« More Strangeness at the Port of Miami | Main | Examiner Blog Board Link Roundup »

Terrorists Peddling Propaganda Videos of US Soldiers

Al Jazeera showed what it said was a Christmas message made by a US soldier for his family before he was killed. In the video, we see images of him with, purportedly, the soldier's voice narrating, sometimes making anti-American and anti-war statements. There's just one problem. The soldier is alive and well and back home with his parents. Also, he never made those anti-war and anti-American statements, and that's not his voice on the video. The terrorist insurgents made the fake propaganda video themselves by stealing the soldier's home video and his identity. From The Blotter:

"There are a whole bunch of lies on that tape," said Lt. Col. Ed Loomis at Fort Campbell. "It is nothing but a total fabrication."


[snip]

Lt. Col. Loomis told ABC News that while the pictures appear to be authentic, it was a case of Tucker's identity being stolen in Iraq.

The voice identified as Tucker says he and his fellow soldiers became violent and reckless searching for insurgents.

"The crimes by our soldiers during break-ins started to merge, such as burglary, harassment, raping and random manslaughter," says the voice. "Why are we even here? The people hate us."

Laura Mansfield, an Arabic language analyst and publisher of a newsletter "Strategic Translations" that tracks jihadi websites, said this is a new trick in the jihadists' propaganda campaign.

"This is part of a very shrewd campaign to reach a U.S. audience, soldiers and voters," she said. "It is in English and forgives most soldiers and Americans, calling on them to help end the war."

[snip]

And it ends with a final denunciation of U.S. leaders and policy.

"What we are doing here is so disgraceful; our acts are shameful," says the voice. He then signs off, "Specialist Lee Kimball Tucker."

[snip]

All very powerful from a dead soldier, except for the fact that Lee Kimball Tucker is not dead.

His family says he returned from Iraq in May and was with them over the holidays so he would not have been sending any messages home.

There will be an internal investigation at Fort Campbell to determine how the insurgents got a hold of the home video of the soldiers, and Fort Campbell officials are urging all soldiers to take further precautions against identity theft.

With the propaganda out there, it's getting to the point that news showing the Iraq war and our soldiers in a bad light needs to be met with skepticism because we can't be sure that it's not propaganda peddled by terrorist insurgents. Watch the video and see for yourself how far these terrorist insurgents are willing to go to create anti-war and anti-American propaganda for the purpose of manipulating the media and the American people into turning against our troops and the war effort.

Hats off to The Blotter and ABC News for digging deeper and finding the truth about this story.

Is anyone else, like me, wondering who is narrating this propaganda film?

Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report, who was on this story a couple of days ago, wonders the same thing and writes this:

What I want to know is what American dupe or traitor narrated Tucker's voice and who is the "peace activist" named "John Smith from New York" that the terror organization interviews near the end of the tape?

Rusty also found this site, dedicated to the propaganda film, and noted this:

Prominent among the links found at the terrorist website?
Code Pink Golden Star Families for Peace Bring Them Home Now! Casey's Peace Page (Yes, Cindy Sheehan) United for Peace and Justice The Guerrero Azteca Project Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) Military Families Speak Out Mothers Against the Draft Progressive Democrats of America Veterans for Peace

Interestingly enough, I was looking at the source code for the page and Code Pink is so important to whoever designed the webpage for the Islamic Army in Iraq, that they insisted on putting the word "codepink" in the metadescription.

What does it tell you about these "peace" activists when their links show up on a terrorist propaganda website? They both have the same end in mind: to undermine the war effort.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terrorists Peddling Propaganda Videos of US Soldiers:

» Flopping Aces linked with The Anti-War Soldier Who Wasn't

Comments (34)

"Interestingly enough, I... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Interestingly enough, I was looking at the source code for the page and Code Pink is so important to whoever designed the webpage for the Islamic Army in Iraq, that they insisted on putting the word "codepink" in the metadescription."

I believe the inclusion of a word in the metadescription is done to increase the page's rank when "codepink" is used as a search term on google, yahoo, etc. It in no way indicates an association between the codepink organization and the person or organization who created the page.

It tells me nothing. Are yo... (Below threshold)
groucho:

It tells me nothing. Are you suggesting there's a conscious connection on the part of the peace groups? What are you trying to say? You'll need a little more than innundo and suggestion.

As far as the terrorist propaganda "manipulating the media and the American people into turning against our troops and the war effort", here's something to think about: most of the American people ARE against the war effort, Bush has seen to that without any help needed. Virtually all, however, support the brave troops who have answered the call, no matter what the mission. Disagree with the war, support the warriors; NOT conflicting positions, no matter how hard you try and conflate the two.

I agree with groucho, the o... (Below threshold)
jesus of suburbia:

I agree with groucho, the only people who still support the "war effort" are bush, cheney and the servile clones that post to this website

Lee, if codepink is simply ... (Below threshold)
IllTemperedCur:

Lee, if codepink is simply one among many "peace oriented" words in the metadescription, then you'd be SOMEWHAT correct in that there wouldn't necessarily be a formal "association" with the insurgents.

But even if we accept your own point about google/yahoo search terms, it rather conclusively shows that these insurgents are targeting the video towards peace groups.

I can't speak for anyone el... (Below threshold)
IllTemperedCur:

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm certainly NOT a clone.... The technology wasn't around in '64.

I believe the inc... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
I believe the inclusion of a word in the metadescription is done to increase the page's rank when "codepink" is used as a search term on google, yahoo, etc. It in no way indicates an association between the codepink organization and the person or organization who created the page.

Correct. It doesn't necessarily means there's any association. It is, however, indicative of who the terrorist believe their target audience is.

The purpose of the tape is to undermine support for the war. Terrorism is a simply a public relations campaign. The terrorist know that they don't/can't beat the U.S. militarily, but they know that if they can wear down the populace that the military's civilian masters will retreat.

So far, no human cloning ha... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

So far, no human cloning has ever been successfully claimed by anyone.

However, Mongoloidism has been around since time immemorial.

I wonder, has it crossed th... (Below threshold)

I wonder, has it crossed the minds of groucho, suburbia, and other liberals and/or trolls who will hammer this thread that perhaps the reason so many Americans are now against the war is because they have consumed so much anti-war propaganda?

Think about it. That's the point of the propaganda - to get the US out of Iraq. How will that happen? By turning American minds against the war, which is exactly what has happened. Do you really think that the propagandists weren't putting out their stuff since the very beginning of the war? I wonder how many news stories were fed to the MSN by the propagandists and how much impact it has had on public perception.

"I agree with groucho, the ... (Below threshold)
Tony:

"I agree with groucho, the only people who still support the "war effort" are bush, cheney and the servile clones that post to this website"

From a guy who takes his name from a Green Day song... Maybe you can change your name to the more apt 'American Idiot'.

Thats Jesus as in Jesus fer... (Below threshold)
jesus of suburbia:

Thats Jesus as in Jesus fernandez, stupid. who's greenday?

Silver bubble, yes it would... (Below threshold)
jesus of suburbia:

Silver bubble, yes it wouldn't have anything to do with all the generals saying thing are bad, returning troops saying things are worse, coalition countries splintering off one by one. even Tony Blair saying things don't look good. tell me do you think General Casey read the propaganda. How about George Bush Seniors entire cabinet as well as Reagans (with the exeption of Cheney and Rumsfeld) saying this is folly. do you think that Gerald Ford subscribes to Al-jezeera?

has it crossed the minds... (Below threshold)
mantis:

has it crossed the minds of groucho, suburbia, and other liberals and/or trolls who will hammer this thread that perhaps the reason so many Americans are now against the war is because they have consumed so much anti-war propaganda?

Not really, no. First, a great many people were against the war before it started, myself included. For those whose minds have been changed during the almost four years of war in Iraq, I suspect the reason has more to do with a) the fact that the threat posed by Hussein turned out to be far less than was thought by many, and claimed by the administration, before the war, b) the war has taken much longer and cost much more money and lives than those who promoted it predicted, and c) the effect of the war has been, arguably, to increase the threat of terrorism rather than to decrease it.

Of course this all depends on what you consider "anti-war propaganda". If you consider any bad news coming out of Iraq or any critical opinions about the war to be propaganda, then sure I'll bet that contributed. If you think "anti-war propaganda" should have a much more limited definition (the honest position), and would include items like this faked video which the vast majority of people would never see, than I would doubt it had any measurable effect.

There is a flipside to this, of course. Consider the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman episodes. If the false stories promoted by the administration (with media assists) can be considered "pro-war propaganda," would you not conclude that they contributed to the attitudes of those who continue to support the war?

FWIW I don't accept either proposition, but if you are willing to accept one, you can't deny the other.

Mantis: you are way more di... (Below threshold)
jesus of suburbia:

Mantis: you are way more diplomatic than I am, which is good. as I plan on ignoring this blog in the future I know that the dissenting opinion here is in good hands. good work and good luck

mantis is usually rational ... (Below threshold)

mantis is usually rational and well spoken.

The rest of you are just happy to be lied to if it confirms your bias. You don't *care* that the other side has a well oiled propaganda operation or that, lacking *real* news or *real* dissent from our military, they had to make stuff up?

If things are soooo bad and opinion is soooo against what we are trying to do over there... why is it necessary to put forward these lies. The lies shouldn't confirm your opinions, they should bring them into question. It's like listening to PETA people explain that they know the organization lies but it's for a good cause so they're all for it. If the truth won't do, maybe there *isn't* truth available to support it.

I cant see any indication t... (Below threshold)
Narrator:

I cant see any indication that IAI mentioned that lee is dead ....the exact sentense is "A flash memory drive was found after ِِA Humvee was blown up, it belongs to a U.S. Army Specialist, who served in Iraq. In his personal flash drive was a letter he planed to send to his family for the Christmas holidays"
and if he is alive ...It will not affect the film ...many of US soldiers killing each day ...but not many have the same thought as LEE .

Ladies and Gentlemen. If yo... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Ladies and Gentlemen. If you use Lee, Manthis, Synova, and Jesus as anything except a comedy break from the reality of working a real job and being a Patriotic American you are in deep trouble. I used to poke them with a sharp stick daily to draw their ire, now you can poke them with a padded cue stick and they bleed yellow (what would that be-pee?) all over the blog. Even they see the future if the Dhimmi's cut and run 'again'. The blood of millions (again) on their hands.

So much blood on my hands, ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So much blood on my hands, I can't wash it off! My blog comments kill millions! Where's the pumice?!

Oh, you were talking about Manthis. Nevermind.

Hey Scrappy:Did yo... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Hey Scrappy:

Did you even read what Synova wrote? If you did, then you'd realize that he/she was making a case against the anti-war/liberal crowd.

But no, you just come on here with your blinders on and lash out at people without even reading what they wrote. Nice job, pal...you just took a potshot at someone who was defending a conservative position.

It brings to question whether or not you actally READ anything on here, whether you actually think about anything at all before flinging your little insults.

One more little thing about... (Below threshold)
ryan:

One more little thing about this thread. My opinions about the war do not get formed by fake videos that are created by terrorists and then broadcast around the blogosphere. Sorry to disappoint anyone who thought they had some major realization about WHY Americans might be against the war, but this isn't the reason.

My opinions about the current war in Iraq come from a lot of reading. A lot. History, politics, etc. I didn't just come to my conclusions on a whim, or based upon bullshit like this.

I do take the time to understand as much as I can about conservative views, and I do not think that they are stupid. I might disagree, but I do not automatically assume that all conservatives are stupid, or that any of them are, just because I don't agree with them.

Maybe some of you conservatives around these parts could CONSIDER the possiblity that there are Liberals who aren't stupid, and who have some valid ideas and points to make. Maybe, just maybe, instead of all the usual polemicist bullshit, you could attmept to at least consider another point of view? (Liberals need to do the very same thing, of course)

Coming on here and making the assertion that a Liberal who is against the war must be aligned with a goddamned terrorist, simply because they are against this war, IS ASININE. It's a really stupid argument, and one that I wish people would just drop. Face it, Conservatives, there are millions of Americans who disagree with you, and who are every bit as American as you are. Equating your fellow citizens with the enemy, just because they don't agree with the current policies of our administration is something that I completely disagree with.

