pageok
pageok
pageok
More Proof That You Just Can't Trust the MSM:
The AP reports:
  Al-Qaida sympathizers have unleashed a torrent of anger against Al-Jazeera television, accusing it of misrepresenting Osama bin Laden's latest audiotape by airing excerpts in which he criticizes mistakes by insurgents in Iraq.
  Users of a leading Islamic militant Web forum posted thousands of insults against the pan-Arab station for focusing on excerpts in which bin Laden criticizes insurgents, including his followers.. . .
  "God fight Al-Jazeera," railed one militant Web poster, calling the station a "collaborator with the Crusaders" for suggesting the tape showed weakness in al-Qaida and featuring discussions of how the tape reflected weaknesses and divisions among insurgents in Iraq.
Dave Griffith (mail):
Aw, hell. I've been on TV all of twice now (man-on-the-streets, three sentences total), and even I know that anything I say will be mined for pull-quotes. If I were running a global revolution aimed at restoring the Caliphate, I'd certainly have a full-time media consultant reviewing every frame I shot. Bitching about out-of-context quotes incredibly minor-league. Doesn't anyone here know how to play this jihad???
10.25.2007 10:02pm
BGates:
Being criticized by the crazies on your own side, doesn't mean you haven't chosen a side.
10.25.2007 10:03pm
mrshl (www):
Orin and Dave, very funny stuff. This is why I read this site. Ordinarily I skip anything that has the phrase "MSM" in it. MSM normally means I'm about to read some whining. Instead I get a nice laugh. Glad I made an exception.
10.25.2007 10:39pm
Smokey:
We can't trust the MSM? Golly, I wonder why not?
10.25.2007 10:56pm
sdf (mail):
Smokey, did you really just try to make a substantive point by linking to Michelle Malkin?
10.25.2007 11:11pm
Brooks Lyman (mail):
We should encourage such behavior; maybe the various Islamist/Jihadist/terrorist factions will forget the war against the Great Satan (that's us, in case you've forgotten) and start feuding among themselves, ideally to the point of self destruction.
10.25.2007 11:19pm
Doug Sundseth (mail):
"Smokey, did you really just try to make a substantive point by linking to Michelle Malkin?"

SDF, did you really just try to make a substantive point by ad hominem innuendo?
10.25.2007 11:27pm
Mark H.:
I knew Al-Jazeera was taking a risk by bringing Dave Maresh on board, but I never imagined it would be this good for us (as in the US).
10.25.2007 11:47pm
GV_:
"ad hominem innuendo" Haha. I don't know why, but that phrase really cracks me up.
10.26.2007 12:01am
George Weiss (mail):
it was ad hominew

just for validation
10.26.2007 12:14am
thomass (mail):
sdf (mail):

"Smokey, did you really just try to make a substantive point by linking to Michelle Malkin?"

Yeah, and as someone sympatric to the idea that the MSM is full of partisan democrats, I agree he failed. The New Republic is not, and probably would not claim to be, part of the MSM. It's a center left opinion magazine.. I think they're open about that.
10.26.2007 12:24am
Bottomfish (mail):
The following statements in the story clearly indicate that bin Laden and his followers are having a difficult time:

"God fight Al-Jazeera," railed one militant Web poster, calling the station a "collaborator with the Crusaders" for suggesting the tape showed weakness in al-Qaida and featuring discussions of how the tape reflected weaknesses and divisions among insurgents in Iraq.

The recording aired Monday contained unusually strong criticism of insurgents in Iraq from bin Laden, who urges them to admit mistakes and unify. Bin Laden even acknowledges that he advises himself not to be "fanatical" in his stances.


So that's the situation even after all the help from the NY Times. Perhaps there will now be an evolution toward a "peaceful" al Qaeda (like al Fatah) and a violent al Qaeda (like Hamas) and we will be urged to "work with" the good guys in al Qaeda. Again, all of this evolution will be in the minds of the NY Times and Boston Globe.
10.26.2007 8:17am
loki13 (mail):
Bottomfish,

I assume you are referring to the NY Times capacity to make illusory differences and distinctions within a monolithic other. People, and groups, don't change.

After all, the same nice Saddam Hussein feted by Reagan and Rumsfeld was magically made into an ogre by the the NY Times.. that's why we attacked, right?

How about the ANC? They were a terrorist organization. Now they're a responsible government. Damn you, NY Times!

