[Rictor]

Its not often that I read something and I am touched by it. Usually, I agree or disagree, and thats it. Everyone has an agenda.

Somehow, this really got through to me. I reminded me of the end-scene in American History X. No propaganda, no spin, just the voice of reason and compassion of a fellow human being.

Its a bit of a long read, but I can't see how that could be a legitimate excuse.


Click click

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
No propaganda, no spin, just the voice of reason and compassion of a fellow human being.

You do mean other than the propaganda and spin that anti-war.com uses as a baseline, right?

[IceFire]

Somewhere in the middle lies the truth.

[Rictor]

Maybe you could ignore where the article is located for a moment and just read it. Or not. Whatever antiwar.com may be like, and I think that it is substantialy less biased than any major news channelin the United States right now, I feel that this article makes no attempt to spin the situation one way or another. If it came down to it, I would be more inclined to believe a person who's agenda is motivated by compassion than by the pursuit of profit.

But whatever. Read it, don't, like it don't, just trying to promote debate and such on an issue, one which I think is a major issue of the 90s and will only continue to be more so. I can hear it now: "why do you always have to find problems with everything. Tell me when something important happens". And important, it must be remembered, is defined as an action. One which is the result of the forces and idealogies I speak of playing off each other. But that last part is quite easy to forget, cause an event only occurs when one side or one idea gains dominance, and by then its too late to give your 2 cents.

[mikhael]

You attempted to spin the article in a favorable light by saying it wasn't a spun article. Then you send the reader to a website that has a very specific political bent. This is disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst.

Don't try to claim the moral high ground here ("I would be more inclined to believe a person who's agenda is motivated by compassion than by the pursuit of profit"). The fact is, you could have said, "This moved me. Give it a read." without adding the extra self-disclamatory spin.

[Mr. Vega]

This moved me.

[mikhael]

Well, I've read it.

If you ignore the fact that the guy is heavily politically biased, factually in error on at least one major point, and actually presents one event that may or may not have happened with not a single footnote or reference to establish its factual basis, I'd say its exactly what it looks like: an antiwar address of some sort, given before an assembly of people. Its not particulary moving, nor is it revealing anything that wasn't already known.

Further, he carries on the extreme left's criticism of the moderate left. He carries on about labels and reinterprets their definitions to fit his arguement.

Its interesting that he speaks ill of 20th century imperialism, but ignores imperialism from the 15th to 19th centuries. He says "imperialism only got its bad name when Hitler decided he, too, was an imperialist". I guess we should completely ignoring the French, the British, Dutch, Spanish and the rest. Who cares if the Spanish massacred North American Indians in the name of expaning their empire, or Napoleon's and the Kaiser's attempts to unite Europe by way of conquest. Those don't count. Honest.

Eventually, he moves on, and starts talking about Afghanistan. Me and him see eye to eye here. I know how badly the US screwed up over there (and indeed, the dozens of other places we screwed up before and since). I really like, however, how the author levels a claim ("Girls are routinely abducted, raped, murdered.") without a single footnote to establish the claim as fact. The rest of his carrying on about the war on terror is reasonably correct. He decries the much of the silliness we let our government push on us as hollow, meant to appease. He's right.

Ah, but then we're back to the usual stuff Rictor likes to use to beat his chest: anti-americanism. "America Bad!" reads the next several paragraphs. America is the real source of terror, not terrorists. Really. Honest. They fly planes into buildings and bomb ships in port. I'll not deny that the US has been involved in some of the stupidest goings on in the history of the 20th century (Vietnam? Korea? Chile? oh yeah. Absolutely.). Entertainingly, the ignores the British Empire's role in the Middle East and the splitting of the Ottoman Empire, which directly led to the problems we see in Iraq and Iran. But why bother with the facts, just do like George Bush and attack the biggest, most public face you can. In this case, attack America.

Sidenote: I find it rather englightening that the author implies that the US didn't concern itself with 'terrorism' before Sept 11. I guess he completely missed the entire Clinton administration. Hell he must have missed a large part of the 1970s, come to think of it.

