At what point should political contributors be removed/ignored...

What the heck is with "They are "evil" so we can do "evil" things to them" kind of way of thinking? What is point of making yourself as bad as people you claim to be better than?

Also, there isn't really reason to demonize invidual taliban soldiers even though taliban is rather "evil" thing. I don't think inviduals should be judged just by what group they belonged to but what they did while in that group.

I've already had this debate several times, so I'll just make my position relatively clear and leave everyone else to mull it over.

Pissing on dead insurgents doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother me because of what they do to our dead. It's not something I would personally do, I have a great distaste for disrespecting the dead on a personal level.

But what outweighs my distaste for it, is my hatred for them, for what they do to us. There is a contrast that is worth something in this instance. When they find our dead, they tear them apart and send us the bodyparts. When they take us alive they hold us for ransom and don't deliver, they videotape the execution and send us the videos, and then send us the bodyparts.

The fuck do we do with their dead? We bury them. When we take prisoners, we give them 3 hots, a cot, and medical attention equal to what we give our own.

Pissing on some god damn bodies isn't even near sinking to their level. It's so far above their level, that when I hear civilians bitching and crying about it I can't feel anything but disdain and disgust for my own people. They don't have even the vaguest fucking clue how they are supposed to feel about it. Maybe they need to watch a few of those cheap VHS tapes and see what happens to our guys. If the context doesn't become apparent after that, then shit, I guess it's a lost cause to convince them.

End rant, you guys can pick it up from there.

edited 23rd Jan '13 3:16:00 AM by Barkey

^^It's part of the general process of 'othering' The Enemy, it makes it psychologically acceptable to do whatever you want to them. Of course, it relies on a childish moral attitude, but a lot of the media seem content to promote that whining spineless 'bu-but they're even worse' moral nihilism, and a disappointingly large proportion of people are willing to accept that line of thinking.

Armies are notorious for encouraging this kind of attitude, since they're more interested in producing killing-machines than stable individuals. The wider 'war on terror' relies on an extension of this (and also the distancing effect of... well, geographical distance).

edited 23rd Jan '13 3:19:05 AM by imadinosaur

dino, are you doing this on purpose? You always seem to go on anti-military rants right after our local military expert posts something.

He's kinda got a point. Militaries have always worked hard on dehumanizing the other side. It's what creates the most effective soldiers. I don't mean this as a form of insult, I'm just speaking from the POV of history.

Personally, I think the "uriniating" thing is understandable, but ultimately counter-productive. As in, I can sympathize on why a solider would do it, but that sort of thing needs to be heavily discouraged, as it's going to breed more resentment. Anything that can be used to rally anti-american sentiment will be, so it's best to try to minimize what can be used to whip the Arab people into a Frenzy.

Okay, folks, the topic appears to have strayed from the original one, and not in a good way.

Please steer it back toward the privileges and responsibilities of political commentators and reporters, rather than what the military does or doesn't do and whether it's ok or not.

And OP: did you want the thread title changed to "political commentators"? "Contributors" is more generally used to refer to people who give money to a campaign or candidate, rather than network talking heads.

News organizations would be wise, and perfectly within their rights, to consider whether their contributors have said or done anything that would make the organization look biased, unprofessional, or just generally bad. At the same time, when the severing of ties becomes too knee-jerk, knaves on both sides of the political spectrum tend to go on "fishing expeditions"—finetoothed-comb searches for anything that sounds bad, context or personal history be damned, that can be used to remove political voices one doesn't like from the air.

You want to strike a balance that lets you weed out genuine political embarrassments, while not indirectly declaring open season on everyone who may ever have said anything pungent.

I think the best way to remove a political commentator is to let the market do it. I mean, as a liberal, plenty of what Bill O Reilly, Hannity, and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-But-Who-Looks-Like-Paul-Giamatti-In-A-Blonde-Wig say is totally abhorrent to me, but there are many Americans who agree with them. However, when Americans are no longer prepared to tolerate their contributions (or the contributions of the far left), then their market will evaporate - the people who watch their shows will stop, or they will express their disapproval, leading to either the cancellation of the show or a change in the views expressed. Political commentators can survive where there is a market for them. When no-one agrees with them - pop they go!

The alternative is for impartial not-for-profit broadcasters like The BBC, but that's a personal soapbox of mine that I won't bore you with.

edited 23rd Jan '13 11:54:08 AM by Achaemenid

thecommander236, the topic is "political commentators", not how members of the military act. I already said that, three posts above the one I just thumped.

Please do not derail the thread.

edited 24th Jan '13 7:34:12 AM by Madrugada

The big problem is that these news media outlets are more and more becoming the propaganda arm of whatever political party they espouse(usually that of the owner). It's not about presenting the facts and stating your case to convince people of the validity of your argument, it's about emotional appeal and manipulation. It's about demonizing the other side. It basically dissolves into:

"Don't listen to them. They're a bunch of x-wing ***(where *** is whatever berserk button will trigger the audience). You wouldn't agree with a *** would you? Of course not, you're a decent human being so the only choice is to agree with me."