My son is in Iraq. Accordi... (Below threshold)
militarymom:

My son is in Iraq. According to him and most military I talk to, things ARE getting better and that they are disappointed when they come home and see how the media is portraying what is going on over there. They have little or no respect for the mass media and are amazed that the Amnerican people have bought into the propaganda. And you may feel that you can support the military and not the mission but the military don't see it that way. I have heard over an over again from the people that are actually on the ground over there that they don't know how Americans feel that they are supporting them if they don't support the mission. Yes, the sectarian violence in Bahgdad is horrible...but there is more to Iraq than Bahgdad. There is relative peace and freedom for the Iraqi people throughout different areas of Iraq that the media NEVER talks about. And I don't know how the poll was taken of the Iraqis because every soldier I talk to tells me that they are told every day by the Iraqi people how thankful they are that our soldiers are there. Even O North is only against the surge because he believes we are WINNING without needing a surge!! And there is not ONE general who is IN Iraq that believes we are losing!! For one thing, the military go in to win...Many of the military have VOLUNTEERED to go back to Iraq because they believe in what we are doing. Maybe you need to check a few more sources. You've started believing your own propaganda. DO NOT try to speak for my son or his fellow soldiers...believe me...the ones that are against the war are in the minority!!

You libs are flat wrong whe... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

You libs are flat wrong when you project your hate of the war onto the rest of the country. The country's pissed because it wants to win quickly, which it is not as of yet.

Americans aren't quitters, and losers, like you, Libs.

militarymom,First ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

militarymom,

First of all, I have to say that I respect the position that you're in, as well as your point of view. I have a really good friend who's father and two brothers have served, or are serving in Iraq. She expresses many of the same views that you do.

I used to work in this restaurant in Oceanside, California, which is close to Camp Pendleton. Needless to say, I met a number of young men and women who were on their way to Iraq, or who had just come home. Their views on the matter were mixed...some were for it and others were against it, while others were somewhere in the middle. I won't pretend to know what percentage was for or against, since I didn't exactly take a scientific survey of their opinions.

Now, I never liked the way that we went about this war, at all. I didn't think that we should have gone into Iraq with such a massive ground invasion and occupied the country like we have. Occupation just angers local populations, eventually, and makes it so that the occupier pays not only many of the financial burdens, but also many of the political burdens.

From early on I agreed with the idea that we should have been going after Al Quada with small-scale Special Forces types. I just didn't agree with the US going in and taking over some other country, at all.

So, ya, I disagreed with what Bush wanted to do, the way that he wanted to prosecute this war, from the beginning. In no way, however, does that mean that I didn't give a damn about the people who I have met who were sent over there. What I really didn't want was for them to be employed irrationally or irresponsibly, which in some cases i think they were.

There was this one guy who always came in and was one of the most polite people I've ever met. When we were really busy he was always patient, and sometimes he'd even help us bus tables just to lend a hand. A really great guy. He was in there all the time. I remember the lasy day that he was in there before he shipped back out. We bought him his breakfast, which I thought was a pittance compared to what he was going overseas to face. I'll tell you what...I was so glad to see his face when he came back to the States, when he made it back home.

The whole time he was gone, I still took issue with the way that our administration was going about things. But in no way did that take anything away from the fact that I wanted people like the above soldier to have the support he needed, to be safe, and to make it home.

I hope that you can see my point about that, as it applies to your son as well.

I wouldn't even attmept to speak for your son. And I can't pretend to have on-the-ground experience in Iraq. His experiences deserve to be heard, as do the experiences of other soldiers who might have differing opinions. There are, of course, varying opinions about this war from many soldiers.

I try to formulate my own opinions, not based upon some pre-fabricated political ideology, but based upon what I think is right. It is possible that my opinion will differ from yours. I certainly can take the time to listen to what you have to say, and consider your thoughts...I hope that you will do the same for me.

ryan:So we made a ... (Below threshold)
epador:

ryan:

So we made a mistake in the past occupying nations like Germany, Japan, Italy, [or even the Confederacy] etc?

I find it hard to believe you have much understanding of the capabilities or limitations of SOCOM operations by your statements.

I suppose you thought Clinton's cruise missile attack on Afghanistan was more in line with your "surgical" approach to fighting terrorism.

Sorry: in the real world, sometimes you have to go in door to door on the ground in large numbers. We might argue about the poor coalition building, and some of the PR tactics used preceding the war. I certainly had a huge pit in my stomach when I found out about OIF. I had to keep it hidden, too, as the info came in for medical prep before the announcements were made public. We were preparing for tens of thousands of casualties. That still haven't happened.

