Censoring September 11th

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

melon said:


It was tongue-and-cheek, although I don't take kindly to organizations that get their jollies by pushing for media censorship and slandering homosexuals, equating them with pedophiles every chance they get.

They don't need guns to wreak real damage on Americans; so, as far as I'm concerned, whatever you'd like to call them, I consider them to be as evil and damaging as any fascist entity.

I can't think of any kind of organization in America I despise more than these so-called "family" organizations. They certainly don't represent my family.

"Focus on your own damn family."

Melon

Good grief, Melon. I'm inclined to agree with everyone on this board -- that the images of the planes and the aftermath are far more disturbing than the harshest of harsh language -- but equating the genuine fascism of the terrorists who flew planes into buildings with the AFA is more than a little over the top.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

nathan1977 said:
Good grief, Melon. I'm inclined to agree with everyone on this board -- that the images of the planes and the aftermath are far more disturbing than the harshest of harsh language -- but equating the genuine fascism of the terrorists who flew planes into buildings with the AFA is more than a little over the top.
:up: I agree.

But I won't rest UNTIL YOU PUT PROFANITY ON TV!!!!!!
ARGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

deankitty.jpg


I don't see the big deal about making it a little more FCC-friendly.
 
I really dont get it. The disturbing thing, the thing which no human can comprehend, is 2 planes flying into 2 buildings. And people want to split hairs over some language? The footage of those planes makes people of all kinds cringe in the least. That is something we can all universally agree on.

Who bloody cares about the language. Jesus.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:

I don't see the big deal about making it a little more FCC-friendly.

You really don't think it's a big deal to alter and censor the human reaction to the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil? To actually be that bothered by it that you start petitions? Can we stop the tape before the planes hit too so we can censor that as well? If only that could change what happened for all those people. If it could, I would be all for it.

I am bewildered. It's a few swear words, who the hell is it going to harm?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

nathan1977 said:
Good grief, Melon. I'm inclined to agree with everyone on this board -- that the images of the planes and the aftermath are far more disturbing than the harshest of harsh language -- but equating the genuine fascism of the terrorists who flew planes into buildings with the AFA is more than a little over the top.

But that's it. I don't agree with the equation that terrorism = fascism. Call it what it is: "terrorism." Bush once called this a "different kind of war," and I'm inclined to agree, even if, in practice, he's fumbled and made the mistake of waging this war just as if it was the same kind of war. And with a "different kind of war," it seems silly to use the "same kind of label."

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were undeniably nuts. And so is bin Laden. But it's like a bag of mixed nuts. They're not the same kind.

Melon
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

MrsSpringsteen said:


You really don't think it's a big deal to alter and censor the human reaction to the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil? To actually be that bothered by it that you start petitions? Can we stop the tape before the planes hit too so we can censor that as well? If only that could change what happened for all those people. If it could, I would be all for it.

I am bewildered. It's a few swear words, who the hell is it going to harm?
I don't think it should surprise anyone that the reactions were censored. All you really need to know about the human reaction is that people were horrified, and millions of lives would never be the same as a result of the attack. You don't have to know every letter and every context of every last swear word.

But to censor the planes crashing into the WTC would be a pretty late form of censorship. We've been accustomed to seeing the planes crash and have accepted it as much as we've accepted footage from the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as part of our history.

As far as the "who does it harm" question goes, I ask you who does it harm if we don't hear every four-letter word?
 
Terrorism is a means, the fascism is the clerical statism that these men want to see dominate the world, the aspiration is ingrained in their theology.

The war on terrorism is the fallacy, it is a war on Islamism and if Islam and Islamism truly are inseparable then it is going to be a very bloody affair for all involved in it :|
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

melon said:


But that's it. I don't agree with the equation that terrorism = fascism. Call it what it is: "terrorism." Bush once called this a "different kind of war," and I'm inclined to agree, even if, in practice, he's fumbled and made the mistake of waging this war just as if it was the same kind of war. And with a "different kind of war," it seems silly to use the "same kind of label."

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were undeniably nuts. And so is bin Laden. But it's like a bag of mixed nuts. They're not the same kind.

Melon
Terrorism is historically linked to fascism. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fascism is ineffective without the use of terrorism, and vice versa.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:


As far as the "who does it harm" question goes, I ask you who does it harm if we don't hear every four-letter word?

It harms all of us. And it insults the memory of the firefighters and everyone who died that day.

It harms all of us and insults our intelligence to have anyone treat us like babies and try to tell us that people reacted that day in words other than the f word or whatever other "offensive" word one might hear. We are not watching the Howard Stern show, we are watching a human tragedy that still remains beyond comprehension and painful beyond words. Any swear word you can imagine is meaningless compared to that-how anyone cannot understand that is beyond me.

The planes hit the towers and yes, people and firefighters and police SWORE-that is reality. Both are reality, what is the difference in censoring either? Censoring the human reaction to what happened is silly, insulting, ridiculous, absurd, etc. etc.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
Terrorism is historically linked to fascism. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fascism is ineffective without the use of terrorism, and vice versa.
No, fascism is very effective when it is running the state and using the organs of the state to control the population. Terrorism can be distinct from state violence - but they are each types of tactics and actions not the type of political system.

The proscribed submission to God and his appointed clerical class that enforces the Sharia is what makes Islamists fascistic. The religious police that will control behaviour is what makes it fascistic. This type of clerical fascism has been manifested in Christianity on more than a few occasions and regardless of the source it is repellent and the most forceful case against religion.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

MrsSpringsteen said:


It harms all of us. And it insults the memory of the firefighters and everyone who died that day.

It harms all of us and insults our intelligence to have anyone treat us like babies and try to tell us that people reacted that day in words other than the f word or whatever other "offensive" word one might hear. We are not watching the Howard Stern show, we are watching a human tragedy that still remains beyond comprehension and painful beyond words. Any swear word you can imagine is meaningless compared to that-how anyone cannot understand that is beyond me.

The planes hit the towers and yes, people and firefighters and police SWORE-that is reality. Both are reality, what is the difference in censoring either? Censoring the human reaction to what happened is silly, insulting, ridiculous, absurd, etc. etc.
I've seen several 9/11 documentaries and I've never seen any of our 9/11 heroes, or relatives of those who died in the attack ever complain about the FCC's policies on censorship. Censorship only hurts those who are being censored and the audience that demands more profanity in our culture. That is all. I'm sure many police officers used profanity that day, but those who made it out alive weren't exactly crying censorship the next day. The verbal censorship did nothing to demean the families of 9/11 or our heroes.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

There were probably hundreds of thousands of prayers prayed silently and aloud by NYFD and NYPD officers that day. I expect that those hundreds of thousands of prayers will not be aired on this documentary. Do any of you call that censorship? Aren't those prayers every bit as important to the rescue efforts as the utterance of swear words? Those prayers were as honest an emotional response to the situation as swearing was. By leaving those prayers out, are they demeaning the memory and honor of those who said those prayers?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

80sU2isBest said:
There were probably hundreds of thousands of prayers prayed silently and aloud by NYFD and NYPD officers that day. I expect that those hundreds of thousands of prayers will not be aired on this documentary. Do any of you call that censorship? Aren't those prayers every bit as important to the rescue efforts as the utterance of swear words? Those prayers were as honest an emotional response to the situation as swearing was. By leaving those prayers out, are they demeaning the memory and honor of those who said those prayers?

80s, you're getting all worked up about what "probably" happened and what you "expect". NO ONE has actually censored the prayers of anyone on this show, and how can you censor silent prayers anyway?

BUT, if, for some reason, your beloved FCC decided to do such a thing, I would be as pissed about that as I am about them censoring the firefighters real and actual reaction.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
Censorship only hurts those who are being censored

What a convienient belief. I guarantee that if, like 80s wants, the prayers of these people were being censored, you wouldn't have written such a ridiculous and disingenous statement.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

martha said:


80s, you're getting all worked up about what "probably" happened and what you "expect". NO ONE has actually censored the prayers of anyone on this show, and how can you censor silent prayers anyway?

BUT, if, for some reason, your beloved FCC decided to do such a thing, I would be as pissed about that as I am about them censoring the firefighters real and actual reaction.

Ah, but you miss my point. I'm not getting worked up. I do not consider it censorship that they didn't include all the prayers that were spoken out loud (and you have to know there were many); my point was that censoring swear words doesn't demean the memory and honor of the people involved, just as censoring the prayers doesn't demean them.
 
This thread is getting ridiculous. Not airing silent prayers? Come on!!! Won't stop till we have more profanity? Do you people read what you write?

This is a piece of history as it happened. This isn't a reenactment, this isn't a made for hollywood movie, or someone's interpretation. THIS IS HOW IT HAPPENED!!! Why wouldn't someone want to see this how it happened? This is real life, did these people cover their eyes and ears as they walked by the wreckage that day?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
This thread is getting ridiculous. Not airing silent prayers? Come on!!! Won't stop till we have more profanity? Do you people read what you write?

Evidently you didn't read what I wrote. I never made a case for depicting silent prayers. What I said was that if censoring the swear words somehow demeans the people who said them, then censoring "out loud, ie: spoken, prayers" demeans the people who prayed those prayers. I'll ask it again; isn't a spoken prayer every bit as authentic an emotinal response as cursing?
 
80sU2isBest said:


Evidently you didn't read what I wrote. I never made a case for depicting silent prayers. What I said was that if censoring the swear words somehow demeans the people who said them, then censoring "out loud, ie: spoken, prayers" demeans the people who prayed those prayers. I'll ask it again; isn't a spoken prayer every bit as authentic an emotinal response as cursing?

Yes, if their were spoken prayers that were censored, I'd agree with you but that's neither the case nor is it what you originally said.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Yes, if their were spoken prayers that were censored, I'd agree with you but that's neither the case nor is it what you originally said.

In my response to Martha I made it clear that I was referring to spoken prayers.

Do you doubt that prayers were spoken out loud by those being portrayed in the movie? Do you think they will depict those prayers verbatim?
 
I still don't believe things have come to this.. I mean... that is not Jackass or a tv show with actors playing a role. that's a documental showing real people dying and suffering, strugling for their lives and their spoken words are a way to express their pain. I think it is really really stupid to censor those words, because it demostrates that some people cant see the pain through those words, they just hear a curse instead of feeling the pain of someone suffering... and the worst thing is that they want us to do the same, to be deaf.

"El peor ciego es el que no quiere ver" but in this case would be " the worst deaf is the one who doesn't want to hear"
 
Last edited:
Instead of censoring reality, perhaps the FCC should worry about lies being pedalled to the American public through 9/11 revisionist movies:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/05/clarke-blasts-abc/

Richard Clarke Blasts Key Scene In ABC’s 9/11 Docudrama

On September 10 and 11, ABC is planning to air a “docudrama” called Path to 9/11, billed by writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as “an objective telling of the events of 9/11.”

The first night of Path to 9/11 has a dramatic scene where former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to the CIA to take out bin Laden — even though CIA agents, along with the Northern Alliance, have his house surrounded.

...

ThinkProgress has obtained a response to this scene from Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar for Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, and now counterterrorism adviser to ABC:

1. Contrary to the movie, no US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden.

2. Contrary to the movie, the head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was no where near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see UBL.

3. Contrary to the movie, the CIA Director actually said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single sourced and we would have no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

In short, this scene — which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden — never happened. It was completely made up by Nowrasteh.

The actual history is quite different. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (pg. 199), then-CIA Director George Tenet had the authority from President Clinton to kill Bin Laden. Roger Cressy, former NSC director for counterterrorism, has written, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
 
80sU2isBest said:


In my response to Martha I made it clear that I was referring to spoken prayers.

Do you doubt that prayers were spoken out loud by those being portrayed in the movie? Do you think they will depict those prayers verbatim?

Yes you did later change it to spoken prayers, I missed that post. And yes I'm sure there were many spoken prayers, I don't know how many were caught on film, for from what I've seen of the documentary it was more about when it was happening. And I'm not sure how many stopped to say a prayer out loud while it was happening. Regardless, no one is calling for the censoring of prayers in this documentary.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Yes you did later change it to spoken prayers, I missed that post. And yes I'm sure there were many spoken prayers, I don't know how many were caught on film, for from what I've seen of the documentary it was more about when it was happening. And I'm not sure how many stopped to say a prayer out loud while it was happening. Regardless, no one is calling for the censoring of prayers in this documentary.

I'm just making sure that your side of the argument is consistent on this; that you all would be outraged if any valid type of emotional response was censored from the film.
 
80sU2isBest said:

I'm just making sure that your side of the argument is consistent on this; that you all would be outraged if any valid type of emotional response was censored from the film.

Of course. But understand this is a documentary, not a docudrama. What these people say is real, not scripted. The last time this was on, I could only get through the first 20 minutes of it. :|
 
80sU2isBest said:


I'm just making sure that your side of the argument is consistent on this; that you all would be outraged if any valid type of emotional response was censored from the film.

Well of course.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censoring September 11th

Macfistowannabe said:
Terrorism is historically linked to fascism. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fascism is ineffective without the use of terrorism, and vice versa.

Then I guess the founding fathers of Israel and the United States were fascists, because they committed violent acts against the British that I'm sure the latter would have considered to be "terrorism."

Merely slapping an inflammatory label onto something you dislike doesn't necessarily mean the label is applied properly. On the contrary, what you risk doing is diluting the effectiveness of the term, "fascism," so that it eventually means absolutely nothing.

Bin Laden is, at best, an ultraconservative terrorist and a theocrat, and, yes, I'd say that terrorism, theocracy, and ultraconservatism certainly do go hand-in-hand.

Melon
 
I got a chuckle out of this:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060811233134AAyzgV8

Q. Why is fascism used to describe terrorists in the term Islamo-Fascism (by the retard)?

When fascism is just "a philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (taken from The American Heritage Dictionary).

While Terrorism is just a tactic not a governmental philosophy."

A. Because Bush doesn't understand the term, but knows that people will react to it emotionally.

Besides, I prefer the Princeton dictionary definition: "a right-wing political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)".

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom