Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/11/2001 6:25:44 AM EDT
...if it means censorship of the media! who in their right minds thinks that osama is using western media to "direct his minions" through code??? i didn't ever see or hear him prior to the attacks, why now? is this the feb's way of protecting us from our own anger? FYCK THAT! every movie i watched lately has edited out the WTC. WTF? what if i WANT to remember my fallen friends? what if i WANT to remember how the skyline used to look? this is the beginning of the end people. our first amendment is under attack, and i will not stand idly by and allow this. what's next? the second, the fourth? [soapbox]
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 6:49:43 AM EDT
When has the media ever given in to anyone? They are in complete control and will/won't comply based completely on their own choice to do so.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:03:36 AM EDT
"who in their right minds thinks that osama is using western media to "direct his minions" through code?" Man it's to easy for him to tell his nut bags buddies befor they come over here to look for him on TV and if they see him in the nwhite rag with the red dot them highjack a plane that day. It could be anything. Don't flip out, we can see the Bin Laden flicks we want to after he is dead
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:07:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2001 7:03:40 AM EDT by fattym4]
in today's Wall Street Journal, front page blurb with article on page A10 (depending on which edition you get) it stated that "the White House today asked the media to be careful of broadcasting videos of Bin Laden or his lieutenants, saying they could contain coded messages to henchmen." 2 hours later, on Reuters News Service, i read this headline: "Media to comply with White House request to not show [red]un-edited[/red] footage of Bin Laden." doesn't sound too defiant to me.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:18:24 AM EDT
It is possible that Bin Laden could be using a code of sorts to communicate pre-directed attacks at the US. Hell, every other country has done the same thing in both war and peacetime! The movie thing does piss me off though, and what's worse is the news. I'm not trying to be callous or morbid, but where's the dead bodies? There's almost 7000 people in a smouldering crater in downtown Manhattan and we've yet to see ONE bodybag on TV. If you go down there, you can SMELL death in the air (and not in some metaphorical, literary sense either...) and know 1st hand how bad this thing really was, but it's not showing up on TV like that. Some might ask what's the point of doing that? Well, I'm glad you asked. The point is to INFORM the people about the GRAVITY of the situation and not to gentrify it for mass consumption. Want to know WHY the nazis are still looked upon with such hatred and disgust to the measure that they are, even though most of us were not even alive during WW2? Because we see the REAL ACTUAL FOOTAGE of what happened in the camps! The film BEARS WITNESS to future generations to explain WHY they were so evil and twisted. I can stomach my TV shows, magazines, and radio being censored of violent or potentially disturbing images in NY for a while, BUT GIMME THE NEWS THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE! SHOULD I NOT BE OUTRAGED? Shouldn't the news show what's actually going on in the cleanup of this tragedy? Instead, we're just starting a "healing process". What unadulterated bullshit that is. I'll heal a great deal more comfortably when I'm not being spoon fed "news" by the media, and even more so when there's a pool of taliban blood at my feet to catch my tears when they finaly fall! [soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox]­[soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox][soapbox]
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:26:57 AM EDT
Danzig [;)] er, i mean Samhain, EXACTLY! first they try to supress our outrage by censoring images of celebrating muslims, arabs, islamics, terrorists, etc. and now this? mr_carbine, that's what they WANT you to think! news flash: the enemy is here, they operate independent of orders, censorship is ILLIGAL in this country. "serenity now!"
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:29:55 AM EDT
So one of you wants coded messages sent to the hundreds or thousands of sleeper agents still sitting here shown on national television. It's no wonder you lost your job with the NSA - this is basic shit they taught in the first year of classes. And another one wants to see body parts and body bags on TV. Last time I checked you could get some pretty damn cheap flights to NYC to view the carnage first hand you ghoul. There was NO footage of the "CAMPS" in WWII until at the earliest 1944-1945. We simply didn't know for sure what was going on, there were rumors but apposulty no proof until rather late in the war. No one doubted the fact that the Jews were being used in slave labor camps and had been sent out of the cities but the true horor didn't come to light until very very late in the war after tens of thousands of Americans were dead. We didn't enter the war because of the "Camps" anyway. Don't they teach you people anything in public schools???
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:35:04 AM EDT
All the networks and every one of the thousand television channels can censor everything they want. In fact they are required by regualations to censor out certain things. When was the last time you saw the un-Censored version of Debbie does Bagdad on ABC primetime? If ABC wants to censor Monday Night football they are perfectly free to do so. When the government puts censorship boards together at each network then you have something to worry about. Censorship for content is permitted and encouraged by television industry groups. Hell fags weren't shown kissing on television until two years ago - why weren't you crying censorship over that? I know you like to see hot and sweaty grown men kissing [;)] - make that women!
