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.

 

Who Here Would Support A War Against Terror?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   
All Rights Revealed

Ladies and Gentlemen I hate to bring it to your attention but a “war against terror” does not exist. Granted we have a “war against terrorism” (something I gather is to do with bombing whole nations to wipe out a matter of thought, belief and concept).
But what we need is a war against terror. You see the aim of a terrorist is to cause terror that’s why their called terrorists. So let’s attack the terror!!!
Currently terrorists are using the media to spread mass fear against our people.

Surely something has to be done?

In a time of war it is often necessary to make sacrifices of personal liberty and freedoms. Since we are already losing many of these freedoms, what I propose is the “restriction of the press to report acts of terrorism”.
This would deny the terrorists a vital tool in spreading fear and panic amongst our people, whilst at the same time keeping the political spot light on issues the voting public can actually do something about.
I do not propose that we ban the reporting of terrorism merely that we restrict. I would say a 500 word newspaper limit, and a total ban of the issue on the front page.
After all it is often that innocent people die so that their pictures can be on the front page. By what right does the media have to perpetuate such violence by putting them on the front page? Couldn’t it be restricted to page 2 or 3 instead?

As for radio and television stations I propose one hour a day of reporting max, possibly at specified times (or is that going too far?).
I have to ask if we can loose other freedoms in the war on terrorism, then what good is it that we have terrorism pumped into our living rooms, sometimes almost 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
And what right is it, if right now people like me are losing the right to find out about other issues, because of the way terrorism dominates the mass media so much?

Ask yourselves, what is it the sight of the world trade centres collapsing did for you? Would it have mattered if you had seen it a day later? Because by “restricting terror” that’s the sort of thing I’m proposing.
Ask yourselves what has this or the latest terrorist video from Osama bin Laden enabled you to do? Or even put you in a better position to do?

Would be better of if the issues we can do something about where reported more instead. Because without so much terrorism in the news I’m sure they would be.
And why do we live in a democracy like Britain which restricts free speech, yet is so willing to let these terrorist wolves cause mass paranoia and the subsequent loss of billions of pounds from our economy? Why is it that we are so willing to make the aims of terrorists worthwhile in the name of democracy, when terrorism is so counter productive to and manipulative of democracy?

Who here supports me on my proposed “war on terror”?

P.S I’m not actually questioning if the “war on terrorism” with tanks and bombs should continue or not. But I want a war on terror!! (Damned “doublespeak”).


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I agree that a war on terror is a good idea.
But when its your government, your leader and your military causing the war on terror'ism'..
thats a different story completely.

America cut its own wrists the second it went into Iraq.

Its stuck there now.. and America knows it..
They lied, tricked and Conned the world into believing Iraq was the right move.

and all they have done is sentance there people to a lifetime of threat and fear for retaliation against something taht should never have happened.

George bush has blood on his hands..... in his wallet.. and all over his petrol bowser..
how many americas here still beleive the crap your government is feeding you?


Better?

[edit on 8-8-2005 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   
"But when its your government, your leader and your military causing the war on terror..
thats a different story completely."

I'm sorry but didn't you mean "war on terrorism"? It's a small point but we have to get the "doublespeak" right if we don't want to lose our minds.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
*Raises hand*
i do! i do! i do!



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 02:39 AM
link   
It's a global struggle against extremism now, don't forget that. War is a business nothing more and nothing less, it is driven by greed and the powers in control will do anything to keep their business alive. Even attack their own people.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
All Rights Revealed

But what we need is a war against terror. You see the aim of a terrorist is to cause terror that’s why their [sic] called terrorists. So let’s attack the terror!!!
Currently terrorists are using the media to spread mass fear against our people.


The terrorists are not using the media to spread fear. We are having the facts of the events reported through our unbiased media.



Originally posted by Liberal1984
All Rights Revealed
In a time of war it is often necessary to make sacrifices of personal liberty and freedoms.


We are not at war currently. The last official declaration of war was against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, this war ended two years ago.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
All Rights Revealed
Since we are already losing many of these freedoms, what I propose is the “restriction of the press to report acts of terrorism”.


Restricting the ability of the press to report on anything is wrong, there are already to many instances in the UK where press restrictions apply.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
All Rights Revealed
And what right is it, if right now people like me are losing the right to find out about other issues, because of the way terrorism dominates the mass media so much?


The attacks on London have been carried out by the first suicide bombers in the history of the UK. This is a significant development and a Rubicon for the extremist groups involved. The full details have to be reported in an unbiased and informative manor.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
All Rights Revealed
Ask yourselves, what is it the sight of the world trade centres collapsing did for you? Would it have mattered if you had seen it a day later? Because by “restricting terror” that’s the sort of thing I’m proposing.
Ask yourselves what has this or the latest terrorist video from Osama bin Laden enabled you to do? Or even put you in a better position to do?


Firstly it infoms the public and educates them to the events influencing their lives. Imagine the husbands and wives of workers, firemen and policemen killed in the collapse of the world trade centre waiting for their loved ones to return home in the evening unaware of the events that had unfolded during that day in Spetember.

Secondly reporting of the acts of attrocity by extremists stimulates debate and discussion, which will ultimatly provide a solution to the problem; or at least move the debate forward.


Originally posted by Liberal1984
All Rights Revealed

Who here supports me on my proposed “war on terror”?



This proposal is unsupportable.
At best it restricts to an even greater extent freedom of the press and this -as history has proven - is never a good thing.

At worst it is ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away, and that is not going to happen.


What we need is more coverage of the situation, a better understanding of why the extremists do what they do, what their motivation is.
We need to bring the leaders of the Muslim faith to the spotlight, and have them explain why the extremists will not triumph. This will stimulate more discussion and bring together those sections of society that will resolve this situation.

The Tanks, Bombs and warplanes in the middle east will never be the solution to this problem. All faiths and cimmunities standing together to denounce the extremists. Driving their evil rhetoric out of the meeting places they use, and helping those who feel draw towards the path the extremists clerics preach will do more good.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
In a time of war it is often necessary to make sacrifices of personal liberty and freedoms. Since we are already losing many of these freedoms, what I propose is the “restriction of the press to report acts of terrorism”.
This would deny the terrorists a vital tool in spreading fear and panic amongst our people, whilst at the same time keeping the political spot light on issues the voting public can actually do something about.
I do not propose that we ban the reporting of terrorism merely that we restrict. I would say a 500 word newspaper limit, and a total ban of the issue on the front page.

Take a good look to Putin's Russia, a pseudo democracy, where the measures you propose are already in place, and ask yourself whether that's what you want for your country and whether it has helped the Russians one bit.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I support it, but or the moment it's fought on the wrong way... Why do they do these attacks...? Cos' they know that there is rich countries that have money to help them, but they wount... So how to get their attention, by doing attacks and starting wars... Now, we all know that the leaders in the organisations only want power, and they use other poples to reach their agenda (smaller poples)... But if we would help the poor ones with food and money, they would stop listening at the terrosists...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
“The terrorists are not using the media to spread fear.”
Why did they choose a city like New York to stage the world trade centre attacks? Why where they going to crash a plane in Washington?
Why was the most recent video from Al-Qaeda from their second in command clearly directed at westerns (at least according to the morning papers?)

“We are having the facts of events reported through our unbiased media”
Rule number one of Western democracy: There is no such thing as an unbiased media, there is no law against, and it there is no law against politicians and their supports doing deals with the media. In England there is a law against “cash for Commons questions” and to rig legislation.
But this is not what the media wants. They want exclusive interviews, “leaks” and to stay on the right side of certain politicians-policies their bosses support.
Our media is owned and controlled by very people. Take Rupert Murdoch: He owns 172 newspapers worldwide (of which all supported the war in Iraq). In owns the Sun newspaper the Times and has a large stake in the News of the World and the Star (all national newspapers out of a country of 12 national newspapers). He also owns a large stake in terrestrial Channel 5 (there are only 5). He also owns over 200 Sky B channels including Fox News, and Sky News.

“We are not at war currently”
You’re right on the technicality.
But try telling that to George W Bush! I wonder what does he means when every time he mentions “war on terror”?

“Restricting the freedom of the press to report anything is wrong”
Oh so we will just let them print the access codes to our nuclear warheads then? For God sake man terrorism is about national security. We have to defend our people against terror. Terror has cost the U.K economy a staggering 2 billion pounds thanks to those attacks, and like I say the purpose of a terrorist is to cause terror. And they do use the media to further this aim, all I’m saying is that we shouldn’t give it to them on an unrestricted basis.

Anyway I’m sick at all the distraction the issue causes from domestic which unlike terrorism we can do something about. What is it exactly that you as an individual can do about terrorism? But there are things you can do about poverty or the environment.

You also said the attacks on London had to be reported in an unbiased manor. Well I said nothing about imposing bias, only restricting coverage in terms of airtime and newspaper space. Big difference because the content can still be “pure”.

“it (the media) informs the public and educates them to the events influencing their lives. Imagine the husbands and wives of workers, firemen and policemen killed in the collapse of the world trade centre waiting for their loved ones to return home in the evening unaware of the events that had unfolded during that day in September.”

Not everyone dies live on TV and usually the families still get to find out. The media is supposed to inform you, but when its not reporting domestic issues, and when its spreading a blanket of terror the issues behind which you can do little or nothing about shouldn’t you ask “is it all worthwhile”?
On my proposal

“At best it restricts to an even greater extent freedom of the press and this -as history has proven - is never a good thing.”

At best a vital tool (the media) is largely denied to the terrorists as an instrument they can perpetuate their terror on our people. At best our economy is saved much trouble, and other issues the public can actually act on receive attention.

"At worst it is ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away, and that is not going to happen."

I do not propose ignoring the problem, just restricting its coverage. People are clearly interested in terrorism so the issue won’t go way. What would is a large chunk of logic in the mind of the suicide bomber.
Also I would trade the liberties the government is taking from me right now, with the absence of some terrorist coverage any day! Totally agree with you on understanding why they do it, but I don’t want to be blackmailed by “the logic of terrorism” so I say it’s enough to know that they did. Also if we really want to know why they do it then try looking at some of the Arabic network sites (Al-jazera) has an English website.
There tunes of reasons, and I’m sure they would have even more coverage if our own domestic fear of terrorism didn’t hog the stage so much. Because the reasons for it like Iraq are happening right now. I didn’t say restrict Iraq reporting, just our own terrorism.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Oh so we will just let them print the access codes to our nuclear warheads then? For God sake man terrorism is about national security.

And exactly how would not reporting or limiting the reporting about it stop terrorism and improve national security? Russia barely reports for example on what happens in Chechnya for years already, has it stopped the tragedy in the theater, subway attacks or Beslan? I don't think so. It is instead used as a tool to hide information from the people just how bad the mismanagement, casualty toll and lack of prospect for a solution of the conflict is.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Actually the way I understand things is that the Theatre, Subway and most recently Beslan massacres received worldwide coverage which amongst other things highlighted the Chenian cause. Maybe I’m wrong, but I imagined that was why the terrorists did the acts in the first place. I understand that the target audience was the Russian people which would explain why the attacks took place on Russian people in Russia.
Certainly regarding the London attacks with the terrorists allegedly claiming on the web within about two hours of the attacks that it was because of Iraq, and recent Al-Qaeda video warning of more attacks un less we "stop meddling in Muslim countries" the logic would seem to be to terrorise the Western people into doing what terrorists want.

I'm not saying we should restrict reporting on the issues behind terrorism. I am saying we should restrict our Medias reporting of the criminal terrorist actions themselves. Regarding your examples Russia did not do this. I don't care what else it does cos I’m not proposing its other policies.

Your examples support me in my claim that currently the media is effectively an extension to the power of terrorism. You might complain of your lost right to see people die live on TV, or the carnage of a blown up bus. Right now I complain of my right to see normal issues on the news I can actually do something about. All because some unelected butchers stole the stage; and consequently made in their minds, their crimes worthwhile.

Before we restrict our people’s right to free speech we should restrict the Medias right to broadcast the terrors of murder live. That is all I propose; nothing else.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
It's a global struggle against extremism now, don't forget that. War is a business nothing more and nothing less, it is driven by greed and the powers in control will do anything to keep their business alive. Even attack their own people.


By george I think you've got it

touche


And attack their own they do more than you know. It is really amazing...no matter how much you explain to some people the Problem, Reaction Solution scenario it still slips them and they believe it is being orchestrated out there somewhere not from within. Run,,,,Run,,,,the El Queda Conquistadors are coming !!!!



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
But what we need is a war against terror. You see the aim of a terrorist is to cause terror that’s why their called terrorists. So let’s attack the terror!!!
Currently terrorists are using the media to spread mass fear against our people.

Surely something has to be done?


I do support a war on terror, which I have been fighting for a while now, but I don't support your proposed means. My war on terror is a war fought in the mind and will and character of a person. I WILL NOT LIVE IN FEAR. I don't care what they do, I refuse to be afraid of an attack that may or may never come.

What if everysingle American (just to name a country) REFUSED to be afraid? Then we win! We have won the war on terror because we are not afraid.

I take the mainstream media with a grain of salt. But I don't think it should be restricted. It's Entertainews anyway. Not real news. If there's a bombing and I've seen it, I turn it off.

I search for the truth, but I will not live in fear. I have won my own personal war on terror.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Ah, I see what direction Liberal1984 is steering this thread into....its just another Bush-Bashing-Big-Corporation-oil-for-war topic that will drag America's foriegn policy thru the mud.

I support the war, but no the way we're fighting it. Once we experiance the "American Hiroshima"...than America will stomp radical Islam out like the cockroachs they are.


Maximu§



[edit on 093131p://111 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Nah you got it all wrong LA-Maximus I'm trying to steer this thread into a debate on whether the mainstream media should be restricted when it comes to reporting live murder, or putting the pictures and horror of terror in its front pages everyday for days on end.
As for Benevalent Historic: You might refuse to live in terror but judging from London ticket sales, and the many other economic consequences that meant the London attacks cost London an estimated two billion pounds even before the second attacks many people do not-can't. I'm glad you take the mainstream media with a pinch of salt, but I would like to see it do more than act as extension of the power of terrorism.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I do think the mainstream media needs to be restricted.

Its clear to this old soldier that the news media hate's the Bush administration so much, it clouds their judgement and it reflects in their biased reporting. I sat there one morning and watched Good Morning America spend 10 minutes on the stupid Koran-in-the-toilet story and they than moved on to the death's of (2) good Marine's in Mosul....those boys barely got 10 seconds.

On the other hand the terror war should not be suger-coated.....go ahead and show the be-headings (after a stern warning) and let America see who our enemy is and let them see the true face of radical Islam.

Maximu§



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
I do think the mainstream media needs to be restricted.

Its clear to this old soldier that the news media hate's the Bush administration so much, it clouds their judgement and it reflects in their biased reporting. I sat there one morning and watched Good Morning America spend 10 minutes on the stupid Koran-in-the-toilet story and they than moved on to the death's of (2) good Marine's in Mosul....those boys barely got 10 seconds.

On the other hand the terror war should not be suger-coated.....go ahead and show the be-headings (after a stern warning) and let America see who our enemy is and let them see the true face of radical Islam.

Maximu§


i agree with you totally. the news camaras DO NOT need to be on the tanks. honestly it puts people in danger, not just the reporters but the military men as well. there needs to be MUCH more restrictions.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:13 AM
link   
You all sound like a bunch of fascists to me that don't even know that you're fascist or just what the implications would be of what you suggest. Forgive them father, for they don't know what they are doing.


I hope if thanks to people like you it ever comes that far that you get to live in a semi totalitarian state like Russia which restricts the news to be pro government, censors bad news regarding the military and only brings stuff deemed patriotic, you'll have the decency to blame it on yourselves instead of on terrorists.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

Nah you got it all wrong LA-Maximus I'm trying to steer this thread into a debate on whether the mainstream media should be restricted when it comes to reporting live murder, or putting the pictures and horror of terror in its front pages everyday for days on end.
As for Benevalent Historic: You might refuse to live in terror but judging from London ticket sales, and the many other economic consequences that meant the London attacks cost London an estimated two billion pounds even before the second attacks many people do not-can't. I'm glad you take the mainstream media with a pinch of salt, but I would like to see it do more than act as extension of the power of terrorism.


2 billion pounds for a TV show? About bombs and dead people? No wait, a real-live TV show, right?

I imagine that money could be better spent helping and aiding the people who created it in the first place with their work.

And yes, the mass media is largley a purveyor of fear, chaos, and death. The cows need to be cowed, you know.

But is the media unbiased? Or is it perhaps in the hands of any particular ethnic group?



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
Well, ordinarily I'd agree with you, but which carries more influence? The message, or the messanger? Why not go ahead and report these events, and call the killers what they are? That being, maniacs in their thoughts and cowards in their actions.

It's one thing to throw away your life by charging infront of a platoon of Marines. it's quite another to detonate a bomb with a garage door opener from three hundred feet, and taking out a busload of kids. (Let's face it, the notion that there's a dead terrorist in the middle all that smoke is, frankly, giving them WAY too much credit for having some measure of courage.)

We could turn Americas attitude toward this war 180 degrees by simply calling these guys EXACTLY what they are. Thugs, cowards, and maniacs.

Sadly, the American press is in competition with the likes of Fear Factor, Big Brother, Survivor...(*sheesh* how long is this list?)

You get my point? Network News has run the route of Serial Reality shows. Dump a gallon of gas on a burning issue...then MAKE the audience stay tuned to find out how to fix it!

Yeah, it's sick...but it works!


[edit on 9-8-2005 by Toelint]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join