CNN fires editor over Hezbollah comments

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The point seems to be that a news organization, small or large, has the right, and perhaps even the responsibility to distance themselves from any employee that forgoes being an asset and instead becomes a liability.

Bingo...thank you again JPZ, for so eloquently putting forth my intended sentiment. Sometimes after a really long...really excruciatingly hot day, the synapses do not fire in real time.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Was her Twitter her business Twitter or her personal one. It makes a difference, I guess. And again I say, you can be (relatively, per canard) unbiased at work and still have personal opinions. Professionals do that.

The biggest problem with this and other recent stories like it is the simple fact that people believe there is such a thing as a "personal" twitter account.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by LittleSecret


From Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah official website:

To the emulators of the late Religious Authority, His Eminence, Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah (ra): It is permissible to continue to emulate a deceased Marjaa based on a Fatwa of a living religious authority who fulfills all the conditions of such a post and who deems it permissible to continue to emulate a deceased Marjaa. Furthermore, the office of His Eminence is considering issuing a detailed explanation of the issue. Meanwhile, we will continue to answer your inquires in accordance with the opinions of His Eminence.

Fatwa defined

And from his official website:

Moreover, intellectually speaking, I believe that there is no difference between the martyr in question and the soldier who joins the battle to fight, where he knows that he might be killed by the enemy, but he is obliged to do so because of some critical circumstances and because of his belief of the legitimacy of this battle. So, when a battle needs man to turn to be a weapon in order to exert pressure on the enemies and to kill them, then this will be a part of the mechanism of the battle. Every soldier who joins a battle believing in its legitimacy keeps in mind that he might get killed after turning to a bomb. The problem is in the mentality of the Westerners who fail to consider martyrdom a part of the battle’s mobility. Thus there is no difference between the mentality of the soldier who uses conventional methods and the mentality of the martyr (by the martyr operation); for both of them attempt to achieve their goals they believe in.

and continues with this:

It is true that Jihad is not a duty for women, but Islam has, permitted women to fight, if the requirements of a defensive war necessitate a conventional military operation or a martyrdom operation to be carried out by women. Thus, we believe those martyr women are making a new and glorious history for Arab women. We also express our denial of any reservations concerning the martyrdom operations, which have been carried out by women.

and this:

Such operations are one means of Jihad against the enemy. God (s.w.t) has imposed Jihad on Muslims within certain legal conditions. So, all means that harm the enemy and help us achieve the great goal are allowed. Perhaps some people, while discussing martyrdom operations, base their discussion on the holy Aya, “And cast not yourselves to perdition with your own hands” 2:125, and attempt to apply the concept of suicide on any similar operations. It’s true that suicide is not permissible in Islam, but what is meant by the above Aya is the individual practices concerning casting oneself to perdition is exposing oneself to death, whether one is quite sure of the inevitable harm or unsure. So, does its mean that the Moslem fighter who encounters the enemies casts himself to perdition? Of course not; otherwise, jihad in principle, will no longer be valid?

and finally ends with this:

perhaps, the problem with some people is that they don’t believe in Jihad, in principle, in this stage of Islam and they think that there are some specific conditions to be achieved, a part from the supreme interest of Islam and from the pressure to be exerted to save the nation from oppressive Zionism and Israeli barbarism. Or they believe that these operations are impermissible because they target civilians. But, we know that the Mujahideen are not targeting the civilians but the occupier in occupied Palestine. In addition, we don’t consider the settlers who occupy the Zionist settlements civilians, but they are an extension of occupation and they are not less aggressive and barbaric than the Zionist soldier. At the same time that we confirm the legitimacy of these operations, we regard them among the most prominent evidence of Jihad in Allah’s way, and we consider any criticism, whether intentional or not, against this type of operation represent an offence against the confrontation movement led by the Palestinian people, including all parties, against the Israeli occupation. Because his battle requires readiness for a maximal state of challenge and confrontation, knowing that the enemy is utilizing all its capabilities and techniques to suppress the Palestinians and to undermine their public and warlike movement. Thus, we have to be well prepared to confront this enemy by all means to make it the first to suffer.

english.bayynat.org.lb...

Is it my own personal bias that views this fatwa on jihad as atrocious? You bet!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yes it is your bias because you haven't put yourself on his shoes ^^

Tell me which part of his statements you agree and don't agree with.

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Yes it is your bias because you haven't put yourself on his shoes ^^

Tell me which part of his statements you agree and don't agree with.

I will keep it to those statements I do not agree with, and before I do point out that you have most certainly not put yourself in my shoes, and as such, wearing other peoples shoes is neither here nor there. Here is what I disagree with: Martyrdom. I do not agree that a sacrifice, whether it be used as a political tool, or any other reason is moral. I do not agree with martyrdom regardless of the religion that advocates it. I do not agree with sacrifice regardless of the religion that advocates it.

Sacrifice, in its simplest terms, is giving up something of a higher value for something of a lesser value. Martyrdom is the most atrocious sacrifice because it demands you give up your life, and too often demands this for dubious objectives. We all find ourselves in circumstances where we often are forced to make a choice, and that choice often means giving up something, or somethings in order to obtain our objective. However, if that objective has greater value than what we give up, then no sacrifice has been made.

Martyrdom does not have a history of success, and even Gandhi lamented the fact that arms were denied his people in the struggle for independence. The Palestinians are at war with Israel, and regardless of what I think of that war, the advocacy of martyrdom as an effective and legal tool to fight that war is atrocious. Further, any faction that advocates killing civilians in the name of war is atrocious, and finally war is atrocious, though tragically sometimes unavoidable. War is stupid, and while it may be an extension of politics, it is an extension of failed politics.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I will keep it to those statements I do not agree with, and before I do point out that you have most certainly not put yourself in my shoes, and as such, wearing other peoples shoes is neither here nor there. Here is what I disagree with: Martyrdom. I do not agree that a sacrifice, whether it be used as a political tool, or any other reason is moral. I do not agree with martyrdom regardless of the religion that advocates it. I do not agree with sacrifice regardless of the religion that advocates it.

Sacrifice, in its simplest terms, is giving up something of a higher value for something of a lesser value. Martyrdom is the most atrocious sacrifice because it demands you give up your life, and too often demands this for dubious objectives. We all find ourselves in circumstances where we often are forced to make a choice, and that choice often means giving up something, or somethings in order to obtain our objective. However, if that objective has greater value than what we give up, then no sacrifice has been made.

Martyrdom does not have a history of success, and even Gandhi lamented the fact that arms were denied his people in the struggle for independence. The Palestinians are at war with Israel, and regardless of what I think of that war, the advocacy of martyrdom as an effective and legal tool to fight that war is atrocious. Further, any faction that advocates killing civilians in the name of war is atrocious, and finally war is atrocious, though tragically sometimes unavoidable. War is stupid, and while it may be an extension of politics, it is an extension of failed politics.

Sorry if I interpreted your statements incorrectly.

I don't see martyrdom as something wrong or immoral, if it is used to rid oppression.

Think about WWII, many people were sacrificed and martyred for a greater cause, which was to rid oppression.

IF you are sacrificing your life to make someone's life better, is not good?

If you sacrifice your life and become a martyr to fight aggression, is not good?

A grand advocate of freedom, and spiritual light to an enslaved people passes on to a higher plane.

This is an unbiased opinion.

Oxymoron's aside - if you are not prepared to spew the propaganda required of you, even in your sleep - then your utility as a foot soldier of the evil empires disinformation division is infringed, you should either expect to be fired, or shot - perhaps both.

How dare she voice an original thought - shame on her, and may her head explode into a shower of brainy bits from the internal conflict landmine she so blithely stepped on.

The Palestinians fight for freedom, in my mind - all things are permissible for them in pursuit of human dignity and freedom.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Amagnon]

reply to post by LittleSecret


Do not confuse the many who died on the battlefields of Europe, or any other battlefield of history as martyrs,. or warriors who sacrificed their lives. Everybody dies, and when one dies in the battle of the fight for freedom, toe to toe with another warrior, this is not sacrifice, this is battle.

Slapping bombs on children's backs and sending them into a pool of civilians to wreak havoc is not at all battle and is cowardice. Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah did not martyr himself, but only called for the martyrdom of others. He died at the ripe old age of 75 of a liver disease. There is no honor in this, to call for the martyrdom of others while living as a worshiped icon himself.

I will not get in between this battle between Israel and Palestine, and I will not pass judgment on the struggle itself, and most certainly will not choose a side between the two, but I will condemn cowardice and the call for reckless disregard of innocents, on both sides, in the name of some cause that if it were so valuable to Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah he would have led by example, rather than hide behind the robes of a cleric.

Old men who dream up wars for young men to die in are scoundrels on any side, and are not worthy of the title that honor would bestow upon them. A man who dies in a hospital of liver failure at the age of 75 while commanding adherents to kill themselves as human bombs to kill civilians is not a hero, he is a monster.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


I disagree. I think there is such a thing. And I believe there's a legal challenge in this concept. The fact that we've rolled over and allowed corporations to invade our personal space, whether it's out there in public on some website or the equivalent or not, and allowed them to assume that something they "discover" there affects our job performance and responsibilities is what makes it so. You sound like you've given up on the inevitable.

That code of conduct probably doesn't even cover this kind of situation. Exactly how would that read anyway? But if it did say "you now give up your right to all free thought and opinion and personal time and someone signs it, they're a fool and they're both approving and enabling it. Codes of conduct are very detailed and specific and generally define activities performed on company time or related to company assets, intellectual and otherwise. I highly doubt it covers a comment made about a public figure.

Again, we don't get the exact situation here, from this report, but if it was an account related to work and paid for work where she said this, they might have a right to say something to her or fire her. If it was a personal account and her personal opinion done in a personal space on her own time, they don't. There is a privacy line even online, and this needs to be taken to court more often and challenged or they're going to keep abusing. Make the employer prove how it affects the job performance.

Yeah yeah, in the end they own the company and can do what they want and you'd probably lose your job anyway. I'm just saying that if we don't challenge this, if we accept it, the invasion into personal space and thought is only going to get worse.

Anyway, what you say is only true because you allow it to happen.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by ~Lucidity]

This is an interesting directly related story, eh? Particularly the parts about personal opinion and Israel.

UK envoy's praise for Lebanon cleric draws Israel anger

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Usually, I do not give credence where it is due.

Copied and will be distributed as a given life of it's own.

This CRAP has to stop. Period.

Choice.

Lets see, CNN, a zionist channel owned by rich khazars and an employee who has an anti-zionist opinion. Of course she's going to get fired with some bull excuse like: "We don't like her opinion".

What a farce. Boycott CNN. Boycott CNN!