There is hope on the horizon, my friend. Just this morning there were numerous calls/emails to the major cable networks in which US citizens were reiterating the same basic message:

"When I first heard the Dubai Ports World story, I was aghast and angry. The more I listen to the full facts, though, the more I see this as just another example of 'politics as usual'. It was Congress that created this committee several years ago. If it wanted the committee to report back to it, then Congress should have simply included this stipulation in the original charter. Now they are having fits because no one reported back to them? Sometimes I have to wonder what really constitutes the greatest threat to our national security; terrorism or endemic governmental ineptitude."


At the risk of sounding like an apologist (I'd rather be eviscerated), my impression of the situation is that the real problem in situations such as the Indian professor is that the US is at the mercy of an entirely inefficient bureaucratic system created largely through a spaghetti maze of excessive federalization/regulation and compounded by a rapidly growing but as yet quite imperfect hi-tech/comm network, that is incapable of tracking a weekly market list much less functioning as a "national security screening network."

As an illustration, my wife is a native born and raised American of non-ethnic descent. She has a very "waspish" name and is an MD with an impeccable background. Several months after 9/11 I called to secure an early boarding priority with the major US airline she has always preferred to use . ..

By this time you have undoubtedly correctly surmised that she had somehow ended up on the "Terrorist Watch List." Despite numerous calls it was impossible to get her off of this list until we jumped through a number of bureaucratic hoops that took almost 6 months to complete. This was a great inconvenience to her as she is forced to travel extensively as part of her career.

Since my wife is just another one of the "good guys" banging her head up against the "institutional model of stupidity and inefficiency known as bureaucracy," the press is certainly not going to publish her story, or the thousands just like it.

The press will, however, jump on those instances where there is any cause to create controversy through the mere insinuation of even a hint of "unfairness" (whatever the heck that is really supposed to mean). We can protest all we like, but the truth is that this type of reporting has become the "intelligentsia’s yellow press." Call it by any name you like, but it is still the same journalistic sensationalism that caters to the worst in people, while helping to make the world just that much angrier, divided and alienated.

Of course, I do not disagree with you "in principle," bb. What I am saying is that just because a story is reported, does not make it necessarily relevant, or really even "true." My own experience suggests "that if it sounds too juicy to be true; then it probably is."

It is grossly apparent that the press has become increasingly disposed to purposefully, blatantly and destructively distort the "context/perspective" of a story by "cherry-picking" only those specific facts which then allows them to re-construct their own sensationalized version of the "real full story" through insinuation, inference, innuendo, association, etc. They intentionally illicit specific powerful (and usually negative and destructive) emotions that are highly effective at swaying the reader's beliefs/actions by appealing to knee-jerk emotional reactionism which then just blows right by intelligence and reason as if they weren't even there.

Of course, when questioned as to the "accuracy of their story," the journalist merely has to document those specific limited facts that were used to distort the picture as the very same evidence by which they then exonerate themselves. Talk about rhetoric.

The press will never take full responsibility for the neutral accuracy of the full context and "implied impression" of a story since this is their most powerful marketing/sales tool.

Thus, the caveat stands: "Let the reader beware."



--
This post has been edited for profanity - nelsoc

Let's see if I have this straight?

A Danish paper prints an "unflattering" charicature of the Prophet - and the Muslim Street erupts in fiery protest for weeks on end.

A foreign Islamic terrorist "nukes" one of the holiest Mosques in Iraq, specifically for the purpose of igniting a bloodbath that would claim the lives of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis while reducing the country to rubble - and the Muslim street is silent.

Listen, guys. You really need to get a grip. Doesn't it bother you that these are innocent people that would be slaughtered?

Because it sure bothers me.

Now here is some very useful, sound and constructive reasoning.

"Whose Bombs were They?" By Mike Whitney
Al-Jazeerah, February 24, 2006

"The belief that the attack was the work of American and Israeli covert-operations (Black-ops) is widespread throughout the region as well as among leftist political-analysts in the United States. Journalist Kurt Nimmo sees the bombing as a means of realizing "a plan sketched out in Oded Yinon’s "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" (the balkanization of Arab and Muslim society and culture.) Nimmo suggests that the plan may have been carried out by "American, British or Israeli Intelligence operatives or their double-agent Arab lunatics, or crazies incited by Rumsfeld’s Proactive Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG) designed to 'stimulate’ terrorist reaction.

"Nimmo is not alone in his judgment. Other prominent analysts including, Pepe Escobar, Ghali Hassan, AK Gupta, Dahr Jamail, and Christian Parenti all agree that the Bush administration appears to be inciting civil war as part of an exit strategy." ...

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editoria...20By%20Mike%20Whitney.htm

Well, hello ns. And exactly where have you been of late, young man?


Ha! Thanks. I was attempting to find out if there were any leads into the identities of the gunmen who blew the Golden Mosque. While I noticed the differences between the sites, I assumed given the URLs, that they were linked. Care to fill me in?


While I agree "in principle," the editiorial fails to offer any specific credible information to support this "new conspiracy theory." Anyone can invent/spin a plausible "conspiratory theory" simply by conforming to the basic rules of logic; and provided they do not violate the basic physical laws of the universe (such as gravity and the laws of motion). This leaves an awfully wide "nonsense gap," wouldn't you agree? As you yourself have pointed out, ns, if any institution has a historical and cultural proclivity for the ability to twist the facts to support their immediate self-interests, in obvious complete contradiction to reality, Islamic thinkers may just be the acknowledged masters.

Moreover, for the reader to even consider this "hypothesis," we must provisionally accept premises which are so blatantly inconsistent with the readily observable real world facts, that in the absence of some powerful contradictory evidence, it would be a complete waste of time to consider the "same tired, twisted style of reasoning" that is actually the primary cause of this entire mess.

So, ns, why would we bother? You must have some reason for mentioning it, my friend.

Danke!


I am wondering about something, here, Herr ns.

Based upon what you stated earlier, ns, my premise is: "The Golden Mosque is very sacred to all the Muslim groups operating in Iraq."

We have discussed the premise that a good deal of the Islamic rhetoric is often a "convenient subterfuge" for political, nationalistic, or other goals. This fact, however, does not tell us: 1). whether this expediency is a consciously motivated decision. 2). Nor has this "convenience premise" ever made any assumption as to the legitamacy, or the intensity, of the underlying belief in Islam by those who are exploting these sentiments.

What we do know is that very often a good number of ME/Islamic political/religious leaders and/or terrorists/sympathisers do consciously make the decision to "play the religion/hate card" by organizing protests and demonstrations to "propagandize" as well as to play to the Muslim Street.

Clearly some 12 gunmen of ME descent blew up the shrine. It is safe to say for argument's sake that they were Muslims. This brings up 3 questions. 1). Which of the Muslim participants would have either the least religious reservations, or could most easily allow their religious sentiments to be overshadowed by other competing motives such as political control, revenge, etc. 2). Just how far over the "sacred Muslim line" have some of these ethnic groups or religious sects gone in the past? 3). For some of the players, is it possible that there really is "no religious line" that they would not, at some point, be willing to cross?