Maybe they'll happen in Iran, or North Korea, China, or some former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. Lets hope they never do. And lets hope not on US soil.

ryan:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

ryan:


One more little thing about this thread. My opinions about the war do not get formed by fake videos that are created by terrorists and then broadcast around the blogosphere.

How is it that you get your information about what's going on in Iraq ? It's through the media. The question then becomes is your source of information accurate ?

militarymom:


According to him and most military I talk to, things ARE getting better and that they are disappointed when they come home and see how the media is portraying what is going on over there. They have little or no respect for the mass media and are amazed that the Amnerican people have bought into the propaganda.

That's very similar to what I've heard. Since what the media reports doesn't jive with what the boots on the ground are reporting, it's apparent that one of the two sources is very flawed.

Your choice is now to decide which of the two sources are more accurate. The MSM (ABC,CBS,NBC,etc) are businesses whose primary objective is to sell advertising (even though that may not be the primary objective of the individual journalist); hence, 'if it bleeds, it leads'. There is also ample evidence of individual reporters dislike of this administration for political reasons. So, by my reasoning, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the media may not be a purely objective source.

What are the reasons that the soldiers wouldn't be objective sources ?(left as an exercise to the reader). Consider the morale and re-enlistment rate of the troops in current war with that during Vietnam. Why the difference ?

It seems as if the dwindlin... (Below threshold)
groucho:

It seems as if the dwindling war supporters are in a state of denial and need to constantly manufacture their own set of "reasons" explaining the overwheming rejection of the Iraq crusade. It's GOT to be the terrorist propaganda, no wait, it's the MSM, lying bastards, no, it's...it's...

It's the people. Why don't you give them credit for making up their own minds? They've gotten information from the same sources you all have and, in overwhelming numbers, have come to a different viewpoint. Somewhere in the media barrage there are actual facts, which most folks can understand and process quite well. If you watch a clip of Bush evading, smirking, stumbling and otherwise shucking and jiving enough times you'll begin to lose faith in his capability as a leader. That's what most Americans have done.

You libs are flat wrong ... (Below threshold)
KC:

You libs are flat wrong when you project your hate of the war onto the rest of the country. The country's pissed because it wants to win quickly, which it is not as of yet.

Americans aren't quitters, and losers, like you, Libs.

Which of course, explains the results of the last Congressional elections.

Oh, and where's the AP on this one? I mean, after their fake story on Jamil Hussein.....

wait, what? It wasn't fake?

Quick! Somebody call Michelle Malkin before she embarrasses herself again...drat! Too late!

I know what CODESISSYPINK c... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

I know what CODESISSYPINK can use as a symbol a PINK CHICKEN running away and saying YIPE YIPE YIPE

epador:So we ma... (Below threshold)
ryan:

epador:

So we made a mistake in the past occupying nations like Germany, Japan, Italy, [or even the Confederacy] etc?

I don't remember bringing up any of those cases. I remember talking specifically about the current war in Iraq. If you want to have a long discussion about my various opinions of the history of US warfare, then by all means. But we should probably not do that here on this thread.

I find it hard to believe you have much understanding of the capabilities or limitations of SOCOM operations by your statements.

Yes, Special Forces operations have limitations; I know that. But they have their benefits too: less social/political impact, and less so-called "collateral" damage. Also, a better use of resources, as we don't deploy hunreds of thousands of men to go after small terrorist groups that are dispersed throughout a country. So you disagree with using SF to go after terrorists?

I suppose you thought Clinton's cruise missile attack on Afghanistan was more in line with your "surgical" approach to fighting terrorism.

I dont think that sitting offshore and firing missiles into a country, just to make it look like "something" is being done, is the way to go either. I didn't like a lot of what Clinton did, to be honest, in this regard. Like his bombing in Sudan. Both actions seemed to be more about making a statement (that he was doing something) than actually solving a problem.

Sorry: in the real world, sometimes you have to go in door to door on the ground in large numbers.

Can you explain to me why you think that we needed to invade Iraq with such a large number of people? Getting beyond cliche statements about the necessities of going "door to door," I'd like to hear why you think that we needed to go occupy that country with our military. I'd like to hear what your position is.

