FoxNews' Brian Kilmeade Calls For Terrorist Car Bombings In Iran

Originally posted by jsobecky
Guess what, Griff? Recent reports have shown that Chinese espionage in the US is at an all-time high.


China's Big Export

I didn't ask if they were doing it. I asked if you would like it.

It is not Fox New's responsibilty to teach people what to learn, or believe. Nor is it the duty of some supermarket rag that talks about aliens and UFO's. It's your own responsibility.

I'm sorry but you have it wrong. There are codes of ethics that FAUX (and all others) are suppossed to follow.

Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics:

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Source: www.spj.org...

Don't tell me it's up to me to wade through the bs. It's up to the journalists to not report on bs.

He has every right to say whatever he wants about Iran. You have no right to stop him.

Really? After reading my above quote from the code of ethics, do you still believe this?

You are so quick to defend Chavez when he trash-talks the US. Yet you can't see why Kilmead has a right to the 1st Amendment.

Again, really? I don't remember posting in any of the Chavez threads. Maybe you have me confused or maybe I am. But, I don't recall ever defending Chavez.

As I said, it depends on where you sit. If you were in Iran and called for Bush's assassination, you'd be hailed as a hero.

And this makes it right for our journalists (who have to abide by the code of ethics) to do?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Here's one example. For other examples, do your homework. Google is your friend.

BTW, this is from MSNBC.

Iran Reportedly Bombs Villages In Northern Iraq

Maybe you should read your own sources?

Iranian troops have been accused of bombing border areas for weeks against suspected positions of the Free Life Party, or PEJAK, a breakaway faction of the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party. Iran says PEJAK — which seeks autonomy for Kurds in Iran — launches attacks inside Iran from bases in Iraq.

Hmm...they are bombing the Kurds, but you equate that to supplying the "insergents"? How are the two related in any way, shape or form?

BTW, I am not defending Iran in any way, shape or form either. Before I get accussed of doing so.

[edit on 11/13/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
I am not defending Iran in any way, shape or form either. Before I get accussed of doing so.

You'll get accused of doing so because you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. There's no third option. Either you are against Iran completely or you support them.

Didn't you listen to the saviors Bush and FOX?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Didn't you listen to the saviors Bush and FOX?

Nope. I try to think for myself.

BTW, no one wants to tackle this?:

Society of Professional Journalists: Code of Ethics:

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Source: www.spj.org...

What this "journalist" did was against the professional code of ethics. He should be fired IMO.

reply to post by Griff


Yeah, it was sarcasm

FOX News violates the code of ethics all the time. If that had any effect, FOX News wouldn't exist

It's important to have a Fox news to offset far leftist propaganda like CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. I'm amazed that people can't even accept 1 supposedly conservative (but not really) news station amidst a see of corporate socialist hacks.

As for the newscasters comments, I think he goes too far, however it does make sense for the US to adopt clandestine and even assymetric warfare against a country like Iran who is arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah (who have killed nearly as many Americans as Al Qaeda by the way).

In fact it is much preferable to overt war which costs many more lives and even more dollars. Just as long as the covert action targets things like nuclear facilities, mass murdering secret police, and bomb factories other than helpless civilians. Remember Iran has been caught red handed sending bombs and terrorists into Iraq to target US troops. They are also hell bent on getting nukes, which they will use against the US and Israel once they have them, no doubt through their terrorist proxy.

It is true that we should never have invaded Iraq. They had nothing much to do with Al Qaeda other than a little token support and some minimal training. However Iran has been up to it's eyeballs with terrorists for decades. That's the country other than Afghanistan, that Bush should have invaded if any.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
It's important to have a Fox news to offset far leftist propaganda like CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC.

:shk:

Originally posted by SevenThunders
it does make sense for the US to adopt clandestine and even assymetric warfare against a country like Iran who is arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah (who have killed nearly as many Americans as Al Qaeda by the way).

Ok..

It does make sense for Iran to adopt clandestine and even asymmetric warfare against a country like the US who is arming countries like Israel (who have killed many Palestinians by the way).

Same thing.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Remember Iran has been caught red handed sending bombs and terrorists into Iraq to target US troops.

Proof?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
They are also hell bent on getting nukes,

Proof?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
which they will use against the US and Israel once they have them,

Proof?

Originally posted by SevenThunders
no doubt through their terrorist proxy.

Proof?

There's "no doubt", so clearly there's proof.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
That's the country other than Afghanistan, that Bush should have invaded if any.

We shouldn't have invaded anyone.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

We shouldn't have invaded anyone.

I see. So it's OK if terrorists destroy two US skyscrapers and kill thousands of US lives. The US should do nothing in response because the US 'deserved it'. No doubt we deserved to be bombed because we support the only democracy and free society in the Middle East, Israel.

I wonder what your response would have been to Pearl Harbor? Even Charle's Lindburgh's America First group, who opposed US involvement in WWII disbanded after that one.

Perhaps you would have also been in favor of the 18th century US congress continuing to give 20% of our yearly taxes as payment to the barbary coast pirates (another muslim terrorist group) to not sink our ships?

I'm afraid there is a time for peace and a time for war. If you don't stand up to bullies and if you don't confront evil now, you pay a big price later.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by jsobecky
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Based on what? Can you provide proof?

Sure. Here ya go..

What terrorist groups are linked to Iran?
U.S. officials say Iran mostly backs Islamist groups, including the Lebanese Shiite militants of Hezbollah (which Iran helped found in the 1980s) and such Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. A few months after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections in early 2006, Iran pledged $50 million to the near-bankrupt PA. The United States, among other nations, has cut off aid to the PA because of Hamas’ terrorist ties.

Iran is suspected of encouraging Hezbollah’s July 2006 attack on Israel to deflect international attention from its nuclear weapons program. Iran was also reportedly involved in a Hezbollah-linked January 2002 attempt to smuggle a boatload of arms to the PA. Some reports also suggest that Iran’s interference in Iraq has included funding, safe transit, and arms to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces.

What terrorist activities have been linked with Iran?
The U.S. government first listed Iran as a terrorist sponsor in 1984. Among its activities have been the following:

Observers say Iran had prior knowledge of Hezbollah attacks, such as the 1988 kidnapping and murder of Colonel William Higgins, a U.S. Marine involved in a UN observer mission in Lebanon, and the 1992 and 1994 bombings of Jewish cultural institutions in Argentina.
Iran still has a price on the head of the Indian-born British novelist Salman Rushdie for what Iranian leaders call blasphemous writings about Islam in his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.
U.S. officials say Iran supported the group behind the 1996 truck bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military residence in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. servicemen.

www.cfr.org...

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
We're a state sponsor of terrorism too. We're advocating blowing up cars in Iran, we've armed the Kurds, we arm Israel. That's terrorism.

Since when did our gov't advocate blowing up cars in Iran?

And arming Iraq and Israel (and other countries) is not the definition of sponsoring terrorism. China, Russia, Germany, and others also arm other countries.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Directly or by proxy?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I assume the proxy war you're referring to is Iraq, so please provide proof that that's going on.

Iran attacks Iraq
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Iran supplies Iraq:
www.nytimes.com...

Iran supplies Taliban
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Originally posted by jsobecky
Our right is change by ballot box. How does you advocating violent removal of our administration make you any better than Kilmead?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Wrong. We have the right to remove them by force.

You only have that right if they take the ballot box away from you. If you attempt violent removal otherwise, then you will be arrested for sedition.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Doesn't work that way. You should be saying, "If I was standing in the middle of Tehran"...

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
It does work that way, you just want to dodge the question.

I think you're having a problem with your reading comprehension.

Kilmead is in the US talking about IRAN
Kilmead is not in the US talking about the US.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Regardless, protestors here in America frequently carry signs saying "Down with America!" and shouting for revolution. Should they be arrested?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Very few Americans chant "Down with America". We're pissed off at the government. Our country and our government are two different things.

Now who's dodging the question?

Should they be arrested or not?

reply to post by jsobecky


Thanks for answering this.

It would have taken me a while to dig all this up.

reply to post by Griff

Originally posted by Griff

Don't tell me it's up to me to wade through the bs. It's up to the journalists to not report on bs.

If you really feel this way, and are not just trying to save face with a glib answer, then I feel sorry for you. You want someone to filter your news for accuracy and integrity? Good luck!



[

Originally posted by jsobecky
He has every right to say whatever he wants about Iran. You have no right to stop him.

Originally posted by Griff
Really? After reading my above quote from the code of ethics, do you still believe this?

Even moreso. You want to stifle free speech; it reminds me of those people who push the Fairness Doctrine.

reply to post by Griff

Originally posted by Griff


Hmm...they are bombing the Kurds, but you equate that to supplying the "insergents"? How are the two related in any way, shape or form?

BTW, I am not defending Iran in any way, shape or form either. Before I get accussed of doing so.

[edit on 11/13/2007 by Griff]

I'm not equating the two. I'm saying that they bomb the Kurds, they supply the insurgents, AND they supply the Taliban. AND they interfere in Lebanon.

I don't think its a real big deal.
I believe he was just being sarcastic and got caught up in the story. Its like saying "lets see how they like it". Yes he should have worded it better but I seriously doubt he really believes that using car bombs in Tehran is a valid method of fighting. I think he was just saying since they are doing this to us then lets see how they would like it done to them, in a tongue-in-cheek sort of way.

Originally posted by SevenThunders


I see. So it's OK if terrorists destroy two US skyscrapers and kill thousands of US lives. The US should do nothing in response because the US 'deserved it'. No doubt we deserved to be bombed because we support the only democracy and free society in the Middle East, Israel.

Seven,

Had there been any connection between the two you might have argument. But there wasn't, so you don't.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I think people get hung up on labels when what they need to is to decide which side they are on. It is just that plain and simple; all you need to do is pick a side without the need for labels.

....

Just pick a side and support and defend the side you pick.

This is not meant as a personal insult in any way, but that has got to be the dumbest post I've ever seen on ATS to date!

Picking sides and defending them is the CAUSE of all the wars and probably all the suffering EVER throughout human existence.

We should ALL sit on the fence and just talk about it, the world would be a lot safer place

RogerT,

It's definitely the "you're either with us or against us" thingy. But I have to argue that the dumbest post on ATS so far has yet to be beat. That's the one where the member argued that the extension of Daylight Savings time dates would screw up the cows because they would be confused about what time was feeding time.

My question still remains unanswered on that - What kind of watches do cows wear? Bullova's???

Originally posted by SevenThunders
So it's OK if terrorists destroy two US skyscrapers and kill thousands of US lives.

Nope, it's not ok. But until foreign terrorists actually do that, then that really isn't relevant.

-------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by jsobecky
www.cfr.org...

What makes Hezbollah a terrorist group?

What ever definition you give, it can be applied to the US and Israel as well.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Since when did our gov't advocate blowing up cars in Iran?

I'm sure they've thought of it.

Originally posted by jsobecky
And arming Iraq and Israel (and other countries) is not the definition of sponsoring terrorism.

You're right. It's not. But when those arms are being used for terrorism purposes or bullying purposes, then it is sponsoring terrorism.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Iran attacks Iraq
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Are you forgetting who else attacked Iraq? I'll give you one guess...

Originally posted by jsobecky
Iran supplies Iraq:
www.nytimes.com...

We're supplying groups in Iraq too. Is it just because we chose them, they're automatically good guys and not terrorists?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Iran supplies Taliban
www.timesonline.co.uk...

And we fund Al Qaeda through the ISI. What's your point?

Originally posted by jsobecky
You only have that right if they take the ballot box away from you.

You seem to have missed what I said.

What do you think our right to bear arms is for?

Originally posted by jsobecky
Kilmead is not in the US talking about the US.

I never said he was, so stop dodging.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Should they be arrested or not?

If they're protesting? No.

[edit on 11/13/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

I've said it many times, there is little to no difference between the Terrorists and the Americans. With exception that the Americans are unwilling to die for their cause.

This just proves it.

You will of course be disgusted by the fact that I've said this. I was disgusted a long time ago... now I'm just jaded.

All sides are just as disgusting as each other... anyone beating the war drum, be it politician, civilian, soldier, or terrorist, should hang for opposing peace.

The funniest part of it, is all guilty parties are religious, and their own religious texts tell them they are going straight to hell.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You want someone to filter your news for accuracy and integrity? Good luck!

What? NEWS is not supposed to be accurate and have integrity? Good luck in the new world following your inaccurate and phony NEWS. I like mine truthful with as little bias thrown in myself.

No wonder you have FAUX up on a pedestal. If you're willing to have inaccuracies, biasness and lies spoon fed to you. So be it.

Even moreso. You want to stifle free speech; it reminds me of those people who push the Fairness Doctrine.

I have no want to stifle free speach. I have said plenty of times. I'll fight to the death for you to say any ignorant, non-educated, faux watching, full of bull snot thing you want.

But, journalists have a code of ethics that they are supossed to adhere to. Maybe if you took off the faux blinders, you could see that? Maybe not, as faux hasn't told you to do so yet.

Originally posted by johnsky
The funniest part of it, is all guilty parties are religious, and their own religious texts tell them they are going straight to hell.

Best statement in the thread so far, I'm quoting it for posterity.