Is this treason or not? giving a voice to our enemy? This freaking pisses me off the Assosiated Press being the talibans voice in the media? in my opinion.... giving a voice to the enemy is the same thing as giving comfort to them. organisations such at Time, Newsweek, "P"MSNBC CNN The Washington Post and other news sources have been doing this for years and it has to stop! these people need to be revealed as the terrorist supporting traitors they are! They claim to support the troops but give a voice to the enemy at the same time! Fuck these people! they are just out to scare the people of america into voting democrat! the only reason the dems won the white house is because the Terrorists told the american people to vote that way! are we turning into France?

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/ap-chen...illed/80099.htm

What press, I only see cartoons!

If so, God help us.

treason? how is asking the taliban if Cheney was a target or not, treason? asking what the intent was and reporting it is simply journalism, ye know... the story has a different angle if the reason was to blow up some random people, or if it was to blow up Cheney.

trea·son
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

how does this newbit qualify as treason? if anything, they simply showed how the taliban failed and that they suck donkeydick...

Aw, come on now, even donkeys have standards.

there is much tainted media out there. look to your own state's news for some. THAT is treason.

tainted liberal media, AND it is untrue and biased, is the same frickin thing as the habib telling you that allah wants you to kill the nice human being next to you. same bullshit, if you ask me.

example:

the FBI intercepts a load of poison gas. the media reports. does the media commit treason when stating what the criminals were intending to do with the poison gas?

is the same logic as above. i guess it's my liberal pussy eurotrash upbringing, but i dont see the point...

this war has the lowest pecentage of all time. its not good, but check you casualty rates. have you forgotten the cole and 9/11 already? ok, that WASNT YOU!!! I still say carry it home to them. for 100 years.

f them and the horse they rode in on until they yeild.

correlate the casualty numbers from 1 month in Nam, and compare them to the total in Iraq to date...............

+1, B !!!

what does that have to do with so called treason due to reporting the intent of a failed suicide bomber?

people are interested in who, what, where, when and why. check any article in the newspaper, any newsbroadcast and so on, you've got a high chance all those 5 items are present.

i don't see how the number of casualties or 9-11 has anything to do with not being allowed to report on who (insurgents) and what (attempted suicide attack on Cheney) without being called a treator...

As muc as I don't like the MSM (Mainstream Media), I don't think this constitutes treason.


People like Cindy Sheehan, however, are true examples of treason.




Unfortunately, some of us here who believe in a better form of government would also be considered such by the powers-that-be.

Two points that I'd like to make:

1. I'm surprised that Sua wasn't too busy celebrating OBL's birthday to take time post here today.

2. When the media goes straight to the mouthpiece of the most violent terrorist group in existence for a quote, that may not literally be treason, but it is certainly not the way that wars were won in the past. Giving credibility to known terrorists is a means of legitimizing them, which does in fact help the enemies cause. For a person such as yourself, who considers themself worldly and intelligent, to post in threads of importance to Americans surely you are aware that you are serving as an antagonist? We are at war with radical islam. You have got to be sophisticated enough to know your posts are irritating to most Americans, especially on gun boards. Even if you are correct in your limited point, why consistently play devil's advocate? If we win the war- life goes on, if they win then God help the worlds non-Islamic inhabitants.

I'd like to believe that the public of these newsbits are smart enough to make up their own mind.
I doubt any american will give the Taliban more credibility to their cause because they affirm that they tried to blow up Cheney. the Taliban is an organisation with impact on global scale, reporting about them however does not legitimize their existance.

the newsbit simply reported on what happened and what was the (failed) attempt. that's what you expect from a newsbit, right? or would you rather live in a country where a politbureau decides what is news and what is reported?

crying out 'treason' when a newsbit simply lights the 5 basic elements of reporting, is a bit of an overreaction, don't you think?


antagonism is not the aim, as i've said before. what i am trying to do is understand (and through that become more 'worldly' as you put it ).

this particular topic is something I take for granted. when something you take for granted is challenged, you're somehow urged to start a dialog about it.


I'd like to think that most americans are open to dialog. you don't seem to understand me, but I'm doing my best to understand you. this however isn't achieved by shutting up and playing dead each time some subject comes up that you don't agree with.

also, 'especially on gun forums'? does gun ownership somehow imply that you're an extremist or have more incompatible views than any other citizen? it surely doesn't here in Belgium and I haven't seen anything yet that that should be implied in the USA.


if you admit that I am correct in this point, why are you opposed to me stating that very point?

as for being a devil's advocate, I am not, because that implies that I argue for the sake of arguing...

It's the media (not the American public) that is giving them credibility by giving an avowed terrorist a platform to address the public.



I, and many other forum members understand you very well. When you say you are doing your best to understand us, do you feel that is best achieved by being patronizing and pedantic to other forum members?



This is a perfect example of you "trying to be understanding". Ha ha. Let's deconstruct this paragraph, for example. Why would you put forward the idea 'that gun ownership implies extremism or has more incompatible views than other citizens hold' as a possible motive in my post. You yourself seem to say it would be silly to suggest such a thing in belgium, which is a place far more hostile towards guns, so why would I or my peers consider ourselves extremists or out of touch with other citizenry? It should be obvious that this was not my point. The point is, as you well know, that many gun owners here are patriotic and generally pro-military. Ergo, you are a contrarian and do, in fact, enjoy provoking forum members.



Who's opposed to you stating your point? I think its obvious though, that your points are often on the side of the far greater of evils, which makes them pretty repugnant to many.

Now finally, in the interest of finding common ground, I will agree with one of your quotes unequivocally (SuA Posted Mar 9 2007, 04:41 AM) "i guess it's my liberal pussy eurotrash upbringing, but i dont see the point...". Agreed!

heh, heh, heh........... +1, USP !!!!

It's hard not to go for this guy's throat, I know............He enjoys baiting us with his little diatribes, and then treats us with derision and condescension when we respond.

Yap, yap, yap, yap............. I, for one, am going to continue to close the gate, and let him yap to himself.......... He doesn't seem to care that his opinions are against the grain from the bulk of the rest of us........hell, he enjoys that aspect..........Contrarian would be the correct nomenclature. Don't feed him....he thrives on that. Take away his platform, like the media should have done with the fucking Taliban.

Regardless of how you feel, they did try to blow Cheney's ass up (and failed misserably at that). Reporting that isn't treason, no matter of how you play the semantics.


if the situation calls for it. you do realise you do the same (and a lot worse) to me, right?


patriotic? pro-military? i'm a belgian reservist, smartass & hence i'm both...


now i'm demonised, how nice.


would you change your opinions because it's not shared by the majority of people? i certainly hope not.
so no, i don't quite care if i'm 'mainstream' or 'accepted'.

and i still feel compeled to comment on topics such as this, where overreaction and disinformation lie festering. lets also add that once a comment of mine is not debunkable through means of reason or debate, you prefer to bash my person. how nice of you.

Amen Medic.. some media organizations still have the balls to call Fidel Castro the President of Cuba..( I haven't the faintest why)
In this day and age Information is power...and the media has allowed themselves to be turned into cheap vending machines...most of the time things aren't what they apper to be, ever ask yourself why the #$$$ do I have to hear such stuppid $%hit on the news its probably because something else is going on they don't want you to know about.. and yes giving terrorist a voice is treason IMHO..this isn't saying the 1st should be infringed, is't just a rant, about how I hope someday the check and balances we hold so dear, catch up to those whose greed blinds them from the consequences of the actions they take.

What frosts my ass is the media calling terrorists "Islamic clerics" . Use the proper term- "radical heritic". To call them religous leaders gives them legitimacy they do not deserve.

B)-->