Back to the article. He claims "It’s the only paper in Australia in which I’ve been able to report the evidence of the disaster in Iraq – for example, that the attack on Iraq was planned from September 11". This is factually inaccurate. As a matter of the public record, it has already been reported here, in the US, that the attack on Iraq was planned when Bush was appointed president. Sept 11 merely gave him a convenient trigger. I guess American papers reporting stuff doesn't matter, only Australian ones. Of course, this guy claims that Australian papers don't run factual articles (ie, HIS), only foreign papers do. The guy doesn't ever directly contradict himself on this point, but his implications do contradict themselves.

From here, the author talks about the media, big business and advertising, et al. He's absolutely right and seemingly, this guy seems to think he's the first to point this stuff out.

All in all, there's only one thing moving, or really interesting in this whole address and it wasn't said by the author. He quoted it from Alex Carey, who wrote that the three most significant political developments of the twentieth century were, "the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

You know, if he'd addressed that point from the first, rather than meandering through all the other bull****, this might have been a wrothwhile read. Instead, it reads exactly like Rictor's original post: full of self-declamatory spin. The tone of the entire article is one of superiority and revelation: "if you only saw things the way I did, you'd know the truth". He's got some good facts in there, along with some good quotes. He nails some issues that have already been nail-gunned to the wall, so his targets aren't exactly moving. Mostly its a lot of self-puffery, wrapped up in politically charged, and yet still aimless, wandering.

[Dark_4ce]

Why does the movie Donnie Darko come to mind...

[Rictor]

"Ah, but then we're back to the usual stuff Rictor likes to use to beat his chest: anti-americanism. "America Bad!"

So, again we come down to this. I thought that it has already been established (and I remember you agreeing) that criticism of American policy does not constitute anti-Americanism. If I ever have a complaint, against America or against Canada or against Mars, that complaint is based on factual, specific events or policy and not some vague hatred of this and this and this. Posting a lot of stuff that is critical of American policy does not make me anti-American, it makes me a critic, a skeptic and someone who believes that important events and viewpoints (but then again, important to who?) should be brought to the attention of and discussed by as large a number of people as possible.

Thats one of my basic beliefs: ****, important **** that is shaping our world, needs to be discussed. Without that, you've got a world made up of a handful of dictators and 6 billion sheep.

_____

Now, moving on the the article itself.

Its interesting that he speaks ill of 20th century imperialism, but ignores imperialism from the 15th to 19th centuries. He says "imperialism only got its bad name when Hitler decided he, too, was an imperialist". I guess we should completely ignoring the French, the British, Dutch, Spanish and the rest. Who cares if the Spanish massacred North American Indians in the name of expaning their empire, or Napoleon's and the Kaiser's attempts to unite Europe by way of conquest. Those don't count. Honest.

Well, did imperialism have a bad name before Hitler showed up? From what I understand, imperialism was not something to be ashamed of, it was something to be proud of. As in, my country has the most colonies, we rule. I mean, the Persians, the Greeks (under Alexander), the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the British, the French and countless others had empires. Large ones. Brutal ones. But, how often is Alexander or Augustus thought of as a tyrant, a madman. By those with an "average" knowledge of history, not damn often. I hardly think that the author looks kindly on the actions of these empires. The reason, I believe, why they were not included in the article is a) You can't talk about all of history in a 5 page article. You need to extablish some context and more importantly b) the American empire is currently happening. It is the only one with which we are today living and the only one which we can influence. The Roman Empire is gone, so it is confined to the category of history. Not much you can do about the Punic Wars now. Not so with America.

Sometimes I wonder, had Hitler stuck to killing Jews and Gypsies instead of invading foreign countries, would we today be learning about how he was a great man, a visionary who united his people and brought prosperity to all those under his leadership?

Eventually, he moves on, and starts talking about Afghanistan. Me and him see eye to eye here. I know how badly the US screwed up over there (and indeed, the dozens of other places we screwed up before and since). I really like, however, how the author levels a claim ("Girls are routinely abducted, raped, murdered.") without a single footnote to establish the claim as fact. The rest of his carrying on about the war on terror is reasonably correct. He decries the much of the silliness we let our government push on us as hollow, meant to appease. He's right.

Ok, so you pretty much agree. Nothing much to dispute here. However, about the rape comment, I think (and ofcourse, I may be wrong here) that it is indeed a genuine statement. A true statement without proof is better than a false statement with false proof, which would seem to be the tone for many of the world's media outlet.

Ah, but then we're back to the usual stuff Rictor likes to use to beat his chest: anti-americanism. "America Bad!" reads the next several paragraphs. America is the real source of terror, not terrorists. Really. Honest. They fly planes into buildings and bomb ships in port. I'll not deny that the US has been involved in some of the stupidest goings on in the history of the 20th century (Vietnam? Korea? Chile? oh yeah. Absolutely.). Entertainingly, the ignores the British Empire's role in the Middle East and the splitting of the Ottoman Empire, which directly led to the problems we see in Iraq and Iran. But why bother with the facts, just do like George Bush and attack the biggest, most public face you can. In this case, attack America.

Terrorists are not born. They're created. Created by actions, by ideaology, by pain and suffering. If you inflict harm on a people, do not be surprised to have terrorists popping up. So America is reposnsible for the people currently attacking them. Not only in the sense that they gave them a reason to fight, someone to hate, but in the more literal sense that the US is responsible for training, supporting and funding these terrorists. Keep that in mind next time you decide to fund a violent front in order to bring down a governent that is not to you (and I mean your as in American) liking. I agree with you on the actions of the US during the Cold War (Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Chile). I also agree with you that the British empire is reponsible for of the **** going on now. However, how many of these conflicts would have been resovled peacefully (or rather, *more* peacefully) had not America not kept them alive.

Yes, the Brits are in part responsible for the state of Iran for example, but before America decided to fund the Shah's little coup, Iran had a peaceful and democraticaly elected President. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a direct result of the dictatorship set up in Iran by the US. Had that not occured, who is to say that Iran would not today be a peaceful and prosperous nation?

Sidenote: I find it rather englightening that the author implies that the US didn't concern itself with 'terrorism' before Sept 11. I guess he completely missed the entire Clinton administration. Hell he must have missed a large part of the 1970s, come to think of it.

Oh Clinton was *very* concerned with terrorism, no doubt about it. Except what he was concerned with was funding it and supporting it.  Back in '93, bin Laden and the US were the best of friends. Remember, they're not terrorists if they're working for us, they're freedom fighers.

Back to the article. He claims "It’s the only paper in Australia in which I’ve been able to report the evidence of the disaster in Iraq – for example, that the attack on Iraq was planned from September 11". This is factually inaccurate. As a matter of the public record, it has already been reported here, in the US, that the attack on Iraq was planned when Bush was appointed president. Sept 11 merely gave him a convenient trigger. I guess American papers reporting stuff doesn't matter, only Australian ones. Of course, this guy claims that Australian papers don't run factual articles (ie, HIS), only foreign papers do. The guy doesn't ever directly contradict himself on this point, but his implications do contradict themselves.

I may be just slow on the uptake, but I dont see how his implications contradict themselves. As for the war in Iraq being planned as of Bush's inaugration, I would have to agree with the author on this. While it may very well be true that Bush had planned it all along, there is factual evidence that shows that days, even hours after 9/11, the government was trying to lay the blame on Iraq. In either case, I think that the point trying to be made is the same, that the war in Iraq was pre-planned. Neither case presented is the official story, and both are just as bad.

From here, the author talks about the media, big business and advertising, et al. He's absolutely right and seemingly, this guy seems to think he's the first to point this stuff out.

I didn't notice that, about him being the first one to point it out. He is right, yes, but ask most people and they will have no idea what he's talking about. That means that despite it being repeated over and over, the majority of people have yet to hear it. Which means that more repeating is in order.

All in all, there's only one thing moving, or really interesting in this whole address and it wasn't said by the author. He quoted it from Alex Carey, who wrote that the three most significant political developments of the twentieth century were, "the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

You know, if he'd addressed that point from the first, rather than meandering through all the other bull****, this might have been a wrothwhile read. Instead, it reads exactly like Rictor's original post: full of self-declamatory spin. The tone of the entire article is one of superiority and revelation: "if you only saw things the way I did, you'd know the truth". He's got some good facts in there, along with some good quotes. He nails some issues that have already been nail-gunned to the wall, so his targets aren't exactly moving. Mostly its a lot of self-puffery, wrapped up in politically charged, and yet still aimless, wandering.

I get the impession, and I may be wrong, that you have more of a problem with his format and style than with the arguements being presented. As I said in the previous paragraph, the fact that most people are oblivious to some very imporant facts remains distressing, and calls for those facts to be repeated as often and for as long as is needed to get them out into the public's perception.  I mysellf often think "If people knew what I knew, we would be living in a very different world". Well, barring telepathy, the media is the best way of achieving that, and thats exactly what he was doing. Quite aside from any ideaology and ****, there are *facts* which people are not aware of and in the interests of a democratic Earth, need to be made so. Whats wrong with that? When a certain set of facts are presented in a certain way, that is called a viewpoint. All spin is viewpoints, but not all viewpoints are spin. I didn't think that the author missed any important facts or intentionally skewed the reader's opinion. This to me is spin, and since I percieved none of the above, I feel that no spin was present, aside from that inherent in every expression of one's beliefs.

__

Wow, long post. I'm off to eat some Nutella. And mik, whatever I may disagree with you on, its better than ignoring the discussion alotogether, which it would seem that most people are doing. Not to say that I am some wise dude and everyone has to listen to what I say and discuss it, but atleast you had an opinion.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Rictor
"Ah, but then we're back to the usual stuff Rictor likes to use to beat his chest: anti-americanism. "America Bad!"

So, again we come down to this. I thought that it has already been established (and I remember you agreeing) that criticism of American policy does not constitute anti-Americanism. If I ever have a complaint, against America or against Canada or against Mars, that complaint is based on factual, specific events or policy and not some vague hatred of this and this and this. Posting a lot of stuff that is critical of American policy does not make me anti-American, it makes me a critic, a skeptic and someone who believes that important events and viewpoints (but then again, important to who?) should be brought to the attention of and discussed by as large a number of people as possible.

Well see, the problem here is that the article doesn't disagree with points of American policy. It actively derides the country as a whole, seldom criticising discrete things. That makes sets the tone as 'anti-american' and not as 'critical discourse'. Its a screed, pure and simple.

Well, did imperialism have a bad name before Hitler showed up? From what I understand, imperialism was not something to be ashamed of, it was something to be proud of. As in, my country has the most colonies, we rule. I mean, the Persians, the Greeks (under Alexander), the Romans, the Byzantines, the Ottomans, the British, the French and countless others had empires. Large ones. Brutal ones. But, how often is Alexander or Augustus thought of as a tyrant, a madman. By those with an "average" knowledge of history, not damn often. I hardly think that the author looks kindly on the actions of these empires. The reason, I believe, why they were not included in the article is a) You can't talk about all of history in a 5 page article. You need to extablish some context and more importantly b) the American empire is currently happening. It is the only one with which we are today living and the only one which we can influence. The Roman Empire is gone, so it is confined to the category of history. Not much you can do about the Punic Wars now. Not so with America.

Nice redirect there. I was with you right up to the last line, where you spun it back into the 'Slam America' slant. Not so with American POLICY. Get it right.

Sometimes I wonder, had Hitler stuck to killing Jews and Gypsies instead of invading foreign countries, would we today be learning about how he was a great man, a visionary who united his people and brought prosperity to all those under his leadership?

I don't think so. History shows that anyone who leaves mass graves lying about eventually gets condemned for it.

A true statement without proof is better than a false statement with false proof, which would seem to be the tone for many of the world's media outlet.

A true statement without supporting data is just spin, nothing more and nothing less. Without proof, the statement is robbed of its meaning and its power. It means nothing. Just think. While I wrote this someone, somewhere, got murdered. Did you know, at this very moment someone is being raped in your country? Yes, its true! I can't offer you any proof and you can't disprove it. It doesn't mean anything until there's a name and a face and an account of the event. Stating true facts, without some frame work to link them into the real world, is the same as babbling incoherently. Actually, its worse: at least when you babble incoherently, people know what you're saying is unimportant. Not so when it sounds like it might be important. That's EXACTLY what the world's media pushes. All the way.

Terrorists are not born. They're created. Created by actions, by ideaology, by pain and suffering. If you inflict harm on a people, do not be surprised to have terrorists popping up.

Yeah, witness all the American Indians bombing American cities.  Terrorists are made, but they aren't made by anything so simple as decisions that America makes. They're made by ideologues brainwashing young people into killing themselves for a barely understood cause. You can try to lay the blame solely at America's feet, but in doing so, you're letting the people directly responsible off the hook.

So America is reposnsible for the people currently attacking them.

You watch too much television. NO ONE is attacking America. That's exactly the sort of thing that Bush and his cronies want everyone to think. NO ONE IS ATTACKING AMERICA. Yes, someone ATTACKED America. Yes, they might do it again. Explain to me what sense it made for Aum Shin Rikyu to gas a japanese subway, or plant pipe bombs in Narita Airport, KILLING JAPANESE people and not the Americans they railed against? Where's the sense in terrorists in the middle east attacking Israelis and talk about American policies? If they're attacking us they've got some pretty piss poor aim. They got three buildings and four planes. And one of the buildings was a repeat. They didn't succeed the first time.

Yes, the Brits are in part responsible for the state of Iran for example, but before America decided to fund the Shah's little coup, Iran had a peaceful and democraticaly elected President. The Islamic Revolution in Iran was a direct result of the dictatorship set up in Iran by the US. Had that not occured, who is to say that Iran would not today be a peaceful and prosperous nation?

I have not, and will not, defend US policy in Iran. We are indeed reaping what we sowed.

Oh Clinton was *very* concerned with terrorism, no doubt about it. Except what he was concerned with was funding it and supporting it.  Back in '93, bin Laden and the US were the best of friends. Remember, they're not terrorists if they're working for us, they're freedom fighers.

Incorrect. Back in 93, Bin Laden was one of Clinton's big targets. I think the President you're looking for is Reagan or Bush Sr. In February 1993, Bin Laden organized a truck bomb attack on the World Trade Center. Whilst extensive damage was done, it failed to bring down the building. Clinton built a comprehensive anti-terrorism apparatus with the specific intent of going after targets including Bin Laden. This is a matter of the public record.

I guess American papers reporting stuff doesn't matter, only Australian ones. Of course, this guy claims that Australian papers don't run factual articles (ie, HIS), only foreign papers do. The guy doesn't ever directly contradict himself on this point, but his implications do contradict themselves.

I may be just slow on the uptake, but I dont see how his implications contradict themselves.

First, the author declares that the media in Australia does not run factual articles, only foreign papers do. Then he completely ignores factual articles presented in foreign papers, revealing a disregard of the media he's just praised. On the one hand, he implies that only foreign media can be trusted. On the other hand he implies that foreign media isn't worth reading. These two implications are at cross purposes and are contradictory.

From here, the author talks about the media, big business and advertising, et al. He's absolutely right and seemingly, this guy seems to think he's the first to point this stuff out.

I didn't notice that, about him being the first one to point it out. He is right, yes, but ask most people and they will have no idea what he's talking about. That means that despite it being repeated over and over, the majority of people have yet to hear it. Which means that more repeating is in order.

The easiest way to make people believe a lie is to repeat it large and loud. I think Joseph Goebbels said that, in the service of Hitler. I do not mean to imply the author is lying. I mean to point out that mindless repetition leads to mindless acceptance, without any concious understanding. Repetition doesn't lead to learning, it leads to following.

I get the impession, and I may be wrong, that you have more of a problem with his format and style than with the arguements being presented. ...

I have a problem with both. He's right on some things and wrong on others. I addressed those already. I have a real problem though, with people who, either through stupdity or an attempt at cleverness, make their point difficult to find. This guy seems to have done a good job of that. Journalism and public discourse are alike in a very important way: in both you're supposed to get to the point early and clearly and then follow it up with supporting details and facts to back it up. This guy didn't do that. Perhaps it was the format of the article (it was, after all, a speech), however, if this guy is even half the journalist he claims to be, he wouldn't have taken four pages to get to the point of a five page article. He wouldn't have meandered through half truths and unsupported implications to get there. If the point is strong enough to endorse, it should be strong enough that the author doesn't have to resort to fluff, filler, distraction or deception.