The Media Against Us
I agree 100% with Richard Poe's blog on the new media war against us in the war on terror. America has suffered two major setbacks in its efforts to liberate Iraq. The first was Abu Ghraib, whose story has been blown out of all proportion by the American media in its campaign to hurt its own country. The second is the Koran imbroglio.
Neither of these stories should have been published in the first place. Abu Ghraib was already being dealt with when Sixty Minutes decided to place its volatile contents in the hands of our enemies. The Koran story is absurd on its face. Why are we even giving Korans to people who were captured on a field of battle using the Koran to justify the indiscriminate killing of infidels? Would we be concerned to give a Bible to a serial killer who used it in a similarly perverted fashion to justify his killings?
The only reason for publishing these stories is to put cannon fodder into the hands of anti-American radicals like Mark Danner who think they are at war with an Amerikkkan empire so they can light the fuse.
8 Comments:
The worst "crime" that any of the US personnel can be charged with is "destruction of private property".
What's the penalty for this? Restitution? Community service?
Had the thugs that were captured in Afghanistan been handled properly they would by now all all be serving sentences for murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy and torture.
Unfortunately, our government became obsessed with the intelligence that might be extracted from this gang of killers and pretended that they were POWs. Combine this with the ridiculous secrecy of Guantanamo and it was only a matter of time until some soldiers did what everyone in the US wanted to do - make these thugs uncomfortable.
And that is what the Koran business amounts to. Some thugs were made uncomfortable. Well boo-hoo.
If you want to win a propaganda war the first thing that you have to do is end the secrecy. It makes us look like guilty cowards. Bring these killers out into the open, name them in public, charge them in public, try them in public, sentence them in public and then, when appropriate, execute them.
Think about this: we conceal book desecration while they send video tapes of beheadings to Al-Jazzera and we are losing the propaganda war! Obviously, secrecy doesn't work!
Why is the left demanding that we respect the Muslim religion? The left demands that everyone else disrespect Christianity and Judaism.
Texas Violinist
You are more right then you know.
John Conyers is a typical leftist
who has been against Flag Burning
in Congress. Now he sponsors legislation to protect the Koran.
I would love if somebody took his quotes on flag burning and see if they match his new statements.
In the event the photos must be turned over to the aclu or others, I suggest the following:
1. Every Abu Ghraib photo shall be center of a page surrounded by 8 pictures of Terroriist treatment of prisoners and Saddam torture.
2. Every video shall be spliced in with videos of Saddam torture, terrorist beheadings and mass graves.
3. Stick in some pictures of children giving our troops flowers.
4. Release everything to the public at the same time.
You could call this "contextualizing."
Meyer indites,
"Unfortunately, our government became obsessed with the intelligence that might be extracted from this gang of killers and pretended that they were POWs."
Perhaps, one of the most ignorant statements yet!
Of course they are obsessed with intelligence, unfortunately you are not.
Are heroes are dealing with troglodytes, and troglodyte's networks and infrastructures. Knowledge is power, and the longer they sit in a cell, the softer they get, and the more you will get out of them through a variety of methods.
ONCE AGAIN MEYER, YOU NEED TO BRUSH UP ON THE FACTS! "W's" GOT THE JUICE. HE IS THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF, AND IS OWED DEFERENCE BY ALL OF THE JERK OFFS IN THE CONGRESS, AND THE SUPREMES!--He is the only elected official that faces the entire electorate, ergo, he deserves it!--ONCE AGAIN I EDUCATE YOU ON THE INTENTIONS OF THE FOUNDERS--I am going to have to start charging.
P.S. I hear tell, Saddam is cracking!
Bob, apparently you don't know much about how terror outfits operate. Do you think we'd be able to infiltrate them and get long-term contacts and folks into deep cover if everything was wholly transparent? I think not. Charging folks in public is the end of the line when they have no more information to give. I favor more openness myself, but to pretend that you can do everything in the open when you're talking about spy activities is just ludicrous.
Our "on the ground" intelligence is non-existent. If you think that such organizations can be infiltrated then you are a fool. Organizations ten times looser in their structure, like the Mafia, have been almost impenetrable.
One of the finest DEA undercover agents in history, Michael Levine, succeeded only in entrapping drug cartel members in sting operations, he never even attempted to infiltrate any of the organizations. This wasn't because of any lack of skill on Levine's part, he simply knew that the cartels could not be infiltrated. The cartels, by the nature of drug dealing, had to be much larger, looser organizations than Al Qaeda cells.
Al Qaeda reorganized along classic espionage cell lines shortly after 9-11. The terrorist cells consist of men who have known each other for years. They have little contact with other terrorist cells and no knowledge of the overall structure of the organzation.
Catching a cell by the use of a sting is possible, it has worked in the past. There is nothing inconsistent between stings and open trials. In fact, they work well together because as knowledge of the workings of the cells spreads among the populace, average people are more likely to become aware of suspicious individuals.
Secrecy usually accomplishes less than openness. Take a really simple case - the Unabomber Ted Kaczinsky. The FBI didn't even want his manuscript published yet it was that very manuscript that resulted in Kaczinsky's identification, not by the FBI, but by Kaczinsky's brother.
The worst part of secrecy is that if the knowledge gained is used to stop an attack, then your source is compromised and will probably die unless immediately removed. Because of this there is the tendency to let the attack happen to protect the agent in the hopes that he will be able to stop something even bigger in the future.
The FBI did this for years in organized crime investigations with the result that they went as far as to forge evidence against an innocent man in order to protect their snitch. Bear in mind also that this was not really an infiltrator but a turned member of the mob. You cannot turn fanatics, the experience with Communist agents in the 1950's established that pretty conclusively.
The only time that secrecy works is with technical intelligence like the Venona Papers. Here, secrecy is practical and necessary.
I say again Meyer, many of you libertarians, in your own right, are as dangerous as moonbat leftists, and the sons of mahound!
"When the issue is trying terrorists, there appear to be only four options: trial in a federal court; trial before an international tribunal; trial before a military tribunal; or setting the captives free. No body this side of a psychiatric ward will choose the last option. But the first and second don't win any prizes either."
I have to admit, you can put a few sentences together to make it seem like you know of what you speak, but to the knowledgeable and the well read, you are not even a light weight--YOU'RE A FLY WEIGHT!
P.S. YOU KNOW MEYER THERE ARE SOME EXTREMELY BRILLIANT, DEDICATED PEOPLE FIGHTING THIS WAR, AND THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND DO NOT SIMPLY HATE "W."
P.P.S. There are two reasons for the collapse of the mafia--RICCO STATUTES, AND THE THREAT OF LONG JAIL SENTENCES INVOLVED WITH DRUG TRAFFICKING CAUSING THIS "CANCER" TO RAT OUT OTHERS.
ALSO, DID YOU EVER HEAR OF DONNY BRASSO?
Post a Comment
<< Home