It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: DC Area Conservative Talk Show Host Suspended for Comments About Islam

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Even Yasser Arafat condemned the September 11 attacks.


...While the Palestinians danced in the streets.


All Palestinians? Most Palestinians? Some Palestinians? Few Palestinians?

Your statement is unclear.




posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
But the have been several arrests?

You also have to remember it goes both ways.

Why should Iran do America a favour when the American Government are always so "anti" them? List of Nations goes on.

They veto every U.N. Resolution which is anti-Israel and inturn the Iranian Government won't waste resources on hunting down people not harming their Nation.

----

It has to go both ways.
American Government doesn't seem to realise this.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Interesting thoughts, Odium and Intrepid.

Curious, though, how many "Western" religious zealots are blowing things up in Iran? If you are seriously suggesting that sheltering, nurturing, creating, and supporting murderers is some how a reasonable form of "payback" for the United States' lack of support for Iran's agenda at the UN, I would strongly suggest you reconsider your opinion.

That seems to be a rather mediocre justification. In fact, one could argue that if lack of support at UN round table were justification for allowing murderers of foreign civilians to run free in Iran, similarly, Iran's lack of support for our war with Iraq could justify our carpet-bombing of all of Iran’s elementary schools. A ludicrous argument, for certain; however, I'd say the one made previously is just as dangerous and just as ludicrous.

Another tit for tat argument could also be made that perhaps, if Iran were to show a commitment to mete out justice to murderers of innocent Western civilians, the West would be more likely to support Iran in its UN endeavors. Both are ridiculous. One should not be tied to the other.

One is a political agenda issue, the other is a wanton murder of innocents issue.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by AceOfBase
Even Yasser Arafat condemned the September 11 attacks.


...While the Palestinians danced in the streets.


But why didn't both get media attention?


I'm not debating that the media hasn't been covering it. I was shocked the other day to see the fatwah those American Islamic scholars declared on terrorism the other day on the front page of Fox News. I'm just pointing out that, while the leadership says one thing, the population reacts a different way. They must be getting some kind of direction supporting their belief that America is the Great Satan and should be taken down no matter the means.

Let's relate this to America. I'm sure many of you reading this thread believe Bush lied to the American public and the world to get a war in Iraq. I don't, but I'll suspend that for this example. Bush said one thing in public, but in private believed and worked towards something else. He said peace while he plotted for war. How was this apparent? Well, the top dogs in the goverenment were saying one thing to the world, but the military and UN activity said another. Is it not unfathomable that Arafat could have done similar? In public he makes announcements and declarations that make him seem like a good guy. In the background, though, he influences the schools to continue to teach hate to the impressionable students, supports Hamas and their ilk, etc. Arafat was definately a diplomat; that's what made him so dangerous. He was a likable terrorist.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
What about the muders of Innocents in Israel/Palestine done by the IDF?

Why does American never come forward and speak out about that? The bombings of what they claim are militant leaders without trial - resulting in the deaths of innocent bystanders?

The fact the U.S.A. has blocked every major U.N. effort in Israel and then the action they take in Iraq?

More innocent Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army then Americans have through acts of terrorism. Which is what the IDF do.

And also several nations, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, et al have arrested terrorists who have been teaching people/training them to attack America.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Good point Intrepid.

While I have often heard this claim of dancing in the streets spouted, I've never actually seen it with my own eyes (or through the lens of some photographer's camera).

Anybody have a link for this? I could Google it, but since it is not my claim, I don't feel like it is my responsibility to look it up.

You have a point, though. Who was dancing? Where? When?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
Anybody have a link for this? I could Google it, but since it is not my claim, I don't feel like it is my responsibility to look it up.


Here's one link, though you may not like the source:

www.bible.ca...

Here's some stuff from lgf, the same guys who broke "rather-gate":

www.littlegreenfootballs.com...

Odium: I'll be back to play when I have more time to go into the Israel thing. Y'all need to turn on your AIM every now and then!



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
JJ you've got to be kidding, I counted about a dozen people in one of those photos with about the same amount looking at them. From your source:




And you're using this to say the Palestinians were dancing in the street? That's a pretty poor arguement. You'll base this on a few that did. I guess I answered my own question from the top of this page, seeing as it was overlooked.



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
JJ you've got to be kidding, I counted about a dozen people in one of those photos with about the same amount looking at them. From your source:


Actually, the second google hit that contained all my keywords in the summary
I'm going by memory from that day and all the news I suddenly found myself engrossed in.



And you're using this to say the Palestinians were dancing in the street? That's a pretty poor arguement. You'll base this on a few that did. I guess I answered my own question from the top of this page, seeing as it was overlooked.


It was overlooked, you're right
I'm glad it was addressed, though it caused me several moments of confusion before I realized just how much earlier you'd said that. I'd like to point out I didn't really look at the pics and didn't view the video, I was just doing a quick search to find some pics/vid on the subject before going back to work because I knew it must be out there.

If I were to use an arguement to propose that the Palestinians would be happy about a terror attack on the US, I would refer back to their history with Israel and their willingness to target Jewish civilian targets happily.

Which brings me to you, Odium. The principle difference between the Palestinian civilian attacks and the Israeli are that the Israelis target members of a terrorist organization, while the terrorist organizations target non-military people like children. The difference between the two is that one aims to kill the innocents, the other does not.

As to the assassination without trial, how do you think America or England would react if there was a country harboring people plotting to blow up America or England, but would not arrest them no matter the evidence you presented. What would they do, would they assassinate that person? I think they would if the other option wasn't possible, which is to simply take over the entire country, topple the government, and then try to find the punk plotting to blow up the nation.

So which would be the better option, systematic assassinations, some of which unfortunately go wrong and innocents die, or full scale military invasion to topple the government not willing to arrest/deport the terrorist?



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Just an update (probably the last).

This guy has now been sacked. Apparently the station said he could come back if he apologised and retracted certain statements. He refused, so they fired him.

Now, a similar story comes to light where another talk show host made some remarks that some Catholics found offensive. Becuase ABC owns both stations, a Catholic group is citing the decision to remove Michael Graham as precedent to remove this other talk show host for her comments against Catholics.

Is this the start of a dangerous trend?

His Website (scroll about 1/4 way down to find these two stories)



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Which brings me to you, Odium. The principle difference between the Palestinian civilian attacks and the Israeli are that the Israelis target members of a terrorist organization, while the terrorist organizations target non-military people like children. The difference between the two is that one aims to kill the innocents, the other does not.


But a missile hitting a car, resulting in killing innocent people is still the same.

They kill more innocent people than they kill terrorists, which in turn forces more terrorists to come about. If my father was killed for walking down the road [because he was near a terrorist] I would be pretty angry about it...


Originally posted by junglejake
As to the assassination without trial, how do you think America or England would react if there was a country harboring people plotting to blow up America or England, but would not arrest them no matter the evidence you presented. What would they do, would they assassinate that person? I think they would if the other option wasn't possible, which is to simply take over the entire country, topple the government, and then try to find the punk plotting to blow up the nation.


I do believe we invaded them? Afganistan being the example.

To beat terrorism we need to put ourself on the 'moral highground' that we so often try to do.


Originally posted by junglejake
So which would be the better option, systematic assassinations, some of which unfortunately go wrong and innocents die, or full scale military invasion to topple the government not willing to arrest/deport the terrorist?


But the problem is "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." just because we disagree with their actions doesn't mean their Government does not, nor does it mean their people do not.

But you also have the problem that it has became a very 'My way' situation. I do not see people in America who tried to assassinated Castro being deported and that was an act of terrorism. This in turn means Castro won't deport the people that America want.

These situations have to go both ways and it seems our Governments are not willing to allow them to go both ways...it only matters if it harms us, if it harms them why do we care?




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join