Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine 1327
jasonditz writes "The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Isn't Faux News already doing it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Once the public accepts that "propaganda is necessary" and "this is a war of ideas," they'll see that as a mandate to crack down on the "enemy ideas."
Under this government's preferred reading of current law, you are technically providing support to terrorists by criticizing American leaders. All they need is a slightly more scared public; then they can get down to the important business of arresting political prisoners. (Not that they aren't doing this already to a degree; they've just so far limited it to Arabs because it's more acceptable to the xenophobic masses.)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would it occur to you that *that* is the choice to make? Out of the billions of alternatives, why chose those two?
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the only way to make a corrupt, treasonous, oathbreaking assbag look good is to hold him up against Hitler/Stalin/etc...
It's the same way the government deludes the simple-minded masses that they're really good guys who just want to protect us, blah blah freedom blah liberty.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think that freedom is a possibility under the ayatollahs, you have no sense of history or a very strange definition of freedom.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Informative)
The dhimmi status has, by some, been extended to basically include all theists. However, the dhimmi status is subjective, based on fatwas (which often contradict each other), and any Muslim is free to accept or not accept a fatwa regardless of which Imam or Ayatollah made it. So some Muslims accept pretty much any religion/worldview, while some Shia Muslims think all Sunni Muslims should die, and vice versa.
So what does this really mean? At the moment, Islam kills about 1% of the number of victims of starvation, or 4% of the number of AIDS deaths.* (9/11 was an exception - only approximately nine times the number of WTC victims starved on the same day.) Not fun, but it is not like the full billion of Muslims alive are up in arms. Most just ignore the order to kill infidels much in the same way as most christians ignore the rule that slave trade is okay.
What does this tell us? What religions say and what religious people do is a very, very big difference. Look at Russian Orthodoxy, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Martinism - they are as different from each other as practical religions can possibly be, and they all swear by the same book. Islam is just as diverse! The radicals just get all the press. Get this in perspective: worldwide, roughly 200,000 people have protested the Muhammad caricatures - that makes less than 0.02% of Muslims. Roughly 30 people have died in the protests. Over this couple of weeks, more people have probably been hit by lightning. Islamic radicalism is an absolute non-event put under a huge magnifying lens because Bush keeps throwing hundreds of billions of $ at it.
* Per day, 27,000 people die from starvation, 7000 from AIDS (Source: WHO). 300 (direct) victims of Islam is my own estimate, and the majority should be from suicides and botched abortions, not war.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?
The Prophet is portrayed as an ordinary man, not the son of God. Yet cartoons portraying the Prophet lead to riots and killings and assasinations. On the one hand, he is a man, on the other it is not permitted to depict him?
On the one hand an Ayatollah can command the death of Salman Rushie and state that it's every Muslim's duty to carry this out, on the other hand every Muslim has the choice to ingore any fatwa he likes.
As for the treatment of women, well that's the most confusing of all.
As for Rumsveld's propoganda requirements, it's like pro-holocaust writings in Isreal.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Iran has plenty of faults, but in comparison to their neighbors they actually look pretty good. Unstable? By what standard?
Why would it surprise anyone that the elected President (yes, unlike our "allies" in the region, Iran is a functioning republic) would voice the widely held sentiment of his countrymen that Israel should be wiped from the map? Why is that even considered worth mentioning? Who in the region, except Israel, *doesn't* agree with that?
The Israelis have tons of nukes, the Iranians are, at best, many years away from having one. The argument could be made that an Iran with nukes would actually make the region more stable. It's certainly done that in every similar case.
And finally, who says it's up to the US to decide who will be allowed to have nukes? That's exactly the kind of heavy-handed presumption, and bald-faced disregard for law, that makes the US so unpopular in most of the world already, and down that path lies only madness.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Informative)
Aside from every major Islamic organization condemning terrorism and violence, what more do you want? Sheikh Hamza Yusuf said [uga.edu], "Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs" but I guess he wasn't deemed newsworthy. Sheikh Qaradawi, a popular TV preacher, has always been against Al-Qaeda and even said it was legitimate for Muslims to join the US in attacking the Taliban.
If you search online, you'll find photos of Muslims in anti-terror rallies. Here's two Palestinian women at a 9/11 memorial [colgate.edu], and another of some of the Palestinian students [colgate.edu] who all observed 5 minutes of silence to remember 9/11 victims. Bangladesh anti-terrorism rally and sympathy for 9/11 victims [colgate.edu]. Palestinians held a rally against suicide bombing, but I can't find coverage in english press.
What about the mass demonstrations in Indonesia against terrorism? Heck, they had a rally calling for the execution of the Bali bombers. Indonesian Muslims were so outraged at the terrorists that they tried to storm the prison [msn.com] to lynch the terrorists.
Go and visit any local mosque, and they will tell you how much they are opposed to terrorism of all forms. Heck, the mosque by my house keeps sending me emails condemning the latest violence, when I know it's obvious. Still, I can understand how jittery everyone is, since a few mosques have been burned down over the last few years, and someone smashed our window.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of Jews have died because of this infamous forgery." -- Rabbi Joseph Teluskin
So, this is the propaganda that is always used when you want to get rid of people, "Sure they sound good in public, but in their secret meetings, they outline their evil plan."
I want to stress how bad al-Qa'ida has been for the world's Muslims, and how much harm its existence has done to them. As a terrorist organization, it is good at acheiving its own goals, but those have nothing to do with helping Joe (or Mohammed) in the street Muslim. They are mainly about:
1. Acheiving Political power for Bin Laden and company.
2. Scoring propaganda points to that end.
Any help to ordinary Muslims is merely a coincidental by product to these two ends. Do you think Bin Laden didn't know what would happen when his organization attacked the United States?
No Shi'ite can support al-Qa'ida because it would force them to change their religion, and the Shi'ites believe just as strongly as the supporters of al-Qa'ida. Why do you think that the U. S. is turning Iraq into a defacto Shi'ite state? Ironically, during the cold war, it was the Shi'ites who were considered the threat due to the loss of Iran, which is why U. S. (which created al-Qa'ida, I'll note, as a force to use against Soviet Russia in Afghanistan) supported Saddam Hussein for all those years.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:4, Informative)
Some of the people who later went on to form Al Queda did take part in that movement to free Afghanistan but it would be more accurate to blame the US for the Soviet Gulag because we sent aid to the USSR in WW II than accuse the US of creating Al Queda.
That being said, there's plenty of documentary evidence of a differential between what is preached in western tongues and what is preached in arabic. Unlike the Protocols (a czarist secret police forgery), you can buy transcripts and tapes of these things directly from the muslim groups. The nature of these sorts of accusations is generally not "those muslims secretly plot" but that "Sheikh X, that the Bush administration claims is moderate, sayd XYZ in arabic in a speech in Cairo". In other words, if you have the linguistic skills, you can double check the claims and be famous for exposing lies if these claims were indeed false.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Funny)
As a lawyer for the government, I'd like to clarify the statement made by our client to point out that we do not in fact owe you anything.
Re:I would think it is obvious.. (Score:5, Informative)
The Law of Group Polarization
CASS R. SUNSTEIN
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =199668 [ssrn.com]
Three words: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is off topic.. but... I'm hoping some people will read this and help them 'understand' the behavious of those rioters.
I know you were just joking around, (or maybe the right word is 'think') but to me (a muslim) the cartoons of prophet mohammad were mildly amusing. Especially the one that said "STOP! we have run out of virgins!". But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious.
Its hard for a westerner to understand. But think of a religious figure such as a prophet as a father figure.
In the west, its okay to say things like "I hate my father." or "My father is a S#%^@#"
In the west, its okay to make fun of Jesus. Here is one I heard while living here in the west - "Q: Never ask yourself What would jesus do? Answer: Coz He'd Get crucified and DIE!" I am willing to bet that any practicing christian who reads this might be amused, but would more likely find it unfunny. Some would find it offensive. This is in a culture that is quite tolerant about making fun of people who are in a position of respect.
Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.
Think of those rioting muslims, as the lowest level of muslims. They are the brown trash. They are the economically poor, religiously fanatic, aggressive, cocky mob. They are being constantly told that the west is targetting muslims, and then they are seeing jokes made about a person they respect. What do they do? They riot. Bloody idiots.
The majority of muslims over the world, simply frowned at the prophet being made fun off. Very much as they would frown if you insulted or made fun of their parents. It is a cultural thing.
Some like me, realized that the west didn't mean to offend me, and we take it in our stride, giggle, smile and point out 'hey buddy.. that was a bit insensitive"
Another thing I want to point out.. that the word "Muslim" is about as descriptive as "Christian". There are as many kinds of muslim as there are kinds of christian. Baptist, Born Again, protestant, presbeterian, orthodox, catholic, etc. There are many differences between each of them.. Most of the terrorism, and a lot of the rioting is being caused by a particularly extremist sect that is deeply entrenched in Saudia Arabia, and was the backbone of the Taliban. Wahabism. It was founded by an Islamic scholar Abdul Wahab. I am not a wahabi.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: There are exceptions, not all Muslims can be classified as one group, yes I'm generalizing, you may be an exception, etc.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Does killing children getting candy from soldiers not profane this prophet?
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Those that dont riot over the cartoons, are the same ones who dont riot over anything. They are the people just trying to get a job, buy a car, a home, go for a vacation, get a bigger tv. etc.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Interesting)
Satire is a fundamental part of Danish culture. A large part of our recent entertainment is provocative - but lighthearted. No one is spared jokes - and at the risk of sounding offensive, the mentality can be summarized as:
"Nothing to us is holy".
