New Yorker arrested for broadcasting Hizbollah TV

[Purveyor]

Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:08am ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. authorities have arrested a New York man for broadcasting Hizbollah television station al-Manar, which has been designated a terrorist entity by the U.S. Treasury Department, prosecutors said on Thursday.

Javed Iqbal, 42, was arrested on Wednesday because his Brooklyn-based company HDTV Ltd. was providing New York-area customers with the Hizbollah-operated channel, federal prosecutors said in a statement.

It did not say how long Iqbal's company had been providing satellite broadcasts of al-Manar, which the U.S. Treasury Department in March had designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, making it a crime to conduct business with al-Manar.

Iqbal has been charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the statement said. Federal authorities searched HDTV's Brooklyn office and Iqbal's Staten Island home, where Iqbal was suspected of maintaining satellite dishes, the statement said.

---end of excerpt---

http://tinyurl.com/joopf

[flordehinojos]

1. democracy. freedom is free. ssssspreading demokrahcy. wouldn't democracy

allow for freedom of speech? meaning freedom of broadcast? two sides of an issue? will jessee jackson become the latest enemy of the state for talking to hizbolah, lebanon, iran, or whomever else bush wants to name an evil axed orifice?

[VegasWolf]

42. Land of the Free, home of the Brave. Not! Not anymore. nt

[wordpix2]

135. International Emergency Economic Powers Act---this is what we should be

discussing here:

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/ieepa.pdf#search=%22Emergency%20Economic%20Powers%20Act%22

In skimming this law over, I don't really see how it applies to this case of broadcasting. It looks like a stretch to me.

[Ishoutandscream2]

2. Wow, I envision the Nazis arresting Germans for listening to the BBC

So, this is George Bush's Amerika! Seig Heil!

[dipsydoodle]

4. That is an excellent analogy

:)

[kamtsa]

119. Bad analogy, he was broadcasting, not listening.

[Occulus]

125. Yeah, which makes it acceptable, donchaknow,

because the broadcast of unpopular speech is illegal.

:sarcasm: ....?

[Supersedeas]

184. Is he forcing anyone else to listen to it???? Isn't the Content based?

[Crowdance]

3. So, the murder of the First Amendment continues unopposed

The government will decide what facts you can know, what opinions you will hear or hold. I'd weep if I weren't so done with grieving.

[The Sushi Bandit]

5. kick this

[Barrett808]

7. Great Futurama poster! Where'd you get it? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

6. Freedom of speech ends when it involves Israel

Even the EU does not see Hizbollah as a terrorist group, only the US and Israel do. So now we must obey our new masters in Jerusalem!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

94. some would apply that here, apparently.

sheesh. you are so right.

[Occulus]

126. And they're a bunch of FUCKERS, all of them n/t

[drfresh]

120. .

wrong thread

[nedbal]

123. The European Union decided to take the channel off European satellites

The European Union decided to take the channel off European satellites last year.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14500256/

[wordpix2]

141. Hezbollah's not a terrorist group? Maybe not to some Arabs, but to Israel

it is.

[azurnoir]

8. I particularly "liked" this part

"It did not say how long Iqbal's company had been providing satellite broadcasts of al-Manar, which the U.S. Treasury Department in March had designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity, making it a crime to conduct business with al-Manar."

In other words we passed a special law and then sat back and waited. I strongly suspect Mr Iqbal was broadcasting al-Manar long before March of this year. Our government is now going to "protect" us from "wrong headed" TV, especially when it embarrasses our allies, we have so few these days .......

[lumpy]

10. Kick

amazing!

[Ian David]

12. Do they show Janet Jackson's nipples? n/t

[mwooldri]

22. I just don't get it. If it was FCC violation (illegal broadcast)...

... then I'd understand. If the supposed illegal TV channel al-Manar is not gaining any financial benefit from being broadcast in the United States then what crime did this HD-TV Ltd company do by rebroadcasting this particular TV station? Now if HD-TV Ltd and al-Manar entered into a financial agreement then I can understand that might be in violation.

The earlier poster of Germans being arrested for listening to the BBC was about the right analogy here, but it was more like the owner of a transmitter in Nazi Germany being arrested for re-broadcasting the BBC.

I supposed hardened al-Manar fans can still get the channel by getting the right equipment or even "shock horror" streamed online over the Internet!

I guess it's now "Welcome to Amerika!"

[MADem]

106. We did not pass a special law. It has been on the books since

1977. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act

That happened during the CARTER administration.

[azurnoir]

116. Yes the law has been on the books but

Apparantly al-Manar was added to the list a bit more recently: Iqbal has been charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act
The U.S. Treasury Department froze U.S. assets of al-Manar in March, saying it supported fund-raising and recruitment activities of Hizbollah, a Shiite Muslim group backed by Syria and Iran that has been at war with Israel in southern Lebanon.

[MADem]

146. Al Manar was added two years ago. See elsewhere in this thread. NT

[Ian David]

9. It's only legal to do business with terrorists when Halliburton does it.

[azurnoir]

14. Really it's not even business,

in the sense that money changes hands. Al-Manar is broadcast via satellite making it an FTA (free to air) channel all one needs is a dish and an FTA receiver, which are widely available.
edited to add:
Lately in past couple of months Dishnet which broadcasts international channels has been encrypting them, but depending on which satillite one points their dish at most are still available unencrypted.

[MADem]

11. Well, every time you see that asshole Nasrallah on TV it is from a

feed that originates out of al-Manar.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

15. Where does the

feed of the asshole Omert come from ?

[MADem]

17. Ah, the elected asshole, versus the unelected spiritual leader

'secretary-general' asshole installed by the Grand Council of Ayatullahs!!

You've never watched al-Manar, I take it....

[IndianaGreen]

19. The government of Lebanon was also elected

but the only democracy that some people around here believe in, is when we approve of the winner. This explains why the evil US/Israel duopoly refuse to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government of Palestine, or the democratically elected Hizbollah in the Lebanese government.

[MADem]

21. Certainly. But Nasrallah, who lit the fire, was NOT.

What does that have to do with the unelected sec-gen and al-Manar?? And it's a fair stretch of the legs from Lebanon to Palestine. Last time I checked, no Hamas politicians sat in the Lebanese legislature. I make a point about one thing, and always, it seems, a bunch of other shit gets tossed in the mix, along with a great big whine about democracy.

You could say that since many of the GOP legislators in America were elected without shenanigans, that somehow makes the stolen presidential elections OK....since the GOP legislators were elected, we should eat the 2000 presidential result and not complain, because Bush actually got more votes than Nasrallah ever did.

And, FWIW, the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" in France have also banned al-Manar. That should give you a clue as to their programming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1373845,00.html?gusrc=rss

And, to correct misimpressions cited above, al-Manar has been banned in the US for a couple of years. So why the faux outrage all of a sudden? They found a guy who has been breaking a US law that has been in place since Dec, 2004, and they yanked the guy up short.

U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18011-2004Dec21.html

[IndianaGreen]

25. Why do you support censorship, like Bush does?

Israel was bitching about BBC's coverage of the war, wanting it to cover the war like Fox News does, as a megaphone for Jerusalem.

[MADem]

29. I give up.

I don't have a problem with full war coverage. Cover it ALL.

I have a problem with hate speech and exhortations advocating the genocide of an entire group of people.

Is that clear enough for you?

[IntiRaymi]

51. A simple question that should be asked here is:

Are you against the Bill of Rights?
(Despite your obvious desire to import Israel's problems into the USA)

[MADem]

53. No, and I'm also for the RULE of LAW

Do you think it's cool to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?

Where were you two years ago when, after looking at the content of this station, it was banned? Why are you upset about it today, and not two years ago, when they were showing that awful soap opera and it got sliced from the US, Canadian, French. Spanish and South American line ups? Or are you just mad because this guy, breaking a law that is two years old, got caught today?

You don't have a problem with round-the-clock suicide bomber tapes? Music and video exhorting violence against Jews?

I'm sorry, I do. And one of the things we aren't supposed to do in this country is single out a group as a target for hatred, and that's what al-Manar does.

[The Stranger]

54. This is pure speech, and it receives the highest protections under the 1st

Amendment. It is nothing close to shouting "fire" in a theater. If it is lies and untruth, the only way to defeat it is by the truth winning out.

[MADem]

60. OK, let us turn on the teevee

And watch a show that says (INSERT ETHNIC GROUP) should all be killed, and provides peppy music with lyrics along those lines. (INSERT ETHNIC GROUP) will soon be dead because suicide bombers like the kid in the video coming up are gonna help to kill them all. Then, let's watch a kids' show on this station, that says (INSERT ETHNIC GROUP) are all monkeys and pigs.

Get real. How long would that last on American TV? Substitute MEXICAN, or BLACK, or any other ethnicity, for the hate directed at Jews in these broadcasts, and it wouldn't have taken so long to pull them off the air.

But again, the station was banned in 2004. It wasn't a secret.

Why are you upset now, because this guy broke an existing law that has been in place for two years, and got caught?

[The Stranger]

66. Actually, Glen Beck, Michael "Savage" (Weiner), Bill O'Reilley,

Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and others routinely call for the deaths of Arabs, South Asians, and Muslims as part of a the "War on Terror."

They may be somewhat more discreet in their choice of words (except for "Savage,"), but the message is clear, and it happens every day.

[MADem]

70. Ah, so two wrongs make that right?

And as I have said elsewhere, you see the suicide videos and the musical interludes CONTINUOUSLY, between every segment, like commercials.

Imagine if you saw Ann Coulter spewing hate to include calls for death every ten minutes, no matter what show you were watching? Or Glenn Beck singing "Throw the Muslim Down the Well?"

The issue is not just people expressing their hateful opinions so much as the entire basis of the programming. The suicide bomber martyrdom videos are shown constantly; the militia scenes with hate songs too.

I certainly don't endorse the "right" of Ann Coulter to get up on TV and call for the death of anyone. She's free to make halfassed statements about who she likes and who she doesn't like, but just because Faux and others let her make a hideous comment every so often, it does not make it right, and it does not compare with the round-the-clock incitement of al-Manar.

[The Stranger]

73. Absolutely not. Both are wrong. As wrong as anything can be.

No disagreement here about that. And Fox is broadcast to millions every single day, inculcating hate, xenophobia, racist fear and bigotry.

[MADem]

75. Look, we've come to some sort of agreement here, so I don't wanna

wreck it. And I do agree that Faux is a fer-shit station that lies, cheats, plays on emotions, and is sleazy. But I gotta tell ya, you can't compare the two. Faux's incitement to violence is like the touch of a feather compared to the al-Manar pounding of a sledgehammer.

It's wrong, it's hateful, it's against the law, and they were right to bag that guy for distributing it.

[treestar]

166. Why are you afraid of people seeing/hearing this stuff, exactly?

It's just speech. Just because we hear it does not mean we will agree with it!

[MADem]

173. It's not aimed at YOU. Unless your arabic is up to snuff. NT

[AliceWonderland]

154. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

I am disturbed by the double standards of hate speech. It is perfectly acceptable for people on public airwaves in the US -- from the RW echo chamber of cable news to the shock jocks on morning radio -- to call for death and destruction of racial and religious groups. Turn Baghdad into a sheet of glass and all that. Make the desert glow. Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.

It's all about how you define terror. As terror truly is defined, it casts a wide net these days -- coercing communities into a particular POV with threats of violence or violence. But terror has become "what an Arab does."

[IntiRaymi]

108. Look, don't import foreign problems into the US.

That is what this is about. We are a world away from Israel, and a different reality governs our actions here.
Get used to it...USA == Bill of Rights.

[wordpix2]

129. why do radical Islamists kidnap/kill reporters who show both sides of

the conflict?

Talk about censorship!

Oh, yes, and some of these radicals behead the reporters if they don't like them.

[Khayembii Communique]

136. Keep it to Hizb'Allah

If you're going to make generalizations about "radical Islamists" in a thread about Hizb'Allah then you're going to have to provide some type of connection between the two. Hizb'Allah isn't your typical "Al Qaeda" organization.

[wordpix2]

139. here's a connection, which I easily found on the web.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51524

snip: Sources in the Al Aqsa Brigades told WND "independent Palestinian gunmen" affiliated with their group carried out the kidnapping "completely on their own."

A senior Al Aqsa leader, who claimed his group did not sanction the kidnapping, told WND he thinks the Fox News hostages are being held "to make a point that Palestinians are against American aid to Israeli aggression." He mentioned Israel's military campaigns in Gaza and Lebanon.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wopals214859815aug21,0,7936880.story?coll=ny-worldnews-print

They hail Hezbollah as heroic
Many Palestinians see war as part of their cause
BY MICHAEL ROTHFELD
Newsday Staff Correspondent

August 21, 2006

RAMALLAH, West Bank -- Behind the counter at Salaam Taxi, Mohamad Charaky has glued posters of a man from another country on each side of his picture of the late Palestinian legend, Yasser Arafat.

Charaky's new hero is Hezbollah leader Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, whose Islamist militia stood up to Israel in Lebanon. His admiration transcends the fact that he belongs to the Sunni branch of Islam and Nasrallah is Shia.

snip:

Now, it seems, the future of both the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Lebanon may lie in Syria - which supports Hezbollah and gives sanctuary to Khaled Meshaal, head of the Hamas political bureau. Yesterday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced she had appointed an adviser to investigate peace talks with Syria.

[Khayembii Communique]

140. No Dice

The first article doesn't even mention Hizb'Allah. In fact, from the following statement, we can obviously see that these gunmen were members of the Al Aqsa Brigades and not Hizb'Allah:

"Sources in the Al Aqsa Brigades told WND 'independent Palestinian gunmen' affiliated with their group carried out the kidnapping 'completely on their own.'"

The second article mentions the abduction of the soldiers, as follows:

"Hezbollah's ensuing abduction of two more Israeli soldiers sparked the war in Lebanon."

I see nothing wrong with the taking of PoW's during a time of war.


The articles you posted proved nothing at all.

[wordpix2]

142. articles show a connection between these groups. You don't think so?

Syria supports Hezbollah and "gives sanctuary to Khaled Meshaal, head of the Hamas political bureau."

It's hard to believe these groups don't talk to each other and work together. Hamas, a Palestinian terror group, never speaks or plans "projects" with al Aqsa Martyr Brigades, a Palestinian terror group?

Sorry but I don't buy it.

[Khayembii Communique]

145. That point is irrelevant

Regardless of whether or not they "work together" the fact of the matter is that your original comment -

"why do radical Islamists kidnap/kill reporters who show both sides of the conflict?

Talk about censorship!

Oh, yes, and some of these radicals behead the reporters if they don't like them."

- has absolutely nothing to do with Hizb'Allah. You have failed to prove your claim that Hizb'Allah "kidnap(s)/kill(s) reporters who show both sides of the conflict". All you have done is made a connection between Hizb'Allah and Hamas using circumstantial evidence. Even IF these two groups worked side by side, that doesn't prove anything.

[hoboken123]

192. I see nothing wrong with the taking of PoW's during a time of war

A terrorist group crossed the border, killed a number of foreign soldiers, lobbed hundreds of missiles at civilians and kidnapped two soldiers.

This you call 'the taking of PoW's'

Wow.


And btw, starting a war isn't 'a time of war'.

[stepnw1f]

170. WorldNutDaily? Bad example.... (nt)

[IndianaGreen]

174. Fox News reporters show both sides of the conflict?

get real!

The issue here is that Israel-paid-for American politicians want to prevent the American people from getting another source of news that may contradict the message they want us to see on TV.

Remember the lopsided American TV coverage of katushas landing in Northern Israel with the British press coverage of the carnage caused by Israeli bombs in Lebanon?

[High Plains]

35. Sorry, I don't go for the government telling me what I can watch.

[MADem]

40. Well, you should have piped up two years ago, then, when the station

was banned in the US. You won't find it in France or Spain, either.

[treestar]

167. Exactly. And what's so stupid about it is

If it shows Hezbollah in a bad light, that helps the Israelis.

Some people are just so damn stupid they act like everyone else is. We're going to become supporters of Hezbollah just because we hear what they have to say? What they have to say might sicken us.

[nolabels]

124. How about in the U.S.?

They don't even except the results in U.S. if a Democrat get elected here, just look carefully at the last two U.S. presidential elections :shrug:

When the government decides that it will select the parameters of debate it is no longer a democracy.


P.S. I often wonder when one should focus on the individual tree instead of the forest

[MADem]

151. Hizb'Allah is NOT the Lebanese government

The government consists of a number of political parties and entities, to include Maronites, Greek Catholics, Druzes, Armenian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Sunnis, and Shi'as (and not all shi'a are Hizb'Allah, either). The President is Armenian, the PM is Sunni, and the Speaker is AMAL shi'a.

The Hizb'Allah are a small minority of the government, they have a few seats, something like FOURTEEN out of a HUNDRED AND TWENTY EIGHT. They formed a bloc with AMAL and another fringe group, but even with those parties, who could bolt at any time if they get sick of Nasrallah, they still have less than a THIRD of the total seats.

Yet they throw their weight around like they are the US GOP majority.

The country's leader is not Hizb'Allah. They are not the majority. Yet Hizb'Allah issues pronouncements to the UK and others as though they were in charge.

Rather like dictators.

[azurnoir]

20. So are you saying

that because, most people but not all in this country consider the source an enemy; broadcast should be illegal? Even though the broadcast is in Arabic.

[MADem]

24. Al Manar is banned in France and the US

...and has been for TWO YEARS. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18011-2004Dec21.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1373845,00.html?gusrc=rss

What I am saying is that I agree with the French, the Spanish and others on this matter. And I have held this opinion for some time, having seen their programming.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=9441

[IndianaGreen]

27. So what? The Framers of the Constitution held a different view

as to the government censoring news.

[MADem]

31. Look. Read these words carefully, please. One at a time.

I don't have any issues with full war coverage. Show it all.

Read that three times, so I don't have to retype it.

I DO have a problem with HATE SPEECH that advocates the genocide of an entire group of people because of their religious affiliation. Like France does. Like Spain does. Like the US does.

Like ANYONE with an iota of decency does.

Surely you aren't saying that you agree with Nasrallah's exhortations to slaughter all the Jews?

[IndianaGreen]

32. Nazrallah never said what you claim he said

He has never advocated the slaughter of all the Jews.

[MADem]

39. Read. He has.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah
In his own words:


If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide. ....If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli. ....The Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities <...> Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history <...> Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment. ... There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel. ...Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: 'Death to Israel.'" ...

Seems pretty clear to me.

[azurnoir]

44. From the National Review no less

must be the Gospel then. The same wiki article also has him saying similar things concerning the US. However it is probably more true that the government here is quietly promoting these ideas, taken from the Guardian article: The French authorities are also concerned about the channel's popularity among the 5 million Muslims living in France. Is that the problem, Muslims here like al-Manra? Or they will get "ideas" from it? Seriously I doubt it.
The government in the US allows the Klan, Aryan Nation, and other hate to use mass communication, this is no different. Censorship only makes it "the forbidden fruit" which is reputedly sweeter, if you understand what I'm saying.

[MADem]

52. Please, find a friend who speaks Arabic, and play the videos and

get yourself what you consider an "accurate" translation. PLEASE. I beg you.

This is not just mild partisanship or a difference in a point of view. It is propaganda, of course, but more importantly, it incites people to violence. It's pretty stunning.

[azurnoir]

117. I mentioned the source because it is right wing

it is not the content I am disputing, it the censorship. There are many "talking heads" that incite violence, does it not occur that letting this station be public may well have the opposite effect, rather then inciting violence it could well foster disgust among those you seem to think will take Nasrallahs words to heart. Did allowing the neo Nazis to march in Skokie create more popularity for them or more sympathy for the Holocaust survivors living there?

[MADem]

153. "Neo Nazis" in Skokie is a poor example

They marched ONCE. Not every fifteen minutes around the clock, in every town in America.

Again, you need to view the channel. It's disgusting. I am not talking about opinion spouting talking heads, I am talking about the music videos and the suicide bomber martyrdom farewells they play over and over again, like the latest hit on MTV. Real peppy music, if you ignore the words and images.

Please reread this entire thread. Understand that Hizb'Allah is NOT "the government" of Lebanon, they are not even the majority of the government (the President, PM and Speaker are NOT Hizb'Allah), yet they behave like the Dictators of Lebanon. Also understand that the reason they are banned in the US (and have been for two years) has to do with HATE and incitement to murder, not with "the Jews."

[azurnoir]

176. No, hezbollah is most certainly not Lebanon's government

that is not the issue, nor is the content of al-Manar's broadcast. I do realize it is offensive however what censoring accomplishes is adding to their mystique, their glamour (at least from a macho adolescent type point of view), it says you frighten us, that's what terrorists want, it also is a slap in the face to every Muslim or now Arab American it screams "you people can't be trusted". In short it gives al-Manar power.
As far as when al-Manar was banned I was going on the only time frame in the article which was March'06, that is also not truly important except that it our government that long to figure out?

[MADem]

178. OK. So by your logic, we should allow the following channels

Kill The Mexicans sponsored by the Minutemen

Murder the Gays sponsored by Fred Phelps

Segregate, Kill and Deport the Blacks sponsored by the KKK.

Torture and Kill the Democrats sponsored by the GOP.

The issue, and you may not like this, IS the content of the station. Does banning the above sorts of stations add to the mystique of hate groups? Or is it because this particular hate station is already up and running, that somehow makes it OK? The horse is out of the barn?

How many times do I have to repeat that thirty percent of the broadcasting is DIRECTLY exhorting the audience to KILL Jews? And further, YOU are not part of their target audience. But there are people living in our country who ARE.

Why is that so hard to understand? It isn't "Gee, we hate Jews" or "Gosh, those Jews are mean" or even "Look at those awful Jews bombing Arabs!" It's "Get up offa that thang, strap on yer vest and KILL those Jews!" To MUSIC. Around the clock.

Good grief. I'm ready to give up. I can't believe that Democrats exist who actually don't have a problem with advertising and extolling the murder of an entire group of people based on their religion. I can only hope that posts like yours have to do with your lack of understanding with regard to the programming on al-Manar, and not because you think murder is acceptable.

[azurnoir]

187. You Ma'am? assume much.

"YOU are not part of their target audience. But there are people living in our country who ARE."
I' m not sure which you actually are talking about that you assume I am not a Jew or I am not an Arab.
I am the former, and have Friends who are the latter. First I refuse to live in fear, second only one who is both fearful and bigoted would implicate that American Arabs or Muslims can not be trusted to watch al-Manar.

[MADem]

189. Oh, I see

You don't like those channels, eh? Find them offensive? Reprehensible? Sickening? Against American culture, dignity, sense of fair play, AND rule of law?

So by your arguments, it's only the Kill the Jews channel that gets a pass, then?

Didn't have to scratch too deeply there, did I?

[azurnoir]

196. Re-read post please counted 10 and edited

No I personally don't "approve" of any of them, however that does not mean they should be banned. If it were possible I would print transcripts from Blogs and sites such as Storm Front, Jihad Watch, LGF, Red State, Confederate Yankee, I could go on but, on the front page of every paper in the US so that people can what is going on. Maybe I am optimistic but I truly think that when you put slime in sunlight it tends to dry up and die.

[MADem]

200. And what do hate blogs have to do with television programming, pray

tell? The answer is NOTHING.

And why is it that you trot out the TWO WRONGS argument yet again? How tiresome. How childish--well, these guys were bad, so those guys can be bad, too!

Storm Front is racist, thus al-Manar should somehow be ENTITLED to call for Jew killing? Why? So there can be calls for Jew Killing on the internet AND TV?? That is a hideous argument. It's absurd.

This banning was enacted using a law approved by Congress and signed in 1977 by Jimmy Carter. The banning took place two whole years ago.

But hey, since some asshole in NYC decided to ignore the ban and make a buck by hooking people up in defiance of the law (and he knew about it, certainly, because he probably had a subscription before the ban, and found a work-around after it was enacted), suddenly you get all 'fist in the air'/power to the people (but no power for those Jews), and screw the hate filled message of genocide that caused the ban in the first place?

Give me a break. You either are opposed to calls for genocide, or you aren't. Clearly, by your continued arguement and parsing, you really don't have that big of a problem with al-Manar's message. Aww, it's just a little call for genocide, nothing to worry about? Otherwise, you wouldn't continue to grasp at every and any straw to defend it.

That 'light of day' argument doesn't cut it. Why not let all hate groups have a TV channel, then? Give them all a bit of light, why don't we? There is NO difference between Kill the Jews or Kill the Gays, the Blacks, the Muslims, the Mexicans, the Democrats, the Disabled. Go on, name your poison.

It's ugly, it is hate speech, and it is wrong. If you approve of that sort of thing, we may as well just cross every bit of Civil Rights legislation off the books, and say, oh well, MLK died in vain. It's cool to hate in America once more, and let's start with the Jews.

And that's pretty sad, and pretty sick.

[azurnoir]

203. What is sick and sad is that they exist at all

Reality is they do. There is little difference between hate blogs and hate TV both are after all mass communication. OK so reading requires a degree literacy. But allowing to exist does not mean MLK died in vain or that the civil rights have been over thrown. Like it or not to squelch hate speech is also an infringement of civil rights. These people have in recent years made an art form of using the letter of these laws to destroy the spirit of these laws. Why make them folk hero's/martyrs to there compatriots when they can just as easily be buffoons with far less effort.
Banning hate TV or speech does not make it go away, it just drives it underground, personally I'd rather have it up here where I can see it.

[MADem]

206. I beg your pardon?

Like it or not to squelch hate speech is also an infringement of civil rights.

I could not disagree more. Good grief. That statement is unbelievable.

If everyone felt like you, MLK would have been better off moving to Jamaica and opening a bloody rum bar. He'd likely still be alive with his great grandchildren around him. All our gay friends would need to bolt for their closets, they'd have no rights. We'd need to hide the folks in wheelchairs behind thick curtains at home, because they don't belong in society, they've no rights, either. Put the mentally disabled back in institutions or up in the attics...oh, and the Blacks, the Hispanics, and of course our friends the Jews and Arabs, get thee to your ghettos!

Civil rights apply to all of us. And Jews, like everyone else, have an equal right to be free from calls for genocide, threats of death, incitements to murder.

How you can justify hate speech as a "civil right" is beyond me.

[azurnoir]

207. The civil right that allows for hate speech or any other kind

is freedom of speech. It is on this basis the ACLU argued the Skokie case and won. The lawyers that argued that case found it distasteful (an understatement) but the sword cuts both ways, if not we may well not have ever heard MLK because he would have been silenced.

[MADem]

208. A single march, that advocated a point of view , and that NEVER TOOK PLACE

The point of view was not a stated, cited "Kill the Jews" it was the more vague "here we are, we're American Nazis." And the march never happened. So the comparison is shaky in the extreme, at best.

