Close Combat Series :: View topic - Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban

Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 1:15 am
—
Here is just another (to me) Nato bashing bullshit story by the Media which openly creates hostility towards the men & women who are trying their best to keep them safe.

Its about coded gunsight messages?

Who would have known or cared if the media didn't beat it up!

F**K THE MEDIA! (sorry Mooxe you can remove this if I've gone too far)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/21/new-zealand-dumps-biblical-weapons

#2: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: iDot,

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:54 am
—
Sorry mate but I disagree with ya here. (though I am very Anti christian and most religions so could be biast Wink

.)

A lot of kiwi soldiers dont care about religion and politics, they are just there to do there jobs and get home which they have my full support to do. However Religion should not play a part and this company making its items with religious markings to me is just plain wrong, especially when you read the exact verse they have put on the gun sights.

Yes there is a lot of Media bashing, and yes a lot of it is not warrented. However this issue was brought up by the soldiers (some Australian as well I might add) complaining about the religious markings so it is very fair for the media to portray how the army feels.

What pissed me off about the media is them showing pictures of Corporal Apiata's in Kabul. The fact he is New Zealand's most decorated soldier in an area known for enemy being able to easily infilturate has given this man an extra unneccasary risk to his safety. Now im sure it wont bother him or the other members of his SAS unit however I guaruntee a live fighting Victoria Cross recipiant would be a prime target for the enemy to capture and use for ransom demands.

The other Question I have is why did he receive the award in the first place, When you join (or should I say qualify) for the NZ SAS part of the deal is that one will not be awarded the VC for this very reason (There are ways round this, but they are irrelevant for the present.). Why the hell did our govt award him the VC, which 1. could of possibly ended his career in the SAS and 2. Bring his life into more danger in future missions.

However still the responsibility should be on the media to realise the seriousness of the situation and not post his photo of exactly where his unit is and where the taliban or al quaeda could capture him

#3: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: iDot,

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:54 am
—
here is a link

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/3252134/Apiatas-Afghan-exploits-revealed

#4: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: mooxe,

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:05 am
—

Bungarra wrote (View Post):

Here is just another (to me) Nato bashing bullshit story by the Media which openly creates hostility towards the men & women who are trying their best to keep them safe.

Its about coded gunsight messages?

Who would have known or cared if the media didn't beat it up!

F**K THE MEDIA! (sorry Mooxe you can remove this if I've gone too far)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/21/new-zealand-dumps-biblical-weapons

It boils down to this....

Lets say the Prime Minister of Canada said the war in Afghanistan is not about religion. Yet the men he sends are armed with fighting equipment engraved with religious messages. How does the PM look now?

Who would of known? Well thats easy, the enemy. When a vehicle blows up from an IED for example, anything not welded down goes flying hundreds of meters.

I suppose the media didnt have to publish this story... but what can you do!

#5: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: southern_land,

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:25 am
—

iDot wrote (View Post):

The other Question I have is why did he receive the award in the first place, When you join (or should I say qualify) for the NZ SAS part of the deal is that one will not be awarded the VC for this very reason (There are ways round this, but they are irrelevant for the present.). Why the hell did our govt award him the VC, which 1. could of possibly ended his career in the SAS and 2. Bring his life into more danger in future missions.

Two words mate: Helen Clark

#6: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:53 am
—
Fair call

I just don't like the Media rules of warfare

#7: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:58 pm
—
I think media were much worse during the Vietnam war when they have praised a bunch of commie terrorists that were losing every major battle as great soldiers and bashed US military, while not expressing proper outrage when the commies were murdering people.

Bungarra wrote (View Post):

It's not a NATO bashing story. It's more showing an unscrupulous producer that undermines whole political effort to keep religion out of War on Terror.

#8: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: ssa2204,

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:39 pm
—
I have not read the Guardian's piece yet, but have seen the news about this here in the U.S. Suffice to say that the story itself was a very legitimate news story, and the obvious solution was to have never had these religious messages imprinted, especially here in the U.S. We are a secular nation, with a clearly defined separation of church and state. We are also a nation of immigrants constituting more ethnicity, cultures, AND religions than anywhere else. So thus the first question is did the inscriptions provide for Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucius, Wicca, Atheist, Zoroastrian, and others? Were the messages Catholic? Mormon? Lutheran? Baptist? Amish? Point is that putting in evangelical messages was not simply inappropriate, it was illegal and unconstitutional. I can't speak for the other nations involved, but here in the U.S. there simply is no room for the promotion of any religion, belief or faith. This was as much an affront to our ideas and values as it was to Muslims in Afghanistan.

Even more it is a grand embarrassment in the war of messages. How can we say this is NOT a religious conflict, that this has nothing to do with religion?

But, having the media report negative news can also be quite positive. It reaffirms our belief in freedom and liberty, here including freedom of the press. Believe me when I say having the Guardian write this piece is a hell of a lot better than having the Taliban come across this themselves and be the ones announcing this.

#9: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:15 pm
—

Quote:

a bunch of commie terrorists that were losing every major battle

But that didn't matter at all, some people still don't get it.

#10: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:17 pm
—

Quote:

It's not a NATO bashing story. It's more showing an unscrupulous producer that undermines whole political effort to keep religion out of War on Terror.

Agreed, this story in no way is anti NATO, but it does show there are religious hate criminals everywhere and in all faiths.

#11: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:30 pm
—

Quote:

but here in the U.S. there simply is no room for the promotion of any religion, belief or faith.

Does not the US NAtional Anthem contain the words 'In God is our trust.'?

Does the Pledge of Allegience contain the words "under God"?

When being sworn into office are the words "So help me God" muttered?

Doesn't US bank notes proclaim "In God We Trust."?

Just wondering how secular that country is.

#12: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: MF_Church,

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:30 am
—
I've said it b4 ... and i'll say it again. :)

God hates religion!

#13: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Therion,

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:32 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Quote:

a bunch of commie terrorists that were losing every major battle

But that didn't matter at all, some people still don't get it.

What didn't matter and what people don't get it?

#14: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:33 am
—
It didn't matter that they lost individual battles.

The people that don't get that don't get it.

#15: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: ssa2204,

Posted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:08 pm
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

Quote:

but here in the U.S. there simply is no room for the promotion of any religion, belief or faith.

To give you a proper answer would simply not work in a forum, so I will simply condense several points. To begin with, the founding fathers of this country were majority wise Desist in belief, not Christian. Several argued vehemently to have all references to any religion completely stricken, while a select few argued in turn vehemently to have these references placed. In the end in order to form a union of 13 distinct colonies, compromises were made. But it must also be understood that a lot of religious reference at this time was not specifically to religion, but rather the culture; hence why we say we are a Judeo-Christian nation. It does not mean that we were formed to create a Jewish/Protestant state, but rather acknowledging where the people came from culturally.

Furthermore, at this time it was also understood that certain references to "God" did not imply any special relation to the Christian "God", but rather simply a god, i.e. higher power (talk to someone from A.A. about this). Even this was in itself controversial to some who again felt any reference to anything spiritual was damaging (although not openly acknowledged, many of these landed educated founders were in truth Agnostic to Atheist in belief).

Now with that said, it should also be mentioned that over time the U.S. courts have handled these such issues, and quite a few have been restricted and removed. We just had a case in California about removing the reference to "God" in the pledge of allegiance (which is funny because I did not even know anyone still did that, I had that in 1st grade and never again after).

With that all said, it should also be mentioned of course that the state itself can not officially/legally promote any specific religion. Case in point was a certain judge a few years back who was removed from the bench for placing the Ten Commandments in his courtroom. This is just one of thousands of cases where the courts have struck down laws and such that sought to promote a specific religion. Acknowledging faith is accepted, but promoting it is not. It should also be understood that strangely the state can also not compel a faith upon you, as such you do NOT have to swear in using a bible, nor utter the words "So help me god".

The specific issue at hand is deemed entirely unconstitutional because it promotes a specific faith/belief/religion. To summarize and give a brief example, a city or town hall (government property) can place a Christmas tree in their property, but not a cross, star, or anything else. While Christmas may very well be considered a "Christian" holiday, this is also a cultural event that is open to anyone (i.e. even Jews or Muslims can buy a tree and decorated it!). On the other hand, the government can not in any form dictate to you about placing a cross, Star of David, or other symbol on your front door. For you see ultimately our laws are there to protect individual's faith, which was the original intention of the founding fathers who probably just wanted to practice their Atheism, Agnosticism, Deism, etc.. free of government intervention. I can not speak for Australia, but in comparison to almost all of Europe, the U.S. is still by far the most secular, some of which is because we have at least codified laws where as some to this day have never acknowledged freedom of religion.

p.s. One other example, in France they are close to banning the Muslim Burqa, whereas in the U.S. this would be completely incomprehensible. The closest they can do is a limitation or restriction that must be coupled with accommodation.

#16: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Therion,

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:16 am
—

schrecken wrote (View Post):

It didn't matter that they lost individual battles.

The people that don't get that don't get it.

Still, media glorifying them as great and effective soldiers were helping the communists to diminish American morale, which was a part of the communist strategy.

#17: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Bungarra, Location: Murchison region, West Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:49 am
—
MEDIA REPORT:

Another suicide bomber has blown himself up in a Bagdad (or Kabul or any where) market killing 45 women & children & injuring 65, 12 of those are in a critical condition.

They desensitise us to it, (oh just another one.)

REALITY: (What the media should report)

Another Mass murderer has destroyed the lives of 100's of familys in the name of who, Allah? I doubt it!

What a completely useless waste of fresh air, food and water this pathetic piece of crap was.

May we feed whats left of him to Pigs & Goats so that some use can be made of his miserable life.

He was and always will be a no brain F**KWIT!!!!!!!!!!!! who listened to the commands of people with half a brain (they won't kill themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you do it, I can guarentee you some girls will be waiting for you in heaven (?) sucker!!!!!!!! NEXT)

Our condolances to the bereaved.

(sorry again Mooxe, (remove it if I OD'd) but thats how I feel. Killing kids for your religious beliefs is beyond the comprehension of my tiny brain)

I realise too, that we, (Nato) do too unintensionally kill civilians. No one likes it but thats the way it happens. If it was intensional we would be dropping 1000 pound bombs on all of them. (markets)

The Media should portray suicide bombers as they really were in life:

easily led, gullible, LOSERS

#18: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: schrecken, Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:57 pm
—
Yes.

The same as industrial accidents, car crashes, scientologists... you name it.

#19: Re: Why does the media support Al Quaeda & Taliban Author: Pzt_Crackwise, Location: Switzerland

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:40 pm
—

Bungarra wrote (View Post):

MEDIA REPORT:

Another suicide bomber has blown himself up in a Bagdad (or Kabul or any where) market killing 45 women & children & injuring 65, 12 of those are in a critical condition.

They desensitise us to it, (oh just another one.)

REALITY: (What the media should report)

Another Mass murderer has destroyed the lives of 100's of familys in the name of who, Allah? I doubt it!

What a completely useless waste of fresh air, food and water this pathetic piece of crap was.

May we feed whats left of him to Pigs & Goats so that some use can be made of his miserable life.

He was and always will be a no brain F**KWIT!!!!!!!!!!!! who listened to the commands of people with half a brain (they won't kill themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you do it, I can guarentee you some girls will be waiting for you in heaven (?) sucker!!!!!!!! NEXT)

Our condolances to the bereaved.

(sorry again Mooxe, (remove it if I OD'd) but thats how I feel. Killing kids for your religious beliefs is beyond the comprehension of my tiny brain)

I realise too, that we, (Nato) do too unintensionally kill civilians. No one likes it but thats the way it happens. If it was intensional we would be dropping 1000 pound bombs on all of them. (markets)

The Media should portray suicide bombers as they really were in life:

easily led, gullible, LOSERS

In most top quality newspapers throughout the world, the instances are reported formally as Bungarra stated in the first part of his post. This formality helps the newspaper to present the news in an objective way. The other type of commenting, which Bungarra wants to see can be seen in more common-folk-type newspapers or in more nationalist newspapers. But whatever happens, it is a newspaper's most crucial role to share the news objectively. At least it should be done so in the headlines. Some columnists write as in the second part anyway and I think it's better to see this kind of commenting in the columns of writers than seeing it in the headlines. Otherwise it would clearly indicate the stance and the policies of the newspaper, but in my opinion a newspaper is a good newspaper when it doesn't have a clear political stance and maintains a big variety of journalists, columnists with different political views.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1