Religions, Politicians (be they local, or world leaders), nations, languages, and first and foremost the Danes themselves are mocked in Danish media.
Some, I think, may frown upon such an attitude - the fact that there, to some people, now no longer exists something which is beyond scrutiny or playful jest. This mentality may be perceived as generally disrespectful or sacrilegious, bereft of principle or ethics - but to me, therein lies one of our chief principles: that northing is beyond jest or scrutiny.
It is my impression that many Danes now think less lightly about the cartoons, and many would rather not have had the (private) newspaper print the article and cartoons. Most are shocked by the reactions and lasting consequences. Many would agree with the news papers apology - but near to none would have our government apologize: they are separate bodies, and most Danes would never have the government intervene with the free press.
I stand by the article and the cartoons today; and I hope that most Muslims are not too offended. Equally, I would think it a sadder world, if comics or jokes involving Jesus or other religious characters were banned.
As an amateur cartoonist and professional graphics designer, visual expression is very important to me - and as a citizen of a democracy, so is the free press.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
From a westerners prospective if a guy punched you over this he'd be considered a random kook. He'd probably be arrested as well. What we see as westerners is a large group of organized people protesting in a fairly radical fashion that is not only leading to deaths but also seem to be almost winked at. This is a much different scenario than the random redneck. Not only that but the fact that the violence isn't well focused is what also bothers me... A guy in Denmark makes an off-color cartoon so people in Pakistan burn down a KFC? WTF? That's pure non-sense. Now, if you were telling your joke and a redneck guy would go out and burn down a mosque you may have a point.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Once again, I'm not a christian. Until you accept that it's going to be hard for us to come to any terms.
Where were the forces of moderate christians when the mass graves were being dug outside of fallujia to bury all the dead women and children?
Not to say that the innocent should suffer but I didn't see the Islamic community doing anything to stop Saddam's genocide.
Why are you outraged by protests and burning of a half a dozen buildings but completely silent when tens of thousands of muslims die when you firebomb cities?
Well, I guess if I'm going to be accused of firebombing I guess I really can accuse the entire Muslim community of 9/11. What's the old saying? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?
If you think violence is justified because of the invasion of Iraq I guess I can see the invasion of Iraq as justified by 9/11.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Your words made it sound like you didn't mind at all. You are completely indifferent to their suffering.
"To be honest I felt that the displacement of Saddam was going to be viewed in a good light byt the Iraqis. Honestly, how many Iraqis wanted to be under Saddam?"
Surely there was a more sane way to remove saddam. Besides saddam has been removed for a long time now and yet the occupation is still going on and so is the murder and mayhem.
"I don't understand why the Muslim community winks at the efforts of the militant islamic movements that seem to be helping Americans justify their efforts."
For the exact same reason that you and the rest of the world winks at the israeli occupation. In other words the muslim world cares about you exactly as much as you care about the suffering and death of palestenians. Not much.
"Are you a Muslim? What do you think needs to be done in order to set things straight?"
Easy.
1) Admit that Israel has won territory in a war.
2) Redraw Israeli borders to include all of the west bank and gaza.
3) Force israel to give full citizenship to all occupants of israel regardless of their religion or nationality (all civilized nations have done this with the people it has conquered).
This gets rid of the palestine problem once and for all. Once palestenians have voting rights they can then fully participate in the israeli democratic process and will not resort to violence. Being full israeli citizens they will also have rights to benefits like all other israeli citizens and their standard of living will increase.
If the above is not possible then pull the israeli borders back to where they were before the war and give the land back to the palestenians. Move the wall back to 1964 border, prevent all arabs from entering israel and all israelis from entering palestine for at least a decade. Station Turkish troops alongside the border for peacekeeping. Turkey is an ally of israel but a muslim country they troops would be respected by both sides. As a reward fastrack the joining of turkey to EU (which they want).
Either one of the above is possible if the US threatens to pull all aid from both countries and enforces a worldwide trade sanctions and a blockade.
At the same time pull out of Iraq, give full control of the iraqi oil wells back to iraq, let them join OPEC again.
Pull all troops out of the middle east, stop meddling with their countries.
So there you go, solutions that will work if anybody in the US has the guts to implement them.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
They are desparate people and really at this point have nothing to lose. I read someplace that the average palestenians makes something like 25 cents a day or something. No money, no freedom, no life, no hope.
Now that hamas has won the west will pull away all aid and palestine will be another north korea with massive starvation and staggering poverty.
Too bad, so sad.
Re:Three words: (Score:3, Interesting)
"more cultural than religious" (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, but I'm not buying that one anymore. That argument just doesn't hold water when Muslims are rioting from Nigeria [bbc.co.uk] to Indonesia [bbc.co.uk]. Futhermore, isn't the culture in these countries defined, to a great extent, by Islam?
I think many in the West are finnaly getting wise to what the "religion of peace" is all about. After the Van Gogh murder, the subway attacks, the French riots, and now the "cartoon riots", I think many of use who once felt that islam was being portrayed unfairly are reconsidering our position.
Re:"more cultural than religious" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Three words: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Interesting)
That is because western news outlets don't air the moderate views. It is far more inflamitory to air the radicals, and inflamitory news gets higher ratings.
You can quickly find the majority of moderate Muslim leaders decrying the cartoon riots and the associated outfall with a quick google search, but you won't find the same on CNN or Fox.
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Interesting)
That too is a cultural problem. I dont know who is going to step in and stop it.. but its certainly not going to be ME! And that is exactly how everyone there thinks.
Since I was a child, I was taught.. and all the kids around me were taught "dont get involved in other people's messy business." , "Its somebody else's problem" "stay away from trouble.. and those people are trouble".
That would explain the great deal of corruption, human rights abuses and tyrannical governments in that region of the world too. No one is willing to take it upon him/herself to take on the corrupt, the tyrannts, the fanatics and the other idiots. They just put up with it.. or leave. In my case.. I left.
American culture is different. They can and will intervene when there is a problem. A lot of todays americans are descended from people fleeing religious and cultural persecution. They were taught differently by their parents, as my children will be taught differently by me. We fleed once, and are in a land that will treat us well.. "make sure we dont loose what we have gained through so much hardship. It is your duty to intervene, and take it upon yourself to fight the corrupt, the tyrants and the fanatics from taking over".
So in summary, you guys might as well do it.. because you'll grow old waiting before anyone in that region of the world rises up to fight them.
Re:Three words: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Three words: (Score:3, Informative)
Having said that, I still maintain that in the vast majority of the cases poverty is indeed the trigger. There are exceptions where fanaticism trumps wealth.
Re:Three words: (Score:3, Insightful)
This brown trash is numerous not just in the middle east. Read up on the Gujarat riots. Over 2000 muslims were killed by rioting hindus in india, after the government told them that a train car full of hindu pilgrims was set alight by muslims. It was later found that the fire had started from inside the train car not outside a
Re:Three words: (Score:5, Insightful)
Another problem is political. The clerics and the tyrants in the region support this kind of behaviour. This outcry builds unity against a common enemy and makes people less likely to question their leaders, and their societies. They are less likely to cry out against the conditions in which they live. Maybe even blame the bad bad west for all of their troubles. This effect is not confined to the middle east.. look at President Bush's ratings right after 9/11. Soon as there was a common enemy, the americans united together to support their president. Even before he had reacted in anyway, or done anything. This is especially significant when we consider that the majority of the people didn't even VOTE for him.
this brings me to the third point. "He may be a thug. But he is OUR thug". This is why so many muslims were against the US attacking Saddam Husseins regime. Saddam hussein's government was hated by religious clerics the world over. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein weren't best buddies like the white house wants you to believe. The neighboring countries hated Iraq and were suspicious of Iraq as well. Hell, Iraq and Iran were locked in a costly war lasting 8 years. yet when America decided to attack and take out saddam hussein, apart from 2 or 3 arab countries.. pretty much all of them were unanimous in their objection. Why? He maybe a vicious dictator.. but he is OUR vicious dictator.
I do believe there has to be a dialogue... and I personally try my best. I do not have the time or the energy to even reply to all the posts I've had to this single post. I've pretty much used my entire sunday on this thread... Unless I abandon my career, I cannot do much more. It isn't a notion that hasn't crossed my mind btw.
There is only one thing I have to say to that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is only one thing I have to say to that (Score:4, Informative)
God bless Aljazeera (Score:5, Funny)
"Begs the Question" (Score:3, Informative)
flip-flop? (Score:3, Interesting)
......
However, he also used his speech in Florida to claim progress in the war on al-Qaeda
So, who is flip-flop again?
So we're just not telling them the right stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
White - factual.
Grey - some facts, some half-truths and a little bit of lying.
Black - all lies.
Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
That boggles the mind.
gimme some of that white stuff (Score:3, Interesting)
So another words, say me and a bunch of troops brake down your door at 2am, shoot your father, tear up the place and take you to a horrible prison for six months and later releace you. You learn that they were looking for terrorists and real sorry for your father and gave your children some rations before they left, then Rumsfeld could say:
"We are helping the
That would be "grey". (Score:3, Insightful)
So, a different source could publish more factual information on the event and your propaganda drive would fail.
And THAT is the core problem when dealing with propaganda. It only really works when YOU are the one seen as providing the most accurate information.
Even if you're lying, the lies have to be perceived as factual.
Right now, Al Jazeera is perceived as providing more facts and fewer distortio
Re:So we're just not telling them the right stuff? (Score:4, Funny)
I wonder why in the English language 'white' is always good and 'black' is quite bad. It must make the language of english-speaking black people quite ironic.