The Viet Cong? Horrible ogres of communism, looking to take over all of SE Asia by playing dominoes under the rule of their Soviet Overlords.... now, modernizing state government we would like to exploit... um, trade with! Damn you, NY Times!

North Korea? Irresponsible irrational treaty breakers we would never deal with... oh, wait never mind. Damn you NY Times!

And so on. I guess that's why they call it the gray lady. Trying to put gray into what is obviously a black &white world.
10.26.2007 9:38am
The McGehee (mail) (www):

I think they're open about that.

I was revving up to argue, until I got to this part. Talk about burying the lede. Heh.
10.26.2007 9:40am
Bottomfish (mail):
Loki13:
All I was talking about in the above post was the Middle East. I don't think that Reagan and Rumsfeld ever "feted" Hussein, who was misled by April Glaspie about the consequences of seizing Kuwait. R&R thought of him as the less bad of two evils. As for the ANC - you know that South Africa is now an extremely violent one-party state. Mandela's grievance was just but the problem with his party remains. As for the Viet Cong, that was 40 years ago, and there was a massacre when they won. As for North Korea, I have no confidence in anything the current regime signs.

The conflict over the existence (not the boundaries but the mere existence) of Israel has been going on for over 100 years. The Palestinians once had the option of living with Zionists in a binational state but it was the Palestinians who rejected that.
10.26.2007 10:30am
Mongoose388:
I'm starting to think that if we pull out of Iraq, left to themselves these wack jobs will forget about us. Then they can go back to killing each other.
10.26.2007 11:14am
wfjag:
"I'm starting to think that if we pull out of Iraq, left to themselves these wack jobs will forget about us. Then they can go back to killing each other.

We tried that with Afghanistan. The Soviets pulled out and the Muslim "freedom fighters" told the CIA and other US agencies to "go away and leave us alone while we set up a 'pure' Islamic state." The US did, and the result was --
10.26.2007 11:38am
Laura S.:

We tried that with Afghanistan. The Soviets pulled out and the Muslim "freedom fighters" told the CIA and other US agencies to "go away and leave us alone while we set up a 'pure' Islamic state."

I am sorry, but this remark errs in two ways. First the CIA and other US agencies weren't told to go away. They did their deed and that was that. Second (many years later), the Clinton Administration and, to some extent, the Bush Administration, as well, actively supported the Taliban because of their efforts to suppress the growth of poppies.
10.26.2007 11:54am
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
I'm starting to think that if we pull out of Iraq, left to themselves these wack jobs will forget about us. Then they can go back to killing each other.
Except that part of the reason that we went in was that they were not limiting themselves to other Moslems, but were killing everyone else too, including Christians, Jews, and Buddhists.

Part of what is really nice about the turnaround in Iraq since the first of the year is that the (Muslim) Iraqis are now avidly and effectively killing Islamic terrorists. And OBL is very kindly still sending them there, despite it turning into a death trap for his foreign born Jihadists. But the Iraqis are really only successful at this because they have our help, expertise, and participation.
10.26.2007 12:01pm
loki13 (mail):
Bottomfeeder,

I apologize if the point of my post was missed in my snarkiness (I do love my snarkiness). For easier digestion:

1. The NY Times (or even the Boston Globe) does not really determine who is 'good' or 'bad'.

2. In diplomacy, you often have to recognize shades of gray. Was Nixon correct to go to China and deal with Mao? Perhaps. Are today's terrorists sometimes tomorrow's reasonable government leaders? Sometimes. Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Occasionally. "You're either with us or against us..." is a great platitude, but a difficult way to engage a world of competing and evolving interests.
10.26.2007 12:46pm
Ody (mail):
"You are either with us or against" is not a platitude.

It's a strategy to move or warn a reluctant particapant one way or another in order to define who you can or can't use to overcome a particular situation.

It's often more effective than accomodation.


.
10.26.2007 12:57pm
Nick Good - South Africa (mail):

SDF, did you really just try to make a substantive point by ad hominem innuendo?
I think it better described as the Genetic fallacy.
10.26.2007 1:36pm
hattio1:
I love the people who are convinced that Al-Jazeera are against them. No matter what else happens that "fact" can't be shaken. And yet, in the run-up to the war, those people included the Bush administration, and Saddam's administration.
10.26.2007 1:58pm
Adam J:
Ody- It's a brinksmanship move that can also backfire- I believe Bush has practiced this tactic to the point where he's destroyed his own credibility. And accomodation is not much of a tactic at all, maybe you're thinking of negotiation and compromise .
10.26.2007 2:01pm
Smokey:
loki13:
The Viet Cong? Horrible ogres of communism, looking to take over all of SE Asia by playing dominoes under the rule of their Soviet Overlords...
Actually, over 2 million Cambodians would agree 100% with that statement. But they can't. They're dead.
10.26.2007 2:10pm
c.gray (mail):

I don't think that Reagan and Rumsfeld ever "feted" Hussein, who was misled by April Glaspie about the consequences of seizing Kuwait.


This is a common trope put out by anti-war protesters in the immediate aftermath of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that has been repeated so many times without challenge its become "established wisdom" by people who really should know better.

Glaspie DID tell Saddam that the US took no position on the "border dispute" between Kuwait and Iraq. But this was in the context of Saddam's earlier assurances, during the same conversation, that he had no intention of invading Kuwait, and that he was merely seeking to pressure Kuwait into making concessions during upcoming negotiations scheduled to take place later in August in Saudi Arabia concerning a long running dispute between Kuwait and Iraq over the demarcation of the Kuwait-Iraq border.

The claim that Saddam was somehow "mislead" into invading Iraq is beyond laughable, given that he _personally_ lied to the USA ambassador, the Kuwaiti ambassador, the Saudi Ambassador, and every government in the region regarding his intentions until the day of the invasion, precisely because he knew his goals could only be achieved via surprise.
10.26.2007 2:41pm
c.gray (mail):
Err..meant to say "mislead invading Kuwait" at the beginning of the last paragraph above. Sorry.
10.26.2007 2:52pm
bittern (mail):

part of the reason that we went in was that they were not limiting themselves to other Moslems, but were killing everyone else too, including Christians, Jews, and Buddhists.

Anybody keeping a list?
10.26.2007 3:53pm
faux facsimile (mail):

part of the reason that we went in was that they were not limiting themselves to other Moslems, but were killing everyone else too, including Christians, Jews, and Buddhists.


Oh, so that's why we're in Iraq. Pity it hasn't helped the Christians over there any.


"You are either with us or against" is not a platitude.

It's a strategy to move or warn a reluctant particapant one way or another in order to define who you can or can't use to overcome a particular situation.

It's often more effective than accomodation.


Certainly did work with the ayatollahs in Tehran under Reagan. First we help Saddam invade Iran. Then we help them defend against Saddam. I wonder what ever happened to the autographed bible he sent them in 1985...
10.26.2007 5:49pm
fishbane (mail):
You are either with us or against" is not a platitude.

It's a strategy to move or warn a reluctant particapant one way or another in order to define who you can or can't use to overcome a particular situation.

It's often more effective than accomodation.


Yes, if your goal is predetermined and you have the power to push it through.


Game theory is actually more subtle than that, and allows for positive outcomes, assuming willing actors. Hint: there was at least one outcome to the Iraq war that didn't result in [insert your favorite number here] dead. The player on our side rejected that outcome. (There was actually a second one involving a duel, which was funny, but not realistic.)
10.26.2007 6:12pm
loki13 (mail):
"It's my ball and I'm going home" is not a platitude.

It's a strategy to move or warn a reluctant participant one way or another in order to define what game you can or can't play.

It's often more effective than accommodation.
10.26.2007 6:44pm
JB:
It's often more effective, but not now. Now we need to reach out to more allies, because our current slate just isn't getting the job done. That requires the reverse--"If you're not against us, you're with us"--allowing us to work with basically anyone except Ahmedinajad himself (if you've been paying attention, you've noticed the rumbles of dissatisfaction Khamenei has with his President), North Korea, and al Qaeda.
10.26.2007 7:43pm
Joshua:
"God fight Al-Jazeera," railed one militant Web poster [...]

Now, there's a novelty - jihadis calling upon Allah to fight his own battles for a change. Of course, this raises the question of why the supposedly all-powerful Allah needs jihadis to do his dirty work in the first place.
10.27.2007 1:25pm
LaAngeloMysterioso (mail):
Bin Laden first says bombing mosques and killing believers is bad. Then he says he cheers the slaughter of black muslims in Darfur. The Taliban created a declining suffering uneducated and hopefully brainwashed population. Its amazing anyone would follow this soft spoken emissary of destruction and chaos.
10.27.2007 1:35pm