• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News posts the ISIS propaganda video on their website.

Good or bad thing to do


  • Total voters
    24
For over 25 years my job was to see these things and report on them. You do not get used to it.

Few reporters like it after a few times, you see one body with half the torso blown away by a shot gun, smell it, you don't want to go back. But there is a reason we have to go. Ratings. The viewer demands to see it, maybe not you or Tres, but the majority.

These protests now from the left only come after Obama's flaccid stance on terror and his asinine "crusades" comment, and it's, gasp, Fox, the worse enemy than Islamic terror...

There is also the public right to know. The American voter needs to know it's government is losing a war as much as it might be winning, just as they need to know American troops are obeying the rules, being properly fed, equipped and protected.

The problem with the left is their concept of freedom of speech is limited to their beliefs, they object to the release of anything not on their enemies list...growing longer every day.
I want to dislike this post just so I can like it again. :mrgreen:

Excellent post.
 
It's not journalism, it's sensationalism. Fox News continues to disgrace and discredit itself.

I'm not a Fox News viewer, but I can't think of one "news" organization that doesn't capitalize on tragedy in a sensational fashion in order to drum up revenue.

If this is Fox disgracing and discrediting itself, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that it isn't, then I can't think of a single graceful, creditable news outlet.
 
I dont know about Fox News but I think it SHOULD be out in the mainstream. Its rather ironic you think this is a 'propoganda' video when in fact the exposure to and from the video is what inspired the Muslim Imams to publicly condemn ISIS.

People SHOULD watch a beheading or two. You should watch the videos of children being violated and having their heads crushed. You should stiffen up...be shocked...be outraged. You should stop shutting your eyes to the actual evil and brutality those ****s represent. It should turn your stomach. It should piss you off. It should strengthen your resolve to stand against them.

As ugly as war is, people got the sanitized version of Husseins incursion into Kuwait. Most people didnt see the pieces parts of families left in the street. You didnt see the aftermath of troops rounding up dozens of people in closed alleyways and brutalizing them before killing them. You didnt see even a piece of the atrocities committed by those sadistic ****s. And what that caused was a bunch of people to jump from being on board the war effort when it was politically expedient to the war for oil political rhetoric that followed.

It aint pretty. But hey...its just watching a video...not picking up actual body parts.
 
I watched the video and other than the obvious horrific way the Jordanian pilot was killed, a couple of things came to mind concerning both the airing of this video by Fox News and the information the Jordanian pilot apparently gave up.

1. There are some videos a new organization should not show. This was one of them. Why? Because of what may be a hidden intent behind it as addressed in the posts below:

I disagree, I don't think we need videos like this to show how evil ISIS is. I think Fox News did ISIS work for them. They will show this, but you'll never see what those car bombs did to the people in Iraq and to our troops. You'll see car parts everywhere, but you won't see parts of bodies on the streets.;

I think it depends on why they are showing the video. I they are trying to stir the public into lets bomb these animals until kingdom come in order to motivate the public into endorsing another war in the middle east then it is bad. If they are simply trying to show how evil these animals are then its possible it might be good. I do not know about you but I do not need a video of animals lighting a man on fire to know that ISIL is evil. I am sure most people don't as well. So I suspect the intent in to enrage the public enough into supporting another war that we have no business in.

It is interesting that while Fox News could claim that they aired the video unfiltered and unedited, the lack of editing, i.e., Arabic to English translation (sub-titles), would have helped enlighten and inform the viewing audience as to what the captive and the video's narrator were saying. Instead, all we come away with is both the horror and the disdain of the torturous death act. To that, you miss tons of other information that could have been helpful.

2. The Jordanian pilot apparently revealed tons of information to his captors, specifically the types of military fighter jets used, missile capabilities and air bases used. To me as a veteran, this is dangerous! When a POW, name, rank, serial number is all you give...nothing more, anything less. Nonetheless, I thank God that neither I nor anyone I know were in this guy's shoes. Who knows what he was promised if he gave up vital information though. In the end, his death might have been the spark that was needed to convince the Arab World to take up arms against this madness! Sad it had to come to this to get their attention.
 
It's newsworthy. I think they did the right thing by posting it. When news organizations show pictures of the Phelps clan holding bigass God Hates Fags signs, is that propaganda too? I think the news is way too sanitized sometimes. It avoids showing the truly horrific side of human nature in an effort to protect the sensibilities of some. The world is f***ed up. Pretending that it's not is kind of stupid. :shrug:
 
I'm not a Fox News viewer, but I can't think of one "news" organization that doesn't capitalize on tragedy in a sensational fashion in order to drum up revenue.

If this is Fox disgracing and discrediting itself, and I'm not suggesting that it isn't, then I can't think of a single graceful, creditable news outlet.



Television "journalism" relies on visuals. If you do not have visuals, you cannot tell the story, if you do not have dramatic visuals, your story will likely be spiked by another that does. Violence, explosions,blood, flames, beauty, nudity, war machines, helicopters and jets taking off or landing are good pictures. A guy talking is not. If I have visual of a half dozen naked models blowing up in a helicopter I will lead every newscast, likely in the world. Visuals of Obama saying he is permanently shutting down the Supreme court will trail if it makes the "new" at all.

TV news producers, me for some time, do not make these decisions based on their own need for gore, but ratings...what the viewer demands. Why, frankly I gave up the big $ and went back to lowly radio where you can cover anything because all you need is words.

Any outlet has a lot of power, and most know that. There is seldom publication of this stuff without inner soul searching and sometimes heated debate, often the report knowing he has a career maker will fight too hard and guys like me have to shut them down, or not.

In the end, the question is answered thus. Who must know this and why? Who benefits if we do not? And who suffers if we do, and how much? Once, my camera got a long shot of a First responder at a murder suicide carrying a blood-soaked 2/3 of an infant body which had been shot with a .357 at close range. Great pictures that made even me squeamish and nauseous. We ran it the day of. Then we had to review that, there had been NO complaints, and we pulled it; it did not pass the test. These things happen with all such cases, it was how the warning idea came into being.

The complaints here are purely political. The slithering masses still clinging to the messiah don't like it because, gee, suddenly it does not fit the narrative that Islam is America's best friend, it's the Republicans we have to destroy. It displays the fact Obama is losing, ISIS is more emboldened and now his allies are paying the price. They are nervous we will see the depth of the incompetence in waging war by this Peace Prize president, where one war has become five and he says you are winning.

It isn't the horror they are bitching about, it's the message....he's a screw up and America is losing another war. They have no problem sending us visuals of American bombs taking out 'suspected" terrorist cells in Pakistan nor visuals of night vision snipers taking out non-Islamic sort of Muslim sort of terrorists one by one.

No, they like seeing that kind of death. They don't like seeing anything that shows Obama is an idiot and this does
 
Okay ... soooooo ... showing the barbarity of ISIS is an advertisement for them but a President reinforcing their recruiting pitch is a history lesson.

Really? You think that's what the president was doing when he called them barbaric?
 
We don't need to help ISIS advertise their barbarity.

What we need to do is kill all of them as soon as possible.

It is important that we can see, what happened.
 
I'm not a Fox News viewer, but I can't think of one "news" organization that doesn't capitalize on tragedy in a sensational fashion in order to drum up revenue.

If this is Fox disgracing and discrediting itself, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that it isn't, then I can't think of a single graceful, creditable news outlet.

This is extreme. It's very disrespectful toward the pilot and his family to exploit his grisly death for ratings. Had the CBC or BBC done the same I'd be even more outraged- this is not unexpected from Fox.
I learned from other sources about that event and didn't need to be shown it. Anyone who needs to see that stuff probably already knows how to type 'ogrish.com' into a Google box. After Fox aired it there were probably jubilant high-fives in the ISIS camp where it happened.
But this might just be me. I'm one of those old hippies who won't say the name of the guy who shot John Lennon lest we give him the posterity that he said was his motivation.
 
You didnt see even a piece of the atrocities committed by those sadistic ****s. And what that caused was a bunch of people to jump from being on board the war effort when it was politically expedient to the war for oil political rhetoric that followed.

To be fair, I never much cared how sadistic Saddam Hussein or his army were in the first place.

As a service member, like yourself, a veteran in my case, I believe that wars should be fought for political reasons, and that those reasons should actually directly benefit the hostile nation.

While I deplore many of the things that the Hussein family and Iraq's Baathist regime did in terms of brutality I don't really believe that stopping or preventing such things are something that the United States should be spending money, and young American lives, on.

I didn't buy in to OIF because I was interested in saving the Iraqi people from a monster, I signed on because I believed the false, and to some degree artificially manufactured, rhetoric about Iraq being an imminent and potentially existential WMD threat (at least to some of Iraq's neighbors in the region who are also critical to our economy).

Once we invaded and it became increasingly clear that there was no active WMD program and that the "worst" we were going to find there were old 155mm mustard gas shells left over from the First Persian Gulf War and buried deep in the Arabian Desert since some time in the mid 1980s, or the degraded and disintegrating garbage at Muthanna, I then jumped from being on board to figuring it was time to index the operation and head home.
 
It's not journalism, it's sensationalism. Fox News continues to disgrace and discredit itself.

I think you're being too harsh on them for this one. This is the logical progression of media sensationalism in America. FOX isn't the first to show violent videos. However, it sets a pretty bad precedent on just what can be shown by media. I'm not for banning these things but I certainly believe that some discretion should be exercised if only to respect the families.
 
Really? You think that's what the president was doing when he called them barbaric?
Do you think showing their barbarism is a positive advertisement?
Do you think reinforcing ISIS recruitment pitch about modern Crusades is a positive advertisement?

There's something Obama always does.
Always.
If he knows what he's saying will be widely heard or read he'll make sure to include something for both sides of an issue, while making the thrust of his remarks clear.
That way there's something he and his peeps can point to when he's challenged.
Yes, he'll call it barbarism and then minimize or rationalize it.

Think "the video" and "act of terror" re Benghazi.
 
We don't need to help ISIS advertise their barbarity.

What we need to do is kill all of them as soon as possible.

So true SN. I agree.

And I might add that our so-called civilized nations around the world have done a piss poor job of expediently coming together to confront a common Nemesis or enemy of the "entire world"...and eradicating such a threat ASAP.

ISIS isn't just a M.E. problem. It's the entire world's problem. All radical groups, no matter if they operate under the name of a specific religion or cause, they have to go. Period.

All civilized nations should make ISIS the poster child of radicalism. Then make clear the message to all other current or future type groups": "You ain't welcome on the planet earth. The entire world will hunt you down and kill you!"

Well, the above is my emotional response to the situations at hand with ISIS.

The reality is that ever since Vietnam - guerrilla warfare has become the MO.

As you know, Guerrilla Warfare is a type of combat that's fought by a civilian population or other people who aren't part of a typical military unit. Thus guerrilla warriors are attempting to overthrow an existing government or are rebelling against a much larger, organized military.

A main strategy is that these nasty bastards use civilians as their shields.

How can the rest of the world get people (communities, towns, etc) who become the shields to these guerrilla organizations - to help the world community to eradicate these extremists? I ask this because a lot of these human shields - in these types of wars - are actually sympathizers of the bad guys.

It's all a hell of a mess.
 
Say that person in the video is a relative of yours, how would you feel about a news organization posting a video of his death?

The person in the video isn't a relative of mine, and as I said in my post, I don't look at pictures or videos of these sorts of things anyway.

Why are you asking me about what the man's family members would feel about this? I don't have any idea.
 
Whether it's ISIS or Born Again Christians, death and brutality will always be a fetish for religious conservatives. It's basically porn for conservatives online. Fox News knows their audience.
 
Do you think showing their barbarism is a positive advertisement?
Do you think reinforcing ISIS recruitment pitch about modern Crusades is a positive advertisement?
That's not what he was doing.

There's something Obama always does.
Always.
If he knows what he's saying will be widely heard or read he'll make sure to include something for both sides of an issue, while making the thrust of his remarks clear.
That way there's something he and his peeps can point to when he's challenged.
Yes, he'll call it barbarism and then minimize or rationalize it.

Think "the video" and "act of terror" re Benghazi.

What, you're mad because he said "act of terror" instead of "terrorism?" Really?
 
I think you're being too harsh on them for this one. This is the logical progression of media sensationalism in America. FOX isn't the first to show violent videos. However, it sets a pretty bad precedent on just what can be shown by media. I'm not for banning these things but I certainly believe that some discretion should be exercised if only to respect the families.

I'm not for banning either. I do my own censorship. I'm just doing the cyber version of shaking my head and turning my back.
 
They don't like seeing anything that shows Obama is an idiot and this does

No, but it shows Fox viewers are idiots, for lapping up this propaganda. Why should one death of one soldier (pilot) trigger world wide drumbeats for more war ? It is complete manipulation of a segment of the population.
 
The viewer demands to see it

Where were you, where the viewer demanded to see someone with half their torso blown away? They don't show that on television. Do you live in a pulp fiction fantasy or something ?
 
We don't need to help ISIS advertise their barbarity.

What we need to do is kill all of them as soon as possible.
In order to do that you need to have the stomach for the fight. What we have now is conservatives opposing all things Obama, liberals blaming every discussion on stopping ISIS on republican warmongering, and such a dearth of support from the global community that the president had to come home with his hat in his hand and is left with really the only option as being an air campaign.

Meanwhile...when a news agency dares to show who those sadistic ****s really are, people trip over themselves rushing to spew their usual hatred over the news agency?

Stop ISIS? Please....
 
To be fair, I never much cared how sadistic Saddam Hussein or his army were in the first place.

As a service member, like yourself, a veteran in my case, I believe that wars should be fought for political reasons, and that those reasons should actually directly benefit the hostile nation.

While I deplore many of the things that the Hussein family and Iraq's Baathist regime did in terms of brutality I don't really believe that stopping or preventing such things are something that the United States should be spending money, and young American lives, on.

I didn't buy in to OIF because I was interested in saving the Iraqi people from a monster, I signed on because I believed the false, and to some degree artificially manufactured, rhetoric about Iraq being an imminent and potentially existential WMD threat (at least to some of Iraq's neighbors in the region who are also critical to our economy).

Once we invaded and it became increasingly clear that there was no active WMD program and that the "worst" we were going to find there were old 155mm mustard gas shells left over from the First Persian Gulf War and buried deep in the Arabian Desert since some time in the mid 1980s, or the degraded and disintegrating garbage at Muthanna, I then jumped from being on board to figuring it was time to index the operation and head home.

If we hadnt gone in (the second time) we would still be laboring under the same assumptions made not just by Bush but also for 8 years by Clinton and damn near every elected democrat for 15 years. And if we are truly being honest...we STILL dont know of the disposition of the missing WMDs all previously cataloged.

But you are mixing two conflicts. The first Iraqi war was over an invasion of Kuwait and a threat to the worlds economy (via the oil supply at the time). I cited the brutality of the Iraqi military on the Kuwaitis from GW1.
 
That's not what he was doing.



What, you're mad because he said "act of terror" instead of "terrorism?" Really?

Whether intended or not, dredging up the Crusades relative to terrorism and ISIS was something ISIS could use since they've been using the Crusades for their own recruitment purposes.

No. I'm not mad at anything. It's an observation. He & his entire team stressed that a video inspired the Benghazi attack.
In his comments at the time he included the phrase "act of terror".
After a couple of weeks of blaming the video they began saying he blamed terrorism and he even said so in his debate with Romney.
I assume you caught that at the time.
It was typical of Obama.
 
I watched the video and other than the obvious horrific way the Jordanian pilot was killed, a couple of things came to mind concerning both the airing of this video by Fox News and the information the Jordanian pilot apparently gave up.

1. There are some videos a new organization should not show. This was one of them. Why? Because of what may be a hidden intent behind it as addressed in the posts below:

It is interesting that while Fox News could claim that they aired the video unfiltered and unedited, the lack of editing, i.e., Arabic to English translation (sub-titles), would have helped enlighten and inform the viewing audience as to what the captive and the video's narrator were saying. Instead, all we come away with is both the horror and the disdain of the torturous death act. To that, you miss tons of other information that could have been helpful.

From what I understand some pundits claim that ISIL was executing the pilot the same way ISIL members were killed when bombs were dropped on them.Hence the pilot being set on fire and then then the rocks or rubble being dumped on him to simulate what happens when someone is bombed.

2. The Jordanian pilot apparently revealed tons of information to his captors, specifically the types of military fighter jets used, missile capabilities and air bases used. To me as a veteran, this is dangerous! When a POW, name, rank, serial number is all you give...nothing more, anything less. Nonetheless, I thank God that neither I nor anyone I know were in this guy's shoes. Who knows what he was promised if he gave up vital information though. In the end, his death might have been the spark that was needed to convince the Arab World to take up arms against this madness! Sad it had to come to this to get their attention.

Its easy for anyone who has never been a POW to say that when you are a POW the only thing you give is rank and serial number.Plus not all POW situations are the same. I can't imagine that being a POW of muslim extremists as the same as being a POW of the Vietcong.
 
Back
Top Bottom