Far too many people are unclear on the concept of propaganda. In their minds, propaganda is equated with intentional lies spread by governments. This is wrong. From Merriam-Webster we learn that propaganda is:

2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

Propaganda is not a problem, it is what that propaganda is used for that is a problem.

So, when the Left villifies the use of propaganda in furthering the goal of winning the war in Iraq, they are a) unaware of how to use the term properly, b) unaware that all armies--by definition--must engage in the spread of propaganda because facts are meaningless without some context, c) are hypocritically comfortable with a Marine killing a terrorist but not with a Marine paying a newspaper to say that the terrorist is bad, or d) are only comfortable when propaganda is prepared by them--in which case they don't believe the propaganda is really propaganda, because we all know that the objective truth is whatever the Left says it is--in which case we return to (a) since this means that they are unclear on the definition of propaganda.

Earlier today a Leftist reader e-mailed me a story from the L.A. Times which claims the U.S. pays Iraqi newspapers to publish stories favorable to the U.S. By definition this is propaganda. What is vexing, though, is why any one would have any objections to this unless they are making any of mistakes a-d listed above?

Jeff Goldstein is always a good man to go to in a pinch when semantics are at issue.

I’m not so sure I see “largely factual” pro-American “propaganda” as too much of a problem if it helps to burnish the image of Americans in the eyes of skeptical Iraqis long under the boot heel of a tyranical dictator—and in doing so, helps save soldiers lives and expedites the victory on the ground and the establishment of a strong and viable Iraqi government.

Also, it bears noting here the the US military is working with willing Iraqi newspapers in an effort to thwart the insurgency by defeating them not just on the battlefield, but in the sphere of public perception.

Questions: have we used these same techniques in other wars? Certainly. Should we? Absolutely—particularly if it could save US soldiers’ lives and help end the insurgency. [READ THE REST]

Except, of course, the news isn't "fake." Biased? Yes, but it's supposed to be - it's part of the propaganda campaign. Propaganda is important in any war, but it's vital in a media war.

That's not fascism; that's fighting a battle where no one gets shot at and no one gets killed.

What made the Nazi propaganda of Josef Goebells and Tokyo Rose so wrong (and why both were legitimate military targets) was not that it was propaganda but that it was propaganda meant to undermine the victory of the United States millitary.

Propaganda is a weapon in war. When any weapon is in the hands of our military, it is an asset. Weapons are bad only when they are in the hands of the enemy.

Which makes one wonder why Leftists, so-called 'moderates', or even some on the Right, would consider a weapon in the hands of the U.S. military a bad thing? Unless, of course, they considered the real enemy to be.......

Not that I would ever question anyone's patriotism....

(via Glenn, who I'll hat tip even though I would have got to Steve and Jeff's post had not "I" come before "P" and "V" in my RSS reader)

More below if you're really into the philosophy of contextualized and hierarchical rights in a state of war. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:23 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 2758 words, total size 16 kb.

1 the trap of depending on propaganda is that it seems to validate the lie that the deception that the will is free and within that 'freedom' the emotions of another can be manipulated for the desired result: more words as 'info'/'intel' as grist for the mill of a supposed 'free' will intelligence community. Which is merely a set up for worse evils down the road.. the 'propaganda' on-going in the US as policy both secretly and openly is the anti-Christ that Islam is real faith and not an outight deception/lie. The US is psy-oping itself with a lie and all other 'propaganda' proceed from that one lie. Proverbs 10:24 The fear of a wicked man , it shall come upon him; but the desire of the righteous shall be granted. In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Posted by: here and there at November 30, 2005 03:39 PM (6krEN)

2 My RSS reader lets me sort unread items by date. Which is usually good, except that a lot of feeds out there don't have proper dates!

Posted by: IO ERROR at November 30, 2005 03:46 PM (iQUq8)

3 From one Burkean libertarian to another: outstanding. Imagine what the left, or Reason magazine, would have had to say about Abe Lincoln, who simply closed presses and locked editors in prison. That all ended when the Civil War did, and appears to have been necessary at the time. War has its own imperatives, and we are at war. Again, superb post.

Posted by: Mona at November 30, 2005 03:48 PM (FUJZ7)

4 Good point Mona; Lincoln understood that the freedom of the press means freedom to express opinion and report fact, but not advocate for the enemy.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 30, 2005 03:57 PM (0yYS2)

5 While I agree with your philosophy here, more than you can know, the idea of censorship is an much larger hurdle today. Why? The Internet.

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 03:57 PM (fl6E1)

6 I tell you, Rusty, you have attracted some 'dandies' with these posts on the CPT hostages. Whoa! And that 'here and there' guy is more there than here, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 30, 2005 04:00 PM (rUyw4)

7 Joe, I was gonna say that. I don't understand what it is he's trying to say: What's that, Lassie? There's a rabbit trapped in the well?

Posted by: Oyster at November 30, 2005 04:57 PM (YudAC)

8 Yeah, I just figure incoherent comments like here and there's are kinda par for the course.

Posted by: Rusty at November 30, 2005 05:00 PM (JQjhA)

9 Rusty: The idiosyncratic use of the term "propaganda" by the left is entirely consistent with the doctrinaire Marxist use of the term "ideology." In Marxist parlance, "ideology" is strictly something that the ruling class uses to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting proletariat, creating what Marx called "false consciousness." Thus, the term "ideology" can't be used to refer to Marxism, since it is simply the truth, and is about the reinstatement of "true consciousness." So it isn't that the don't understand the term, it's that they have a very idiosyncratic meaning of which they are well aware, provided they're well schooled in their own basic principles.

Posted by: Demosophist at November 30, 2005 06:04 PM (7sM+R)

10 Not that I would ever question anyone's patriotism ... Whyever not? Surely by refusing to even consider the possibility, you are ceding the playing field to those who define 'patriotism' rather loosely. There is nothing wrong with questioning someone's patriotism. There is something wrong in not defining what you mean by the term and then accusing others of not measuring up. For example I think the LA Times story was un-patriotic in the most fundamental sense as it deliberately undermined its own Nation in a time of conflict. And for no good reason to boot.

Posted by: dougf at November 30, 2005 08:44 PM (STFua)

11 Agent Smith says beware of anyone who finishes any statement that ends with "in the name of Jesus". Agent Jones says, "including Agent Smith".

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 01, 2005 06:45 AM (Ww5es)

12 Agent Jones in a "Frenchman Moment" discovered this in an article from Salon.com: "The notion that reporting on the guerrilla war in Iraq abets terrorism is typical of the logic of any extreme right-wing political movement. All censorship by all military regimes in the Middle East has been imposed on the grounds that journalists' speech is dangerous to society and could cause public turmoil (fitna). Rumsfeld's reasoning in this regard would be instantly recognizable to any Arab journalist from their experience with their own governments." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/113005Q.shtml

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 01, 2005 06:55 AM (Ww5es)

13 "The notion that reporting on the guerrilla war in Iraq abets terrorism is typical of the logic of any extreme right-wing political movement." (For one thing, let's look at the author, Juan Cole. Partisan extraordinaire.) It's horsesh*t and you know it. It's not the reporting. It's the one-sided reporting that abets them. Nice how you bought into that so quickly and used it as an argument. That's so "typical of the logic of any extreme left-wing political movement". But I'm not questioning your patriotism ...

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 07:35 AM (YudAC)

14 There is a compelling argument for propaganda during war, but Bob Steele makes an even more compelling counter argument for modern information operations which is the following: "Modern IO is not about the old messages of PSYOP, but rather about empowering billions of people with both information tools and access to truthful information. It is about education, not manipulation. It is about sharing, not secrecy. It is about human understanding to create wealth and stabilize societies, not about the threat of violence and the delivery of precision munitions. IO substitutes information for violence." Education would be to accurately represent the merits and disadvantages of BOTH sides of any argument. You don't get this with Propaganda. You only highlight the benefits of your idea and the disadvantages of the other idea while suppressing the disadvantages of your idea and the advantages of the other ideas. And so it is an issue of proportionality and emphasis that makes propaganda deceptive and manipulative. So while you may be able to gain some short-term advantage with propaganda as a communications strategy, in the long-run it's a losing battle in winning the hearts and minds of the people as well as empowering them with the critical thinking skills necessary to be able to govern themselves as a viable democracy. There's also a lack of transparency that eventually makes your strategic message less credible as soon as people realize that they are being propagandized and not educated. In war, you could make an argument that the benefits of that short-term time period are critical to the mission. And that may be true. But as soon as you reach a critical mass of Iraqi citizens who realize that they're not getting a full picture of reality, then the messenger really starts to loose credibility. In an online draft of his book called "INFORMATION OPERATIONS: All Information, All Languages, All the Time" Bob Steele advocates that Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) should be the backbone to any type of Information Operations (IO) -- and that Strategic Communications has to be based upon this "ground truth." "IO content can be thought of in two parts: Strategic Communication (the message) and OSINT (the reality). The first cannot be effective without the second. It is not possible to craft the right message, nor to deliver that message to the right person at the right time in the right context, without first understanding “ground truth” at a sub-state level of granularity (tribes, villages, neighborhoods). OSINT is the horse seeing the path, Strategic Communication is the cart carrying the message. One before the other." The problem with propaganda is that is prioritizes strategic communication above and beyond the ground reality.

Posted by: Kent Bye at December 01, 2005 10:45 AM (IOLlO)

15 I understand the argument, but it's all just pie in the sky stuff. As long as there are those who use propaganda nefariously, ie laced with lies or half truths, then being honest more often just gets lost in the wind. Plus, people hear what they want to hear and have no problem with refuting absolute truths. And I hope no one is criticizing the propaganda we employ in Iraq without knowing any of the content. Oh wait ... of course they are. Even though, I suspect any propaganda we use is simply to counter what has been wrongly portrayed already.

Posted by: Oyster at December 01, 2005 02:04 PM (fl6E1)

16 Rusty wrote:As long as we are in a state of war, the media must act in ways consistent with winning and bringing back a state of peace. If they cannot do it themselves, they must be forcibly censored... To think that content censorship would continue after we have defeated the threat of Islamofascism is to overlook WWI and WWII. In both cases we had direct censorship. In both cases the censorship eventually ended. Of course that brings us back to the fact that this war, unlike any other war the U.S. has ever waged, could drag on for decades or even several generations, which still leaves the Left with the same argument it uses against detaining captured enemy combatants until the war is over - specifically, that we're talking about holding these prisoners, and curtailing the media's free speech, for, well, decades or even several generations on end. The problem is that the American public is likely to be a good deal more sympathetic to the Left's argument when applied to free speech in wartime, than they are to the same argument applied to enemy prisoners. In other words, most Americans probably couldn't care less that we might let a bunch of Islamofascists rot in Gitmo or wherever for 50 or 100 years, if the war drags on for that long - but they won't necessarily put up with restrictions on speech/media for the same 50 or 100 years, even if those restrictions are geared toward the same goal. If the war doesn't end until after everyone alive today has passed on (a very strong possibility), then any wartime restriction of speech/media enacted today would not be merely a temporary measure; it would, for all intents and purposes, be permanent, at least from the perspective of everyone alive today. It would also have an unpredictable effect on the attitudes of not-yet-born children who would grow up, and quite possibly live out their entire lives, in an America that pays lip service to a free press, but does not practice it due to the ongoing war. And when the war does finally end, will the American people really be that anxious to restore those press freedoms when they've never known what it's like to have them in the first place? Mind you, this is not an attack on Rusty's position, with which I otherwise have no argument whatsoever; rather it's to point out that there's a good deal more to consider than just the role of the press in time of war when the war is likely to replace peace as the new "normal" state of American life for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Joshua at December 01, 2005 02:39 PM (2c7xL)

17 I totally agree with Joshua. And I concede to Oyster that I haven't seen the actual propaganda being used in Iraq. And you could argue that it's a realist perspective to say that "being honest more often just gets lost in the wind" -- but isn't this what democracy is supposed to be about? I mean, I know our own politicians have rationalized themselves into corner by valuing spin and perception over truth, but can't we do better than this rather cynical take on the truth? I also think that only focusing on violent conflict resolution as being rather short-sighted as well. Again, I quote Robert Davis Steele who has been pushing for Open Source Intelligence for the last 17 years. "In an era when information converted into intelligence and knowledge is a substitute for wealth, violence, energy, water, and everything else, only the: the United States of America has the power to execute this practical vision. DoD is the catalyst for its achievement." Steele argues that we're at a strategic dead in that: "the United States of America finds itself with a military optimized for force-on-force confrontations between nation-states, and a national intelligence community optimized for stealing secrets through technical means, with an extremely narrow range of focus and almost no flexibility." So Steele is advocating for a complete paradigm shift in how we resolve conflict with what he calls information peacekeeping -- and with information operations (IO). "Modern IO is the seed crystal for a total transformation of the American way of war, a new American way that practices information peacekeeping, and reflects a new commitment by America to stabilize the world intelligently rather than violently. It is a holistic mission that must be accomplished by the J-3 using a civil affairs mind-set, with the J-2 limited to internal validation and support. There are not enough guns on the planet to force our will upon other or to protect our quality of life for future generations. IO is the new way of war, and of peace." At the root of IO is open source intelligence and a grounding in truth and education. So even though there may be some compelling arguments here in this thread for using Propaganda within the context of a traditional war, I don't think that this it's a winning strategy for the long-term challenges that we're facing. It's the 21st century, and we're in the information age now. It's time for our political culture and defense strategy to start catching up with the technical innovation and new media revolution.

Posted by: Kent Bye at December 01, 2005 04:54 PM (IOLlO)

18 Hrrmmm.... Gee Rusty, I hope you won't call me a "Lefty" for this, but I keep reading your post and every time I get to the implicit "There's nothing really *wrong* with paying news sites to lie for you in a Good Cause", this little voice in the back of my head has a *cough cough* bulllshit! *cough cough* moment. Ah'm jest sayin', is all. I've heard of "surrendering the Moral High Ground", but it's been a long time since I've seen so many bloggers leap to their deaths from it. It's almost as amusing as Pajamas Media. ;]

Posted by: Ironbear at December 04, 2005 12:04 AM (2qhVP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

U.S. Border Patrol agents, charged with patrolling and assuring the security of the U.S.-Mexican border, are understandably angered by the fact that their uniforms are made in Mexico. Their pants and shirts even display labels stating "Made in Mexico." And, it's not just the irony of the situation that's troubling, the agents are concerned about the impact on border security.

From KFMB.com:

Agents and lawmakers are concerned about the consequences if the uniforms for agents charged with combating illegal immigration fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists.

"If we're manufacturing uniforms in Mexico, what's to stop someone from walking across the border in a Border Patrol uniform?" asked Rep. John Carter, a Republican from Round Rock. "How do you know who are our guys and who are their guys?"

A company based in Nashville, Tennessee, called VF Solutions supplies the uniforms and subcontracts work to Mexico and other countries. VF Solutions has been providing Mexican-made uniforms to the Border Patrol for about a year with no instances of misuse reported. Customs officials assert that security measures, including on-site inspections at the Mexican production facility, are in place. Excuse me for not feeling warm and fuzzy about this. It's Mexico, dammit! You can't rely upon anything south of the border except for the paramount importance of the U.S. dollar.

Congress is expected to address enhancements to border security soon. Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz., and Rep. Carter plan to introduce a measure which would require that U.S. Border Patrol uniforms be made in the United States. I think it's a good idea. Criminals and terrorists don't need to be facilitated in their lawbreaking and being able to obtain Border Patrol uniforms does just that. And if they can't be made in the U.S., at least take the "Made in Mexico" label off the garments. I can easily understand why some agents might start each work shift with an attitude of anger and frustration.

"Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinking badges. We've got uniforms."

Companion at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:51 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 386 words, total size 3 kb.

1 'cause they're doing their job and keeping the cheap labor south of the border.

Posted by: Rodney Dill at November 28, 2005 05:08 AM (tGTSA)

2 We are everyone and we are no one.

Posted by: Agent Smith at November 28, 2005 05:40 AM (OM64d)

3 If they have the uniforms made in Mexico to save money, why don't they just hire illegal aliens over here to make them like everyone else does? [/sarcasm]

Posted by: Oyster at November 28, 2005 06:04 AM (YudAC)

4 You know, this would just be funny if it were not so serious. The contract the government has with these people should have required that the uniforms be made in the US. I know of a company right here in the US, very close to where I live, that is making uniforms for the Coast Guard and the Iraqi National Guard. They could easily make uniforms for the Border Patrol. I blame Bush, the Congress and the idiots in charge of procurement for this stupidity. When are we ever going to be concerned about the people of the US, rather than foreigners? I tell you, I am sick...sick of it!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 09:10 AM (rUyw4)

5 And this is a real issue? I don't get it.

Posted by: hondo at November 28, 2005 09:57 AM (Jvmry)

6 I only wish this were even really news. This does however remind me of something that happened a few years ago. A guy I knew managed a hosiery mill near here, and had a hard time finding dependable employees, even with a competitive wage, so he resorted to hiring immigrants, who proved far more reliable. One of his problems was that his American employees kept trying to unionize, regardless of the fact that his was the only company for forty miles in any direction that offered regular hours, good wages, and benefits. He had a hard enough time finding people who would do the work, which was basically standing at a sock knitting machine all day, and hardly sweatshop labor. The fact that the few regular employees wanted double the money, paid holidays, and paid benefits, combined with more competition in the market, forced him to hire immigrants, which worked for a while, but then the owner told him he was going to move the plant to Honduras or shut down completely because even with the more cost effective immigrant labor, he still couldn't pay the bills, which were mainly taxes and payroll. The result was that the plant moved to Honduras, where they pay a high wage for the region, and they remain profitable while investing in the local community, building a medical clinic and helping build a better school. They didn't move to exploit the poor, but to survive, and until more people get their heads out of their asses and figure out that businesses can't compete if they have a crushing tax burden and constant harassment from unions and corrupt politicians, we're going to keep losing jobs.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 28, 2005 11:38 AM (0yYS2)

7 Maxie makes a good point - and there are others. Some of my winter veggies and fruit are from Mexico. Some of my oil, and other items too along with an occasional beer. Delivered by trucks (GM n' others), processed by machinery (AMF, CAT, and so on). I could go on with an enormous list - but what's the point. How did uniforms become an issue of any significance?

Posted by: hondo at November 28, 2005 11:57 AM (Jvmry)

8 Good Grief.

Posted by: thirdee at November 28, 2005 12:29 PM (WOh+m)

9 hondo, it's not really that big an issue unless we find that security isn't good enough to keep the uniforms out of the hands of the wrong guys. And besides, it's also the irony that they're making uniforms for the guys who are charged with keeping them out. And IM is right in that it's also ironic that those who want to punish corporations who give them jobs, punish and bleed them enough to keep them from staying viable, complain the loudest when the jobs go elsewhere or they're forced to raise prices for their products.

Posted by: Oyster at November 28, 2005 01:46 PM (fl6E1)

10 Oyster, I have been to Mexico numerous times and I can categorically tell you that security in Mexico is a problem. If a drug dealer or smuggler wanted these uniforms it would be doable. As for US companies who do the work, I know of a company that is making uniforms for the Coast Guard and the Iraqi National Guard. I know they could make uniforms for the Border Patrol. The uniforms are similar.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 02:14 PM (rUyw4)

11 The security of these uniforms is a moot point considering that my Korean tailor at Ft. Bragg could replicate any uniform from a picture. It's only haberdashery, not rocket science.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 28, 2005 03:01 PM (0yYS2)

12 So the bad guys get their paws on some uniforms. So what? Just because they have a border patrol uniform doesn't mean they have free reign of the border. Do people think that agents in uniform can just walk across the border whenever and wherever they want to? US agents cannot cross into Mexico while on routine patrol nor can Mexican agents cross into the US. If they do they are detained. It's happened before. As for complaining about the uniforms being made in Mexico, it's just plain economics. If you want everything made in the good old US, then stop complaining about high prices. Also, due to marking rulings of US Customs, only the end-user can remove the tag that says made in Mexico...and that would be the agent who has to wear it. Jeez, no ones happy unless they're complaining about something or other.

Posted by: Jaba at November 28, 2005 03:19 PM (k6t0T)

13 Yeah, well, Jaba the Hut, I'm real pissed about the lack of security on the Mexican border and Mike has been kind enough to post about the fact that uniforms of our Border Patrol are made in the foreign country whose nationals are most likely to ILLIGALLY cross our border. And since this is a political blog designed for comments, well, hell, I decided to comment.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 03:27 PM (rUyw4)

14 Yeah.

Posted by: Oyster at November 28, 2005 04:37 PM (fl6E1)

15 i think that the US agents are doing a really bad job securing our borders. we always hear of mexican druglords (that end up in prison).... but what happens with the bus full of drugs that crosses the border? where does it goes? who takes care of it? we never hear from the mafia in this side of the border, i think that our government is the one lacking security... vote democrat

Posted by: alec lauridsden at November 28, 2005 07:16 PM (Ewu0l)

16 Jeez guys if ANYONE wants a uniform all you have to do is go to the Uniform Store in your own state. I would recommend ebay though, cheaper and it comes with that "worn in look".

Posted by: john ryan at November 28, 2005 07:33 PM (ads7K)

17 John Ryan, Are you trying to take the place of Downing Steeet Memo? Your posts are becoming more and more incoherant.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 08:03 PM (rUyw4)

18 Anomaly Detected - begin search "Downing Street Memo" "Downing Street Memo IV" is a certifiable lunatic who through incoherent rants and "Bush Derangement Syndrome" had plagued the Jawa Report. DSM IV, in a final, rude and unrepeatable insult, moved to Venezuela to teach English in a Bolivarian Circle. Agent Brown says DSM IV may have moved to Cuba and have used Venezuela as a plausible cover. DSM IV was photographed wearing sunglasses at a large Washington rally. Agent Jones says "DSM IV" is shorthand for "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition".

Posted by: Agent Smith at November 29, 2005 06:22 AM (hNv1g)

19 Next time buy union.

Posted by: actus at November 29, 2005 07:24 AM (Zi15r)

20 Yeah, union made uniforms have a magic spell on them that prevents them from being worn by anyone other than an actual officer. Liberals aren't even stupid, because even the word stupid denotes some measure of intelligence.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 29, 2005 10:26 AM (0yYS2)

21 "Yeah, union made uniforms have a magic spell on them that prevents them from being worn by anyone other than an actual officer." what does this have to do with who wears the uniforms?

Posted by: actus at November 29, 2005 11:31 AM (CqheE)

22 That was the whole point of the post. Duh. And besides, if it weren't for the unions trying to destroy businesses, they wouldn't have to go out of the country to get stuff made.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 29, 2005 05:37 PM (0yYS2)

23 Ah! Whats the problem? They make everything else in Mexico. Even 50% of the border patrol.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 29, 2005 07:10 PM (ZaAd/)

24 I'll bite. This is a good thing. Firstly, the security argument is weak. If a copy of the Border Patrol uniform was the only thing necessary to make it across, you'd be able to buy a good enough ripoff on any street corner in Mexico. Since you cannot, I have to assume that US Border Patrol Agents are smart enough to know that if they see a group of "agents" ducking in the bushes and running north who they've never seen before, are not assigned to that area, and don't speak english, then they probably aren't agents. Also the economic and social benefits far outweigh that false negative, see my post here: http://neolib.us. -Max

Posted by: Max at November 30, 2005 06:01 PM (g4H18)

25 Would it be better if it said made in China? I don't think so... Having more jobs for Mexican citizens is better for Americans at the end of the day: More jobs for Mexicans less immigrants to the US.

Posted by: Marcos Gottfried at December 12, 2005 02:45 PM (0SZCo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera. Okay. It's still not too late. It's not like The Jawa Report Editorial Board hasn't made the same suggestion on a number of occasions.

Here is the latest 'editorial' cartoon from al Jazeera. Remember, this is the English version which is far less critical of the U.S. than the Arabic. I've put the two frames together (the original is animated). Click for a larger view. It shows the U.N. watchdog interested in a basic chemistry expirement by Iran while ignoring the far more serious use of 'chemical weapons' by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is why the insurgents fight us. Because they believe--exactly as the Left does--that America is guilty of the worst crimes. By characterizing the use of WP in Fallujah as 'chemical weapons' the critics are lumping the U.S. in with the worst and most despotic regimes in the world.

The same principle applies to those who accuse we on the Right of 'moral relatavism' and of 'not taking the moral high ground'.

The word torture, for instance, is used by the Left and by our enemies abroad to characterize certain interrogation techniques.

And because Jeff Goldstein is on effin fire lately, let me just throw a Goldstein quote in here as a response to the inevetable objection that I'm now defending torture:

One commenter even went so far as to say my arguments constituted a form of moral relativism—a charge I find completely uncredible: first, if one really is against torture, one should WANT to narrow the definition instead of adopting or accepting an expansive definition that hamstrings the pragmatic necessities of effective interrogation (which can include nothing more than a threat of coercion). To think of tactics like waterboarding or sleep deprivation as commensurate to rape rooms is troublesome, it seems to me—but that is exactly what one commits oneself to once one commits to a morally absolute stand on “torture” that abides such an expansive definition.

Because I don’t think all forms of suffering and anguish are equal—I am willing to draw distinctions where those who accept an expansive definition of “torture” cannot. And not being able to draw distinctions is where relativism comes in, I would argue.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:03 PM | Comments (99) | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

From fellow Jawa blogger Mike Pechar:

A high school chemistry teacher in Qassim Province, Muhammad al-Harbi (aka Mohammed Salamah Al Harbi), faced blasphemy charges after his students and fellow teachers filed legal complaints against him for questioning and ridiculing Islam, discussing the Bible and defending Jews.

In Bukairia, north of Riyadh, al-Harbi was convicted in court before Judge Abdullah Dakhil who sentenced him to 40 months in prison and public flogging of 750 lashes. Al-Harbi was also banned from teaching.

Last month, on opposite sides of the globe, two assaults on the freedom of speech began. In Afghanistan, the editor of "Women's Rights" magazine was convicted on "blasphemy" charges after a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai accused the editor of publishing two "un-Islamic" articles: one criticizing the Islamic practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes; the other arguing that leaving Islam wasn't a crime....

Indeed, it does, but that same constitution also guarantees that no law may contradict the law of Islam. And the law of Islam says no messing with Islam. And that's not all: Since March 2004, a new media law signed by President Karzai outlaws anything Islamically "insulting." In other words, hello totalitarian practices, goodbye protections and freedoms. And goodbye Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, the "blaspheming" editor sentenced to two years in jail. By all accounts, this was getting off easy: The prosecutor in the case was angling for a death sentence.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:34 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

I was reading a story on CNN today that really got me to thinking. First off, we have this really wonderful title to the story: French riots erupt despite curfew. What, exactly, were they expecting to happen? Let's run over this concept one more time for the uninformed. If you have people who are already breaking the law, creating new laws is not a deterrant. I realize this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but the same people who are out there destroying cars and breaking windows and starting fights are not going to go "Gee! The government just imposed a curfew! I'd better stay inside or I might get in trouble!"

Now I just want to make sure I have this straight. France is one of the most socialist countries in the world without being outright communist. Right? Their workers, from what I understand, only have to work 32 hours a week. Now, if this great "socialist experiment" actually worked the way that liberals claim, why do they have a problem with poor minorities rioting? Heck, according to their theories, there shouldn't be any poor minorities! But, sometimes even the most hardcore liberal must wake up and face reality. And the reality in this case is that there are poor out there who have been left behind even by your wonderful socialist system and they are currently destroying your fair city.

And yet I have to wonder why President Chiraq isn't ordering his battalions of psychiatrists in to battle this problem? Isn't that the liberal approach? Aren't you supposed to talk with the aggressor? Attempt to understand his position and sympathize with his needs? Isn't that what we were supposed to do in France?

Well, I now call on Chiraq to stand behind his words. Withdraw your police forces, Jacques! These rioters are just misunderstood! Killing them, or even containing them, would be a violation of their civil rights. And it's clearly evident that they don't want your police force in their neighborhood. I call on you now to end your violent occupation of these streets! Continuing to attempt to stop these rioters will only cost innocent suburbanites their lives! It is time to bring forth your negotiators. Find out what the rioters want and appease them. Only through talk can you find the true path to peace!

And sadly, Jacques, if you cannot find it in your heart to pull out these occupying police forces, I must label you the biggest rioter of all!

Posted by: Drew at 09:43 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Nice.

Posted by: Laura at November 09, 2005 09:57 AM (ftixA)

2 Drew, You are absolutely right. This is exactly the way the liberals behave in our country as well. Rather than enforce the laws already on the books, they prefer, or insist in some cases, that new laws be passed. To do what you ask? Now you have an excellent question. The liberals are using the situation not to pass laws that they know will not be enforced on the people at hand, but to have these laws on the books to enforce them at a later date on someone else, you guessed it, conservatives. They have used this stealth strategy many times with gun control laws, with no intention to use them on criminals, but on the law abiding in an attempt to disarm America. The neo-liberal(new term, accurate, not fake) must be watched at all times, whether here in America or overseas.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2005 10:08 AM (rUyw4)

3 Liberals the world over are cut from the same cloth and they all suffer from a lack of a charactersitic that a person in authority needs: good analytical skills. From their actions they are incapable of studying a problem fully. Most of the time they pledge to resolve the problem, but never are able to say how they intend to do so. "We'll balance the budget." Great, but HOW do you intend to do so? Furthermore, when they do present a solution, they don't think more than 2 days down the road about what effect that solution will have and whether the consequences will be good, bad or a wate of resources. JJ's mentioning of gun control is a good example. Yes guns can be dangerous and are used to commit crimes and accidents involving kids occur, so on the surface, getting rid of all guns seems like a good idea. But the fact is, it isn't and the global stats prove it - but the liberals keep fighting for it anyway. Until they learn that everything is not as simple as it appears, they will remain for the large part, a destructive element of society. I would have stuck hypocritical in there somewhere as well, but we all know that and I'm feeling lazy.

Posted by: Graeme at November 09, 2005 10:45 AM (+Cchv)

4 With the spread of rioting to almost 300 cities across France, its Government faces the biggest challenge to state authority since the student uprising in 1968. Whatever the grievances in the ghettos, the priority is clear: restore order and reclaim the angry streets of the suburbs. The decision to give mayors the right to impose curfews is suitable - though it is unclear how such a measure could be enforced when the police seem powerless to stop the nightly outbreaks of arson and violence. The Government, sensitive to the danger of escalation, has ruled out the use of troops, a move that could lead to shots, deaths and further confrontation. But unless there is a sudden cold spell, it may be some time before the flames of burning cars are doused. A period of relative calm could be followed quickly by further unrest. Already, the costs are evident. Not only has France suffered a terrible setback to what it had naively thought, at the height of World Cup (Soccer) euphoria in 1998, was a successful policy of intergrating its minorities as equal citizens; but President Chirac's own political legacy has been damaged severely. Critics have pointed to the irony of a man who came to power 12 years ago with a promise to heal France's "social fracture" having to invoke emergency measures dating back to the Algerian war. His failure to speak out early in clear support of his Interior Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, is seen as a blunder inspired by feuding and rivalry within the Government. And his vigorous opposition to involvement in Iraq in an attempt to court the Arab and Muslims vote now seems like a profound misunderstanding of the real issues troubling France's six million Muslims. Neighbouring countries cannot feel smug about the riots, however. Already there have been some copycat incidents in Belgium. Although France has a tradition of confrontation and political violence, especially by farmers, students and striking trade unionists, many of the underlying tensions that have sustained the uprisings in the suburbs are common across Europe: high concentrations of ethnic minorities, very high unemployment - in some French ghettos up to 40 per cent - widespread grievances at discrimination and percieved racism, and the influence of criminal gangs, drug dealers and religious extremists. The Government has announced measures that are long overdue - and which have until now been championed mainly by M Sarkozy: funding to housing and education groups, recently cut, is to be restored, scholarships tripled and new apprenticeship schemes offered to troubled teenagers. But the most urgent need is for jobs. Unemployment is the single greatest cause of alienation, poverty and disaffection. The rigidities of the French labour market shut out the young and less qualified, deny jobs of temporary workers and protect institutionalised elites. In the essential rethinking of attitudes to citizenship, opportunity and the integration of minorities, a new approach to work, taxes and mobility must be a priority.

Posted by: Otocon at November 09, 2005 11:50 AM (PM/BC)

5 It's funny how people never expect the chickens they've so carefully hatched and fledged to come home to roost, and they're really shocked when the chickens are using molotov cocktails to burn down the coop. We reap what we have sown, as it were.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 09, 2005 12:11 PM (0yYS2)

6 Good one improbulus maximus,

Posted by: thirdee at November 09, 2005 12:50 PM (7uo45)

7 Actually if you see the CNN news coverage it explicitly states that in the 5 districts that imposed a curfew (penalty two months in jail) there were no riots. Riots did occur outside areas with the curfew. The reason riots occured is because some prefects were too much pussies to impose curfews.

Posted by: Maobi at November 09, 2005 02:34 PM (hTP4J)

8 And you implicitly take CNN's word for it, Maobi. I do not, nor would I take the French media's word for it, either. There are and have been attacks against churches in France that have never been memtioned in these riots. CNN hasn't mentioned that either, although they are certainly aware of the attacks. Wouldn't want to bring religion into any of this, now would we?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 09, 2005 03:54 PM (rUyw4)

9 It's funny that you talk about Chirac being a liberal. He is actually right wing. The fact that he was against the Irak invasion doesn't make him a leftist. About every media available talked about the molotov coktails thrown against 2 churches so I don't understand why some people state the contrary. You just have to read. The church have been only slightly damaged not set ablaze as some media reported. So I guess it's not so important for news people. The french model of integration actually works much better with the girls of immigrant origin. You don't see any of them participating in the riot. Why ? because their parents watch their girls closely and don't let them hang out. These girls have understood that their only way to be free and independant (from parents and traditions) is to study at school and get a situation. These same parents let their boys do all what they want. A lot of them fail at school and are frustrated. That's why besides cars they mainly burn schools. Right now the riots are not religious minded. The main french muslim organisation has even issued a fatwa against the rioters. There is a possible threat that it could get recuperated by fondamentalists and that is the reason why police is showing some restraint (no deads yet) in order not to create "martyrs" that will fuel more serious trouble. Improbulus maximus hides behind a latin name but seems to me to be an ignorant jerk.

Posted by: Michel Meyer at November 09, 2005 05:11 PM (ZKAFj)

10 It doesn't matter how one defines Chirac, he is inept, incompetent, corrupt, and harmful to his nation. The French deserve what they're getting right now because they're the ones who elected the government.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 09, 2005 06:03 PM (0yYS2)

11 but the Communist hate the new law and stand shoulder to shoulder with the 'poor youths'. Islamo-fascism is Islamo-marxism too.

Posted by: here and there at November 09, 2005 10:00 PM (ywZa8)

12 Your guys are hopeless... Islamo-marxism ? For those who don't know or have short memory, marxism is a strickly atheist ideology incompatible with islam. When in the 80's the CIA choose to use the fondamentalist against marxist soviet aghfanistan even Osama was on the pay roll. At the time they were your best friends because they helped you got rid of the marxists ! The rioteers are more a by products of a certain thug culture (gangsta rap, ultraviolence and so on) that is partly imported from the US. They don't want charia rule but SUV's, nice clothes, gold chains and bitchy girls... as in rap music videos. Chirac may be inept, incompetent, corrupt and harmful to his nation as G.W. Bush is to the world.

Posted by: Michel Meyer at November 10, 2005 04:38 AM (ZKAFj)

13 You all have far too much time on your hands. Remember not to waken the sleeping giant.

Posted by: Jolly Green at November 10, 2005 10:13 AM (BtNfK)

14 Michael Meyer, Any relation to the Halloween guy?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 10, 2005 10:23 AM (rUyw4)

15 Tomorrows headlines "French Fry" How would you like YOUR Muslims??

Posted by: couldbyomama at November 10, 2005 10:44 AM (IqOf7)

16 Tomorrows headlines "French Fry" How would you like YOUR Muslim Extremists

Posted by: couldbyomama at November 10, 2005 10:46 AM (IqOf7)

17 Okay Michael Meyer, how about "Islamo-Nazis"? You like that one better? I want to hear you deny that one. Chirac may be right-wing by France's standards, but over here he's considered "left". And the "liberals" in Australia are, by our standards, "centrists". So we can argue semantics all day and no one is really wrong. So quit acting like you're "educating" us. The rioters may be a product partly of the "thug culture", but the numerous accounts of their battle cry, "Allahu Akbar" while torching other people's property indicates that the male-dominant Islamic culture is part of it as well. You said yourself the girls were carefully constrained which, is also indicative of the culture.

Posted by: Oyster at November 10, 2005 10:50 AM (fl6E1)

18 Yer wrong Mikey boy, islam is perfectly compatible with Marxism, because Marxism's only aim is to destroy Western civilization and the free-market economy that it relies upon. Marxism isn't actually atheistic, it's a statist religion, and the way islam is structured, it fits hand in glove.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 10, 2005 01:33 PM (0yYS2)

19 No islamo marxists, no islamo nazis, just islam extremists or salafists. No need to tag another label on them. You just confuse everything and make a fun of yourself. About the riots. They scream "Allahu akbar" more to scare people and to provoque. Personnally I'm not afraid. It's a game to attract attention. Rioting is actually one aspect of french history : the revolution, the commune, may 68... If you are not happy with the government or society you go to the street... The real danger is about terrorists that stay at home nice and quiet waiting for the good moment to strike like in London.

Posted by: Michel Meyer at November 10, 2005 06:47 PM (ZKAFj)

20 Until you're willing to read a little history on Islam and the Nazis, I won't waste my time with you, MM.

Posted by: Oyster at November 11, 2005 06:25 AM (YudAC)

21 Provoque? Whatever, le dude. No islamo-nazis? So, I guess the fact that Mein Kampf is the best selling book in the muslim world is just for a mass book report, right?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 12, 2005 09:26 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The problem with secrets is that if more than one person knows about it, it's not really a secret:

Nov. 2, 2005 — The CIA has operated a secret prison system where more than 100 terror suspects have been locked up since Sept. 11.

The so-called "black sites" — which were so covert that only a handful of government officials even knew about them until today — operated over the past four years in eight different countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several Eastern European states, according to a story first reported today in the Washington Post.

Well, gee, where were they supposed to be held? Okay, don't answer that, but you get my point.

The good news is, if the press is on to this, then these jokers have been moved to other "black sites."

This, however, is hilarious:

What troubles many in the international community is the lack of oversight of interrogation techniques used at these secret lockups.

A recent Amnesty International report tells of two Yemeni prisoners held in a secret U.S. detention facility who say they were kept in an underground cell with Western music piped in 24 hours a day for well over a year, and interrogated daily by U.S. guards who were fully covered "like ninjas."

"The one overriding reason for such a facility is to torture those in detention," said Mark Garlasco of Human Rights Watch. "So that they are away from any prying eyes from the public and from the media."

First off, who gives a flying fart in a potato sack what the "international community" thinks. We're Team America.

And lo! Western music playing 24 hours, the heart, it doth bleed! The torture! And the guards dressed like ninjas? Why, I believe that Amnesty International is blatantly racist against Japanese by claiming that dressing like a ninja is somehow negative.

Keep trying, keep trying. Try all you want, but Abu Ghraib never was that big of a deal to the public at large to begin with, and trying to repeat what small success you had will fail miserably. Of course, we all know the definition of insane: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Only the far out moonbat left, and their MSM syncophants, will ever have sympathy for terrorists.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:44 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 393 words, total size 2 kb.

Puerto Princesa, Nov. 1 (UPI) — Environmental group Greenpeace was fined for damaging the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park near Palawan Island in the Philippines when its ship hit the coral reef.
Greenpeace blamed outdated maps from the Philippine government that indicated the 400-mile World Heritage coral reef site was more than a mile away when its flagship Rainbow Warrior II hit it, the BBC reported.

You'd think that if they were so concerned about the environement, they might actually take the time to make sure their charts are updated. You know, when you get that map that says "circa 1940" on it, it's probably not quite as accurate as when it was made. But I suppose that I'm actually expecting Greenpeacers to be able to read. That may be holding the standards too high.

Posted by: Drew at 10:43 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.