CNN fires terrorist supporter.

[Upchurch]

More supportive, obviously. A fanatic who truly believes will get all the other stuff, or make do without it. The spiritual (emotional, psychological, delusional, etc.) component is the one that really matters. Without it, you're just an apathetic layabout with a gun rack.

Motivation is more important than money, training, and firearms? I don't think it's that obvious at all.

To turn it around, what's worse: a religious fanatic or a religious fanatic with the training, equipment, and resources to do something about it?

The mind boggles at the intellectual perversity of some self-styled "skeptics", who delight in proclaiming that religion is the scourge of civilization, right up to the moment when they are confronted with exactly that.

Fortunately, I don't proclaim that religion is the scourge of civilization. I, myself, am a Unitarian Universalist in addition to being an atheist and feel that there is still a positive role for religion to fill in our society. (My opinion of how many religions actually fill that positive roll is another matter.)

What, exactly, do you think "spiritual advisors" in a terrorist movement do? Encourage their fellow terrorists to question the moral purity of their cause and the ethical justification for their violence?

What do you think terrorists do with money, military training, and military firearms? They aren't building playgrounds for orphaned puppies.

I'm not saying that a "spiritual advisor" to these monsters is not a bad thing. I'm also not saying that what Reagan and North did is necessarily worse in the overall scheme of things. I am saying that the support that the US provided terrorists in Iran-Contra cannot be so easily glossed over and it is hypocritical to do so in this case. ...assuming there is anyone who admires Reagan and/or North but criticizes the reporter in the OP. I don't recall anyone actually stepping up and defending Reagan or North in this thread yet.

What about you, theprestige? Do you admire and praise Reagan or North despite their direct support of terrorism in the 1980s? Do you agree with the OP that the CNN reporter's respect for the cleric for his non-terrorist supporting activities is wrong?

 

[GreNME]

Black nationalist Muslim ideology is whack, but the guy never green-lighted a truck bombing that killed 200+ American and French troops. The Hezbollah cleric gave his personal theological endorsement to the operation.

Nice story. Now could you actually answer the question I asked instead of whatever one you were answering there that I didn't ask?

-----

Ali doesn't belong to Farrakhan's Nation of Islam sect (he left NoI in the early 70s), which is the only black nationalist Muslim sect I'm aware of in the US. He's a Suffist Muslim now, who are not black nationalists.

/pedant

Then answer my question and replace "black nationalist" with "Sufi Muslim" in my sentence. (and yes, I was aware of Ali's current association)

-----

Some people hate teabaggers more than Islamic terrorists.

That might be due to their fundamentalist similarities. Just a guess, since I don't know if I count as "some people" your strawman is meant to spoof.

 

[Doctor Evil]

Skimmed through the whole thread and there is a point which have not been brought up. Here is the original tweet:

"Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah ... One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot"

(Emphasis mine.)

Two things I noticed here. One is the use of the word giant to describe the man, which in my opinion hints that her what she feels for him is more like admiration than merely respect.

The other point is that she mentioned Hezbolla giants, and not one specific giant. Makes me wonder who are, in her opinion, the other Hezbolla giants. This leads me to think that her later claims that she only respected the man due to his respect to women rights (relatively speaking) are not credible.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

CNN is a corporation, they can fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It was a dumb idea for a journalist to openly support Hezbollah. She has the freedom to express any ideas she has, but she also has to be prepared for consequences which have zero to do with constitutional law-- especially when those thoughts reflect on her employer.

 

[Lurker]

CNN is a corporation, they can fire whoever they want for whatever reason they want. It was a dumb idea for a journalist to openly support Hezbollah. She has the freedom to express any ideas she has, but she also has to be prepared for consequences which have zero to do with constitutional law-- especially when those thoughts reflect on her employer.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. What we are discussing is if we were in charge of CNN would we consider her act a fireable offense.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

Skimmed through the whole thread and there is a point which have not been brought up. Here is the original tweet:

(Emphasis mine.)

Two things I noticed here. One is the use of the word giant to describe the man, which in my opinion hints that her what she feels for him is more like admiration than merely respect.

The other point is that she mentioned Hezbolla giants, and not one specific giant. Makes me wonder who are, in her opinion, the other Hezbolla giants. This leads me to think that her later claims that she only respected the man due to his respect to women rights (relatively speaking) are not credible.

Exactly. But I still think that the mere fact that she admits that she respects a known suicide bomb advocate and Holocaust denier makes me lose any respect I would have for said admirer.

Quite simply, Fadlallah was a known antisemitic bastard and the fact that I have to put up with so much mourning of an evil person in my hometown (which is dominated by Lebanese Shias) is infuriating.

And I like how his supporters are defending their admiration for him by twisting the debate into how he ushered in more women's rights. THE PROS OUTWEIGH THE CONS! So what if Hitler practiced genocide, at least he helped elevate the status of animals in Germany.

 

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. What we are discussing is if we were in charge of CNN would we consider her act a fireable offense.

My post:

She has the freedom to express any ideas she has, but she also has to be prepared for consequences which have zero to do with constitutional law-- especially when those thoughts reflect on her employer.

She called him a Hezbollah giant and expressed sadness for the death of an influential, antisemitic religious figure.

Do you have any idea how much power this guy exerted over his followers?

Personally, I wouldn't want my news organization to be tainted by such "objective" reporters.

 

[Lurker]

Exactly. But I still think that the mere fact that she admits that she respects a known suicide bomb advocate and Holocaust denier makes me lose any respect I would have for said admirer.

Quite simply, Fadlallah was a known antisemitic bastard and the fact that I have to put up with so much mourning of an evil person in my hometown (which is dominated by Lebanese Shias) is infuriating.

And I like how his supporters are defending their admiration for him by twisting the debate into how he ushered in more women's rights. THE PROS OUTWEIGH THE CONS! So what if Hitler practiced genocide, at least he helped elevate the status of animals in Germany.

Your comparison to Hitler is not applicable. There was only one leader, Hitler. Contrarily, Fadlallah is one of many Muslim clerics so comparison to his peers is somewhat appropriate. I don't like the guy but I can think his efforts to modernize how islam sees women is good. Does the good outweigh the bad? Not IMO but I could see a case where it does if we saw a wholesale change in the muslim world due to his influence and the muslim world modernized its ideas. Keep in mind, that is kind of what we are seeking, isn't it? That did not happen, I merely show where perhaps there is a scenario where a terrorist might be lauded for doing good, offsetting his evil terrorist ways.

 

[Lurker]

My post:

She called him a Hezbollah giant and expressed sadness for the death of an influential, antisemitic religious figure.

Do you have any idea how much power this guy exerted over his followers?

Personally, I wouldn't want my news organization to be tainted by such "objective" reporters.

OK, thanks for your input. I don't disagree much with it.

 

[headscratcher4]

The views of Thomas Friedman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

 

[Doctor Evil]

The views of Thomas Friedman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/opinion/18friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

Not really impressed with that article. First, Friedman seems to accept that her reason for the twit was Fadallah's support for women rights. I suspect there is more into it than that, see my previous post in this thread.

Then there is this:

That’s why I prefer to get my news from a CNN reporter who can actually explain why thousands of men and women are mourning an aged Shiite cleric — whom we consider nothing more than a terrorist — than a reporter who doesn’t know at all, or worse, doesn’t dare to say.

This is a false dilemma logical fallacy. I am sure there are plenty of reporter who can explain Lebanon to us without being admirers of the more extreme elements of that society. (Alternatively, if Friedman really thinks that such people do not exist, he should say so. I do not think this is the case.)

 

[Virus]

Expected better from Friedman.