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:47:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:50:18 AM EDT
Hey Troll you self righteous POS, I LIVE IN NY, AND WORK IN MANHATTAN YOU FECAL EATING BASTARD. I (UNLIKE YOU) HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, AND I (AGAIN, UNLIKE YOU) HAPPEN TO HAVE SEEN 1ST HAND WHATS GOING ON THERE VERSUS WHAT'S BEING SHOWN ON TV. YOU WANNA CALL ME A GHOUL? FINE. TELL YOU WHAT. I'LL BUY YOU A TICKET TO NY, TAKE YOU DOWN TO THE BIG CRATER IN MY CITY WHERE 7000 OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS LIE DEAD, THEN I'LL BEAT THE PISS OUT OF YOU. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME, THE WORLD YOU LIVE IN, OR THE SITUATION HERE. THINK NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU ATTEMPT TO SPEAK!
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2001 7:51:45 AM EDT by Samhain44]
Oh, and one more thing idiot... I NEVER said that the footage of nazi camps were the reason we GOT INVOLVED in WW2, I said it's the reason we so VIVIDLY know of the atrocities commited there, the reason our hatred of that era is sustained to this day despite the fact that fewer and fewer of us were even alive during that time in history, you f***ing simpleton. I guess they didn't teach READING COMPREHENSION in your KALIFORNIA school, bastard.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 7:59:10 AM EDT
"mr_carbine, that's what they WANT you to think! news flash: the enemy is here, they operate independent of orders, censorship is ILLIGAL in this country." Stand back guys we have an Art Bell fan here! I love these guys,"I now something you don't know" Did somebody make you fell dumb at some time? so now you have to try and make ever one think your a smart guy. We at war here and if you think the right of bthe commie press to show Bin Laden is greater that the rights of Americans to live you need some help. After the war the commies can go right back to stepping on our rights with total freedom but now they need to chill out.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:03:22 AM EDT
fattym4, what movies have edited out the WTC?
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:03:46 AM EDT
Jesus you're stupid! The more I read your reply, the more I see a twisted shallow gene pool in your family tree! The reason that TV sensors things like 2 guys kissing, monday night football, and movies is because...now hold on, this might shock you... THEY'RE NOT REAL, AND NOT NEWS! Yep, that's right, kermit is not real either. Sorry to disappoint you. The media has a LEGAL responsibillity to broadcast news (under the FCC regulations) and a moral responsibillity to do so fairly and balanced. If you think that Ally McBeal and 60 Minutes are the same, just do us all a favor and don't breed.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:08:45 AM EDT
whoah! take a chill mr_carbine, i didn't mean to get your undies in a bunch! and YES, freedom of speech is more important than ANYTHING ELSE! that's why its the FIRST amendment. fycking sheep like you can go ahead and wait in line to hand over your freedoms and your guns if you want, but don't cry to me ten years from now, when there ARE censorship boards sitting at the networks. p.s. the mega-fight scene at the end of "X-MEN" blacked out the WTC, even my little 10 year old nephew noticed, opening scenes of ANY show that takes place in NY, etc. etc. etc.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:21:10 AM EDT
There is a very good reason why we need to be protected and that these tapes from Osama Bin Ladin must NOT be shown to the public. There is a little known but very powerful terrorist in his group. Whenever he is shown on video or on a poster, it is a secret code for "ATTACK". Here is the man: [img]http://plaza.v-wave.com/bert/img/bertmug.jpg[/img] Here is the code: [img]http://www.pigdog.org/images/bert/bertbinladen2.jpg[/img].
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:27:23 AM EDT
"fycking sheep like you" Watch who you call a sheep d!ck head,and try not to be such a knee jerk it will all be ok.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:32:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mr_carbine: [red]After the war the commies can go right back to stepping on our rights with total freedom[/red] but now they need to chill out.
View Quote
thinks like a sheep, writes like a sheep....if the fleece fits, wear it!
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 8:36:41 AM EDT
i'm so glad this turned out to be the intelligent and meaningful Constitutional discussion i meant it to be. i really should take my own advice and ignore the trolls, if this keeps up, i'll just delete the thread, i guess loss of your rights doesn't matter to anyone...
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 9:19:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2001 9:29:00 AM EDT by GodBlessTexas]
Originally Posted By fattym4: ...if it means censorship of the media!
View Quote
The government can't legally censor the media. All they can do is ask them politely to do something, or as in the age of Nixon, threaten them. And that's all they've done. The media will either comply, as they've agreed, or they'll have a hard time getting their rep's questions answered at whitehouse briefings.
who in their right minds thinks that osama is using western media to "direct his minions" through code? i didn't ever see or hear him prior to the attacks, why now?
View Quote
You never saw him before? Not after the embassy bombings or the USS Cole bombing? I sure did, but he wasn't making statements. They were using pictures of him taken from his recruitment videos. Furthermore, after you've been made the prime suspect of the biggest terrorist attack ever, you can bet your ass that the world is going to be looking for any and all information they can get on and from you. If he releases a video tape of him playing "Yankee Doodle Dandy" with his armpit, it'll get on the. Slipping something as insignificant as a hand gesture or a phrase into one of those statements would let other cells know that the time to attack a certain target. The cells may operate independantly, but they do have to communicate. He's in hiding, so two way communications would be potentially compromising. What better way to be guaranteed to get your covert messages out than by putting them inside the equivalent of press releases that you know the world media is going to broadcast ad nauseum? The CIA does intelligence gathering looking for exactly this type of stuff! All they wanted was for them to be careful with airing his statements and to allow them time to review for anything hidden in the message before airing them. Not exactly the same as saying "You will not air this footage." Hell, it's akin to broadcasting Nazi propaganda in the US during WWII. We didn't let Goebbels message be trumpeted on US soil back then. Why should we let Usama do it now? And you're forgetting that the important part of that statement is that the stations AGREED to review any new video before airing. I've worked in media, and it's not easy to coerce a company like AOL Time Warner to just back down. The best they could hope for is for them to just agree, but if they hadn't there would have been nothing the Feds could have legally done about it.
every movie i watched lately has edited out the WTC.
View Quote
Well, that is just stupid. Editing it out of existing movies and other things is disrespectful to those who died.
this is the beginning of the end people. our first amendment is under attack, and i will not stand idly by and allow this. what's next? the second, the fourth?
The Fourth Amendment is pretty well eroded these days if you haven't noticed. The First Amendment won't be successfully attacked until the second is gone or signifianctly watered down. Furthermore, if the news agencies do something stupid, like broadcast or publish sensitive military information that gets US soldiers killed, then I think they should face stiff criminal and civil penalties. The intent of the First Amendment was to allow the public and the press to dissent against the government without reprisal. It has nothing to do with putting the lives of our soldiers in jeapordy, and doing so is criminal and unethical. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 9:29:51 AM EDT
ah, back on track! yes, the gubment can "request it" but when they comply, i have to wonder what truth we will ever see again. also, what mis-information are they slipping us, like so much salt-peter to sailors. and yes, we have seen Bin Laden previously. but never BEFORE an attack! always after. again, our enemy is already here, they operate independent of orders, and i suspect that with bombs falling daily on Afghanistan, they already know that now is the time to attack. we already know that more is coming, who cares if Osama wiggles his prick to signify "NOW IS THE TIME TO ATTACK" - would you or i be any more prepared??? also, i would like to separate this debate from that of "leaks" to the press that endanger lives. that is not the issue here.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 9:54:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fattym4: ah, back on track! yes, the gubment can "request it" but when they comply, i have to wonder what truth we will ever see again. also, what mis-information are they slipping us, like so much salt-peter to sailors.
View Quote
Well, if you've ever expected "the truth" from the media, you've never gotten it. This is Modern Infotainment. The best you can hope for with todays Liberal or Conservative media is to collect all the information from every possible source to get a more complete picture. You won't get "the truth" ever on CNN or Fox. You'll just get one groups personal views on world events, which may be their truth, but not universal truth. That's why I'll slog through Rush Limbaugh and Amy Goodman on Democracy now.
and yes, we have seen Bin Laden previously. but never BEFORE an attack! always after.
View Quote
We've never had any reason to see him before an attack, as terrorirst tend to plan these things in secret. But he's waged war on the US now, and he's making statements because we're actively hunting him now. Unlike Clinton, Bush wants his head on a pole, and I bet old man Bush is helping out his son with making sure that the job gets done right and there is no half-stepping done this time. If The Middle East and East Asia are to respect us, we must show them that America is willing to see this through.
again, our enemy is already here, they operate independent of orders, and i suspect that with bombs falling daily on Afghanistan, they already know that now is the time to attack. we already know that more is coming, who cares if Osama wiggles his prick to signify "NOW IS THE TIME TO ATTACK" - would you or i be any more prepared?
View Quote
I think it's grossly underestimating them to think that they send their best and brightest over here to die in these suicide missions. The people executing the terrorism are the equivalent of lap dogs and errand boys, not the nervous system of the operation. None of them got the idea to fly planes into the WTC on their own, and probably didn't do most of the logistical work. But someone did have to sit behind the controls, right? It would be insane to put your brightest people behind the controls for that. That's why you recruit easily manipulated sheep, as they do. While Usama may have revolutionised the way terrorist organisations work by breaking them up into cells, he didn't get around the problem of having to have smart people plan the attacks. And let's face it, Usama is nothing more than a charismatic face-man. He is NOT the brains behind the Al Queda organization. The CIA thinks it's Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's doctor.
also, i would like to separate this debate from that of "leaks" to the press that endanger lives. that is not the issue here.
View Quote
Fair enough. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:02:04 AM EDT
Fatty - I beleive censorship of the media was a FACT OF LIFE during WWII. (ANyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong here) IMO, during times of war, ANYTHING that endangers the soldiers life in the field of battle is fair game for gov't censorship. My preference would be that the individual media outlets would censor THEMSELVES, but that ain't gonna happen. Heard on Rush today re: this topic - Media goon questioned whether we should do this because he was "afraid of handing the Whitehouse a propaganda victory." What the (expletive deleted) does THAT mean??? Pick a side media troll goon. My opinion.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:21:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2001 10:43:37 AM EDT by Samhain44]
Hey M4 & God Bless Texas, I think if you guys think that it's only through courtesy rather than national policy that the media can be censored during times of national crisis, you should read this article: [red][url]http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/09/24/1.html[/url][/red] It gives a good overview of the history of media censorship, a look at how it relates to what's going on now, and most importantly, it comes from a source or reputable authority. I'm glad this thread has progressed farther than idiotic blurbs and mindless chatter....
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:24:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: Well, if you've ever expected "the truth" from the media, you've never gotten it. This is Modern Infotainment.
View Quote
hee hee, i guess you're right!
I think it's grossly underestimating them to think that they send their best and brightest over here to die in these suicide missions. The people executing the terrorism are the equivalent of lap dogs and errand boys, not the nervous system of the operation. None of them got the idea to fly planes into the WTC on their own, and probably didn't do most of the logistical work. But someone did have to sit behind the controls, right? It would be insane to put your brightest people behind the controls for that. That's why you recruit easily manipulated sheep, as they do. While Usama may have revolutionised the way terrorist organisations work by breaking them up into cells, he didn't get around the problem of having to have smart people plan the attacks. And let's face it, Usama is nothing more than a charismatic face-man. He is NOT the brains behind the Al Queda organization. The CIA thinks it's Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's doctor.
View Quote
now that is an interesting take. i was under the impression (according to our gubment [rolleyes]) that these cells gather support, come up with a plan, and then petition O(U)sama for finance. if the bearded bard of death likes the plan, and thinks it is feasable, only then does he become involved ~ to finance-and-forget, if you will. hmmmm, worth considering. and G-man, aren't you talking about censorship of actual military fact?
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:31:20 AM EDT
hey Samhain, bad link! i get an error message!
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:31:25 AM EDT
Ummmmm, Mr. Samhain44, What does "sourse" mean ??? [:D]
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:32:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fattym4: . and G-man, aren't you talking about censorship of actual military fact?
View Quote
Yes, DEFINITELY that. But re: your specific question, the Usama tapes, and "encoded messages" - Its possible he could be sending messages to destroy / attack US military bases in the states, or killing the families of military personnel, to dishearten our troops. So, when I say "ANYTHING that endangers our soldieirs in the field" I am casting a pretty wide net, so to speak. Maybe too wide, i admit. But I'm willing to lose a little info if our soldiers are better off becasue of it. Two words of explanation: 1. I'm distrustful of pretty much ANYTHING the media reports anyway. Them being forced NOT to report something isn't much of a loss to me, as they always bias and spin it anyway. 2. I'm probably more willing to allow a little censorship, cuz I trust teh guy in the Big Chair in teh Oval Office. If it were Clinton up there, I'd probably be FREAKIN' at teh suggestion of any censorship. Situational ethics, I guess.
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 10:53:21 AM EDT
Hey, I fixed the link - here it is again though... [red][url]http://www.tompaine.com/news/2001/09/24/1.html[/url][/red] I also corrected "sourse" to "source", so as not to offend anyone with my vulgar complacency in the arena of spelling. [smile] I can't get spellcheck to work on the boards, is it offline, or is it just me? The article is worth reading though...
Link Posted: 10/11/2001 11:24:47 AM EDT
yes, an interesting read. i guess it comes down to whether or not a clip of information is militarily significant or not, and whether or not i trust the current administration to make that distinction. i am not convinced that showing Osama et. al. make a speach is any less harmful than restricting our receipt of truth. remember when the interpreter struggled to translate fast enough while Osama spoke live? that is what i call truth. a lie is when the gubment takes that clip, edits it to say what THEY think we should hear, and calls it fact. we are not too far from the memories of the USSR to know how slippery the slope really is. i would rather err on the side over-caution, than the side of giving the gubment the benefit of the doubt. and i am not alone in thinking that going back and editing out the WTC from film and TV is pure bullshite.
Top Top