censorship during war Re: [LINK] Guardian: Al-Jazeera tells the truthabout war

[Deus Ex Machina]

Robin Whittle [rw at firstpr.com.au] wrote:
> Vic, you wrote:
> 
> > paranoia. there is absolutely no democratic principal involved with 
> > government ontroling the flow of information during war. quite the 
> > contrary government must control the flow of information during war 
> > since lives depend on it.
> 
> The above quoted passage shows you writing in complete support of
> government censorship.  Now you write: "I am not in the slightest
> bit pro-censorship," 

you seem to be finding this difficult to understand. freedom
of speech is not an absolute right. there are a variety of rights
that all interact together. sometime some rights come first, other
times other rights come first.  nothing is absolute. everything is relative.

censorship is an attack on freedom of expression. it seems obvious to
me that freedom of expression must yield to the safety of troops during war.
and it seems obvious to me that the ones prosecuting war who are risking
their lives are the ones that decide what is and is not likely to affect them.

freedom of speech is realy the outcome of a deeper right and that is
the freedom to hold contrary views. that is one of the pillars of
democracy. but again while you may hold contrary views, some views
you are not allowed to act on.

there is even no contradiction if you say you are pro-contrary views
and refuse to help contrary views spread. it could even
mean you fight and act against specific contrary views from comming to
fruition. but that doesnt mean you are necessarily against the right
of people to hold contrary views. 

it is best not to hold on to concepts so tightly that they restrict you into
silly corners of apparent contradiction.


> Then you indicate that you think that the USA can achieve a good outcome
> amongst Arabs and democracy in Iraq with its lust for oil, its
> preparedness to kill thousands of Iraqis, its destruction of the Iraqi
> telephone exchanges, its missiles, bombs and depleted uranium shells,
> its support for vile regimes (Saddam Hussein in the past) all whilst
> supporting Israel in its attempts to destroy the Palestinians.  You are
> as deluded as Donald Rumsfield and co.

the US government is elected to represent its interest base. that includes
US companies as well as the general population. US companies
will receive the bulk of the oil contracts and the bulk of the reconstruction contracts.
thats to be expected. are you asking that the US government sacrifice its troops
and then hand over all the reconstruction and oil contracts to someone else?

and yes imo democracy is a good outcome. the arab states that are not democracies
will not like it for sure. that is to be exepected. but its pretty clear
that poverty breeds terrorism. if democracy can lead to an improvement in the life styles
of the population then the long term trend is for less terrorism to come from the middle east.
what can be possibly wrong with these aims??????

again to go back to another analogy you are so focused on the scalpel cuting
skin you fail to see that the operation is for the patients benefit.
is it you dont like Rumsfeld because he is the head surgeon?

> Your complaint that I misrepresented you as supporting censorship, for
> instance in times of war, and your statement that you are "not in the
> slightest bit pro-censorship," in the same message as this where you
> support censorship in wartime, makes me think that you don't know your
> own mind.  

my position might be a little broader then you seem capable of squeezing into
a soundbite.

> I am now thinking of this whole debacle in terms of mental health,

I often find that when people acuse like this it is often due to a fear of posessing
the very same qualities they see in others. 

> evolved proclivities to be rebellious in one's 20s and brutally bitter
> and right-wingish in ones more "mature" years (at least for men - this

I am sorry I am not in the slightest bit right wing and I dont think the view
from the left wing is anything to crow about either. I have been called a lot
of things but I have never been called bitter. lol

if you realy must stick a label on me then I am buddhist. when I was 12
I lost faith in chritianity and decided I was buddhist. its taken me 28 years
to understand what that means.

> would clearly attract a bunch of women) and evolved proclivities to
> follow leaders and those predicted to win.  These in addition to all the
> usual considerations of religion, racism, fervent nationalism,
> comfortable middleclass cluelessness etc.

there is a better way to categorise it if you care, in ones youth one is
entirely dependent, as one grows up one strives for and becomes independent and finally
as one matures and completes the cycle you realise that we are all inter-dependent.

Vic