that even though I don't agree with Muslim philosophy, they are NOT all terrorists.   But I don't see large numbers of other groups strapping explosives onto themselves and blowing temselves and others up.   I do see people blowing stuff up, but not themselves with it.   Life is not a salad bar where we can pick and choose who is bad and who is good.   There are bad people in every group.   All we can do is try to help them see the error in there ways and that generating terrorism is not soemthing that can ever do any good.

I may get flamed for this statement, but so be it.   I am tired of terrorists and peole fighting for what seems to be a waste of time and energy.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 20, 2007)

tellner said:


> If truth and justice are "liberal" positions



Haha.  That idea makes me laugh as much as "Rights and Freedom" are conservative ideas.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 20, 2007)

searcher said:


> But I don't see large numbers of other groups strapping explosives onto themselves and blowing temselves and others up. I do see people blowing stuff up, but not themselves with it.


 
You are discussing, with these two sentences, a tactic to acheive an end, as opposed to the underlying fundamental principle. What tactics are acceptable for different eras and moralities. 

You may recall that the Colonial Army was considered in bad light, as they did not march to battle on the battle field, in bright red coats to face their opponent; instead choosing to hide in the woods and behind rocks. That was a change of tactic, because they faced a superior enemy.

You may recall kamikaze pilots of World War II, who would intentionally pilot their aircraft into battleships in the Pacific theater. That was a tactic where one combatant in a relatively small vehicle was able to inflict severe damage on a larger group in a larger vehicle.

What is the underlying principle for which people choose to become a suicide bomber? 

In Christian faiths, suicide is considered 'Go to Hell' instantly card, whereas murder is not. That is kind of an odd principle, isn't it, especially where 'self-will' is supposed to be the greatest gift from the creator. Killing another is forgivable, but killing yourself is not? That aside, haven't their been rogue preachers in every faith - How about that Alaskan preacher that was recently convicted of incest - Apparently God told him to have sex with his daughters. 

Apparently, and I am no expert, in Islam, fighting against an occupying army for the land that God gave bequeathed is acceptable to some interpretations, and is rewarded in Heaven. If the occupying army has overwhelming superior firepower and intelligence, a subversive tactic may be the only weapon available.

My suggestion is that we do not become confused between a tactic and a principle.




searcher said:


> All we can do is try to help them see the error in there ways and that generating terrorism is not soemthing that can ever do any good.


 
What do you think would show Pastor Fred Phelps that his brand of 'Christianity' is an 'error'? Provide a credible answer to this question, and we can extrapolate to other preachers, who believe even more fervrently.



Sorry for the ramblings .... but as I mentioned, I see 24 as an offensive story. 24 uses one of the same tactic as the Kamikaze pilots, the Colonial Army, and the Palestinian suicide bombers - 'the ends justify the means'.


----------



## searcher (Jan 20, 2007)

michaeledward, I have no idea what would help Fred Phelps and his followers to have a change of heart.   Maybe they should pray for salvation and then they may hate alot less.   I live within a 2 hr drive of Mr. Phelps' church and his "compound" and I find them and their tactics upsetting.   I happen to go to a Baptist church and that is what they call their church, but they are off.   There is no Baptist in their right mind going to act like that.   We are supposed to help people not hate them.   


Hate the sin, NOT the sinner!!!



I am not standing up for 24, at the very least it is quite boring and I don't really care for it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jan 20, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Thought this was interesting...
> 
> Muslims protest 24
> 
> ...




Could I protest that my company has set aside certain rooms for Friday afternoon prayers? (* Personally I do not mind as this means less time away from the desk or lab working. *)

Could I protest the cowboy and Indian movies? (* I could but what is the value in it for me? *)

Could I be upset, that everyone seems to want only their beliefs and their values protected and screw the rest of everyone esle? Yes, I could be and I am.  I have problems with Religion and Politics mixing. I protest it here in our country and I also protest its' negative values elsewhere. But I also understand that if I was to go to their country, I would have to live with their culture. 

But that is me, I guess a lot of people take offense easily and must protest for they fear for their faith. This goes for all religions in my opinion.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 20, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Could I be upset, that everyone seems to want only their beliefs and their values protected and screw the rest of everyone esle?



This hits the nail on the head, my man.


----------



## Carol (Jan 20, 2007)

Neal said:


> Two wrongs don't make a right but 24 did nothing wrong. The same Muslim protesters won't grant the exact rights they want for themselves.


 
Yes...



Rich Parsons said:


> Could I be upset, that everyone seems to want only their beliefs and their values protected and screw the rest of everyone esle?


 
...and...Yes.

This is the biggest problem in my eyes.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 20, 2007)

What about movies like "True lies" or any other film with Muslim terrorists? Why were they given a pass? Theres tons of those themed films.


----------



## JBrainard (Jan 20, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Couple of things stand out... first, its a TV show! Its fiction! During the Cold War, we frequently had movies about Russians. We had shows about Vietnamese war, about every war we have fought. Many of these shows/movies have been fiction. Get over it! I don't see Russians, Germans, Anglo businessmen protesting... Fundamentalist Islam is causing alot of global problems these days, so they are the "enemy" of the era. Are you suprised that this group is being represented on TV now?


 
I agree completely. From the article:

"After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality."

Freedom of expression can't be sacrificed because people are too bigoted and/or stupid to know the difference between reality and a TV show. Period.


----------



## tellner (Jan 20, 2007)

The problem is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum. The writers, producers and all the way on up to Rupert *spit* Murdoch himself have made a conscious decision to make a show with this sort of bigoted undertone. They have also repeatedly made the desirability of torture a theme. That's a political decision by any standard. And it's a damned ugly one. You can say "It's not true. It's just a story." But the entire advertising industry, every nation's propaganda apparatus and the Republican Lie Machine are built on hitting people at an emotional level with things that are "Just stories" and "Not true". It's designed to cause a specific reaction and change in people's deep emotional structures.

It stinks. It's evil. And trying to switch the argument from "It's bad" to "If you criticize them you're against the First Amendment. Why do liberals hate our freedoms?" is a stupid transparent ploy that a junior high school debater can see through.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 20, 2007)

Things on television are always going to be offensive to someone, in some way, shape, or another.  Even if there's no such racism intended, someone will somehow interpret it incorrectly.  

Even Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones, was somehow, accused of being racist against Hispanics, just because Temeura Morrison looked Hispanic (he's really from New Zealand...).  Then again, when it comes to people like Jesse Jackson, they'll say anything to gain TV air time...


On another note:

Sometimes, a race of people need to sit back, and realize that it's just a TV show, and that the people portrayed on TV are NOT representatives of their race.  I didn't hear any outrage from the Chinese-Americans, when "Romeo Must Die" came out, where it portrayed many Chinese as gangsters who were part of a Chinese mafia-type syndicate, nor do I hear outrages from Japanese-Americans, when "The Hunted" came out, where many Japanese were portrayed as ruthless killer ninjas.  

I'm sure that everyone's parents at one time or another, told them "Don't believe everything you see on TV."  I would encourage everyone to remember that lesson.  Only a small percentage of Chinese-Americans are gangsters, only a small percentage of Japanese people are ninjas (heh), and only a small percentage of extremist individuals are Muslin extremists.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2007)

Grenadier said:


> Sometimes, a race of people need to sit back, and realize that it's just a TV show, and that the people portrayed on TV are NOT representatives of their race. I didn't hear any outrage from the Chinese-Americans, when "Romeo Must Die" came out, where it portrayed many Chinese as gangsters who were part of a Chinese mafia-type syndicate, nor do I hear outrages from Japanese-Americans, when "The Hunted" came out, where many Japanese were portrayed as ruthless killer ninjas.


 
I wonder if there would be outrage amongst those Japanese Americans if the most powerful man on the planet has was fighting a 'Global War on Ninjas'.

Every story needs conflict, and conflict requires a 'bad guy'. That some in the Islamic community are offended and have access to the media is fine. But I keep returning to the underlying premise of the story; that Jack Bauer can do anything that he deems is necessary without consequence. 

I don't have access to the media, so you aren't hearing how that behavior is UnAmerican and UnConstitutional and offensive to this middle-class European stock American White Male. But it sure is offensive to me.


----------



## Monadnock (Jan 21, 2007)

If I were producing a TV series about terrorism, I probably wouldn't be including characters such as the Alaskan Eskimos. When most people think of terrorism today, they think of middle eastern men on airplanes. It's the last thing we can remember.

If this were the 50's, and I wanted a series on the same note, I'd include cowboys and Indians. It's what people could relate to, kinda...

Has anyone taken a gander at how Americans are portrayed in foreign films and television? Personally, I don't care.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 21, 2007)

This is an interesting comment ... 



			
				reputation area said:
			
		

> You have to look at both sides of the story.




It was made in response to this post




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I don't watch 24 because the actions of Jack Bauer are offensive to me as an American. The ends does not justify the means. But, you make a hit show, and suddenly the citizenry become blinded or acquiecent to terms like 'Extrodinary Rendition'. There are plenty of reasons to be upset with the propaganda of this program.
> 
> I am saddened that Mr. Sutherland participates with this program. Seems to me his father took some public stances against such behavior. I further understand his grandfather was also a fine example of liberty, in someway.


 
I will reply here ... 

I do not have to look at both sides of the story. 

Integrity has been defined by as 'doing the right thing, when no one is looking'. What 'the other guy' is doing has no relevance on my integrity. I can choose to behave according to the ethics and morals with which I was raised, or I can surrender those principles for expediency.

One of the underlying principles of the American Experiment is that all men are subject to the rule of law, and that rule of law is blind to 'expediant justifications'. 

The story presented in 24 is that Jack Bauer is free to operate outside the law, without being subject to the justice system in the country, because it is 'expediant'. His character lacks integrity. The plot demonstrates abdication of American principles.

This may make for good drama, but I am free to not watch that drama. Personally, I'ld rather watch Star Trek - The Next Generation; in which ideals such as integrity and justice are strived for, rather than discarded. 




			
				Col. Nathan Jessup said:
			
		

> We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.


----------



## Ninjamom (Jan 21, 2007)

I tend to agree with michaeledwards for the most part on this one.

(Oxygen levels are depleted in six surrounding states from the collective gasps of 40 million Republicans)

Principle must trump expediency.  What Jack does is wrong.  However, even in the middle of this moral debate, Jack does what he believes is right, and refuses to bend from those principles which he sees as most important: defending the greatest number of people from the greatest threats.   The moral tension in the show actually comes from when his values (love of family, loyalty to country, defense of community) come into conflict with each other.  In fact, far from having no consequences, the most intriguing drama in the show comes from the fact that he continues to rack up consequences for his past actions, season after season after season.

Yes, I disagree with his methods, but it makes for great television, specifically because it doesn't shy away from moral choices and their consequences.

As far as the use of Islamicist terror groups as this season's 'heavies', it is realistic for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority of terrorist actions against the United States in the last 10 years have been perpetuated by Islamicist terror groups.  It would be unrealistic to ignore this fact.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 21, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> I agree completely. From the article:
> 
> "After watching that show, I was afraid to go to the grocery store because I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality."
> 
> Freedom of expression can't be sacrificed because people are too bigoted and/or stupid to know the difference between reality and a TV show. Period.



First, I'm assuming this is dripping with sarcasm, which is hard to tell w/out inflection.

Second, why don't we make a show everyone will like. Certain minorities complain that they are not represented properly. This can be resolved by including every possible minority in the show. Since there are probably thousands of different minorities in the world and endless mixings via marriage (I'm 1/4 indian, 1/8 german, etc, etc), why don't we just do away with it? Lets throw multicolored sheets on everyone. That way, we can please the feminists too, since we won't be able to tell what gender everyone is. yay! We can't let them have accents, since we might be able to figure out nationality based on that, so lets have computer generated voices for everyone. That should please most people, except for the anti-technology crowd. We could go with just closed caption, but there are illiterate people out there too!

Then, lets work on plot. We can't include anything about religion, because someone is always offended. Someone is going to be offended by EVERY kind of joke, so jokes are out. If its located in some part of the US (or the world for that matter), someone won't like it. Southerners won't like the North, and vice versa. We can't discuss current events, because they are by nature polarized, and we CAN'T offend anyone by taking one side. We can't discuss items that can be purchased, since someone out there is too poor to own one, and that might make them depressed. We can't have trademark items (can of coke) laying around, because that will "put us in bed with big business", and we can't do that... We can't include anything about gender relations or sex, since someone will be offended by hetero or homosexual relations. what about the poor ignored asexual people?

So, whats left? A few people sitting around in colorfull sheets in empty rooms talking about nothing. However, this might offend mutes and isolationist... so, lets just go back to those colorful bars they used to run when local TV stations went off the air. Those were fun.

:barf:

Such is the world of offending noone.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 21, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> Yes, I disagree with his methods, but it makes for great television, specifically because it doesn't shy away from moral choices and their consequences.


That is pretty much the bottom line here. What he does may not be correct, but many shows have followed the same lines. Dirty Harry, Death Wish, Rambo, any kind of vigilante or "bad cop" type movie appeals to many people. They do make for good television, and if 24 did not draw a good audience, it would no longer be shown. People seem to like it!

Regarding the moral choices and consequences dealt with, they are particularly relevant considering the choices we are having to make today as a society (ie phone taps, privacy, patriot act, accusations of torture, etc). It does make for good TV


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 21, 2007)

You know, Tellner, 

I'd take your argument a hell of a lot more seriously, if instead of bashing 24 because its wrong for depicting Muslims as terrorsits and glorifying totrure, etc... you had spoken up about those sort of things in general, and took equal offense to the portrayal of Rape and Torture and Murder as acceptable "punishment" on Sci-fi Channles Battlestar Galactica, or the stereotyping of Muslims, Blacks, Hispanics, and Jewish people on Comedy Centrals "Mind of Mencia" as opposed to your approach which basically reads "24? Its wrong because its on FOX!"

I mean... seriously... its ALL over TV... but lets turn a blind eye to _that_ because its not on a decidedly anti-liberal station.


----------



## tellner (Jan 21, 2007)

You'd take it a lot more seriously if I hijacked the thread? Get real. You'd almost certainly have been unhappy about it and said I would be more credible if I stuck to the topic. This is about the TV show 24 and its bald-faced bigotry and disgusting political message. If you want a rant about other things it's a topic for a different thread.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 21, 2007)

tellner said:


> This is about the TV show 24 and its bald-faced bigotry and disgusting political message.



So, Fox News had to come up then?  Let alone your offensive racist diatribe?

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 21, 2007)

And actually I would have stayed out of it alltogther if you hadn't made what I consider a moronic assertation that "Entertainment" has to be "Fair and Balanced" like the News Media.  So do yourself a favor and dont tell me what would or wouldn't have made me unhappy.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 22, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

*Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Jonathan Randall
- MT Moderator


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 22, 2007)

Jonathan Randall said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> *Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.
> 
> ...



Sorry guys.  I'm pissed off at somthing going on in another area of the board, I think I let some of that frustration bleed over to this thread... I'm done here now.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 14, 2007)

I caught Mr. Olbermann's 'Worst Person in The World' skit on one of the blog sites. In which he rapped on 24, because the West Point Military Academy's Bridagere General travelled to Hollywood to meet with the 24 producers. 

Think Progress has this article.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/torture-on-24/



> The United States Military Academy at West Point yesterday confirmed that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently travelled to California to meet producers of the show, broadcast on the Fox channel. He told them that promoting illegal behaviour in the series - apparently hugely popular among the US military - was having a damaging effect on young troops.


 
In this thread, I have clearly spelled out my position on this show. It's nice ot see I am not alone.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Feb 14, 2007)

I used to watch TV....



But that was about 8 years ago.

Nothin' on worth a pint of piss anymore but the Military History Channel and Cartoon Network.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 14, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> WHAT???
> 
> What about the freakin IRA? Are you telling me THEY are Muslim?
> 
> Oh, wait... not Terrorists, Freedom Fighters, MY BAD.


With that in mind, the Musslim terrorist learned how to use the system somehow. 
Sean


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 15, 2007)

Neal said:


> Sometime art imitates life and other times life imitates art.
> Anyone ever watch Egyptian TV, Palestinian TV, Syrian, Saudi or Iranian TV, they play 24/7 of the most hateful anti-semetic (Elders of Zion) and anti-western propaganda.
> 
> If some folks spent sometime to see what hateful TV is all about, 24 is a non-issue. You folks should spend some time to see what Extremist Muslims and CAIR-USA Muslim rights group bankrolled by Wahabi Saudi $. These same people forbid any religion besides Islam in Saudi Arabia. Its a crime to practice Christianity or judism.
> ...



You know, when I first read this I thought that it was a little off. I do not think that people living in America and practicing Islam should be held accountable for the media of Muslim countries and their constant propaganda of hate.

But I did some checking with the Council on American-Islamic Relations web site. http://www.cair-net.org/ They are the group that is mentioned in the article complaning in the first place about the 24 series.

You would think that a group with that name would be working to try to improve the relations between the two groups. But all I saw was a group that tried to supress any complaints about Islam.

They do decry terrorism and the attacks of 9-11. But they defend Islam when it is under attack- which is good. But my concern is that aside from a page about 9-11, they don't do much to improve relations instead of just defend Islam against complaint.

If this group were to complain about _*Islamic*_ attacks like those you can find at www.memri.org, they would make a much greater impact than almost anyone else. If they spoke up when Muslims are found to target Jewish religious and business sites and say just how wrong it is, they would do something that actually reflects their name.

But they seem mainly silent about all the many, many attacks by Muslims on people of other faiths. If their whole purpose was to defend Islam, then I can understand that. But I would expect a better title than the one they used. A search of their web site seems to indicate they care little when a Muslim fanatic kills a European director for making a movie about Islam or a play is closed due to fears of Islamic attacks because of the content. Their only concern is to keep people from hating Muslims.

Here is an example- look at this page of their past incitment reports. Tell me if you find anything decrying the violence against the nuns that were killed after the Pope made that speech. How about any other attacks by Muslims on non- Muslims being made a subject and announced that it is wrong. They do say that people who use Islam as an excuse for violence are wrong in general- and to gain any credibility they would have to. But go ahead and try to find a case of them slamming a Muslim using violence against another in these reports.

And in a way, it really detracts from their purpose when you realize that this group that claims to be about improving the relations between Islam and the US does not take a good amount of time to take the non-Islamic side of the problem into account.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2007)

searcher said:


> I will say that they can call themselves Christian, but they are not.   It is not Biblical to act as they do.



This is an example of a logical fallacy, the No True Scotsman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

The terrorist types have just as much right to call themselves Christian as you do, as they claim the same basic beliefs and source of authority.  It is also hard to claim that what they claim isn't "biblical" given the extreme behaviors sanctioned by God in the Old and New Testament.  They are Christians, just as Al Qaeda are Muslims, so the rest of you "non-terrorists" associated with them had better do your best to disclaim their behavior.  Of course, just like CAIR, many "non-terrorist" Christian Fundamentalists (I am not saying you) respond with weak sauce like "I condemn what they do, but understand why they did it."  That just isn't good enough, as far as I am concerned.



Blotan Hunka said:


> What about movies like "True lies" or any other film with Muslim terrorists? Why were they given a pass? Theres tons of those themed films.



There was plenty of criticism and outcry about True Lies and similar movies.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Reel Bad Arabs



michaeledward said:


> But I keep returning to the underlying premise of the story; that Jack Bauer can do anything that he deems is necessary without consequence.



This isn't true, much of the story focuses on the bad consequences of Jack's "necessary" actions.  He spends what seems like half of each season evading arrest by the US authorities, his actions end up alienating and/or destroying everyone close to him that he cares about, and he ended up in prison for 18 months getting tortured himself for what he had done.  It is WAAAY to simplistic to describe this series as a propaganda vehicle ordered up by Rupert Murdoch to brainwash the proles.  Such an argument is simplistic and condescending.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2007)

When the Brigadere General at West Point tells us that the young people he trains look to Jack Bauer's techniques as 'popular',

and

when he travels to Hollywood to request that the producers limit the show's portrayals of illegal behavior, because it is having a 'damaging effect' on the soldiers serving in the United States Army ...


I guess it make sense to take note. 


That the character 'Jack Bauer' suffers personal consequences doesn't quite hit the mark. As I recall, in one episode, he murdered, in cold blood, a colleague. I'm pretty sure the consequence of that in a real world, would be a life in prison, if not the death penalty.


----------



## JBrainard (Feb 15, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> First, I'm assuming this is dripping with sarcasm, which is hard to tell w/out inflection.


 
I wasn't being at all sarcastic when I said "Freedom of expression can't be sacrificed because people are too bigoted and/or stupid to know the difference between reality and a TV show. Period."...which seemed to agree with Mrhnau's post... I'm confused again...


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> When the Brigadere General at West Point tells us that the young people he trains look to Jack Bauer's techniques as 'popular'...



I agree that it is worth taking "note", whatever that means exactly.  However, anyone that watches "24" and says to themselves "Cool, I wanna be just like Jack because nothing bad ever happens to him!" is clearly not paying attention.  At some level, you can't hold the show responsible for what others put into it in their own heads.  After all, someone might look at the story of Darth Vader and say "Wow, what a great way to be powerful!  DV didn't suffer any real consequences! I'll go out and murder all my former friends!"  That doesn't make George Lucas into Rupert Murdoch.


----------



## CanuckMA (Feb 15, 2007)

It is the overwhelming message that government sactionned torture to extract information is OK and no consequences will happen that is the damaging part.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 15, 2007)

It would appear that the General feels that, in taking note, it means that the program is having a corrosive effect on the military leaders of the next generation. If all the other Generals in all the other military colleges speak up against the good General from West Point, perhaps by taking note, we can make light of the his request, like Tipper Gore's request to label music lyrics.

But, if we extend a measureable amout of respect to one who has successfully risen to be the leader of our future military leaders, it might be that 'Supporting The Troops' means more than just imagining that Jack Bauer suffers the same torment as Anakin Skywalker.

Which came first - Jack Bauer or Abu Ghraib? Which do you suppose is a better model for the cadets at West Point? And is that really the level of conversation we wish to have?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 15, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Which came first - Jack Bauer or Abu Ghraib?



Bauer, of course.  However, My Lai came before both of them.  Clearly, Soldiers Behaving Badly don't need TV as an excuse, as even a cursory reading of history will show.  No matter how corrosive our television habits, at least our military doesn't generally consider rape and pillage as legitimate spoils of war any more.



michaeledward said:


> Which do you suppose is a better model for the cadets at West Point? And is that really the level of conversation we wish to have?



I guess I am just wondering how far you wish to push this paternalism, and if you really think it will only be applied to subjects you disagree with.  For instance, plenty of people in this country hate gays, brown people, and evolution, and would love to see any reference to them purged from entertainment for reasons that at heart really aren't that different from yours.  

At some point, we have to trust that our fellow citizens, soldiers included, are adult enough not to take movies and television (and music, for our friend Tipper) as permission to rape, torture and murder.  The alternative is condescending paternalism which infantilizes everyone it claims to protect, and an intrusive authoritarian censorship of all "objectionable" materials.  The trick of course is that everything is objectionable to at least someone.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 16, 2007)

I am trying to think of that very popular television program which you hint at where the "hugely popular" protagonist executes gays, or maims brown people, or breaks the bones of evolution. 

Can you actually torture a branch of science to get it to tell you something? 

And, the Bridagere General feels that he should take "this paternalism" as far as a trip across the country to meet with the producers of the program in an apparent effort to stop portraying illegal activities sans consequence because he is of the opinion that it is negatively affecting West Point Cadets. As for me, as I have said, in this thread, I don't watch the program. I don't approve of the program for the images it portrays.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I am trying to think of that very popular television program which you hint at where the "hugely popular" protagonist executes gays, or maims brown people, or breaks the bones of evolution.



Wait, what?  

Anyways, what I was trying to say is that people other than you find things objectionable that are different from what you find objectionable.  This list includes gay people.  Some of those that despise gay people feel that positive gay characters on TV, like say Will from "Will and Grace", should be censored because they have a negative effect on the morals and character of society.  Get it?



michaeledward said:


> Can you actually torture a branch of science to get it to tell you something?



Actually...



michaeledward said:


> And, the Bridagere General feels that he should take "this paternalism" as far as a trip across the country to meet with the producers of the program in an apparent effort to stop portraying illegal activities sans consequence because he is of the opinion that it is negatively affecting West Point Cadets.



Do you do everything someone in uniform tells you to?  I have already explained why I don't find your, and by extension Mr. Brigadier General's, arguments persuasive.  I will let them stand as they are unless you have a new point to address.  As it stands, this reliance on the general's words borders on a logical fallacy, the Appeal to Authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Authority


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 16, 2007)

Because the Brigadere General is in the position to know that 24, and the illegal behavior portrayed on the program does, indeed, have a "damaging effect on young troops", this assertion does not fall into the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. His authority is credible on the point which I am presenting. We are uncertain of the General's authority concerning homosexuals. 

If I were to assert that Senator Kerry argued that 24 had this 'damaging effect on young troops', I would be using the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. Senator Kerry, as a member of the United States Senate, is an Authority figure. But, alas, he has no standing as an authority of the effect of storyline portrayals of illegal behavior.



Further, there is a distinct difference between the characters on Will and Grace being homosexuals, and Jack Bauer executing a government employee. Simply *being* a homosexual is not an illegal behavior. Last time I checked, executing people in cold blood is. So, while some people may find people being gay offensive, for them I suggest the same solution I use toward 24 - self-censorship.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Because the Brigadere General is in the position to know that 24, and the illegal behavior portrayed on the program does, indeed, have a "damaging effect on young troops", this assertion does not fall into the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. His authority is credible on the point which I am presenting.



Yes, and not too long ago, many Generals were quick to point out that having openly gay members of the Armed Forces had a "damaging effect on young troops".  

In any case, I believe using the General in this way is still fallacious.  There is no evidence being presented, such as controlled surveys or studies, simply the General's word.

However, even if the good General is right, that still doesn't invalidate my argument.  I am arguing that the alternative, authoritarian censorship, is such a horrible thing that it by far exceeds any good done by removing such pernicious influences as "24" from the same impressionable young minds we entrust with multi-million dollar jet planes, massive bombs, automatic weapons, and the sanction to use all of them.  

My point is that censorship never stops at just the things you don't like.  You give the government these tools, and eventually someone who doesn't believe the way you do, who dislikes gays or brown people, will get into power and use those tools you so considerately left lying around.



michaeledward said:


> We are uncertain of the General's authority concerning homosexuals.



Don't ask, he won't tell. :uhohh:



michaeledward said:


> Further, there is a distinct difference between the characters on Will and Grace being homosexuals, and Jack Bauer executing a government employee. Simply *being* a homosexual is not an illegal behavior. Last time I checked, executing people in cold blood is.



Yes, and so is genocide (Battlestar Galactica), torture (Lost), whacking friends (Sopranos), and long, long strings of murder (diverse CSI's).  Should we ban those too?  Every show that depicts illegal acts?  I can't believe you would make this argument knowing how many shows it would condemn.



michaeledward said:


> So, while some people may find people being gay offensive, for them I suggest the same solution I use toward 24 - self-censorship.



Then why the hell can't you let your solution to 24 be the solution for everyone else?  What makes you "The Decider" for this show for everyone else?  Get the government out of the censorship business and let everyone practice your elegant and simple solution.  That also gets rid of those other bad consequences I discuss above.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Then why the hell can't you let your solution to 24 be the solution for everyone else? What makes you "The Decider" for this show for everyone else? Get the government out of the censorship business and let everyone practice your elegant and simple solution. That also gets rid of those other bad consequences I discuss above.


 
Who has said that my solution must be the solution for everyone else? And what solution, other than 'self-censorship', I have proposed?


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 16, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And what solution, other than 'self-censorship', I have proposed?



Well, it may not be justified, but I was under the impression that you wanted the government to do something about it.  All that talk about taking note - what good does taking note do if the people being corrupted, soldiers, keep watching the show?  Would they know ahead of time that they were too weak-minded to watch the show, and self-censor?  Doubt it.  How else would you keep these young men and women from watching?

Also, you never took issue with all of my posts about censorship and authoritarianism, so I never questioned my initial assumption.  If self-censorship is all you propose, then my respect for you has risen a great deal - but I doubt it would have the beneficial effect on the troops you desire.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Yes, and not too long ago, many Generals were quick to point out that having openly gay members of the Armed Forces had a "damaging effect on young troops".
> 
> In any case, I believe using the General in this way is still fallacious.  There is no evidence being presented, such as controlled surveys or studies, simply the General's word.



Good points.

I question the general's ability to connect the dots in this case. Excatly how does he know that there is a cause and effect in this case other than his own opinions? It is hard enough to get people to admit that they did something wrong, much harder to get them to even understand the motivations and influences that made them do it. So how is someone else  not even involved in psycology and such able to determine what is causing certain behaviors?

Back in the 50s you could find child councilors and such stating as fact that comic books were the cause of juvenile delinquency. I see no reason to think this general is any more able to make a right call than they.

Of course, it is interesting to note that is seems that this general has never said anything about the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo and the like. He is speaking out against rouge behavior like that we have seen. But his silence seems to confirm what just about every military person on this board has said- that the treatment that some have tried to paint as being worse than the nazis are no worse than we do to our own troops. I kind of wonder if after putting this general up on a pedestal as their absolute authority, if CAIR and others will ignore this matter- especially since the general would be in a position to know about legality and the treatment of prisoners and soldiers and has shown a willingness to stop immoral behavior by soldiers.

But I do have to disagree with you kind of. Here we are talking about one charecter in one series and we are talking about the behavior of adults. While you may think that we must treat adults as if they have the ability to make the right choices- how about the many, many children that are raised on an image of Gangstas as role models? Many people have pointed out that all the various sources promoting the violent lifestyle over years of a childs formative years seems to have a big influence on the number of people being gunned down every day in American cities.

I think the whole gangsta thing is a bigger danger than one television series. But I am sure that many of the same people that take time to attack Jack Baur will remain silent on this matter or even deflect critisism about songs like "Cop Killer" as being a small influence on kids compared to other things, etc.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 17, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> I kind of wonder if after putting this general up on a pedestal as their absolute authority, if CAIR and others will ignore this matter- especially since the general would be in a position to know about legality and the treatment of prisoners and soldiers and has shown a willingness to stop immoral behavior by soldiers.


 
Objection - No Foundation. 

The antecedent of the plural pronoun "their" has not been established.

It has not been shown that any group defined as 'their' have asserted the Brigadere General as an "absolute authority".

It has been argued that the Brigadere General is *an* authority on the attitudes of cadets at West Point toward illegal behavior. Further, it was posited that he was *not* an authority on being gay. These levels of authority fall far short of the posited 'absolute' you attempt to interject in your argument.

If there is a logical fallacy in these remarks, it has something to do changing the argument from the specific to the general. I'm pretty sure there is something about that in those logic texts.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> It has been argued that the Brigadere General is *an* authority on the attitudes of cadets at West Point toward illegal behavior.



And of course, it is questioned at how a person in his position would know that the misbehaviors he sees is because of the reasons he thinks. After all, we seem to be talking about students and not people even in a position to emmulate Jack Baur. So it seems that he is taking the same route as the child case workers in the 50s in regards to comic books.

It is interesting that there seems to be no specific cases he can point to with certainty. He teaches the laws of warfare in is obviously concerned about the message. Here is a quote.



> According to the New Yorker magazine, Gen Finnegan, who teaches a course on the laws of war, said of the producers: "I'd like them to stop. They should do a show where torture backfires... The kids see it and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about 24'?



I can understand where that would be concerned about that possibility, but he sites no cases- just speculation on what the kids are thinking.

But of course, the point I was trying to make is that many of the people and groups that decry the existence of Gitmo are probably also using this general to push their attacks on Fox, etc. But if this general fails to speak up about Gitmo, it seems that he is alright with what goes on there. He is quite willing to speak up about concerns of what soldiers are doing- but not about Gitmo. Kind of interesting if you think about it. I am sure that many will try to use him as their appeal to authority for this matter while ignoring the fact that he is in a better position to know about what goes on at Gitmo than the cause and effect of his students and yet seems to not concur with the position of the protestors.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 17, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> But of course, the point I was trying to make is that many of the people and groups that decry the existence of Gitmo are probably also using this general to push their attacks on Fox, etc. But if this general fails to speak up about Gitmo, it seems that he is alright with what goes on there. He is quite willing to speak up about concerns of what soldiers are doing- but not about Gitmo. Kind of interesting if you think about it. I am sure that many will try to use him as their appeal to authority for this matter while ignoring the fact that he is in a better position to know about what goes on at Gitmo than the cause and effect of his students and yet seems to not concur with the position of the protestors.


 
You demonstrate no evidence that any people or groups that decry the existance of Guantanamo Bay prison facilities *are *'using' this *G*eneral in their attacks. By the way. 

One difference, is that Guantamo Bay prison facilities are military operations. As I understand it, members of the military do not have the right of free speech concerning some items in the chain of command. To continue with your thesis, first we need to establish that the Brigadere General at West Point Military Academy has the right to make statements concerning the detention facilities in Cuba. Then we determine if his statements on the topic, or the absence of statements mean anything. 

The comments he is making about the soldiers you mention, are specifically soldiers under his command. And his requests to Fox Television is about something specifically outside the military chain of command.

I am wondering why you believe a Commander and Teacher at West Point Military Academy has any knowledge of activities in Cuba? 

Have you seen a list of his prior duty stations? Does that include Camp X-Ray, or whatever it is called now? 

Do we assume that *all* military members are in a better position to know what is going on in Cuba than non military matters? 

There seem to be many unfounded assertions in this argument. 




Incidentally, Fox Television has released a statement saying the amount of torture and illegal behavior will be reduced in the future. 

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/magazine/daily/16700918.htm


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2007)

Well, on the matter of how would someone know....

I just realized that the site that Michealward linked to *does not have* the latest quote I used. I used another site to pull it down. Looking at the site first linked to, the site itself seems quite interested in promoting the idea of all American soldiers as rabid, torturing animals. So while the Independent of Britain had the following quote,



> According to the New Yorker magazine, Gen Finnegan, who teaches a course on the laws of war, said of the producers: "I'd like them to stop. They should do a show where torture backfires... The kids see it and say, 'If torture is wrong, what about 24'?



it was *purposefully* left out by the other site to give another impression.

Without mentioning the fact that Finnegan teaches a course of the law of war, the impression you could walk away with is that the reason a general at West Point went to the producers is that they were seeing problems with the troops. But as someone who teaches law, he obviously has a great interest in the matter and would not like seeing people who worked for the government portrayed as using torture.

And when he says "kids" he *is not* talking about people in the military. No one who taught cadets at West Point would use that term for students there or soldiers in the field.

So it seems clear that the only quotes attributed to the general shows that he is concerned about the impact this might have on impressionable children. This is the same as many others have about Gangsta rap and the lifestyle it promotes. There is nothing in the direct quotes by the general that says he thinks there is an impact on the students he teaches or who are serving right now in the military. After all, how would a teacher know what was going on in the field anymore than he would know all of what went on at Gitmo if he is not there?

So we see a case of an interview with the New Yorker Magazine, picked up and quoted in the Independent, then picked up by CAIR and finally used as a source by a site that wants the image of American soldiers as nazis with a bit of revision and editing along the way.

And it is a sad fact that sites like this exist because some folks will do anything they can to attack America. I was just reading a book by David Horowitz where he detailed how the guys who are quite willing to let people with "We support our troops when they shoot their officers" march in their parade will soften their message when it is needed to achive their aim. So sites like the one first quoted about this matter will freely use the argument that they are concerned about the impact of 24 on the soldiers- as long as they can use that tack to paint the picture of American soldiers as out of control beasts. It is either that or as a site that is obviously tilted *way* to the left they are using the chance to attack a site on the right with a edited version of events.

Be carefull Micheal. After all the time you have spent screaming about how Fox is biased and presents only one side, it is hardly consistent for you to read and accept what a site that is so obviously bending the story to their aims presents. It is hardly mainstream.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 17, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> So it seems clear that . . . .


 
I find that whenever someone states that something is "clear", the argument raised is far from obvious, or supported by evidence. It is a marker in language about a personal point of view.

And once again, Don Roley, you seem to be arguing against positions I have not staked, arguments I have not made, and beliefs I don't believe.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> And once again, Don Roley, you seem to be arguing against positions I have not staked, arguments I have not made, and beliefs I don't believe.



Hmm? I seem to take your earlier comment of,



> And, the Bridagere General feels that he should take "this paternalism" as far as a trip across the country to meet with the producers of the program in an apparent effort to stop portraying illegal activities sans consequence because he is of the opinion that it is *negatively affecting West Point Cadets.*



as meaning that the general was concerned about the effects on West Point cadets. But the only direct quote from him is about "kids." I see nothing in the direct quotes by him that either indicate he is concerned about the behavior of West Point cadets or speaking as anything other than someone who cares about what kids see.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 17, 2007)

The quote from The Independent is an accurate quote from that article. The sentence you quote is also in that same article. 

If you read the quote I first linked to again ...



> The United States Military Academy at West Point yesterday *confirmed* that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently travelled to California to meet producers of the show, broadcast on the Fox channel. He told them that promoting illegal behaviour in the series - apparently hugely popular among the US military - was having a damaging effect on young troops.


 
... you may see the source is the "United States Miltiary Academy at West Point". If West Point tells the Independent that 24 'was having a damaging effect on young troops' ... that is a message and a source I can accept. If it is not a good enough source for you, so be it. 

I do not see the 'United States Military Academy at West Point' engaged in any type of political spin or agenda. If they report on the General's message, I can accept that as the message. I do not need direct quotes of the complete conversation with Fox Television.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 17, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> ... you may see the source is the "United States Miltiary Academy at West Point".



That he went to the producers to talk to them. But the only direct quotes from the general were not about cadets or soldiers and West Point does not seem to have confirmed that. His use of the term "kids" indicates that he is concerned about children and he would not use that term for soldiers- trust me.

And of course, the question of how a college lecturer would even know if there is a cause/effect relationship seems on troops in the field is another debate. Even if there are some quotes not revealed that indicate he thinks that there is an influence on soldiers, his expertise is no greater in that respect than his knowledge of Gitmo- or the concern of any other military member.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 18, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> That he went to the producers to talk to them. But the only direct quotes from the general were not about cadets or soldiers and West Point does not seem to have confirmed that. His use of the term "kids" indicates that he is concerned about children and he would not use that term for soldiers- trust me.
> 
> And of course, the question of how a college lecturer would even know if there is a cause/effect relationship seems on troops in the field is another debate. Even if there are some quotes not revealed that indicate he thinks that there is an influence on soldiers, his expertise is no greater in that respect than his knowledge of Gitmo- or the concern of any other military member.


 
Don Roley, I guess the read a different version of English over there.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Don Roley, I guess the read a different version of English over there.



No need to get nasty. I started out going for a journalism major and do not say that someone said something unless it is directly credited and/or quoted.

Since that subject causes you to lose your civility, let me ask you if you would accept a person involved with interogating prisoners that the techniques used were within the spirit and letter of the law and needed to fight terror? If you accept a person so removed from the field as this professor on matters, it would seem that you would listen to those that are closer to the matter in regards to interogations if you are consistent.

This goes to the "appeal to authority" problem that has been discussed. I do not think that the general is any better at saying what the cause of any problems with soldiers in the field are than the child counselors who said that comic books were the cause of juvenile delinquency in the 50s.


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 18, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> No need to get nasty. Two sentences, I treat them as seperate rather than assuming.
> 
> Since that subject causes you to lose your civility, let me ask you if you would accept a person involved with interogating prisoners that the techniques used were within the spirit and letter of the law and needed to fight terror? If you accept a person so removed from the field as this professor on matters, it would seem that you would listen to those that are closer to the matter in regards to interogations if you are consistent.


 
You always seem to be accusing me of something --- 'attitude' 'nasty' or something --- why is that? 

It doesn't seem to be politic to try and teach rudimentary English over the internet. The sentences are quite clear in their construction, but you keep arguing that they say something which they don't, and that they don't say something which they do. 

And again, you are bringing in arguments that are not present in the current discussion. The General was commenting on the effect the portrayals of illegal activities was having on young troops. As the General is a teacher of "young troops" and employed at the military academy in question, he is, according to your rigorous demands for relevancy, completely qualified to comment on the subject.


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> You always seem to be accusing me of something --- 'attitude' 'nasty' or something --- why is that?



Maybe because you have made several comments about me in the past and the moderators had to post notices about sniping and such.



michaeledward said:


> The General was commenting on the effect the portrayals of illegal activities was having on young troops. As the General is a teacher of "young troops" and employed at the military academy in question, he is, according to your rigorous demands for relevancy, completely qualified to comment on the subject.



He is not in a position to know what goes on in the field now and what actions are being done any better than anyone else. He teaches the law of warfare in a classroom and has not been AFAIK involved in interogations at all. He can not see what goes on inside the minds of the students. He can observe certain behaviors but not know what the real reasons for those actions can be. Heck, even people doing certain things are not aware of why they do things. If he were commenting about remarks made in class about the series, then that would be of interest. But he is not quoted except for a very brief bit about kids. Again, people involved in juvenile delinquency issues considered comic books the reason for rising crime rates in the 50s. And now we are talking about adults that need to be treated as if they themselves have the ability to do tell right from wrong.


----------



## Hisgracecase (Feb 18, 2007)

matt.m said:


> Not every Muslim is a terrorist however since the 70's all terrorists acts have been committed by Muslims.  You know, it is sad really, if the good would put the bad in check we would not be having these problems.
> 
> The last I checked we have a lot of movies showing the Japanese, Korean, and German WWI, WWII, Vietnamese, Gulf War etc.  So why should this be different?


I agree with you, Muslim groups have committed horrible terrorist attacks on America, as well as other countries.  Though there have been other attacks
deemed as terrorist activities, such as the Oklahoma city bombing, etc. they have not been carried out by a group or religious sect that is dedicated to
the destruction of America and its allies.  The Muslims may not all be terrorists
but make no mistake, they are all Muslims.  Their ultimate goal is world domination by the Muslim "RELIGION".


----------



## michaeledward (Feb 18, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> He is not in a position to know what goes on in the field now and what actions are being done any better than anyone else. He teaches the law of warfare in a classroom and has not been AFAIK involved in interogations at all. He can not see what goes on inside the minds of the students. He can observe certain behaviors but not know what the real reasons for those actions can be. Heck, even people doing certain things are not aware of why they do things. If he were commenting about remarks made in class about the series, then that would be of interest. But he is not quoted except for a very brief bit about kids. Again, people involved in juvenile delinquency issues considered comic books the reason for rising crime rates in the 50s. And now we are talking about adults that need to be treated as if they themselves have the ability to do tell right from wrong.


 
There have been no assertions about what the General thinks is going on "in the field"; not by me, nor in the article. 

According to the "American Military Academy at West Point" the General was talking with the Producers because of concern he sees in the "young troops" ... is that not a way to describe the attendees at West Point? I believe it is. I believe when the General refers to kids, he is speaking specifically of his students - not juvenile deliquents. 

You show no evidence that he is talking about a different group. You assert only that by using the term 'kids', he could not possibly be refering to cadets and soldiers. Why not? If you are going to press this supposition, which is far outside the context of the article, please defend the assertion with facts and references. 



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060406-3.html


			
				President George W. Bush said:
			
		

> The biggest decision I've had to make since I've been your President is putting *kids* in harm's way. It's a decision no President wants to make. It's a decision I wish I did not have to make. But I'd like to share with you why I made the decision I made.


 
Is President Bush putting your juvenile delinquent in harms way? 
Do you believe that is that what he means?


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 18, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> There have been no assertions about what the General thinks is going on "in the field"; not by me, nor in the article.
> 
> According to the "American Military Academy at West Point" the General was talking with the Producers because of concern he sees in the "young troops" ... is that not a way to describe the attendees at West Point?



If we were talking about cheating on exams, then you might have a point. But your complaint is about torture, then it seems that unless he is around it your points don't have much to stand on.

As for your quoting Bush, I find it a little strange considering that you take time to make comments that he can't make a cohesive sentence that you would now hold him up as the standard of the use of certain terms. That is worth the price of addmision as they say. I do not believe that a West Point Profesor would refer to his students as kids based on my experience of my treatment in the military.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 18, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:

*Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Don Roley (Feb 18, 2007)

Hisgracecase said:


> I agree with you, Muslim groups have committed horrible terrorist attacks on America, as well as other countries.  Though there have been other attacks
> deemed as terrorist activities, such as the Oklahoma city bombing, etc. they have not been carried out by a group or religious sect that is dedicated to
> the destruction of America and its allies.  The Muslims may not all be terrorists
> but make no mistake, they are all Muslims.  Their ultimate goal is world domination by the Muslim "RELIGION".



I happen to think that if there were more Muslims that stood up and denounced terrorism, that the impression others have about their religion would soften. There are folks that will do so. But there seems to be many, many more that either stay silent or qualify what they say so that it does not mean much.

A few weeks ago CNN had a bit on a conference and had a few speakers talking about Islam and violence. One guy was part of the Islamic council in Ireland IIRC and he said _quite clearly_ that the people who were using violence in the name of Islam were dead wrong and merely trying to give a justification for their evil. But there was a younger guy who said that the Koran justified violence if Islam was under attack and he used Afghanistan as an example of how Islam was under attack.

Now, I think most reasonable people would say that Afghanistan was a reasonable response to the people that sheltered the planners of 9-11 and would not turn them over. But to this guy, we should never have attacked Afghanistan or even if we were justified it was still an attack on Islam that merited a violent response.

And this was in a public forum! I know that there are guys like the first one I mentioned. It is the second guy I worry about.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 19, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> While you may think that we must treat adults as if they have the ability to make the right choices- how about the many, many children that are raised on an image of Gangstas as role models?



I don't know, to be honest.  As you can probably tell, I am pretty hostile by default to the notion of entertainment converting people into immoral criminals.  However, I also have no problem with parents controlling what their children watch.  I would not be adverse to giving the parents tools to help them in this matter.  However, if the parents choose not to control what their children watch, I still don't want the government stepping in and raising their children for them, and for us all.


----------



## The Elemental (Feb 19, 2007)

As a muslim, I personally like the show, its also popular in countries like Dubai. The show makes everyone the bad guy which is why it get a lot of criticism from all sides. I don't think it's an anti-muslim show remember season 2, we were not the real bad guys in that season.


----------

