US finally discovers WMD...in Texas itself.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Geromino
You can be areested like that of Krur and associated with a hate group, but the police cannot exericse McCarthyism tactics and enforcement. That violates the Due Process clause of the Fourth Admendment.

LOL - it's the way ye tell 'em

"Due Precess" In this part of the world we view american law in the light of certain cases and facts - eg OJ Simpson trial vs. those of poor blacks in Texas. Regans illegal invasion of Greneda etc. Blind eye turned to election fixing / civil rights abuses. Here the perception is that American Justice is the best money can buy.

At present the US want Europeans to have armed guards on planes. (send someone a DVD of Con Air) I'll also remind you they didn't find the bullets in Washington.

Geromino

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
LOL - it's the way ye tell 'em

"Due Precess" In this part of the world we view american law in the light of certain cases and facts - eg OJ Simpson trial vs. those of poor blacks in Texas. Regans illegal invasion of Greneda etc. Blind eye turned to election fixing / civil rights abuses. Here the perception is that American Justice is the best money can buy.

At present the US want Europeans to have armed guards on planes. (send someone a DVD of Con Air) I'll also remind you they didn't find the bullets in Washington.

Domestic flights have sky marshals on board. Second, Airlines have to obey local law. This is not negotiable. US airlines have to obey Brazilian law just as Brazilian airlines have to obey US law. Third, I guess you want Matlock or Perry Mason to save the day. The problem, all court cases do not have flamboyant lawyers that are tv characters. When the OJ Simpson trial came, there was a lot of evidence. Johnny Cochrain did an excellent job of creating reasonable doubt while the prosecution did a piss poor job and the judge let the courtroom get out of hand. Fourth, Cuba was overthrowing the current Granada government while 80 or so US citizens going to medical school would have been in harms way. US Congress authorized the action through a Joint Resolution (that is where the authority came from) for military action. Therefore, it was not illegal by US law. Fifth, I am assuming you are talking about the Tulia case. This is rare in legal terms just as the fake drug scandal in Dallas. However, there is an elaborate appeals process as well as many checks and balances. What has happened is that the persons who made up the drug scandal in Tulia are now getting their day in court with due process. In Dallas, the last I heard is the officer was aquitted by the local court but now faces a federal indictment and trial. But in all of your examples, you still have not addressed what due process is or its definition. You are simply citing a very select and narrow view of the court system in the US. This is where bias begins and flourishes.

spongebob

Texas is not the place to be poor and black. While possession of WMD (and being white) gets you a plea bargain for 10 Years Here is where yo black ass gonna end up if the KKK don't get you first.

M

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
But the more important question is what was the top story on Jan 8th when the story broke out? The biggest story on Jan 8th was President Bush's new immigration policy that has gotten conservatives and liberals in an uproar, which by the way got extensive coverage with analysis, points, and counter points. I think this story alone would have preempted the news story in quesiton from getting front page news.

Even were we to accept that a story that under normal circumstances should have been headline news was overshadowed by another story, it would not explain why it seemed to be overshadowed by pretty much every story of the day. It also fails to address how the US justice Department chose, uncharacteristically, not to publicize an apparent success story in the ‘War on Terror’.

I’m sorry Geromino, but what you’re saying is simply not plausible and is sounding more and more like the spin of an apologist than reasoned debate.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Even were we to accept that a story that under normal circumstances should have been headline news was overshadowed by another story, it would not explain why it seemed to be overshadowed by pretty much every story of the day. It also fails to address how the US justice Department chose, uncharacteristically, not to publicize an apparent success story in the ‘War on Terror’.

I’m sorry Geromino, but what you’re saying is simply not plausible and is sounding more and more like the spin of an apologist than reasoned debate.

No Corinthian, you never accepted the premise as plausible in the first place and made your conclusion without looking into the different explainations in the first place. Your logic in the situation is overgeneralized and sensational in terms of tabloid reporting. There was nothing sensational in the report to grab headlines. However, it one of the people that was caught had ties to a famous actor, actress, or politician of either party, it would have gotten headlines or at least more coverage. That blows the Muslim argument out of the water. Second, the Justice Dept is concentrating right now the tax cheats, especially the abusive tax shelters. There has been several dozen gulity verdicts, plea bargains, and trials going on of tax protestors and tax scandals, including the Enron case. Right now, you are also having a trial which a famous actor is accused of murdering his wife, but you do not see any headlines there.

As for being an apologist, I consider that remark inflamatory, racist, and bigoted. Quite frankly, becuase you have no interest in the other news stories going on, you want to hear about the news story that will get your feathers in a roar and make you feel like you are worth something. News does not work that way.

Originally posted by MuckTexas is not the place to be poor and black. While possession of WMD (and being white) gets you a plea bargain for 10 Years Here is where yo black ass gonna end up if the KKK don't get you first.

Has it ever occured to you that they actually did the crime and now deserve the punishment. Personally, I think the family of the victim should pronounce judgement on the offender and no one else. However, what you do not know is that any capital murder case has two phases. The first phase is the guilt or innocense phase. The prosecution presents evidence that will show the accused did the crime. The defense would dispell those facts, offer explanations, and discredit the expert testimony. The jury must decide unamously whether guilty or innocent. If reasonable doubt occurs in one juror, then you have a mistrial. If all juror are pursuaded enough, then you have a not guilty plea. If the jury decides the defendant guilty, then you have the punishment phase. Again the jury, not the judge, must decide. This is where everything under the sun can be put into evidence as to why a person must be put to death, if it is a death penalty case, and the defense would ask life in prison without parole or just life in prison.

spongebob

Originally posted by Muck
Texas is not the place to be poor and black. While possession of WMD (and being white) gets you a plea bargain for 10 Years Here is where yo black ass gonna end up if the KKK don't get you first.

Then

Originally posted by Geromino
Has it ever occured to you that they actually did the crime and now deserve the punishment. Personally, I think the family of the victim should pronounce judgement on the offender and no one else.

That explains the blase attitude towards WMD ' in the wild ' better than any of your longer polemics on the subject so far Geronimo. The fact that ' poor ' and ' good lawyer ' are mutually exclusive is neither here nor there really , is it ? .

How many rich white Texans end up on death row each year and how many WMD do you need to have to get sentenced to death down there ? 10 ? 30 ???

M

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
No Corinthian, you never accepted the premise as plausible in the first place and made your conclusion without looking into the different explainations in the first place.

I looked at your explications and rejected them giving reasons. They’re just not plausible.

Your logic in the situation is overgeneralized and sensational in terms of tabloid reporting. There was nothing sensational in the report to grab headlines.

Rubbish. There was realistically nothing sensational in the Hemant Lakhani story either - in reality he was only selling to the FBI who had approached him. Neither was there anything realistically sensational in the Jessica Lynch story which was essentially good old-fashioned propaganda. Yet both made the headlines, because they pressed all the right media buttons and, perhaps more importantly, they were promoted by official sources.

The case in Texas also pressed all the right buttons - terrorism, WMD, a successful prosecution - yet was not similarly promoted. As a result it got buried.

However, it one of the people that was caught had ties to a famous actor, actress, or politician of either party, it would have gotten headlines or at least more coverage. That blows the Muslim argument out of the water.

It does not. Firstly, you assume it would have gotten into the headlines given a celebrity connection – in fairness, one would have assumed that the mention of either terrorism or WMD would have done that. Also you fail to notice that the other stories were promoted by government sources, this was not.

Second, the Justice Dept is concentrating right now the tax cheats, especially the abusive tax shelters. There has been several dozen gulity verdicts, plea bargains, and trials going on of tax protestors and tax scandals, including the Enron case. Right now, you are also having a trial which a famous actor is accused of murdering his wife, but you do not see any headlines there.

And what was the Department for Fatherland Security at the time? Or the FBI? They’ve not been shy about publicizing their successes with the apprehending of terrorists in the past, have they?

As for being an apologist, I consider that remark inflamatory, racist, and bigoted. Quite frankly, becuase you have no interest in the other news stories going on, you want to hear about the news story that will get your feathers in a roar and make you feel like you are worth something. News does not work that way.

I’m quite familiar with how the news works and I’m quite familiar when something does not add up. And here it simply does not add up. Neither do any of your, at this stage, numerous explanations add up. I can appreciate your role in this discussion as devils advocate, but there reaches a point where even a devil’s advocate must accept that the arguments they are coming out with are becoming increasingly implausible. That’s when a devil’s advocate becomes an apologist.

So there’s frankly nothing remark inflammatory, racist, or bigoted about such an observation and I hope that your accusation was not a cynical attempt to deflect criticism.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Rubbish. There was realistically nothing sensational in the Hemant Lakhani story either - in reality he was only selling to the FBI who had approached him. Neither was there anything realistically sensational in the Jessica Lynch story which was essentially good old-fashioned propaganda. Yet both made the headlines, because they pressed all the right media buttons and, perhaps more importantly, they were promoted by official sources.

The case in Texas also pressed all the right buttons - terrorism, WMD, a successful prosecution - yet was not similarly promoted. As a result it got buried.

Let us take a look at each of the stories. The Hemant Lakhani case involves a man who has worked with the fraud unit on a case known as Sethia. He is also Hindu, not Muslim. Furthermore, a joint task force by British, Russian, and US intelligence sources was at the heart of the sting operation and the alleged crime. However, the story only got one day's worht of coverage and not much else after that. And you are looking at a case where three investigative agencies were working together on a common goal called terrorism, not the specific of the type of weapon. The sensational part was the three investigative agencies working together as well as a supposed devout Hindu buying weapons for an extreme muslim group.

With the Jessica Lynch story, you had a woman held captive, or assumed that way, in a region (where the hospital was in) which known Saddam loyalists were in force. She was also part of the 507th Maintenance Co that was ambushed. Granted, the junior officer that gave the story about her alleged accomplishments have now been totally debunked, but there was one hero named Patrick Miller, PFC who received little attention. Not much has been heard about him and he has more actual knowledge of the event at Nasiriyah. It is also known that many of the accomplishments of Jessica Lynch came from PFC Miller. 60 Minutes did an interview with him and even he said he was not a hero. The sensational part of this story was a female soldier being held, assumed to be, at a hospital and the dramatic rescue attempt. She was also the last known survivor of the 507th Maintenance Co ambush and was thought to have specific knowledge of the event.

The Texas case involves three low lifes with no dramatic or exceptional persona that could sell the story as memoriable. Quite frankly, when one reads the story, it is quite dull unless of course you think it is vogue to have white supremicists trying to make a name for themselves. No one, not even me, is ignoring the potential harm these lunatics could pose; howver, it is not much news worthy in the US unless something sensational makes it so. Simply saying WMD or terror does not make it so. Another example is in Japan about one month ago where an armed man with a knife attacked two school children while at school and then fled. It got national headlines in Japan, but not much in the US or Europe. The point of this story is that one does not have to have WMD to create a terror. There are other subtle factors which one ignores. For your premise to hold true, give me a very similar story where in Germany you had some Neo-Nazi group (an equilivant of the KKK) that did or was trying to do something similar. I would be very much interested in such before I make up my mind one way or the other.

It does not. Firstly, you assume it would have gotten into the headlines given a celebrity connection – in fairness, one would have assumed that the mention of either terrorism or WMD would have done that. Also you fail to notice that the other stories were promoted by government sources, this was not.

All one has to look at is the Michael Jackson case that has been so sensationalized that it has reached the epitimany of the OJ Simpson case. However, both of these cases were reported by the government via issued statements and released court documents which media scrutiny, or the lack thereof in some cases.

And what was the Department for Fatherland Security at the time? Or the FBI? They’ve not been shy about publicizing their successes with the apprehending of terrorists in the past, have they?

Investigative and police agencies typically shun the public spotlight. This is a universal truth whether you are in England, Ireland, US, or France. In the US, they will release press releases, but rarely get any media attention. News agencies have reporters whose sole job is to attend the White House, Pentagon, FBI, Justice Dept, Homeland Security, etc. It is a boring job and typically it is the first national job those reporters get. They have to make the story and sell it to their prospective

So there’s frankly nothing remark inflammatory, racist, or bigoted about such an observation and I hope that your accusation was not a cynical attempt to deflect criticism.

There is a huge difference between being a devil's advocate and being an apologist. To call someone an apoligist is to state that they are defending such actions without regard to other positions. A devil's advocate by very nature is not defending any such action, but pointing out alternatives. You can disagree with those alternatives and the methods (and I will respect that, but poiint out what specifically you disagree with. That is where mutual understanding will come into play), but I have no way supported those actions unequivocally. Unless of course you mean that I trust what the officials are doing is correct, then I guess I am apologist. But even in my own statements, I wanted to know some additional information, like why the postal inspectors did not scrutinize the fake documents. The position I have held consistent is that the law enforcement agencies did their job. But did they did it perfectly? No, one would think not given the facts. Is one glad that the three nutcases are hopefully behind bars? Yes, I want maximum punishment for these cretians. And I do not care if they are Muslim, Christian, or their skin is purple with pink pokadots.

spongebob

He Said this about the US in general post 9/11

.....but you know there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tyres around people's necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tyre of lack of patriotism put around your neck," he said. "Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions."

The rest of Dans comments are Here

M

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Based upon the assumption, by most, that it was not widely reported in the US.

Which it wasn't....which is perfectly good grounds to criticise any media who's notional purpose (yes, I know they are trying to run a business...thats why I said notional) is to inform the public.

What you seem to be doing is saying that because the media's primary job is to give the people what they want to read in some way, shape, or form, that skewing the news to suit propagandist agendas is perfectly ok because thats how it works over there.

I may as well say that beating women to death for adultery in the ME is ok, because, hey, thats how it works over there. Somehow, I'm pretty sure you won't agree with the parallel argument.

Tell me Bonkey, would you want a scathing crticism of the inner workings of a nuclear reactor made by a local farmer or one who has at least worked in the field and written a book about it?

Well, if the farmer came up with scathing criticism, I'd expect the experts in the field to step up to the plate and explain why the farmer was wrong. Anything else, and I'd have to ask why it was the farmer who told me first, and not those who supposedly know more than him on the subject.

I don't see you saying that the farmer was wrong. You're saying that although the farmer would appear to be correct, its not worth reporting that the nuclear station would appear to have an internal leak, because its only a farmer who says it and besides, people don't want to hear it because they may lose faith in the nuclear industry or something.

But you're still not arguing that the farmer is wrong, nor indeed that the story is worth reporting once it has been shown by the experts that the farmer was indeed correct. You're arguing that because it was an American farmer, and it was only a small leak that he was comlpaining about that the American public are happier not knowing, and probably don't even want to know, so its correct not to tell them.

However, as I said before, it is a different culture in the US than that of Europe.

Yes indeed.

We seem to be saying that just because its your own nationals who are holding the weapons and planmning to use them illegally on a massive scale doesn't make it any different to the same situation with non-nationals. You disagree, apparently.

I can only conclude that its because you have some higher degree of faith in your fellow Americans, or a lower opinion of non-Americans, as the nationality of the weapons-holders is the only distinction in this case over several finds in the ME which have been hailed across CNN, NBC, et al as major finds and blows aganist the terrorist threat.

What is reported in the US or its news intensity is not exactly what is reported in the same degree in Europe.

Yes, and adultery is dealt with differently in the ME. I still don't see you standing up and defending that as being simply a difference in the way the nations work when it gets brought up for discussion.

Trying to judge the culture via the media and placing a value to that culture is inherently arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant, and was not a overt criticism of American media.

Now this is one difference between Europe and America.

Europeans, by and large, do not take criticism of aspects of their culture, or day-to-day-existence as a deep-rooted criticism of everything they are.

Conversely, if you are anything to go by, any criticism of any aspect of the American culture is a direct attack on America itself and all those who live there.

By offering any criticism of the US, we become arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant . Funny....thats what I would have said about your indignation...except for the immoral bit. I've had a quick think about it, and other than complaints about Fox News, I can't think of a single criticism that has been levelled against any aspect of the US, its government, or any other constituent part of the nation which you have ever agreed with on this forum.

So, again, if you are indicative of America, one can only conclude that Fox News aside, America is simply a perfect nation that us non-Americans just don't understand. And because we don't understand (and presumably don't realise that its because we don't understand), or criticism is not uninformed, or misguided. No,its " inherently arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant".

I wish I was as perfect as you, and not all those horrible things you say I am because I dare to criticise the way in which your media works. But that perfection seems limited to Americans.

And as I have said before, I have been to other countries that are completely different from my own and I do not place a judgement on that culture or that particular aspect of that culture even when I do not completely understand it myself. If you do not learn that basic tenet in international traveling, you have no business in traveling outside your local bar (pub).

Completely irrelevant to this discussion....unless you're also saying that by judging the existant culture in the ME when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq the US was wrong and had no business being there at all.

No? Didn't think so.

This must be another thing about America I don't understand - that its okay for you to tell us how to treat other cultures, but it doesn't apply to yourselves?

Take this for what its worth Bonkey. It is not meant to be insulting or abusive even though I bear a huge brunt of abusiveness on this board simply because of my different political values.

You take a huge brunt of disagreement because no-one can offer a single sentence of disagreement or criticism about any aspect of the US (again, Fox News aside) without you feeling the need to leap to your nation's defence, admitting no wrong and attempting to dismiss every single criticism....and brand the criticisers as " inherently arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant" because they disagree with you.

I'm taking it for exactly what its worth.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Let us take a look at each of the stories. The Hemant Lakhani case involves a man who has worked with the fraud unit on a case known as Sethia. He is also Hindu, not Muslim. Furthermore, a joint task force by British, Russian, and US intelligence sources was at the heart of the sting operation and the alleged crime. However, the story only got one day's worht of coverage and not much else after that. And you are looking at a case where three investigative agencies were working together on a common goal called terrorism, not the specific of the type of weapon. The sensational part was the three investigative agencies working together as well as a supposed devout Hindu buying weapons for an extreme muslim group.

The success story surrounding the sting operation was based upon his (mistaken) intent to supply arms to Islamic terrorists, this making it a bona fide War On Terror™ story. That it got only one day in the headlines is immaterial, because it still got one more day in the headlines than the Texas story, in part because it was being promoted by official sources.

Even Bush managed to capitalize upon the event saying that the "fact that we're able to sting this guy is a pretty good example of what we're doing in order to protect the American people". That was the headline, not any of the tenuous reasons you’re giving here. You’ll note he has neglected to make any such utterances with regard to the domestic terrorists found in his home state.

With the Jessica Lynch story, you had a woman held captive, or assumed that way, in a region (where the hospital was in) which known Saddam loyalists were in force. She was also part of the 507th Maintenance Co that was ambushed. Granted, the junior officer that gave the story about her alleged accomplishments have now been totally debunked, but there was one hero named Patrick Miller, PFC who received little attention. Not much has been heard about him and he has more actual knowledge of the event at Nasiriyah. It is also known that many of the accomplishments of Jessica Lynch came from PFC Miller. 60 Minutes did an interview with him and even he said he was not a hero. The sensational part of this story was a female soldier being held, assumed to be, at a hospital and the dramatic rescue attempt. She was also the last known survivor of the 507th Maintenance Co ambush and was thought to have specific knowledge of the event.

The Jessica Lynch story is at this stage recognised as one of the most audacious examples of contrived propaganda. Of course, it is largely recognised as such because of how it ultimately backfired. Even Lynch rejected the manner in which her plight had been manipulated so cynically.

As for private Patrick Miller, that’s irrelevant. That he was ignored does not change the fact that Lynch’s story was invented.

The Texas case involves three low lifes with no dramatic or exceptional persona that could sell the story as memoriable.

Holding WMD and a million rounds of ammunition sounds pretty memorable to me. Was John Walker any less of a low life while we’re at it?

The point of this story is that one does not have to have WMD to create a terror. There are other subtle factors which one ignores.

Rubbish, you’re just being evasive at this stage. The point is that they had the means and the inclination to commit terrorist acts with WMD. The story was not given attention because it did not fit into the patriotic profile of a War On Terror™ story.

For your premise to hold true, give me a very similar story where in Germany you had some Neo-Nazi group (an equilivant of the KKK) that did or was trying to do something similar. I would be very much interested in such before I make up my mind one way or the other.

Irrelevant. You’ve received plenty of US examples already without trying to sidestep us in a tangent.

All one has to look at is the Michael Jackson case that has been so sensationalized that it has reached the epitimany of the OJ Simpson case. However, both of these cases were reported by the government via issued statements and released court documents which media scrutiny, or the lack thereof in some cases.

We’re not discussing entertainment media. Stop changing the subject.

Investigative and police agencies typically shun the public spotlight. This is a universal truth whether you are in England, Ireland, US, or France. In the US, they will release press releases, but rarely get any media attention. News agencies have reporters whose sole job is to attend the White House, Pentagon, FBI, Justice Dept, Homeland Security, etc. It is a boring job and typically it is the first national job those reporters get. They have to make the story and sell it to their prospective

How come they haven’t shun the limelight over other cases involving terrorism? Your argument is simply implausible.

There is a huge difference between being a devil's advocate and being an apologist. To call someone an apoligist is to state that they are defending such actions without regard to other positions. A devil's advocate by very nature is not defending any such action, but pointing out alternatives.

To a point. When those alternatives begin to become so implausible as to be ridiculous, then it is natural to question the objectivity of the individual making them.

Unless of course you mean that I trust what the officials are doing is correct, then I guess I am apologist.

You become an apologist when your alternatives become excuses.

Geromino

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The success story surrounding the sting operation was based upon his (mistaken) intent to supply arms to Islamic terrorists, this making it a bona fide War On Terror™ story. That it got only one day in the headlines is immaterial, because it still got one more day in the headlines than the Texas story, in part because it was being promoted by official sources.

The key in the story was an educated man in the middle of Manhattan, which was already on a heightened alert status, able to do suspected terrorism business. That makes a very memorable story and newspapers are full of them around the world.

Even Bush managed to capitalize upon the event saying that the "fact that we're able to sting this guy is a pretty good example of what we're doing in order to protect the American people". That was the headline, not any of the tenuous reasons you’re giving here. You’ll note he has neglected to make any such utterances with regard to the domestic terrorists found in his home state.

Presidents, all of them, at one point or another, use situations to further their own goal. Irrelevant in the discussion except an opportunity to bash. However, a president, if asked, could respond in acknowledging the event or not acknowledge the event, depending on the circumstances involved.

The Jessica Lynch story is at this stage recognised as one of the most audacious examples of contrived propaganda. Of course, it is largely recognised as such because of how it ultimately backfired. Even Lynch rejected the manner in which her plight had been manipulated so cynically.

The newspaper reporters did not check the bloody facts in the first place and ran the story until they got caught with their pants down. Their source came from a junior operations officer who had some knowledge of the event, but did not have all the details. IT is the perverbial jumping the gun. The one thing Jessica Lynch and PFC Miller have in common is that both do not consider themselves as heroes. Even Sgt York and Audie Murphy did not consider themselves as heroes in light of the fact by their extraordinary deeds.

As for private Patrick Miller, that’s irrelevant. That he was ignored does not change the fact that Lynch’s story was invented.

Completely relevant to the issue at hand because he had no memorable story to tell.

Holding WMD and a million rounds of ammunition sounds pretty memorable to me. Was John Walker any less of a low life while we’re at it?

That is what you believe. I saw an agency doing its job and apprehending suspected malcontents, or however you want to label them. It is not how much weapons they have or did not have, it is the fact that the agency did its required job without breaking any known kaws to get the suspects released.

Rubbish, you’re just being evasive at this stage. The point is that they had the means and the inclination to commit terrorist acts with WMD. The story was not given attention because it did not fit into the patriotic profile of a War On Terror™ story.

No. I am trying to precisely define your premise. In fact, your premise is so braod that it can be interpreted by any means and by any logic. That is very convenient for someone trying to argue a point of view that realistically cannot be in precise terms.

We’re not discussing entertainment media. Stop changing the subject.

The media is entertainment! If you rely on media, especially newspapers, all you will have is a fifth grade education on a subject that requires a masters degree. Most concrete analysis, whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant, is done at think tinks and research groups, not by newspaper reporters. That is where real analysis begins, not ends, in any subject.

How come they haven’t shun the limelight over other cases involving terrorism? Your argument is simply implausible.

You are combining the release of press info and newspaper coverage into one lump sum to make your agrument work. They are completely seperate issues. Investigative agencies constantly release press info, but it is up to the newspaper to determine what is important or not. Linking the news story to the press release by the agency wanting the limelight is misleading, propoganda at the very least, and dispictable at the very worst.

To a point. When those alternatives begin to become so implausible as to be ridiculous, then it is natural to question the objectivity of the individual making them.

You become an apologist when your alternatives become excuses.

You still have not precisely defined what is plausible and what is not. You conveniently use those two terms when it quite simply does not fit your political agenda. That is pure propoganda Corinthian.

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
Which it wasn't....which is perfectly good grounds to criticise any media who's notional purpose (yes, I know they are trying to run a business...thats why I said notional) is to inform the public.

What you seem to be doing is saying that because the media's primary job is to give the people what they want to read in some way, shape, or form, that skewing the news to suit propagandist agendas is perfectly ok because thats how it works over there.

I may as well say that beating women to death for adultery in the ME is ok, because, hey, thats how it works over there. Somehow, I'm pretty sure you won't agree with the parallel argument.

Never said it was ok. You are implying such statement on the mere basis of what I am describing. Quite frankly, I do not care much of any printed media, whether US or European. I have found Asian newspapers to be more congruent to what I require in reporting. But I think I am biased in that regard for obvious reasons. However, my point has been this: newspapers love to print memorable stories. It does not matter the accuracy nor the specifics within the story. It is to simply sell the newspaper or journalist for obstentious reasons. And yes, that is how it works overhere. However, I will defer the adultery anology to a later point in the post.

Well, if the farmer came up with scathing criticism, I'd expect the experts in the field to step up to the plate and explain why the farmer was wrong. Anything else, and I'd have to ask why it was the farmer who told me first, and not those who supposedly know more than him on the subject.

I don't see you saying that the farmer was wrong. You're saying that although the farmer would appear to be correct, its not worth reporting that the nuclear station would appear to have an internal leak, because its only a farmer who says it and besides, people don't want to hear it because they may lose faith in the nuclear industry or something.

But you're still not arguing that the farmer is wrong, nor indeed that the story is worth reporting once it has been shown by the experts that the farmer was indeed correct. You're arguing that because it was an American farmer, and it was only a small leak that he was comlpaining about that the American public are happier not knowing, and probably don't even want to know, so its correct not to tell them.

No, but what you are concentrating on, and solely, is the farmer, not the experts. You state if the farmer is making a scathing criticism, then it must be true. What I am sayiing is that the farmer is making a scathing criticism that may or may not bet true, but the experts will determine what is true or not. I will not define the term "expert" in this context, but it is not being American that would qualify as such.

We seem to be saying that just because its your own nationals who are holding the weapons and planmning to use them illegally on a massive scale doesn't make it any different to the same situation with non-nationals. You disagree, apparently.

I can only conclude that its because you have some higher degree of faith in your fellow Americans, or a lower opinion of non-Americans, as the nationality of the weapons-holders is the only distinction in this case over several finds in the ME which have been hailed across CNN, NBC, et al as major finds and blows aganist the terrorist threat.

For me, it does not matter whether they are US citizens or not. The fact of the matter is the agency did its intended job. That's all that should be reported and nothing else. Leave the flamboyance to Hollywood when they make a made-for-TV movie in a year. If it was a Muslim group, then I would want the story to be treated the same as if it was not. However, you and I will probably agree that is a bit idealistic in nature. What you are concentrating on is not the agency, but the mere fact of race/nationality in the story as being the difference. That would tell me a few things, but I will digress from such discussion.

Yes, and adultery is dealt with differently in the ME. I still don't see you standing up and defending that as being simply a difference in the way the nations work when it gets brought up for discussion.

Bonkey, adultery is treated very harshly in the ME but is criticized and condemned by those who think they are civilized. There are places on this earth where you and I are the barbarian, the foreigner, the outsider, the intruder. And it does not matter what your political idealogy is, but the color of your skin. (I am not talking about the US here). It is very personal when you talk or criticize about certain subject matters and not so personal on others. But each is different with each person. Do not generalize a society based on one's newpapers, television, or discussion group.

By offering any criticism of the US, we become arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant . Funny....thats what I would have said about your indignation...except for the immoral bit. I've had a quick think about it, and other than complaints about Fox News, I can't think of a single criticism that has been levelled against any aspect of the US, its government, or any other constituent part of the nation which you have ever agreed with on this forum.

There is a right way to criticize and a wrong way to criticize. However, by your own admission, you believe the US can do no right, but only wrong (bashing). There is a huge difference between bashing, which you seem to do, and criticism. It would be the same if I were to label Swiss as neo-Nazi sympathizers, Jewish haters, and all such negativisms without even acknowledging some positive aspect of the culture or its dynamics. Even though there would be some level of truth in my analogy, it is not an accurate report of the truth. Grossly generalzing a particular nation or group has no foundation in any logical discussion.

So, again, if you are indicative of America, one can only conclude that Fox News aside, America is simply a perfect nation that us non-Americans just don't understand. And because we don't understand (and presumably don't realise that its because we don't understand), or criticism is not uninformed, or misguided. No,its " inherently arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant".

Three words come to mind when I read this: Duty! Honor! Country! Perhaps these three simple words have no meaning to you and your citizenship, but they do to me. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to criticize. Bashing is not criticing. Bashing is, quiter frankly, a racist tendency based on gross overgeneralizations, even when it is presented in a logical or semi-logical manner. No nation is perfect and the US is far from perfect, but to understand how it works and offer suggestions or possibiliteis, not concentrating on why, is the most accurate form of criticsm that I can think of.

Completely irrelevant to this discussion....unless you're also saying that by judging the existant culture in the ME when they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq the US was wrong and had no business being there at all.

No? Didn't think so.

This must be another thing about America I don't understand - that its okay for you to tell us how to treat other cultures, but it doesn't apply to yourselves?

Defendant: Objection your Honor! Plantiff is leading the witness.
Judge: Sustained.

You take a huge brunt of disagreement because no-one can offer a single sentence of disagreement or criticism about any aspect of the US (again, Fox News aside) without you feeling the need to leap to your nation's defence, admitting no wrong and attempting to dismiss every single criticism....and brand the criticisers as " inherently arrogant, racist, immoral, judgemental, and ignorant" because they disagree with you.

Again, there is a right way to criticize and a wrong way to criticize. Placing value judgements on a different culture or society different from you own and knowing full well about those differences is what seperates the chaff from the wheat. There has been some criticism of the US that I have seen, but not very much here. It is more like bashing than criticism no matter how logical the argument seems to be.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
The key in the story was an educated man in the middle of Manhattan, which was already on a heightened alert status, able to do suspected terrorism business. That makes a very memorable story and newspapers are full of them around the world.

Rubbish. The key in the story was missile smuggling and terrorism. Where did his education hit the headlines, FFS? You’re getting very imaginative at this stage.

Presidents, all of them, at one point or another, use situations to further their own goal. Irrelevant in the discussion except an opportunity to bash. However, a president, if asked, could respond in acknowledging the event or not acknowledge the event, depending on the circumstances involved.

Or not respond. Or play it down as a matter for local law enforcement. Depends on how he wishes to further his goal, as you put it.

Completely relevant to the issue at hand because he had no memorable story to tell.

Just because no one hyped up his non story does not absolve the US military from hyping up Jessica Lynch’s one. As such it’s irrelevant.

That is what you believe. I saw an agency doing its job and apprehending suspected malcontents, or however you want to label them. It is not how much weapons they have or did not have, it is the fact that the agency did its required job without breaking any known kaws to get the suspects released.

Yet arresting a man for offering to supply non-terrorists (there never were terrorists involved, after all) is a bona fide War On Terror™ story?

And so, on the subject of labelling - was Timothy Mcveigh a terrorist or just a malcontent? And how many people to you have to kill or plan to kill before you become a terrorist? Maybe you just have to be a Muslim?

No. I am trying to precisely define your premise. In fact, your premise is so braod that it can be interpreted by any means and by any logic. That is very convenient for someone trying to argue a point of view that realistically cannot be in precise terms.

I’m just pointing out the inconsistency in media coverage and apparent official intrest with regard to acts and plots of terrorism, with or without WMD. Whereby foreign terrorists appear to be classified (and treated) differently to domestic ones.

I’ve stated the premise and the evidence on numerous occasions at this stage. Your counter arguments have regrettably become increasingly improbable.

The media is entertainment! If you rely on media, especially newspapers, all you will have is a fifth grade education on a subject that requires a masters degree. Most concrete analysis, whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant, is done at think tinks and research groups, not by newspaper reporters. That is where real analysis begins, not ends, in any subject.

We’re not discussing entertainment news, if you prefer that term - Different department to current affairs in any medium to large media organization.

You are combining the release of press info and newspaper coverage into one lump sum to make your agrument work. They are completely seperate issues. Investigative agencies constantly release press info, but it is up to the newspaper to determine what is important or not. Linking the news story to the press release by the agency wanting the limelight is misleading, propoganda at the very least, and dispictable at the very worst.

However, anyone with any experience with the press knows that much, if not most of it, is the regurgitation of press releases. Hence the two are very much connected. Add to this Dan Rather's comments regarding the decreasing level of journalistic freedom in the US and it doesn’t paint a pretty picture of objectivity does it?

You still have not precisely defined what is plausible and what is not. You conveniently use those two terms when it quite simply does not fit your political agenda. That is pure propoganda Corinthian.

What would be plausible is what would be most likely and credible given the present evidence. The arguments you’ve given are neither likely nor credible and tend to fly in the face of the evidence.

For someone happy to point fingers and accuse others of agendas, I would contend that you have been too dogged in your use of any argument, however implausible or unlikely to be terribly non-partisan yourself. That’s why I accused you of being an apologist rather than devils advocate.

Actually, out of curiosity has there been one case of the arrest of an Islamic terrorist suspect on a similar scale in the US that received little or no coverage?

spongebob

Originally posted by Geromino
The fact of the matter is the agency did its intended job. That's all that should be reported and nothing else. Leave the flamboyance to Hollywood when they make a made-for-TV movie in a year.

You mean they tracked him for months and admitted after the bust that some of the WMD are probably in the wild.

Mind I have a notion that the Department of Fatherland security and its subordinates in the BATF/FBI will do a better job on the Shannon Hoaxer if the hoaxer is ever extradited to their clutches. Can't see that dude plea bargaining 10 without telling the Fatherland Security mob where the WMD are

M

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Never said it was ok. You are implying such statement on the mere basis of what I am describing.

I am implying such a stance by the fact that you are objecting vigorously to those who are saying it is not ok.

Quite frankly, I do not care much of any printed media, whether US or European.

And yet here you are, defending them from criticism from those who feel that they are not serving their task.

However, my point has been this: newspapers love to print memorable stories.

And you haven't offered a shred of a credible reason as to why a WMD find in Texas - where the weapons were in the hands of Christian fundamentalists - is not memorable. The only difference between this and (say) finding Al Qaeda in possession of WMDs in Iraq or Afghanistan is the location and the religion of the fundamentalists.

One is unquestionably memorable, the other not. Why?

Indeed, to the administration who leads you nation, one would almost unquestionably be worthy of comment, and yet the other has shown itself not to be. Why?

The simple fact is that this story is not memorable because it has not been reported, and not - as you consistently seem to argue - the other way around.

It is to simply sell the newspaper or journalist for obstentious reasons. And yes, that is how it works overhere.

And that is at least partly what was being criticised....but you seem to be using the target of the criticism as an excuse to avoid the criticism?

Again - I could just as easily say that teh way adultery is dealt with in the ME is a disgrace, and someone else can simply defer that by saying "but thats how it works here".

You state if the farmer is making a scathing criticism, then it must be true.

Where have I ever said that? You are the one asking which I'd prefer...and I simply pointed out that being the farmer does automatically not make someone wrong.

What I am sayiing is that the farmer is making a scathing criticism that may or may not bet true, but the experts will determine what is true or not.

So what? It still doesn't make the farmer automatically wrong, nor incorrect in any way for making the criticism.

You feel the criticism of the events read like so much bull, and thats your perogative. It still doesn't mean its wrong, nor that the people who expressed it were in any way wrong to do so.

And given that you're admitting basing your rebuttal on a whole three books, I think its safe to say that you are no nuclear scientist (going back to your analagy) either, but probably just another farmer who considers himself more read than the one offering the criticism in the first place.

For me, it does not matter whether they are US citizens or not.

Really? So you see no difference between the US making a big deal out of every success - minor and major - in the War on Arabic Terrorism, but in the War on Non-Arabic Terrorism they keep a lot quieter.

You don't think that this - at the very least - is a foolish move because it lends credence to the allegations by Arabic people that the so-called War on Terrorism is actually a war against Arabs, Muslims, or some other group?

You may see the media as purely a form entertainment, but the simple truth is that for most people it is their source of information. Newspapers, TV news, radio news....these make up the vast majority of the general populace's access to current events.

Americans and non-Americans alike will be fed their news which shows them item after item about memorable successes against Arabs/Muslims, and will stay silent about far more significant (although apparently less memorable) successes against American terrorists.

And then these people will hear the other side (the Arabs and the Muslims, because the American terrorists are being ignored, remember) saying that this is racial/religious persecution.

And you know what....the media will bear out their claims perfectly. So while you may have the luxury of your more educated position, the screaming hordes will disagree with you.

Funnily, in a democracy, their voices will carry more weight. But thats ok...its more important that an elite few understand that the media is primarily for entertainment, rather than anyone wishing that the media was more honest, and thus gave the general public a more realistic picture of whats happening in their world.

The fact of the matter is the agency did its intended job.

Yes, and that is the most important issue under all of this which should be recognised and applauded.

Unfortuantely, because a WMD find isn't memorable, that won't happen on any wide basis. I guess they'll just take reassurance in a job well done, and not get at all put out when some other department gets all the limelight and credit for a far smaller success in some foreign nation that is deemed to be more memorable.

If it was a Muslim group, then I would want the story to be treated the same as if it was not.

Funnily...thats what everyone has been saying from the start which you've been disagreeing with.

However, you and I will probably agree that is a bit idealistic in nature.

I've no problem admitting that by views are a bit idealistic. I've explained on this forum before (maybe not in a thread you were in) that if we simply accept what we have today, rather than setting higher targets (i.e. ideals) to strive for, then progress will always be beyond us.

I'm criticising the reality. You are defending it - as far as I can see - by saying "but thats the way it is". I know thats how it is...thats what I'm complaining about. What I'm saying is that it should be better. Thats all anyone here has been saying....which you have been vehemently disagreeing with up till now, but then you go and post that you also agree that the a Muslim group should be treated the same way.

So the only difference is that you don't see this not happening as a failing we should try and correct. You seem to see it as something "a bit idealistic" as if that somehow means we should dismiss it rather than strive towards it.

What you are concentrating on is not the agency, but the mere fact of race/nationality in the story as being the difference. That would tell me a few things, but I will digress from such discussion.

No, what was being discussed from the start was the disparity in reporting standards. All I did was discuss what others had already brought up. Thats all it should tell you - that I stayed on topic.

Besides - you already maintain that you do not see the story as memorable. Thus, the actions of the agency are also clearly not memorable. So why do you think we should discuss these non-memorable things?

Our different standards (us crazy Europeans, that is) say that the media and administration ignoring a story of this nature is a memorable aspect...and yet here you are telling us that we should discard what we see as memorable, and instead discuss what you see as non-memorable...

One would think that you don't fully understand the political and ideological priorities being placed by Europeans on their world. Funny that...coming in the midst of a thread where you say that people who don't fully understand other people's politics shouldn't discuss them.

There is a right way to criticize and a wrong way to criticize.

Yes, and taking your reactions as a yardstick, the wrong way is to criticize anything American, and the right way is to criticize something non-American.

However, by your own admission, you believe the US can do no right, but only wrong (bashing).

I have never said that. In fact, I defy you to find any post of mine saying that the US can do no right.

It would be the same if I were to label Swiss as neo-Nazi sympathizers, Jewish haters, and all such negativisms without even acknowledging some positive aspect of the culture or its dynamics.

And I'd have no problem with you doing that, because I could categorically show how each of your points was based on mischaracterisation of information, or just a complete fallacy.

Grossly generalzing a particular nation or group has no foundation in any logical discussion.

Could you then explain how the following is not a gross generalisation of a group please :

The media is entertainment! If you rely on media, especially newspapers, all you will have is a fifth grade education on a subject that requires a masters degree.

The group - in case you're not quite seeing my point - is the media.....although I'd also settle for considering those who rely on media (for information) as a group as well.

...

bonkey

...

Three words come to mind when I read this: Duty! Honor! Country! Perhaps these three simple words have no meaning to you and your citizenship, but they do to me.

You know...thats priceless. Absolutely priceless.

If your predecessors felt that Duty! Honor! and Country! meant that you did not criticise what you saw wrong with a nation, then you wouldn't be able to even dream of how different a place it would be today. For a start, the Confederation would still be around. Blacks would still be enslaved. Women wouldn't have the vote. Need I continue?

Or were those people who criticised the current state of their nation in their time all traitors? No? Just Undutiful then? Or Dishonourable? Or not acting as Americans???

No??????

But I thought you were saying Duty!, Honor! and Country! meant something to you as an explanation of why you must defend all aspects of your nation (Fox News excepted) from every criticism?????

Is it not the case that accepting valid criticism and attempting to correct the underlying problems is more in keeping with those ideals than simply supporting the existant rot?

Bashing is, quiter frankly, a racist tendency based on gross overgeneralizations, even when it is presented in a logical or semi-logical manner.

That would be another of those generalisation you keep saying has no place in logical discussion.....so I'll just ignore it, shall I?

No nation is perfect and the US is far from perfect, but to understand how it works and offer suggestions or possibiliteis, not concentrating on why, is the most accurate form of criticsm that I can think of.

Before you can fix something, you must first understand what has gone wrong.

This thread is yet another example of someone suggests something has gone wrong, with you arriving post-haste to tell us that nothing is wrong and we shouldn't be looking for something to fix.

I'd quite happily be willing to discuss alternative approaches on pretty much anything I offer criticism on....except I never get past people like you telling me that there is nothing to criticise, nothing to fix, etc. in the first place.

Placing value judgements on a different culture or society different from you own and knowing full well about those differences is what seperates the chaff from the wheat.

That would be a value judgement that the American media is even more lacking than its European counterpart??? The criticism of it because of this???

It is more like bashing than criticism no matter how logical the argument seems to be.

Keep going. You're only one step short of playing what I increasingly come to think of the Israeli defence : "Your criticism is wrong because you only offer it because you hate us".

Blinding logic. Blinding.

jc

spongebob

Originally posted by bonkey
But I thought you were saying Duty!, Honor! and Country! meant something to you as an explanation of why you must defend all aspects of your nation (Fox News excepted) from every criticism?????

Gawd Bonkey, I missed that angle of his when I first read that post. Poor Geronimo. As Samuel Johnson wisely noted over 200 years ago :

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. "

Or maybe that Israeli wagon circling manoevre if the flag wont wrap properly without creasing.

M

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Geromino
Three words come to mind when I read this: Duty! Honor! Country! Perhaps these three simple words have no meaning to you and your citizenship, but they do to me.

Of course these words hold meaning. However, most fundamental of all duties of the citizen is as watchdog to his or her government. Otherwise, we would soon consider any criticism as unfair and all critics as either traitors or foes.

And while admirable from a superficial point of view, blind credulity will turn even the most noble of us into nothing more than accessories and apologists as well as having been the ruin of many a country. Don’t take my word on that - ask the Germans.

Victor

Three words come to mind when I read this: Duty! Honor! Country! Perhaps these three simple words have no meaning to you and your citizenship, but they do to me.

I can see the recruiting banners now, complete with hammer and sickle.

Duty! Honor! Country! - sounds like fightin' words there, the type from someone who wouldn't be doing an of the fightin'

Duty! Honor! Country! - Death!

spongebob

Duty Honour Country is the Official motto of none other than West Point Military Academy .

Well! Well! Well! Holy God Miley! Wha?

Slight elaboration Here

The boards nick Geronimo is a gentle Irony of course l.

"Geronimo, a Bedonkohe Apache leader of the Chiricahua Apache, led his people's defense of their homeland against the U.S. military after the death of Cochise.

In the early 1870s, Lieutenant Colonel George F. Crook, commander of the Department of Arizona, had succeeded in establishing relative peace in the territory. The management of his successors, however, was disastrous. In 1874, some 4,000 Apaches were forcibly moved by U.S. authorities to a reservation at San Carlos, a barren wasteland in east-central Arizona."

"Brigadier General Nelson A. Miles replaced Crook as commander on April 2.

During this final campaign, at least 5,000 white soldiers and 500 Indian auxiliaries were employed at various times in the capture of Geronimo's small band. Five months and 1,645 miles later, Geronimo was tracked to his camp in Mexico's Sonora mountains.

At a conference on Sept. 3, 1886, at Skeleton Canyon in Arizona, Miles induced Geronimo to surrender once again, promising him that, after an indefinite exile in Florida, he and his followers would be permitted to return to Arizona.

The promise was never kept."

In other words. Geronimo is famous because the US Army broke 2 treaties it had solemnly made with the Chiricahua Apache. We'd never had heard of him if he stayed on the crummy reservation. I see the honour and duty in all this but it was Geronimos country .....surely.

M

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino Most concrete analysis, whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant, is done at think tinks and research groups, not by newspaper reporters. That is where real analysis begins, not ends, in any subject.

Yea like the PNAC?!?!