Al Jazeera buys Current tv

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2013 23:37:08 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 8, 2013 23:19:00 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"the implication i took is that all of these wars were morally equivalent..."

And there is where you made your mistake of assuming (with no reasonable basis) that I was invoking a moral equivalency.

I was focused purely upon the mechanics of Press Censorship as an aid to increasing Safety and maintaining Morale.

such an action will prolong a just war, but it will also prolong and unjust one. i was specifically talking about not doing the latter.

I have no idea why you would construe anything beyond what was written.

i am not sure i did. the lesson learned from VietNam is to control the media message. and we did that in succeeding wars, with increased success, right up to Iraq, which was SPECTACULARLY successful in this respect.

and what worries me about that is this: that so few people feel the impact of the war, and the real harm it does, when it is portrayed like a video game, where the bombs go off, and you never see the dead children. this is a recipe for endless war, which make no mistake about it, would make some people very rich and very happy.

[TonyTiger]

Jan 8, 2013 23:38:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"..."

Well, DJ, you're certainly passionate about your beliefs, but remind me to have you assigned to the rear echelon, next time we go to war... I don't think the fellas are gonna want you in the foxhole next to them... nuthin' personal...

[djAdvocate]

Jan 8, 2013 23:44:19 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 8, 2013 23:38:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"..."

Well, DJ, you're certainly passionate about your beliefs, but remind me to have you assigned to the rear echelon, next time we go to war... I don't think the fellas are gonna want you in the foxhole next to them... nuthin' personal...

i would fight to the death for a justifiable goal. but i would never take up arms against an "enemy" that did nothing to me or my fellow countrymen- EVER. so if that is the foxhole you find yourself in, you can count on me not being there. and you can also count on me passionately protesting such a war, in order to bring you out of harm's way in every sense of the term.

[djAdvocate]

let me ask you this, Tony. just a straight, quick one sentence answer, if you could.

if the American people knew that we killed more innocent women and kids in Iraq than Iraqi military, how do you think it would impact the sense of moral certainty they felt?

that fact was never reported, to the best of my knowledge. that was no accident, imo.

[TonyTiger]

Jan 8, 2013 23:48:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"...i would fight to the death for a justifiable goal..."

Would you? I repeat my earlier question: have you served in the US military in the past? I did, although I did not see combat. I ask because I wish to understand the depth of your personal understanding or appreciation regarding the balance that must be struck between freedom of the press and the demands of successful war-making.

[TonyTiger]

Jan 8, 2013 23:57:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let me ask you this, Tony. just a straight, quick one sentence answer, if you could.

if the American people knew that we killed more innocent women and kids in Iraq than Iraqi military, how do you think it would impact the sense of moral certainty they felt?

I think that the American people would be appalled and outraged and demand an end to the madness.

"...that fact was never reported, to the best of my knowledge. that was no accident, imo."

Did that happen? Did United States troops kill more Iraqi women and children than they killed Iraqi military?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2013 0:00:59 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 8, 2013 23:48:23 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"...i would fight to the death for a justifiable goal..."

Would you?

in a heartbeat

I repeat my earlier question: have you served in the US military in the past?

i am not sure you are going to ascertain that information by getting that answer. for example, Tim McVeigh was not only a soldier, but a decorated one.

I did, although I did not see combat. I ask because I wish to understand the depth of your personal understanding or appreciation regarding the balance that must be struck between freedom of the press and the demands of successful war-making.

i understand it very well. the press has an important role to play in just conflicts by maintaining morale. and i think they do a more than adequate job of that.

the press has NO such obligation, in a free society such as ours, to provide that same service for an unjust conflict, however. in fact, they are complicit in war crimes, in the extreme case.

and THIS is why i called your list of wars into question. in the first one, we had an enemy that was utterly depraved, and who declared war on us, and who attacked us. there is literally NO similarity between that war and succeeding conflicts. in my mind, the press has an obligation to point that out, for all of the reasons i pointed out earlier. wars are not to be treated casually, nor are they to be engaged in except when no alternatives exist. my biggest problem with Iraq is that the alternatives were abundant and not meaningfully explored, and the press just sat there and did nothing. rather than motivating public opinion against the war, they simply repeated the bad intelligence and the false assertions about it. and we both know why. the only difference between us is that you see it as a necessity, and i see it as a failure.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2013 0:04:01 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 8, 2013 23:57:53 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let me ask you this, Tony. just a straight, quick one sentence answer, if you could.

if the American people knew that we killed more innocent women and kids in Iraq than Iraqi military, how do you think it would impact the sense of moral certainty they felt?

I think that the American people would be appalled and outraged and demand an end to the madness.

"...that fact was never reported, to the best of my knowledge. that was no accident, imo."

Did that happen? Did United States troops kill more Iraqi women and children than they killed Iraqi military?

yes, they did. i pointed it out in a previous post. the Iraqi military reported 22k soldiers dead in the war. the US reported 25k Iraqi soldier casualties. there are FIVE agencies reporting the deaths of civilians in Iraq. NONE of them reported less than 110,000 dead. there was surprising agreement in the three lowest ones, so i will take that number as good, and around 120,000. of those that reported children killed in the war, the average was about 50,000. i didn't bother counting women, as it would obviously run the total higher.

[djAdvocate]

i think that the press should report only on atrocities. it is, after all, what they do best. if the majority fall on the side of the enemy, that would be very motivating. if not, it would be demoralizing. and in both cases, that would be completely justified.

[TonyTiger]

Jan 9, 2013 0:15:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"...I repeat my earlier question: have you served in the US military in the past?..."

"i am not sure you are going to ascertain that information by getting that answer..."

It has been my experience that very few men who have actually served will balk at confirming that fact in public.

While it is always possible that you are an exception to this stereotype, I will construe your hesitancy as a "No" until you tell us otherwise.

And if that is, indeed, the case, then that tells me something about the level of practical, real-world understanding or appreciation that you may have, for the aforementioned balance between freedom of the press and the necessities of war-making.

[TonyTiger]

Jan 9, 2013 0:18:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"...there are FIVE agencies reporting the deaths of civilians in Iraq. NONE of them reported less than 110,000 dead..."

Were these the result of munitions fired by United States or Coalition Troops?

[djAdvocate]

war has been sanitized for the American spectator for their excitement and enjoyment. those that serve know full well that war is not like that. the military is the most stressful job on the planet. and those that serve in the military do so because they believe in what they are doing. they are so committed to the principles of freedom and liberty that they are willing to die for them. but here is my problem.

when the press goes out of their way to make it SEEM like our liberty and freedom are under threat, when they are really not- they expose these brave and patriotic individuals to UNDUE HARM. if they do so knowingly, or unquestioningly, then they are complicit in that harm. it would be nice if they were held to account for it, but they won't be. as reporters are keen to point out, the risks associated with criticizing the war are far greater than the risks of being called out for being complicit in unjustified conflicts. in this sense, what the press does can be seen as risk management. and were it not for the inconvenient fact that their risk/reward is weighed against the blood of our best and brightest, i wouldn't really have much to say about it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2013 0:26:04 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 9, 2013 0:18:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"...there are FIVE agencies reporting the deaths of civilians in Iraq. NONE of them reported less than 110,000 dead..."

Were these the result of munitions fired by United States or Coalition Troops?

according to the agencies surveying the action, yes. does that surprise you?

[TonyTiger]

Jan 9, 2013 0:28:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 9, 2013 0:26:04 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Were these the result of munitions fired by United States or Coalition Troops?

according to the agencies surveying the action, yes. does that surprise you?

Yes, that does, indeed, surprise me, given that the highly questionable figures cited by those groups attributed many (most?) of the casualties to the resultant civil war and deprivation and sickness rather than to munitions fired by US or Coalition troops...

[TonyTiger]

And, in any event, I, for one, would prefer not to see al-Jazeera get any more of a foothold in the United States, for fear of creating a conduit for Arab-Muslim propaganda or slanted news, once their foot is in the door...

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2013 0:23:21 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 9, 2013 0:15:10 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"i am not sure you are going to ascertain that information by getting that answer..."

It has been my experience that very few men who have actually served will balk at confirming that fact in public.

i am not balking. i am questioning your reasoning.

While it is always possible that you are an exception to this stereotype, I will construe your hesitancy as a "No" until you tell us otherwise.

again, i am not hesitant. i am questioning your logic.

And if that is, indeed, the case, then that tells me something about the level of practical, real-world understanding or appreciation that you may have, for the aforementioned balance between freedom of the press and the necessities of war-making.

Tim McVeigh wore the uniform. how do you think he would have felt about the press and the necessities of war making?

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2013 0:31:08 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Jan 9, 2013 0:28:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

according to the agencies surveying the action, yes. does that surprise you?

Yes, that does, indeed, surprise me, given that the highly questionable figures cited by those groups attributed many (most?) of the casualties to the resultant civil war and deprivation and sickness rather than to munitions fired by US or Coalition troops...

oh no, Tony. you have me totally wrong. these were deaths as the result of fatal wounds. i ignored the studies to which you refer. those reported war deaths that were 4 to 10x higher. no, i think there is some justification for those statistics, but i don't bring them up when arguing with people such as yourself, because they are far too easy to dispute. no, the data on war dead i am using is much firmer than that.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 9, 2013 0:33:31 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

And, in any event, I, for one, would prefer not to see al-Jazeera get any more of a foothold in the United States, for fear of creating a conduit for Arab-Muslim propaganda or slanted news, once their foot is in the door...

i can appreciate that. however, your statement makes me wonder how much you know about AJ, which is primarily staffed by ex-BBC reporters. their reporting is actually not particularly pro-Arab, as much as it is anti-imperialist or anti-authoritarian- and that has made them really unpopular with governments throughout the region, for obvious reasons. i think the US could use a little more of that kind of reporting, myself. the MSM sucks up to authority far too much.

there is a really good documentary on AJ, but i can't remember the title right now. i remember being struck by an interview with one of the reporters who said that he would love to work for FOX News.

i just remembered it: The Control Room.
one final edit- here is the first segment:

[djAdvocate]

Tony: another poster asked that i find the paper on the 5:1 ratio that i suggested for civilian:military deaths since WW2. i didn't find that paper, but i did a very well documented defense of that number for Iraq. but in searching under "civilian deaths" tonight, i came across two claims that outdo mine. one comes from the ICRS, which is charged with accounting for civilians in war zones, the other from here:

ccw.modhist.ox.ac.uk/publications/Survival%20vol%2052%20no%203%20-%20Adam%20Roberts%20on%20lives%20%20statistics%20-%20non-printable.pdf

both of these sources claim 10:1 counts. i will stick with my own more conservative number for now, but i just thought you might be interested.

[djAdvocate]

Tony- i would appreciate it if you would comment on post 101. i don't really care if you don't comment on any of the others. they are mostly me blathering on.....

[TonyTiger]

Jan 9, 2013 0:39:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 9, 2013 0:31:08 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Yes, that does, indeed, surprise me, given that the highly questionable figures cited by those groups attributed many (most?) of the casualties to the resultant civil war and deprivation and sickness rather than to munitions fired by US or Coalition troops...

oh no, Tony. you have me totally wrong. these were deaths as the result of fatal wounds. i ignored the studies to which you refer. those reported war deaths that were 4 to 10x higher. no, i think there is some justification for those statistics, but i don't bring them up when arguing with people such as yourself, because they are far too easy to dispute. no, the data on war dead i am using is much firmer than that.

Refresh my memory, if you would... what 'firmer' numbers are those again?... Can you serve-up a pointer to a viable sources which breaks down Iraqi civilian deaths into those caused by US or Coalition munitions fire, versus other reasons? I think that we're gonna find that the former is a wee bit lower than you're giving credit for here...

[TonyTiger]

Jan 9, 2013 0:27:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"war has been sanitized for the American spectator for their excitement and enjoyment..."

I'm not sure that 'excitement and enjoyment' are the motivation for such sanitizing...

But I will happily concede that war is sanitized in its treatment by our media...

But this is also nothing new... we've been doing that for centuries... fighting wars and putting the best possible spin on them for the folks at home... everybody does it... us included.

We - America - began to get really serious about such things, once the impact of the published battlefield photography of Matthew Brady and his contemporaries in the American Civil War had been reflected upon and analyzed.

By the time of the Spanish-American War, and even more so in WWI, we were already heavily censoring our Press during wartime and we resurrected that censorship in an even more comprehensive and smothering and stringent form for the duration of WWII.

As I alluded-to earlier: one does not fight a war with one hand and then undermine the war-effort with visceral imagery on the other hand - not if you 've got an ounce of brains at the top, and not if you expect to continue to command the respect and loyalty of your troops.

In my personal opinion - and speaking only for myself - taken as a whole - speaking collectively - the media is a whore - it will sell its own mother-country for a byline and a photo - and is not to be trusted any more than the government that it purports to be watch-dogging.

The Fourth Estate is every bit as full of $hit as the other Three.

"...those that serve know full well that war is not like that. the military is the most stressful job on the planet. and those that serve in the military do so because they believe in what they are doing. they are so committed to the principles of freedom and liberty that they are willing to die for them..."

Yes. War is not like that. And our military-folk know this. As to their commitment: in my own time in the Army I met two types of soldiers: Patriots and Fuckups, and there were plenty of both to be found. The Patriots were committed. The Fuckups were just marking time on the calendar and doing the least amount possible until they could cash-in their chips for a government pension. I would imagine that both types still exist in large numbers. But they are all Our People - our kids - and there is a special social contract between them and us - and I, for one, will do nothing to break the faith by undermining them or giving aid and comfort (including usable propaganda) to their opponents.

"...but here is my problem. when the press goes out of their way to make it SEEM like our liberty and freedom are under threat, when they are really not- they expose these brave and patriotic individuals to UNDUE HARM..."

Once the shooting starts, Americans (taken as a whole) have a tendency to circle the wagons, set aside their differences, and set about fighting the enemy and winning the war. To a lesser extent, and with some notable exceptions, The Press is expected (by both government and The People) to fall into line and to either support the war-effort or to do the least amount of harm possible to the war-effort while remaining true to their principles.

War is a nasty, godawful business, and it needs a little sanitizing here and there, in order to bring it to a successful conclusion in the shortest amount of time possible, with the fewest casualties. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

"...if they do so knowingly, or unquestioningly, then they are complicit in that harm..."

Agreed.

But that doesn't mean that I have to remain silent over the possibility that by providing al-Jazeera with a conduit embedded in our mainstream media, we provide an outlet for pro-Muslim pro-Arab anti-US anti-Israel propaganda in future, at the drop of a hat. I'd rather that we not give them that foot in the door under any circumstances.

[deziloooooo]

I haven't jumped on this thread for a while..more interested in seeing the comments by our posters here ..but thought I would do a quick comment regarding al Jazeera..

As many of the regular posters here know, and who some have complained and ridiculed some of my threads for that reason, I use Al Jazeera , if not a lot, often.. on my posting of threads here..

I find their reporting over all very useful, thorough and honest in their reporting....in depth , very, very current..especially on the Middle East but recently also on world events and yes I understand they do have their own agenda..

While not anti Semitic in any way..

{they have a major presence in Israel itself and have access and is given many exclusive interviews it seems with Israeli politicians and spokespeople..a maturing then from their beginnings a new maturity in a way as they became a more respected news and media source..from the Israeli side too, more mature and less belligerent in their dealing with the organization it seems..understanding I believe on their importance in not only the Arab / Muslim world but the world in general..}

as far as their over all feelings of Israel in general , if the State disappeared as a "Jewish State " I doubt there would be any crying over that back in their newsrooms..

They have criticized the Muslim community of short sightedness..its dictatorial political slant by so many of the Muslim countries and their actions..and have reported on the happenings of the Arab Spring..the events in Libya when on the front page and now Syria and also Iran too as well as in Egypt and regarding their new leader , Morse, the brother hood and the problems facing that country..also Israel..it's PM and relations with others as well as the political happenings in our own country as well as Europe, UK , the world..for me over all..a good media source as long as one realizes they do lean at the times a certain way and some of their independent contributors..they do identify them so out siders can research where they are coming from, at times can be very slanted...{ I ignore them usually or just post and criticize..} As long as their agenda is considered and realized they definitly have one..{in a way who doesn't ..even Gandi and Mother Teresa had one I believe..} it should be a interesting media source to consider and watch at times..especially when the Arab, the Muslim world is seriously involved in doing in the world and o see how fair and open is the networks coverage of the events..

Over all, hopefully , if done well and honestly and let the chips fall where they may in its reporting AND very importantly in it's analyst..it may help in dampening some of the anti Muslim we have now in the States..just remember some of the rhetoric we get/got here on this tiny little forum of ours...

[TonyTiger]

Edit:

I choose not to trust the Propaganda Arm of the Government of Qatar - an autocratic slave state which continues to (literally) enslave many of the foreign workers that it lures to its shores, and which can turn flagrantly anti-US at the drop of a hat. The best way to avoid the establishment of a Fifth Column is not to give it a foot in the door before it manifests its ultimate intentions.

You can trust 'em all you like. I choose not to. The same seems to be true of the subscriber-base over at Time-Warner, by the looks of it...

[deziloooooo]

Jan 9, 2013 11:13:17 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

I choose not to trust the Propaganda Arm of the Government of Qatar - an autocratic slave which continues to (literally) enslave many of the foreign workers that it lures to its shores, and which can turn flagrantly anti-US at the drop of a hat. The best way to avoid the establishment of a Fifth Column is not to give it a foot in the door before it manifests its ultimate intentions.

You can trust 'em all you like. I choose not to. The same seems to be true of the subscriber-base over at Time-Warner, by the looks of it...

Gotcha Tony..however..I disagree with you here for reasons posted above...

[Virgil Showlion]

Over all, hopefully , if done well and honestly and let the chips fall where they may in its reporting AND very importantly in it's analyst..it may help in dampening some of the anti Muslim we have now in the States..just remember some of the rhetoric we get/got here on this tiny little forum of ours...

You said it, Dezi. Abortion, homosexuality, technological idolatry are all starkly condemned by Islam, but you've seen the blowback if anyone speaks out against the three on NMSNM. We've got a little anti-Islamic paradise going on here.

[TonyTiger]

Jan 9, 2013 11:23:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

"...We've got a little anti-Islamic paradise going on here."

Oh, I think it runs a little deeper than our hidey-hole here, Virgil...

[Spellbound454]

I recall American soldiers being shocked at the reaction they got in Iraq.
They thought they were going to be treated like liberating heroes..... and actually the locals didn't want them there...... and didn't treat them particularly well at all.
They had been fed a line and it turned out to be untrue..........Who did that?
Americans soldiers died in their hundreds.......Whoever has been telling lies has got blood on their hands.
....and Iraq is still a complete mess and further away from peace than ever....So what did all that suffering achieve?

If people had their noses to the ground, they would have been able to gauge the reaction before hand....but they were hidden from the truth by American spin.
Its dishonest..... and far from perpetuating peace has just exacerbated violence.

I choose not to trust the Propaganda Arm of the Government of Qatar

I have read it for years and have no indications that this is the case.
It may be a different perspective..... but surely it is wise to draw on many different sources when forming opinions.

I'm not sure we have to trust the media....but we have to look at the big picture to make informed choices.

[Virgil Showlion]

Oh, I think it runs a little deeper than our hidey-hole here, Virgil...

I know, Tony.

I'm just reflecting on the fact that the individuals who insist America is far too hostile to Islam are often the same people who despise Islamic ideals. :-\

[deziloooooo]

Jan 9, 2013 11:23:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Over all, hopefully , if done well and honestly and let the chips fall where they may in its reporting AND very importantly in it's analyst..it may help in dampening some of the anti Muslim we have now in the States..just remember some of the rhetoric we get/got here on this tiny little forum of ours...

You said it, Dezi. Abortion, homosexuality, technological idolatry are all starkly condemned by Islam, but you've seen the blow back if anyone speaks out against the three on NMSNM. We've got a little anti-Islamic paradise going on here.

I am sorry to say I have to agree with you there Virgil...For those who deserve it I have no problem with the dissing but to blanketing's condemn and diss a billion souls and fellow human beings because of their what, beliefs..? Nuts...

It's been said if only more main stream Muslim clerics and leaders would condemn the crazies who do the acts ..who purposely take the teachings of their Koran out of context for their so called Jihad activities , it would be the first step to ending some of the craziness that is perpetrated under the guise of the Muslim religion.

Murdering innocents for some crazy belief of heaven awaiting the murderer with 67 or what ever Virgins..

[always wondered what happens when the Virgins are not any longer , then what , and what the hell is so great about 67 or what ever Virgins when it comes to Sex...a lot of possible fumbling , awkwardness and embarrassment most likely..weird desire actually..]

It would be good to have finally a source, a Muslim known source, who would call out those folks and they have in the past and why not in the future...thus possible another good thing with this purchase..we'll have to see.

Regarding 9/11...granted horrific , act done by crazies ....but when you read what the religion says about such acts , and these people are very into their religion...following their tenants..much more then the average Jew or Christian I believe...

[just look at your self in how we follow our faith..I will guess for most of us, exception yes..but most of us we fall far short from the teaschings of our faith what ever it is }

prayer to their creator and prophets five times a day..granted while their holy book does give glory to females , it does not do so as we from the West see these as a honor or glory..two different cultures but our understanding of the rekligion itself for most of, I include myself..basically in the vernaculer..just plain "Sucks "..

That in their world there are many people and sorry to say so much ignorance and lack of education so their faith is gotten in to many cases by interpetation and direction of their religiouse leaders who them selves are not that educated and understanding and interpeting of their own faith thus we get crazies...

Here is a short better definition on one small part of it..Wouldn't hurt to read and be ab bit familier of it's, [religion] tenants if one wants to really dicuss it...

isgoc.com/aboutislam/war&fighting/index.htm