# 'The Canadians try to kill everybody'



## MarkOttawa (27 Nov 2006)

The _Globe and Mail's_ headline writers--front page--must want the Afstan war crimes trials to start, based on a quote from an obviously unimpeachable Taliban source.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20061127.TALIBANS27/TPStory/Front



> In a rare meeting marked by unusually straight talk, the men described how they *manipulate* Afghan tribes [emphasis added--and they certainly are manipulating some others], turn local officials against their own government and channel the frustrations of ordinary people to drive foreigners away from their ancient lands.
> 
> They spoke from personal experience. The two, relaxing at a private home in a secret location in the infamously lawless Pakistani province of Baluchistan, are foot soldiers in the Taliban insurgency...
> 
> ...



I wonder why the reporter, Graeme Smith, fails to mention that no aircraft doing the bombing are Canadian. There's journalism and then there's propaganda. I'm still waiting for the headline: "Americans work hard to avoid civilian casualties".

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Trinity (27 Nov 2006)

and of course

these are the most credible witnesses


----------



## Teflon (27 Nov 2006)

> Wearing pinstripe vests, gold watches and neatly trimmed beards



Neatly groomed gold watches,... They must be credible!,.... people in pinstripes don't lie,.... do they? ???


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Nov 2006)

The reporter was interviewed on CFRA this morning about his story. He said that the statement about Canadians trying to kill everybody was probably aimed at Canadian public opinion, and should not be taken as the truth.


----------



## Mithras (27 Nov 2006)

Teflon said:
			
		

> Neatly groomed gold watches,... They must be credible!,.... people in pinstripes don't lie,.... do they? ???



Sounds like the mafia.  Take everything said over there with a grain of salt.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (27 Nov 2006)

Well, the headline served its purpose and made me read the story. It seems that this is actually a case of the reporter "reporting" and not adding his own opinions.


----------



## Pte_Martin (27 Nov 2006)

I don't see how people (the public) would believe this... This reporter got his info from the enemy. Of course they are going to say we kill everybody, that way the idoits who believe this will whine and try to get us to pull out. It doesn't make sense why wouldn't they listen to a first hand source like a Soldier who has been there already? If you see the comments posted to the globe website you will see how dumb some people really are.


----------



## Magravan (27 Nov 2006)

It's a cheap shot at the CF.. Trying to make us feel bad for using air support.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Nov 2006)

Just change the date to 1944 and insert Gobbels; "Yez ze Canadian Bombers are trying to killez everyonv!! Very terrible, unlike us caring Nazi's that using peace loving V1 & 2's only to kill your terrible leader!!   :


----------



## KevinB (27 Nov 2006)

There comes a time when I have to ask - WTF is a CANADIAN reporter acting as Minister of Propaganda for the Enemy...


----------



## BernDawg (27 Nov 2006)

Their hands were soft, their words polite,

Wearing pinstripe vests, gold watches and neatly trimmed beards,

Mr. Azizullah's nails were trimmed and neatly painted with henna. 

The two, relaxing at a private home in a secret location in the infamously lawless Pakistani province of Baluchistan, are* foot soldiers * in the Taliban insurgency.

My ass they're foot soldiers.  Probably a couple of wannabe's posing for the big "western" journalist and puttin' on a show.


----------



## ThatsLife (27 Nov 2006)

They know the majority of Canadians are hippies and they try to exploit that by feeding them hippie food. They know about the anti-war protests and the college kids listening to Green Day and other anti-everything bands and they feed them lies to turn them against their own nation. 

On a side note, I HAVE been seeing a lot of 'support our troops' stickers on cars over here in Vancouver and it's a definite improvement...I'd like to know where to purchase these stickers as I want to cover my car in them.


----------



## Magravan (27 Nov 2006)

ThatsLife said:
			
		

> They know the majority of Canadians are hippies and they try to exploit that by feeding them hippie food. They know about the anti-war protests and the college kids listening to Green Day and other anti-everything bands and they feed them lies to turn them against their own nation.
> 
> On a side note, I HAVE been seeing a lot of 'support our troops' stickers on cars over here in Vancouver and it's a definite improvement...I'd like to know where to purchase these stickers as I want to cover my car in them.



If the Majority of Canadians are hippies, then we are not serving our nation's interests to continue... After all, national interests should reflect that which the populace as a whole feels most strongly about... Trim your brush down a bit before you start those broad strokes...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Nov 2006)

Look up the Canex on the web and visit the "Support our troops" page.


----------



## ThatsLife (27 Nov 2006)

Magravan said:
			
		

> If the Majority of Canadians are hippies, then we are not serving our nation's interests to continue... After all, national interests should reflect that which the populace as a whole feels most strongly about... Trim your brush down a bit before you start those broad strokes...



Sorry I didn't mean for it to sound like that. What I meant was most Canadians are really uneducated when it comes to our military and our purpose over there, for example, thinking we're in Iraq? I'm on this Canadian community website called 'nexopia.com' where kids ages 14 all the way to 27+ and a lot of them are the typical 'scene kids' listening to bands such as "Anti-Flag", where one of their songs is titled "Die for your government" with some lyrics such as "You're gonna die, gonna die, gonna die for your government, die for your government like crap" and so on...and stuff like this influences them. It's not really their fault as we should be educating them about the real mission over there.

It's just small things like this which actually influence people to protest against the war because they really don't know what's going on. My girlfriend actually got me pretty mad when she told me our soldiers are dying over their for no reason and it's a pointless mission. I nearly back handed her...(not really, I'm a nice guy  ) but I discussed with her and straightened her vision out.

The internet is a wonderful thing, where information can be read by millions of people. We just need to spread and highlight the actual mission.


----------



## GDawg (27 Nov 2006)

The G & M allows you to make comments on their stories online, some of the comments are way out there! 
The G & M does a pretty shabby job of covering A-stan and anything to do with the CF.

I am a recruiter, so I have to explain the mission to people every day. People think we are in Iraq too, and they also wonder why we aren't in Darfur.

I tell them that the reason we are in Afghanistan and not Iraq or Darfur is because we are loyal servants of this nation and that what we do, where we do it are indeed dictated by the democratically elected government of the land.

I will sum up the stance of journalists and civilians like this "You can't hug your children with nuclear arms"

Mindless soundbites and sensational lies are really easy for closed minds to absorb.


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (27 Nov 2006)

I'm waiting for Jack Layton to quote these sources in Parliament as evidence of why we should leave. Let's see if his stupidity goes THAT deep.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2006)

Infantry_wannabe said:
			
		

> I'm waiting for Jack Layton to quote these sources in Parliament as evidence of why we should leave. Let's see if his stupidity goes THAT deep.


 

We all know he is.  Shall we count the days or hours?


----------



## Haggis (27 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We all know he is.  Shall we count the days or hours?



We should start a pool as an Army.ca fundraiser!


----------



## George Wallace (27 Nov 2006)

29 1525ET Nov 2006


----------



## ambex (27 Nov 2006)

Wow, after reading that article I decided to explore the globe and mail's website. Often I hear Canadians poking fun at Americans because they know nothing of our history, well, thats actually not so bad considering how many Canadians on the G+M site know nothing of our history or current world afairs lol. Actually, I shouldnt laugh, its rather sad and depressing. 
Exibit A: We should withdraw from Iraq. 
Exibit B: Harper(sometimes Martin but never Chrethien<sp?>) is a war ciminal who sent our troops into Afghanistan looking for WMD's.
There are more but I think most of us have come across this garbage before.

One question, arnt these people who want us out of Afghanistan the same who want us in Darfur? And isnt Darfur kinda guncrazy these days? I would be willing to bet money that these same people would want us out of Darfur after the first gunshot.

Grrrr sorry bout the rant, one poster asked God to forgive the troops over there for thier crimes and I may not serve but damnit that pissed me off.  :threat:


----------



## Pte_Martin (27 Nov 2006)

Yeah alot of there post pissed me off too, there's a bunch of dumb people out there. I guess the best thing we can do is post a reply and tell them how they are wrong and tell them everything that it is right


----------



## Haggis (27 Nov 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 29 1525ET Nov 2006



That'll be a buck, George.  ;D

The sad part is thet I fear you're right.  JL will be all over this like stink on a monkey.


----------



## ArmyRick (27 Nov 2006)

After what happened to two good soldiers today, I can't beleive their is still rags printing tripe and people going for sound bites       :rage:  :threat:


These clowns should respect the sacrifices of the soldiers over there and knock it off with the crud their printing/publishing


----------



## warspite (27 Nov 2006)

I've had a great day.... it's not worth it for me to get upset over these useless wastes of valuable oxygen and their propaganda
I'll just take a few deep breaths..... relax and..... oh why not...... :brickwall: .... "_ignore_" it....


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Nov 2006)

Update:

'The Muslims try to kill everybody'
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008264.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Nov 2006)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The reporter was interviewed on CFRA this morning about his story. He said that the statement about Canadians trying to kill everybody was probably aimed at Canadian public opinion, and should not be taken as the truth.



Nice of him to include that in the newspaper piece - heaven forbid we should have some context!


----------



## geo (27 Nov 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Nice of him to include that in the newspaper piece - heaven forbid we should have some context!



It would have been nice for him to place that caveat in his article -before "quoting" those chapped up charges that we are the bloodthirsty heathens in this war of conquest and occupation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Nov 2006)

Even if he did put it at the very end, he'd still fulfill his mandate (like some other journalists) of leading with the sizzle, and burying (or even ignoring) the steak.


----------



## geo (27 Nov 2006)

sigh!
True


----------



## ambex (27 Nov 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> I've had a great day.... it's not worth it for me to get upset over these useless wastes of valuable oxygen and their propaganda
> I'll just take a few deep breaths..... relax and..... oh why not...... :brickwall: .... "_ignore_" it....



Every day I try, my skin has just not grown thick enough.


----------



## CrazyCanuck (28 Nov 2006)

"The Canadians try to kill everybody" What and the Taliban don't? We've got ourselves a pot calling the kettle black situation here


----------



## couchcommander (28 Nov 2006)

> If we attack the Canadians, they call for aircraft and bomb everything in the area....The Canadians try to kill everybody.



Read:



> If we attack the Canadians, they call for aircraft and bomb everything  everyone of us in the area....The Canadians try to kill everybody. *every one of us*! Can you believe the nerve??? Its not supposed to work like that! Please, make them stop!



*edit* heh, reminds me of a quote I ran across the other day. It was a Chinese general complaining about the "meatgrinder" that the UN forces used in Korea to even the odds. Basically the Chinese would assemble for an attack, and then go off sneaking/charging towards the objective in a relatively large formation, and thus be subjected to massed and sustained artillery, mortar, air strikes, machine guns, and occasionally direct fire from tanks depending on who exactly they were trying to overrun that day. 

This General is on record complaining about it, "Oh the American's! They use way too much firepower!" Amusing to me, as the thought that ran through my head was along the lines of "And? You perhaps think they should use less firepower? Well yes, I suppose that would be great....for you... "


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2006)

And now, the REST of the story (highlights mine)- usual disclaimer.....

*Our soldiers aren't trying to 'kill everybody'*
Christie Blatchford, Globe & Mail, 28 Nov 06
Article Link - Permalink

The identification came so late that as I write this, I know almost nothing about the two Canadian soldiers killed in a suicide bombing in Kandahar yesterday, except that they were with the 1st Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment from Petawawa, Ont.

I don't know the names of their parents, I don't know whether they were good students or graduated with honours or dropped out or whether they played hockey at the local rink. I don't know whether they joined the army out of a sense of adventure, or idealism, or because they wanted the money that comes with deployment to a dangerous place or because the military ran in the family.

But I know one thing.

*I know that whatever else these two Canadians were doing in Afghanistan, or what their fellows are still doing, they weren't and aren't out trying to “kill everybody.”*
That was in a story that started on the front page of The Globe and Mail yesterday.

Before “the turn” as we call it in newspaper lingo — before the front-page portion was continued inside — a Taliban commander identified only by alias was quoted saying, “If we attack the Canadians, they call for aircraft and bomb everything in the area. The U.S. only tried to kill the Taliban. The Canadians try to kill everybody.”

That is so outrageously untrue, and demonstrably untrue, that it should require no answer. Yet there is so much conflicting information in the public domain about the Canadian mission to Afghanistan that the dialogue is confused, as a perusal of comments on globeandmail.com yesterday confirmed. Left unchallenged, even such transparent nonsense acquires a sheen of truth.

The story by The Globe's Graeme Smith was compelling. He was the first reporter for a Canadian media outlet to visit Baluchistan, a notoriously lawless Pakistani province, since Canada sent troops to nearby Kandahar. There he interviewed two men who purported to be “foot soldiers” of the Taliban, described them by the admittedly fake names they gave him (Mullah Azizullah and Mullah Manan), judged them remarkably frank, and quoted them at length in his story. I have one trustworthy source, a friend reasonably well placed in the Canadian Forces to know about such things, and he said yesterday that some of what the story said rang true for him, though he doubted the two mullahs were foot soldiers (as Mr. Smith noted, they had soft, manicured hands, and my friend said that only fairly senior Taliban commanders would have hands like that) and found the “killing everybody” line as jarring as I did.

I affect no expertise about the Taliban, its hierarchy or Baluchistan, and readily defer to Mr. Smith, and my friend, and others. I'm not interested in the Taliban particularly.

When I go to Kandahar — my third trip there since March starts next month — I go because I am interested in writing about Canadians who for the usual amalgam of reasons are risking their lives there. I spend my time as an embedded journalist, travelling with the troops when I can and staying at coalition bases when I can't go out with soldiers.

So it's Canadian soldiers I know. Over the course of my time in Afghanistan and in dozens more interviews with the returned members of the 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and others back at home, *I know the young men and women (and let's put aside the gender correctness for the moment, the majority of our troops are men) who wear the Maple Leaf well, and the one bloody thing I am sure of is that they are not indiscriminate killers.*

*In truth, they are precisely the opposite. They are highly discriminating killers. There is a sizable segment of the Canadian public that apparently reels at the notion that our soldiers should ever kill, or that any soldiers ever do, but they do. Canadians are among the best soldiers on the planet at the moment, and that means that they have fired their weapons with predictable results.*

*But they have done so with in the main what amounts to exquisite care.* Indeed, the combination of their careful training, the decisions of their commanders and the detailed rules of engagement that govern them has sometimes seen Canadians, and our allies in combat there, choose a course of action that sees them suffer casualties rather than the easier one, which might cause civilian deaths.

*Instead of first bombing a Taliban stronghold, for instance, Canadians go in on foot, or in light armoured vehicles and the like, and physically fight insurgents, calling in allied air support only if their troops find themselves in dire trouble; instead of shooting at vehicles that come too close to their convoys, Canadians and their NATO allies have spent big dollars and time on information campaigns to tell Afghans to stay away from convoys* (and as recently as July, when I was last there, Canadians were still throwing water bottles at the cars, to keep them back).

It isn't Canadian soldiers who have killed scores of ordinary Afghan civilians, women and children, in suicide bombs and improvised explosive devices on the gutted roads of that country, who bomb schools and threaten teachers with death. It isn't Canadian generals who sit in briefing rooms and plan devastating attacks in busy markets; it is the men like those my colleague interviewed, with their soft hands and hennaed nails, who do, and who send in as cannon fodder any sufficiently poor, illiterate, desperate young Afghan men they can find.

Canadian soldiers try to kill everybody? Yes, and as my friend said yesterday, “My mother met Elvis during her abduction by aliens.”


----------



## Pte_Martin (28 Nov 2006)

More people should listen to Christie, She knows what she's talking about. Too bad there aren't more reporters like her


----------



## paracowboy (28 Nov 2006)

how can the citizens of this nation honestly believe that the children raised amongst them, who they grew up with, played hockey beside, went to school with, dated as adolescents, etc...can then go and murder indiscriminately because they put on stupid-looking clothes and wear an unfavourable haircut?

We swear an oath to protect these cowardly weaklings, to die for them, and they assume that we would automatically turn our backs on the very ideals for which we are fighting?

And people wonder why I despise civilians more and more every day.

For this, we fight. Right...


----------



## Blakey (28 Nov 2006)

Excellent article, one thing though, Terence McKenna --a CBC Corespondent-- was already in Balochistan, sometime in March of this year.


Edit: I'm referring to the Blatchford article of course when I say "excellent article"


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Nov 2006)

Again, the Taliban is craftily fighting the information war. Look how well they know us! What could make Canadians reel more than saying we are *worse * than the Americans? Oooohhhhh....   :

They are playing the Canadian public like fiddles....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Again, the Taliban is craftily fighting the information war.



Too true!

I suspect that most Canadian journalists, people like Graeme Smith, are simply too ignorant – that’s the right word - to understand:

•	What they see and hear in the region; and

•	The nature of _information warfare_ and their, unwitting, role in it.

Almost certainly through ignorance, Graeme Smith and his editors allowed themselves to be played by the Taliban.  They became part of the story.  They forsook journalism and became Taliban agents in Canada.  It is the logical outcome of ignorance and idleness – the two main defining characteristics of Canadian journalists.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Nov 2006)

If Christe keeps writing like that she will find herself banned from the Press club, can't have reporters writing the plain truth, it make the rest look bad.


----------



## spqr (28 Nov 2006)

I think the reaction to Greame was a little harsh. The guy is writing what they said, I would rather he didn't edit it and come to his own analysis for me.  I can see that his description of the characters and the plain presentation of facts was easy enough to read through.  I am sure most readers can see a yarn when it is spun by our enemies.  The presentation was the only problem.  The globe made it a bigger deal that it was.

Good job to Christie for the glaring counterpoint.

Rob


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Too true!
> 
> I suspect that most Canadian journalists, people like Graeme Smith, are simply too ignorant – that’s the right word - to understand:
> •	What they see and hear in the region; and
> ...



I have to disagree a tiny bit with this, only because of someone saying that they heard on the radio the same reporter saying the messaging was "was probably aimed at Canadian public opinion, and should not be taken as the truth."  If he knew that the morning after the piece was published, I guess he also knew when he was writing it.  Why didn't he mention it in the piece?  Or did he mention it, and someone higher cut it out?

As for "reporting" vs "analysis", a reporter is expected to provide context (which, in part, he did provide in describing the so-called Taliban warriors, suggesting they were a bit softer than many front-liners might be) as well as information, and one sentence mentioning their general messaging approach would not be out of line.  

I wonder if he even asked questions like, "Who do you want to hear this, and why?" or "Who are you trying to convince - Canadians, Afghans or both?"


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2006)

+1 for Christie


----------



## GO!!! (28 Nov 2006)

I'd say it's a pretty toungue-in-cheek article.

Smith does a pretty good job of discrediting the sources with descriptions of them (foot soldiers in _this_ country can't even keep their hands soft and manicures current :) so it's a dubious claim that these guys are low level anything.

Plus, now the press's negligence in reporting the numbers of enemy that Canadian troops have killed is backfiring - they did'nt report the CF killing very many enemy at all - so which is it? Who is discredited? The enemy, with a vested interest in harming our reputation? or the press for failing (again) to accurately report the facts? 

All in all, a satisfyingly confusing article - that our press, filled with passport holding Canadians can have tea with some of the most despicable people on earth who also happen to be our mortal enemy, then retreat to the safety and plenty of a CF base to report their findings. Who is doing the war effort more harm?


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Nov 2006)

In many ways the media are the real enemy in this war....

My opinion anyways.

I have met a few media types in my day, and I tow the party line with/on them, never deviating a mm! Give them a mm of opinion outside the line, and they'll twist it into a 1000km stretch of out of context counter-productive babble.

That will find you in the shyte.

I dislike them all.

Wes


----------



## dglad (29 Nov 2006)

Not so much an enemy, as an unpredictable, ill-informed and capricious neutral.  Probably more DANGEROUS, actually, as you can usually reasonably predict that your enemy is going to work against your interests.  The press tends to be all over the map, driven by market forces and individual agendae.

I'd really like to see some analytical thought in these articles; that's what was missing from the original piece.  I suspect that these "soft-spoken, well-manicured" fellows were something more than Taliban "foot-soldiers" if, for no other reason, it's tough to believe the Taliban leadership would allow a Canadian reporter to NOT be co-opted into a weapon of the info-war.  Ergo, one tends not to give such a reporter access to illiterate peasants who might actually say things that are at best useless, and at worst actually damaging to the cause.  Rather, the reporter is allowed to meet with brave "dogfaces" who whose only real experience in battle is moving white Rook to Queen-two while sipping an espresso and discussing the next propaganda shot into the West.  These two "grunts" must be giggling with delight as they read sites like this one (probably from an internet cafe in Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok or Paris, while on a break from putting their poor, battle-worn faces onto Taliban fund-raising efforts) over the effect their single, precision-guided quote has had in Canada.

If reporters aren't going to put a little more analytical effort and context-building into their articles, then the papers may just as well save some money, let the correspondents go and send a stenographer to get the Taliban to dictate a transcript and print it verbatim.  Or Purolator a tape-recorder.  Or, hell, just reprint Taliban press releases, or cut and paste from their web-sites.  It would be quicker, easier and much cheaper.  And then, at least, having the benefit of no context or analysis whatsoever, readers in Canada can freely assign whatever weight they want to the resulting contents.

Call it "un-reporting".  Pure news, absolutely unbiased, unblemished by human hand.


----------



## BernDawg (29 Nov 2006)

Once again, Christie ROCKS!


