24 - Muslims upset about nuclear attacks

[Touch Of Death]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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

Actually...

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 General 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]

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.