Right-wing, left-wing... who gives a shit?

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

So I was looking at the reviews for the upcoming documentary "The Road to Guantanamo" on MSN's site this morning. The film follows three British nationals who were swept up by the Northern Alliance in the Afghanistan invasion and placed in Gitmo for nearly three years.

Now, remember, the movie just opened today in theaters.

As I scrolled down through the "user reviews," it became blatantly apparent that party lines had already been drawn...

My problem with this film and others like it is that it blatantly manipulates the truth. The TRUTH is that while those men were released, they were NOT proven innocent. They may be tragic victims . . . or they may be very smart terrorists who didnt leave enough evidence for us to prosecute them. So we gave them the benefit of the doubt and let them go. Which, I might add, is A LOT more than the terrorists whom we are fighting do. They kill, torture, maim, and behead our POWs and civilians on a regular basis.

...shortly followed by:

I fully intend to watch this movie

Huh? What? You haven't even SEEN the movie, and you're already decrying it as propoganda?

There were plenty of other goodies in there:

Well... mostly the same as some others have said here. Its really asnine to continue seeing this America is the bad guy crap but it is also pretty disgusting to see that people beleive this tripe.
Yes yes we all know, the U.S.A. is so horrible.. we rape women, we kill babies, we torture men, we are racist bigots, we steal from the poor, we have huge egos, other countries are so much better and cultured then us... Etc. Etc... I get it Hollywood... I get it Socialists and Liberals.. You Hate us, you hate America. We Fn Get It already!

After the latest spoof movies like Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, and the McDonalds hate movie if anyone actually believes this crap, then they deserve to be fooled. I guess some crystal tower americans forget that this country is at war. You dont end up in Guantanamo Bay unless you are an enemy to this country. Its that simple.

Just to refresh your mind, I'd like to point out that only a handful of people have actually VIEWED the film.

But I digress, let's continue:

This movie is another attempt by some phony liberal terrorist apologist to protray america as the bad guy in the world. The movie is full of half truths, selective truths and misleading propaganda. there is not one mention of the enemy combatants that are in gitmo that were released only to rejoin their jihad against america. If you enjoy anti american proganda you will love this movie. One thing you wont have to worry about is some suicide bomber blowing you up while watching this movie in america. Nor will have to worry about being arrested for watching this garbage as you would in homelands of the poor terrorist victims protrayed in this nonsense of a movie.

Now this thread isn't about bashing people who are pro-"Ass-kickin', Name-takin' US Foreign Policy." There are just as many people who sit on the opposite side of the political spectrum and pontificate:

Like it or not, all you 1 star republican lemmings, there is reality in this film and the injustice it depicts. There is alot of truth in it. Remember what happens in this film...that is, if any of you all actually saw it, because it quite likely will be happening to alot of Americans here in America if yall dont wake up. You morons dont love America...you dont know anything about America.

I've got an idea, guys. I think it has the real possibility of taking hold if we could all just erase this whole "my side versus your side, knife fight steel cage match to the death"-way of thinking.

It's been said before in other threads, but we could all use a little bit more of actual common sense, and getting back to what this country was founded on. I'm an American, and for the most part, I'm proud of what my country stands for. But just because I think that certain things need a little (or a lot of) change in order to stick to the ideals that we placed upon ourselves some 200+ years ago, doesn't mean I'm pinko commie scum.

Why can't people see that we're returning to the Red Scare ideals of the 1920's? I understand that fear is a powerful feeling, but what's the harm in dissent and questioning the government? Just because I want a more transparent government and less "can't talk/see/inquire about that, it'd jeopardize national security" bullshit just means that I'd like to see a nation based upon freedom and goodwill towards men--things that the government talks a big line about, but never really delivers.

I'd guess if you had to label me I'd be labelled a liberal thinker, but again, I think the US meaning for the word "liberal" got changed somewhere along the line to

"Big government-hating, tree-hugging, pot-smoking, butt-fucking, dirty, dirty, dirty Communist"

from the actual meaning of:

"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas"

What's wrong about not being limited by a change in policy? The world is constantly evolving, so why wouldn't a government evolve with time? It's crazy. (Mind you, the same thing happens in the other direction.)

I'm upset about this, and mostly I'm upset because I don't see it changing. The divide between "Arms-Crazy, Pro-Wealthy-1%-of-America, Homosexual-Hating, Pro-Corporate Republicans" and the "Hippie, Baby-Killing, No-Action, Welfare-Addicted Democrats" seems to be widening. Don't people see that all the name-calling gets us nowhere? Party lines ultimately get us nowhere?

Frustration, she wrote.

[Richard Creager]

sage

[Jerome Scuggs]

My problem with this film and others like it is that it blatantly manipulates the truth. The TRUTH is that while those men were released, they were NOT proven innocent.

"Innocent until proven guilty" say WHAT?

[Troll King]

People are getting polarized to the point where the only way of thinking is the "with us or against us" type of binarisms. I think the current Bush administration has been strengthening that kind of thinking with their policy-making, but I don't think they are the cause of it. They just sensed that kind of feeling in people and ran with it.

This isn't just limited to politics either; it's becoming apparent in other areas of our lives. For example, just a couple of months ago, I proposed some ideas for improving pubs and in the same thread I get accused of being both too pro-levi and too anti-levi, when the truth is I wanted to find some common ground.

Take a look at any thread discussing musical genres. It always breaks down into arguments about whether a certain artist is in that genre or not, as if musicians are limited to producing only one type of music.

The middle ground is diminishing as opposing sides draw farther and farther apart. The farther both sides get, the harder it is to find common ground and the harder it is to understand what the other side is trying to say. The result is a lack of true discourse. Part of the problem is that the ones who are furthering this kind of binary thinking are the ones who are doing most of the talking. The middle-ground doesn't participate enough, either by choice or because they are drowned out, to bridge the gap.

[404 Not Found]

What's interesting is how the interpretations of a film like this can be judged as to the quotes given and noted above.

It amazes me that these people that are against this film find it to be unjust and unfair propaganda towards the Government and its actions at GITMO.

God forbid anyone could speak out against the US Government and its war on Fear and Terror. What these people need to do is take a course in American History. Everything has not always been sweet and innocent in regards to the actions this Government has taken. Internment camps for the Japanese in WWII, Screwing over the Veterans after WWI and not giving them the back pay and benefits owed to them, so the Vet's set up a shanty town on the mall in D.C. and MacArthur under the orders of the President, goes in and sets fire to the camp while beating the living daylights out of the ex servicemen that fought for this country not a year prior. It was peaceful with no violence prior to MacArthurs actions, but I guess it exposed the true side of the Government at the time, so as usual, an attempt was made to sweep it under the carpet.

Vietnam vets where forgotten after the war as well. Laws that work in favor of big money too, since it is now ok to declare emenent domain and tear down blocks of housing that are in great shape, just so the the rich politician can invest in the new multi million dollar condo resort. Sure displace families and screw them over...who cares?

What was your take on the 9/11 film of the hijacked plane that went down in PA? Everyone it seemes found it to be so wonderful, yet it was a story. Noting nobody lived from the crash and it was directed from the passengers view...how would one know what is truth and what was propaganda since nobody survived?

At least in the GITMO movie, these 3 guys are still alive and could tell their stories. I guess it would be better if it was made up like the 9/11 hijack movie? Not that there is no truth to the 9/11 movie, but one has to wonder what the added spin was on it since it was not written from anyone who was actually on the plane.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

In regards to the film, it's not like Guantanamo Bay is open to inspection by human rights teams or journalists. Somehow, the government again cries "it'll derail our national security" and keeps visits by any of those groups (or even lawyers, for that matter) to a bare minimum, and even then they're closely monitored and shown only specific areas of the base.

Can someone explain to me how this treatment is any different from Iran not allowing IAEA access to nuclear sites? To me, both sides claims seem just as dubious.

The government takes a stand on the illegal wiretapping issue as "if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care?" Well, seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you don't have anything to hide about the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, why would you restrict access? It's not like a reporter's going to shove the tiniest Gitmo inmate up his own ass and try to smuggle him out. It's not like third-party access is going to legitimately harm the security of the base whatsoever.

Maybe if people had more open access to Gitmo, maybe then it wouldn't be so damning when people who've actually lived through it tell about their experiences.

[404 Not Found]

Valid point...and you also gotta ask yourself why the Geneva Convention is not be honored as well as the Red Cross having access?

When people stop questioning the actions of ones own Goverment and are complacent with how it runs itself regardless of whom it effects, then it is no longer a Democracy as they strive to push upon everyone else.

[Kolar]

I don't care who is running this country I just want whoever to ignore their religion, their beliefs and represent the majority through law, not through ideology or through public or executive connections. There is a misconception that only right wing idiots are here trying to make us eat up this bible shit, they're just better and more organized at it. There are ideologs on both extreme ends.


An example would be raising the age of legal consent in Canada from 14 to 16. While I feel the Govnerment has no reason, right or power to control the social lives of any of us it was meant to protect children from predators and hasn't changed in 100 years. The intent of the legislation was to protect young children and punish/help these people. It shouldn't be a social issue but it is because those attempting to make the change feel they have the right/duty to not only protect people and punish the guility party but also protect the innocent from making their own decisions and mistakes. If it came down to a vote i'm sure many Liberals here would vote with the same reasoning. It's all about scaring kids away from sex, if it was about the pedos they'd purpose longer sentences for sexuals crimes or look into other options for these criminals.

In regards to the film, it's not like Guantanamo Bay is open to inspection by human rights teams or journalists.

Only to Fox News.

[Sarien]

So when the second US Civil War erupts, which state do you think will be the first to secede?

Oddly enough, my current bet is Texas. Since they're the only one legally allowed to do so still.

[Troll King]

Just to clarify on Canada's new age of consent legislation: I disagree with Kolar's stance that it's designed more to scare away kids from sex than to protect them from predators. There is a provision in the new legislation that 14 and 15-year olds, those who were legally of age under the old law, can still have sex with someone up to 5 years older than them. I'm not sure what you meant by the "hasn't changed in 100 years" comment, Kolar. If you were trying to say that the age limit had been 14 for a hundred years, then you were misinformed as legislation in 1980 had raised the legal age of consent to 14 from 12.

[Kolar]

So when the second US Civil War erupts, which state do you think will be the first to secede?

Oddly enough, my current bet is Texas. Since they're the only one legally allowed to do so still.

People are to comfortable with their lives and possessions to care about any type of revolution (expect for the Nintendo one).

Just to clarify on Canada's new age of consent legislation: I disagree with Kolar's stance that it's designed more to scare away kids from sex than to protect them from predators. There is a provision in the new legislation that 14 and 15-year olds, those who were legally of age under the old law, can still have sex with someone up to 5 years older than them. I'm not sure what you meant by the "hasn't changed in 100 years" comment, Kolar. If you were trying to say that the age limit had been 14 for a hundred years, then you were misinformed as legislation in 1980 had raised the legal age of consent to 14 from 12.

Thank you CBC news.

I know about that provision but I don't feel we should make the law over complicated and confuse kids about it. If children need more protection from predators then punish them, don't send mixed signals to the kids about it. I don't see anything else but the interest of the conservative base on this issue.

Edit: That was my point basicly. I have no problem with raising the age of legal consent only if it isn't based on rallying up the social conservatives for the potential election this fall.

[genocidal]

I think a lot of shit would have to hit the fan (way more shit than today) for a civil war to happen. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that Texas is the only state in the Union that doesn't enjoy federal funding for road maintenance and such because the whole state doesn't abide by whatever amendment makes the drinking age 21 everywhere (I could be totally wrong but I did hear that some where and am way too lazy and busy to look it up right now).

[404 Not Found]

So when the second US Civil War erupts, which state do you think will be the first to secede?

Oddly enough, my current bet is Texas. Since they're the only one legally allowed to do so still.

Texas is an odd state in regards to many areas of this post. They are the only State to still have it's own Navy! On the flip side, did you know that its one of the fastest growing muslim populations as well as the amount of Mosque's being built is in the State of TX? Perhaps they just want to be close to George?

[Troll King]

Thank you CBC news.

I know about that provision but I don't feel we should make the law over complicated and confuse kids about it. If children need more protection from preditors then punish them, don't send mixed signals to the kids about it. I don't see anything else but the interest of the conservative base on this issue.

Would sending mixed signals be like describing the new law without mentioning the provision? It's not like the provision is anything new or more confusing than the old law. Under the old law there was a provision too for sex between 14 year olds and 12 year olds. This new law isn't any more confusing or complicated than the old ones; only the numbers have changed.

You're also taking a very narrow path by lumping protection and punishment together. While there is some correlation, the two are not necessarily one and the same.

I also disagree on your stance that this appeals only to the interests of the conservative base. The left-leaning NDP has already shown their support for this legislation. A recent poll also found that 65% of Canadians agree that the age of consent should be raised to 16, including a high of 71% in British Columbia, a traditionally left-leaning province.

[Sarien]

People are to comfortable with their lives and possessions to care about any type of revolution (expect for the Nintendo one).

In all the time I've ever argued with you over anything, or with anyone else from any other country for that matter I've never said anything close to what I'm going to have to now. I hope that lends a little weight to this for you. But, how would you know?


Anyway, yeah 404. I lived in Houston in 99-2000. That's right, Bush was my governor before he was our president. Believe me, I was screeching to all my friends/family to please please not let him win. Didn't work as I'd hoped though.

Texas is also oddly enough becoming increasingly unsassified with government, politicians, and the whole lot. That's the whole vein Kinky Friedman is tapping into to try to get himself elected. It hasn't really occured to them that they maintained the right to be the Republic of Texas in their constitution. But I think if they hit a certain point, the people there are just crazy enough to tell everyone they're taking their ball and going home.

http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/