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Nov 2006)

We have to remember that this reporter has no control over where or how the Globe prints his story. He probably didn't envision it on the front page. And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press. I thought that was among the ideals we were fighting for in Afghanistan in the first place. Reporters often get it wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to interview anyone they please. The more Canadians see the Taliban as a faceless enemy, the more leeway the Canadian government has in pursuing any policy it wants in Afghanistan (which could be a good thing, but it also could be a bad thing). Seeing the enemy as a homogenous, "evil" force is a big mistake, because once that sets in, ineffective tactics will follow. To address possible responses: Yes the Taliban has done terrible and evil things. Does that make every tribesman who has taken up arms, possibly against Canadians, evil? No. An informed Canadian public is essential in ensuring our government doesn't make bad policy. On the otherhand, a lot of Canadian journalists HAVE played up the whole "combat" thing, knowing Canadians are woefully ignorant of military affairs. But blanket statements tinged with facism towards the press doesn't help the situation either.  "The media is the enemy"?! Come on.   I think the Pentagon has shown us with embedding that the media can be a very valuable tool! And I use the word "tool" here with some irony. ;D The Canadian media loves depicting the military, and those who support it as press-hating, book burning anti-intellectuals. So please, let calmer heads prevail.


----------



## boondocksaint (29 Nov 2006)

'Ergo', great word

Put the story into the context that the Canadians area particularly good at killing Taliban, and rest easy at night. I think their ( the interviewed timmies ) view is a bit skewed towards Canadians after several of the recent battles. Every nation has their own capabilities in a fight, or style or trademark, what-have-you. Whatever it is Canadians bring to the fight, it puts 'shock and awe' to shame, it is a perfect storm, it has been an evolution in combat 50 years in the making and it has suprised everyone, timmie included. 

Timmie is just trying to make his ego feel a bit better by slagging Canadians. Trash talk as it were.  A sign of desperation that smells of weakness.


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Nov 2006)

+1 Boondock


I watched American's awed at the firepower we brought to bear ACCURATELY on a single point on earth. We do what we do best and do it ruthlessly, but only and I repeat only on known targets. We bring the gates of hell to Timmie and I think they might be getting gun shy at that.


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press.


We will leave Afghanistan when we have achieved our aims, or if Western political will breaks. The most effective means to manipulate Western political will is through the press. The enemy knows this.
I ask sincerely, do you agree?

The press has limits on it. Would publishing my VISA number be the right of a free press? Would publishing the names of minors be allowed in a criminal case? Would publishing information on the best way to ambush police be allowed in the names of a 'free press'?
Clearly no, as they would likely lead to harm.

A free press is a good thing, but clearly there are limits to how far it can go - especially in wartime. 

It's like the old joke about the man who asks the lady at the bar, "Would you sleep with me for a billion dollars?"
She say, "Ummm, yeah, for a billion, I guess so."
He replies, "Well, we've established what you are. Now it's a case of negotiating the price."

We realize there must be some limits on what the press (or any institution) can do, even in a 'free society.' The question is negotiating the limits.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I thought that was among the ideals we were fighting for in Afghanistan in the first place.



We are fighting in Afghanistan to keep Canada safe from those who mean this nation harm. Full f**ing stop. Anything else is a bonus. 

Afghanistan is not an intellectual exercise. If we lose, it will suck. It will suck a lot, and for years to come. It will affect people here at home, even from the safety of Starbucks or the Press Club.

Canadians are _*way * _ too comfortable with the assumptions that either:
a) We will win without breaking sweat; or
b) If we lose, it will be sad, but not as sad as if the cancel Grey's Anatomy.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Seeing the enemy as a homogenous, "evil" force is a big mistake, because once that sets in, ineffective tactics will follow.



Sure. Yes. And portraying 'those wacky insurgents' as sympathetic, morally equivalent, indigenous, peace-loving, victims of neo-colonialism is so far off the mark it would be amusing if the consequences of such thinking were not so grave.
I am not referring to this article solely, but I think you get my drift. I'm repeating myself now.

I'm not against a free press, but it stops short of propagandizing for the enemy. I am not saying that this article is necessarily over the line, but I am saying _*there damn sure is a line and it should not be crossed*_.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Nov 2006)

> And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press.



Just a slight interjection.  What would the reaction have been had the G&M interviewed, say, Himmler, during WW II, offering him the opportunity to provide his "perspective" on Jews, the Russians and other topical subjects...

Of course, there's no comparison, is there?  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Nov 2006)

I think this is just an example of yet another journalist being self serving.  He knew bloody well that throwing out "Canadians kill everyone" would be a huge red flag in front of the bull, and now everyone is talking about Graeme.  To suggest that his story was going to be anything but front page is doubtful.  It is a rather big deal to get an interview with these clods, albeit that there is no chance they were "foot soldiers".  
Graeme also knows quite well that if he doesn't print some pro-Taliban stuff he will never get another interview with them.  So Timmie reads the article, sees the subsequent editorial flurry, waits for Ojacka to make some arsehole comments and chalks Graeme in the green column.  For his part, Graeme is able to say to his bosses "hey, they agreed to see me again".  Boss looks at paper revenues from Graeme's last roadtrip and says "yeah, go for it.  Bring me back a nice pashmina scarf" and off Graeme goes, thus promoting his portfolio as a "bona fide war correspondant".  Ultimately, Graeme gets the nod from CBC, and gets some face time as a *big time* TV news correspondant (oooo, dare to dream--CNN? :-*), and then publishes a book about his harrowing adventures.  
In the face of such potential success, why would he give a rats arse about what happens to the soldiers?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2006)

It is important to remember that the journalists, the guys like Graeme Smith with the names on the _bylines_, *do not write the headlines*.

Headline writing is a specialized task - it is part of the 'sales' campaign.  The role of the headline is to attract your eye and pique your interest: it gets you to drop a buck in the box to buy the paper or click on a particular story and then, maybe, pay to read it.

In this case, much as I fault Smith and his editors for making him and the _Grope and Flail_ part of the story rather than just telling us the facts (strange guys with soft hands and painted nails claim to be Taliban combat troops and use suspiciously easy to obtain interview and slag Canadians for killing too many Taliban), I do not blame him for the headline.


----------



## m410 (29 Nov 2006)

Also that headline didn't appear in the print version, just the online one.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (29 Nov 2006)

I read it as a shrewd propaganda piece on the part of the Taliban, and had similar thoughts as Teddy about how that would have played out in WWII.  Are the press neutral in a war? 

Still, I saw it as valuable in the sense of  "Know thine enemy."  As long as you remember that you are reading words that have an intended IO effect by the enemy you can gain some measure of insight into his mind.  As BDS and HoM astutely noted, our being noticed by the enemy implies that we are indeed having an effect on them.


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> What would the reaction have been had the G&M interviewed, say, Himmler, during WW II ...



Well, if you objected to the interview today, you might be called a fascist ... oh, the delicious irony ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Nov 2006)

A free press is important, and this guy's story was used to editorialize on the front page. It's a very bad call on the part of the G & M. No one here is thinks that the Taliban should portrayed in a positive light, they should be portrayed in a neutral light. All of their atrocities should be listed, as well as their...well they haven't really done anything positive  ;D I agree that there IS a line that journalists can cross, and this simply isn't it. You can object to this interview all you like, but when someone says "the media is the real enemy" they are merely exhibitng the knee jerk reaction that the media loves to pounce on. As for this being a wartime situation, it IS wartime for the troops on the ground. However, the very survival of Canada is not dependent on securing Afghanistan. (I am SO going to get flamed for that :) There are a lot of other pressing issues that deserve our attention. This is not to say I am against the Afghanistan mission, I am just being realistic. I don't think we should be muzzling the press because we have 2300 soldiers in harm's way. If its a matter of OPSEC, then definitely. But disallowing reporters to interview the Taliban is going too far.  I hate to say it Probum , but you are right when you point out that many Canadians seem to more concerned with mundane domestic issues while our soldiers are in harm's way thousands of km away, and thats just the way it is. The average Canadian is not sold on this war unfortunately, and to expect them to accept censorship in the name of it is expecting too much. 



> Just a slight interjection.  What would the reaction have been had the G&M interviewed, say, Himmler, during WW II, offering him the opportunity to provide his "perspective" on Jews, the Russians and other topical subjects...
> 
> Of course, there's no comparison, is there?



  ??? Wait a second, now that you mention it Teddy, I guess killing people for flying kites really IS bad when seen through the prism of Nazism. I didn't realize that before. ;D  It's always amusing when someone brings up the old "nazi argument". Why not use the old "British Empire argument" didn't they put Boers in concentration camps? Or how about the Turkish argument, didn't they kill a lot of Armenians? Or better yet, those damn Romans used to kill Christians all the time! As for the Nazi comparison. No. There isn't a comparison at all, other than the fact that both groups ideologically off the charts. And I wouldn't have problem with G & M interviewing Nazi officials either.I would hazard a guess that just because they are printed in a Canadian newspaper, Himmler and his views on Jews and Russians etc would not be taken to heart by Canadians. Unless you believe everything you read.


----------



## dglad (29 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We have to remember that this reporter has no control over where or how the Globe prints his story. He probably didn't envision it on the front page. And to the people who were posting rubbish like "how can a Canadian reporter be talking to the enemy" etc. That's what we call  having a free press. I thought that was among the ideals we were fighting for in Afghanistan in the first place. Reporters often get it wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to interview anyone they please. The more Canadians see the Taliban as a faceless enemy, the more leeway the Canadian government has in pursuing any policy it wants in Afghanistan (which could be a good thing, but it also could be a bad thing). Seeing the enemy as a homogenous, "evil" force is a big mistake, because once that sets in, ineffective tactics will follow. To address possible responses: Yes the Taliban has done terrible and evil things. Does that make every tribesman who has taken up arms, possibly against Canadians, evil? No. An informed Canadian public is essential in ensuring our government doesn't make bad policy. On the otherhand, a lot of Canadian journalists HAVE played up the whole "combat" thing, knowing Canadians are woefully ignorant of military affairs. But blanket statements tinged with facism towards the press doesn't help the situation either.  "The media is the enemy"?! Come on.   I think the Pentagon has shown us with embedding that the media can be a very valuable tool! And I use the word "tool" here with some irony. ;D The Canadian media loves depicting the military, and those who support it as press-hating, book burning anti-intellectuals. So please, let calmer heads prevail.



First, this reporter wrote the story.  If it was changed substantially by his editors afterwards, then he could have pulled his name from the by-line.  He didn't, so it's his story, and he shares full accountability for it with his paper.

Now, as for someone saying "how can a reporter be talking to the enemy"...well, that's an opinion.  Stating it is hardly attempting to limit free press, as you suggest--I don't believe that anyone was attempting to articulate it as  some form of government policy, so there is no threat to our "ideals".  You can rest easy on that score.

The article was irresponsible, because it was incomplete and, as a result, biased.  Whether that bias was intentional, or simply the result of sloppy journalism is irrelevant.  Saying so isn't "facism" (a REALLY tired word, by the way); it's an objective criticism of this particular article.  The G&M often achieves balanced, objective reporting.  When they drop the ball, they need to be called on it.  There's really nothing more to it than that.

Indeed, allow calmer heads to prevail.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302:

You've completely missed my point.  I'm not comparing ideologies or comparative evils, I'm comparing the media's interview with one enemy of Canada with a theoretical interview of another.  Your diatribe is completely off the mark.

Morally, I find it abhorant that the media, in a misguided attempt to be "balanced", gives a platform to Canada's enemies - of whatever stripe.  We are engaged in a war in which the media plays a central, pivotal role.  The Taliban are keenly aware of the part that public opinion plays in our ability to prosecute operations against them and this article - and the misleading Internet headline - are a perfect example of their ability to use the media to their own ends.  If Canadian soldiers are engaged in a war, the nation is, or should be, engaged in a war and the media should both recognize that fact and govern themselves accordingly.

By the way, if you honestly believe that the worst the Taliban represents is that they "killed people for flying kites", you need to do additional research yourself.

Edit:  typo.


----------



## dglad (29 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> A free press is important, and this guy's story was used to editorialize on the front page. It's a very bad call on the part of the G & M. No one here is thinks that the Taliban should portrayed in a positive light, they should be portrayed in a neutral light. All of their atrocities should be listed, as well as their...well they haven't really done anything positive  ;D I agree that there IS a line that journalists can cross, and this simply isn't it. You can object to this interview all you like, but when someone says "the media is the real enemy" they are merely exhibitng the knee jerk reaction that the media loves to pounce on. As for this being a wartime situation, it IS wartime for the troops on the ground. However, the very survival of Canada is not dependent on securing Afghanistan. (I am SO going to get flamed for that :) There are a lot of other pressing issues that deserve our attention. This is not to say I am against the Afghanistan mission, I am just being realistic. I don't think we should be muzzling the press because we have 2300 soldiers in harm's way. If its a matter of OPSEC, then definitely. But disallowing reporters to interview the Taliban is going too far.  I hate to say it Probum , but you are right when you point out that many Canadians seem to more concerned with mundane domestic issues while our soldiers are in harm's way thousands of km away, and thats just the way it is. The average Canadian is not sold on this war unfortunately, and to expect them to accept censorship in the name of it is expecting too much.



Where is this coming from?  Censorship?  By definition, censorship can only be imposed by the state, through application of legislation.  One could also self-censor, and I suppose that censorship can be imposed by violence or threat of violence.  Who is advocating any of these things?


  





> ??? Wait a second, now that you mention it Teddy, I guess killing people for flying kites really IS bad when seen through the prism of Nazism. I didn't realize that before. ;D  It's always amusing when someone brings up the old "nazi argument". Why not use the old "British Empire argument" didn't they put Boers in concentration camps? Or how about the Turkish argument, didn't they kill a lot of Armenians? Or better yet, those damn Romans used to kill Christians all the time! As for the Nazi comparison. No. There isn't a comparison at all, other than the fact that both groups ideologically off the charts. And I wouldn't have problem with G & M interviewing Nazi officials either.I would hazard a guess that just because they are printed in a Canadian newspaper, Himmler and his views on Jews and Russians etc would not be taken to heart by Canadians. Unless you believe everything you read.



Yes, yes, whatever.  For someone who decries "the old nazi argument", you were very quick to use the word "facism".

Actually, your complete lack of information in your profile, combined with rather ill-stated remarks that appear designed to be inflammatory rather than informative or to advocate discussion, suggest to me that you are that most pernicious of Internet ills--a mere troll.  If you wish to change that impression, then perhaps you should complete your profile to indicate who and what you are.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Nov 2006)

I don't see how a complete profile would help you understand my arguments. They should be quite clear. In fact my only aim was to advocate discussion, not inflame. I was responding to earlier blanket statements made by others. For this I will not apologize. As for the question "where is this coming from?"  I believe the nature of this thread would lead us to deal with censorship at some point. This is ridiculous. I agree with most of viewpoints in this thread. I am very supportive of the mission in Afghanistan, and the CF in general. I am merely trying to be a bit more balanced than some on this website. By using the term "facist tinged comments" , I meant to imply that this is how the media will see such arguments (and I don't think they could be blamed for it). And please, I think we can admit here, that of all institutions in Canada, the military is traditionally the most right wing (not that there's anything wrong with that   ) and the media is probably the most left wing, so statements to the effect that journalists are traitors doesn't help the debate much. THATS ALL.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Nov 2006)

But there is journalistic integrity, and then there is disloyalty.  When Graeme published those comments without any qualifying context, he is in collusion with the enemy.  At best, he is a gullible idiot, at worst a complicit collaborator.  And regardless of what he said the next day, he wrote words, proofed them, handed them to an editor, they were re-read and published.  To the potential detriment of public attitude towards the CF.  It is not sufficient to say "people know better".  People know what they read.  
*If* people knew better, they would not have voted Lieberal for 25 odd years.

(and I agree with the others, fill out your profile.  PROFILE=CREDIBILITY)


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

I argued a while ago that gathering news can be a messy business. That sometimes reporters get part of the story but because it is so _"hot" _ they have to publish what they have and develop the story  as time passes. 

Sometimes that part of the story offends people like us because we know a lot more about it. Nonetheless, any such exercise is still a journalist doing his/her job, so long as the development and follow up is done.

I still hold that thesis. (Even though I got a good sound bollocking for saying it then)

*Having said that I see no application of that thesis to this instance*. This story was poorly told, not in context and handled very badly editorially (okay, I'll be frank it was captioned and placed in such a manner as to pander).

_I think the editorial handling of this story is the real issue here.. very poorly done_

As for the CF being right wing, pish off , I believe in EI, Regional Equalization, rights for Gays, subsidized education and high immigration levels....  .... that I would fight for them does not constitute "right wing". 

I also believe in a robust foreign policy, standing by allies and a capable defence force that stands for Canada... being for them does not constitute "right wing".


Unsolicited Free Advice:
Choose your words, K_302, I understand, but respectfully disagree, there's lotsa folks that'll come on board you right quick here. Good luck, thanks for commin out.


----------



## dglad (30 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't see how a complete profile would help you understand my arguments. They should be quite clear. In fact my only aim was to advocate discussion, not inflame. I was responding to earlier blanket statements made by others. For this I will not apologize. As for the question "where is this coming from?"  I believe the nature of this thread would lead us to deal with censorship at some point. This is ridiculous. I agree with most of viewpoints in this thread. I am very supportive of the mission in Afghanistan, and the CF in general. I am merely trying to be a bit more balanced than some on this website. By using the term "facist tinged comments" , I meant to imply that this is how the media will see such arguments (and I don't think they could be blamed for it). And please, I think we can admit here, that of all institutions in Canada, the military is traditionally the most right wing (not that there's anything wrong with that   ) and the media is probably the most left wing, so statements to the effect that journalists are traitors doesn't help the debate much. THATS ALL.



Your not making any arguments.  A true argument consists of a thesis, and then a series of fact-based propositions intended to demonstrate the truth of that thesis.  So:



> I believe the nature of this thread would lead us to deal with censorship at some point.



That isn't an argument.  It's an unfounded assertion of something that might occur, based solely on opinion.



> I meant to imply that this is how the media will see such arguments



This isn't an argument.  This is reducing the "media" to a monolithic block and then offering an unfounded opinion as to how "they", as a collective, will view "arguments" (and, frankly, very little on here is "argument".  It's MOSTLY opinion)  Christine Blatchford has already demonstrated, in writing, that she agrees with these opinions.  Therefore, she doesn't "see" them the way you suggest; ergo, neither does the media, as a "collective".



> And please, I think we can admit here, that of all institutions in Canada, the military is traditionally the most right wing (not that there's anything wrong with that   ) and the media is probably the most left wing, so statements to the effect that journalists are traitors doesn't help the debate much.



Again, opinion.  While I would accept that, institutionally, the military has a tendency towards the sort of conservatism often considered "right wing", it's individual members are all over the political map.  The media is far more diverse, even institutionally; the various media components span the entire political spectrum.  And as for calling them "traitors"...once more, where did that come from?  Who made that claim?  Go to each page of this thread, starting with the first, and do a search on the word "traitor".  See where it first appears in this thread.  And you're not trying to inflame?

Again, if you wish to dispell the idea that you are simply here to provoke, truthfully fill in your profile and let everyone know who you are, where you come from and what you do.  The way in which this will help readers "understand your arguments" is that it will eliminate the idea that you are trying to hide behind a veil of anonymity--a definite red-flag in a forum where most participants are generally quite up front about their identities.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

> Again, if you wish to dispell the idea that you are simply here to provoke, truthfully fill in your profile and let everyone know who you are, where you come from and what you do.  The way in which this will help readers "understand your arguments" is that it will eliminate the idea that you are trying to hide behind a veil of anonymity--a definite red-flag in a forum where most participants are generally quite up front about their identities.



dglad is right, it would take me twenty minutes to find him in the 'system', but he maintains that level of anonymity required to speak freely here.

It would take dglad about three minutes to find me, but he respects my level of anonymity.

*Publish some profile info.* Add to your credibility* or * PM a moderator with your 'bona fides'.


----------



## Trinity (30 Nov 2006)

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> *Publish some profile info.* Add to your credibility* or * PM a moderator with your 'bona fides'.



Why...  I don't like the guy. I don't like his arguments and no profile just
means to me he's pretty useless.

Even if he filled his profile in I'm not going to buy his argument.
It's not against the site to NOT fill in your profile. 

We* need to respect the fact* he doesn't want to identify himself for whatever
those reasons are.  It could be that he's afraid to get in trouble where he
works.  Maybe he's a spineless troll.  *We don't have to respect *his argument
(if there was one)

The site has his IP and email address.  That's all the site requires so
why are we jumping down his neck.  He knows that filling it out would
help us and he doesn't want to.  Take from that what you will.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html


> Public Profiles
> 
> I strongly encourage you to fill out all the sections of your public profile that you're comfortable with. We respect your privacy and won't force you to fill out your profile if you don't want to. Bear in mind though, that the amount of identifyable info in your profile will increase your general credibility here. Those with empty profiles are much harder to verify and will have to put a lot more effort into building a credible presence here.


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Nov 2006)

Two excellent points in less than a month...

You're slipping... ;D

Okay, point taken.


----------



## GO!!! (30 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yes the Taliban has done terrible and evil things. Does that make every tribesman who has taken up arms, possibly against Canadians, evil? No.


Right. They're just misunderstood - is that why we kill them by the score?



> An informed Canadian public is essential in ensuring our government doesn't make bad policy. On the otherhand, a lot of Canadian journalists HAVE played up the whole "combat" thing, knowing Canadians are woefully ignorant of military affairs.


Really? Most of the combat video clips are from an american reporter - Mme. Blatchford notwithstanding, most reporters place the disclaimer "the military claims..." as a prefix on all mentions of serious ground combat. 2000 Taliban killed - why is that not national news?



> But blanket statements tinged with facism towards the press doesn't help the situation either.  "The media is the enemy"?! Come on.   I think the Pentagon has shown us with embedding that the media can be a very valuable tool! And I use the word "tool" here with some irony. ;D The Canadian media loves depicting the military, and those who support it as press-hating, book burning anti-intellectuals. So please, let calmer heads prevail.


What would you refer to call those who (as a group) claim that all of the CFs assertations are suspicious, dine with our enemies, spread his propaganda (for free) and whose very presence necessitates silence or strict rules for even speaking to them?


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Nov 2006)

meh i give up


----------



## armyvern (30 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> meh i give up


Please give up the MSN speak....and pick up the capitalization.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2006)

MSN speak and lack of capitalization, does help in identifying who we are carrying on a discussion with.  Usually those are signs of one who is not knowledgeable in the subject and not professional in their occupation.  It goes a long way into identifying the person as a member of one group in general, and not a member of another group in particular.


----------



## geo (30 Nov 2006)

(aka trolls)


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Nov 2006)

Wait a second. Because I used "msn speak" that means I am not knowledgable in the subject and not professional in my occupation? I was pretty sure that no one knew what my occupation is.  I understand you guys want proper grammar etc, but this is taking it too far. If you have a problem with my views, go after them.  I would say about half the posts on this site feature grammar of a level that is frankly embarrassing. That is why its a WEBSITE not an academic journal.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That is why its a WEBSITE not an academic journal.



Feel free to leave if you dont like it......


----------



## paracowboy (30 Nov 2006)

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> Feel free to leave if you dont like it......


meh. At the rate he's going, his absence will be forthcoming in the near future, anyway.

I've looked over his posts, and while his Leftist-leaning slant is irritating, it can be simply explained away by mental lethargy, chemical imbalance, or some other genetic defect. What is not, is his constant posting in direct opposition to those who are knowledgeable on the subject at hand. A habit he seems to have developed early. 

Right now, we have someone who refuses to fill out a profile. That, in itself, is a red flag that the posts of the individual are worthy of ignoring, and very little else. Military members (in the main) fill out their profile, as they are proud of their contribution to society. Posters who don't, generally have no military experience. So, we have a civilian arguing military matters with military members. That very seldom ends well.

So, enough on him and his profile or lack of same. Let's deal with the subject matter of the thread itself.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Wait a second. Because I used "msn speak" that means I am not knowledgable in the subject and not professional in my occupation? I was pretty sure that no one knew what my occupation is.  I understand you guys want proper grammar etc, but this is taking it too far. If you have a problem with my views, go after them.  I would say about half the posts on this site feature grammar of a level that is frankly embarrassing. That is why its a WEBSITE not an academic journal.



Let's put it this way; because of your "MSN Speak" and lack of professionalism in some of your discourse, then you are showing yourself not to be a member of a professional group.  As you want to remain anonymous, we can grant you that request, but we also can deduce from your posts that you are not someone in a certain profession.  We are saying that in your anonymity you are still identifying yourself as someone.  We will consider you to be a member of that 'group', and not a member of our 'group' or in other words, an 'outsider'.

As for this being a website and not an academic journal; you are correct it is a website that tries to maintain a professional posture in its discussion.  We are not a Gamer's Forum.  We are not a Chat Site.  We are a site where 'professional' military minded folk can come to discuss military related subjects 'professionally'.  We would prefer to maintain a 'professional look' to the site.  People are reminded of this from time to time.  Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure have been hot topics here.  You can simply SEARCH any of those words and come up with several discussions on those matters.  We, however, can not turn this into an "English 101" or "English for Dummies" site or we would loose what the owner originally set the site up to be.....Army.ca.

The military is a profession, and as such, it's members must learn to communicate in a professional manner.  It differentiates us from the mindless hordes that the "Left" likes to paint us as and the Professionals that we are required to be.  Any Soldier, Sailor, or Airman, who wishes to advance, must learn to master communication skills and that includes good writing habits.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Nov 2006)

> meh.


MSN speak?!  



> I've looked over his posts, and while his Leftist-leaning slant is irritating, it can be simply explained away by mental lethargy, chemical imbalance, or some other genetic defect. What is not, is his constant posting in direct opposition to those who are knowledgeable on the subject at hand. A habit he seems to have developed early.



I think personal attacks here are unwarranted. Furthermore, this thread is dealing with a journalist who interviewed members of the Taliban and the ethics of such an interview. I would think this is beyond strictly military matters. And yes, I am not in the military. As far as strictly military subjects go, I will, and I think have, only participated in areas where I can make somewhat of an informed contribution. If I havent, I apologize. However, I do not think you need to be in the military to have an opinion on international deployments, or geopolitical strategy in general.


----------



## Munxcub (30 Nov 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ... Furthermore, this thread is dealing with a journalist who interviewed members of the Taliban and the ethics of such an interview. I would think this is beyond strictly military matters. ...



I think it is more about the irresponsible reporting of said interview, not necessarily the interview itself.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2006)

At the risk of repeating myself:

1.	I think the Taliban scored.  They threw out the audacious and totally unfounded statement that Canadians are _worse_ than Americans because they (we/ you fellows) are indiscriminate killers of innocent villagers, etc.  The remark got published, with neither context nor challenge.  It will, without doubt, aid the large and growing anti-war/anti-CF wing (it’s well beyond being a fringe, much less a lunatic fringe ).

2.	The reporter and the _Globe and Mail_ became unwitting _agents_ of the Taliban (because they are ignorant, careless or both).  Instead of reporting on the enemy – a legitimate and useful thing to do, in my opinion, they allowed themselves to be conduits for enemy propaganda.  They (Smith and the _Good Grey Globe_) then became part of a larger story: Information Warfare in Afghanistan.  To that extent Smith and the _Globe_ both failed, in so far as I understand journalistic mores and ethics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2006)

Considering the standard of reporting these days, this sort of stuff is more the norm than the exception. The only reasons they worded the article the way they did is:

A) Sloppiness bordering on incompetence.

B) Hidden agenda to increase support to have the troops withdrawn.

C) Blatant need to generate sales by using inflammatory statements in the hopes people will buy the paper to read the story, regardless of the harm done to the nation, the people and our partners in the mission. 

D) All of the above


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Nov 2006)

I know it's the US and Iraq, but Michelle Malkin writes about some similar shenanigans at www.michellemalkin.com today, that seem apropos to mention"



> Rumors and reporting in Iraq
> By Michelle Malkin   ·   November 30, 2006 10:39 AM
> ***scroll for updates...NYTimes blogger Tom Zeller Jr weighs in...plus: bloggers note the significance of the capture of Mazer Al-Jubouri, aka the Baghdad Sniper, and his group...103pm Eastern...Curt has posted the AP's non-response response...***
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (30 Nov 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> At the risk of repeating myself:
> 
> 1.	I think the Taliban scored.  They threw out the audacious and totally unfounded statement that Canadians are _worse_ than Americans because they (we/ you fellows) are indiscriminate killers of innocent villagers, etc.  The remark got published, with neither context nor challenge.  It will, without doubt, aid the large and growing anti-war/anti-CF wing (it’s well beyond being a fringe, much less a lunatic fringe ).
> 
> 2.	The reporter and the _Globe and Mail_ became unwitting _agents_ of the Taliban (because they are ignorant, careless or both).  Instead of reporting on the enemy – a legitimate and useful thing to do, in my opinion, they allowed themselves to be conduits for enemy propaganda.  They (Smith and the _Good Grey Globe_) then became part of a larger story: Information Warfare in Afghanistan.  To that extent Smith and the _Globe_ both failed, in so far as I understand journalistic mores and ethics.