Such linguistics blacken the face of european languages. Such niggardly use of language should be stopped.
--
Your linguistic white knight.
Re:So we're just not telling them the right stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a very good question... what forms of government are advancing?
My personal view would be that socialist governments are in decline (Russia, China), democracies are mixed (Eastern Europe, USA), and authoritarian/theocratic regimes (Iran) are on the rise.
Rumsfeld would do a lot better (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, when you're a force that's saving lives and making things better- as the U.S. military was in Indonesia- our popularity goes up. The problem isn't the perception of our foreign policy, the problem IS our foreign policy. The neocons need to get out of their little alternate universe of spin and start dealing in the real world, like the old-school Republicans of Bush H. W. Bush's administration.
Re:As an American Muslim I completely agree... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As an American Muslim I completely agree... (Score:3, Informative)
You're kiding right?
No, 'twas an honest question
You mean other than being beaten to death or raped for leaving the house wearing unsuitable attire?
I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair". The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who
What is an "Islamic scientist"? (Score:5, Informative)
Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.
Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
Re:What is an "Islamic scientist"? (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not a native English speaker so pehaps I mistranlated the term.
There are two kinds of Islamic scientists
* Scientists in the ways of life: Those are the standard researchers in bilogy, chemistry, physics, maths...etc
* Scientists in the ways of religion: Those are the one's who try to answer religious questions using a rigourous logic induction/deduction system whic
effective propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
The history of government propaganda is long and diverse, and includes successes as well as failures. Effective propaganda does not need to be evil. During WWII, Allied propagandists printed newspapers for Axis soldiers, and they were much appreciated by their recipients for being rather more reliable than the official German news sources.
Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.
Has it occured to them... (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to know why people listen to Bin Ladan and his ilk? Because there are a lot of poor, miserable, hungry people over there whose lives suck, and he (and Zarquai and all the rest) are managing to successfully convince them to blame an innocent third party. Ok, not ENTIRELY innocent *cough*assassinations*cough* but still, the theocrats and fascists sitting in power are FAR more to blame than the US.
And when people are hungry enough, and desperate enough, and you tell them, "THAT guy! HE'S to blame!" They'll believe you.
Especially if That Guy has never done a damn thing they've ever seen to help them.
Re:Has it occured to them... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Has it occured to them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, the United States has spent tens of billions to help and be nice to Muslims and it got the US nothing.
Afghanistan (Score:5, Insightful)
We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.
Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.
Re:Has it occured to them... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. Go educate yourself. Completely different group of people.
So to placate them
That's ridiculous. I bet your view would be slightly different if you were one of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were being displaced, tortured, prosecuted and massacred.
Number 1 - FROM WHO?
It was Saudi Arabia shitting their pants at 6 Iraqi divisions parked in Kuwait that asked the (previous) Bush administration to set up camp. The Saudis could not defend thei
Should they do more in the first place? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would like to see a 24/7 channel established which would be objective. Propaganda channels can only go so far, because people eventually realise that the picture shown by them is too rosy, and when this happens, the channels loose all credibility. I do understand the need to have a western channel in Iraq, because I suspect that Iraqi channels might not be objective either. I know that in Canada our national television channels are not always objectives. So if I cannot trust my own country channels, I guess I cannot trust those of Iraq.
But for a 24/7 channel to be objective, it should be established by an international organisation and have muslisms on its board and production staff. Editorials from both camps should be allowed. Of course, who is to say that it will be totally objective? But it would be a start.
The US doesn't need propaganda. (Score:5, Insightful)
et rid of the need to alter the reality and the problem is solved.
Re:The US doesn't need propaganda. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can agree on the issue of torture. There's a fundamental human rights issue here that we (the US) are wont to trot out when convenient. We need to be sure it can't be used against us. But even more... its the right thing to do and, for the most part, reflective of our society.
The collateral damage issue is interesting. It seems to me that US forces already tries to avoid collateral damage. It sounds more like you're calling for elimination of collateral damage - and that's a fantasy. You might also note that US forces tends to avoid friendly fire too. Even so, it still happens. Collateral damage is, indeed, tragic. It provides no real military advantage. And it's a gold mine for anti-US propaganda. I'm curious as to why you seem to think US forces do not attempt avoiding the situation.
And, finally, Iran. Sure - they don't have weapons nor at this point the ability to produce them. But you're being willfully ignorant if you believe that they do not have the desire to build them. And that's the point - limiting that ability. Does Isreal have nukes? Yes. So does India. So does Pakistan. But when countries like Iran talk about Isreal being wiped off the face of the earth, and with a decided lack of simular dogma from Isreal... you'll have to forgive the US for not being so concerned with Isreal's nukes. Pakistan and India are more dangerous simply due to their history of rattling sabres at each other - though that seems to have settled down. The issue is not who HAS nukes, but who is most likely to use them.
Re:The US doesn't need propaganda. (Score:3, Insightful)
Responding to the parent, trying to stop some of the B-S.
Explain how Israel's nuclear weapons are illegal. When did Israel agree not to have nuclear weapons? Should Israel, which faces countries which demand daily that it be wiped off the map, give up its only real strategic weapons system?
Sorry, I'm one of the bad guys - Israeli. The Iranians have made it perfectly clear that as soon as they complete the development of nuclear weapons, they will use them. Against my family, against civilians. Israel
Very Bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
If you destroy TV, radio, newspapers and even the internet with lies, people in need of the truth will turn back to the pulpit, to obtain comfort and security from the man who spits bile at infidels, women and modernity, and who tells them that masturbation is wrong and menstruation is unclean and that we're all tainted by some sin that someone who never even existed committed.
I live in a country that was like this not too long ago. I'd rather not have to go back to it, or see anyone else forced to either.
Just the opposite (Score:5, Interesting)
An even more sad fact is that speaking for myself as a US citizen and a US resident, that also makes me distrust the information source too. And I have found that to be true regardless of which party is in power.
Ummm, they already have one - no, really (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe Rumsfeld didn't get the memo, but that's not surprising considering that he doesn't even use e-mail [msn.com].
Take the Easy Way Out... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Our enemies have skilfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but... our country has not," he said. Mr Rumsfeld said al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists were bombarding Muslims with negative images of the West, which had poisoned the public view of the US.
How is it possible for al-Qaeda to be so far ahead of us in PR when we have entire industries built on PR and marketing??? Or is it because we are in fact doing a shitty job? Pictures from Abu Ghraib weren't simply made up by the media. Someone in our leadership screwed up (notice how they sacked the soldiers but few officers) and the TRUTH go out. The truth will get out eventually.
The US must fight back by operating a more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine, or risk a "dangerous deficiency," he said.
No, the US must fight back by doing a better job instead of trying to distort the truth. We've already lost a ton of credibility when no WMDs were found. A propaganda machine isn't going to help. It's make people believe us even less and then we'll truly be in a "world of shit". Rumsfeld and our leadership need to get it through their heads that saying "2 + 2 = 5" a million times isn't going to change the fact. Face it, we're a foreign country in someone else's land. That's not going to make people happy. When things don't improve like we've promised and car bombs start going off, they're going to be pissed. Remember how ridiculous the Iraqi PR minister was when he try to tell everyone that Americans are being defeated as our tanks moved into Baghdad? That's how Rumsfeld is going to look when he get this PR machine going.
Typical american mentality (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless they buy all international news outlets and impose strict control on them, find a way to ban reporting of their attrocities altogether (persecute underground/independent reporting), filter out or censor internet communications, and crash dissent on an international scale, they might as well try to empty the sea with a tea spoon.
American hubris at a grandiose scale. The informed citizen will read a report about another massacre perpetrated by the american arrogance and then a report of how an american hero saved a dairy cow from certain death in the killing fields of iraq and somehow the latter will weigh over the former? Sure if your name is Joe Sixpack and you live around 38 00 N, 97 00 W...
Way to spin the story (Score:3, Interesting)
So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them. And that is the very definition of propaganda. Even Slashdot is really propaganda. It's not a bad thing; it's just the free expression of ideas with the intent to convince others of these ideas' legitimacy (trolls and OS religious zealots notwithstanding). I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!
So For those that don't care to read the article, Rumsfeld is merely saying that these people, who have sworn to destroy the west if they can, are using propaganda much more effectively than we are. We need to be better arguers (hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East), and come up with better ways to help people see that having a totalitarian, facist, Islamic state is *not* going to bring about any benefit to them in terms of people or religion.
While I have huge problems with our current administration, I do understand the Middle East, and I recognize that some things have to be done. I greatly fear what will happen as these aberations of Islam continue to spread. As we can see from the Denmark fiasco, it's not just America that is being targeted. Islam is at a cross-roads. Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads to bring back the original, peaceful meaning of Islam. That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.
Re:Way to spin the story (Score:5, Insightful)
WARNING: This never happens.
we in the west are losing the war of ideas with facist islam.
No. What is happening is that when you reduce yourself to the level of your opponent, as the US and increasingly the UK have done, it becomes impossible to take the moral high ground for the simple reason that you are no longer on the moral high ground.
such as Al Qeada and similar groups in Iraq
And there entirely because of American actions. Iraq was not an islamist state; Saddam and OBL hated each other with some passion. Even the term "Al Qeada" was in fact invented by the US and was not used outside until after 9/11.
So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them.
WRONG! Show them. Stop bombing and invading countries for their oil and stop locking people up for years without carge, never mind trial, on the say-so of a bunch of bounty hunters with no interest in justice, just in a nice pay-cheque. Not too hard, is it?
