Say Anything Blog

It sometimes appears that the news media wants the Islamofacists to win.

I don’t think any reporters or media organizations consciously want the jihadists to win, but they’re certainly allowing themselves to be manipulated toward that end, subconciously though it may be.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s not so much that they want the jihadis to win, but that they want Bush to lose.

It’s difficult to continue to maintain the belief that the MSM doesn’t want the jihadists to win after 5 years of their relentless support of the jihad cause.

It isn’t news to anyone who has only paying half attention. Who doesn’t use the press and public relations as weapons to mobilise support and intimidate the enemy?

Sounds just like a fox news alert --- swooosh

Where’s the news here?  The real terrorists have been manipulating the news for some time...especially Fox News.

Agree 100% with just one minor change:

There is no better evidence for the truth in that statement than to observe just how efficiently YOU extremists have fashioned the media into a weapon of demoralization and intimidation against America

The terrorists can kill innocents and we kill terrorists.  The press sees a moral equivilence.

I say the press knows what it’s doing, they’ve chosen sides. 

The terrorists can kill innocents and we kill terrorists. 

Since when are babies, small children, women and old people we killed in Shock & Awe Night in Baghdad, White Phosphorus Campaign in Fellujah, etc., terrorists?

MikeA: I think you’re missing the point of this thread.  It is certainly to be expected that the jihadists would be using their own media to further their goals.  It is not OK for our own media to be aiding them in their efforts to destroy the US and our way of life. Not the right place for the old moral equivalency argument.  For that one, we would have to be using their media against them.

For that one, we would have to be using their media against them.

read much bobby?

In a briefing for the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia, the military acknowledged that news articles written by U.S. troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media, and not always properly identified.

MEDIA-IRAQ/US: The Bad News Is the Good News Is Fake

rbb: We do not control Al-Jazeera, to my knowledge, but the moral equivalency argument is still a load of cr*p.

the military acknowledged that news articles written by U.S. troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media, and not always properly identified.

Good thing the Iraqis are smart enough to have figured it out anyway.

Just like they’ve figured out the real reason they were ‘liberated’ awhile back as well.

It is not OK for our own media to be aiding them in their efforts to destroy the US and our way of life. Not the right place for the old moral equivalency argument.  For that one, we would have to be using their media against them.

Yes, I agree, it is quite a load.

Well, you can always bomb them into silence, I suppose:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567667355.html

US missile hits Al-Jazeera office

April 8 2003, 3:14 PM

Doha: A US missile hit the Baghdad offices of Al-Jazeera television early today, wounding a cameraman and leaving a correspondent missing, the Qatar-based Arabic news network said.

****

Are the Christian Scientists commies?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/dailyUpdate.html

The Times of London reports that the attorney general of Britain has warned British papers that they will be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if they publish details of a conversation between Tony Blair and George Bush in which Mr. Bush is alleged to have suggested bombing Al Jazeera, the Arab satellite TV channel based in Qatar.

Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, informed ... editors including that of The Times that “publication of a document that has been unlawfully disclosed by a Crown servant could be in breach of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act.”

Love that good ol’ ‘freedom of the press’, don’t ch’all?

Dhimi diane, do those 30 pieces of silver make you feel justified? At least you know what your price is, whore.

Dhimi diane, do those 30 pieces of silver make you feel justified? At least you know what your price is, whore.

And you do it for free.

P.S. There’s a call for you on Line 1, HotelBoy....Rush wants to know if you have an extra $30K you can spot him in trade for something that will make you fly.

r108 said

It is not OK for our own media to be aiding them in their efforts to destroy the US and our way of life.

Well that’s the rub then isn’t it because it’s only a relatively small fringe that believes that the Media acts as you claim. The public may not have a high opinion of the Media either but it’s not perceived bias that is its problem but basic competence.

If you’re saying that the  Media in a free society should play the role of mouthpiece for our political leaders then I say you’re wrong. If you don’t like the coverage you receive in the mainstream outlets then make your free choice and stick with Newsbusters.

Mike I think you make some good points but you have to realize that it takes time for the media to spend their capital.

Prior to Rush, we knew the media was biased but there just wasn’t anyplace to go.  Many of us listened to him, but frankly he was demonized by the left as soon as he came out.  Lots of people beleived it when the lefties said bad things about him.  So he was important but he could only take the news so far.

It’s been about six years since we got a decent Television news channel in FoxNews that would tell both sides.  Even though their ratings are kicking other cable players in the market only so many people watch cable news.

It’s really only been 2 or 3 years since the internet really became a player in the news game.  

Meanwhile the newspapers and TV network news shows are still doing their flaming liberal stuff.  The result of that is that less and less people are paying attention to them.  The bad things is that they started with a huge market share.  They haven’t lost all of their influence.

In fact it’s likely that the folks on Social Security are not going to change their viewership.  However I believe that in the group under 50 the old media is not going to be able to lie and get away with it.

So the trends are good.  We just have to wait as the old-media continues their self-destructive path.  They could save themselves today, but their arrogance won’t let them. 

MikeA:  You wrote:  "If you’re saying that the  Media in a free society should play the role of mouthpiece for our political leaders then I say you’re wrong."

I’m saying nothing of the kind.  I have said ad nauseum that the news media should tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  I think it is unethical for the news media to take any political position.  We should get all the news from Iraq, for instance, not just the stuff that supports a political agenda.  If you believe the MSM is doing that, I have a bridge to sell you.

The leftie spin on the news is that anything supporting the President is by definition partisan.  That is why they try to demonize Fox for occasionally doing a favorable story when the other 5 or 6 networks are relentlessly telling the leftie spin on everything.  There is no balance at all in the overall MSM;  it is heavily agendized to the left, and the lefties want to silence the small voice that might speak about a version of reality favorable to the President. 

docdave: Yep.  Do the math.

It just struck me that the reason some of us are accused of twisting threads or going off-topic is because only certain people can start threads, so we just have to plop things here and there where they best fit.   Like this:

Feds try to dismiss domestic spying suit
Internet privacy group alleges AT&T colluded with NSA on wiretapping

SAN FRANCISCO - The Justice Department said Friday it was moving to dismiss a federal lawsuit challenging the Bush administration’s secretive domestic wiretapping program.

The lawsuit, brought by the Internet privacy group, Electronic Frontier Foundation, does not include the government.

Instead, it names AT&T, which the San Francisco-based group accuses of colluding with the National Security Agency to make communications on AT&T networks available to the spy agency without warrants.

The government, in a filing here late Friday, said the lawsuit threatens to expose government and military secrets and therefore should be tossed. The administration added that its bid to intervene in the case should not be viewed as a concession that the allegations are true.  (LOLOLOLOL...of course, who would view it that way???)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12543642/

You make my point.  Now we have the MSM trying to impede the President from monitoring terrorists.  That is the whole point of this thread.  Thank you for supplying further evidence of exactly that.

r108 said
The leftie spin on the news is that anything supporting the President is by definition partisan.

The rightie spin on the news is that anything that doesn’t agree with the President’s view is by definition biased. I’m not sure where that leaves us...I guess we pick the news source that proves most accurate and pick the editorial source that squares closest with our understanding of the world. 

docdave says
By anybodies logic, anti-war = pro-terrorists and since it is the Bush govenment that is waging the war against the terroris, also anti-Bush = pro-terrorist for anything that will hinder the war against terrorists benefits the terrorists.

Interesting formulation. I don’t recall too much opposition to Bush’s war on terror when it was launched but I do recall opposition to the invasion of Iraq and the opposition has grown as time goes on. If you’re suggesting that Bush should be given carte blanche to take any action in the name of fighting terror then maybe r108 has a bridge to sell you too. The invasion of Afghanistan was a reasonable response but the invasion of Iraq was not and opponents of the Iraq adventure don’t merit your pro-terrorism label.

Now we have the MSM trying to impede the President from monitoring terrorists.

Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth?  Or do you only want that on stories that help him?

dd...and people like you appear fixated on "facts" which have little or no bearing on the GWOT. At least r108 has the decency to relate this invasion with the first Gulf War and the feeling in some circles that the job wasn’t finished then. Al Qaeda didn’t flee Afghanistan to Iraq did they? Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives to topple an admittably horrible regime but one with only fleeting and tactical relations with the jihadists?

It’s taking the eye off the target in my book and the world is less safe because of it. 

MikeA: A few facts:  Failure to get Saddam and to destroy his terrorist regime, plus the non-leadership of the Clinton Administration against terror in the nineties enabled the creation and strengthening of jihad in general and specifically Al Qaeda during that time.  GW has had to deal with the consequences of the non-action of both his father and of the Clinton regime.  By the time the problem got dumped in his lap, Al Qaeda and worldwide jihad had both become powerful enough to destabilize the entire Middle East, as well as enabling a guerilla attack on NYC.  The solution is not to simply concentrate on one organization, but to take down jihad in its many forms and in many countries.  This is now, due to the neglect in the past, spreading over many administrations(ignored since at least 1972) a generational fight, possibly more than one generation.  Stabilizing the Middle East is the first step, since that is the birthplace of jihad, but it has already spread to Europe and elsewhere.  At some point, a tipping point will be reached, but for now, Iraq is the first step, for obvious strategic and tactical reasons.  Afghanistan, IMO, was a distraction, done almost exclusively for political reasons, made somewhat necessary by the perfidy of France and Germany not standing firm against Saddam.  Had they done that, we might have been able to stabilize the Middle East economically, but they made it necessary for it to begin as a military operation.  Monitoring communications between Al Qaeda operatives is such a necessary condition of war that it boggles my mind that anyone would question it, but that is the treachery of the Dems and the MSM, who put their own power need above the good of the country.  That is the original theme of this thread, I believe.

Al Qaeda was already worldwide, so they didn’t have to "flee" anywhere.  The "target" in my book is worldwide terror and the threat of imposition of sharia law through violence, both military and violent public demonstration, and by political takeover through mass immigration. 

 r108 opines

Afghanistan, IMO, was a distraction, done almost exclusively for political reasons, made somewhat necessary by the perfidy of France and Germany not standing firm against Saddam.

This sentence demonstrates why today’s American conservatives can not be taken seriously when it comes to international politics and I may as well extend that to include allegations of media bias. I admit it’s a single sentence in an extended comment but good grief.

MikeA: You are certainly entitled to your opinion.  You offer no support for it, though, I notice.  Cherry-picking that one statement out of context is also quite misleading.  I expected better of you.

"...today’s American conservatives can not be taken seriously when it comes to international politics and I may as well extend that to include allegations of media bias."

MikeA,

Care to expand on this thought more thoroughly?  I can’t wait to hear this explanation.

Perhaps you’d start with a more expanvie definition of "international politics" and then cover how it is that conservative action is sooemhow less preferrable than liberal inaction.  Come to think of it, a side discussion on the anti-Islamist actions actually taken by those on the left, whether in the US or Europe, if you prefer, might also be educational.

It is all well and good to critique in detail the actions taken by the US under Bush’s leadership, but if you expect to have that criticism taken seriously you ought to be prepared to offer equally detailed alternatives or at a minimum reasons why the objectives served by those actions are not worth pursuing.

r108...the sentence I quoted is my support although I’d enjoy hearing you explain how I’ve taken it out of context.

Bat One...probably too sweeping a generalisation on my part but too many conservatives refuse to accept facts as facts, refuse to accept negative developments as significant, refuse or are unable to identify who the enemy is, refuse to recognise how much political standing America has lost in the last 5 years, refuse to recognise how much political capital the Administration has lost in the past 18 months, insist on blaming the media, the liberals, the French, the UN, etc for the inability to gain traction in the war on terror, happily expand the de facto powers of the American executive branch beyond anything supported in your Constitution. I’m sure that you disagree with most of these points but this is how I see it.

I say today’s conservatives for a reason...these are not the traditional conservatives I speak of but rather the ever loosening coalition of the Religious Right and certain circles in the Administration and supporting think tanks. Fiscal conservatives have not enjoyed influence in Washington since I don’t know when and present policy demonstrates that they do not constitute a significant faction in the conservative movement today. Today’s conservatives are not driven by pragmatism and an appreciation for tradition but by an evangelical radicalism that appears to lead nowhere.

I don’t expect to have my criticism taken seriously because we’re not talking about differences surrounding options and probabilities but around reality itself...the criticism of the MSM is a good example. Have to dash but I’ll try to pop in later tonite. Real Life is constantly interfering  with my spare time!

Bat One...probably too sweeping a generalisation on my part but too many conservatives refuse to accept facts as facts, refuse to accept negative developments as significant, refuse or are unable to identify who the enemy is, refuse to recognise how much political standing America has lost in the last 5 years, refuse to recognise how much political capital the Administration has lost in the past 18 months, insist on blaming the media, the liberals, the French, the UN, etc for the inability to gain traction in the war on terror, happily expand the de facto powers of the American executive branch beyond anything supported in your Constitution. I’m sure that you disagree with most of these points but this is how I see it.

In short, conservatives refuse to see the world as liberals see it.

Big shocker, that one. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

MikeA: Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.  You obviously disagree with the statement you cherry-picked from my rather lengthy exposition on the subject.  You didn’t state what it was you disgreed with on a factual level;  you simply implied that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  Why do you think Afghanistan was so important that we should have spent a year there?  I never said it was unimportant, simply that Iraq and stabilizing the Middle East is far more important to the goal of defeating worldwide terrorism.  Afghanistan is a backwater, really.  We could have gone there any time.  You obviously disagree with that opinion, but never state any reasons why.  I know you can do better than simply attack.

BTW, I have nothing to do with the "Religious Right".  Sorry to destroy that stereotype for you. 

Rob...I have to admit that thought crossed my mind as well. I suppose if I knew everything I’d be rich but that’s the way i see it.

r108...I don’t think you do know what you’re talking about when it comes to the war on terror stuff. Congress authorised the President to use force against those responsible for the terrorist attack on 911. The Afghani government refused to turn over the Al Qaeda leadership entrenched there. The US, with the support of many allied nations, launched an attack on Afghanistan to turf the Taliban and neutralise the Al Qaeda leadership. This operation was not a distraction but a reasonable response to an attack on your country. As it turns out, the key Al Qaeda leaders escaped capture and/or death by fleeing to Pakistan where the rest of the Al Qaeda power base resided. The American government sought Pakistani assistance is rooting out the jihadists and they continue to do so with generally unsatisfactory results. The unwillingness of Saddam to allow full and complete weapons verification afforded the current Administration to take the fight to Iraq.

Is there evidence that Iraq had contact and even tactical relations with Al Qaeda? Yes. Is there evidence that Iraq was Al Qaeda’s major sponsor? No. Is there evidence that Iraq served as  a significant home for Al Qaeda? No. Did Al Qaeda have more significant sponsors than Iraq? Yes. Was Al Qaeda more active in any countries other than Iraq? Yes. The Administration has offered up a list of reasons to justify the invasion.  These reasons fall into two general categories...the depravity of the Saddam regime and the threat that Iraq posed to the world and America in particular. The latter appears to have been unfounded at worst and unsupported by available evidence at best. The depravity of Saddam’s regime was well known, even in 1994 when Rumsfeld infamously shook Saddam’s hand. My cynical observation is that the suffering of the Iraqi people could have been relieved at any point after Gulf War I and that the resources would have been more effectively spent chasing down the Al Qaeda leadership after they split from Afghanistan.

MikeA: Thanks for a more thoughtful and complete reply.  One of the differences between us here is your focus on OBL as the primary target in the GWOT.  I just don’t agree with that stance.  Why I called it a "distraction" is that the real enemy is the consciousness of radical Islam, not one guy, no matter how nefarious he may be.  IMO, we have marginalized OBL already.  Even if we captured him, put him on trial and executed him, it would have little efffect on worldwide terrorism.  He is a figurehead only.  I am not motivated by revenge, and I think that is a weakness in thinking.  The overall fight here is against a worldview.  The entire worldview of the Middle East(and their sympathizers in Europe and the US) is against us.  Establishing a modern govt in Iraq, especially one that is Islamic, is a tremendous step against medieval Islam, much more important than expending our resources to capture one man.  GWOT is essentially ideological, and demonstrating our ideology in the Middle East is  the way to victory, IMO.

Why I called it a "distraction" is that the real enemy is the consciousness of radical Islam, not one guy, no matter how nefarious he may be.

Except that one guy and his followers are responsible for the exponential increase in the number of active terrorists. You’re right when you say terrorism is more than OBL but his reputation in the Middle East and the fact that he was behind the 911 attack which showed Moslems that America is indeed vulnerable clearly indicate that he should have been taken more seriously after the attack. The general lack of interest on your part in his status is probably related to the fact that he has not been caught.

I also wonder why you single out what was perhaps the least Islamic state in the region if in fact it is the Islamic ideology that is the problem. You refer to Iraq as the centre of Islamic terrorism but the facts just don’t bear that out. Why not Palestine or Jordan or Egypt or Syria or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Yemen...all countries where jihadism was clearly more popular and more prevalent. 

MikeA:  Iraq was the logical starting point precisely for the reasons you name.  Think about it.  Think about it:  murderous dictator known to be funding worldwide terrorism, admirer of Hitler, threatening Saudi Arabia, invaded Kuwait, pretensions of ruling the entire Middle East.  If I assigned responsibility for "the exponential increase in the number of active terrorists" and what showed the Islamists that America is indeed vulnerable, I would have to say Bill Clinton.  You could say that he encouraged OBL with his eight years of flaccid response to terrorism, not to mention cutting and running in Somalia from a two-bit warlord, but that is another discussion.