Posted on 09/30/2005 8:26:52 AM PDT by tpierce98
His Arrogance, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein and the self-aggrandizing ACLU know that the psychotic islamofascists will be inflamed by the redundant Abu Graib photos.
First off, why the quotes around terrorists? Do you not think murdering people indiscriminately is terrorism? What do you call such people, art lovers? Second, no one is suggesting we censor "everything that might offend "terrorists?""
Well, actions have consequences.
When we see pictures of their handiwork, it pisses us off. Should they censor those pictures?
If you don't want people to get angry about a misdeed, don't do it. The camera is simply the messenger of the action. The action is what people should/shouldn't be mad at.
The Islamo-fascist Jihadis will use them to fan hatred of America and more bombs will go off and more people will die if the pictures are released than if they are not released.
Well, we handed them the ammunition, didn't we? The camera is simply the messenger. Did we do the deeds, or did we not?
And when did every become so concerned with offending terrorists? I have never seen that as a top priority.
"Hey, don't invade Iraq, Islamofacists will use it as an excuse to fan the flames of hatred of America". I never heard that. I thought their opinion was irrelevant?
Our difficult tasks in Iraq will be made more difficult.
In that we have to make sure there aren't camera's around to document when we paint people's penises? Face it, if someone invaded your country, you would want to know what they were up to, and if they were as virtous as they held thmeslves up to be. They Iraqi's have a right to know what we did in the building every bit as much as they have a right to know what Saddam allegedly did. At least he wasn't stupid enough to take pictures.
The idiots who committed the Abu Grahib "atrocities" have already been punished. The half-wit looking Lyndie England just started serving her 3 year stretch.
Then let that be known when the pictures are released.
As far as what happened to the Abu Grahib prisoners (many of whom were probably complicit in killing American soldiers) is no big deal as far as I'm concerned.
If that is your position, then don't worry who it might "offend". Be proud of the pictures.
In the Arab world, however, it is a real big deal.
We do alot in the Arab world that is a bid deal.
The only purposes motivating the ACLU and the Clinton-Judge are to (1) weaken America internationally, (2) aid the terrorists in Iraq, (2) give Splash-boy and Turbin more fodder for Senate speeches and (3) provide the NY Slimes with another 52 straight days of Front Page coverage of this "massive news event".
Their motivations don't matter. Photos are photos. They are real or faked. If they are real, go ahead and report, then let the people decide. We don't need thought police.
I say screw the ACLU, screw the judge, and for that matter, screw the jihadists who had to wear panties on their heads.
For someone with such a "screw you" attitude toward jihadists, you seem to be overly concerned with offending them.
Kiddie porn is illegal. And I don't "insist" that the public see anything. Turn on Monday Night Football and be happy for all I care.
After all, it may offend some but who am I to say that's beyond the pale?
Your legislators decided for you.
Our how about court pictures of a rape victim. The pictures might offend the woman, but everything offends someone.
They release the photo of the accused well before conviction. As such, I don't see a problem your scenario.
And if these abu Graib pictures inspire our enemies and make it easier for them to recruit more mass murderers, well it's all academic to you.
I think our invasion of Iraq and Afganistan acccomplished that task. I doubt the photos will be what pushes them over the edge.
After all, everything offends someone, why worry about offending Iraqis whom we hope to turn against the Islamic radicals.
I don't believe in propoganda.
You must be a super sophist with your outlook, a real deep thinker.
I am what I am. Your can form your own opinion of what that is. I won't try to manipulate your opinion.
Not yet, but you're clearly in favor of it.
For someone with such a "screw you" attitude toward jihadists, you seem to be overly concerned with offending them.
ROFLMAO!! I've offended a few jihadists (or at least their sympathizers) face to face. If all I thought the pics would do is "offend" someone, I would donate $ to publish them worldwide.
I'm in favor of not doing things that we are ashamed of.
ROFLMAO!! I've offended a few jihadists (or at least their sympathizers) face to face. If all I thought the pics would do is "offend" someone, I would donate $ to publish them worldwide.
Well, that is all they will do. They will only "offend" them. The pictures will not reach out and slap them. The pictures will not detonate bombs in their house. All that pictures have the power to do is offend. They are images. they can only invoke positive, nagative, or neutral reactions.
So, I imagine the pictures will give them a negative feeling (offending is the usual word, though "distrubed" or whatever other word you choose can be susbtituted)
Get your donation money ready. You can really help to piss them off.
Do I think who are not?
Ah, the ad-hominem. The international declaration of intellectual defeat.
Can you bow out gracefully, or are you determined to go out in a blaze of 3rd grade namecalling?
No, it's a statement of fact. And I've a right to state the facts, and all you can do you, sissy, is be offended. But unlike the jihad-is, we both know you couldn't do anything about it but act like a pseudo intellectual, which you clear are not.
Your opinion of my stupidity is a statment of fact?
This is why I am adamantly against public education.
Uh, yeah, you "might as well".
?
Oh gee, what next, are you going to call me a "doo-doo head"?
How about urine-soaked-booze-hound? It's at least an adult insult.
Go ahead try it. Call me that. It's a little more creative that "stupid".
No, Stu. I'm not going to call you "doo-doo head." I'm sure that would turn you on. Why don't you tell me what you think of the people who try to kill my friends here in Iraq?
Dang it, you're on to me.
Why the sudden civility? Did the insults not elicit the immediate hysterical responses that they usually do?
Why don't all try to defend ourselves from schoolyard insults. You may have to forumulate responses that merely state your opinion, without personal attacks in order for someone to engage you in meaningful dialog. Just an FYI.
P.S. Why do you care so much what I think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.