Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Should Fox News be banned

  1. Mar 10, 2005 #1
    FOX NEWS: let's bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age

    I weas reading fox news and i found this article.. i actualy can't belive they talk like this..... it's very disgusting. and very very scary...

    From the Frying Pan to the Fire?
    Thursday, March 10, 2005
    By John Gibson

    The Lebanese may indeed be under the thumb of the Syrians, but it looks like quite a few of them are happy to be there.

    A few hundred thousand turned up in a huge plaza in Beirut (search) to demonstrate for the continued presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. By the way, these demonstrators were the supporters of Hezbollah (search) — the terror organization which is trying to morph into something approaching a normal political party.

    Somehow that seems a bit of a stretch from where we sit. Hezbollah is, after all, an armed group engaged in armed struggle against Israel. It's engaged in suicide attacks as well as rocket attacks and is said to be an arm of the Iranian mullahs. And, evidently, the arm of the Iranian mullahs in Lebanon is protected by the Syrian Army.

    So who wins in this struggle? Is it the Hezbollah demonstrators? If there were a fair and free vote tomorrow — certified by the official keeper of worldwide elections, Jimmy Carter — would the terrorists get the most votes?

    That's the thing with this democracy movement. You could get people elected who hate us more than the last guys hated us. In other words, we could go from the frying pan to the fire.

    Well, fine. At least we'd know; at least we'd know we tried. And if we have to bomb a democracy back to the Stone Age because it was sticking with its roots and sending terrorists to attack us, we could bomb it back to the Stone Age with a clean conscience.

    You wouldn't have a bunch of Ward Churchills (search) on the air saying it was our fault and that if we'd only given democracy a chance, things would have worked out. We'd miss those people decrying the American propensity to attack first and reason later.

    Look, this Bush democracy stuff is working for the moment. Nobody says it has to go perfect. Usama bin Laden could get elected somewhere. In fact, in two or three countries we call friends, I think he'd take the top spot in a landslide.

    We would just have to console ourselves that democracy has given us a clear picture of exactly where our enemies stand. And we can use that picture in our targeting computers.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 10, 2005 #2
    FOX didn't really say that did they? :bugeye:
  4. Mar 10, 2005 #3
    http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,149957,00.html [Broken]

    Burnsys is correct...
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  5. Mar 10, 2005 #4
    :angry:This is disturbing and disgusting. Have any of the other networks commented on this? I disagree with article. :devil:
  6. Mar 10, 2005 #5
    All demostrators againts US ocupations can be targeted as terrorists.. couse "They support Hezbollah" a terrorist organization.

    i never vote for the carter center to be the official keeper of worldwide elections

    People just hate america.. we don't know why, we never ask why.. they just hate us.. so we have to destroy them

    no words...

    Bush "democracy stuff" seem to be working nice in irak isn't?
    Nobody says it has to go perfect... but we all know we have the nicest intentions... bull****

    Be ready, tomorrow america may attack their own democratic friends if don't win who they want..

    Yes.. we are somenthing like god... the world is in our screen and the missiles are ready.. And democracy will tell us where the people has found who we realy are and what our purpuse is.. so we are ready to eliminate them......
  7. Mar 10, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I try to watch a spectrum of news sources to stay up with who is saying what, but I quit watching FOX News because I don't want high blood pressure. What's even more disconcerting is that FOX News often has top ratings. This means a good percentage of people in America share these views. :surprised And unfortunately CNN has changed their headline station format to increase viewership, and it's garbage now.

    With regard to the topic of the article, under the old thread about "who's next, Syria or Iran?" I made note that Syria considers themselves to play a peacekeeping role in Lebanon, just as the U.S. feels they are doing in Iraq. Likewise, there are Lebanese (1/2 million in the demonstration) who are supportive of Syria's role, just as there are Iraqi's supportive of the U.S. Not to mention similarity in questioning about foreign occupation and exit strategy. This kind of hypocrisy is why everyone hates the U.S.

    As for the ignorant Hawks that watch FOX News, they ARE in the stone age.
  8. Mar 10, 2005 #7
    I hope that no one here agrees with or supports this article. :bugeye:
  9. Mar 10, 2005 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm not a Fox watcher, but I don't see any problem other than overzealousness. If a country is run by terrorists and kills innocent civilians as a matter of policy, why shouldn't we attack? Democracy is not relevant here: Democracy or otherwise, terrorism is terrorism. In an effort to disparage democracy, people claim Hitler was popularly elected. It isn't true, but if it was, so what? Just because the majority in a country agrees with it, does that make it any less wrong?

    edit: in fact, this thread implies to me something very, very, very bad about Islam. Anyone else see it?
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2005
  10. Mar 10, 2005 #9
    "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time."
    - E.B. White

    I'm beginning to wonder if there's not some better form of government where the people aren't trusted with so much power. As history has shown, the people are pretty nuts...

