anodyne Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 artistic integrity and corporate sponsorship aren't really a natural fit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 No, but if AT&T had just let it go through, it would have been a non-event. A rock band saying Bush sucks is not really news, even on a slow news day. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted August 14, 2007 Share Posted August 14, 2007 http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/crew-member-pre.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 15, 2007 Author Share Posted August 15, 2007 If that is their corporate policy I am fine with it. But only if the apply it equally across the board. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Also, if that was the policy, then why did they lie and say it was a mistake? I think that AT&T was censoring anti-Bush speech because the White House told them too, which is pretty much government censorship, no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 I think that AT&T was censoring anti-Bush speech because the White House told them too, The White House- "Don't you let that band say anything bad about Bush......do you hear me!?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Sorta related:http://www.wired.com/politics/law/commenta...rcuitcourt_0815 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blue and Green Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 "Supporters of the Bush administration's position on warrantless surveillance are often heard arguing that we must use any means necessary to fight terrorism. "It is very scary and sad to hear this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Yes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted August 16, 2007 Author Share Posted August 16, 2007 While I don't think the White House Ordered AT&T to do what they did, i think they did it to appease the White House. Remember AT&T is at the heart of the warrentless wiretapping saga. That said, if it is corporate policy I welcome AT&T doing what they did as long as they also do it to both sides of the coin. Ikol remember one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Menachim Begin was a terrorist to the AArabd and a freedom fighter for the Israeli's. The Nicaraguan Contra's were terrorists to the Ortega Regime and freeedom fighters here at their home base. The Mujaheideen were terrorists to the russians and freedom fighters to us over here. Lastly the IRA were freedom fighters to the Irish yet the brits had them as terrorists and now have more or less recognized these former terrorists as a legitimate political force. It is all in the perception. To me and you the many many varied and diverse groups fighting for many many varied and diverse causes (no they are not all the monolithic alqueda freedom haters the admin paints them to be) throughout the mid east, these guys are terrorists, yet to many many arabs in the mid east they are legitimate freedom fighters. Heck i think even the Saudi government privately views them as such, why else would they even to this day contiinue to tolerate their actions? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 You can't fight against freedom and be a freedom fighter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 You can't fight against freedom and be a freedom fighter.You can if the two sides define freedom in different terms. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 It's kind of like the Pilgrims, who left England so they could be free to oppress themselves. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 free to establish a religious theocracy and bring about a righteous kingdom of god on earth, by whatever means.this could be the shia or sunni insurgents or the mayflower pilgrims. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Fine, if you want to argue semantics: terrorists think they're freedom fighters. I think they're terrorists. I don't understand what point y'all are trying to make. Are you saying that we should oppose them less because they think they're justified. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Holy Shit! It's threads like this that make me happy I live in TEXAS. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I don't understand what point y'all are trying to make.I think we're saying that to be most effective in fighting them, we must first accurately comprehend how they have come to understand the circumstances. The point was that your cartoonish oversimplification of "You can't fight against freedom and be a freedom fighter" ignores certain complexities, and it's that kind of thinking that made Iraq a mess. Unfortunately, that's how this Administration writes policy--not according to political reality, but according to how catchy it sounds on a bumper sticker. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 your cartoonish oversimplificationLike this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Like this?I didn't post that... but how is it a similar oversimplication? The whole point of that poster is to get people to consider the possibility that their rigid definitions are not as simple as they may at first appear. In other words, it muddies the issue, which is the precise opposite of oversimplifying the issue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I know....I just thought it fit. Just sayin' Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anodyne Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 i did post it, and it's not as much an oversimplification as much as an illustrative point on zealotry and semantics. in the US civil war, the south honestly felt they were fighting for freedom. many in the north felt they were fighting to preserve slavery. eric's excellent post quoting lincoln very astutely pointed that out. we called the viet cong communists, insurgents and many other things. they called themselves liberators. in iraq, we call ourselves liberators, they call us invaders. Â Â besides, that poster is old (but not out of date). barring "osama hussein" and the other oversimplifications on the invasion for oil, terrorists around the world have been insurgents attacking non-military instillations for propaganda and tactical advantages - like the boston tea party. that was an act of terrorism and violence against property for economic purposes as well as propaganda value. we call them heroes because they won. we don't call daniel shays a hero, he lost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Once again, I recommend The Battle of Algiers as a balanced and insightful view of how insurgencies operate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I'm guilty of oversimplifying things? I guess I just don't understand the complexities involved with evil/stupid Bush's invasion of Iraq for oil. I would hate to live in a country ruled by bumper sticker slogans. Otherwise, I might have to "give peace a chance." Â Yes terrorists have reasons for what they do, and yes they think they are in the right. The issue is more complex than them being evil monsters with no rhyme or reason to what they do. But the bottom line is that they intentionally target civilians as a strategy. They kidnap people and cut their heads off in front of video cameras. They encourage their children to become suicide bombers and kill as many innocent people as possible. If I'm oversimplifying things by calling them terrorists instead of freedom fighters, I can live with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 But the bottom line is that they intentionally target civilians as a strategy. They kidnap people and cut their heads off in front of video cameras. They encourage their children to become suicide bombers and kill as many innocent people as possible. If I'm oversimplifying things by calling them terrorists instead of freedom fighters, I can live with that.We agree that those actions can be called terrorism. In fact, I've never referred to those specific perpetrators as freedom fighters.  If I'm oversimplifying things by calling them terrorists instead of freedom fighters, I can live with that.You made a generalized statement ("You can't fight against freedom and be a freedom fighter") with no qualifications that therefore applies across the board and across history, and that's what I responded to, not your specific stance on insurgents in Iraq. (In fact, my contrary example was historical.) It's the generalization that I objected to, but now you're re-framing the discussion to pretend that both your original comment and my objection were specific to Iraq. See how you pulled a switcheroo there? What I argued was that in certain contexts it is indeed possible to fight against one person's idea of freedom, and still fight for your idea of freedom. Does that apply to Iraq? Maybe, maybe not. That's not my point. I'm guilty of oversimplifying things? I guess I just don't understand the complexities involved with evil/stupid Bush's invasion of Iraq for oil. I would hate to live in a country ruled by bumper sticker slogans. Otherwise, I might have to "give peace a chance."I haven't ever made any of those claims. And just because some anti-war activists resort to sloganeering doesn't make your original statement ("You can't fight against freedom and be a freedom fighter") any less simplistic. I realize I'm picking on your semantics, but it's only because I expect better from you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.