What the islamists have learned

Gypsy

SSSO 1&2/Plank Owner
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,641
Location
Red dot in a blue state
Just recently finished reading a book "America's Victories, Why the US Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror". Basically a history from the early days of our Country to recent times.

About half way though the book I read a quote about the press that stuck with me (well, there were several but this one is pertinent to the following article) and ethics.

The American Society of Newspaper Editors, established in 1912 adopted a code of ethics that stated, "Partisanship, in editorial comment which knowingly departs from the truth, does violence to the best spirit of American journalism; in the news columns it is subversive of a fundamental principle of the profession."

Goes on to say

What began as fairness-the technique became so prominent it has become a staple in journalism ethics textbooks as the get-the-other-side-of-the-story-rule-inherently assumed that there always was "another side" and that it was equally legitimate.

In other words, it's almost like who's to say who is right or wrong. While I agree that there are generally two sides to every story, when terrorists are given the same "credibility" if you will...it's insanity. See Murtha, Kerry, Kennedy, Dick Durbin et al for their wonderful soundbites on our Military AND our capability to win.

Interesting piece here...What the islamists have learned. No big secret if you think about it... (it's a two pager so I've only posted the first few paragraphs)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/991gvxyi.asp?pg=1

What the Islamists Have Learned
How to defeat the USA in future wars.
by Michael Novak
11/22/2006 1:35:00 PM

If I were an Islamist, a terrorist, a sworn foe of democracy, here is what I think I would have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what I would write down in my hard-earned manual of instruction.

****************************************************************************************

BY THE WILL OF ALLAH, in all wars to come, may it prepare our brave martyrs for combat operations!

Today, the purpose of war is sharply political, not military; psychological, not physical. The main purpose of war is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about the war. Warfare is not, these days, won on a grand field of battle. Nor is it won by the force that wins series after series of military victories. Nor is triumph assured by killing far higher numbers of the enemy. The physical side of warfare no longer holds precedence.

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders.

Let me offer three examples. At what moment did the war in Vietnam come to an end? At that precise moment when America's leaders decided that they could not resist the unrelenting storyline of the enemy, which had long prevailed in their own press. The press surrendered first, then the leaders of the nation.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

The endgame was psychological, not military. There was a military component--Star Wars--but nobody knew whether or not that would ever work. It was the idea of that weapon, and will or Reagan to proceed with it.

The weaker political will yielded to the stronger will.

Yet, as always, will followed storyline. First comes narrative, then the acts that give it flesh in history.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.
 
M

mrhenderson

Guest
In part, the idea of "get the other side" has had to count the opinions and beliefs of extremist groups, Islamists and others, such as religious conservatiives of ALL makes and models, fascists, socialists, and much to our own loss, wayward politicians who tend to have ideas based on their own ideas, beliefs, and realities, rather than facts.

When anyone can base a reality on their own method of fabricated deception, and that deception becomes accepted as truth or, at least accepted and PUBLISHED openly, that point of view is acknowledged as much as truth.

It is a weakness that we have created, and it bites us in the arse in both foreign and domestic situations. That is just part of what SHOULD be up to Americans, or any society, to filter for themselves. The fact that they cannot, or will not is just one more obstacle to be overcome. Freedom is just that, the option to be right or wrong, make your judgements and decide where you stand. One thing that should be optimally clear to people on here is
the advantage of GOOD information from all sources. Intelligence people have a wider comparative base of information to draw from, public, international and intel,.... it's still a responsibility to compare, analyze and make decisions, in fact, that is the nature of the job.

That intel portion is, to most people, the shadow that separates and divides. But in the end, it is still just a job, even if it does rule the way you live, think and act. We are all citizens, and we are all that makes up this nation of citizens. The rest of the world lives with blinders on and does not have to deal with this reality, unless it is forced upon them. You do what you can to make the rest of the world safe and then go back to live in the world you helped create. Which is harder to deal with, civilians or shadows?
 
J

Jumpmaster K - Ben Breeg

Guest
America's Victories, Why the US Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror

I have to admit, I like the title of the book.
 

Gypsy

SSSO 1&2/Plank Owner
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,641
Location
Red dot in a blue state
BB, it's written by Larry Schweikart, he was the coauthor of A Patriot's History of the United States. I really enjoyed the book.


Mr. H, great points you make. I would have to say the shadows are worse...to only have what "news" is fed by oppressive factions is not good. I think the problem is too many people with a free press, aka sheeple, take what they are "fed" and do not read additional sources with alternate viewpoints. Then again, there are extremes on both sides and somewhere in the middle lies the reality.

That said, the MSM in my opinion continues to parrot the left wing dems and report the doom and gloom and the "we can't win" mentality. People hear that enough and they tend to believe it...
 
M

mrhenderson

Guest
"Sheeple" I like that!
I am Shawnee indian, and my family is wolf clan,...I have always wondered how much that was influencing me
 
J

Jumpmaster K - Ben Breeg

Guest
A Patriot's History of the United States is a fabulous book. It is a good look at the true history of our nation, without being some revisionist, apologetic piece of nonsense. I thoroughly enjoyed it, as well.
 

Gypsy

SSSO 1&2/Plank Owner
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Messages
3,641
Location
Red dot in a blue state
I'll have to pick that one up, haven't read it as of yet. Thanks for the info.

Mr H, I guess we all have our influences based on our background and such. Sheeple is one of my favorite words... :D
 
Top