    But then, instead of THE PEOPLE ruling, simply PEOPLE rule, and PEOPLE are usually even more nuts than THE PEOPLE, so I dunno what I can do but wait for a good Government software to come out...
  11. Mar 10, 2005 #10
    And who gived mr bush the power to decide what's wrong and whats ok, and then punish any country he wants, be it democratic or not, by bombing it back to the stone age...and your country have killed many more civilians by policy that any terrorist atack. you were in the army, i guess they have calculations to estimate the number of civilians kills before entering a conflict..... just that you call it "Colateral Damage", but you know.. if you want to save the lives of civilians... you can't avoid killing a lot of them...
    You know.. americans are americans....
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2005
  12. Mar 11, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    "The stone age with clean conscience" comment doesn't really deserve anything other than pure disgust. Watching events from afar makes one easily to lose perspective ... things appear much different from the ground level, which is an unfortunate repeated error made by usually the whole western world. It would help if things were viewed from other than one's own perspective.
  13. Mar 11, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, so much for the "first amendment support group." Folks, Fox does identify editorials. Yeah, Gibson gets a little heavy-handed at times, and he's extremely sarcastic. The sarcasm in the editorial has to do with the possiblity that we, as a nation, may find ourselves in a conflict with a nation that is governed by a terrorist group that has been "democratically" elected (the quotation marks indicate that it would be democratic in name only) --- no arguments about going to war to "spread democracy." Gibson has difficulties with arguments that we shouldn't be interfering with other peoples' choices of forms of government, and, that is the point of his piece, that they will NOT be able to sing that song for once.
  14. Mar 11, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I always have loved the irony of Liberal censorship, Bystander. One thing though:
    I actually interpreted it a little differently: even if a terrorist organization is actually democratically elected (not just in name only), we still would be justified in invading if they pose a threat. But either way you read it, I agree with it.
    "We, the People of the United States..." He doesn't just have the "power", he has the responsibility.

    Re: collateral damage: We've already had discussions of the moral difference between targeting civilians and "collateral damage" and there is little ambiguity on that issue.

    And do you care to expand on your implication that violence/terrorism/murder/genocide is the mainstream, majority position of Islam?
  15. Mar 11, 2005 #14
    The people are the ones who give Bush the power to decide what is right and wrong. The people are the ones who elected him. So if the people didn't want himin power then they shouldn't have voted for him. If things get seriously out of control, and the public feels that his actions are posing a threat to national sercurity then they can petition to have him impeached. Its a long and difficult process that has only happend two or three times in the history of the United States.
  16. Mar 11, 2005 #15
    Thats a good point and this article is very overzealous. I'm not disputing that. I'm just a little surprised that Fox would allow something like this to be published. Its disgusting. I completely agree with what you are saying Russ, I really do.

    I do see that this article is showing really aweful things about the Islamic religion.
  17. Mar 11, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Actually, I'm not surprised. Fox's slant is not any further to the right than the other networks are to the left, but their tone is much more sensational. The rhetoric is heavier.
  18. Mar 11, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Seems to me that was an important qualifier...
    Oh, I forgot...we're supposed to ignore that....just ignore me...carry on, carry on!
  19. Mar 11, 2005 #18

    Ok.. and who give you (The people of the united states) the right to bomb any democratic country in the WORLD... i mean.. who in the world has voted the united states to decide what is wrong and bad... to have an authorithy over others democracys.. since this kind of statetmets, it means that any democracy (Or what people of other nations vote) is subjected to US authority. America always have the final word... not becouse they are right.. but by brute force...
    Tomorrow we can vote for a president in argentina who thinks america is a terrorist nation.. (and belive me he doesn't have to search to hard to show profs of that), then he has the right and the responsability to atack and bomb your country back to the stone age?? of course there will be a little of colateral damage But you knwo, when it is YOUR family that is killed, a " Well, we didn't MEAN to" is much of a consolation is it? America have killed far far far more innocent civilians than Osdama did. A dead baby rotting in the sun by "colateral damage" or "terrorist attack" is just as dead and the family just as devestated, no matter who did the killing.

    And do you care to expand on your implication that violence/terrorism/murder/genocide is the mainstream, majority position of Islam?

    i think i never said that... but that sound more like america to me. let's start doing bodycounts and let's see.. America always turn to violence when can't achieve their objectives by other means... ALWAYS....
  20. Mar 11, 2005 #19
    you invaded far far more countrys that terrrorist attaks in your soil....
    is more.. you didn't have even 1 bomb explosion in your soil since 2001. that is 4 years! what are you talking about!????????????
  21. Mar 11, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The same right to self defense that every country has.
    When was the last time the US murdered Argentinian civilians as a matter of national policy?

    See, the problem here (as usual) is that you are drawing invalid parallels.

    edit: and, in any case, now it appears that you agree with the article. :rolleyes:
    You have kinda glossed over it, but You are the one asserting that the article is wrong. The article says we should take down a democratically elected terrorist nation. So you're saying we shouldn't, right? If a government is legitimately democratically elected, that means it reflects the majority position of its citizens, right? If that government is for terrorism, then that means the terrorism must be the dominant position of the citizens.

    edit: I'll go even further: if its wrong to take down a democratic terrorist nation, then you are saying that it is right to be a terrorist nation.
    That isn't what the article said. You can't change the assertion of the article and then disagree with your own made-up assertion.
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook