• 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!

Hating Free Speech

Delusion runs deep in LaLa Land.
 
And that means what here in the real world?

That you gullible folks ignore facts, science, the truth just as you always have. The most heavily propagandized individuals on the planet, the folks who ignore deeply evil things like the following, which is the norm for the USA.

Other troop toys included Vietnamese ears strung around soldiers’ necks, and “kill albums”— photo albums kept by troops showing pictures of severed heads, or “lots of heads, arranged in a row, with a burning cigarette in each of the mouths, eyes open”(162).

Of course, the main point of Turse’s book is that it was not just out-of-control 19-year-olds who bear the burden of guilt. Generals were the ones giving the orders, and when the general was someone like Julian Ewell, who in 1968 was given command of the 9th Infantry Division responsible for “clearing” the Mekong Delta (perhaps the richest agricultural expanse in the world), the murder and mayhem could and did reach epic proportions. Known as the “Butcher of the Delta,” Ewell was obsessed with the infamous “body count.” His chief of Staff, Colonel Ira Hunt, was equally obsessed. Together, they beat and browbeat the commanders under them to fatten the body count by any means necessary. Turse quotes Ewell in one rant to his commanders:

“What the **** are you people doing down here, sitting on your ass? The rest of the brigades are coming up with a fine body count…If you can’t get out there and beat ‘em out of the bushes, then I’ll relieve you and get somebody down here who will.” (206).

Turse also cites Navy Admiral Robert Salzer’s contention that Ewell was “psychologically unbalanced…you could almost see the saliva dripping out of the corners of his mouth”(207). The insanity showed up in hordes of dead civilians—all, as always and everywhere, counted as enemies, “dead VC.” Before Ewell took over, the 9th Infantry Division had a ratio of about eight VC dead for every American killed in large unit operations, which was slightly higher than average. Then came Speedy Express, Ewell’s name for his operation in the Delta, tragically given an even greater mandate by politics (Pres. Johnson had re-started the Paris peace talks, and the Pentagon wanted to bring the Mekong Delta under Saigon’s control before any peace could break out, and so ordered Ewell and others to pound the Delta even more savagely than before.) With this added sanction from above, the kill ratio for Speedy Express kept leaping to ever more astounding levels, peaking in March of 1969 with a 134 to 1 ratio: that is, 134 “enemy” kills for every American death. Ewell became, of course, the darling of the officer corps, even in spite of the complaints that continued to mount against him. One Concerned Sergeant (later revealed by Turse as George Lewis) wrote a letter to General Westmoreland, the Supreme commander in Vietnam:

Splinters-Splinters: Kill Anything That Moves
 
There is free speech and then there is consequences of said free speech.

I believe very much in free speech.

However I also believe that there should be consequences if words uttered under free speech incites to violence or criminality.

Case in point.. Mob boss says to hitman 1.. Go kill mr Zulu and hitman 1 does so. Now, is that free speech? yes it is.. but should the mob boss not face sanctions for the actions that said free speech did? Of course.

Now the question is... when is it criminal? Is it only criminal after the hitman commits the murder, or can you bust the mob boss for saying what he did, before it happens and hence save a life?

So take this to the world we have today..

Political agitator advocates publicly that there should be "a final solution to the Muslims problem", clearly wanting a Muslim holocaust. It is in her right to say that, according to free speech, but she is also advocating something clearly criminal and violent. Should we only go after her, if someone starts killing Muslims and can be linked to her comments, or should we go after her before that happens and set an example on how to behave in a civilised world?

In my opinion you cant go after the mob boss and not go after the political agitator..

The real tricky part is when the political agitator hides behind religious cloths...

The Mob boss would not be protected under free speech. He would be charged with conspiracy to commit murder or accessory to murder. There is a tremendous difference between speech and action. We are free to say people should die, we are not free to kill without consequence. Once You start to change the meaning of a freedom or right you are beginning to take it away. Speech is not action nor is it physically violent. People choose to act they are not forced to by speech. If i were to say something that i believe and it offends you, that dose not mean you can take violent action against me and if you do you are in the wrong not me.

Our culture is becoming increasingly more offended by opinions and views that differ from their own. People are binding their opinions with their identity in such a way that when people disagree with them they consider it an attack on them personally. This inevitably haunts the flow off discussion that would lead to common ground solutions, and this is one of the reasons that i believe Free Speech is under attack in this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom