File under "Awful MSM"

(Yawn)

File under "Awful MSM"
(Yawn)--Benjamin

Golly.Benjamin is easily bored,is he not?Must be the results of being a thoroughly 'post-modern'man about town.
A story that not only implies but states directly that our revolting perfidious media is allied with,supportive of,and embedded with fascist terrorists,and all he can do is yawn .Wonderful.
Well looking on the bright side,at least this comment is easier to digest than most of his amoral snideness.And it's not as if it is in any way surprising.

Dougf

Oh, I go by English law: stuff like innocent until proven guilty.

Also the common sense notion that Mary could not possibly know what she is talking about on this particular subject sitting on her perch thousands of miles away.

We shall see.

"Mary could not possibly know what she is talking about on this particular subject sitting on her perch thousands of miles away."

Which is why, like a good blogger, she links to original sources, and connects the dots.

"Innocent until proven guilty."--Benjamin

Whatever would it take to convince you that the glorious media is,in fact, guilty as sin .If you can't see them for what they are by this point,I don't see "proven guilty" as much of an option.Compared to me,Mary is the soul of reason vis-a-vis the MSM.
She merely wants to expose them;I want them discredited and destroyed,if possible.
Perfidious,amoral,tendentious,biased,dishonest,insular,inbred,defeatist,fair.
Which of these things is not like the other? And which of these things is the MSM not ?
This is not a lynch mob;this is merely justifiable outrage over an institution run amok.
MSM DELENDA EST

Imagine Benjamin's outrage if a partisan conservative hack got White House press creditials.

One must keep one's priorities straight.

Whatever would it take to convince you that the glorious media is,in fact, guilty as sin

...

MSM DELENDA EST

Someone who isn't a hysterical crank, maybe?

Someone who isn't a hysterical crank, maybe?--Kimmett

Oh!! Now you've gone and hurt my feeling. I hope you're happy. :-)

Someone who isn't a hysterical crank, maybe?--Kimmett

Okay, that provides about 2000% of the FDA's recommended daily dose of irony.

And now, for a commercial break....

"Nanananana. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!

Wham!

MOOOOOOOOM!!!! He hit me!

Now Dear - what did you do to cause that?

Nothing MOM! He hit me! I swear it!

I did not! She started it!

OK - Both of you - Go to your rooms right now!

But Mom! I didn't DO anything!

Both of you! Go. To. Your Rooms. RIGHT NOW!

See what you did? It's all your fault!

No it's not. You started it! I swear. I'm gonna get you tomorrow! I will!"

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.....

So the media shouldn't document insurgent's atrocities, huh? I take it, Mary wants them to only document American troops killing Iraqis, maybe not? Maybe she wants the media to keep bad news about the bloodshed in Iraq under wraps altogether so as not to endanger the war effort?

Please, Mary, tell us what the media should report - oh, I know, "the good news", but isn't some lawyer from Australia already covering that?

CBS seems terrified by this most recent development. They have been virtually silent concerning the detention of this cameraman. We can take it for granted that CBS would be charging the Bush administration with abusing the First Amendment if they didn’t think their guy is guilty as sin. No, their silence speaks volumes. The other MSM outlets are also barely mentioning the story. This almost certainly means that the proverbial crap is about to hit the fan.

Mary wants them to only document American troops killing Iraqis, maybe not? Maybe she wants the media to keep bad news about the bloodshed in Iraq under wraps altogether so as not to endanger the war effort?

Oh, brother. The point of this post was Mudville’s well documented comparison of the media’s obvious crimes of omission. They deliberately deleted news that made them look bad to cover their butts, proving that their claim of value-neutral reporting is complete bull. When it comes to CYA, they are not values-neutral.

Do you want a media that deliberately omits half the news? Would you like to have a doctor who omits half of the information you need to know – maybe one that tells you about your toe fungus but neglects to mention a growing melanoma? Do you want a media that will always make deals with terrorists and dictators, that will hide the truth about mass murder while working as unpaid PR hacks for terrorists because they want to be filmed ‘on location’?

Our media has been marketing terrorism for decades. They sell us insurgents the way they sell us soap. We’ve gotten so used to this fact, no one is surprised that CBS may be employing insurgents.

Very few people trust the press now, and fewer will trust them when this story breaks. More people will know that they’re liars.

That’s all I want.

Years ago when I still watched CNN they did a regular show where they presented reports produced by news services from around the world. One night they showed a report from North Korea, and I was laughing for hours afterward. The thing is, that was such obvious BS you could dismiss it out of hand.

The problem is, as Mary points out, the subtle BS.

So CBS shows propoganda from the Other Side. I have no problem with that, as long as the provenance is fully disclosed. Embedded journos? Great. Just let me know which side they're bunking with.

Got a problem with that, novakent?

A CBS stringer has been arrested as a suspected insurgent, U.S. military officials said Friday.

Why didn't they just shoot him dead, on the spot, like they should shoot most of those MSM scumbags.

Novakant, Kimmitt, Benjamin - if CBS hired a cameraman to document terrorists cutting off your family members' heads, would you still be as bored, supportive, and apologetic? Wouldn't you rather have CBS and the cameraman fighting against the terrorists instead of merely documenting atrocities? Strange values you all have.

our revolting perfidious media is allied with,supportive of,and embedded with fascist terrorists

MSM DELENDA EST

Our media has been marketing terrorism for decades. They sell us insurgents the way they sell us soap.

Why didn't they just shoot him dead, on the spot, like they should shoot most of those MSM scumbags.

Really guys and girls, come on, turn around and listen to yourselves - this is freeperspeak.

Whatever the final verdict in this particular case (currently it rests on the somewhat vague allegation of "standing next to" and "being involved with" insurgents, after the military shot him "mistaking" his camera for a weapon), the reflexive wholesale damnation of the so-called "MSM" is bordering on obsessive-compulsive behaviour. This appears even more ridiculous, considering the fact that 95% of everything written in the blogosphere (including the post in question) feeds on and links to reports from the dreaded mainstream media, as the vast majority of bloggers are incapable of carrying out any original reporting.

italics should extend until "scumbags", sorry

Why didn't they just shoot him dead, on the spot, like they should shoot most of those MSM scumbags

..umm..no, we shouldn't. The French army tried to use terrorist tactics against terrorists in Algeria, and it didn't work. You can't fight terrorism with terrorism. Deliberately targeting non-combatats is a bad tactic and it's just wrong.

The American army broke the rules when it dropped the atomic bomb on a mostly civilian population in Hiroshima. It was an entirely necessary thing to do at the time, but the blowback has been the creation of the self-destructive and America hating "anti-war" movement (represented here by novakant) which fears that any America-related war will escalate into something nuclear. They prefer to let genocide and oppression thrive because they're terrified by any US/Western military action.

According to basic rules of war, terrorists are the enemy combatants. The press are non-combatants. Our military should (and does) save their bullets for the people with guns.

novakant - italics should extend until "scumbags", sorry

you have to put an italics tag around each relevant paragraph - and preview helps too.

As I said, exposing the lies and corrupt marketing values of the press is the only point I'm trying to make. And yes, they do sell terrorists like they sell soap, and movies, and political candidates. Terrorism sells things, they profit, and they get to eat at their favorite restaurant. For them, selling terror is a win-win situation.

Really guys and girls, come on, turn around and listen to yourselves - this is freeperspeak--Novakant

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue--BG

There should be an INVESTIGATION - into declining marksmanship in the US military.

What are the odds, that a single reporter, working in a city of 2 million, would have footage of 4 seperate IED attacks against US Soldiers in his camera??

At the very best, an employee of CBS News, had knowledge as to the location, method and time of an attack on US Forces and failed to report it.

At the worst, CBS News paid an insurgent to stage the killing of American Soldiers.

Journalistic Integrity gone too far, or Reality TV edging over into snuff films.

If you're a soldier on the ground in Iraq, or a family member of a soldier on the ground...the answer really doesn't matter. An employee of CBS News had information that could save American lives, and chose to get "Film at 11".

It won't be long before we have news crews embedded with murderers and rapists.

It's been a scandal since Bush began Operation Iraqi Freedom, how the press has been supporting the terrorists.

In fact, the MSM is on the terrorists side. And are partly responsible for the terrorist actions. And the terrorists murder innocents.

It's clear to me that Iraqi survivors of terrorist attacks, or relatives of victims, should be suing the MSM for conspiracy/ paying the terrorists. The MSM is responsible for some, if not most, of the murders by the terrorists. Being held accountable means being made to pay.

Each innocent Iraqi should be valued at some $1000 000, and a class action suit should be brought against CBS, Reuters, etc. And the judges should be Iraqis; the trial should be in Iraq. All employees of CBS should be rounded up and brought to the trial.

The same logic should go against those who loaned money to Saddam, who killed so many, too. Such a suit could eliminate the need for loan debt forgiveness.

I want the news reported that is truthful AND minimizes the number of innocents killed.

The real issue is this: what if honest, truthful reporting by MSM results in MORE innocent people being killed? This seems to be a Moral Hazard issue of Free Press. It has not been fully discussed, nor resolved.

I suspect the courts will become involved befor any other "lawmakers."

This CBS cameraman story is getting very interesting. There is a virtual news blackout going on. Google does not a list a news report on this matter since yesterday:

News results for cbs cameraman - View today's top stories
CBS Cameraman Hurt, Then Detained by US - Los Angeles Times (subscription) - Apr 9, 2005CBS cameraman shot by US troops - Guardian - Apr 8, 2005

Yup, the crap is probably hitting the fan. The MSM are worried sick.

So the MSM is on the terrorist’s side. Nothing new here. Except this time there’s some pretty damning evidence against them, enough so to make it 100% unquestionable which side of the fence these people really sit on. If you’re still defending the MSM in this case, there’s no doubt in my mind that you’re also one of the enemy.

The only rational solution is to turn our guns against these snakes, like someone else suggested, but I can already see the backlash here at home from crazies on the left. Therefore I only see two probable solutions to the problem:

1) Keep blogging. The more we blog the more the MSM crumbles. Every day more and more people are waking up to the truth, thanks to the blogging community.

2) The Bush administration MUST take swift and serious action against these people. We need their help in spreading the information that gets left out. They should start broadcasting the truth, for a change. The federal government still technically controls the airwaves, after all. They should be used to serve the public interest and sink these cronies.

The FCC should also start fining broadcasters that lie on the air, the same way they fine for obscenities. It wouldn’t stop the print wing of the MSM, but it would definitely hamper the efforts of these rats.

Wouldn't you rather have CBS and the cameraman fighting against the terrorists instead of merely documenting atrocities?

Actually, I'd rather have you fighting against the terrorists, if this is the metric you use. The Army's having trouble meeting its
recruitment goals. Suit up.

The only rational solution is to turn our guns against these snakes, like someone else suggested,

The nice thing about brown shirts is that bloodstains are less obvious.

Someone's been called a Nazi! Everyone do a shot!

It enrages me that some MSMers and Liberals are accusing our military of targeting journalists, even while those very same journalists place themselves in the combat zone, and get tips from our enemies on where and when to show up. And not only do those journalists NOT warn our military about it, THEY ALSO BLAME OUR GIs IF THE JOURNALIST GETS HURT, AND ALSO ACCUSE THEM OF MURDER. Fuck you to hell you assholes. I hope you DO get shot. Good riddance.

Mary -

"The American army broke the rules when it dropped the atomic bomb on a mostly civilian population in Hiroshima."

Wrong.

The elected leader of the country decided to use that weapon. Truman wasn't even aware of its existence until after FDR's death. The Army (Department of War) didn't decide squat on whether or not to use the bomb.

There was nothing remarkable about the immolation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki EXCEPT that it took one aircraft, one bomb, for each. More civilians were killed in any of a score of other cities in Japan or Europe by U.S. airpower during the course of the war. It just took longer to rack up the numbers in those places - with the exceptions of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo, which were subject to firestorms after incindiary attacks.

The only seperation between a rock a rifle a nuke is efficiency. They all kill. Truman made the call because Japan refused, in a staggering prelude to national suicide, to surrender, and the bomb gave him the option of saving hundreds of thousands of Allied (mostly American) lives in the process.

Was there a palace coup in motion to usurp the militarists in Tokyo? One that had a ghost of a chance? Should we have softened the Allied demand for an unconditional surrender? We were still burying thousands of dead soldiers, sailors, and Marines on Okinawa while the Navy hunted the last ships of the Imperial Fleet and Curtis LeMay systematically destroyed any structure in Japan capable of housing a bicycle factory and THEY STILL WOULDN'T LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS.

That Japanese culture survived the war at all is a direct result of the employment of nuclear weapons. If rules were being broken, they were broken the first time a Zeppelin dropped a bomb through the fog over London in the first World War.

You learn a lot in a life or death fist fight. When you can't get that next breath, when the blood in your mouth makes you ill and your eyes are almost swollen shut... when you know that losing means the end of everything you ever were or wanted to be - then you can judge what "rules" apply when the stakes are all. This is true of people, and of nations.

Disconnected intellectual debate and retrospection are valuable tools. Just don't misapply them for all situations.

Good riddance --Spaniard

Ouch !!

The MSM is entirely responsible for ALL the hostility they are engendering.
Entirely
Things simply have to change.

tmjUtah - you might be interested in this link here - it is the 1946 UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY, SUMMARY REPORT, (Pacific War), which has a lot of detailed information that I had not read before - and the conclusions at the end have a lot of relevance for today. Interesting reading.

There are some reports that say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targets chosen because they were lightly bombed and the military wanted to measure the affects of the atom bomb. However, as tmjUtah says, Lamay was going to "dehouse the workers" and was bombing anything and everything, especially since Japan had no air defenses at the end of the war. Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained war industry factories (although the Hiroshima bomb left the factories there undamaged since they were on the periphery of the city).

Millions upon millions of civilians died in WWII - casualties inflicted by all fighting countries. To single out the atomic bombs as "breaking the rules" doesn't make any sense when you look at the technology, tactics, and strategies used during the entire war.

From the History channel: Tokyo - not Hiroshima or Nagasaki - was the target of the deadliest air raid of the Pacific war. Incindeiary bombs were the strike weapons.

On the night of March 9-10, 1945, waves of American B-29s (A total of 279) delivered unequaled destruction of a population center - Tokyo. The Superforts dropped 1,665 tons of delay-fuzed napalm filled bombs which on impact spewed adhering fire as far as a hundred feet.

In only 30 minutes the incendiaries created an inferno which killed 83,793 Japanese. The actual causes of death were direct incineration, suffocation, or scalding, primarily of those forced into boiling canals and rivers. Another 41,000 victims were injured. More than a million people lost their lives in the 1944-1945 air attacks as 15.8 square miles of central Tokyo were completely destroyed.

Mary, thanks for following this. This will prove to be another, very BIG, nail in the MSM's coffin.

what the hell do you people want?

Where do you want ordinary Americans to get their news from? Fox News? It seems like you prefer propaganda to objective journalism.

I go to the left wing blogs and magazines to get pissed off about strident, mindless anti-Americanism. I come here, and after reading I say to myself, please, what do i need to do to join the fifth column?

Benjamin:
(Yawn)
...
Oh, I go by English law: stuff like innocent until proven guilty.

The poetry of trolls. He posts "Yawn" knowing that we would read it as his lack of concern for Americans being killed, making it clear he's not on OUR side...

Then he posts some snide bullshit so that he can't be held to what he really meant.

Mission accomplished. Another satisfying day of sneering, right Ben?

Markus: "what do you people want?"
What do YOU want Markus? Go to Dith Pran Holocaust Awareness to see how mostly unarmed Cambodians were murdered by the hundreds of thousands.
Because the MSM was successful in stopping the US Army from committing acts of "indefensible foulness". In Vietnam after 1971.

You and Kimmitt refuse to accept America's two main strategic decisions: war or no-war. If war, innocent people are going to be killed, by Americans, for American self-interest, for American ideas of imperfect human rights.
If no-war, MORE innocent people are going to be killed, murdered, by the anti-Americans.

I was born in 1956, the year the USA should prolly have let the nationalist commie Ho win the Vietnam election. The worst thing in my life has been the US leaving Vietnam, because of the MSM and anti-war (pro-commie) protesters ... and the results of that policy.

The genocide because of the MSM-fed anti-war feeling -- enraging me because of the total lack of responsibility taken by the Kerry-like simpletons.

You tell me, Markus, where is the "objective journalism" about what the results were when the hippy anti-war protests succeeded? [not seen in MSM]

There are certainly Iraqis being murdered BECAUSE the cameras and news is there, murders that would not occur w/o news. Welcome to relativity -- can NOT observe without changing the behavior of what's under observation.

Like most lazy Leftists, you ask questions w/o offering your own answer. How many irreplacable Iraqi lives have to be sacrificed for your infotainment (never merely objective) "news"?

I say a bad-news blackout until AFTER the terrorists surrender and then report on what happened is better than losing a single innocent life to publicity suiciders. (I know this is anti-free press, unrealistic.) But if I were a mother of one killed because of pro-terrorist publicity, I'd be further enraged.

The MSM behavior and use of the Free Press means more lives are lost. This is a real tradeoff. How many is too many?

(Mary, problem with review is that you need a 6 digit anti-spam code each time.

A-bombs couldn't have been against the "rules" because they hadn't been known -- just like mustard gas wasn't until after it was used and the rules were written to forbid it.)

Can't wait 'till our beloved bloghost gets a nice gig in the dreaded "MSM" - will his comment section demand his head on a stake? will they accuse him of treason and desert him unanimously? will they expect him to turn around the fourth estate single-handedly? Stay tuned...

"You tell me, Markus, where is the "objective journalism" about what the results were when the hippy anti-war protests succeeded? [not seen in MSM]"

Uh, I remember learning a lot about the Killing Fields and the Boat People from the "MSM." I always blamed Nixon, rather than the hippies. (Remember how he won in '68: he had a 'secret plan' to end the war.)

"Like most lazy Leftists, you ask questions w/o offering your own answer."

Actually, Tom, I think it was you who refused to answer the question I posed to you a couple of weeks ago about how many more American and Asian lives it would have been worth sacrificing to prevent the communists from taking over South Vietnam and Cambodia.

I just wish I understand what you meant when it is said that the MainStream Media is pro-terrorist, or that there should be a "no bad news" policy. The lead article in the front page Washington POst today, talks about how the new Iraqi President is calling for a very inclusive amnesty for terrorists, even those that killed Americans. Is this an example of the sort of news that more patriotic news outlets should simply refuse to cover?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42580-2005Apr10.html

will they expect him to turn around the fourth estate single-handedly?

Seems to me it's the blogosphere, with a strange kind of collective intelligence, is starting to turn the fourth estate around. The blogosphere is finding ways to parse out the facts and expose the other crap from the MSM. And there are already lots of crossovers going on. For example, here is an interesting column from Marc Cooper (blog www.marccooper.com) in LA Weekly describing the Minuteman Project nuttiness here. The MSM is being changed - and for the first time ever the MSM is being forced into accountability, in real-time. The MSM as a whole is being exposed for what it really is. We have had the myth of "objective journalism" pushed at us for a decades and it is nonsense. Getting ratings, pushing agendas (left, right, special interest), mixing opinion with facts, collusion to try to prevent alternative information outlets, making profits (sometimes at the expense of ethics), following each others' stories like sheep, skipping fact checks to get the stories out first, focusing only on one "big story" for a short while and then jumping to the next "big story," and slanting, ommiting, manipulating facts to make stories more provocative is what the MSM in general has become. The relatively few elites that are trying to control information are failing. What is the MSM/blogosphere going to evolve into? Who knows? It's unpredictable. Though I believe it could only improve from where it was a few years ago. I find it exciting that the world of media/information is going through a revolution. And Totten is helping with his great posts from Lebanon.

So let me get this straight: this reporter, a stringer (not employee) of CBS News, was anding next to the insurgents, and got shot.

It's possible that he was helping the insurgents, but there's certainly no definitive proof of that. Numerous other "MSM" outlets- including ABC, CNN and the AP- are on this story, but of course you folks would rather pretend that the entire "MSM," which is of course completely monolithic, is on the side of the terrorists, and that America's policy should be to kill American journalists.

And I thought this was a "centrist" blog.

Steve - Let me get this straight. I post clips, with links, proving beyond a doubt that CBS is deliberately deleting information that will make them look bad.

I also point out the likelihood this Iraqi photographer was accused by Iraqi civilians of being an insurgent. At no point do I say that he’s guilty, because that hasn’t been proven.

On the other hand, the fact that the media in general is willing to downplay, ignore and delete news that we need to know has already been proven by authorities in the media like Eason Jordan and the New York Times. If you have an issue with that, take it up with them.

So which “you folks” are you referring to? Since when is criticism of the media in general not a centrist issue?

Mary-

First of all, my ire was directed at some of the commenters (specifically the guy who said "[American soldiers] should shoot most of those MSM scumbags"), and not at you personally. Apologies for not making that clear.

CBS did not go out of their way to report that a stringer of theirs was detained- but they didn't ignore the story either, and as I said, other news organizations that are very much part of the "MSM" are all over this.

And besides- the CBS homepage (CBS.com) is the homepage for the entire network, not for the news division. On CBSNews.com, you'll find plenty of information about Iraq (some of it, dare I say, positive), and other non-Price Is Right news stories.

TmjUtah – dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was entirely necessary at that point in time. It may also have been in accordance with the rules of war (you would know better than I would). But the fact is, dropping the bomb did terrorize people around the world.

There have always been groups who oppose war, but after WWII, and after Vietnam, the American anti-war movement changed – it’s not really anti-war, it’s just anti-defense. It’s particularly opposed to the defense of America and the American people, in part because they fear that any America-related war will go nuclear.

This anti-defense movement doesn’t seem to be based on any moral objections to political violence – if it were, they wouldn’t support the Intifada and they’d be marching in the streets right now to end the violence in the Sudan. The only “morality” they consistently follow is that America has enough military strength to cause immense destruction, therefore America is evil.

I was raised with this attitude, so I know something about it. I was raised to believe that everything associated with the military was bad. When I was a kid, and for most of my teen years, I believed that Republicans were bible thumping flag-waving reactionaries, when they weren’t outright Nazis. I believed that if I touched a gun or even looked at one funny, it would go off and kill my best friend.

In the anti-defense mindset, most attempts at self defense are classified as violence, and it’s assumed that any violent act will automatically escalate into uncontrollable destruction. When any member of the American military displays what the anti-defense crowd sees as a lack of control, the anti-defense crowd will lapse into hysteria. That’s just the way they are. I’m not sure what anyone can do to change this, but there is no doubt that spaniard’s suggestion of shooting reporters wouldn’t help.

Mary -

I posted to specifically contest your characterization of the use of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs as "against the rules" and correct your assertion that their employment was an Army decision.

Your above comment on what drives the "anti-defense"/progressive/moonbat lurch is spot on. I'm in engineering and construction - I investigate, quantify, plan, and build things. Feeling bad about a flood plain or defective bridge never solved the problem before me. Action and industry - implementing solutions, assessing performance, and making critical judgements afterward - that's what makes the world work.

Leftists, or the people that understand what makes an 'anti' tick, want to be elected, and they'll damn well feel awful about ANYTHING it takes to get the power they seek. Just don't ask for results. Ever.

I'm beyond investing any intellectual capital in debate. We need to beat the barbarians who are intent on killing us physically, and beat as thoroughly the moonbats who have no clue what makes democracy work, or why limited government is preferrable over any nanny state wet dream.

I was (still am) very, very tired... which is why I bailed earlier before complimenting your thoroughness (with dougf's acknowledged assist) in your post.

I have a half-written piece stored somewhere on this damned box where I satirize media via a transcript of an imaginary radio broadcast that Edward R. Murrow might have given from a German bunker overlooking Omaha Beach if today was 1944.

I quit working on it when I realized that it wasn't parody. The reality of mainline, corporate journalism is that they are indeed above the fray - in their eyes, choosing sides cuts into market share, so they hit the bricks, develop contacts, and craft stories that have to bleed first, lend themselves to preconceived agendas second, and inform as an afterthought.

We are in a war for civilization. We can only afford so many freeloaders and still win the fight. What kind of stature should we grant media that would celebrate with a Pulitzer the photo of a murder that was staged and premarketed for the express purpose of generating propaganda points for a bunch of barbarians?

Next year the prize could well go to a shot of Paris Hilton taking it ala Washingtienne on the DC Metro during morning rush hour. Unscripted and candid, of course. It would be par for the course after the Haifa Street disgrace.

markytom -

Thanks for the link, too. I've filed it and will check it out when the alligators are safely below their current belt level.

The Japanese strategy in the closing months of the War was simple: kill as many Americans as possible, with suicide attacks in the air (Kamikaze) and on the ground, hoping that the cost would be just too much for the US to sustain. By March 1945 most of the Navy and Air force simply ceased to exist for the Japanese. Okinawa was their battleground where this strategy was played out to it's fullest, American casualties were staggering but they still won in a rather pointless and stupid battle (Japan had already lost).

The Navy had a plan to blockade the home islands of Japan and starve the country out; prolonging the War well into 1946 and perhaps 1947, and in the process killing millions more in China, Manchuria, and Japan itself as well as occupied Southest Asia. The Army Air Force under LeMay wanted to assemble massive 1-2K bomber raids with the B-29's supplemented by the B17 and B-24's from Europe pounding everything in Japan. The Army wanted to of course invade, with massive D-Day armored campaigns. All would have prolonged the fighting and killing in Manchuria (1 million Soviet soldiers vs. 1.6 million Japanese); China, Southeast Asia as well as Japan.

The Japanese tried to counter the massive American advantages in men, materials, planes, aircraft carriers, technology by suicide attacks and casualties, even though militarily they were already beaten and had no hope of victory. Sound familiar? This has been the preferred strategy for fighting Americans by every third world nation, and sometimes it works when Americans mostly don't care (Vietnam, to some extent Korea, Somalia, Beirut) and sometimes it fails miserably. It's Saddam's prepared strategy playing out right now in Iraq, without Saddam. I think it's likely the US will respond to the Iraq terrorists by the same combination of shocking new technology as in WWII. Likely even more mobile, cheap, and powerful predator type armed drones, the same for ground vehicles, along with explosives detectors and radio jamming devices.

The Media loves the terrorists precisely because they are less powerful, call it Confederate/KKK chic, with the added fillip that they can get that bad-boy shiver knowing that these folks kill people in cold blood and are proud of it. Promoting of terrorism allows them to be "sophisticated internationalists" AND generate media "heat" the way OJ Simpson or Scott Peterson does here at home. There's also abject fear and craven collaboration. It's common practice for CNN, Agence France Presse, the BBC, and other news organizations (they've admitted it) to use PLO gunmen to cover the West Bank and Gaza, and air uncritically the footage they take. Tom Friedman of the NYT has admitted he did not tell the truth about the PLO's activities he was shown in his reporting on the Middle East because he was afraid and to keep his sources. So yes, the terrorist chic and collaborationism between the Media and terror groups undermines the ability of the media to act as a traffic cop, swaying public opinion when need by to say "stop" when things go too far. Which, sometimes, frankly, they do.

Mary -- I think you are on to something, but it's more a reaction to Cold War nuclear brinkmanship than anything else. Ironically provoked by Truman and Kennedy rather than Eisenhower and Nixon (father of Detente). Not Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but the fear (not entirely unreasonable either) that aggressive nuclear brinkmanship by an American President would provoke global nuclear war and kill the planet/human race. Like Emilio Estevez once said, that was then, this is now.

When I was a kid, and for most of my teen years, I believed that Republicans were bible thumping flag-waving reactionaries, when they weren’t outright Nazis.

And now you believe that Muslims are Koran-thumping crescent-waving reactionaries, when they aren't outright Nazis. Notice a pattern?

Okay, that was completely unfair, since it's Caroline and not Mary who holds that particular belief. Probably best for all concerned if the comment above could be deleted.

Kimmit -

It doesn't matter who you tried to tar with the remarks. Ass.

Just off the top of my head, I can't come up with any transnational terrorist groups run by the Lutherans. And the Baptists may have flown a Jumbo into the Kabala but I guess the Zionist controlled corporate media suppressed the news. And try as I might, I don't see any VFW posts hosting websites extolling the virtues of exploding underwear.

I can find examples of bad behaviour at the personal, mob, and government level where Islam figures prominently on any day of the year, and have been able to do so for most of my adult life.

Not all muslims are terrorists. It just so happens that the terrorists most dedicated and successful at killing us, and publicly dedicated to the end of western secular civilization, for the last half century or so happen to be muslim.

They came here after stealing weapons they were incapable of producing themselves and attacked us at home. We finally noticed. If we have to go where they live, maybe the GOOD muslims might choose a side.

I'm not interested in killing anyone for their religious convictions. Their motivation is a factor for planning strategy, but it's secondary to locating, targetting, and killing or capturing the active terrorists, their leaders, and their supporting regimes.

The current mix of Jacksonian/Wilsonian/Marshall Plan democratization is a means to ending the cycle that produces terrorists. It's noble on one hand and hard-nosed pragmatic on the other.

If it fails, and the terrorists remain a threat, we will eventually have to go back to the time honored method of wiping out a threat to our survival.

It's a race between the GOOD muslims to adopt another mode of cultural interrelation that doesn't emphasize dictatorship, murder, chattel slavery of minors and females, and eternal jihad and the BAD muslims acquiring the ability to slaughter millions at a stroke.

The clock is ticking.

Reactionary?

Nah...

Vice and virtue commandos

I'd come up with more examples but I'm afraid I'd use up Michael's bandwidth. But you can always take a stroll through the archives of jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch.

What percent of Muslims do you figure endorse Sharia law? What percent do think either actively endorse or passively acquiesce to the tenets of violent jihad as laid out in the Koran. Would 25% be a conservative estimate? If so, and if my math is correct, that would number about 350 million people. Is that enough people for a stereotype?

Of course like many people I was taught that stereotypes are bad things. But it strikes me now that perhaps stereotypes probably evolved for a reason - they enable survival. Being both a female and an infidel, I figure I have a pretty good survival reason for holding this particular stereotype. I consider it prudent even. And as Kimmitt has fairly accurately depicted my "stereotype", it's certainly not necessary to delete his comment on my account.

The Media loves the terrorists precisely because they are less powerful, call it Confederate/KKK chic

Yea, 'cause the liberal media is SO nice, all the time, to the Confederacy and the KKK.

On CBSNews.com, you'll find plenty of information about Iraq (some of it, dare I say, positive), and other non-Price Is Right news stories.

Steve - I don’t really like to keep picking on CBS. Some of the nicest people I know work for CBS (not the news). I just wish the news division would stop messing up. Maybe the networks should abandon the news format and do entertainment 24/7.

I don’t think that blogs could ever replace the 24/7 news channels or journalists – but I do think they could eventually replace News Magazines, which are basically opinions and recycled news. American news interpreted by American bloggers is mildly interesting, but American news reports interpreted by Iraqi or Lebanese bloggers would be very interesting. That’s where blogging has an advantage. A lot of magazines could be improved with a blog format, and a lot of them are already doing it.

I have to say that I am fascinated, absolutely fascinated, by what I am reading here.

I don't know that much about the CBS cameraman, and apparently no one else here does either. If anyone cares to find out more (because of this "media blackout" on the issue), the organization Reporters Without Borders, which is dedicated to press freedom around the world and defends imprisoned journalists around the world, whether in Belarus, Zimbabwe, or Iraq, is probably the best place to turn to in order to find out more.

As I said, I know nothing about the issue, so I won't comment on his guilt or innocence, as I usually try to do whenever the question arises: I acknowledge that I don't know the details and defer to those who do, rather than pretending that reading a snippet in the news makes me an expert on a criminal case. I agree with Benjamin, though - we have, in America and other places, the wonderful tradition of innocence until proof of guilt.

And that's just what fascinates me: the goal in Iraq is, as I understand it, to bring Freedom and Democracy and other such goodness to that country. Parts of our democracy, our liberal tradition, include such wonderful things as press freedom and rights for the accused. We have heard over and over again How Important It Is That We Bring Freedom to Iraq and that Liberals Are Racists Because They Don't Think Iraqis Can Have Democracy and so forth. Here's a perfect, perfect example: a man stands accused of a crime.

He should be tried through a court system run by a free an independent judiciary. He should enjoy all the rights that the accused in America enjoy: freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, a right to a fair and speedy trial, a right to representation, a trial by a jury of his peers, the right to not incriminate himself, and so forth. We have lots of those. We want Iraqis to have those. Right? Was I missing something about How Important Iraq Is to Winning the War on Terror and Why We Must Fight?

Furthermore, this is a wonderful opportunity for Iraqis to deal with the complicated issues of press freedom and freedom of speech.

But no. Many of you don't seem to give a rat's ass about the Freedom and Democracy!!!!! that American soldiers are literally dying to bring to Iraqis. You know next to nothing about the man, what he has done, how he got the footage, whether or not he is helping the insurgents in any way, or anything remotely like that. But your impulses are to ignore your enormous ignorance on the subject and to pass summary judgement anyway.

He's guilty! We know that despite not having reviewed any evidence! Contact with the insurgents, regardless of its extent or the value to Iraqis and others of learning more about them, is evidence of guilt! The MSM is responsible for terrorist attacks - as Liberty Dad wants, we should have sound technicians working in Omaha brought in shackles to stand trial for the actions of terrorists on the other side of the world!

Yes, it was the Right that got whipped up into a frenzy over the notion that Americans were in any way responsible for 9/11! Likewise for the notion that Israelis are responsible for Palestinian terrorism! That's the same as thinking a rape victim deserved it! Yes, the MSM does bear responsibility for terrorism because they made information about it available to people! No, we don't appreciate the irony!

So, as I see it, we're talking about two different options. One involves things like the rule of law, rights of the accused, a free and independent press that can make information available to people, even if that information is unpleasant or, God Almight Forbid, shows a view of the situation that contradicts what our Dear Leader wants us to believe about all those nice hospitals and bridges we've built in Iraq, never mind that they get blown up the next day because, woops, we never sent enough troops! - you know, all those things that we're fighting and dying to bring to Iraqis to free them and save us from terrorism.

Or, the alternative, which is posited by a number of people here: summary execution, a press that is barred from pursuing or broadcasting a story that is critical of the official line in any way - either through fines, as some of you have proposed, or through imprisoning and trying them, or executing them, and so forth.

Because, you know, democracy and freedom are so fucking important that we need to execute journalists on the spot because of a suspicion!

And I have to say, without being hyperbolic, that this has been a fascinating glimpse into what I can only call the fascist impulse that so many around the world possess. So, please, continue your discussion of Freedom and Democracy and Liberty and why we must support extraordinary measures to protect them, not limited, of course, to murdering journalists and abandoning rule of law in order to do so.

I mean, come on! Can't make an omelet without shredding some press freedoms!

Kimmitt - Why did you confuse me with Caroline? Although I like her writing style, it is different from mine. You couldn’t be confused because we’re both – women?

All people are unique. Asians, blacks, Hispanics, women and even members of the Bush administration are individuals with different feelings, thoughts, needs and opinions. You should try to respect and understand that, even if those others do happen to be women.

Reporters without Borders is calling on the US to either charge the guy or release him.

I agree with them.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=13162

"You couldn’t be confused because we’re both – women? "

Mary is the one with the sophisticated political analysis. I'm the hate-filled bigot. Got it? :-)

And now you believe that Muslims are Koran-thumping crescent-waving reactionaries, when they aren't outright Nazis. Notice a pattern?

Kimmit:

I notice a pattern. You Lefties have your reasons for hating, and we rightwingers have our reasons for hating.

We're the same. We just have different priorities. You hate to see christians with bad hair and checkered pants. We hate to see muslim women in burkas.

You hate christians because they're anti-abortion, because they aren't moral relativists, etc. etc., I hate islam because it condones honor killings, terrorism, oppression, etc.

Your reasons are valid to you, my reasons are valid to me. I just happen to think my reasons are better, and so do you. So where's the controversy here?

It's cool for you Leftists to insult christians, but if we insult islam that makes us "haters"? Newsflash: We all hate. The only issue is WHAT we choose to hate.

You think we're haters, and we think you're haters. See? No diff. No controversy.

You Lefties aren't better than us rightwingers, nor more loving, nor more compassionate. You're haters just like us.

But it's WHAT you've chosen to hate/love that makes you a deluded Lefty, not the fact that you've chosen to hate.