OT Journalism Impartiality my A$$

Triathlon Forum
1

Am i the only one who is getting really sick of all the journalists calling zarqawi and co “militants”? Is there some universal PC press censor I’m not aware of? I’m fine with the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” speel but a “militant” is someone who “engages in combat.” Cutting off a defenseless civilian’s head is not combat. If they cant stomach “terrorist” (we wouldnt want journalists to make value-laden reports about the Iraq war now would we) I would accept “extremist” as a compromise.

I’m a libertarian/independent, not a republican, but I support bush’s proactive stance on the threat from islamic militant-extremist-terrorists. The middle east mess needs to be resolved with due respect to all sides, and the UN and the domestic “liberal contingent” must check blatent US self-interest in the region, but a “multilateral-feel-good-lets-talk-this-out” diplomacy is not going to work against these guys. Our true allies, in Nato and elsewhere, will stay with us.

We need to think where this world and this species is going in the next 500-1000 years. It is going either towards a truly global liberal polity undergirded by religious and ethnic tolerance or it is going to the sh#tcan. Either way the road ahead is going to be a rough one. I dont yet know who I will vote for but as of now i am thinking we need a tough-minded president with bedrock principles to guide us. All I have seen of Kerry so far is a portrait of an empty vessel trying to pander to the target constituency du jour.

2

good post…I don’t necessarily agree with all of it but good post.

4

From the Official Website of the Libertarian Party, www.lp.org, I quote:

The Libertarian Party is committed to America’s heritage of freedom:
http://www.lp.org/images/bg_red.gif individual liberty and personal responsibility
http://www.lp.org/images/bg_red.gif a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
http://www.lp.org/images/bg_red.gif a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

As a libertarian/independant, do you believe in non-intervention?

5

**If they cant stomach “terrorist” (we wouldnt want journalists to make value-laden reports about the Iraq war now would we) I would accept “extremist” as a compromise. **

Please give me a good definition of “terrorist.”

It is going either towards a truly global liberal polity undergirded by religious and ethnic tolerance or it is going to the sh#tcan.

A lot of people would argue that a truly global polity such as you describe here* is* the sh*tcan. And since when was it America’s business to fight for a global polity of any sort?

6

I hear ya brother. I’m really tired of the media putting on the spin. That’s the newsmakers’ job, not the journalists’. But this is nothing new. Sometimes it’s truly comical when they forget which way they’ve been spinning an issue and then get confused and take a different tack. I rarely watch the network news anymore, I’ve given up.

7

Im a small l libertarian, mainly because of my position on social issues such as war on drugs (stupid), prison terms for non-violent crimes (stupid), sex and race and sex orientation equality (essential - and huge problem in voting for bush). I’m “libertarian” in the sense that i believe in free will and personal responsibility and think that the paternalist state should be reduced to a minimum on the domestic front (although anti-paternalism is not the answer to everything - thorny issues such as abortion and right to privacy vs state security & intelligence concerns may require a state-imposed limit to personal rights). I’m not a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party and in any event don’t see how social libertarianism has much to say either way on non-intervention or intervention as foreign policy guide. Anyways, what does a foreign policy of non-intervention look like? Isn’t the whole idea of fp to tackle foreign affairs?

I’ll sign on to the rest of their credo though. Peace, love & prosperity. Cool.

8

The Libertarian Party’s Legislative Program

Preamble

Libertarians believe that each of us should be allowed to plan his or her own future. We believe that individuals have the right to deal with their own problems. This can be done individually or by working with others in a peaceful and honest way. We reject the initiation of force by anyone, including government.

Today our government uses force, or the threat of force, to achieve most of its goals. Repeated failures by our government have shown us that this is not a practical approach. As Libertarians, we also believe that this use of force is immoral.

Libertarians seek a world in which voluntary cooperation replaces force in human relationships. We recognize that such a world cannot be achieved overnight. We have identified several important issues which are topics currently in the political spotlight. In each case, we believe there are substantial changes that could be made to move toward our goal – replacing aggression and force with peace and cooperation.

Doesn’t quite seem to jive with your support of the Iraq war. Also, what’s up with this lobbying effort against anti-smoking legislation:

Ohio LP fighting Columbus anti-smoking ordinance
Columbus, Ohio is preparing to pass the most restricitive smoking ban in the nation, and the Libertarian Party is standing with the restaurant and tavern owners in the state to oppose the move, reminding lawmakers and residents in the area that “this is a property rights issue, not a health issue,” said Robert Butler, executive director of the Ohio

As an athlete and a father, I hate going into places that allow smoking.

The above quotes were taken directly from The Official Website of the Libertarian Party. www.lp.org

9

Sorry, in this world of Political Correctness and moral relativism, the time of calling a spade a spade is long past.
The term “murderers” is the most accurate.

Their existence is mutually exclusive with ours.
I wish it weren’t so, but it is.
-bobo

10

“Define ‘Terrorist’”: Good point - labeling things is a difficult task. I still think “terrorist” might be a valid label for Bin Ladin and Zarqawi. I’d propose the following definition: a non-state actor that intentionally inflicts or tries to inflict heinous or gratuitous or wanton violence on civilians. Can you argue with the definition? Sure - why only non-state actors, what is heinous? etc. But if the press or anyone else has to label the people who cut off the heads of their helpless civilian prisoners all im saying is that surely “militant” doesn’t do the job. Again, maybe “extremist” is an acceptable compromise.

“A lot of people would argue that a truly global polity such as you describe here* is* the sh*tcan.” For sure. “And since when was it America’s business to fight for a global polity of any sort?” Well again that is a matter of opinion but my growing conviction is that it has always been America’s business to fight for a global polity. 9/11 really brought that reality home. But that is too much for us to argue about here, and no one knows the answer. But really, don’t you see my point about how absurd it is to call cold-blooded executioners “militants”?

11

Fortunately, the Libertarian Party is as inconsequential, and as far out, as Pluto.

-Robert

12

Ouch!!
I went to see P.J O’Rourke speak a few weeks ago - he seemed to think his opinions were VERY important!

13

but my growing conviction is that it has always been America’s business to fight for a global polity.

How does that square with the Constitution, in your opinion? How does it jibe with your libertarian tendencies? How does it mesh with America’s constant disavowals of imperial aspirations?

But really, don’t you see my point about how absurd it is to call cold-blooded executioners “militants”?

Frankly, no. I think you’re definition of “militants” is rather narrow.

14

Vitus, you said - "or too stupid to get into OCS

Hey, now! I resemble that. . .

;)"

I’m starting to suspect that wasn’t the case at all!

15

For a minute there I thought you were going to say “Imperialist Capitalist Pig-Dogs”.
We not imperialists, we are the Empire. What does Iraq have that we need? Cheap oil? 100Billion doesn’t sound cheap to me. Plus we haven’t even dug into ANWR, (but I for one hope that day comes sooner rather than later).

As big a Constitutionalist as I am, we need to realize that at the time it was constructed, even if 18th century bad guys had nuclear boom-booms from Kreplokistan, they would have had to row it to our shores in a boat of some nature.
Called minimal threat.
Since the Constitution makes provisions for the National Defense, I think this current affair is definitely part of that.
So yes, until there are no more bad guys in the world, we’re going to have to go fight. If you like dressing the fight up as “global polity”, then cool.

And if you define “militant” broadly enough, you can include the militant pacifists.
-bobo

16

**We not imperialists, we are the Empire. **Uh. . .what?

** What does Iraq have that we need? Cheap oil? **I wasn’t just talking about Iraq. I was responding to the idea that it’s America’s business to fight for a global polity.

**As big a Constitutionalist as I am, we need to realize that at the time it was constructed, even if 18th century bad guys had nuclear boom-booms from Kreplokistan, they would have had to row it to our shores in a boat of some nature. **Don’t see how that answers my question.

Since the Constitution makes provisions for the National Defense, I think this current affair is definitely part of that. While that’s certainly arguable, I say again, I’m not talking about just the war in Iraq. Whether or not our war there is defensive in nature, fighting for a global polity is most certainly not.

So yes, until there are no more bad guys in the world, we’re going to have to go fight. So now we *are *going to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, huh? It isn’t enough that we fight the bad guys who actually attack us, we have to make sure that we eliminate all the bad guys in the whole wide world? Good luck, brother.

**If you like dressing the fight up as “global polity”, then cool. **I’m not the one who dressed it up as "global polity’ originally, but that is in fact what we’re talking about.

17

because he didn’t want to detract from the war (on terror).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ March 2, 2004

With Tuesday’s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

‘People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of pre-emption against terrorists.’
— Roger Cressey Terrorism expert“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today. © 2004 MSNBC Interactive

18

Scumbags is a suitable term as well, but journalist are trained to avoid emotionally charged words. I don’t know what journalists are being referred to here so I will just state that in general, militant is a much less emotionally charged word than militant.

I don’t see a conspiracy here, just journalistic protocols.

As for the “Homicide Bombers”…

WE REPORT YOU DECIDE

FAUX NEWS NETOWRK

IMHO There is a tendency for those who would be considered “reactionary” to term themselves “libertarian” or “Independent” in online forums as a means of deflecting the traditional angry white guy stereotype that comes along with GOP and Conservative posts on Electronic bulletin boards. I doubt that most really give two shites about the Libertarian party. The self-described Libertarians/Independents I have seen on this board strike me more as Jingoists in matters of foreign policy, but they think smoking dope is cool. :wink:

I also try to define myself as “Independent” so as to avoid the pot-smoker, beret-wearing vegan baggage that comes with “liberal” postings on electronic bulletin boards.

Me, I’m independent by default, I see the ugly in both extremes and don’t really feel loyal to any organization, even USAT.

It’s kind of sad really, but Bill O’Reilly has just made this stance popular, as much as it makes the hair on my taint stand on end.

19

It’s kind of sad really, but Bill O’Reilly has just made this stance popular, as much as it makes the hair on my taint stand on end.

Oh, man. Now there’s an emotionally-charged description. You know, some people sit at their computer and eat while they read this board. And when they read “the hair on my taint” they get indigestion.

Please get a trimmer so you aren’t compelled to write such things ever again.

20

"I am for any leader who is able to make a decision, stick to his guns, and isn’t afraid of friction. If elected leaders view their job as simply finding the center of gravity on every issue, they might retain their popularity but all they will have done is encapsulate the public opinion, not lead it.

I view a leader’s job as not making everyone like them, but move their people in the right direction. A visionary who is able to put their ideas into practice but is able to handle a dose of realism to strike a balance to reach the attainable. "

That’s a good belief and it’s close to my own but I would put more emphasis on “move their people in the right direction”. I want accountability and I’m not going to act like a lemming I’m going to question what is being done even if I voted for the person.

21

I guess you missed the taint/guiche thread.

:stuck_out_tongue: