Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

The war on terrorism - in a nutshell

0 helpful
47 replies

by maxwell edison

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

.
For the past thirty years, every nation on the face of the Earth, including the United States -- and including the impotent and corrupt United Nations -- has been either facilitating, tolerating, or simply turning a blind eye to the modern threat of world-wide terrorism which has been perpetrated, for the most part, by militant Islamic extremists. The numerous bombings in cafes, discotheques and airports throughout Europe, Asia and Africa; the hijacking of commercial airliners and the murder of the flight crews and passengers; the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland; the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 (which was actually intended to topple the twin towers amid a cloud of cyanide gas intending to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians); the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Tower apartment buildings in Saudi Arabia; the coordinated attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 are all but a few of the heinous acts perpetrated by the evil-does we call terrorists.

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America became the new "ground-zero" for defining the destructive and murderous intentions of these militant Islamic extremists. The time to turn a blind-eye suddenly became the time to see the dangerous extent of the real threat; the time to tolerate terrorism as a nuisance has given way to the necessity, for the first time, to go on the offensive against terrorism -- wherever it may reside, and wherever it may breed; and the time to ignore the nations facilitating the existence and growth of terrorism became a status quo that could no longer be tolerated. The world suddenly changed on that date -- a date that would become synonymous with terror, 9-11. And the United States of America, rightly or wrongly, and for better or for worse, suddenly became the leader in combating it.

Combating terrorism is, perhaps, the most difficult and challenging task ever attempted by the United States. Terrorism knows no borders, as it's spread throughout the world into many nations -- including our own. It doesn't require a huge standing army, one that could be easily identified and defeated, to inflict its murderous intentions. And it nips at the heels of the very thing Americans hold most precious, our liberty and freedom. You might suggest that since they are relatively small in number and resources, that these terrorists don't have the capacity to take away our liberty and freedom. But indeed they do -- and indeed they have. We've already given up some of those freedoms by implementing various steps to stop them from killing again; and even that may not be enough. But how much is enough, and how much is too much? We've actually come to question where our freedoms must stop in order to ensure our security. So make no mistake about it, their threat is very real; and their advance must not only be stopped, but also be put into retreat.

In the days immediately following 9-11, the most obvious place to start the long quest in the battle against world-wide terrorism was in Afghanistan. And although the United States certainly had some culpability in creating the environment that existed in that nation, we could no longer allow it to continue to thrive. Afghanistan became a sanctuary, a place for the terrorists to seek a safe-haven, so that effort became priority number one; it became step one. Yes, Osama bin Laden was the leader of this particular pack of thugs, but to overlook the breadth of the problem for the sole purpose of focusing on a sole individual would have been irresponsible. The problem of world-wide terrorism was, and still is, bigger than just Afghanistan; and it's certainly bigger than just Osama bin Laden.

Fighting the political war against terrorism has, perhaps, proven to be the most difficult aspect of it. Terrorism has incubated under the regimes of oppressive dictators, and it's done so in a region of the world that's vital to maintaining a strong and viable world-wide economy. Tracking down the terrorists themselves was only one aspect of the battle, as tracking down the source of their support and funding was of paramount importance as well. I read a report recently that suggested much of the funding for terrorism flowed through Syria and Saudi Arabia, and that in the weeks after 9-11 the Syrians and the Saudis were unwilling to cooperate in cutting it off. Assuming that the report is true, at least to some degree, should we have therefore invaded Saudi Arabia and/or Syria as well? Should we have cut off relations with the Saudi sheiks? And what about Iran, and Libya -- and Iraq? If we work from the premise that terrorism has been bred and nurtured under the regimes of oppressive dictators, whether those dictators be secular or religious, and such as in the nations I mentioned, then we can see the scale of the problem -- and, perhaps, what's necessary to combat it. If terrorism does not breed in lands that enjoy the freedom of liberty and democracy, then transforming such oppressive nations becomes the obvious, albeit very difficult, solution.

I believe the invasion of Iraq was step two in the overall war against world-wide terrorism; and I believe this for many reasons. First and foremost is, of course, the weapons of mass destruction assumption. While it's true that "stockpiles" of these weapons have yet to be found (at least not that's been made public), it has not been proven that they never existed. To the contrary, we do indeed know that they did exist at one time, and according to the United Nations resolutions following the cease-fire of the gulf war (following Iraq's removal from Kuwait), Iraq was responsible for proving the destruction of such weapons. Iraq could provide no such proof, and literally every nation in the world believed in their existence. Were we fooled or are those weapons yet to be found? Personally, I believe it may be a little of both. But regardless, the United States was certainly justified in calling off the cease-fire, so to speak, since Saddam Hussein failed to comply with the agreements of that cease-fire. And if it was a mistake to let Saddam Hussein remain in power in 1991, as is often asserted, then why was it a mistake to remove him from power after he continued to snub the United Nations and the stipulations of the cease-fire a full twelve years later? The answer is, it was not a mistake. Especially if every aspect of the issues are taken into consideration.

In the larger scheme of things, I don't think that's (the WMD issue) the only thing that matters. Transforming those oppressive nations into ones of freedom and democracy is crucial in our overall efforts to combat the growth of world-wide terrorism. And while the threat of those WMDs was a major "public" reason for the invasion of Iraq, I personally don't believe it was the only reason. What better way to get Syria and Saudi Arabia to capitulate to "the cause" than for them to see several U.S. armored divisions at their doorsteps? After all, Libya certainly recognized what was probably the inevitable, and they "surrendered" without a shot being fired. And I don't think it was a coincidence that Saudi Arabia started to "cooperate" in blocking funding to terrorist causes only after the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Moreover, what better way to entice other nations to seek the economic freedoms that can be provided only by democratic societies, than to plant the seeds of democracy in their very own backyard? The theory that democracy will spread its fruits and benefits once it's allowed to grow and thrive certainly has a lot of merit. And if some semblance of democracy can take-hold in Iraq, it might become inevitable in Iran and in other neighboring nations. The area may not be transformed into the next Japan, but if whatever might take-hold in the region helps in putting an end to the environments that breed terrorism, then that just might be enough.

We've all heard the saying that Rome wasn't built in a day; and this effort is tantamount to building another "Rome". We've all heard that a journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step; and this is only one such step in a very long journey. Recognizing that the threat has been growing and spreading over the past several decades, we must also realize that to successfully eradicate the problem it will take several decades to come. And we must realize that we can no longer wait for the terrorists to come to us, but we now must go on the offensive to track them down wherever they may be, whatever it might take, and regardless of how long it takes.

In the immortal words of President John F. Kennedy, we must....."Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.....and in the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility - I welcome it."

Those words were spoken by President Kennedy at a different time and about a different threat, to be sure, but they are, perhaps, more applicable today than ever before. And just as President Kennedy "welcomed" the challenge to defend freedom and liberty, President Bush -- and his supporters, including myself -- welcome it as well. We not only welcome it, but we embrace it. After all, the alternative is not an option.

This is just the opinion of one man.

- Maxwell Edison
.
.
.

Notes - in order of pertinence

1. "Modern" terrorism is as described, but to be differentiated from many other forms of "terrorism" over the ages.

2. Israel is the sole exception, as it had been, before 9-11, the only nation to have really taken the "offensive" against terrorism.

3. President Bush (or any American president, for that matter) would never call the United Nations "impotent and corrupt"; he's too much of a diplomat. Those are my personal observations.

4. My list of terrorist acts actually pales in comparison to a more detailed list:

http://www.crimsonbird.com/terrorism/timeline.htm

5. For geopolitical reasons, the current American administration (or any American administration) may not be able to reveal ALL of their reasons and motives for such policy decisions. In my opinion, this is not only understandable, but is to be expected. In the exercise of voicing my observations and opinions, I'm not bound by such restraints. In other words, they may "think" something, but they can't really say it. The "real" story is, perhaps, more suitable for history books, not necessarily the newspapers.

47 replies

by oz_media

I actually scanned most of it, maybe I wil dig deeper through it another time. But without commenting on your views, I must comment on your opening statement.

YOu showed just a LITTLE too much personal bias I think that detracts from the validity of the rest.

Comments such as "...and including the impotent and corrupt United Nations" are not good in creating an unbiased personal view.

And "suddenly became the leader in combating it."
That is just outrageous,

I know it is supposed to be your views and YOUR opinion but it would have been far more credible without it.

Leader on combatting it? Many countries think you are NOT combatting it at all and are seeking personal agenda. These countries ALSO are making extensive changes to ensure they are countering terrorism in ways that THEY deem more effective. It is much like the opinions of wars gone by. The US angle always seems to be a personal success and one that reduces everyone else's efforts. THIS is where I disagree, the US is NOT the leader
nor the sole victim of such crimes, they have just been awakened like a sleeping, grumbly drunk who jumps up and starts throwing punches.

The rest of the world may not have been effective in stopping terrorism, well so far neither has the USA's resolution and I seriously and quite honestly don't think it ever will.

A little too much flag waving perhaps in your post, it just didn't feel right.

by maxwell edison

.
You are, as usual, too quick to jump to a conclusion. My essay was not intended to be "scanned", but rather carefully read in an attempt to understand. "Scanning" takes things out of the full and proper context, especially the written word. "Scanning" doesn't allow the absorption of the writer's intent. "Scanning" is looking at the label of a fine bottle of wine instead of slowly savoring everything about it. So if you don't want to take the time to "savor" my essay, you should really refrain from commenting on it.

(But thank you for the "well done", nonetheless.)

by oz_media

One of the things I really do well at is writing catchy sales copy. Copy needs to be "keyworded" carefully, and many words commonly used in English conversation are an absolute no no, such as 'could', 'would', etc.

The first thing I notice are comments that stand apart from the paragraph, these are usually very descriptive terms that are carefully buried into a sentence so they can be taken in two ways, just in case the writer has to defend it. (Also very handy in a court room).

So perhaps it is my fault but only because I've seen those tricks too many times before (I am not just referring to yourself of course but ALL copy).

by house

Judging by your reply, it appears that you might be a Liberal in the Tory ridden west. Not that I care one way or another, but Tory supporters here in Ontario tend to blindly agree in Bush's defense without a thought of their own. If you are a Tory supporter, then you are a "diamond in the rough". Sorry, but the Conservative who ran for MP here in town, is a real cut-throat, ripped off the Neutrino Observatory, and is "full of crap"...more so than any other I've seen.

I agree though, that the UN is a corrupt and impotent organization. It is an organization made up of so many different sides of the spectrum that they can't go left or right without spawning an argument within. Plus, there are a lot of cultures who aren't represented because of a politician's disregard for the organization. This causes the almighty dollar to direct and influence their decisions, and creates a distinct line between the UN and those who are not involved.

Not a very effect group of international mediators.

I don't fully agree with the Bush administration, but I am far from anti-American. I hate being flagged as such, when I express my views on the current events in the world.

Impressive essay. Slightly opinionated though.

by jamesrl

As someone who has worked in the House of Commons and attended more nomination meetings than I can count....

In a place like Sudbury that most Tories would write off, you won't attract the highest calibre of candidate.

I've been a Tory since, well 1977. And I don't support the Bush admin in the Iraq war. I'm not the only one either.

James

by maxwell edison

.
Thanks for your comments, but I must admit that I don't understand the intent of the comments suggesting that my piece is "opinionated" or "biased" (as Oz_Media suggested). I would counter-suggest that such comments fall into the "DUH!" category. It's an editorial. It's an opinion piece. I even stated as much. So of course it's "opinionated". I don't understand why so many people automatically consider that a bad thing.

Being "biased" or "opinionated" is only bad when it's presented under the pretense of being otherwise. Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, for example, is operating under the pretense of being either fair and balanced or that he's just "reporting" the news. So when he puts a slant on the news, as he obviously does (in my opinion), then that can be -- and should be -- criticized as being "biased" or "opinionated". Dan Rather is a "reporting" journalist, and he should just "report". On the other hand, people like George Will, Molly Ivans, William F. Buckley, Maureen Dowd, Rush Limbaugh, and Al Franken are "opinion" journalists, not news reporters. But they all present themselves as opinion journalists, at least they should, and anything they comment on should be taken through the filter of their bias.

Reporting the news and commenting on the news, there's a big difference. Too many people seem to confuse the two; and too many people don't understand or recognize the difference. Even those reporting journalists and opinion journalists themselves often times confuse the two, so it's no wonder the public at large can't tell the difference.

But in my case, it was "opinion" all the way. I even said as much in the conclusion of my piece.

This is just the opinion on one man.

- Maxwell Edison

by oz_media

Your post seems to address me (a westerner) and Max (regarding his post).

If you are asking if I am a Liberal, nope.
If you are asking if I am a democrat, nope, although the island generaly votes NDP.(forestry and stuff is big here, yay environment and all that).
If you are asking if I am a conservative, nope.

I am not a Canadian citizen, I just love living here.

To the best of my knowledge though, the Liberals in the East and Liberals in the West are two VERY different entities, perhaps James camn elaborate but either way, the Canadian government is as screwed up as any and nobody will deny it. That's the reality here though, we know that the government is just a bunch of people with a job, a crappy job at that.

Our politicians aren't seen to be hero's or hailed as Gods though, they are just normal Joe's that walk the street and shop in the supermarket without a multimillion dollar security detail at the people's expense. Sure ours may need a jock strap but what can you expect when your a politician, every politician needs a kick in the nuts every now and then.

Canadian politics is a background service to the country, that's all.

by oz_media

Did you vanish and reappear with a new login?

I am listed as being a member since 2000, I WAS a member before Oz Media but that was a completely different alias and login alltogther, I started OzMedia from scratch.

As OzMedia I have only been here 2 or 3 years (I think).

Yet YOU show up as being a member since 2001, and I KNOW you had that alias long before I started OzMedia. ?!?

by maxwell edison

.
I don't know. Maybe it's that I used to be "Maxwell_T_Edison, and I later changed it to just "Maxwell Edison".

By the way, my essay was an answer to a challenge.

by jardinier

I am accredited with joining in November 2002, which would be about right.

And yes, Max, to the best of my recollection you used the alias Maxwell_T_Edison at the time I joined.

by oz_media

I know the challenge, that's what the well done was for, you rose to a challenge from aldanatech and did it quite quickly too, well done.

I don't know why changing your alias would effect that stat because your acount was active long before mine, as long as you kept your same account and simly edited your alias it shouldn't have changed. I guess it really doesn't matter does it? Just makes you wonder how it has all been put together.

by jamesrl

Though not necessarily to the left or the right.

When the Republicans are in power, it becomes most major news organizations to attack republicans or a republican president. Why? Because thats what attracts viewers/readers. And the number of viewers/readers determines how much money they can charge for their advertising, hence how profitable they can be. But the same can be said for Democratic regimes - do you think that the media hung on very word of Ken Starr because they were Republican? No - because by publishing those salalcious details, they increased their subscribership and could charge more for ads.

Even if the reports themsleves are "balanced" there is bias based on content - which stories get published, and which get dropped or given less time/space/coverage. In my poli sci course, we did a lot of "content analysis" statistical work, and its amazing how little "policy" is discussed, and how much "personality" is emphasized. And why? Because thats what the people are interested in.

Canada is very similar, though we have fewer of these op-ed type writers.

I wouldn't consider any one of the people in your list reporters. They are writers. They have no obligation to balance. They don't have to do a lot of fact checking.

In regards to Rather, there is a certain amount of chicken and egg. He doesn't write all of his comments, but he obviously doesn't disgaree with them either. He is working at CBS because he fits in with the CBS corporate culture. He perhaps has more influence than other individual employees, but at the same time he is one employee out of many. You can look at Fox the same way - Rupert Murdoch doesn't tell Bill O'Reilly what to think, but he got the job because for the most part, they think in similar ways.

James

by protiusx

I assume this is the first gauntlet in response to Aldantech?s counter challenge. Very well done! I wouldn?t hold my breath though waiting for his response.

by gryfon

In the spirit of 'friendly dialogue'... :-D

If the US hadn't trained and then sold weapons to these crackpots in the first place, initiated a policy of exploitation of the resources of other countries by paying less than living wage to the workers at the bottom, and acted like Royalty whenever they visit another (not even 3rd world) country, perhaps people wouldn't feel justified in dropping planes on their buildings and bringing the 'war' to American Soil.

The one topic I find largely left out of ANY of these discussions is how US Foreign Policy since WWII has treated the rest of the world like second class (third? steerage?) citizens. Some folks finally stood up and said 'enough'. I do NOT agree with or condone their methods. However, it is not like something like this hasn't been brewing for a long time.

If the American people refuse to see any of this and prefer to be mesmerized by the disney-fied version of reality they are spoon fed by the controlling Media Groups, then it's going to take far longer to resolve these problems.

I find it interesting how 'democracy' also silently includes 'capitalism'. And not just any capitalism, but capitalism supporting American corporations at the expense of the local people. Just ask the Iraqi farmers who are now forbidden to save and use their own seeds, and must use GMO seeds from 'approved' US companies.

BTW, in all instances throughout this discussion, when I say 'American', unless otherwise stated, I mean the GOVERNMENT and it's policies. NOT the people. You folks have as much control over your government as I do over mine. Nada. Democracy. Hah!

Geez, and here I said I'd never make my unpopular opinions known around the water cooler. I'll wait here while I'm flamed for having such an 'uncomfortable' view point.

Regards,
Gryf

ps, I think in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is all aspects need to be looked at and taken responsibility for. I'm not trying to lay blame, just open eyes. As you said, 'blind eyes' need to be open to the whole picture.

by maxwell edison

.
I recently read a book that suggested and articulated a couple of interesting things.

One of them suggested that nations (including, but not limited to, the USA) have neither common allies or common enemies, but only common interests. The nations' interests do, of course, change over time, but they are "static" as they are "connected" to a particular nation; but nations' allies and enemies are, over time, in a constant state of change. Thus, the enemy of my enemy is my friend syndrom. He suggests that this has always been the case, and will, most likely continue to be the case. And this is connected to the second thing I mentioned.

This second thing was an interesting outline of how, over the past 100 years, one major war has really led to the next - without exception. The outline went something like this:

World War One led to World War Two because of the dismal state in which Europe was left, and the circumstances that were left created conditions that were ripe for the rise of dictators, etc.

World War Two led to the Cold War, which this person considered to really be World War Three, because of the "stand-off" between the East (the Soviet Union) and the West (the USA, Britain, France, etc.) that started at the precise moment Germany surrendered.

World War Three, which was a combination of the "standoff" and Soviet/Communist expansionism led to Korea and Vietnam on a large scale, some smaller skirmishes on a smaller scale, not to mention the build up of large armies and weapons capabilities. World War Three (the Cold War) ended with a combination of a couple of things. The fall of Communism in the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall was one (being "out-spent" was a factor). And the other was the defeat of the Soviet expansion plans into the middle-east - by way of Afghanistan. The Soviets real intention, according to the writer (and there's every reason to give it merit), was to ultimately take the oil fields of the middle east by way of Afghanistan. From Afghanistan into Iran; from Iran into Iraq; from Iraq into the Persian Gulf nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.

At that time, the United States (along with Great Britain and other "western allies", I suppose) had a choice between three very bad options.

Option One: Let it happen. Do nothing to stop it. (Let them "take" all that oil? I don't think so.)

Option Two: Launch a major military campaign to stop it. (In 1980? Yea, Right.)

Option Three: Support a "proxy" effort to stop it.

It was President Carter's decision to choose option three. I'm not "blaming" President Carter, as I think any president would have made the same choice. It was, after all, quite common for the USA (along with Great Britain and other "western allies") and the USSR to wage "proxy" wars against one another using and supporting the armies of third-world nations. Anyway, the effort to stop the Soviets in Afghanistan were successful. However, the conditions left behind did indeed set the stage for the next "war" -- World War Four, as he calls it -- the war against terrorism.

So you may be correct when you say that...."If the US hadn't trained and then sold weapons to these crackpots in the first place.....". But to keep events in proper context and perspective, you have to also consider the only other options available at the time. We can play the "what if" game all day long, but in the end, the deciding factor will be to consider the best option to pursue at the time, to take the best of the worst, so to speak, to let the chips fall where they may, and deal with tomorrow's repercussions tomorrow.

Comments?

by packet spoofer

arguments without a full and rational apprisal of the facts seems to happen alot on sites like this...Max....I agree with what you are saying here and not much more needs to be added to it...People love to take cheap shots at the US for things like that, but what would they be saying (if anything) had there been a global thermonuclear war!?
Thanks for putting some common sense into the discussion.....

by house

...but you're more involved than other people.
That's good to hear.
I didn't want to generalize anything by the comment, but I guess you can understand my point of view when you see "Sudbury".
I was actually very moved by the Tory ideas on the last campain here in town. Not a great candidate though. I'm still a little upset...even with our Liberal MP's.

by oz_media

Actually, I didn't miss much the first time at all, and I still don't think your opening comments helped. The rest of your posting I must agree with, this is all pretty commonly known and accepted fact and yes a regime change in Iraq probably IS an important step in 'converting' the Middle East. I don't think I've ever actually questioned that and not too many other have either.

The MAIN reason for people's disgust in the current administration was summed up in a single sentence though, [i]"And while the threat of those WMDs was a major "public" reason for the invasion of Iraq, I personally don't believe it was the only reason.[/i]

Even understanding that the US cannot publicly lay it's cards on the table in such a situation, the misinformation 'fabricated' by America's government toward it's people is what I was stunned to see go unchallenged by many.

Your are a country that puts all it's faith in it's government, hats off to you, but to see so many support it regardless of how it acts toward the people ws shocking and quite frankly I still don't understand how they got away with it with so much defense from citizens.

I guess it all stems back to my original comments of sheep following faithfully. While they are harsh words and probably out of line, they sum up my views of how people accepted the deception as necessary in order to seek a goal.

Oh well, I don't want to go awf on another 2000 post argument, you know where I stand and I can honsetly respect where you stand even if I don't fully understand it myself.

by maxwell edison

.
It was kinda' fun to crank-out my editorial the moment the challenge was made. I wonder if he's up to keeping his part of the deal?

On the date. You can no longer call me the "old timer".

I did, however, have another account that has since fallen by the way-side. But I don't remember if my MaxEd alias was ever used. I've tried to access it once or twice, but I've forgotten the password! And I haven't tried in several years. (And the email account has long since vanished.)

by oz_media

Okay, you hit me square between the eyes with that one. :D You'll always be the old timer to me though, I'm just a snot nosed kid (and always will be, I think it's the Peter Pan syndrome I picked up after my 'rebirth').

I think the pressure is on aldnatech now and he probably will put his money where his mouth is on this one, just a gut feeling.

I will be just as critical of his post as yours though as at this point I have no bias anymore. The only people who could have done anything about it, proved to me they don't want to, so what's left to argue? What's done is done and we'll just have to live with any consequences.

Unless we are gonna go for another four years of the 'impeach Bush' rhetoric, no thanks. :)

by oz_media

Don't get me wrong, of course personal bias is expected, but to lace your opening comments with the poison detracted from the rest, which incidentally I thought was quite well put forth even if what I think that the key issue was evasively included and not focused on as the root of people's argument.

Perhaps you don't quite get what I meant or took it personally, but in essence I agree with your post and thought it was a good rise to the challenge, but the comments were poorly placed. You could have hit the UN later when you referred to thier corruption in detail.

by jamesrl

The Liberal party is what political scientists call a big tent party - a coalition. It may hinge around the centre of the political spectrum , but will swing right or left as needs be in order to retain power.

In practical terms, this sometimes results in disparity between the Federal and Provincial branches.

In Quebec, because of historic events(Riel Rebellion) there has not ever been much of a Conservative Party. Quebecers with a "conservative" leaning voted for the Social Credit party, a movement born during the thirties which also took hold in BC, which has also historically had a weak Conservative Party.

The social credit party died in the late 70s in Quebec, with conservatives voting Liberal provincially and splitting between the Liberals and Conservatives federally. The SoCreds died more recently in BC, because of some scandals, and the Liberals in BC picked up the "conservative" vote.