I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!
If he meant a word of that then perhaps. But he doesn't.
(hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East
Hint to American government: locking people up with evidence is not going to win you friends. Just as installing a power-mad dictator into a country and supporting him with guns, planes, and bioweapons while he slaughters his own people will not make those people grateful when you come twenty-five years later to remove that dictator in order to secure the country's oil supply for your own use.
I do understand the Middle East,
You hide it well.
Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads
Perhaps we should stop the billion-dollar recruitment drive for the other side then.
That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.
No, what Rumsfeld is talking about is what Rumsfeld always talks about: keeping Donald Rumsfeld in a position of power. He was doing it in the eighties when he made up the crap about invisible Russian submarines, he was doing it when he sold WMD to Saddam (receipts are all on file in the Senate Banking Commitee records, in public), and he was doing it when he acted to prevent the UN completing its search for those same WMD because he knew that, against all expectation, Saddam had in fact disposed of them all (partly by dropping them on the Iranians with help from "calibration teams" from the CIA under Bush Sr.)
Rumsfeld is an old liar who's been caught out again and again. But he's one of America's aristocracy and just can't be got rid of. He knows he, and Rice, can talk about democracy until the day they die but they'll never have to face an election if they don't want to. Hardy a glowing example of the superiority of the Western system of government.
TWW
Re:Way to spin the story (Score:3, Interesting)
You're very first comment about "WARNING: This never happens" has discredited pretty much everything you had to say. As did your comment "you hide it well."
I definitely meant to imply that "talk to them" means also show them. B
"how much more can they possibly do?" (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that would make a difference would be to actually change their foreign policy to be less aggressive and unilateral, and to treat the rest of the world as partners to be co-operated with in good faith, rather than as marks to be subjugated/exploited/suppressed. Trying to solve the problems by propaganda alone is merely putting lipstick on a pig, and won't fool anyone.
Of course, the above won't happen any time soon, because it would involve sacrificing much of the profit that our current policies squeeze out of the third world.
(disclaimer: this isn't meant to be flamebait or a troll, it is merely my honest appraisal of the situation)
The answer is simple! (Score:3, Insightful)
Propaganda only works if it's believed (Score:3, Insightful)
To convince your own population is easy. That's how the nazi propaganda managed to keep the Germans in line even when it should've been obvious that the war is lost. They've been brainwashed for so long, and it WAS actually more or less true what they heard until about 1941, so they believed it.
When you try to convince your opponent, or at least an "undecided" person, you can't start with lies. You have to use truth, in other words, you have to first of all put some action before your words. Promises won't work. They've heard promises before, from Al Quaida and their former government. They have heard lies before. And people who have been subject to heavy propaganda only to have it revealed as lies are very resilent against this kind of tactic.
Ask anyone in eastern Europe.
So first of all, you have to put some "good" actions into place, then you can use your media to stress their existance and use this in the war for the minds. And I hope Rummy has this in mind, not some half-assed promises and long-term goals that nobody cares about.
Fair and balanced (Score:5, Funny)
What? FOX News went off the air?
Anybody ever think that maybe what .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh wait... that would fuck up 98% of the worlds beliefs.
Hmmm... maybe its time for that.
At one time Islam was the strongest force behind human advancement, gathering knowledge of all kinds and developing it further as well as being productive with such knowledge. Islam was considered of the highest quality products and education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam [wikipedia.org]
then an ottoman feeling the pressure to go to war in his royal ?(or whatever you want to call it) position, though there wasn't a real cause for it, started the downfall of islam in going to war.
Knowledge begets knowledge... and specific knowledge, such a war knowlegde, begets its own kind.
War is destructive and the opposite of productive....
Just ask father physics and mother nature. They are very persistant in telling you, no matter how much you don't listen.
USE OFFICAL GOVERNMENT SEARCH ENGINE! (Score:3, Informative)
We must replace google, yahoo, msn et cetera with a Patriot Search Engine [outer-court.com] to ensure that Government-Approved Information is delivered to your desktop!
It can also that your search terms are automatically submitted to the government for analysis, without the risk of judicial oversight, congressional enactments, or probable cause. This will make your even more secure from terror, terrorism and terrorists!
Surely if you are a true patriot with nothing to hide and interested only in The Truth As Patriots Know It To Be, you will use Patriot Search [outer-court.com] today. If you don't, then surely in the interests of security someone will have to find out why.
You Say Propaganda- I Say Public Relations (Score:4, Insightful)
All journies start with a small step... (Score:3, Interesting)
But are they really doing all that they can do win this battle? No. Take, for example, the prison torture scandal. I don't care whether or not the response to the scandal was appropriate or not; that is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the world thinks the scandal is relevant. Pulling a Clinton by trying to play technicalities with the definition of torture does not help. Duking it out with McCain on the issue does not help. Forget propaganda! If you can't make the right gestures, you won't be going anywhere.