++1,1

BTW, notice how this did not make it into the Canadian main stream media?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=500838&ObjectID=10413099

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


Human rights 


Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls 

Thursday November 30, 2006
By Kim Sengupta


GHAZNI - The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.

The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely.

But his life was over.

He was partly disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes. The remains were put on display as a warning to others against defying Taleban orders to stop educating girls.

Halim is one of four teachers killed in rapid succession by the Islamists at Ghazni, a strategic point on the routes from Kabul to the south and east which has become the scene of fierce clashes between the Taleban and United States and Afghan forces.

The day we arrived an Afghan policeman and eight insurgents died during an ambush in an outlying village. Rockets were found, primed to be fired into Ghazni city during a visit by the American ambassador a few days previously. But, as in the rest of Afghanistan, it is the civilians who are bearing the brunt of this murderous conflict.

At the village of Qara Bagh, Halim's family is distraught and terrified. His cousin, Ahmed Gul, shook his head. "They killed him like an animal. No, no. We do not kill animals like that. They took away a father and a husband, they had no pity. We are all very worried. Please go now, you see those men standing over there? They are watching. It is dangerous for you, and for us."

Fatima Mustaq, the director of education at Ghazni, has had repeated death threats, the notorious 'night letters'. Her gender, as well as her refusal to send girls home from school, has made her a hate figure for Islamist zealots. "I think they killed him that way to frighten us, otherwise why make a man suffer so much? Mohammed Halim and his family were good friends of ours and we are very, very upset by what has happened. He came to me when the threats first began and asked what he should do. I told him to move somewhere safe. I think he was trying to arrange that when they came and took him."

The threats against Mushtaq also extend to her husband Sayyid Abdul and their eight children. "When the first letters arrived, I tried to hide them from my husband. But then he found the next few. He said we must stand together. We talked, and we decided that we must tell the children, so that they can be prepared. But it is not a good way for them to grow up."

During the Taleban's rule she and her sister ran secret schools for girls at their home. "They found out and raided us. We managed to persuade them that we were only teaching the Koran. But they spied and found out we were teaching algebra. So they came and beat us. *Can you imagine, beating someone for teaching algebra."* 
- INDEPENDENT


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the standard of reporting these days, this sort of stuff is more the norm than the exception. The only reasons they worded the article the way they did is:
> 
> A) Sloppiness bordering on incompetence.
> 
> ...



I'm going to be more generous than usual, and say only SOME of the above, with the proportions depending on the media outlet and reporter involved...


----------



## bilton090 (1 Dec 2006)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> MSN speak?!
> 
> I think personal attacks here are unwarranted. Furthermore, this thread is dealing with a journalist who interviewed members of the Taliban and the ethics of such an interview. I would think this is beyond strictly military matters. And yes, I am not in the military. As far as strictly military subjects go, I will, and I think have, only participated in areas where I can make somewhat of an informed contribution. If I havent, I apologize. However, I do not think you need to be in the military to have an opinion on international deployments, or geopolitical strategy in general.


      Informed contribution ?, Beyond Strictly Military Matters ?    WTF !


----------



## warspite (1 Dec 2006)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the standard of reporting these days, this sort of stuff is more the norm than the exception. The only reasons they worded the article the way they did is:
> 
> A) Sloppiness bordering on incompetence.
> 
> ...


*D...D... I pick D*


----------



## GO!!! (2 Dec 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> *D...D... I pick D*



+1.

The media exists to sell advertising - full stop. If having tea with torturers, rapists and murderers who kill their countrymen and spread enemy propaganda will further that lofty goal, they'll do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Dec 2006)

In my years of Search and Rescue we found that the media reporting got roughly 40% of the facts of the incident wrong, despite having access to knowledgeable people in a friendly environment. Sometimes this was not the fault of the reporter who often  phoned the story in, had it transcribed and then hacked apart by the editor, with much of the errors the fault of the transcribers and editors. This was pre-blackberry and wireless, so now the reporter has few layers between themselves and the published stories. 

I have met some wonderful reporters who truly cared about their stories and the quality of them, I have also met a large number of indifferent reporters (the majority) and some truly awful ones. I have personally kicked news cameras off our base for being insensitive to the victims and families.

Currently I enforce a Federal Act, sometimes I have to approve or deny projects that I have a strong personal opinion on, I do not have the luxury of allowing my personal views to influence my review or decisions. What I see of the media is that they often allow their or their companies opinions influence the story. I wouldn't mind so much if the media outlet came out and said: "We support the Liberals, CPC, Green or Rhino party" and gave up the pretense of being impartial. This is sort of the UK media model, most outlets there are quite open to expressing their preference. 

This past week it's painful oblivious that the media is pro-Liberal, the overwhelming media coverage was sickening, the central Canada based media outlets clearly miss the "Good old days" with the Liberals and it clearly indicated that Harper is correct in ignoring this group as they have no impartiality. that fact that they pretend to is unprofessional and fraudlent.


----------



## Petard (3 Dec 2006)

At first I thought Graeme Smith's "Canadians try to kill everybody" story was simply leaving it to the reader to see through the veil of what the Taliban were really trying to do, and trusted most would know that it was a BS propaganda story.

Then this story came out from the same author:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061201.dutch02/BNStory/Afghanistan/

Now that story definitely needed to be put in context, and he didn't do it. Smith is trying to suggest we use the Dutch approach since it would appeal to the Canadian sensibilities. Fortunately some in the readership know how different the two AO's are and pointed it out, and what a hollow point Smith was making. But even then there are a fair number of the comments that agreed with Smith's suggestion. Maybe his paper thought this was a way to show balanced reporting, as if to say "see, we're showing you the other side, its not all about Canadian Soldiers". 

For awhile I thought the Globe and Mail were being about as balanced as could be expected of a media outlet in Canada, but now it seems their editors are being swayed by the populists view that we're being too "American" in our approach in Afghanistan. Christie Blatchford where are you?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2006)

Petard said:
			
		

> At first I thought Graeme Smith's "Canadians try to kill everybody" story was simply leaving it to the reader to see through the veil of what the Taliban were really trying to do, and trusted most would know that it was a BS propaganda story.
> 
> Then this story came out from the same author:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061201.dutch02/BNStory/Afghanistan/
> ...



And anyone interested in our discussion on this article can cross-reference it at Doing it the Dutch way in Afghanistan.


----------



## Petard (3 Dec 2006)

Thanks George, I'm tracking it

My main point is there seems to me to be a growing shift in opinion about the Afghanistan mission, and the G & M, which tended to support the mission at 1st, now is beginning to question if not the mission then the approach being used.
I'm suggesting these two articles were thrown out there as they were to do exactly that, question the Canadian approach and, I'm not sure of course, I suspect the editorial staff supported what was being said in them, as is, and didn't want to add any context.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2006)

I did find the short Bios at the end of the article to be of interest.  Bios on several Taliban personalities is always a good piece of intelligence and useful to some.


----------