If the Nazis started up a TV station that specifically incited violence against Jews, put people on the air who described how they intended to kill Jews, showed examples of people actually killing Jews, and played music videos exhorting their number to commit acts of genocide, it wouldn't stay on the air but a minute.

You cannot deliberately and with foreknowledge incite violence that is likely to result in acts of lawlessness. The Supreme Court has so ruled. It is a check on the First Amendment, and al-Manar's genocide-encouraging broadcasts fall under that rubric.

[azurnoir]

209. First off

that al-Manara is likely to incite violence in this country among who Norwegians? Hispanics? anyone? or a more specific group? Over and over again you have pointed out how al-Manara is going to incite violence, your continued insistence on this is in itself bigoted. So Muslim Americans are that untrustworthy, maybe they see al-Manara and say lets go kill Jews? I will bet NO. As I said in an earlier post I will not live in fear and I will not play ostrich. The Supreme court ruled when and on what. Why then is Phelps still running around?
There is a real danger of a WW2 style internment but and it is known Jews are not there ones at risk.

[MADem]

212. First off, to you--it is al-Manar (the beacon or lighthouse), not

a bastardization of a tomato sauce. Your credibility would be enhanced if you got the name right.

And if you think that guy who got busted was selling hookups of this two year banned station to Norweigians, I have a bridge to sell you. He was selling it to Arabs who have an interest in seeing incitements to violence against Jews. His customers were not, as you aver, from Northern Europe or Hispanic roots.

Guess what....you don't HAVE to live in fear. The Supreme Court ruled that stations like al-Manar that incite violence and advocate genocide aren't gonna be shown in the USA. You are safe. Rest easy.

Oh, and your pal Phelps? He doesn't have a TV station, does he?

Ah, and since, as you say "Jews are not at risk" of a WW2 style interment, it is then OK for al-Manar to advocate their genocide? Are you sure you are in the right forum? I've never seen such blatant bigotry in my life, frankly.

If you are unable to understand the concepts I have elucidated, that's an issue for you. A serious one. I refuse to support or endorse the genocide of any group. Apparently, you can parse, you can fluff off the brutal reality, or you don't have a problem with an outlet that openly advocates genocide.

This isn't living in fear. So cut that nonsense from your diatribe. It's OUT THERE, the al-Manar message.

You're endorsing the station? You're endorsing the genocide of the Jewish people.

It's not ambiguous. You should feel shame.

[treestar]

168. What is the problem with the existence of this "hate speech"

being covered? Why shouldn't we know about it? And who decides what is "hate speech?" I can handle "hate speech" without going out and killing people they tell me to kill.

Give us credit for being sentient beings here.

[MADem]

175. Again, YOU are not the target audience for this propaganda.

It's not about "you." I rather doubt that "you" are going to pay the premium to get the channel if it were available. However, if you think there are not people living in this country who might be influenced by this sort of programming, you are sadly naive.

And if you had ever sat down and watched it, you wouldn't be so quick to think it is hunky-dory.

As I have said elsewhere, we in this country do not permit propaganda channels that advocate, continuously, the murder of an entire group of people based on their religion or any other identifier.

But you assume that people would not be influenced by al-Manar, just because you say YOU would not be influenced. So, on the same basis, would you support the Minuteman's "Shoot the Mexicans" channel? That wouldn't influence YOU to shoot a Mexican, ergo, it must be OK. How about the "Bash the Gays, Torture them, and Tie them to Fences" channel? You're not about to do that sort of thing, so that's fine, too. The "Beat up the Cheese-Eating Frenchmen?" channel? That will leave you unmotivated to chime in. How about the "Beat Your Barefoot and Pregnant Wife into Submission" channel? That would HAVE to be OK, right, because YOU would never do that, right?

If any of those fictional channels would give you pause, this one should as well. It isn't just a "bit" of Jew hating, as if that would be more acceptable. It's round-the-clock, KILL the bastards, to MTV MUSIC, no less. Oh, and the odd children's program, featuring the Jew as donkey, dog or pig.

[treestar]

182. Everybody has their own brain

I doubt there is anybody who would be so influenced by what they see on TV they just go out and do it. Not even kids.

The problem is in the slippery slope. There is no way one person's judgment about what another person should be exposed to can be sure to be fairly applied.

You have little faith in the common man if you think the type of thing you describe won't turn most people off and make the person saying it look bad. Trying to keep us from hearing it makes us figure you're afraid they do have something to say that will show justice is on their side.

[MADem]

185. OK, you have not watched the channel, and you proved it with that

woefully uninformed post.

One more time:

They show martyrdom videos of kids who say things like "I saw Hassan's video on al-Manar, and his brave example motivated me to give my life as well" before they trot off to die. Each kid who straps on the vest becomes a BACK STREET BOY or a NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK type hero. Others emulate them, and they say so in their grand farewells.

They show music videos, over and over, all day, every day, entitled KILL THE JEWS, DIE ALL JEWS, JEWS MUST DIE...it's all a variation on that theme. Over and over.

You are naive. And you don't know what they broadcast. Because if you did, you wouldn't say what you are saying. But most importantly: You are NOT the target audience here.

Are you telling me that YOU would race out and spend thirty or forty bucks a month to get the al-Manar feed if it were available here? Bullshit. But ya know who would? That disaffected young kid living hand-to-mouth in a marginal job at a tea shop in Dearborn, the undocumented kid of that guy driving a cab in NYC. That illegal working in the internet cafe in some blighted neighborhood in New Jersey. That rich little Saudi shit at the lousy college in East Bumfuck, here to learn English, get laid, and trash a few cars, who has no meaning in his life and no sense of excitement or purpose. That's where this stuff is aimed, not at you. It isn't about YOU.

It's not a question of "faith in the common man" it's a question of rule of law. Americans don't go for broadcasts exhorting the murder of an entire religion.

How you can excuse or apologize for that sort of thing is beyond me.

[wordpix2]

130. 1st amendment

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

[wordpix2]

131. International Emergency Economic Powers Act was passed for emergency

by Congress, which Congress has the power to do in time of crisis.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/ieepa.pdf#search=%22Emergency%20Economic%20Powers%20Act%22

[DrunkenMaster]

48. France also bans headscarfs

don't use them to advocate censorship.

[MADem]

55. France bans the wearing of CONSPICUOUS religious symbols

...if you look at the law. So, the asshole with the foot long cross around his neck gets the same treatment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

[HongKonger]

97. from your link....

The move followed complaints from Jewish organisations in France about the channel's content.

surprise, surprise...

[MADem]

101. Way to tout your prejudice!

So, if the GAY organization protests against the behavior of that Phelps guy, that's OK, yeah?

And if the MEXICANS demonstrate against the racist actions of the MINUTEMEN, that makes sense, huh?

But Heaven FORBID the JEWS take exception to having to listen to suicide bomber tapes and music videos cheering the death of Jews, to say nothing of soap operas that paint Jews as drinkers of babies' blood!

Surprise, surprise, indeed...didn't have to scratch your surface very deeply, did we?

[wordpix2]

134. thank you for your posts, MADem

[MADem]

157. I am a fan of rule of law, and I am a fan of fairness

And having lived amongst ordinary, average shi'a and the Pasaradan for a time, I can distinguish between the two--the former, who are the majority, are not thugs, bullies, extremists or murderers, like the latter bunch who are a small percentage of the total. It's unfortunate that the majority gets lumped in with those bums.

There's an awful lot of lack of understanding afoot, I fear. I've often thought it might be interesting to ask some of these Israel-blamers (who ignore the role of the UN and everyone else in this grand mess going back over half a century, and can never say what Israel should DO, just what they should NOT do) how they'd solve the problem in that end of the world, but I fear I'd start World War Three.

Instead, I try to correct blatant misinformation and profound ignorance, and leave it at that.

[IndianaGreen]

210. If you were a fan of the rule of law, you would oppose Israel's attack on

I am a fan of rule of law, and I am a fan of fairness

Poppycock!

If you were a fan of the rule of law, you would oppose Israel's attack on Lebanon and Gaza, and her use of cluster and incendiary bombs on populated areas. The fact that you don't seem bothered by Israel's war crimes tells me a lot about your stand on the rule of law.

If you were a "fan of fairness" you would opposed the occupation of Palestine, including East Jerusalem.

[MADem]

214. Excuse me, the subject is American Law.

The subject is al-Manar. The subject is NOT the conduct of the Jews. OR the Palestinians, for that matter. It is not the conduct of the Hizb'allah militia.

The subject, one more time, pay attention, please, is the content of al-Manar broadcasts.

Stop desperately trying to change the subject.

You wanna talk about the Israeli-Lebanon-Hizb'Allah issue, you go ahead and start a thread on the matter. Please. Put ALL your issues into it. But leave it out of this thread, because that ain't the topic. Same with Palestine. What does that issue have to do with murdering every Jew on this planet? Not a damn thing, and you should know that, if you have an ounce of humanity or decency in you.

Why are you so eager to DEFLECT from the main point, which is that al-Manar endorses GENOCIDE? Apparently, you endorse al-Manar. Thus, you, a purported Democrat, endorse genocide. How disgusting. Or do I have that wrong?

I'm a bit tired of yet another "Two wrongs make a right" excuse. They don't fly. Stop floating them. Best come up with something better. That argument of yours is chillingly Coulteresque.

Poppycock right back at you. You should be ashamed.

[wordpix2]

133. so you think blaming all the Mideast's problems on Jews is OK?

[sg_]

137. Anyone can watch...

Al-Manar in Europe if they really wanted to, one just simply has to point their dish at any of the satellites its carried on.

It can be banned on the localised TV packages (ie: Digital+ for Spain and Canal for France, their equilivent of DirectTV and the such). If I swung my dish around to any of the satellites which carry it I could watch it regardless if its banned here or not, same goes for France and Spain and where-ever it is "banned" in Europe.

That being said, it was taken off one of the 'main' satellites over Europe a few years back (Hotbird @ 13e) after a court ordered Eutelsat to stop the Al-Manar broadcasts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. LOL

Isn't it worse when the people agree with an asshole, as opposed to an asshole who's unfairly installed?

[IndianaGreen]

18. You obviously didn't watch the pro-IDF coverage by CNN, MSNBC, Fox

The sorry spectacle of American "journalists" acting as public relations agents for Israel during the bombing of Lebanon. Thank G-d for the British press and war correspondents such as Robert Fisk. We need more of them, and less of the Wolf Blitzers of this world!

[MADem]

28. Gee, were there any exhortations in those broadcasts

to wipe the Shi'ites from the face of the earth, to slit their throats, and toss their bodies into the sea? To burn the land before them, and recapture a city as a Holy Place?

Look, I UNDERSTAND that there are issues about the fighting, there are two sides, two (actually three, if you want to count the victimized Lebanese) points of view. That's not what got al Manar banned.

A journalist pimping one side or the other is NOT the same as bluntly, plainly advocating the genocide of an entire race of people. That's what al-Manar does. Cheerily. With music.

But until you listen to the rhetoric that is coming out of that station, you think it's just Faux with backwards writing. It ain't. It makes Faux look like unimaginative, amateur pikers.

[IndianaGreen]

30. You can hear the same thing in Arutz Sheva - Israel National News

Every time there was a bombing in Israel, you would see these men wearing hats screaming and carrying signs calling for the death of all Arabs.

The source of all the hatred is the Occupation itself!

[MADem]

37. Can't you divine the difference between coverage of some assholes

shooting off their mouths, and the editorial position of a television station?

You cannot possibly be so obtuse that you can't tell the difference.

A bunch of Orthodox sumbitches whining and yelling hate speech would be NO DIFFERENT than a bunch of Shi'a on the street doing the same thing. That's NEWS. You can even follow that sort of clip up with a discussion. And the people doing the discussing can say dispicable things.

BUT....and read this carefully, please...when the station prepares broadcasts of Hizb'Allah fighters shooting off their weapons, as editorial commentary accompanied by songs that aren't as peppy as Borat's "Throw the Jew Down the Well" but advocate the same actions, and Nasrallah goes on TV and says shit like the Jews invented the holocaust, the land needs to be cleansed of all JEWS, not Israelis, JEWS, and Jerusalem should be overseen by the Shi'a, and the children's programming depicts Jews as apes, well, IMO, that crosses a line.

If you don't feel that way, and believe that sort of speech is simply wrong on a human level, then you have a very different worldview than I do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar_TV
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=11&x_article=1158
http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/10_04/oct_04.htm
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hassan_Nasrallah

[The Stranger]

57. It very well may be wrong on a human level, but arresting someone for

believing what is wrong on a human level is even more wrong on a human level.

[MADem]

62. Uh, he was bagged because he broke a TWO YEAR OLD law!!!

The station has been banned since 2004. Why is everyone getting outraged now? Where were they when the station was banned in the entire western hemisphere and a good chunk of Europe?

This wasn't a state secret. The guy broke a law. Would it be OK for a station directing invective around the clock against say, Hispanics, or Italians to get a pass? How about a station saying all Christians should be killed, and they're all pigs? Or GAYS??

I mean, come on--we do have civil rights laws that trump these "free speech" whines.

[The Stranger]

63. Perhaps no one knew about it until now. The law is still invalid under th

e First Amendment, whether it is two years old or decades old. Therefore, he should be released and the law declared unconstitutional.

[MADem]

68. No it isn't. Don't be silly.

These guys are inciting murder based on religion. And not just a bit--it's a full THIRD of their programming. We've got Civil Rights law that trumps the ability to speak in that fashion.

The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." But the Supreme Court has never literally interpreted this guarantee as an absolute prohibition against all restrictions on individual speech and expression. Instead, the Supreme Court has identified seven kinds of expression that the government may regulate to varying degrees without running afoul of the Free Speech Clause: (1) core political speech; (2) speech that incites illegal or subversive activity; (3) fighting words; (4) OBSCENITY and PORNOGRAPHY; (5) symbolic speech; (6) commercial speech; and (7) student speech. The degree to which the government may regulate a particular kind of expression depends on the nature of the speech, the context in which the speech is made, and its likely impact upon any listeners. However, both state and federal courts will apply the same level of scrutiny to government regulation of free speech under the First Amendment, since the Free Speech Clause has been made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment's EQUALPROTECTION and Due Process Clauses. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S.Ct. 625, 69 L.Ed. 1138 (1925). http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/free-speech-freedom-expression

Last time I checked, exhorting people to murder others because of their religion might fall under "inciting illegal or subversive activity."

[The Stranger]

72. Not silly at all. Serious business.

These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. As we said in Noto v. United States, 367 U.S. 290, 297 -298 (1961), "the mere abstract teaching . . . of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action." See also Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 259 -261 (1937); Bond v. Floyd, 385 U.S. 116, 134 (1966).

A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967); Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U.S. 11 (1966); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964).

BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

[MADem]

79. Yeah, your point?

...except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action....


That is their goal, the purpose of the videos is to RECRUIT people to kill Jews. It's Hizb'Allah's "Be All You Can Be" ad, around the damn clock. It isn't abstract at all. It's painfully specific, and includes examples via Martyr video farewells of those who have gone before.

And it is tremendously successful.

[The Stranger]

109. Well, even if what you say is correct (but, ironically, we do not know)

because it is illegal to view it (which may be the point after all), that is not imminent enough under Supreme Court precedent.

That is the point. Censorship is not the answer.

[MADem]

159. You can find them if you are a bit motivated

Note that they freely steal bandwidth to get their message out; what princes: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1224273,00.html
What do a small south Texas cable company, a suburban Virginia cable provider and Web-hosting servers in Delhi, Montreal, Brooklyn and New Jersey have in common? Since fighting broke out in Lebanon, they all have had their communications portals hijacked by Hizballah. Hackers from the militant Lebanese group are trolling the Internet for vulnerable sites to communicate with one another and to broadcast messages from Al-Manar television, which is banned in the U.S. In the cyberterrorism trade it is known as "whack-a-mole" — just like the old carnival game, Hizballah sites pop up, get whacked down and then pop up again somewhere else on the World Wide Web. ...

You may have to hunt, and you might get shut out midstream, but you can find them. I've done it, and fairly recently.

If you want to see a quick overview of their programming, these links are instructive. Full disclosure and fair warning, so I am not "accused" of "propagandizing:" Jews prepared the material you will see in these links, but they accurately portray the station's content:

http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/10_04/oct_04.htm
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20Al-Shatat.html
http://www.techcentralstation.com/121504B.html
http://www.meib.org/articles/0304_l1.htm
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=66

This is a good overview of the entire situation in the region, several years old but still relevant. The entire piece is informative and interesting, and Al Manar is discussed in section III: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/021014fa_fact4

[The Stranger]

171. So if you and I can view it and not become murderers, so can others.

We don't decide what other adults are to see, hear, read and believe.

[MADem]

177. Ah, there's some logic. Everyone in the world is just like you and me.

If that were the case, why does al-Manar post suicide videos on their channel of children's last words, saying they were inspired by another video they saw on al-Manar to undertake their deeds?

It's one thing to find and view al-Manar on the web, it's quite another thing to go to a coffeehouse, social club, or internet cafe and see it blaring from the tv on the wall around the clock. Or flop on your living room couch, and do the same.

If you can't figure out the difference, I can't assist you in understanding. Unless you are pretending to be obtuse about the culture of the region, you are not the object of al-Manar's marketing. The disaffected and alienated young Arab speaker who likes compelling pop music and who is filled with angst, malaise and uncertainty IS their target. And believe it or not, we have some of those in our population.

[The Stranger]

179. No, the issue is the law, not the culture in faraway regions and problems

that exist there. The issue is one of a set of institutions and a framework of laws that date back not a few decades, as does the conflict you seem obssessed with, but back centuries and which form the bedrock foundation of the U.S. itself.

These institutions cannot be changed because of what people are broadcasting in faraway lands. No matter how reprehensible you find their broadcasting and their ideas to be -- it is the very fact that they are ideas that prevents you from being able to censor them.

This axiom cannot bow because some are horrified, or because the content is horrifying, because it is the content that is protected -- no matter what the content is.

This is the First Amendment.

[MADem]

188. Your view is NOT a view of the Democratic Party or the laws of this land

The Democratic Party doesn't go for hate speech. Neither do our laws.

The issue IS the law. And our laws say you can't call for the murder of an entire religion. That is what this station does.

This discussion is not about "conflicts that you seem obsessed with" (though you might like to change the subject, eh? Anything to deflect from a failed argument--quick, reach for an emotional cheap shot--sorry, pal, ya missed), this discussion is about the banning of a station in the USA, a station that incites people to murder Jews. It isn't about "faraway lands" or going back centuries, or any other unrelated ideas. But way to try to deflect from a weak argument!

It's about a station that broadcasts death threats against a religion, and it is about the government's refusal (in concert with other governments in this hemisphere and Europe and elsewhere) to allow that sort of incitement to be broadcast freely.

And I need hip boots, because despite your grand pronouncement that 'it is the content that is protected' I got news for ya: IT AIN'T. We have laws in this country against inciting to violence. We have laws in this country that forbid monetary transactions with entities that call for genocide. It's pretty cut and dried. Those are the laws that check the First Amendment, get to know them. They apply to you and the rest of the citizenry, and have for some time, now.

[The Stranger]

193. No matter how many times you post -- the law is the law.

I have already given you a quotation from U.S. Supreme Court case proving that even speech that calls for violence is protected speech. It is not protected only if it calls for and is likely to lead to imminent lawlessness. And these videos piped in from halfway around the world do not do that.

We cannot bend the laws that form the basis of democracy. No matter how bad the content of speech may be, still, we simply cannot let that lead to censorship. Because when you begin censoring some, you end up censoring all. These are the bedrock foundations of democracy. Truth must be allowed to win out. Speech must only be addressed with more speech.

This is the First Amendment.

[MADem]

199. Your quote does not apply. Your quote deals with the abstract.

Their exhortations are specific. But hey, overlook that annoying fact of the law. And overlook the law used, passed by Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter, to enact this ban.

Do you not understand that this station is ALREADY banned? It has been, for TWO years? If you were so upset about this, where were you two years ago, defending the rights of the "Let's Kill the Jews Now" station to broadcast their message of hate?

Also, how many times must you be told that the First Amendment IS trumped when incitement to violence is real and specific? Like, say, KILL ALL THE JEWS NOW? That's a trumper, pal, like it or not. And it is al-Manar's regular programming message.

Are you just obstreperous, or dull of comprehension? It's quite frankly a tossup...

[treestar]

169. What's wrong with broadcasting that Nasrallah said that?

This way we KNOW Nasrallah said it. If you block it from us, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT HE SAID IT.

Just because he said it doesn't mean we're all going to instantly agree and get up and go kill some Jews. We have OUR OWN MINDS.

If someone out there is saying that American women of Irish descent should be killed, I'd rather know about it and have everyone else hear about it so they could take my side.

[MADem]

183. Nasrallah's hate speech is UNIMPORTANT -- and everywhere

It is NOT the problem with al-Manar. You can see those speeches on Al Arabiya, on Al Jazeera, on CNN International, on Israeli TV, fachrissake. In many cases, they are broadcast IN FULL.

You can find Nasrallah's speeches ANYWHERE--the bastard is even up on YOU TUBE. He's not the issue.

Good grief. Are you not READING this thread? Do you not understand that al Manar is twenty five percent "Kill the Jews" music videos, and five to ten percent videos of martyrdom tapes of handsome 'about to die' children set to stirring music? Another five percent is KID's programming, often featuring Jewish donkeys, dogs and pigs--and they aren't FRIENDLY animals, either. Then, there's the Ramadan specials--the Diaspora soap opera, showing Jews drinking babies' blood, and that hit series, Protocols of the Elders of Zion--real holiday favorites.

It isn't Nasrallah's words, it isn't even the hideous hate-filled, partisan talk show programming, or the slanted news programs. It's the shit that comes on BETWEEN this stuff, the music videos, the video interludes, with a message that is repeated, over and over, and the message is Kill The Jews. It's unambiguous hate speech.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bumbaklaat]

13. conspire?

charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act

I couldn't find anything on the IEEPA that would prohibit this. However, I'm at work and only briefly scanned it.

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/ieepa.pdf#search=%22International%20Emergency%20Economic%20Powers%20Act%22

it does have this lil blurb in it though...

"b) The authority granted to the President by this section does not include the authority to regulate or prohibit, directly or indirectly -

(1) any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value"

/snip

[HuffleClaw]

16. what a joke. i guess free speech means nothing anymore

but what can ya expect in a world where people are pulled off airliners for the 'crime' of speaking arabic.

[Placebo]

23. Oh this is just ridiculous.

If we're so sure the so-called "terrorists" are 100% evil and bad, then why won't the government allow their citizens to judge for themselves?

I'm so tired of having Big Brother make decisions about what's best for me.

[Laughing Mirror]

26. We used to say America was a free country

We can't say this anymore.

[Jacobin]

33. Well, there goes the First Amendment

Are there any left?

[bluestateguy]

34. Disturbing

I would never say that a cable company should be punished for offering the CBN or whatever Pat Robertson's TV station is called. They advocate the deaths of millions everyday when they cheer on the Iraq War, but it's still free speech.

The irony here is that this censorship is exactly the kind of thing that is done in Islamic dictatorships.

[Brian Stevens]

36. They wanna shut down decent...

Yet Fox News is still on the air??????!!!!????

[The Stranger]

38. HOLY FUCKING FIRST AMENDMENT.

[w4rma]

41. This looks extremely unConstitutional. When a judge hears this the

feds should be forced to pay for damages to his buisness in addition to releasing him.

[MADem]

43. Nonsense. The station has been banned as a terrorist outlet for two years

now. The hate speech is over the top. The guy was breaking the law.

Good grief, doesn't ANYone realize that this is the station that broadcast that disgusting Al-Shatat program during Ramadan a few years back? You know, the soap opera about Jews slitting the throats of Christian children for their matzoh balls? http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20Al-Shatat.html

This isn't free speech--it's no different than giving over a channel to Osama to spit out his bullshit. Almost half of the programming on that station is music advocating killing the Jews and taking over Jerusalem, videos of suicide bombers doing their thing, and martyrdom tapes.

You should watch it for a while, it's here and there on the web--it's not Faux with turbans. It makes them look like rank amateurs.

[The Stranger]

45. You don't decide what someone else sees, hears, reads and thinks.

If it is lies and untruth, then the truth will win out. This is (seriously) as unconstitutional as something can get. Everyone loses in this.

[MADem]

50. NO, I am not objecting to lies and untruths in and of themselves

I am objecting to hate speech, recruitment to commit terrorist acts, and propagandizing that consists of over one third of their total programming.

Look, you see the Falwells and Robertsons getting up on teevee and shooting off their mouths--they make "a" comment, and rightly, the people who pay attention jump on their ass and make it a controversy. There's usually a bit of waffling, and one of those non-apologies where they say "If I was misunderstood I apologize."

What is happening on al-Manar is NOT that at all. It is HATE speech, all day. Between the shows, they show martyr videos, play songs that advocate hate and murder, it's NOT the same. The purpose of the programming is to recruit suicide bombers, to push the idea of "loving death" as Nasrallah (who won't strap a vest on himself, the chickenhawk terrist cheerleader) says.

How would you feel if The 700 Club or one of those moronic religious stations showed videos that had adorable young kids singing songs along the lines of "Kill all the Arabs, they are scum, Murder those Muslims, 'Cuz their bums!!!" and then followed up with a tape of the farewell Crusade speech of some Christian kid who had strapped on a vest and gone in and killed a bunch of non-Jeeeesus worshippin' people in a coffeeshop? Then, a round of rousing music while "Christian Soldiers" are shown shooting weapons and prodding the bodies of their enemies. That is what they are doing. That is a huge chunk of their programming.

And the station operates at a massive loss. Who pays the bill?? Iran.

And that Diaspora soap opera was horrible. Just horrible. This goes beyond "free speech"--it's incitement to commit terror.

[The Stranger]

56. As much as you consider it "hate" speech, speech is still protected.

The only answer is for there to be more speech. You could, for example, take out an ad or put on another channel showing the truth about this channel.

But arresting someone for broadcasting what is pure speech (albeit horrible) is historical, national suicide. This cannot be permitted.

[MADem]

64. Say, then, no one will complain when the new television stations

advocating Death to Mexicans, and Kill All the Gays, and Crucify all the Christians launch their new networks!

Honestly, how long do you think stations like that would last in this country?

Civil rights law does have a HATE speech component, and that's why al-Manar got bagged two years ago. This guy knowingly broke an OLD law, and I have zero sympathy for him.

[The Stranger]

67. Fox News is calling for the deaths of Arabs, South Asians and Muslims

every single day! I don't see anyone too upset about it.

[MADem]

71. Do post those videos! We need to see them!

Every day, huh? There must be hundreds and thousands of hours of footage then. Like there is in the al-Manar video vaults.

Certainly, there have been idiots who have said horrible things, but it isn't continuous or around-the-clock. It's usually a simple, shitty, declarative expression of hate. And how has America reacted? They've been OUTRAGED, and the people who made the statements have been put on the hot seat.

The attempt to aver that two wrongs make a right is pretty cheesy.

[The Stranger]

76. So you think they are just "idiots who say horrible things" to the people

who are targeted?

Or are you experiencing what it is like to be targeted when you watch this banned Arab television station?

[MADem]

80. Just idiots? No, they are awful idiots. And they've been

excoriated for their views. They shouldn't be dismissed or excused. My point is that the level of vitriol and calls for violence on US stations PALES in terms of volume and degree that you see on al-Manar.

And that speculative crack about me being targeted, what was the purpose of that 'curious' remark?

It's not accurate, but I fail (or prefer not to) to take your point or your reasoning.

[The Stranger]

110. Well, since it is being censored, we don't know do we. And we are

supposed to take your word for it. That's not good enough in a free society. Some do not get to decide what others hear, see, think.

[MADem]

161. See post 159. I answered this same objection there. NT

[The Stranger]

180. No matter what it is -- you do not decide what other adults see, hear,

think and believe. They decide what is best for themselves. This is the law.

[MADem]

191. No, I don't . And neither do you.

At least the seeing and hearing bit. I give people credit for using their own brains to make up their minds about what they believe.

The Supreme Court has already decided what you or I can see on US airwaves. And so did the US Congress, and Jimmy Carter, when he signed the law they used to ban this murder-inciting station. It's rule of law, and rule of law says NO al-Manar for you, or me on our television sets. Or anyone else, particularly those who think their hate-murder messages are "cool."

Ya wanna see al-Manar? You can hunt and peck, and find it on the web, or get yourself a ticket to the Middle East and enjoy it over there. But you aren't gonna get it from Cox, Comcast, Aldephia, Dish Network or the like. And if you DO get it from some fly by night provider, the guy who hooks you up is in hot water. And you are an accessory.

And until that station stops calling for genocide, that's a good call.

[The Stranger]

197. The Supreme Court has held that speech may not be abridged under

the First Amendment, and the only exception is an incitement to imminent lawlessness that likely leads to such lawlessness. As awful as the content of this speech is (and I will take your many posts and words for it), still we simply cannot put people in jail for speaking about it, for thinking it, for spreading it as their message. The falsity of their message must be met with others spreading a correct message or a truer message.

This is the First Amendment.

[MADem]

201. Well, one more time, you unwittingly proved my point

...the only exception is an incitement to imminent lawlessness that likely leads to such lawlessness...

Read this CAREFULLY, twice, if need be, for comprehension: al-Manar shows suicide videos. Kids get up in front of their video cameras, and give their last words decked out in their suicide vests, which include lines like "I saw the tape of Abdul on al-Manar, and his words motivated me to give my soul to Allah in the struggle..."

You see these sorts of tapes REGULARLY. That's a classic example of "incitement to imminent lawlessness that likely leads to such lawlessness." They also show music videos of songs that incite and exhort their viewers to kill Jews. "Directly." "Imminently." Designed to "likely lead to lawlessness."

Good grief. Try reading the thread. It would add to the discussion, to say nothing of your understanding of the issues at hand.

And I would also invite your attention to the 1977 law, passed by Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter, which was used to actually enact the ban. That law has not been declared unconstitutional and it has been on the books for close to three decades.

So get off your First Amendment bandwagon. It's mired in mud and doesn't apply to this situation at all.

[chimpymustgo]

194. MADem, what's your position on flag burning? Free speech and all...

Either it is, or it isn't.

[MADem]

202. Does burning a flag equate to a call to kill Jews?

Does it?

Why no, I don't think it does.


But let me answer your query. I oppose a Constitutional Amendment. I support any kind of bullshit law that will get the GOP off the issue for now, IF the choice is between a bullshit law and a full fledged effort to amend the Constitution.

Why? Because I am pragmatic, and a Democratic Congress can let bullshit laws lapse or overturn them. But we need to get that Congress seated first. Absent any push for amendment, let the matter be, with no regulation save fire regulations that apply to the burning of ANYTHING.

But again, how can you compare the two? Do you think making it OK in America to call for "Jew Murder" and genocide of an entire group is the SAME as burning a bit of striped cloth?

Yeah, either it is...or it isn't.

I can't believe you asked that question, honestly. It saddens me.

[FormerDem06]

148. Around here, hate speech only exists....

If white people, Jews or Christians say it. I know that's a gross over generalization, but it's the way it comes across on numerous threads a hundred times a day.

It is now cool to hate Israel (and by extension it's Jewish inhabitants) again on DU, and to defend said hate speech by using the First Amendment as a vehicle to deliver it. I watched this channel a few times when I lived in Beirut (kindof like stopping to watch a train wreck); my language skills weren't the best back then, but I can tell you that my hosts translated some of it for me, and wow is all I can say.

Those guys would make Hitler proud (note there was no comparison to Hitler in that statement, just that they were making such wonderful anti-semitic remarks that he was likely smiling from his grave).

[MADem]

162. I am very afraid that if these guys aren't checked, it could get very ugly

over there, and we'll be fighting World War 3 before we know it. And Jewish genocide will be a feature of the conflict yet again. And if that happens, I've got to wonder how some of these 'cool' folks here will feel? I know I will be sickened.

The desensitization of the population with those hideous MTV-style "Kill All the Jews" music videos is unreal. The message is appalling, and there can be no justification for it. I just don't get the defense of them--I am hoping it's ignorance that drives their arguments. If they've actually SEEN them, and support those messages, than we ARE dealing with Hitler's proxies.

One can disagree with the position of Israel without having to endorse al-Manar's hate speech. But to some, I fear, it's an either-or proposition.

[DrunkenMaster]

49. I don't care what you think "hate speech" is

if you advocate government consorship of ANY views we are opposed. Don't like it? Find it repulsive? TURN IT OFF. YOU don't get to decide what I can and can't watch or listen to, and the government sure as hell shouldn't be able to do it either.

[bling bling]

59. You should care.

Seriously. You should care a lot more about not allowing hate speech that involves organizations trying to recruit suicide bombers in your country. I'm very sorry that you don't think it's a big deal and that you think terrorist groups rights are above our rights to be as protected as possible from them.

There seems to be a whole bunch of people who must think that before Bush, America was the most open-minded, tolerant, anybody-gets-to-do-whatever-the-fuck-they-want-to country in the world or something.

If you equivocate free speech with somebody's right to attempt to recruit terrorists than you have some serious pondering to do about what you *really* stand for. Are there NO boundaries? Do you not draw the line ANYWHERE? Because if that's the case, America is NOT the country you thought it was, and it will NEVER be the country you want it to be. And thank goodness for that.

[The Stranger]

69. Whoa with the straw man there, it's very disingenuous.

You are the one who started saying "terrorist groups rights are above our rights." You have created something no one is advocating. The OP is advocating EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.

[MADem]

82. As I pointed out elsewhere, if you are OK with al-Manar, you gotta be

OK with the "Kill the Gays" channel, the "Shoot the Mexicans" channel, or even the "Keep the Dames Barefoot and Pregnant" channel...to say nothing of the "Segregate the Minorities, and Kill a few of them, too" channel.

I mean, heck, it's just free speech.... :sarcasm:

[MADem]

74. So, you advocate those Phelps bastards getting a TV station

to call for the death of gays? No problem with that?? How about the Minuteman channel, where they can call for people to bring their guns to the border to shoot Mexicans, eh?

Because that is what you are saying. And that's what al-Manar is doing, only their target is Jews.

And it isn't censorship. It's based on a Supreme Court decision that says when you start inciting violence, it AIN'T OK.

[w4rma]

58. If you think that folks should be jailed for showing this arbitrary info.

Then what is the line you draw on other informaion? Video clips on the internet. Video clips on TV. Radio spots. Should everyone now run anything they want to say by the government to make sure they aren't imprisoned and their buisnesses destroyed? Could you even trust what the government told you? Wouldn't this government tell you to just flat out stay out of politics and let them handle it? Who would you ask, anyway?

You tell me where the line for free speech is right now. Do you draw the line at showing unfiltered television broadcasting from other countries? Which country will be next?

[bling bling]

61. You didn't ask me but I'll tell you where I draw the line.

I draw the line at not allowing terrorist organizations to use our airwaves to communicate their hate messages and/or to try and recruit people to their side.

I wonder where you draw the line.

[w4rma]

65. Whose definition?

Whose definition of a "terrorist organization"? Which "terrorist organizations"? I hear right-wingers decrying everyone and their mother as a member of a "terrorist organization". As far as many of the Republican leadership is concerned the whole Democratic Party is a "terrorist organization".

How about Cuba and Venezuela? And just how much information should regular folks be allow to acquire from overseas? Be allowed to show to other people?

Should all the news organizations that replay the latest Bin Laden tape (right before elections) be stripped of their businesses and the owners jailed?

You talk tough but you are non-specific. And it's that ambiguity that gives the government censors the foot in the door.


Btw, you can get the same information on the internet if you want. What if I wanted to play a video clip from this station to criticize it? Would I be in trouble just for showing it to Americans even though I was critical of it? You can't tell me you don't see the danger in what you are supporting can you?

[MADem]

83. Cuba and Venezuela don't run stations that say "Kill the Jews"

around the clock. Al-Manar DOES pump that message out around the clock. It's against our laws, our Supreme Court has ruled that free speech doesn't cut it when one is inciting people to violence.

Are you OK with a station that recruits people to kill and maim gays? How about Mexicans? Italians? The French? Catholics? Mormons??? What's the difference between those examples and al-Manar...there's NONE. Except that al-Manar targets Jews.

[IndianaGreen]

84. Pat Robertson is always calling for death to gays.

He is still on the air, and why not? Let the people decide for themselves! I don't need Bush to tell me what I should watch on TV.

[MADem]

85. No he isn't. Not "always" as you state. He makes a hateful comment

on the odd occasion, and the ACLU et.al. jump all over him. It gets covered in the paper, and a fuss is made.

Imagine, if you will, a GAY HATING Network along the lines of this banned station, that shows a video of a skinhead describing how he intends to beat the shit out of and kill gays, and you get different guys giving their speeches every fifteen minutes. Between any segment, news, entertainment, what have you, you get one of those incitement videos, and then listen to a "music video" depicting guys beating up gays, prodding their lifeless bodies with sticks, and cheering. This goes on all day and all night.

That's al-Manar. A far cry from a fat slothful bastard who gets called out when he says something hateful.

[The Stranger]

111. There seems to be this double standard you are hopelessly missing.

It is okay for Pat Robertson to call for death to gays and Glen Beck to call for death to "A-Rabs" --- somehow you condone the hatred in these broadcasts.

[MADem]

163. Oh, stop. Does his broadcasting of hate constitute a third of his

programming? Does he show videos every ten minutes that advocate DEATH TO GAYS? Does no one pipe up and complain about his commentary?

But that is totally beside the point and you know it, and here's WHY:

I don't "condone" the hatred in those broadcasts, and shame on you for suggesting it. If you wanna talk about Pat Robertson and his awful comments, start a new topic on that subject. Don't try to rescue your failed premise by dragging his fetid ass into this discussion.

You've run out of arguments. You are now reduced to falsely claiming that because I object to Hizb'Allah's propaganda to KILL ALL THE JEWS, that I'm not 'sufficiently outraged' about the odd comment that Pat the Fat Fuck Robertson makes, that is IMMEDIATELY jumped on by the ACLU and everyone else who has a shred of decency. But hey, around here, I fear, it's damn few folks who can spare a shred of decency for the Jews when Hizb'Allah broadcasts round-the-clock calls for their death--why do I find THAT troubling? In a LIBERAL political forum?

But wait, let me answer your strawman, false-premise question CLEARLY, so there is no confusion: NO, it is NOT OK for Pat Robertson or Glen Beck to call for death to "A-Rabs" (your phraseology, not mine).

You too, I fear, are fixated like too many others, on the "Two Wrongs Make a Right" school of thought. Look carefully at what you are saying.

[The Stranger]

181. Have you seen Fox News? Have you seen Glen Beck?

AT LEAST one-third of the programming is calling for killing Iranians, Arabs, Afghanis and other peoples of color in other regions and part of other cultures. This is racism, bigotry and hatred 24 hours per day. It is the same call to hate that you complain about, except the target is a different one.

[MADem]

195. Way to go, trot out that pathetic, thin, spindly strawman yet again.

Does Faux air music videos every fifteen minutes with a theme of DEATH TO (Blacks/Gays/Democrats, name your poison)? Does CNN? Do they have children's programming portraying their hated groups as cruel animals? Do they broadcast martyrdom videos of their acolytes saying fond farewells before they prance off to murder?

Where, pray tell, is the ACLU if this is happening? The NAACP? The ABA? Is everyone asleep, cowed by the mighty Faux and CNN?

Your argument, dare I say, is up-to-the-gills full of steaming, fetid crap. At least one-third of their programming? Get off it. You pulled that figure straight out of your nether regions. And it was a very lame pull, too, might I say. A pull of desperate proportions, ungrounded by pesky, uncomfortable, brutal fact.

You can't compare the odd blurtings of those bastards, which are greeted by justifiable outrage from decent people who object to their hatred, to the round-the-clock 'kill videos' of al-Manar, no matter how desperately you grasp at straws.

And there you go again, using false statistics to prop up a Two Wrongs Make a Right argument. Well, if THEY do it (and they do not call for murder every fifteen minutes) then it MUST be OK!!!

You have two choices. You can either do a little research, perhaps click on some of the links in this thread and read what is written there, and realize that al-Manar is an outfit that exhorts people to kill Jews, or you can continue to blindly support the presently illegal broadcasting of al-Manar, which means, indirectly, that you have no problem with their hate-filled message. The latter option should disturb you.

[The Stranger]

198. Do you not understand free speech? Do you not understand the First Amend?

Glen Beck, Fox News, and others devote whole segments of their programming to propaganda calling for death to Iranians, Arabs, Afghanis, Muslims -- simply turn it on and the hate spews forth.

This is the reason why the U.S. was duped into a bigoted, lying, hateful war in Iraq based on the lies of this media.

And it is at least one-third of the programming. Glen Beck yesterday was calling for the invasion of Iran. This after the lies put forth that have sunk the U.S. into the quagmire of Iraq. This is based on hate -- not facts.

What we will do is support the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and will not let that bulwark of law falter. No matter how terrible the programming of the station is, still, it must be countered with other programming and more speech.

Imprisoning people for speech or beliefs is Khemer Rouge. It is Stalinism. It is Nazism. Do you support that, MADem. Because that is where it leads when individuals are imprisoned for their beliefs.

This is the First Amendment.

[MADem]

204. There ya go .... yet again!!!! TWO wrongs are still making that right!

Look up and down this thread. I've answered you. Again and again. You ARE being obstreperous. Or you are dull of comprehension. And you are repeating your same, tired, fallacious arguments to no effect. Further, you are tossing peripheral bullshit into them to try and distract from the fact that your argument boils down to this: You apparently don't have a problem with people advocating killing Jews. You don't have a problem with calls for genocide of the Jewish people. That is what you are saying. It doesn't offend you. Their civil rights don't matter. Hate speech against Jews is OK. That IS what you are saying. Stop trying to wrap unbridled bigotry and fomenting of genocide in the First Amendment. I've shown you that it doesn't apply.

This discussion is NOT about the bigoted, lying, hateful war in Iraq either. Your efforts to change the subject are lame. It's not about Glen Beck, it's not about Fox News. You keep bringing them up, as though they are equivalent. They aren't. And even if they were, you're back on the children's "Boo hoo, they did it, so I can do it too!" excuse.

The subject of this discussion is the banning--two YEARS ago--of a TV station using a 1977 law passed by Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter. It's not about the FIRST AMENDMENT, no matter how often, in Rain Man fashion, you repeat the phrase. The incitement in the speech promulgated by al-Manar does not meet the First Amendment tests as decided by the Supreme Court. So get that into your head, please.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Anyone that opposes Bush is now labeled a terrorist

Why would I be impressed by anything our government says, particularly when it calls terrorists people like Chavez in Venezuela and Morales in Bolivia?

[HongKonger]

102. Well Gee Shit....

When's the last time Hollywood put out a film with an Arab protagonist?

Or will they continue to be shifty terrorist fuckers who represent evil forever?

[MADem]

105. Is the only available argument Two Wrongs Make a Right?

You might want to rent Monsiur Ibrahim if you crave an Arab hero. And if you rely on that ghastly shit from Hollywood to define your life and center your morals, you're to be pitied.

[Richard Steele]

112. It's not "2 wrongs make a right", it's "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW".

An idea you clearly do not support.

[MADem]

147. How do Hollywood heroes have anything to do with equal protection?

Your assertion makes no sense. The government does not yet legislate who appears in films. That's decided by the masses buying tickets at the box office.

Your insults are false and tiresome.

[Richard Steele]

149. Well, now you've lost me completely. You have a nice day now. nm

[MADem]

156. Read the thread, and you have a nice day, too. NT

[Scurrilous]

46. War soars al-Manar popularity

Hizbullah TV station included among 10 most viewed channels in Arab world during conflict with Israel

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295190,00.html

<snip>

"The war between Israel and Hizbullah propelled the Shiite group's television channel al-Manar to the club of the ten most popular channels in the Arab world, a study showed.

The channel leaped from number 83 in popularity to the 10th slot between July 15 and 28.

Israeli marketing and research company Market Trends linked the development to the widespread support for the Shiite group's fight against Israel and the rising support for its leader Hassan Nasrallah in the Arab street.

Saudi-owned al-Arabiya all-news channel topped the list as the most watched channel during the war period with an audience making 40 percent of total viewers in the Arab world.

Al-Arabiya is generally watched by17 percent of Arab viewers, followed by Qatar-based al-Jazeera with 12 percent."

[Protagoras]

47. I love the smell of freedom in the morning

oh wait...:banghead:


we need a smiley for horseshit.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

81. obviously, a strong israeli supporter here refuses to educate

him/her/it/self as to the facts, painful as they are.

Hezbullah is popular in Lebanon for a reason, no MANY reasons. It is the government, the elected representative group, and the social structure. Fuck Israel if they don't like it or can't deal with the truth.

The truth is even more painful. Israel lost. BIG TIME. Their vaunted US-supplied military, their assaults on unarmed Gaza strip and West Bank victims notwithstanding, their invasion of Lebanon fell apart. SUPER BIG TIME.

It is sad, bittersweet, actually, that a democratic ally like Israel in the middle east could have become so corrupted, almost as corrupted as our political system. Then again, the two are connected. Israel has bought more US politicians than any american could imagine. They corrupted our congress, just as our GOP leaders have corrupted the leadership of Israel. Both are worse off because of it.

What damage is there to watching Hizbollah TV in NY or Chicago?
NONE AT ALL, except that it is likely that some uncomfortable truths, contrary to the popular spin from the White House, would make its way into the US information stream. That, I submit is far more dangerous to Bush&Co, than anything else.

1st Amendment?
what was that? I seem to recall that in a history lesson.

[MADem]

86. This has nothing to do with who won or lost in Lebanon

Your name is supremely ironic, given your uninformed viewpoint on what al-Manar is all about.

You ask: What damage is there to watching Hizbollah TV in NY or Chicago?

How do you think suicide bombers are recruited? That's a HUGE percentage of their total programming. It's like an Army commercial, for the Party of God.

Get a sense of exactly what they broadcast before you make such cavalier remarks. And read what the Supreme Court has to say about inciting violence and how it limits First Amendment speech, as well. You apparently slept through that part of your history class.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

87. which flavor kool-aid are you enjoying, by the way?

I KNOW how some suicide bombers are recruited. When I was in Israel, and I saw, not long after the fact, the devastation wrought by Israeli troops, including the wounding of a 13 yr old girl by Israeli tank shells. I saw the destroyed house. I saw the blood on the street, AND I heard from Israeli citizens how their army blocked the ambulance trying to get to her, you're damn right I know how they are recruited. Even the locals on the scene knew nothing good would come from it. Yes, it was days later, but such events tend to stay on people's minds.

Oh, dear. this might seem like criticism of Israel. Therefore, I MUST be an anti-semite. damn. I hate when that happens.

By the way, why the heavy duty arms fire onto a Palestinian area? Some kids had thrown stones at a passing israeli tank. Luckily that girl survived, but many others, none of which are reported on in America, have not.

But, since you obviously know more, do tell. How are suicide bombers recruited? Inquiring minds want to know. Share your font of knowledge

[MADem]

89. I am pointing out the fact that al-Manar has hate programming

The Supreme Court has said that inciteful speech is not protected under the 1st Amendment. Al-Manar thus, was banned two years ago here and in other countries. This guy in the OP ignored the ban and got caught.

You extrapolate that into what? A bloody diatribe apropos of nothing at all.

Stop trying to change the subject. It's what usually happens when there's no valid rebuttal to the actual issue at hand.

We aren't debating if Israel is "nice" or not. We aren't speculating about heavy duty arms in Palestinian areas. This discussion is not about stone-throwing children. We really don't give two fucks about your adventures in Israel, unless your hotel or place where you stayed had al-Manar on the feed and you made tapes of the happy bunny, cooking and gardening shows :sarcasm: they showed around the clock. Though unless you were in Palestine or up north where you could get it over the air, that's unlikely, isn't it.

The topic is the CONTENT of Al-Manar.

And your rambling tells me, clearly, you've not sat down and watched it. If you did, for even twenty minutes, you'd get the idea they're selling--it's a round-the-clock suicide bomber recruitment channel.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. you asked a simple question. If you did not want an answer,

or in your case, when you hate the answer, don't ask it. What extrapolation? You posed the issue - "how are suicide bombers recruited". I answered it. Truthfully, with facts. I know, that seems so unfair, huh? Almost like accusing you that you are Bill O's twin, eh? Sorry, Bill.

From what I have read and heard, Al-Manar is a hell of a lot more than a simple recruiting video; it provides news and analysis. You may not like it, and clearly, the US hates anything that it cannot control or hide behind a veil of missing Aruba bimbos, but the fact is that news, information, analysis and data that we are not permitted to see here in the states is a problem for America, not because A-M is recruiting agents of destruction, but because the US position on so many levels is just plain wrong.

It is so easy to call Hamas, H'zbullah terrorists, or Tamil Tigers, or others with whom the US or its proxy, Israel, disagrees, but that sort of labeling and irrational thinking solves nothing.

I deal with Muslims every day. To a person, they hate what 9/11 did, what it meant to America and, on a personal level, what it means to their current standing in our so-called free, democratic, unbiased society. Ask them about Al-Manar, - but no. that would mean getting contrary facts that would conflict with your mindset, right?

[MADem]

96. Wow, stunning

You're pretending that you didn't 'get' the rhetorical aspect of my query in an effort to rescue your argument.

I answered my damn question in that post. And YES, al Manar does have more than suicide videos and music videos, but those elements constitute roughly ONE THIRD of their total programming. ONE THIRD.

You can parse who is the terrorist, and who isn't, but when calls for the death of an entire group because of their religious orientation repeated over the airwaves are somehow 'OK' with you, that's YOUR problem. And it's a big one.

And gosh, you aren't the only person in the world with an understanding of Islam, or friends and family in the Muslim faith, so just drop that argument. It doesn't compel.

Sit down and watch the channel with one of your arabic speaking Muslim acquaintances, one you trust to give you an accurate translation of what you are seeing and hearing, with whom you "deal every day," and then make a judgment.

[IndianaGreen]

100. Do you see what you are doing? By advocating censorship you

are preventing people from doing what you said:

Sit down and watch the channel with one of your arabic speaking Muslim acquaintances, one you trust to give you an accurate translation of what you are seeing and hearing, with whom you "deal every day," and then make a judgment.

Instead you want the White House and Israel's government to have a veto as to what politically controversial channels we can watch. That is what is at stake here! Our right to choose!

Remember that these are the same people that wanted to ban Al-Jazeera in America!

[MADem]

104. I am not advocating censorship. You are being terribly obtuse.

Either that, or you just don't want to acknowledge the difference.

I am advocating rule of law.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter. It ain't NEWS. If you go on TV and incite people to kill people, you don't have the right to flap your gums. You are violating the civil rights of the affected party or parties. That's been on the books for decades now. Al-Manar got the treatment two years ago, based on this rule of law, because they do precisely that. This isn't a slippery slope--this goes back to before Jimmy Carter took office.

Limits on speech are many, from sexually harrassing speech in the workplace, to going on tv and telling people to kill other people, and it doesn't matter if the reason is religion, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity. That's not censorship--that's ensuring essential human dignity. In America, we don't let people take out ads or advocate a position that says kill all of the (INSERT GROUP HERE). You can't actually say you think that's just fine? Or is it only fine when the target is those folks of a certain religion who live in Israel?

You can't compare al-Manar to Al-Jazeerah. I am very surprised that you would say that, because it suggests that you can't distinguish between the two. They are MILES apart. The only thing they have in common is that their announcers speak Arabic.

Al-Manar is a propaganda organ, much like GOP TV with incitements to murder thrown in for good measure. Al-Jazeerah is a very good, varied, hard hitting news organization that isn't afraid to interview an American, a Frenchman, a Jew, and it shows the real costs of war in unflinching fashion. It also doesn't air suicide tapes like COMMERCIALS. They will do it, like CNN does, in the context of a news report, but not over and over again, to get the audience motivated. AJ is a responsible outfit. AM is a propaganda machine.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

138. selective application of the rule of law.

If it is anti-israel, it is illegal; if it is pro-arab, it is illegal; and if the Israeli lobby can't control it, get their paid puppets in congress to ban it.
Before any statute can be enforced, it must first pass a critically important standard. Is the law constitutional?
The White House, and you, seem to forget that we have a constitution. Or a first amendment.

These laws banning A-N are, in my mind unconstitutional. The only reason that they have not been attacked in the courts yet is due to a combination of factors:
a) fear (created by the administration and more)
b) faux patriotism
c) political pressure from AIPAC and others
d) knowledge about financial retribution should anyone take the first step to object to those laws.

You quote the A-M's illegal status as though it were the end all and be all. It is not, unless simplistic thinking is all you are capable of engaging in. That is unfortunate. What is worse is how the feds treat other Muslims and Middle Eastern customs which conflict with Israel.

In Chicago, we have a large muslim and large arab population. In my nape of the forest, there are mosques competing with evangelical christian brain-washing centers. Part of their faith (one part I strongly support) is that each and every muslim, no matter how poor or destitute, must engage in a couple of things. They must pray 5 times a day, they MUST TITHE a percentage of their income or assets, and at least once, they must visit their holy land. The US attorneys under Ashcroft had a field day prosecuting and indicting local, popular and patriotic AMERICAN muslims here who donated money to various organizations in the ME. Funds that were intended for schools, doctors, medicine, teachers, housing,

But, according to one pleading I personally dealt with, because computers for kids or medicine for everyone "could have reached" Hezbullah in Lebanon, the entire foundation helping the poor in Lebanon was deemed a terrorist front, a sham, an organization outlawed by the US (with Israel's strong support and AIPAC's heavy handed efforts). The upshot is that several very warm, friendly, patriotic American citizens were arrested and accused of supporting terrorists in the ME. Which is all bullshit.

The only reason that the US wants to ban A-N is because the lies and bull practiced by our government would be stripped bare and shown to be false. 99% of what Hezbullah does is charitable, good, and helps hundreds of thousands of people. BUt according to Dick CHeny, AIPAC, Condi Rice and George Bush, the entire structure is a terrorist organization. Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

[MADem]

150. You haven't watch al-Manar, I can tell

And you clearly, based on your assertions above, don't know our laws. And you have no problem with making things up to 'prove' your case.

Because you wouldn't have a problem with what I say, or disbelieve me, if you watched the station, read the law, and researched Hizb'Allah's funding stream. Hell, even Walid Phares, who is Lebanese born and raised, was on television this morning saying essentially the same damn things I have been saying.

As I have said elsewhere, would you have a problem with a television station that, every fifteen minutes, showed a music video of skinheads beating up gays, killing them, and poking their bodies to the strains of cheery music exhorting youngsters to do the same? And equally frequently, videos of handsome teenagers giving testimonial to rousing music about the joy they will feel when they maim and kill homosexuals??

You need to answer that question. Is that "freedom of speech?" Or is that "hate speech?" You cannot have it both ways. We ARE a nation of laws. All you have to do is substitute JEW for HOMOSEXUAL in the example I proffered above, and you have al-Manar. And THAT is the reason the US banned the station, two years ago. Not because the government is being "mean" to the poor little mullah with the automatic weapon. Not because "the Jews" exert some sort of dire influence over the US Department of the Treasury.

Lastly, you don't understand the organizational structure of Hizb'Allah. AT ALL. If you did, your last paragraph would not have made it into your diatribe. It is a three headed hydra, of charitable, political, and militia. The charitable element NEVER TOUCHES the political or the military elements (save to launder money, and that's only in an emergency) for purposes of plausible deniability. And where you got your Ivory Soap 99 Percent Charitable amount, I've no idea. The charitable wing of the party fosters loyalty, provides cover, and adds incentive to recruitment efforts. And it is largely funded by IRAN. But it is nowhere close to the majority of the Hizb'Allah budget, and anyone who knows even a tiny bit about them knows that to be a fact. Do a little research before you toss out made-up figures, please.

The political and the militia wings, with their 'public affairs' arm of al-Manar, serve to gain power by whatever means necessary, to include recruiting extremists and disaffected youth to blow themselves up for their cause. Those commercials that air constantly are a big part of their strategy.

Read the history of Arafat's PLO for an understanding of how these organizations work, or the Muslim Bretheren in Egypt. They prey on the hopeless. They aren't heroic, they're bastards who use and abuse the least of their very own bretheren. If the Nasrallahs of the outfit, even the 40 year old and up foot soldiers, would strap on a vest and go do a deed, I'd have more respect for them. Instead, they send children. Pimple-faced teens. A suicide bomber can blow himself up for the cause and ensure that his mother has a pension for life, courtesy of that "charitable" wing--that's some incentive when there's no work and no prospects, and perhaps a dozen mouths that need feeding in the household. And it happens with alarming frequency.

[jaybeat]

152. What you're leaving out is the context, plus comparing apples and grenades

Yes. TV advocating killing all of *anyone* is hate speech. But where did this speech come from? Could it be that Israel effectively committed genocide against the native inhabitants of Palestine, denying them fundamental rights of life, liberty and homeland solely for ethnic and religious reasons? It is a by-product of desperation and oppression. On the other hand, the hate speech you like to "substitute" (against Gays, African-Americans, etc.), is against those who are *already* oppressed, discriminated against, etc., being made by those who wish to continue and further this oppression.

Hate begets hate. Violence begets violence. If you take my farm away by force and kill my family, do you really expect me to go away peacefully to my refugee camp? Add thousands and thousands of families and farms over several generations, and what to you get...if you answered "suicide bombers," then DING, you're right!

Come on; anybody care to tally the number of Israelis killed since 1948 (or 1967, 1973, 1989 or any other date) and compare that to the number of Palestinians? But, of course, Hizbolla are "terrorists" and should not be listened to, but Israel has an infallible "right" to exist, no matter what it does to anyone else? Do Israeli actions "justify" suicide bombings? No. But yelling that at the top of your lungs won't stop them, either. If we can't even listen to those who have become so alienated from humanity that they will give their own life to take another, how do we expect to ever bring them back from that kind of place? Or should we not try and simply "kill all the terrorists, before they kill us"?

Of course, if we pursue that course (as the Repukes are), we'll all just end up dead. Yippee. Mission Accomplished. We won.

[MADem]

155. That's like saying "I killed the gay guy because he came on to me"

Thus the killing is "justified." And you know it.

Context, shmontext. Hate speech is hate speech. You are saying that, in America, "Two Wrongs Make a Right" trumps rule of law. It doesn't.

Your argument is, apparently, that because there is a beef between the Jews and Hizb'Allah (and say, let's throw the Palestinian matter into the mix as well for good measure), we should allow Hizb'Allah to show pictures of bombings and killings, to ask kids to participate in these actions, to play images of dead bodies dragged down the street, to rerun, over and over again, martyrdom videos, and play peppy music exhorting kids to strap on a vest for the team? That's insane.

Spend some time watching the channel. Sing along to the music videos.

It is a propaganda arm of a shi'a militia that is funded by Iran, with the primary object to recruit suicide bombers and militia to their cause. And that message occupies a third of their airtime.

It is hate speech and incitement to violence, plain and simple. And we have laws against that sort of thing.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

[jaybeat]

158. No, it is not

Two wrongs DON'T make a right. I never said that, or anything remotely LIKE that. But to try to erase one wrong, or pretend it doesn't exist, or that you don't have to understand it, or that you even can, without understanding WHY it is there, WHERE it came from, or the wrong that predated it, will never work. Period.

And your "gay guy" comment is just plain out there. A closer analogy would be if a gay kid in high school is constantly taunted, abused, beat up and harassed, until he finally snaps, gets a gun and shoots up his school. Does all the bad stuff that happened to him "justify" his actions. No. But SO WHAT???!!! Shouldn't we still try to understand what happened, so we can try and solve the problem and prevent a similar outcome from happening again?

Willful ignorance of extremism will not eradicate it. Just look at how well it has worked for our government since 9/11. And trying to silence extremists will also not help eradicate it, or deny them more recruits.

George Bush and the IDF are better terrorist recruiters than 100 TV channels.

[MADem]

160. So, you are saying, the way to UNDERSTAND them is to let them

broadcast hate. To permit them to flout US law. To allow them to denigrate and call for the murder of one segment of the population, because somehow, that will assuage their pain and we will "feel their pain" for good measure.

That IS what you are saying.

So, following your logic, should we LET the gay kid shoot up the school because some kids were mean to him, and then get away with it? No jail time, a slap on the wrist, and say, "Ooops, you killed a few bigots there, son, don't do THAT again, laddie?" Your analogy is the one that is way off base.

Sorry, you ARE advocating that Two Wrongs Make A Right. Your statement above seems to advocate that because you perceive Hizb'Allah to be victimized by the Jews, that we should be required to "understand" them by freely airing their violent, hate-filled, genocidal propaganda in total violation of the law of our land, to make them "feel better."

Go ahead and "understand" them all you want, but if that includes allowing them to play crap like this http://www.slate.com/id/2111527/ around the clock, and MTV-style music videos advocating Death To Israel (those are about a fourth of their programming, alone) in our country, which has laws against hate speech, you are not going to get me to agree.

There is no difference between KILL ALL THE JEWS or KILL ALL THE (Insert any group, religious, ethnic, social, you name it). And to try to parse and justify that there IS a difference is just wrong. It's also against US law.

[jaybeat]

165. You can't understand without being able to hear

There cannot be a dialog if only one side is permitted to speak. We citizens in the United States cannot make up our own minds about the ME conflict or anything else if we are not exposed to all sides of the conflict. Just because we don't like what they are saying doesn't mean that it is our best interest to be ignorant of what they are saying. I don't advocate listening to what they are saying to make them "feel better," I advocate it because *we* need to know what such an influential group is saying and understand why it appeals to so many if we can ever hope to offer their constituency an alternative. Keeping US citizens ignorant serves no one.

You're really off when you say that I am advocating that we " 'feel their pain' for good measure." That is straight out of the book of right-wing, Republican, war-mongering talking points. Listen to Rush, Hannity or any of the others, and that's what they say; that "liberals" want to make the terrorists "feel better," as opposed to GB & Co. who just want to kill 'em all so that can't kill us. You're either with us or your with the terrorists. Non-thinking, us vs. them mentality. Real productive.

Of course, I bet you're about to say, "But that's what Hisb'Allah is spouting! Kill the Jews! Us vs. Them!" But I thought two wrongs didn't make a right. So, just because some extremists don't want to understand the other side, does that make it OK for *us* to not try to understand them? You can't have it both ways. We need to be better, freer, more tolerant than the terrorists. If we're not, then what exactly are we fighting for?

You paint everything black and white with your polarizing talk of "broadcast hate" and your mischaracterizations of what I said. I didn't say "LET the gay kid shoot up the school"--I said we should understand what makes someone *want* to shoot up their school if we want to have any hope of preventing such tragedies. We can't kill every potential suicide bomber. If we did, we'd simply turn every member of their family into suicide bombers. God knows, Israel has tried the military-only approach--has it made them safer, overall? Have their enemies thrown up their hands and given up? BushCo tried it after 9/11--are we safer? I don't think so.

Violence will not end violence. Ignorance will not solve problems. Hate will not end hate. (Then again, platitudes probably won't end platitudes, either. Oh well!)

[MADem]

172. So, in order to understand, you say, we must be compelled to listen to

"Kill the Jews, Kill ALL the Jews" around the clock? Come on.

And to respond to my assertiions by accusing me of spouting right-wing, Republican, war-mongering talking points is pretty low, it's probably not in accordance with the rules here, and suggests you've lost the bubble. It's first, a cheap shot, and second, it is false. Do you toss that bomb every time someone doesn't agree with you? Way to go! Heckuva job!

And then, you presume to know what I am thinking. US vs. THEM?? Give me a break. I object to hate speech on the basis that it is against our law. Is that so hard for you to comprehend? I object to any kind of discussion that advocates death to an entire group of people, be it Jews, Mexicans, gays, Sunni, Shi'a, Druze, Maronites, Catholics, mimes or computer geeks, for that matter.

You need to look at what you just wrote: Violence will not end violence. Then, check out the al-Manar programming, and tell me how airing that crap that advocates murder and violence against Jews will help the situation.

This is an old article, but instructive, as well as prescient. I've posted it elsewhere in this thread, but you need to read it. It will aid in your understanding of Hizb'Allah, since understanding is what you seek. Pay particular attention to Section III--THE SUICIDE CHANNEL: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/021014fa_fact4

...Al Manar regularly airs raw footage of violence in the occupied territories, and it will break into its programming with what one Al Manar official called "patriotic music videos" to announce Palestinian attacks and applaud the killing of Israelis. When I visited the station, the videos were being produced in a basement editing room by a young man named Firas Mansour. Al Manar has modern equipment, and the day I was there Mansour, who was in charge of mixing the videos, was working on a Windows-based editing suite. Mansour is in his late twenties, and he was dressed in hip-hop style. His hair was gelled, and he wore a gold chain, a heavy silver bracelet, and a goatee. He spoke colloquial American English. I asked him where he learned it. "Boston," he said.

Mansour showed me some recent footage from the West Bank, of Israeli soldiers firing on Palestinians. Accompanying the video was a Hezbollah fighting song. "What I'm doing is synchronizing the gunshots to form the downbeat of the song," he told me. "This is my technique. I thought of it." He had come up with a title: "I'm going to call it 'Death to Israel.' " Mansour said that he can produce two or three videos on a good day. "What I do is, first, I try to feel the music. Then I find the pictures to go along with it." He pulled up another video, this one almost ready to air. "Try and see if you could figure out the theme of this one," he said.

The video began with Israeli soldiers firing on Palestinians. Then the screen filled with pictures of Palestinians carrying the wounded to ambulances, followed by an angry funeral scene. Suddenly, the scene shifted to Israelis under fire. An Israeli soldier was on the ground, rocking back and forth, next to a burning jeep; this was followed by scenes of Jewish funerals, with coffins draped in the Israeli flag being lowered into graves.

Mansour pressed a button, and the images disappeared from the screen. "The idea is that even if the Jews are killing us we can still kill them. That we derive our power from blood. It's saying, 'Get ready to blow yourselves up, because this is the only way to liberate Palestine.' '' The video, he said, would be shown after the next attack in Israel. He said he was thinking of calling it "We Will Kill All the Jews." I suggested that these videos would encourage the recruitment of suicide bombers among the Palestinians. "Exactly," he replied....

[jaybeat]

190. Nobody is compelled to watch, but being ignorant won't solve anything

Your black-and-white reasoning, and especially your mischaracterization of my position as wanting to make those who advocating killing jews "feel better" ARE the same tactics used by the right wing. You're the one who went there; I just called it for what it is. It *is* an "us vs. them" mindset. An inability to admit that real sufferings can motivate people to do horrible things. A fear, even paranoia, that to listen to, or understand, or even *try* to understand an extreme point of view is as bad as that point of view itself. That's what your posts sound like to me.

"I object to hate speech on the basis that it is against our law." Oh, give *me* a break!! The "law" that you supposedly revere is being selectively applied for political gain by Bush and those who share his NeoCon agenda. Can you honestly tell me you think that someone who broadcast an extremist Jewish channel, that advocated killing all Arabs, day and night, would be thrown in JAIL??!! Heck, Pat Robertson would probably have him on as a guest of the 700 Club! Jerry Falwell would raise money for him!

You write "...tell me how airing that crap that advocates murder and violence against Jews will help the situation." I'm sorry, but I think the presumption should be the other way around; tell me how *not* airing it will result in any reduction in violence, any increase in understanding by *anybody*, or any progress. More likely, this will be seen in the Arab world as further evidence that the US *only* sees Israel's side of things, wants to "stifle the voices of the oppressed," etc. You actually play right into the hands of the propagandists you oppose. Keep in mind, that throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, these people are seen as *heroes* for having stood up to Israel's US-supplied firepower. I'm not saying that I think that opinion is correct, but that feeling, and the exploitation of it by politicians (mainstream and extremist) is a fact on the ground that we (the US) have to recognize and deal with if we want to help the situation.

Your quote regarding the Palestinian video editor proves nothing, except how sad and hopeless the situation has become. Because one side uses monstrous tactics, does that mean we can ignore them, or that the only acceptable position is to try to wipe them off the face of the earth? How effective could such videos be if the Israeli acts they depict had never happened? Israeli military actions are the real recruitment tool for new suicide bombers; putting video of these actions in a "Kill the Jews" music video just drives the point home.

Yeah, some poor fool might become want to become a martyr because they saw a video, but somehow I think having your family killed in front of you would be a lot more "effective" at convincing you to take such action. If we really want to reduce the number of suicide attacks, shouldn't you get as worked up about Israeli killing of innocent civilians as you are about this video channel?

[MADem]

205. No one is compelled to watch "Kill the Blacks" TV either

Or "Kill the Mexicans" TV. But how long do you think they'd stay on the air?

I suggest you think carefully about your insulting and baseless words, above. I do not take kindly to being lumped into a "right wing" viewpoint because I actually have a PROBLEM with people calling for genocide. What precisely are you saying in that vague comment? That objecting to "Jew Killing" is a REPUBLICAN theme? That's incredibly sick.


And let's look, once again, at another example of the TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT parade--only this time, instead of the usual Coulter/Beck/Dildo Really suspects, we get a HYPOTHETICAL instead (points for originality): Can you honestly tell me you think that someone who broadcast an extremist Jewish channel, that advocated killing all Arabs, day and night, would be thrown in JAIL??!! Heck, Pat Robertson would probably have him on as a guest of the 700 Club! Jerry Falwell would raise money for him!

We'll have to wait and see if your strawman might be jailed, won't we? If such a channel went on the air, I would object to it every bit as strenuously. See, I oppose GENOCIDE. I oppose HATE SPEECH. I'm not picky about the race, the ethnicity, the physical characteristics, or even the social network of the targeted group. So what's your point?

I've answered your question about ...how *not* airing it will result in any reduction in violence elsewhere in this thread. YOU are not the target audience of this hate speech. The disaffected jihadist wanna-be's living in shitholes across America are. Who do you think were the CUSTOMERS of that guy who got bagged for supplying the station were? The Jewish Defense League? I mean, come on!

And then you continue on with false premises, more strawmen, and another TWO WRONGS argument for good measure: Because one side uses monstrous tactics, does that mean we can ignore them, or that the only acceptable position is to try to wipe them off the face of the earth? How effective could such videos be if the Israeli acts they depict had never happened? Israeli military actions are the real recruitment tool for new suicide bombers; putting video of these actions in a "Kill the Jews" music video just drives the point home.

No one said anything about wiping anyone off the face of the earth--EXCEPT al-Manar. They're the ones calling for genocide. And again you say that because those warfare events occurred (and of course the videos are ALWAYS completely truthful, like the one they showed of the sinking of an Australian boat in a Naval exercise, that they called the sinking of a Jewish boat, to rousing music and lyrics) that it's somehow OK for them to call for genocide. Again, two wrongs, they make a right, yeah?

And you finish up with THE GREAT JUSTIFICATION: Yeah, some poor fool might become want to become a martyr because they saw a video, but somehow I think having your family killed in front of you would be a lot more "effective" at convincing you to take such action. If we really want to reduce the number of suicide attacks, shouldn't you get as worked up about Israeli killing of innocent civilians as you are about this video channel?

Look, the subject here is a television station that calls for genocide. If you want to talk about the plight of oppressed Arabs in Palestine or South Lebanon, start a thread on it. But again, you are mitigating, telling me that because some folks have their families killed in front of them, it's OK for a TV station to call for the murder of every Jew on the planet.

Look at what you are saying. Read your own words. It's not a question about "what I get worked up about" at all. It has to do with US law. Common decency. Civil Rights. With things our nation has stood for. MLK must be rotating in his grave--the poor bastard DIED to ensure civil rights for Americans, and here you are, pushing aside and pooh-poohing al-Manar's calls for genocide because you disagree with the conduct of one side in the conflict.

You are struggling. tossing every heartstring tugging instance, every indignity, every possible excuse you can muster, to actually justify calls for the murder of an entire people. It's disgusting. It's horrible. It's haunting. It's disturbing.

And there's no excuse for it. None whatsoever.

[bling bling]

211. That's what it boils down to.

"You are struggling. tossing every heartstring tugging instance, every indignity, every possible excuse you can muster, to actually justify calls for the murder of an entire people. It's disgusting. It's horrible. It's haunting. It's disturbing."

How in the world can a society be healthy if it allows certain groups to encourage and call for the **murder** of other groups of people in that society? I'm absolutely beside myself that people here would support the "rights" of groups to use speech to recruit suicide bombers to murder people. How anybody can stick up for that under the guise of free speech is jaw-dropping.

These people who think that free speech has no boundaries have NEVER lived in a country like that, and they never will. America has never allowed for unconditional free speech. Some people seem to think that limiting the "free speech" of al-Manar is a right-wing, racist action of some sort. That is not the case. Nobody can unconditionally encourage or call for the murder of other people. I dare any one of the people who think otherwise to publically encourage or call for the murder of The Pr.......well, I can't even say it or I might get in big trouble. The point is, this limit to free speech is nothing new. And it's not a bad thing. It's in the best interest of society at large to prohibit al-Manar from having free access to our airwaves. The outrage about free speech on this thread seems naive. But the blind support for the "rights" of murder-enthusiasts is f-ing psycho.

[MADem]

213. I have lived in countries like that

I've lived amongst Shi'a, I've lived amongst Sunni, I've lived amongst Jews. I've lived in primarily Catholic nations, too, as well as Protestant ones. I've friends round the world of all faiths. And some of no faith but faith in themselves. I've spent almost half of my long life OUTSIDE the United States.

These folks who haven't lived amongst any of these folks in any great number, though, love to tell me where to shove it, and they readily make assumptions about my alleged biases. They think because I see the issues clearly, without preconceptions, I must be "PRO JEW" or "ANTI-MUSLIM" or what have you. Or, depending on the argument (not this thread, for sure) ANTI-JEW or PRO-ISLAMIC. I've caught shit from all sides, and it's easy to tell who knows what they are talking about, and who is completely bullshitting from hearing a halfassed argument somewhere, or from preconceived biases of their own.

That said, thanks for chiming in. I was feeling a bit alone. And I couldn't believe I was hearing "Throw the Jew Down the Well" (and NOT a Borat joke, either) from established subscribers to a place called "Democratic Underground." It's a bit sickening.

I guess all of us AREN'T genuine members of the party of peace, justice, equality, and nonviolence. We've got a few who don't have a problem with 'just a little bit' of genocide. A touch of "revenge" maybe. But only for those Jews, you see.

It is disturbing, telling, shameful and sad. Horrifying.

But again, bling bling, thank you. Sa'alam aleikum, and shalom to you.

[IndianaGreen]

88. Are you now saying that suicide bombers are recruited in NY and Chicago?

You are drinking way too much Kool-Aid!

[MADem]

90. Cut with the smart comments, and yes, if the content was permitted

to air, that's what you'd see.

Look, genius, did you know that many Palestinian suicide bombers mention al-Manar as an inspiration in their tapes, many of which are AIRED on al-Manar?

Why do you suppose this is significant?

They're SUNNI. Al-Manar is a Shi'a arm. They're Palestinian. Al-Manar is an Iranian-Lebanese organ, targeting the shi'a population in the region. AND they are not contiguous to one another.

I'm not drinking koolaid, you are an uninformed individual.

Why don't you pull out the little :rofl: guy to go with your snarky, ineffectual comments while you're at it--that seems to be a favored device when you got nuthin'.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix2]

143. are YOU saying there are still no terror cells in the US ready to spring

into action when called?

[IndianaGreen]

186. Believe Big Brother's propaganda about Emmanuel Goldstein, if you wish

I won't!

[MikeyJones]

92. So much for freedom of speech.....

I guess that ends when you criticize the Zionist neocon Likudnik agenda.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

93. be careful. you will piss someone off here,

next thing, you will be called a supporter of terror.

[iverglas]

95. where the hell's O'Reilly when ya need him?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/1083523525796_9/?hub=Entertainment&subhub=PrintStory

On Friday (May 2004), O'Reilly took exception to reports that he is an "ultra-conservative" and that he does not like Canada. In recent days, the outspoken American TV personality has been involved in a running dispute with Toronto's Globe & Mail newspaper, and in particular its TV columnist, John Doyle, who wrote that Fox News should be allowed on Canadian cable and satellite services because viewers in this country could use a good laugh.

... O'Reilly resents the image he has in Canada of a "right-wing loon who is running around out of control."

The CRTC approved Fox for digital pay-TV and we started getting him in the winter of 2005 on a 3-month free preview. That lasted a year. And not just because it seemed that way ...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/4/231935.shtml

The antagonism of (the former Liberal) government toward Fox News became apparent in recent years when the CRTC readily approved broadcasts of the pro-terrorist Al-Jazeera network on its cable channels while banning Fox News.

I reproduce that because it's a lie, of course:
http://www.answers.com/topic/fox-news-channel

http://www.marmalade.ca/archives/002639.html

Lately it seems that the right-wing American media have been having their panties snapped back at them by the CBC's news programme, The Fifth Estate. In an episode entitled "Sticks and Stones", Bill O'Reilly was crying on (and on) about how the CRTC banned his 'news' show "The O’Reilly Factor", then went on to create 'facts' to back up his claims.

Surely Bill will be defending to the death ...


By the way -- if you haven't seen Sticks and Stones ... and if you enjoy watching Ann Coulter make a complete fool of herself ... you can view the full 42 minutes of fun with the right-wing USAmerican media as seen from up here on line:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html
Or you have the option of just watching the fabulous three minutes in question.

[truthisfreedom]

98. the gov't should just put a rolling banner across the screen that says

"THIS BROACAST IS FROM A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION AND IS BEING PROVIDED TO MONITOR THEIR ACTIVITIES ONLY. "

[Cobalt-60]

107. I need my H -TV!

[Exultant Democracy]

113. Ignorance is Strength...

yeah New America! We are so cool like in movies.

[IndianaGreen]

114. The Ministry of Truth gets to decide what we can watch on TV

Any deviations will be dealt with by the Ministry of Love.

[Exultant Democracy]

115. Minitrue and Miniluv, are double-plus good!

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lilith Velkor]

118. Hold up - the Treasury Department?

:wtf:

[sattahipdeep]

132. Condoleezza Rice Grants Visa To Hardcore Taliban

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=545986&mesg_id=545986

[wordpix2]

144. yes, most people here have missed that little fact but I posted about it

a few times on this thread. Very few read these little details. sigh.

snip: Iqbal has been charged with conspiring to violate the International Emergency Economic Powers Act...

http://www.treasury.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/ieepa.pdf#search=%22Emergency%20Economic%20Powers%20Act%22

[MADem]

164. It's all about MONEY. Economic sanctions, that sort of thing.

Someone has to pay al-Manar for their signal. Hizb'Allah benefits from the transmissions (they regularly post the bank account numbers of accounts for people to donate to their cause--that commercial pops up more often than ones for OXY CLEAN in the US). This law goes back to Jimmy Carter's era. Congress passed it, Carter signed it, Treasury enforces it.

[drfresh]

121. freedom of speech?

there seems to be a big first amendment question here.

[nedbal]

122. The European Union decided to take the channel off European satellites

The European Union decided to take the channel off European satellites last year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14500256/

[magellan]

128. So what?

That's the second time you've posted that link on this thread. Is it because you think the 2005 EU decision lends credence to the 2004 US ban of al-Manar broadcasts? If so, do you realize that France was the cheerleader but the rest of the EU banned al-Manar from their satellites only under pressure from the US in the form of a Congressional letter? And that despite pulling the plug on al-Manar, the EU still haven't added Hezbollah to their list of terrorist organizations?

Are the EU also blocking FOX, MSNBC, and wonderful little snippets of US-love like Allen's "macaca" comment and Bush**'s "islamofascist" remark from their satellites? They should if they're honest about their intent to stop broadcasts that incite hate. Just because these are OUR "classy" productions doesn't mean they deserve less scrutiny.

[Harper_is_Bush]

215. That settles it. ARREST THE MUSLIM CARTOON WRITERS!!!

[maddezmom]

216. locking

Discussion has ceased being productive, just a bunch of rehashing and circular arguments.