In many societies (particularly in Japan), it is considered the honorable thing for the guy on top to publicly apologize, accept responsibility, and/or resign even if something was totally the fault of some underling. Did Rummy do any of that? Nope.
Well gee, Rummy. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Rumsfeld ain't a n00b to lies and deceit (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's an idea (Score:5, Informative)
Not just the bad things.
The American people have such a screwed up idea of what that whole country is like... You'd think that ever square inch of that place was ready to explode, rather than what's happening in a relatively small area where Saddam loyalists and jihadists (who came over the border) are right now.
deeply disingenuous as usual, slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is simply disingenuous. The United States certainly has propoganda organs, but I think it's indisputable that it also has the most free and open media community (circus) in the world.
I think Rumsfeld's point is more that, Fox news aside, every other media outlet in this country seems dedicated to 'taking down' the president in any way that they possibly can. In an era where a higher percentage of Washington reporters voted Democrat than REGISTERED Democrats, and where media networks formerly of some standing don't hesitate to run stories without research, plaigarize from web blogs, and outright fabricate evidence (Courier Font for the win, Dan) out of their irrational hatred of George Bush, I don't think it's suprising for a senior member of the administration to say that it would behoove the government to act more aggressively to get GOOD news about US efforts out and AROUND the anti-US media conglomerates.
What kind of propaganda system do they want? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or do they want a focused pro-American pro-West service to counter the incessant anti-American message coming from Iran?
Perhaps they are talking about a 'black' propaganda service, where stories that may or may not be true are introduced into the 'Arab street' for the sole purpose of provoking an extreme reaction. The Arabs and the Pakistanis will go into violent riot mode on just rumors now. For example, I doubt that anyone rioting in Libya, Syria, or Pakistan has actually seen any of these editorial cartoons that have whipped them into a frenzy. It is also doubtful that anyone in the west would have started massive street riots without actually seeing the provocative images themselves. It's unlikely that provocative images or unproven news rumors would cause riots in the west anyway.
Having a 'black' propaganda service that could introduce false rumors would allow the controllers of this service to have a 'light switch' to start violent street riots in the Islamic world at any time that is convenient for them.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Funny)
Air America is comedy, not news. I would hope you don't get your news solely from a comedy show.
At least Fox News, for all the bashing it takes, dares to present both sides of an issue.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Funny)
At least Fox News, for all the bashing it takes, dares to present both sides of an issue.
Now THAT folks, is comedy.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW, you also may (or may not) know that Al Jazeera is generally regarded as pretty pro-Western in the Arabic world. And while it's not a guarantee for unbiasedness, I'd much rather trust a news source that's hated by the propaganda machines and fascists on *both* sides, not one that's only hated by one side but loved by the other, because the former news source actually has a realistic chance of being reasonably unbiased.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)
From aljazeera.com:
"About Aljazeera.com
Aljazeera Publishing owns and operates Aljazeera.com, bringing you the world today. Aljazeera Publishing is an independent media organisation established for more than 12 years delivering news and analysis to readers all over the world. Aljazeera.com has a particular focus on events and issues in the Middle East covering major developments presenting facts as they happen.
Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV station whose website is Aljazeera.net."
Embarrasing, I know.
Re:Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because "news for nerds" is really "advertising dollars for Slashdot's parent company", and this article is a clickfest goldmine.
The article is really about Rumsfeld being, gasp, honest about one of the fronts of the war. About how al-Qaeda is very media savy. Kneejerks will misinterpret this as Donald "Big Brother" Rumsfeld trying to control their minds.
Maybe Mr Rumsfeld should talk to the editors at Slashdot. The seem to have a good grip on this co
Or Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you actually read what Rummy is proposing?
From the end of TFA:That sounds really freakin' nerdy to me.
They're talking about creating a radio, tv and print framework in whatever country he has a problem with.
It's relatively easy for the U.S. to blast propaganda into Cuba, since they aren't that far away, but it is a completely different story when you're trying to push information into countries like Iran or Syria.
Think about the technical side of deploying his 'framework'. I bet that would be News for Nerds
Re:Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most are. But there are different views among nerds like anyone else. Who's politics do you cater to? Or do you make the blanket statement that nerds=*insert political position*? That's why you should keep the two seperate here, unless you want to drive away the other side (and their advertising dollars).
That's why this perplexes me so much; why on Earth would you want to offend one half of the spectrum and jeapordize a chunk of your readership?
You've made a mistake... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You've made a mistake... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
We expect that sort of behavior from totalitarian regimes. When they do it it isn't news. When we start acting like the Ministry of Disinformation, it's not what you'd expect from a country with such explicit values. So it's newsworthy.
Re:WARNING: Bad Journalism Alert! (Score:3, Informative)