Political Crossfire Forums

[fresh08]

i have been reading other threads and some people are saying that censorship is not a big deal. why care? btw did u no that u never see picutres of dead soldiers in the media. that is pretty big in the grand scheme of things. and who knows what the gov will censor next. don't you think that you have a right to know what is going on at all times. how else are we gonna keep the government at check?

[Green]

fresh08 wrote: i have been reading other threads and some people are saying that censorship is not a big deal. why care? btw did u no that u never see picutres of dead soldiers in the media. that is pretty big in the grand scheme of things. and who knows what the gov will censor next. don't you think that you have a right to know what is going on at all times. how else are we gonna keep the government at check?

Some forms of Military secrecy (such as attack plans) is the only reasonable censorship.

I can say any other f***ing s**t I want to f***ing say, and what I am saying should not be censored.

[krims]

Well, I think censorship is justified only when it's for a good cause. When it comes to censoring pictures of dead soldiers in the media there's the possibility that they're doing it to maintain support for the war in Iraq because they believe there is a very good reason to be there. There's also the possibility that the politicians are doing it just to defend their reputation and they don't care about what is good or bad. I generally tend to think it's because the politicians are evil and corrupt, but you can disagree with me, that's just my opinion.

[fresh08]

krims wrote: Well, I think censorship is justified only when it's for a good cause. When it comes to censoring pictures of dead soldiers in the media there's the possibility that they're doing it to maintain support for the war in Iraq because they believe there is a very good reason to be there. There's also the possibility that the politicians are doing it just to defend their reputation and they don't care about what is good or bad. I generally tend to think it's because the politicians are evil and corrupt, but you can disagree with me, that's just my opinion.
now how in the world is that justified. they are not giving us the complete picture and falsely leading us that we are winning the war. how about telling both sides of the story and let us decide what is going on

[Korimyr the Rat]

The only censorship that I consider acceptable is the bare minimum needed to maintain operational security for legitimate military operations-- and then only for the duration of those operations.

If you have to keep it a secret, you have no business doing it.

[micfranklin]

Well I really don't think any form of censorship is justified. I mean, soldiers dying is the truth whether we like it or not.

[krims]

Quote: now how in the world is that justified. they are not giving us the complete picture and falsely leading us that we are winning the war. how about telling both sides of the story and let us decide what is going on

Well that's why I tend to disagree with what the US government is doing, but we are lead to believe by the government that there is some deeper truth that is beyond our understanding that requires that they censor images of dead soldiers to achieve some sort of greater good. "Two steps forward, one step back", as in the words of Lenin. Or Stalin's words, "Ends justify the means." That's what the government leads us to believe that they are doing.

[mathurin]

i havent heard much about censorship in this section

arguments against showing soldiers dead bodies
poor taste
politicizing their death
exploiting emotions for politics
disrespectful

this is about the military keeping the reporters from taking pictures of the dead, to the best of my knowledge nobody has had their camera taken over this so i wouldnt call it censorship
basically i dont mind, because the only use for showing dead soldiers or their coffins is political, using emotions for politics, which is a dirty trick, emotions do not belong in politics, i dont care how you feel about war or the war, i care about specific rational arguments, anyone who uses death figures as low as ours as a reason to give up (_for the inevitable teary eyed reply to that_ yes, 3k is low, go read up on war history dumbass) is basing their arguments on emotions
and unless the administration is not acknowledging the deaths of soldiers to keep numbers low then the argument that they are trying to squelch dissent is a badly thought up one


how about that reverend who protests at the funeral of iraq soldiers, it is a tactic cut from the same cloth, using death to promote politics

now its my turn
how about traveling, why can i take pictures of the inside of the plane and terminal, terrorism this and that, its censorship
remember the denmark or dutch cartoons lampooning islam, it was a month before i saw one, all our papers were cleansed of it, nobody put it in, it wasnt even something you could find on the internet without difficulty, what is the justification for that, that was news, if only because it caused riots

[Green]

fresh08 wrote: krims wrote: Well, I think censorship is justified only when it's for a good cause. When it comes to censoring pictures of dead soldiers in the media there's the possibility that they're doing it to maintain support for the war in Iraq because they believe there is a very good reason to be there. There's also the possibility that the politicians are doing it just to defend their reputation and they don't care about what is good or bad. I generally tend to think it's because the politicians are evil and corrupt, but you can disagree with me, that's just my opinion.
now how in the world is that justified. they are not giving us the complete picture and falsely leading us that we are winning the war. how about telling both sides of the story and let us decide what is going on

cable is not legally censored by the FCC, but they censor themselves anyhow. Intresting, living in a society that companies are pressured into giving up their constitutional right.
Quote:
doing it to maintain support for the war in Iraq

This is propaganda. And here are the most severe users of this maipulation of the masses.







Must I do more google image searches

[Wolverine]

For the children!

[Rankor and Pissing]

Some things I think people should know and be aware of (corruption, illegal activities, etc.) some things people do not need to know or see. Dead soldiers adds nothing to my "need to know", per the OP example. I also do not need to know what secret intelligence information, actions or plans are being considered or acted upon at a national or international level.

Just as people are not 100% honest, open about everything in their own life, their family's life, their life's experience etc... nor are governments. Frankly, no-one needs to know how may times I've banged sally-rotten crotch or under what circumstances it occurred. Just as there is personal protection and privacy, this also extends to Nations as some issues are also covered under privacy.

This is very easily resolved... what Government in this world, or for that matter any Government in the HISTORY of the world, held no secrets, had no intelligence, provided all information about everything to their citizens and to the world, on all subject in the past, present and future?

Answer is ... none. Nor will there be... the question is moot and irrelevent since all governments have secrets, all country's at some level, censor information either to their population or to the outside world.

[LostSoul3412]

Wolverine wrote: For the children!

And the soccer moms who complain on their behalf!

[Wolverine]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Wolverine wrote: For the children!

And the soccer moms who complain on their behalf!
Soccer moms are smarter than you run of the mill common sense endowed moms! The children!

[agentkgb]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: The only censorship that I consider acceptable is the bare minimum needed to maintain operational security for legitimate military operations-- and then only for the duration of those operations.

If you have to keep it a secret, you have no business doing it.
Agreed.

[The Comrade]

fresh08 wrote: i have been reading other threads and some people are saying that censorship is not a big deal. why care? btw did u no that u never see picutres of dead soldiers in the media. that is pretty big in the grand scheme of things. and who knows what the gov will censor next. don't you think that you have a right to know what is going on at all times. how else are we gonna keep the government at check?


oh noes dead bodies are censored.



no one wants to see that s**t. NO ONE. their names are mentioned and their LIVING pictures are shown.


only some sick necopheliac would want to see dead bodies.

[agentkgb]

We never see coffins either though. I'm not saying I want to see those either, but they're obvioulsy part of the war (or not part of it).

[TNBiologist]

fresh08 wrote: krims wrote: Well, I think censorship is justified only when it's for a good cause. When it comes to censoring pictures of dead soldiers in the media there's the possibility that they're doing it to maintain support for the war in Iraq because they believe there is a very good reason to be there. There's also the possibility that the politicians are doing it just to defend their reputation and they don't care about what is good or bad. I generally tend to think it's because the politicians are evil and corrupt, but you can disagree with me, that's just my opinion.
now how in the world is that justified. they are not giving us the complete picture and falsely leading us that we are winning the war. how about telling both sides of the story and let us decide what is going on

The military does not censor pictures of dead soldiers but they do not pubish them either. It is very disrepectful to show pictures of dead soldiers so teh military does not show them. How many photographers (not allied with the terrorists) happen to be on site when a soldier is killed to get a picture. The military dos a pretty good job of getting its dead off the field and into shelter so that does not leave a lot of time for someone to snatch a picture. We do see pictures of troops right after firefights that are covered in blood, I believe one was a very popular covershot for TIME.

[mathurin]

its just people trying to bring emotional crap in
emotion has no place in it

but it seems to be working as the least costly war yet is now described almost entirely by its number of soldiers deaths

[agentkgb]

mathurin wrote: its just people trying to bring emotional crap in
emotion has no place in it

but it seems to be working as the least costly war yet is now described almost entirely by its number of soldiers deaths
What should it be described with then? I think it should be the number of deaths including civilians but for some reason I doubt that's your view.

[The Comrade]

what is the obsession with seeing corpses?