White House tells press not to air or print Bin Laden statements in the whole

[Rysdad]

*Originally posted by erislover *

*Originally posted by Rysdad *
Oh, how the ad hominems are welling up in me, but I resist.

How very strong of you after telling me I am seemingly transparent—showing what, I’m not sure, but I know now it was meant to be a friendly, topic-centric comment.

All right. Allow me to retract “transparant.” Substitute “quixotic” for reasons I’ll show below.

so clear that you don’t know me very well, or you’d know that I’m about as far from isolationist as a person can get.

Well, I only know what you say on the boards in this thread. You strike me as isolationist, saying that—effectively—bin Laden has nothing to say that is worth hearing. I disagree.

Very poor analogy there. Incorrect as well. Not wishing to listen to OBL’s harangues does not equate with isolationism. From Webster’s:

isolation*ism (noun)

First appeared 1922

: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

I haven’t advocated anything of the kind. Now that you’ve been informed as to the correct meaning of the term, please retract your accusation.

last time…just what is it that you expect or hope to hear?

His words, translated as well as can be hoped into English.

I see. You must hear every single one of his words. Is that correct? Anything less is censorship?

What can OBL say now that will change anyone’s mind?

Change anyone’s mind? I just want to hear what it is he has to say.

[sarcasm]His messages change so often, and he includes so much factual information in his blather, it’d be a shame to miss any of it.[/sarcasm]

On the slight chance that there is a coded message in his words or gestures, is it still worthwhile to listen to an Arabic translation of his words?

I think that chance is very slight indeed, so much so that I hear black helicopters flying overhead.

Uh, ok. What?!

I don’t feel that I would be any more enlightened by what OBL has to say, and I’m satisfied with the translations that are provided.

Well, that is all I was asking for. I feel the media should remain free to transmit, in whole or in part, whatever they feel is worth transmitting. They retain that right. I am glad.

They are free to transmit. They have been, are, and, I’m sure, will be. Are will still debating here?

I’ve got better things to do than listen to a fanatic espouse genocide.

So don’t listen. I’ve got better ways of trying to understand world affairs than by sticking my fingers in my ears. We are launching missles and dropping bombs on him and “his kind.” I would appreciate being kept abreast of who we are fighting: straight from the horses mouth when possible, and from our own sources when it isn’t.

So, remove your fingers. You already admitted that you’re satisfied with the translations.

Also, by saying that you’d prefer to hear it “straight from the horse’s mouth” first and from “our own sources” second, it makes it sound like you’d prefer disinformation rather than information…since that what I’m sure you’d get from OBL. Walter Cronkite, he ain’t.

I surely don’t need to learn his native language just to hear his message. his message is the most important thing to listen to, because he uses it to recruit people into the fray. Some may say that is an even better reason to paraphrase and censor. I disagree. I think when all cards are layed face up on the table the game and its outcome are clear.

Why? What makes it so important to hear “Down, down, USA” and “Civilians are reasonable targets” translated into English over and over again? What’s so enlightening about a Taliban recuitment rant? I’m sure, however, if he says something new then it’ll be reported, since that would be newsworthy. Endless repetition of his previous diatribes is not.

I think you’re being uneasonable. There isn’t any government spook sitting behind Tom Brokaw drawing black lines through the copy he’s going to read tonight. Instead, the networks are applying reasonable withstraint as to what they decide to show. And they’re the ones who get to decide what "reasonable is…not Uncle Sam.

So, this brings us back to quixotic. Again, from Webster’s:

quixotic (adjective)

[Don Quixote]

First appeared 1815

1 : foolishly impractical esp. in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action

2 : Capricious, Unpredictable

You’ve been arguing against editing OBL’s statements, then you agreed that you’re satisfied with the translations. You’ve called me isolationist when you don’t (and couldn’t) have any evidence to indicate anything of the sort. You think it’s important to listen to OBL’s recuitment shpiel. You stated that you believe that the government is “on my side.” You hear black helicopters.

I’m still waiting for you to do something extravagantly chivalrous.

[Rysdad]

*Originally posted by erislover *

*Originally posted by Rysdad *
Oh, how the ad hominems are welling up in me, but I resist.

How very strong of you after telling me I am seemingly transparent—showing what, I’m not sure, but I know now it was meant to be a friendly, topic-centric comment.

All right. Allow me to retract “transparant.” Substitute “quixotic” for reasons I’ll show below.

so clear that you don’t know me very well, or you’d know that I’m about as far from isolationist as a person can get.

Well, I only know what you say on the boards in this thread. You strike me as isolationist, saying that—effectively—bin Laden has nothing to say that is worth hearing. I disagree.

Very poor analogy there. Incorrect as well. Not wishing to listen to OBL’s harangues does not equate with isolationism. From Webster’s:

isolation*ism (noun)

First appeared 1922

: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

I haven’t advocated anything of the kind. Now that you’ve been informed as to the correct meaning of the term, please retract your accusation.

last time…just what is it that you expect or hope to hear?

His words, translated as well as can be hoped into English.

I see. You must hear every single one of his words. Is that correct? Anything less is censorship?

What can OBL say now that will change anyone’s mind?

Change anyone’s mind? I just want to hear what it is he has to say.

[sarcasm]His messages change so often, and he includes so much factual information in his blather, it’d be a shame to miss any of it.[/sarcasm]

On the slight chance that there is a coded message in his words or gestures, is it still worthwhile to listen to an Arabic translation of his words?

I think that chance is very slight indeed, so much so that I hear black helicopters flying overhead.

Uh, ok. What?!

I don’t feel that I would be any more enlightened by what OBL has to say, and I’m satisfied with the translations that are provided.

Well, that is all I was asking for. I feel the media should remain free to transmit, in whole or in part, whatever they feel is worth transmitting. They retain that right. I am glad.

They are free to transmit. They have been, are, and, I’m sure, will be. Are will still debating here?

I’ve got better things to do than listen to a fanatic espouse genocide.

So don’t listen. I’ve got better ways of trying to understand world affairs than by sticking my fingers in my ears. We are launching missles and dropping bombs on him and “his kind.” I would appreciate being kept abreast of who we are fighting: straight from the horses mouth when possible, and from our own sources when it isn’t.

So, remove your fingers. You already admitted that you’re satisfied with the translations.

Also, by saying that you’d prefer to hear it “straight from the horse’s mouth” first and from “our own sources” second, it makes it sound like you’d prefer disinformation rather than information…since that what I’m sure you’d get from OBL. Walter Cronkite, he ain’t.

I surely don’t need to learn his native language just to hear his message. his message is the most important thing to listen to, because he uses it to recruit people into the fray. Some may say that is an even better reason to paraphrase and censor. I disagree. I think when all cards are layed face up on the table the game and its outcome are clear.

Why? What makes it so important to hear “Down, down, USA” and “Civilians are reasonable targets” translated into English over and over again? What’s so enlightening about a Taliban recuitment rant? I’m sure, however, if he says something new then it’ll be reported, since that would be newsworthy. Endless repetition of his previous diatribes is not.

I think you’re being uneasonable. There isn’t any government spook sitting behind Tom Brokaw drawing black lines through the copy he’s going to read tonight. Instead, the networks are applying reasonable withstraint as to what they decide to show. And they’re the ones who get to decide what "reasonable is…not Uncle Sam.

So, this brings us back to quixotic. Again, from Webster’s:

quixotic (adjective)

[Don Quixote]

First appeared 1815

1 : foolishly impractical esp. in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action

2 : Capricious, Unpredictable

You’ve been arguing against editing OBL’s statements, then you agreed that you’re satisfied with the translations. You’ve called me isolationist when you don’t (and couldn’t) have any evidence to indicate anything of the sort. You think it’s important to listen to OBL’s recuitment shpiel. You stated that you believe that the government is “on my side.” You hear black helicopters.

I’m still waiting for you to do something extravagantly chivalrous.

[Rysdad]

*Originally posted by erislover *

*Originally posted by Rysdad *
Oh, how the ad hominems are welling up in me, but I resist.

How very strong of you after telling me I am seemingly transparent—showing what, I’m not sure, but I know now it was meant to be a friendly, topic-centric comment.

All right. Allow me to retract “transparant.” Substitute “quixotic” for reasons I’ll show below.

so clear that you don’t know me very well, or you’d know that I’m about as far from isolationist as a person can get.

Well, I only know what you say on the boards in this thread. You strike me as isolationist, saying that—effectively—bin Laden has nothing to say that is worth hearing. I disagree.

Very poor analogy there. Incorrect as well. Not wishing to listen to OBL’s harangues does not equate with isolationism. From Webster’s:

isolation*ism (noun)

First appeared 1922

: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

I haven’t advocated anything of the kind. Now that you’ve been informed as to the correct meaning of the term, please retract your accusation.

last time…just what is it that you expect or hope to hear?

His words, translated as well as can be hoped into English.

I see. You must hear every single one of his words. Is that correct? Anything less is censorship?

What can OBL say now that will change anyone’s mind?

Change anyone’s mind? I just want to hear what it is he has to say.

[sarcasm]His messages change so often, and he includes so much factual information in his blather, it’d be a shame to miss any of it.[/sarcasm]

On the slight chance that there is a coded message in his words or gestures, is it still worthwhile to listen to an Arabic translation of his words?

I think that chance is very slight indeed, so much so that I hear black helicopters flying overhead.

Uh, ok. What?!

I don’t feel that I would be any more enlightened by what OBL has to say, and I’m satisfied with the translations that are provided.

Well, that is all I was asking for. I feel the media should remain free to transmit, in whole or in part, whatever they feel is worth transmitting. They retain that right. I am glad.

They are free to transmit. They have been, are, and, I’m sure, will be. Are will still debating here?

I’ve got better things to do than listen to a fanatic espouse genocide.

So don’t listen. I’ve got better ways of trying to understand world affairs than by sticking my fingers in my ears. We are launching missles and dropping bombs on him and “his kind.” I would appreciate being kept abreast of who we are fighting: straight from the horses mouth when possible, and from our own sources when it isn’t.

So, remove your fingers. You already admitted that you’re satisfied with the translations.

Also, by saying that you’d prefer to hear it “straight from the horse’s mouth” first and from “our own sources” second, it makes it sound like you’d prefer disinformation rather than information…since that what I’m sure you’d get from OBL. Walter Cronkite, he ain’t.

I surely don’t need to learn his native language just to hear his message. his message is the most important thing to listen to, because he uses it to recruit people into the fray. Some may say that is an even better reason to paraphrase and censor. I disagree. I think when all cards are layed face up on the table the game and its outcome are clear.

Why? What makes it so important to hear “Down, down, USA” and “Civilians are reasonable targets” translated into English over and over again? What’s so enlightening about a Taliban recuitment rant? I’m sure, however, if he says something new then it’ll be reported, since that would be newsworthy. Endless repetition of his previous diatribes is not.

I think you’re being uneasonable. There isn’t any government spook sitting behind Tom Brokaw drawing black lines through the copy he’s going to read tonight. Instead, the networks are applying reasonable withstraint as to what they decide to show. And they’re the ones who get to decide what "reasonable is…not Uncle Sam.

So, this brings us back to quixotic. Again, from Webster’s:

quixotic (adjective)

[Don Quixote]

First appeared 1815

1 : foolishly impractical esp. in the pursuit of ideals; especially : marked by rash lofty romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action

2 : Capricious, Unpredictable

You’ve been arguing against editing OBL’s statements, then you agreed that you’re satisfied with the translations. You’ve called me isolationist when you don’t (and couldn’t) have any evidence to indicate anything of the sort. You think it’s important to listen to OBL’s recuitment shpiel. You stated that you believe that the government is “on my side.” You hear black helicopters.

I’m still waiting for you to do something extravagantly chivalrous.

[mhendo]

Gee, Rysdad, after reading your last post three times over even i’m starting to have doubts about the value of free speech.

[Rysdad]

*Originally posted by mhendo *
**Gee, Rysdad, after reading your last post three times over even i’m starting to have doubts about the value of free speech. **

I don’t blame you. I don’t know how the hell that happened. Every time I hit submit, I got a time-out error. I even had the board open in another window, which I constantly refreshed, to see if my post was being entered. It never showed up, so I figured it had been lost again.

Would a mod please delete the extra posts?

Sorry.

[erislover]

Ok, you are not an isolationist. You just want nothing to do with a person who commands a group of people dedicated to advocating their politics, other than killing them and/or ignoring them. Fully retracted.

I see. You must hear every single one of his words. Is that correct? Anything less is censorship?

Allow me to state this very, very clearly. I know I can sometimes type phrases which are clumsy and hard to understand. Ok, here it is, in my third post to this thread.

Asking the media to cut content is a bad move, propaganda-wise.

Done deal.

They are free to transmit. They have been, are, and, I’m sure, will be. Are will still debating here?

We never fucking were debating, don’t you get it? I entered this thread suggesting that it wasn’t a good move to ask the networks to do what the networks were asked to do. You jump on me because I would like to here stuff from bin Laden about how he views the situation. I already know how I view the situation. Local news coverage already tells me how our government is viewing the situation. The media has also been keeping me abreast of how bin Laden is viewing the situation. However, in the game of propoganda versus factual reporting, I would prefer to hear less paraphrased information and more direct quotes from bin Laden.

Also, by saying that you’d prefer to hear it “straight from the horse’s mouth” first and from “our own sources” second, it makes it sound like you’d prefer disinformation rather than information…since that what I’m sure you’d get from OBL. Walter Cronkite, he ain’t.

[expletives deleted] Give me a break. I would like to stay abreast of what he is saying to people. Apart from one CNN interview I don’t think the free-TV press of the US has ever aired an entire bin Laden speech.

It isn’t a matter of relying on him for factual information about the situation, but wanting to hear how he perceives the situation. Specifically, what he says does get broadcasted in many places regardless of what we see on our televisions. Considering that he is pretty much public enemy number one right now, I personally find that what he says is important, because people who may side against us are listening and because I want to stay abreast of the situation.

What’s so enlightening about a Taliban recuitment rant?

That people who might be sympathetic are listening.

You’ve been arguing against editing OBL’s statements, then you agreed that you’re satisfied with the translations.

Give me a break.

You’ve called me isolationist when you don’t (and couldn’t) have any evidence to indicate anything of the sort.

You’ve got what retraction I offered above.

You think it’s important to listen to OBL’s recuitment shpiel.

Yes.

You stated that you believe that the government is “on my side.”

Yes.

[even_sven]

Okay, time to address a few points

Q: Why do I want to hear OBL’s speeches.
A: I consider it my duty as a citizen to be informed about the issues that affect our nation. In order to do this, I need to have access to both unmediated information and commentary on that. I want to know what OBL is saying, exactly, so I can form actual opinions on what OBL is saying. Kind of hard to form an informed opinion on the enemy when you don’t know what the enemy is saying. I want to know what kind of misinformation he is spreading, so I can work to counter that information. Having more knowledge about a situation is always better than having less.

Q: But you don’t speak Arabic!
A: True. But other people do, and if the news agencies are severly mistranslating I trust those people to publicly point that out.

Q: This isn’t a legal freedom of speech issue.
A: Perhaps not, but it is related to freedom of speech as a concept. Frankly I find it a little wierd that the American people might have less information than the people we are fighting against.

[Rysdad]

*Originally posted by erislover *
We never fucking were debating, don’t you get it.

Well, that was hardly extravagantly chivalrous. It’s inappropriate for this forum, too.

[expletives deleted] Give me a break.

No.

[quote]
It isn’t a matter of relying on him for factual information about the situation, but wanting to hear how he perceives the situation.

Haven’t you figured what his position is yet?

What’s so enlightening about a Taliban recuitment rant?

That people who might be sympathetic are listening.

And this is enlightening, how?

You’ve been arguing against editing OBL’s statements, then you agreed that you’re satisfied with the translations.

Give me a break.

Again denied. In your own words, following mine:

Me: I don’t feel that I would be any more enlightened by what OBL has to say, and I’m satisfied with the translations that are provided.

Yours: Well, that is all I was asking for. I feel the media should remain free to transmit, in whole or in part, whatever they feel is worth transmitting. They retain that right. I am glad.

(I bolded the part that applies.)

You think it’s important to listen to OBL’s recuitment shpiel.

Yes.

I don’t think it is, but if you’ve got nothing better to do, have at it.

You stated that you believe that the government is “on my side.”

Yes.

Assuming you’re American, it’s on you side, too–in several ways. It’s doing its best to protect you and it’s not stepping on guaranteed freedoms to do it.

Y’know, if I continue on with this, I might be hoisted with my own “quixotic” petard. Suffice it to say that you’ll continue to hear from OBL and his minions, but what you hear will probably be in sound bites and paraphrased…just as the rest of the news is.

I’m getting tired of being your windmill. Go find another.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Rysdad *
I’m getting tired of being your windmill. Go find another.

Whatever; did you just read that book or is this some unconscious projection?

Can you please explain to me why I shouldn’t want to hear what bin Laden has to say? I reread this thread three times and I get the impression you’ve totally missed my point.

Allow me, once again, to clarify:
[li]I want to hear what bin Laden has to say[/li][li]I accept that what I hear must be translated[/li][li]I found the government’s suggestion that the free press not report about things bin Laden says in entirity to be a distasteful move, propaganda-wise[/li]
That said, and I know you might have a hard time believing it, …
[li]I understand that bin Laden’s speeches are already clipped to begin with, even before the request[/li][li]I have faith in network translators[/li][li]I do not dictate government policy[/li]
In closing:
[li]You would do well to address my points directly instead of comparing me to fictional characters[/li][li]You might reconsider your stance on ignoring things people say, whether or not they are “evil” according to your politics as people who would do you wrong probably don’t care about your politics[/li][li]The government’s request is basically empty as what is requested was, as far as I can tell, already the policy of networks[/li][li]Your dead horse of deciding what is best for me based on your perception of what the government perceives is best for me needs a few more beatings; though, being dead, you might find it difficult to get your point across to it[/li]

Sorry for the excessive ranting, sven. We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Rysdad]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
**

Whatever;**

Exactly.

[Typo_Negative]

The only statement of Bin Laden’s I would want to hear would be a suicide note.

[sailor]

What makes anyone think they have an unlimited right to know and see everything under the sun? Cameras are not allowed in court rooms; although the information of what happened inside can be relayed to the outside. I am not allowed to know what was said in the meetings of the Chiefs of Staff even though it may affect me greatly… This is a voluntary measure by the networks and I see nothing wrong with it.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by sailor *
What makes anyone think they have an unlimited right to know and see everything under the sun?

For me, nothing makes me think that.

This is a voluntary measure by the networks…

Yep.

and I see nothing wrong with it.

Nor do I as it seems to have been the standard practice anyway. My only beef was with the request itself.