Add to that regional differences - the Maritimes relies of social programs, central Canada has big business and the west has always been resource based entrepreneurial.

Confused yet? If not I can tell you the story of how the Progressive Conservative party name came into being.

James

by oz_media

Your political information is always straight up and mainly non-biased, I have certainly learned from you and should you ever choose to share more, please do.

Thx,
OM

by john.a.wills

That's far too much for an on-line discussion group. It would be fine as an essay to read to a group around a table, the way the late lamented Center for Democratic Insitutions did things, publishing the discussions in the Center Magazine.

by oz_media

Max was challenged to this essay. He rose to the occasion and like it or not, he did a great job.

Still waiting for the 'gauntlet tosser-downer' ( I can make up words if I want to okay?)to live up to his end.

by house

Yeah, it was for you. The west is not properly represented in Ottawa. Ontario is the "favorite" son, while BC and Alberta have been somewhat ignored historically by the federal government.

This has caused the west to develop as an almost independent business entity from the rest of the country. The recent influx of Conservative support out there, generally sums up the mood.

My original comment was not to insult the integrity of any specific party, but rather to point out that in my experience, my Conservative associates (I'm a Liberal supporter) are generally the same ones who scream "kill em' all" when we get into a debate over the war.

I should have chosen my words carefully, and extended my comment beyond a short form answer.

by jardinier

I shouldn't have to remind you that bias in news reporting mostly comes down from the top.

So spare a thought for the poor journo who knows before he/she submits their stories they will most likely be "edited" to conform with the political agenda of management and ownership.

[In fact my decision to resign from the Sydney Morning Herald all those years ago occurred after two instances of having my story altered to an unacceptable degree -- in one case by a sub-editor, and in the other by the Managing Editor].

In the case of Fox news, the reporters are told beforehand what the content of their stories should be when given an assignment.

I am sure you will be pleased to learn that Paul McGeough -- the Sydney Morning Herald journalist who has reported from Iraq throughout the war, has just won the Walkley Award (prestigious award for members of the media in Australia) in the category: "All Media -- International Journalism."

So how about that, eh? THE top award in ALL media in Australia for international journalism.

Well I remember how much you hated those independent journalists in Iraq, yet in retrospect I have not seen anything that was reported by McGeough which did not turn out to be true.

by maxwell edison

Julian,

As you know, I do indeed have the perception that the media, in general, is biased. Moreover, I will admit, that I've seen so much of it that I've probably developed my own "bias" against them, and as a result I read or watch every news story actually looking for it. In fact, as I'm sure you've deduced, it's one of my "pet peeves".

But I can put media bias into several categories.

Category One - Sensationalism:

Some of the media bias is for the purpose of creating sensationalism, reporting only the "bad news", so to speak. In many cases I believe that kind of reporting should be balanced so as to avoid giving false impressions. But, of course, this may not be necessary in all cases. Reporting that there was a traffic accident on the freeway certainly wouldn't have to be "balanced" by also reporting about the number of successful commutes without an accident. "Good evening. I'm Stan Blather reporting for Local 2 News. According to the department of transportation, ninety nine point nine percent of the people commuting to work this morning arrived at their chosen destination without incident." Of course, that would be silly. The only report necessary would be about the pile-up on the freeway. However, when it comes to how the public might perceive a major event, such as the war in Iraq, I believe they (the media) are obligated to keep the "bad news" in proper perspective. In that case, the continual harping on the one-tenth of one percent of "bad news" gives the public a false impression -- and I believe that is irresponsible.

Category Two - Selective Reporting:

I'll call this selective reporting so as to advance an agenda of the person reporting "the story". But what's also included in this category is deciding what not to report on. For example, President Bush could go on road trip to meet people, whether it's a campaign trip or just a public relations trip, and be warmly welcomed time after time. But if he might be received in a manner that could be described as anything but warm, that's the one that makes the news. Or, perhaps, there might be a demonstration of sorts at city hall. People protesting some silly issue. But there may also be a counter-protest on the other side of the street. I've actually seen cases where the protestors, even though much smaller in number than the counter-protestors, get either all or the major emphasis of the coverage. This "selective" reporting gives false impressions.

Category Three - Creating the news:

This is "creating" a story, and then reporting on that story. In a recent trip to Iraq by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, for example, he made himself available to a group of soldiers in a sort of "town hall" meeting. His purpose was to answer their questions, on the spot, nothing prepared, with no limits to the questions they could ask, and with the guarantee that nothing they asked would be held against them. He wanted the soldiers to know that he was listening to their concerns, so it was fire away, ask whatever you want. One of the questions was a prepared statement, put in the form of a question, about the tired-old story (that has its origins in the political arena, by the way) about the lack of armor on many military vehicles. The appearance that this was a random question by a randomly selected soldier is what was reported. (As a side note, Secretary Rumsfeld, when asked, said he would take absolutely no questions from the press. He would ONLY take random questions from the soldiers.) This made a huge splash in the media, a story I'm sure you saw in Australia. Well we've come to discover that the soldier who asked the question was really assigned to a reporter who was traveling with a particular unit. The reporter wrote out the "statement", which was put in the form of a question, and coached the soldier on how to ask it. The reporter then went to the person who was selecting the soldiers in the audience, and somehow convinced him to select "his" soldier. And of course, out of ALL the questions asked of Secretary Rumsfeld in that "town hall" session, that's the one that absolutely every news outlet focused on. This is similar to another ploy media outlets use to "create" stories, and that is to conduct a poll, any poll, and then report on the results of that poll. "Creating" the story is not "reporting" the news.

Category Four - Manipulating the facts:

Headline: "President Bush Wants To Rule The World". Enough said, as I'm sure you recall that particular discussion.

Category Five: Misinterpreting the facts.

Category Six - The infamous "unnamed source".

Category Seven - Reporting on the conclusion.

(I got tired of giving examples after category three.)

Maybe I'll pick up on this later -- but I'm probably boring you with my "bias".

By the way, a group of journalists giving another journalist an award? I'm not impressed. (Although I'm sure he's a fine fellow, and probably deserved the award.) But to keep my opinion in proper perspective, I'm not impressed by ANY of the numerous "awards" handed out to various industry peers by that particular industry - especially the ones that become television productions. Journalism is one, sports, music, movies, whatever. All those "pat themselves on the back" type awards are only an exercise in egotistical self-indulgence, in my opinion, of course.

by maxwell edison

.
Julian, try to follow my logic, and point out where it may (or may not) be flawed.

Premise:

Absolutely everyone has his or her biases -- that is, an agenda a person would like to see advanced, a preferred way of living, a notion of how society should be structured, etc. In other words, people see things -- they see the world -- through the prism of their own bias.

Do you generally agree or disagree with my premise?

Therefore:

If a news story is in-line with, or agrees with, or supports one's own bias, then that person is less inclined to suggest that particular story is biased.

Conversely, if a news story is not in-line with, or does not agree with, or does not support one's own bias, then that person is more inclined to suggest that particular story is, or might be, biased.

Is that a reasonable argument?

(By the way, people who might, at this point, suggest that they stay "open minded" are usually ones who, for some reason, are unwilling or unable to admit their own biases. After all, whether people realize it or not, they do structure their lives on a core set of beliefs and principles, but it may be too painful or difficult for some people to recognize or admit what theirs really are. After all, I don't think anyone would suggest that he or she might compromise his or her own principles for the sake of being "open-minded". At least that's my opinion.)

My observations on people claiming the existence or nonexistence of media bias:

In my totally unscientific and unstructured study, I've concluded that most people who claim to see a real bias in the media are, for the most part, right-leaning thinkers. Moreover, in my totally unscientific and unstructured study, I've concluded that most people who claim there is no real bias in the media are, for the most part, left-leaning thinkers. In addition, I've seen "real" studies that have shown most "journalists" are left-leaning thinkers. (Maybe I've even seen "real" studies about the other as well.)

Conclusion:

If my premise is somewhat accurate, and my argument makes reasonable sense, and my observations could be proven as somewhat accurate, then my conclusion must be true.

There is indeed a left-leaning bias, in general and on balance, in the way the media reports the news. And while most right-leaning thinkers might tend to agree with this, most left-leaning thinkers might tend to disagree.

(And yes, I really do have pointed ears. You know, the "logic" thing.)

by jardinier

Max, there is no point in my commenting in detail on your postings because I know that you have an obsession with finding fault in reporting.

Call it a pet peeve if you like, but I consider it is quite out of character with someone who regularly preaches, and claims to practise, positive thinking.

I think your obsession with finding fault in media reports is nothing short of a sickness.

And you are still revelling in your "victory" after proving that the SMH attached a misleading headline to a story.

And you can't even remember it correctly:

"President Bush Wants To Rule The World".

The actual heading was: "Bush: How I will Rule the World."

So if you are going to nit-pick others, try and get your facts right.

I consider it extremely MEAN SPIRITED of you to deny Paul McGeough the credit for what was an outstanding exercise in reporting, and life-threatening at that.

How is it that YOU, who have never worked in the media, claim to understand its processes better than myself, who HAS worked in the media?

As for sensationalism, it's about time you had a reality check and realised that the media provide what the audience wants, and not vice versus.

This is VERY NOTICEABLE since the advent of television. A motor vehicle accident or a fire or some other unfortunate happening makes for GREAT VISUALS. In the print media alone, the priorities are quite different.

I WON'T be drawn into a detailed debate about the media.

I have worked on two Sydney metropolitan dailies and I KNOW (something you could not possibly claim) that every effort is made to achieve accurate reporting, within the constraints of limited time and access to background information.

There is no DELIBERATE attempt to distort the news, or emphasise negative aspects of the news, other than what may be introduced my management or ownership for their own political agenda.

by montgomery gator

I have not seen posts from Bucky Kaufman lately. I thought this one would have gotten his interest. Has he purchased a good aluminum foil hat?

by protiusx

I want to hear from Aldantech. He has been strangely absent from this post. Could it be that he has met his match and can not meet Max?s challenge to an essay dual?

by montgomery gator

Or maybe he got an aluminum foil hat, also? :-)

The aliens from Omicron Perseii 8 must be frustrated now that people are taking measures to block their transmissions.

by oz_media

In the thread where THOIS discussion originated, he was shocked at the spee dthat Max had posted, he has STARTED a similar post which he has added there, I just said finish it and post a new thread so we can keep up.

by aldanatech

Did I meet my match? Hardly. Actually I long finished my essay. Didn't you see it?

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=164541&messageID=1686581

I was going to expand it further, but what I got already complied with Max's specifications (his was not as long as he demanded, by the way), so I decided to continue monitoring the administration and working on my own postings instead:

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=165405&start=0

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=165194&start=0

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=165244&start=0

I read Max's essay but it didn't change my opinion a single bit. I consider that it is just another cheap trick to divert the reader's attention from the real issues.

by packet spoofer

and have come to the conclusion that...fed up with life on earth, dominated by the evil emperor Bush.....he has decided to join the alien civilization that originally abducted him....He will be missed though....he will be missed!

by oz_media

If there really is a tinfoild hat that can get me off of this ball of dirt, please pass on the instructions. There simply seems to be no intelligent life down here, well next to those clever little woodland cratures that stock up and hibernate, fascinating to watch just how dedicated and busy they all are. :p

by gryfon

It would be a cheap shot if it was untrue. Perhaps trying to make things a little more truthful, not the white hats charging in to 'rescue us' from a problem of their own making.

I guess it really irks me to see the US always portrayed as the 'hero' and 'special' when we're all created equal. But some are more equal than others.

Anyways, you are correct this is not the type of place to discuss this. I will return to my silence at the water cooler. And be glad I have water and that my country does not currently need 'correcting'.

Regards,
Gryf

ps, interesting nobody picked up on the seeds thing...

by maxwell edison

.
If you post a couple of links to the "seeds" story, I'll be happy to comment. However, please post a link to each side of the story - 2 links. Perhaps one from NPR, or something, and another one from the White House perspective. There certainly has to be both supporters and opponents of the "seeds" issue, so let's read both sides and comment accordingly.

Also, I, too, found it interesting that you didn't comment on my "3 bad options" scenario that led up to the circumstances you described. Do you care to discuss it further?

by levannah44

While I agree with you about the worldwide nature of terrorism, Maxwell Edison, and the need to iradicate it -- fast -- I cannot agree about the reasons P. Bush used to invade Iraq or the excuses he used either.

Terrorism has been gaining strength for nearly four decades now -- terrorism as we recognise it today, that is -- and very little has been done on a universal scale to iradicate it. If this is the province of the UN, then yes, they have fallen far short of the mark.

However, that does not give the US the right to try and take over what is the UN's territory, whatever we may or may not think of the UN. Nor does it give the US the authority to march in and walk roughshod over Iraq; indeed over ANY other country.

Back in the early 90s, there was a good reason for the invasion of Iraq; it had invaded Kuwait. This was because it coveted Kuwait's access to the sea, although other "reasons" were always voiced, of course; Kuwait was "geographically" part of Iraq; it was always another "province" of Iraq, etc. etc.

So the world community, under the leadership of the US, and with the UN's blessing, sought to reverse the situation, which happened, albeit with much bloodshed and loss of life.

The situation in 2003/2004 was entirely different. Saddam Hussein was certainly a nasty customer, and his links to Osama bin Laden, whether real or simply perceived to be, could not be entirely discredited.

And of course, there were those WMDs to deal with as well. Whether they ever existed, or whether Saddam was just playing another of his little "games" with the west will probably never be known for sure, unless the culprit ever chooses to speak when he is brought to trial. Unlikely, I suspect.

But terrorism, as the reason for walking into Iraq, was just NOT TRUE. It was, at best, a handy excuse. Even the WMDs wouldn't rate as "reason"; again, they were just another handy excuse.

I totally agree that 9/11 was one of the most horrendous, cowardly and tragic acts of terrorism ever seen on our planet. It should be avenged.

But why Iraq? Just because of Saddam and his supposed links to bin Laden? No. Just because some of the suicide bombers came from there? No.

Let the perpetrators be caught (if possible) and have them brought to justice by a WORLD body. That is the only way true justice can be achieved -- and revenge, if such be the will of the world.

But the real reason Bush chose Iraq to invade was so that he could get his hands on Iraq's enormous oil reserves, to have them under US control when US supplies eventually run dry. THAT is why Bush walked into Iraq this time round.

As for the excuse of trying to establish democracy or a "western" (read "American") way of life is absolutely ludicrous! Certainly the Iraqis are well rid of the cruelty and sadism of Saddam, but has it ever occurred to anyone, particularly the US, that maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis themselves may not WANT democracy?

Maybe democracy doesn't really suit the kind of lifestyle they'd like to establish for themselves. Their religious traditions and beliefs may not be of a kind that readily supports a democratic system.

What we (the world, the UN probably) should be doing is spearheading an effort to undo the terrible damage, the wrongs forced on the Iraqis in the past decade or so.

They don't need money. They've already got plenty of that through their oil, provided they -- the Iraqis -- are allowed to run their own oil reserves as they see fit. It may take a little time for them to do it themselves, after the disaster of Saddam, but let THEM do it, not foreigners!

They need PRACTICAL help, initially food and medical supplies, but mostly, they just need to be left on their own to get on their feet again by themselves.

If they make a few mistakes along the way, so be it. We all make mistakes -- and hopefully learn from them.

But in the end, the Iraqis will recover from the Saddam years on their own if left to do it themselves. The presence of foreign troops, be they US, the UK or anyone else is only causing more friction, not less.

Democracy? Why not let the Iraqis themselves find their own system, a blend of Islam for the 21st century, perhaps, but nothing that is forced on them from another country; any other country.

The war on terrorism will only be won if we, the west, show a little respect for other peoples' beliefs and hopes. If we don't pretend that our system is the "be all and end all" and that "only" white, democratic, Christian countries (WASPs in some circles) are the only kind that matter, we'll get rid of terrorism far more quickly than by going about it the way we are now.

The US, and its allies -- and I'm thoroughly ashamed to have to admit that it includes my country (Australia) as well -- should get out of where they're not wanted, send much needed medical supplies instead (without having to go there) and let the Iraquis get on with doing their own rebuilding. End of story.

Levannah

by hal 9000

You seen to have missed all of the other terrorist activities that ave occurred like the IRA bombing of that hotel in which a lot of the British Government where staying in or the assignation of Lord Mt Batten.

While you are perfectly correct in everything you have posted as far as the actual actions go but I think you miss the point somewhat. You have only actually looked at mostly Islamic attacks upon the USA and not the rest of the world where a lot of nasty things are happening. If I remember correctly there have been a few US citizens who have openly attacked the US Government Intuitions as well shouldn't you have included these as well?

Then there are the Tamale Tigers who have no religious affiliations at all but serious political complaints and the same applies to quite a few other countries as well. Even though some of these actions may have a predominately religious background like Rwanda they are not specifically religious but show a total lack of willingness to get along with their neighbors.

There was also the Iran Iraq war which in no way could be be described as anything other than ongoing terrorism against the local population of these countries and they where both Islamic countries.

While it is true that there are Islamic insurgents involved even the Lockeby incident was not a religious thing but more a political item the fact that the people concerned where Islamic was only secondary to their intent. Even today the then "Hatted Gaddafi" is now tolerated as an upstanding member of the Middle East when only a few years ago he was one of the bad guys.

There are quite a few more things that could be said but I think you have a very limited view of world wide events that have occurred over the past 40 odd years maybe this is because you do not get an unbiased new coverage or you see your fellow citizens react only when they feel threatened.

But until we are willing to actually sit down and learn what are the complaints of the other side we will never stop these actions from happening this is something that the British Government learnt in Northern Ireland with the IRA who where all Catholics and not the slightest hint of any Islamic influence within them.

The main problem in the Middle East is the fact that the so called oil exports which where supposed to bring a better living conditions to all has not happened and the population of this area has doubled every 10 years or so in the mean time so the actual fact is that the average person is now living in poorer conditions than they where prior to the oil fields being discovered and they feel betrayed so they blame the largest buyer of their product the USA and along with the USA stanch support of the Jewish State which was created by the UN and staunchly supported by every administration since your country is a natural enemy if for no other reason than the fact that the poorly educated people are looking for something better and are feed a constant stream of anti American Bull.

However what is now very concerning is the fact that this type of action is no longer confined to the Middle East Islamic States but is spreading through quite a lot of the Islamic countries hence the attacks in Indonesia which where aimed squarely against Westerners in general and Australians in particular so you needn't feel that it is only the USA who is suffering these attacks. Right now the AU Government has decreed a 1,000 mile Territorial marine limit around AU which incidental takes in several of our nearest neighbors which are predominately Islamic, if this is continued it could be quite rightfully be said that AU is trying to annex sovereign countries and as a result are making ourselves an easy target for any disgruntled extremist.

Col

by hal 9000

Currently in the Middle East the women are saying things like in Britain they demonstrated against the war in Iraq but durring the same week they also demonstrated against cruelty to animals so the British Citizens are comparing us to animals. While this is clearly preposterous it is how the what where once moderate Islamic people are thinking.

Of course the USA has a lot to answer for as well it is your very TV & Movie industry which portrays you in such a bad light. A lot of people around the world seem to believe that the USA's answer to any problem is to shoot the S**t out first and ask questions latter. Things like this are portrayed in a lot of your movies and quite a few people now believe this which is obviously rubbish but as they are feed a constant stream of this rubbish they do tend to believe it. Even North Korea made an official complaint about one of the latest James Bond films which portrayed their armed forces as totally incompetent.

As individuals Americans are quite nice people from my experience but unfortunately your country seems to have the opinion that we will not be beaten in anything and if you hit us well will strike back with such force that you will not know what happened. Well this may work with Sovereign States who do have something to loose but real terrorists do not control States but only minor areas which are easily moved on from so we right at the moment are in a fight against an enemy of unknown strength and resources with no firm battle lines to work from. Any Military person will tell you that this is a NO WIN situation as you have no set targets or any idea where to strike.

The unfortunate thing here is the fact that the Islamic community sees the invasion of Iraq not as an attempt to liberate Iraq and its population but as nothing more than an attack upon Islam and as a continuance of the Crusades of old where the Christians came in and plundered the country for its riches. Now that the riches is Oil it is perceived that the US needs to stay put until such time as they have removed as much oil as possible to the detriment of the Iraq population.

While I personally do not believe this for a single Nano second unfortunately some do and it is from this group that the recruits are gathered who are then brainwashed into submission and sent in to fight a "Gorilla War" with no firm front and worst of all no country to defend only their personal possessions which they carry with them.

Col

by oz_media

You are right in that the media portrays a shoot first and ask questions later image on the USA. In MANY cases this is completely absurd.

Then again, you were here when reading how somereally pumped up Americans were backing the war and saying exactly that. Others were even more extreme.

While this does not represent all Americans, it does portray the mindset of MANY Americans, you have to remember Colin, they REELECTED GWB. Some people such as Maxwell make these decisions based on MANY factors of the administration and they feel that in the BIG picture GWB was the better choice.

Then again, how many MILLIONS of Americans reelected GWB because they thought Kerry was a whimp who would put an end the war?

Now I am opposed to Bush, as most are, DUE to the fact that he went to war in Iraq. His internal policies don't effect me in anyway.

For people to support him BECAUSE of the war, just echo's the sentiment of the media and reinforces the USA's position in the eyes of the rest of the world. Shoot first and ask questions later.

The bad apples ruin the whole tree it seems.

by oz_media

No I haven't read it et, you know I hate politics and i hate reading about politics even more. But I may as time progresses.

I do think that while Max did step up to the plate, no I didn't do a character or word check for length.

The only thing I see here, and this is without reading your post in its entirety, is that you both have firm convictions.

Max has not swayed on ebit form his core set of beliefs as expected. Then again , I found his post redundant and evasive with the most important issues of argument simply skimmed over and the colorful points focused on.

Either way, you did the homework, so did Max.

Here's a good question though, what did this prove?

That you and Maxwell have BOTH formed opinions based on a collective of what you believe or disbelieve from the media.

Well done, you have both proven that you disagree but nobody can be deemed right or wrong entirely.

You both included facts and opinions. There's nothing to debate is there?

by oz_media

You have deinitely put though into it and it is very similar to the stories I have seen aired here also. Some with actual interviews of the gentlemen mentioned saying as much.

Now many will discount your sources, which cannot be proven as any more nor any less accurate than ANY other source provided, especially The White House.

Somethings that I also feel stringly about is tha fect that Iraqi's qill not fight Iraq's. I watched a Canadian reporters interveiw with the cheif of police in Pakistan about the hunt for Osama and al-Qada members. HE simply shrugged his shoulders and said he cannot punish his forces for NOT arresting these men as many are friends and if not they are at least MUSLIMS, whic America is not and therefore they cannot expect Muslims to arrest Muslims. Therefore what is SAID to be America's strongest ally in teh middle east is actually a country of citizens that, just like ANY American cop, will not arrest or punish their own in order to satisfy another country's wishes.

If Muslims asked American police to arrest a group of 'radical Christians' for them, do you think it would get much support? Just look back at the crusaders for that answer.

Also I have heard nothing but horror stories about Halliburton. They are not too well liked up here after selling 2500lbs of explosives to a Canadian who had purchased them legitimately (he thought). He even took them BACK to the US from Canada (full paperwork) for his WELL KNOWN and government used counter terrorism camp and was arrested under suspicion of terrorist training when he fired two employees.

Halliburton was SUPPOSED to destroy the unused explosives, used in US missiles, under military law but instead they resold them under false pretenses.

He has since been released and is currently pressing charges against Halliburton. Yet they remain a KEY player in US military operations and support? How unregulated is it down there?

Anyhow, I see your comments and agree with your sentiments. I too see this as a bad administration quickly being excused for the most unethical, untrustworthy agenda without an explanation being expected or questioned.
Anything goes and it gets supported by hundred's of millions of misguided, misinformed or unethical citizens.
Glad to be waaaaaaaay up here, that's for sure!

This discussion is closed to new replies.