I, for one, am shocked -- s... (Below threshold)
PunditGuy:

I, for one, am shocked -- shocked! -- that terrorists are producing videos in an unethical manner.

_Mike_:How is i... (Below threshold)
ryan:

_Mike_:

How is it that you get your information about what's going on in Iraq ? It's through the media. The question then becomes is your source of information accurate?

I see, and of course you feel that you are the only one who has access to "accurate" information? I'm sure that your personal beliefs have nothing to do with the sources that you consider to be accurate, right?

I try to read as much as I can, from all sides of this deal. I like trying to understand both sides, or both cases of this argument, before making up my mind. Ya, I spent time reading through the philosophies of the Project for the New American Century. I UNDERSTAND what they are talking about, and I have some pretty fundamental disagreements with their aspirations and conclusions.

I read the Woodward book recently, which seems to provide some good insight into the current Administration. Of course, Woodward was trying to prove a point with that book, so I had to keep that in mind. I'm not really into books that have an agenda they are trying to prove, so sometimes I have to read around that agenda (kinda like Michael Moore or Ann Coulter books, which have their agendas all over the cover). But overall, I found that book to be pretty informative. It gave me some insight into the different people like Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Card, Bush, etc.

I read histories of the Middle East by different authors. Bernard Lewis has his ideas, and Edward Said has his. There are lots of books out there, and many of them have their slight biases, of course. Historical and political books always have this going on.

That's very similar to what I've heard. Since what the media reports doesn't jive with what the boots on the ground are reporting, it's apparent that one of the two sources is very flawed.

In some cases they jive, in some they don't. It's not like the opinions and experiences of all US soldiers are uniform. From what I have read and heard, some soldiers think the war is a good thing, and others think it's a travesty. It's all across the board, and I'm not going to pretend that I have taken an accurate statistical sample and say that I know what percentage agrees, and what percentage disagrees.

If you have some hard statistics, with margins of error and sources, that encompass the opinions of the entire US military, feel free to send them my way. I'll check them out gladly.

The MSM (ABC,CBS,NBC,etc) are businesses whose primary objective is to sell advertising (even though that may not be the primary objective of the individual journalist); hence, 'if it bleeds, it leads'.

Man, do I agree with that statement 100 percent. They sell ads to make money, and they have a vested interest in keeping an audience. So certain networks, via the news and other things, tend to reaffirm the world views of their target aurdience/demographic. So ya, Mike, you're spot on with that assessment of a lot of the media that people have access to.

However, I don't watch TV to get information. I don't watch lame little 30 minute news programs on CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX. Most of what ALL OF THEM PUT OUT, is garbage, in my opinion. They devote such a short amount of time to the so-called news, that I don't get much from the information they provide.

As I said before, I read. I read as much as I have time to read. I read books from both Conservative and Liberal perspectives. I read stuff all over the internet, and check in on both Liberal (Kos, Orcinus, etc.) and Conservative (Wizbang, Captain's Quarters, Malkin, etc) sites. I study anthropology, so I tend to read that perspective about this kinda stuff as well. I read books about the history of the Middle East, about the history of Britain, Iraq, and of the United States. So I try to form an opinion by looking at a lot of stuff.

I don't just watch some lame 30 minute program about the WOT on Fox and make up my mind, I'll tell you that.

What are the reasons that the soldiers wouldn't be objective sources ?(left as an exercise to the reader).

Come on Mike, you know the answer to that. One of the main ideas of basic training is getting troops to follow leadership, and to act without questioning command.

Second, they aren't necessarily objective, because they're IN IT. They NOT impartial, by any means. They have a huge stake, namely, their lives.

Here's a definition of "objectivity":

Judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.

I personally think that most of us have a hard time maintaining much objectivity about this subject. But what do I know?



ryan:<br... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

ryan:


I see, and of course you feel that you are the only one who has access to "accurate" information? I'm sure that your personal beliefs have nothing to do with the sources that you consider to be accurate, right?

Kindly point me to the spot in my post where you could have even possibly misconstrued that I even alluded to this. If read read my post, you'll find that I'm pointing out that the accuracy of the information we receive is flawed through all channels (information channels - not television).

Come on Mike, you know the answer to that. One of the main ideas of basic training is getting troops to follow leadership, and to act without questioning command.

Second, they aren't necessarily objective, because they're IN IT. They NOT impartial, by any means. They have a huge stake, namely, their lives.

Certainly. And if Iraq was a military disaster, I would expect a larger portion of them to be more negative than what I see... as I said, compare the morale of the troops in the current war against the morale of the troops in a previous war. Is there a difference ? I certainly believe so. Why is that if we are indeed losing the fight ?

Yes, they have a huge stake in this - their lives, but are you purposing that the risk to their life makes them look on events over there more favorably ? I would imagine the opposite to be true.

If you want to see lyes, ju... (Below threshold)
Carl Gordon:

If you want to see lyes, just turn on your TV. The hole MSM is connected to the cunspiricy to overthrow are country and all good conservatives! When are everybuddy going to waik up and smell the cofee? These people will do anything to get us, so we have to win! President bush has the plan to win and you should all suport him in whatever he do. To not do that will make you a terosist. Go bush!

_Mike_:Kindly p... (Below threshold)
ryan:

_Mike_:

Kindly point me to the spot in my post where you could have even possibly misconstrued that I even alluded to this. If read read my post, you'll find that I'm pointing out that the accuracy of the information we receive is flawed through all channels (information channels - not television).

Well, I'm glad to hear that you weren't saying that you think my information is flawed, and that yours somehow isn't. Sorry to misread what you were saying.

The post had my name on the top of it, and then you wrote:

How is it that you get your information about what's going on in Iraq ? It's through the media. The question then becomes is your source of information accurate?

So, based upon that, it seemed that you were telling me that you think my sources of information are flawed, inaccurate, or what have you. I assumed, incorrectly, that you were insinuating that somehow yours are not flawed. My mistake. I see that you were using the word "you," apparently, in a general sense. Misunderstandings happen, no big deal.

No harm no foul.

I agree with the basic point that you are making about the information we recieve...when you say that it's flawed.

Along with that, there is the idea that there might be more than one "truth" coming out of there. You know what I mean? There can be experiences that are relayed accurately, and truthfully, that paint different pictures of what's happening there. So what do we do with that? Some soldiers are coming back and saying that it's hell over there, that the Iraqis want us out, and that it's all a waste of time, while others are saying that we're getting a lot done, and that the Iraqi people want is there. Both versions could be accurate.

Certainly. And if Iraq was a military disaster, I would expect a larger portion of them to be more negative than what I see... as I said, compare the morale of the troops in the current war against the morale of the troops in a previous war. Is there a difference ? I certainly believe so. Why is that if we are indeed losing the fight ?

That's a good point you have there. Certainly in Vietnam the morale was incredibly low, as the troops were bogged down, underfunded, and being called baby-killers here at home.

The thing that confuses this for me is that I can't pretend to know what the overall attitude about the war is. I have heard both positive and negative assessments and feelings about it from former or current soldiers, but I havent asked enough, or talked to enough, to have any kind of consensus.

I'm not sure if we're losing, or if we're losing. I'm really not sure what there is to win there, and that might be part of the problem. It's not like we have some well-defined enemy like we did in WW II when we rolled into Europe...back then the soldiers knew who the enemy was, and what needed to be done.

Yes, they have a huge stake in this - their lives, but are you purposing that the risk to their life makes them look on events over there more favorably ? I would imagine the opposite to be true.

Well, if I was over there risking my one and only life, I would want it to be for the right reasons, and for just cause. I'd be really pissed off to find out otherwise.

I think that the experiences that individual soldiers have vary, and that for some people what they went through over there reaffirmed their beliefs in the war, or in what we are doing. For other, I think the opposite is true.

What I hear from you is that the overwhelming majority of soldiers you hear from have positive views about the current war. The ones I have met and talked to are more divided. So, if you have some stuff for me to read, feel free to send it my way. I'm always wanting to read more, find out more, and see what people are thinking about this whole thing.

Kudos to you for the debate, and for keeping the whole partisan mud-slinging bullshit out of it. It's a nice change from the usual pattern around these parts.


Wait for those videos to ge... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Wait for those videos to get nominated at the CANNES film festival




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy