Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine

jasonditz writes "The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"

Comments

I would think it is obvious..

[QuantumG]

They need to install mind probes in the brain of every one of us. As well as receiving suggestive messages they also act as a tracking device. People will accept it because they get 2% off gasoline when they fill up and there's a shorter line at the airport for people who have been chipped.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[drivekiller]

If Rumsfield wants to improve the image of the United States, he and the rest of the Bush administration should simply resign.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[dbrutus]

Under the ayatollahs, you're muslim, christian, jewish, or dead. They fudged and let the hindus in the "protected" status (called dhimmi) because of practical military difficulties but islamic nukes take care of those just fine.

If you think that freedom is a possibility under the ayatollahs, you have no sense of history or a very strange definition of freedom.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Anonymous Coward]

We owe you one ;-)

As a lawyer for the government, I'd like to clarify the statement made by our client to point out that we do not in fact owe you anything.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Viceice]

As a person coming from a country struggling to control Muslim fundamentalists, you're spot on.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[CatWrangler]

To be fair, you go to war with the Secretary of Defense you have, not the one you want or need, to paraphrase Rummy himself.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Anonymous Coward]

DISCLAIMER: I'm a student in study of religion. You are wrong.
 
The dhimmi status has, by some, been extended to basically include all theists. However, the dhimmi status is subjective, based on fatwas (which often contradict each other), and any Muslim is free to accept or not accept a fatwa regardless of which Imam or Ayatollah made it. So some Muslims accept pretty much any religion/worldview, while some Shia Muslims think all Sunni Muslims should die, and vice versa.
 
So what does this really mean? At the moment, Islam kills about 1% of the number of victims of starvation, or 4% of the number of AIDS deaths.* (9/11 was an exception - only approximately nine times the number of WTC victims starved on the same day.) Not fun, but it is not like the full billion of Muslims alive are up in arms. Most just ignore the order to kill infidels much in the same way as most christians ignore the rule that slave trade is okay.
 
What does this tell us? What religions say and what religious people do is a very, very big difference. Look at Russian Orthodoxy, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Martinism - they are as different from each other as practical religions can possibly be, and they all swear by the same book. Islam is just as diverse! The radicals just get all the press. Get this in perspective: worldwide, roughly 200,000 people have protested the Muhammad caricatures - that makes less than 0.02% of Muslims. Roughly 30 people have died in the protests. Over this couple of weeks, more people have probably been hit by lightning. Islamic radicalism is an absolute non-event put under a huge magnifying lens because Bush keeps throwing hundreds of billions of $ at it.
 
* Per day, 27,000 people die from starvation, 7000 from AIDS (Source: WHO). 300 (direct) victims of Islam is my own estimate, and the majority should be from suicides and botched abortions, not war.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Asic Eng]

Tell me - would you rather have the Bush administration in power or the Ayatollah?

Why would it occur to you that *that* is the choice to make? Out of the billions of alternatives, why chose those two?

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Doc Ruby]

Or could it be that nerds have actually learned to care about politics, even though you haven't? If the political stories weren't news to nerds, they wouldn't generate pageviews. And any look thru the extremely high numbers of posts in response shows that the people discussing the stories are nerds.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[jxs2151]

If you care to read a really good paper on the reasons why groups like Slashdot readers turn out like they do check this out:

The Law of Group Polarization

CASS R. SUNSTEIN

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id =199668

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Arker]

Not only are you completely off-base on the Dhimmi issue, the fact is that muslims already have nukes. Ever heard of Pakistan? The Indian and Pakistani nukes are doing a wonderful job of deterrence, and are probably the only thing that's kept those two countries from all out war on many occasions.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[geminidomino]

Out of the billions of alternatives, why chose those two?

Because the only way to make a corrupt, treasonous, oathbreaking assbag look good is to hold him up against Hitler/Stalin/etc...

It's the same way the government deludes the simple-minded masses that they're really good guys who just want to protect us, blah blah freedom blah liberty.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[mranchovy]

proven yourself to be an idiotic moron.....

This is known as "insightful" on Slashdot....

Correction: This is known as "insightful" on any political discussion these days. Political parties manage to do the same thing, but without using phrases like "lying sack of shit," "asshat," or "idotic moron"

(usually)

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Darby]

lol ok you know you saying that is like fox saying they're fair and balanced. it's absolutly wrong.

Nope, it's not. There is a fundamental moral difference between those who promote freedom and those who try to stamp it out. I'm a promoter of freedom, but I will stamp on asshats who actively try to destroy it.

/. IS UNQUESTIONABLY biased to the left part of that is because it hides stuff that would be considered right wing.

First, it is not biased to the left. That is idiocy of the highest caliber. A bias against Bush isn't a fucking bias. It's basic common sense and human decency.
To be biased to the left as an American site, America would actually have to have a left. Nice try, try actually learning *something* about politics rather thanspouting the idiotic Fox news bullshit you originally brought up.

God damn it. I'm a fucking Liberal in the classical sense. That means I have recognized the Left and the Right are both sicko fuckwads.

Here's a lesson:

Liberalism is the founding principle of this country. It's so simple it can be summed up in one sentence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: That all men are created equal."

The left believes in this principle. They also believe that the force of the state should be used against people to enforce this ideal. See USSR, Cambodia, etc. etc. etc. for examples of how fucking retarded this idea is.

The right *disagrees* with this principle.
Further, they believe that the power of the state should be used against people to prevent this. See The Axis, Franco, Bush, etc. etc. etc. to see how fucking retarded this idea is.

So, please could everybody STFU about leftists in America. They don't exist in *any* meaningful context. They were stamped out by the same asshats who were gung ho Hitler supporters before WW2. Not for any decent reasons. JFCOAPS (on a pogo stick) the primary hatreds of the Neo cons are the only fucking things the left got right while it existed here.

no this is the exact same question. you may not LIKE bush, but a lot of people do, or aggree with enough of what he's said/done to have voted him into office twice now.

I meant traditional American values rather than the destruction of them which is what is being sold to idiots who think the "moral destruction" of the country is being driven primarily by people who *merely don't fucking hate gay people*, rather than pulling their heads out of their asses long enough to see the simple fact that gung ho all out capitalism (which they keep supporting) is inherently socialy liberalising. After all, them faggots got money too.
He was voted into office the second time by exactly those people. Read the exit interviews.
The first time he was appointed by an act of treason by the SC. That's after fucking the election. Pay attention.

sorry try and convince me that bush hasn't made the right choices, some of them i'd agree some of them i wouldn't. on /. EVERYTHING he does is wrong pretty much.

Has he done anything right? It's theoretically possible. The inescapable fact is that pretty much everything he has done *is* wrong by any sort of widely held moral standard.

i was talking about the original poster you responded too..

I responded to your statement.

umm NO. he was NOT impeached about a fucking blowjob, he was impeached about LYING and trying to get others to LIE about said blowjob. huge difference. whether or not you aggree with impeaching him over that is another story.

Ummm, yes.
They stole millions from this country for a witch hunt. They tried to get him on.. what, like 5 different things?!?
Nothing stuck until they found a fat bitch who liked giving her soiled dresses to her mom?!?
Yeah. So he lied about it. That sucks, it's dishonest and asshattery of the highest degree.

He didn't make up a bunch of fucking lies in order to pursue some ivory tower intellectual strategy to blow up a bu

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Rinkhals]

It's this dichotomy in Islam which seems so, well, contradictory.

There are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?

The Prophet is portrayed as an ordinary man, not the son of God. Yet cartoons portraying the Prophet lead to riots and killings and assasinations. On the one hand, he is a man, on the other it is not permitted to depict him?

On the one hand an Ayatollah can command the death of Salman Rushie and state that it's every Muslim's duty to carry this out, on the other hand every Muslim has the choice to ingore any fatwa he likes.

As for the treatment of women, well that's the most confusing of all.

As for Rumsveld's propoganda requirements, it's like pro-holocaust writings in Isreal.

.....Hell, did I just invoke Godwin?

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Arker]

It's a very deeply hostile situation there. You think it's coïncidence that the wars stopped when both sides got nukes? That doesn't mean there can't be another war between them, of course, but I don't think any serious observer of that situation doubts that the fact that both sides have nukes is a serious stabiliser. Neither side wants to commit suicide, and with both of them having nukes, that's essentially what it would be.

Iran has plenty of faults, but in comparison to their neighbors they actually look pretty good. Unstable? By what standard?

Why would it surprise anyone that the elected President (yes, unlike our "allies" in the region, Iran is a functioning republic) would voice the widely held sentiment of his countrymen that Israel should be wiped from the map? Why is that even considered worth mentioning? Who in the region, except Israel, *doesn't* agree with that?

The Israelis have tons of nukes, the Iranians are, at best, many years away from having one. The argument could be made that an Iran with nukes would actually make the region more stable. It's certainly done that in every similar case.

And finally, who says it's up to the US to decide who will be allowed to have nukes? That's exactly the kind of heavy-handed presumption, and bald-faced disregard for law, that makes the US so unpopular in most of the world already, and down that path lies only madness.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Ender_Wiggin]

Deafening Silence? What non-International news channel do you watch?

Aside from every major Islamic organization condemning terrorism and violence, what more do you want? Sheikh Hamza Yusuf said, "Terrorists are mass murderers, not martyrs" but I guess he wasn't deemed newsworthy. Sheikh Qaradawi, a popular TV preacher, has always been against Al-Qaeda and even said it was legitimate for Muslims to join the US in attacking the Taliban.

If you search online, you'll find photos of Muslims in anti-terror rallies. Here's two Palestinian women at a 9/11 memorial, and another of some of the Palestinian students who all observed 5 minutes of silence to remember 9/11 victims. Bangladesh anti-terrorism rally and sympathy for 9/11 victims. Palestinians held a rally against suicide bombing, but I can't find coverage in english press.

What about the mass demonstrations in Indonesia against terrorism? Heck, they had a rally calling for the execution of the Bali bombers. Indonesian Muslims were so outraged at the terrorists that they tried to storm the prison to lynch the terrorists.

Go and visit any local mosque, and they will tell you how much they are opposed to terrorism of all forms. Heck, the mosque by my house keeps sending me emails condemning the latest violence, when I know it's obvious. Still, I can understand how jittery everyone is, since a few mosques have been burned down over the last few years, and someone smashed our window.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[Halo1]

here are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?

There are words in the Bible that call for stoning your own children if they disobey you (Deuteronomy 21:18). If you look for an excuse, you will always find one, regardless of whether you are Christian, Muslim or atheist (Hitler, anyone?). Religion is just a (ab)used tool in cases like this, it's not some faith which in itself turns peaceful people into mindless killing machines.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[sesshomaru]

The used to say the same thing about Synagogues in Nazi Germany and Imperial Russia. In fact, they even created a propaganda book about it, called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

"Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, of Jews have died because of this infamous forgery." -- Rabbi Joseph Teluskin

So, this is the propaganda that is always used when you want to get rid of people, "Sure they sound good in public, but in their secret meetings, they outline their evil plan."

I want to stress how bad al-Qa'ida has been for the world's Muslims, and how much harm its existence has done to them. As a terrorist organization, it is good at acheiving its own goals, but those have nothing to do with helping Joe (or Mohammed) in the street Muslim. They are mainly about:

1. Acheiving Political power for Bin Laden and company.

2. Scoring propaganda points to that end.

Any help to ordinary Muslims is merely a coincidental by product to these two ends. Do you think Bin Laden didn't know what would happen when his organization attacked the United States?

No Shi'ite can support al-Qa'ida because it would force them to change their religion, and the Shi'ites believe just as strongly as the supporters of al-Qa'ida. Why do you think that the U. S. is turning Iraq into a defacto Shi'ite state? Ironically, during the cold war, it was the Shi'ites who were considered the threat due to the loss of Iran, which is why U. S. (which created al-Qa'ida, I'll note, as a force to use against Soviet Russia in Afghanistan) supported Saddam Hussein for all those years.

Re:I would think it is obvious..

[dbrutus]

The US did not create Al Queda. Afghanistan was invaded and as usual, there was a resistence. The Carter administration wanted to feed the resistence enough to bleeed the Soviets dry but not win. Reagan upped the support so they would actually win. There were elements from all over the muslim world in that resistance and I'm proud that my tax dollars went to fund a liberation movement like that.

Some of the people who later went on to form Al Queda did take part in that movement to free Afghanistan but it would be more accurate to blame the US for the Soviet Gulag because we sent aid to the USSR in WW II than accuse the US of creating Al Queda.

That being said, there's plenty of documentary evidence of a differential between what is preached in western tongues and what is preached in arabic. Unlike the Protocols (a czarist secret police forgery), you can buy transcripts and tapes of these things directly from the muslim groups. The nature of these sorts of accusations is generally not "those muslims secretly plot" but that "Sheikh X, that the Bush administration claims is moderate, sayd XYZ in arabic in a speech in Cairo". In other words, if you have the linguistic skills, you can double check the claims and be famous for exposing lies if these claims were indeed false.

Three words:

[Snarfangel]

Don't use cartoons.

Re:Three words:

[tempestdata]

Well .. I dont think muslims have a problem with all cartoons. Just cartoons that make fun of religious figures they respect.

This is off topic.. but... I'm hoping some people will read this and help them 'understand' the behavious of those rioters.

I know you were just joking around, (or maybe the right word is 'think') but to me (a muslim) the cartoons of prophet mohammad were mildly amusing. Especially the one that said "STOP! we have run out of virgins!". But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious.

Its hard for a westerner to understand. But think of a religious figure such as a prophet as a father figure.
In the west, its okay to say things like "I hate my father." or "My father is a S#%^@#" ... In the east, this is just not culturally acceptable.
In the west, its okay to make fun of Jesus. Here is one I heard while living here in the west - "Q: Never ask yourself What would jesus do? Answer: Coz He'd Get crucified and DIE!" I am willing to bet that any practicing christian who reads this might be amused, but would more likely find it unfunny. Some would find it offensive. This is in a culture that is quite tolerant about making fun of people who are in a position of respect.

Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.

Think of those rioting muslims, as the lowest level of muslims. They are the brown trash. They are the economically poor, religiously fanatic, aggressive, cocky mob. They are being constantly told that the west is targetting muslims, and then they are seeing jokes made about a person they respect. What do they do? They riot. Bloody idiots.

The majority of muslims over the world, simply frowned at the prophet being made fun off. Very much as they would frown if you insulted or made fun of their parents. It is a cultural thing.

Some like me, realized that the west didn't mean to offend me, and we take it in our stride, giggle, smile and point out 'hey buddy.. that was a bit insensitive"

Another thing I want to point out.. that the word "Muslim" is about as descriptive as "Christian". There are as many kinds of muslim as there are kinds of christian. Baptist, Born Again, protestant, presbeterian, orthodox, catholic, etc. There are many differences between each of them.. Most of the terrorism, and a lot of the rioting is being caused by a particularly extremist sect that is deeply entrenched in Saudia Arabia, and was the backbone of the Taliban. Wahabism. It was founded by an Islamic scholar Abdul Wahab. I am not a wahabi. :)

Re:Three words:

[jez9999]

Yeah, we've heard that comment a lot in the UK. I'd still say there's a difference of degree; if you published that WWJD joke in a big newspaper or national TV station in the US, there might be some people writing in with criticism, or whatever, but would there be violent riots? Many thousands of people marching around with placards such as 'behead the infedels', 'I love the prophet/lord/saviour more than my life', etc? I seriously doubt it. The degree to which Muslims want to impose their culture and morality on the rest of society seems to be significantly stronger than other cultures.

Disclaimer: There are exceptions, not all Muslims can be classified as one group, yes I'm generalizing, you may be an exception, etc.

Re:Three words:

[TopShelf]

That's perhaps the most frustrating thing that non-Muslims see in this whole situation. We hear constantly that "it's a small minority", etc., but we don't see moderate leadership taking that visible stand and trying stand up for civilization.

Re:Three words:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the majority of Westerners are confused by how there aren't riots when someone blows themselves up in the name of a prophet, but when when they make cartoons about a prophet then all hell breaks loose.

Does killing children getting candy from soldiers not profane this prophet?

Re:Three words:

[tempestdata]

lol...

That too is a cultural problem. I dont know who is going to step in and stop it.. but its certainly not going to be ME! And that is exactly how everyone there thinks.

Since I was a child, I was taught.. and all the kids around me were taught "dont get involved in other people's messy business." , "Its somebody else's problem" "stay away from trouble.. and those people are trouble".

That would explain the great deal of corruption, human rights abuses and tyrannical governments in that region of the world too. No one is willing to take it upon him/herself to take on the corrupt, the tyrannts, the fanatics and the other idiots. They just put up with it.. or leave. In my case.. I left.

American culture is different. They can and will intervene when there is a problem. A lot of todays americans are descended from people fleeing religious and cultural persecution. They were taught differently by their parents, as my children will be taught differently by me. We fleed once, and are in a land that will treat us well.. "make sure we dont loose what we have gained through so much hardship. It is your duty to intervene, and take it upon yourself to fight the corrupt, the tyrants and the fanatics from taking over".

So in summary, you guys might as well do it.. because you'll grow old waiting before anyone in that region of the world rises up to fight them.

Re:Three words:

[tempestdata]

Because it is the same bunch of people rioting who are supporting that massive stupidity of suicide bombings.

Those that dont riot over the cartoons, are the same ones who dont riot over anything. They are the people just trying to get a job, buy a car, a home, go for a vacation, get a bigger tv. etc.

Re:Three words:

[LukeWink]

I honestly think I learned more about muslim culture in 2 posts by temestdata than I have in the last 10 years of reading the NY Times and watchin CNN. Sad.

Re:Three words:

[Borg453b]

I don't have any mod points, but I found your post insightful. Furthermore, I am glad that you have seen all the cartoons, and not just the one with the bomb.

Satire is a fundamental part of Danish culture. A large part of our recent entertainment is provocative - but lighthearted. No one is spared jokes - and at the risk of sounding offensive, the mentality can be summarized as:

"Nothing to us is holy".

Religions, Politicians (be they local, or world leaders), nations, languages, and first and foremost the Danes themselves are mocked in Danish media.

Some, I think, may frown upon such an attitude - the fact that there, to some people, now no longer exists something which is beyond scrutiny or playful jest. This mentality may be perceived as generally disrespectful or sacrilegious, bereft of principle or ethics - but to me, therein lies one of our chief principles: that northing is beyond jest or scrutiny.

It is my impression that many Danes now think less lightly about the cartoons, and many would rather not have had the (private) newspaper print the article and cartoons. Most are shocked by the reactions and lasting consequences. Many would agree with the news papers apology - but near to none would have our government apologize: they are separate bodies, and most Danes would never have the government intervene with the free press.

I stand by the article and the cartoons today; and I hope that most Muslims are not too offended. Equally, I would think it a sadder world, if comics or jokes involving Jesus or other religious characters were banned.

As an amateur cartoonist and professional graphics designer, visual expression is very important to me - and as a citizen of a democracy, so is the free press.

Re:Three words:

[east coast]

Now, if me.. a brown muslim guy, were to go the the American heartland and crack similar jokes at peter's expense. I would eventually run into a christian red neck would think I deserve a punch.

From a westerners prospective if a guy punched you over this he'd be considered a random kook. He'd probably be arrested as well. What we see as westerners is a large group of organized people protesting in a fairly radical fashion that is not only leading to deaths but also seem to be almost winked at. This is a much different scenario than the random redneck. Not only that but the fact that the violence isn't well focused is what also bothers me... A guy in Denmark makes an off-color cartoon so people in Pakistan burn down a KFC? WTF? That's pure non-sense. Now, if you were telling your joke and a redneck guy would go out and burn down a mosque you may have a point.

Re:Three words:

[tenchiken]

Really? Go check out the Iranian mullahs. Here is a nasty secret. They are filthy rich. Also note that almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were fairly well off, and educated in Europe. For that matter realize that Bin Ladin himself was a very rich man before the US and Saudi's started cutting him off....

Re:Three words:

[east coast]

You missed the point didn't you? Where was your outrage and the outrage of the christian world when entire cities were being destroyed by the US forces?

Once again, I'm not a christian. Until you accept that it's going to be hard for us to come to any terms.

Where were the forces of moderate christians when the mass graves were being dug outside of fallujia to bury all the dead women and children?

Not to say that the innocent should suffer but I didn't see the Islamic community doing anything to stop Saddam's genocide.

Why are you outraged by protests and burning of a half a dozen buildings but completely silent when tens of thousands of muslims die when you firebomb cities?

Well, I guess if I'm going to be accused of firebombing I guess I really can accuse the entire Muslim community of 9/11. What's the old saying? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

If you think violence is justified because of the invasion of Iraq I guess I can see the invasion of Iraq as justified by 9/11.

Re:Three words:

[tempestdata]

A lot of these riots are sparked not just because of the cartoons themselves. There is a deep and brewing hatred between the west and the muslims. I see it and quite frankly it scares the hell out me. You see, just as you often see posts out here on slashdot, kuro5hin or other internet message boards by western internet users showing their rage and frustration with Islam. There are a bunch of people (thousands!) in that part of the world who want to show their frustration and rage at the west. Just as bad behaviour breeds bad behaviour, they are caught in a cycle. If your best friend crashes your car, you'll cuss at him and forget about it. If your grumpy neighbor you already hate crashes your car.. you'll sue his pants off. He'll hate you more for suing him, and might cause you trouble in some other way. You'll hate him even more for being such a dick after crashing your car.. and so on. Hate breeds hate. Western media is caught in this trap too.. they will focus more on the crimes and flaws commited by people who claim to be muslims, they have no reason to cover well behaved muslims. After all.. aren't they expected to behave themselves?

Another problem is political. The clerics and the tyrants in the region support this kind of behaviour. This outcry builds unity against a common enemy and makes people less likely to question their leaders, and their societies. They are less likely to cry out against the conditions in which they live. Maybe even blame the bad bad west for all of their troubles. This effect is not confined to the middle east.. look at President Bush's ratings right after 9/11. Soon as there was a common enemy, the americans united together to support their president. Even before he had reacted in anyway, or done anything. This is especially significant when we consider that the majority of the people didn't even VOTE for him.

this brings me to the third point. "He may be a thug. But he is OUR thug". This is why so many muslims were against the US attacking Saddam Husseins regime. Saddam hussein's government was hated by religious clerics the world over. Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein weren't best buddies like the white house wants you to believe. The neighboring countries hated Iraq and were suspicious of Iraq as well. Hell, Iraq and Iran were locked in a costly war lasting 8 years. yet when America decided to attack and take out saddam hussein, apart from 2 or 3 arab countries.. pretty much all of them were unanimous in their objection. Why? He maybe a vicious dictator.. but he is OUR vicious dictator.

I do believe there has to be a dialogue... and I personally try my best. I do not have the time or the energy to even reply to all the posts I've had to this single post. I've pretty much used my entire sunday on this thread... Unless I abandon my career, I cannot do much more. It isn't a notion that hasn't crossed my mind btw.

Re:Three words:

[killjoe]

"Absolutly not. You're making the assumption that I want to see muslims suffer. "

Your words made it sound like you didn't mind at all. You are completely indifferent to their suffering.

"To be honest I felt that the displacement of Saddam was going to be viewed in a good light byt the Iraqis. Honestly, how many Iraqis wanted to be under Saddam?"

Surely there was a more sane way to remove saddam. Besides saddam has been removed for a long time now and yet the occupation is still going on and so is the murder and mayhem.

"I don't understand why the Muslim community winks at the efforts of the militant islamic movements that seem to be helping Americans justify their efforts."

For the exact same reason that you and the rest of the world winks at the israeli occupation. In other words the muslim world cares about you exactly as much as you care about the suffering and death of palestenians. Not much.

"Are you a Muslim? What do you think needs to be done in order to set things straight?"

Easy.

1) Admit that Israel has won territory in a war.
2) Redraw Israeli borders to include all of the west bank and gaza.
3) Force israel to give full citizenship to all occupants of israel regardless of their religion or nationality (all civilized nations have done this with the people it has conquered).

This gets rid of the palestine problem once and for all. Once palestenians have voting rights they can then fully participate in the israeli democratic process and will not resort to violence. Being full israeli citizens they will also have rights to benefits like all other israeli citizens and their standard of living will increase.

If the above is not possible then pull the israeli borders back to where they were before the war and give the land back to the palestenians. Move the wall back to 1964 border, prevent all arabs from entering israel and all israelis from entering palestine for at least a decade. Station Turkish troops alongside the border for peacekeeping. Turkey is an ally of israel but a muslim country they troops would be respected by both sides. As a reward fastrack the joining of turkey to EU (which they want).

Either one of the above is possible if the US threatens to pull all aid from both countries and enforces a worldwide trade sanctions and a blockade.

At the same time pull out of Iraq, give full control of the iraqi oil wells back to iraq, let them join OPEC again.

Pull all troops out of the middle east, stop meddling with their countries.

So there you go, solutions that will work if anybody in the US has the guts to implement them.

Re:Three words:

[Mr. Flibble]

That's perhaps the most frustrating thing that non-Muslims see in this whole situation. We hear constantly that "it's a small minority", etc., but we don't see moderate leadership taking that visible stand and trying stand up for civilization.

That is because western news outlets don't air the moderate views. It is far more inflamitory to air the radicals, and inflamitory news gets higher ratings.

You can quickly find the majority of moderate Muslim leaders decrying the cartoon riots and the associated outfall with a quick google search, but you won't find the same on CNN or Fox.

Re:Three words:

[killjoe]

Hamas has won the election because fatah was not able to throw off the occupation and deliver freedom to the palestenians. They had nothing to lose so why not give hamas a shot and see if they could do something.

They are desparate people and really at this point have nothing to lose. I read someplace that the average palestenians makes something like 25 cents a day or something. No money, no freedom, no life, no hope.

Now that hamas has won the west will pull away all aid and palestine will be another north korea with massive starvation and staggering poverty.

Too bad, so sad.

There is only one thing I have to say to that

[tempestdata]

I think that it is double plus good!

Re:There is only one thing I have to say to that

[dkleinsc]

No No No! The word "think" is doubleplus ungood and is not part of the Newspeak Dictionary 5th Edition. The correct statement is "All knowledge from MiniTrue is doubleplus good."

God bless Aljazeera

[lixee]

Thanks god for the BBc, AlJazeera, Slashdot and other less biased media.

"Begs the Question"

[Anonymous Coward]

Go look it up and learn something new.

flip-flop?

[dotpavan]

Separately, President Bush said the US should not be discouraged by setbacks in Iraq and must realise it is at war.

......

However, he also used his speech in Florida to claim progress in the war on al-Qaeda

So, who is flip-flop again?

So we're just not telling them the right stuff?

[khasim]

Propaganda comes in 3 flavours:
White - factual.
Grey - some facts, some half-truths and a little bit of lying.
Black - all lies.

Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.

That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.

That boggles the mind.

Re:So we're just not telling them the right stuff?

[mnmn]

Hmm.

I wonder why in the English language 'white' is always good and 'black' is quite bad. It must make the language of english-speaking black people quite ironic.

Such linguistics blacken the face of european languages. Such niggardly use of language should be stopped.

--

Your linguistic white knight.

Rumsfeld would do a lot better

[flyingsquid]

By focusing on what the United States does, not what it says. When the United States occupies an Islamic nation on pretenses of WMD and Iraq/al-Qaeda connections that were (at best) wildly inaccurate, then allows that country to descend into anarchy and insurgency, kills tens of thousands of civilians in the processes, goes around roughing up people more or less at random and engaging in the same kinds of torture that the former dictator did... well, no shit you're gonna be unpopular. All the slick TV spots in the world ain't gonna change that.

On the other hand, when you're a force that's saving lives and making things better- as the U.S. military was in Indonesia- our popularity goes up. The problem isn't the perception of our foreign policy, the problem IS our foreign policy. The neocons need to get out of their little alternate universe of spin and start dealing in the real world, like the old-school Republicans of Bush H. W. Bush's administration.

effective propaganda

[Mutatis Mutandis]

The history of government propaganda is long and diverse, and includes successes as well as failures. Effective propaganda does not need to be evil. During WWII, Allied propagandists printed newspapers for Axis soldiers, and they were much appreciated by their recipients for being rather more reliable than the official German news sources.

Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.

Has it occured to them...

[JayBlalock]

...that maybe - just MAYBE - if, rather than spending billions of dollars on propaganda to convince the Muslims that we're nice to them, we instead took those billions of dollars to ACTUALLY be nice to them, something might be accomplished?

You want to know why people listen to Bin Ladan and his ilk? Because there are a lot of poor, miserable, hungry people over there whose lives suck, and he (and Zarquai and all the rest) are managing to successfully convince them to blame an innocent third party. Ok, not ENTIRELY innocent *cough*assassinations*cough* but still, the theocrats and fascists sitting in power are FAR more to blame than the US.

And when people are hungry enough, and desperate enough, and you tell them, "THAT guy! HE'S to blame!" They'll believe you.

Especially if That Guy has never done a damn thing they've ever seen to help them.

Re:Has it occured to them...

[Wyatt Earp]

You mean like all the credit the United States got for aiding Muslims in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Bosnia from 1994-now, Kosovo from 1999-now, the defense of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the liberation of Kuwait...

Yea, the United States has spent tens of billions to help and be nice to Muslims and it got the US nothing.

Re:Has it occured to them...

[The Bungi]

Afghanistan in the 1980s? That was THE TALIBAN!

Nope. Go educate yourself. Completely different group of people.

So to placate them

That's ridiculous. I bet your view would be slightly different if you were one of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were being displaced, tortured, prosecuted and massacred.

Number 1 - FROM WHO?

It was Saudi Arabia shitting their pants at 6 Iraqi divisions parked in Kuwait that asked the (previous) Bush administration to set up camp. The Saudis could not defend their asses if their collective lives depended on it. And of course if Hussein had actually marched into Saudi Arabia (over parts of which he also had vague historic claims) the world would be much different now.

Yes, liberating Kuwait wasn't a bad thing

Except if you're Kuwaiti.

We WERE going to march to Baghdad during that war

Absolutely not. Read up and educate yourself. That everyone and their mom wanted the 101st Airborne in Baghdad just for shits and giggles doesn't mean the administration was actually considering it. They never did.

no knowledge whatsoever of the area

That's rich, considering the ball of tripe you just wrote up.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[hungrygrue]

If the story is accurate, and if it is not being reported by US news outlets, then yes. If you have been conditioned to think that Al Jazeera is to be automatically dismissed as a propaganda outlet, then the bias in our media outlets has done its job very well. Seek information, seek differeing views, read and listen to views from as wide of a variety of sources as possible - even if they are views that you do not agree with. Getting your news or information from a handful of sources, or worse yet choosing to get your news only from sources that hold a bias with which you personally agree will leave you ill-informed and in a poor position to make informed decisions and to form informed opinions. Personally, I fall far to the left, yet I realize that if I were to only listen to, say Air America, I would be no better informed than those who only watch Fox News.

Re:Slashdot?

[TrappedByMyself]

Doesn't necessarily fit the "news for nerds" mantra...

Because "news for nerds" is really "advertising dollars for Slashdot's parent company", and this article is a clickfest goldmine.
The article is really about Rumsfeld being, gasp, honest about one of the fronts of the war. About how al-Qaeda is very media savy. Kneejerks will misinterpret this as Donald "Big Brother" Rumsfeld trying to control their minds.

Maybe Mr Rumsfeld should talk to the editors at Slashdot. The seem to have a good grip on this community already.

The US doesn't need propaganda.

[miffo.swe]

What the US needs is to act with caution and responsability and be a good world citizen. Stop using torture and avoid collateral damage in foreign countries. Demand the same things from both friends and foes (like, why let Israel have illegal nuclear weapons but bash Iran wich has none nor the ability to develop them).

et rid of the need to alter the reality and the problem is solved.

Re:The US doesn't need propaganda.

[_Sprocket_]

Stop using torture and avoid collateral damage in foreign countries. Demand the same things from both friends and foes (like, why let Israel have illegal nuclear weapons but bash Iran wich has none nor the ability to develop them).

I can agree on the issue of torture. There's a fundamental human rights issue here that we (the US) are wont to trot out when convenient. We need to be sure it can't be used against us. But even more... its the right thing to do and, for the most part, reflective of our society.

The collateral damage issue is interesting. It seems to me that US forces already tries to avoid collateral damage. It sounds more like you're calling for elimination of collateral damage - and that's a fantasy. You might also note that US forces tends to avoid friendly fire too. Even so, it still happens. Collateral damage is, indeed, tragic. It provides no real military advantage. And it's a gold mine for anti-US propaganda. I'm curious as to why you seem to think US forces do not attempt avoiding the situation.

And, finally, Iran. Sure - they don't have weapons nor at this point the ability to produce them. But you're being willfully ignorant if you believe that they do not have the desire to build them. And that's the point - limiting that ability. Does Isreal have nukes? Yes. So does India. So does Pakistan. But when countries like Iran talk about Isreal being wiped off the face of the earth, and with a decided lack of simular dogma from Isreal... you'll have to forgive the US for not being so concerned with Isreal's nukes. Pakistan and India are more dangerous simply due to their history of rattling sabres at each other - though that seems to have settled down. The issue is not who HAS nukes, but who is most likely to use them.

Afghanistan

[Tony]

When we helped arm and train the Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin) to fight the Soviet Union, we promised to help them rebuild their country after. Instead, we left Afghanistan to their warlords, and eventually the Taliban.

We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.

Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.

Very Bad idea

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Once regular sources of information have become tainted with disinformation, people will turn away to what they feel are more "trustworthy" outlets.

If you destroy TV, radio, newspapers and even the internet with lies, people in need of the truth will turn back to the pulpit, to obtain comfort and security from the man who spits bile at infidels, women and modernity, and who tells them that masturbation is wrong and menstruation is unclean and that we're all tainted by some sin that someone who never even existed committed.

I live in a country that was like this not too long ago. I'd rather not have to go back to it, or see anyone else forced to either.

Just the opposite

[davmoo]

Its been my experience in talking to friends who are not US citizens and do not live here that the quickest way to get them to distrust any information source is for them to find out it is backed officially by the US government.

An even more sad fact is that speaking for myself as a US citizen and a US resident, that also makes me distrust the information source too. And I have found that to be true regardless of which party is in power.

Re:As an American Muslim I completely agree...

[QuantumG]

Hey! Those people have democracy now! Sure, they now live in a more restrictive military environment than they ever saw under Saddam, but it's a small price to pay right? Sure, it now appears that Muslim law will be enforced by the state and minorities and women will revert to their second class citizen status, but hey, they're free. Democracy cures all. You can't possibly be free living under a despot who restricts the majority's right to impose their will on the minority. Allah bless America for bringing Muslim law back to Iraq.

gimme some of that white stuff

[Oldsmobile]

That is exactly what Rumsfeld wants. White propaganda. I mean, the Pentagon defended the Iraqi story plant thing by saying "everything we say is true".

So another words, say me and a bunch of troops brake down your door at 2am, shoot your father, tear up the place and take you to a horrible prison for six months and later releace you. You learn that they were looking for terrorists and real sorry for your father and gave your children some rations before they left, then Rumsfeld could say:

"We are helping the Iraqi people by fighting terrorists and feeding the Iraqi children."

Nothing he said was untrue, but your father is dead, you were in prison for six months and someone came into your house and busted the place up.

If some Iraqis came and busted up my house in the middle of the night and took me to prison, I know I'd have an IED with their name on it. Once I got out of prison that is.... ... unless I was involved in some kind of weird human pyramid shit while I was there and came back home packed in ice.

You've made a mistake...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Americanism != reporting the revolting things perpetrated by the US military and/or government in the name of the US.

Re:You've made a mistake...

[dbrutus]

Running a propaganda operation during war time is neither revolting, nor even objectionable. Convincing people not to fight us by shooting people is not superior to convincing them not to fight us through a propaganda compaign.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[slavemowgli]

It might surprise you, but Al Jazeera *is* an unbiased news source. If you'll think back a few years, you might remember that it was generally lauded in the Western world prior to 2001 as an example of professional, unbiased journalism in the Arabic world; it was only when the propaganda machines were turned on that they suddenly became a "problem". Al Jazeera hasn't changed, though - it's just spin, and you seem to have fallen for it head over heels.

BTW, you also may (or may not) know that Al Jazeera is generally regarded as pretty pro-Western in the Arabic world. And while it's not a guarantee for unbiasedness, I'd much rather trust a news source that's hated by the propaganda machines and fascists on *both* sides, not one that's only hated by one side but loved by the other, because the former news source actually has a realistic chance of being reasonably unbiased.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I fall far to the left, yet I realize that if I were to only listen to, say Air America, I would be no better informed than those who only watch Fox News.

Air America is comedy, not news. I would hope you don't get your news solely from a comedy show.

At least Fox News, for all the bashing it takes, dares to present both sides of an issue.

Re:Slashdot?

[slavemowgli]

Why not? Who says nerds aren't interested in politics?

Ummm, they already have one - no, really

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

In 2004, the US government launched Alhurra, a 24-hour propaganda news network that was created to counter Aljazeera.

Maybe Rumsfeld didn't get the memo, but that's not surprising considering that he doesn't even use e-mail.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[LurkerXXX]

Air America is comedy, not news. I would hope you don't get your news solely from a comedy show.

At least Fox News, for all the bashing it takes, dares to present both sides of an issue.

Now THAT folks, is comedy.

Way to spin the story

[caseih]

After reading the headline I immediately had the thought 1984 pass through my mind. Slashdot is good at promoting that kind of thought. Then I went and read the article. And you know what? Rumsfeld is right. In many respects we in the west are losing the war of ideas with facist islam. I think it is very cynical and one-sided to call what Rumsfeld is talking about "propaganda" while conveniently neglecting to recognize that these islamofacists such as Al Qeada and similar groups in Iraq are already recognizing the tremendous power of propaganda and are using it on us. Do we recognize this? If we truly value our western society, free and open as it is, patriot act notwithstanding, then we should be very alarmed that somehow more and more people are becoming convinced of these other points of view that directly threaten our very way of life. If anything the cartoon stuff should illustrate that clearly. While I think the cartoons were in very poor taste, the fact that a few radical imams and clerics have managed to stir up a couple hundred million people over a simple drawing should be setting off some huge warning bells in our minds.

So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them. And that is the very definition of propaganda. Even Slashdot is really propaganda. It's not a bad thing; it's just the free expression of ideas with the intent to convince others of these ideas' legitimacy (trolls and OS religious zealots notwithstanding). I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!

So For those that don't care to read the article, Rumsfeld is merely saying that these people, who have sworn to destroy the west if they can, are using propaganda much more effectively than we are. We need to be better arguers (hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East), and come up with better ways to help people see that having a totalitarian, facist, Islamic state is *not* going to bring about any benefit to them in terms of people or religion.

While I have huge problems with our current administration, I do understand the Middle East, and I recognize that some things have to be done. I greatly fear what will happen as these aberations of Islam continue to spread. As we can see from the Denmark fiasco, it's not just America that is being targeted. Islam is at a cross-roads. Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads to bring back the original, peaceful meaning of Islam. That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.

Re:Way to spin the story

[nagora]

Rumsfeld is right.

WARNING: This never happens.

we in the west are losing the war of ideas with facist islam.

No. What is happening is that when you reduce yourself to the level of your opponent, as the US and increasingly the UK have done, it becomes impossible to take the moral high ground for the simple reason that you are no longer on the moral high ground.

such as Al Qeada and similar groups in Iraq

And there entirely because of American actions. Iraq was not an islamist state; Saddam and OBL hated each other with some passion. Even the term "Al Qeada" was in fact invented by the US and was not used outside until after 9/11.

So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them.

WRONG! Show them. Stop bombing and invading countries for their oil and stop locking people up for years without carge, never mind trial, on the say-so of a bunch of bounty hunters with no interest in justice, just in a nice pay-cheque. Not too hard, is it?

I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!

If he meant a word of that then perhaps. But he doesn't.

(hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East

Hint to American government: locking people up with evidence is not going to win you friends. Just as installing a power-mad dictator into a country and supporting him with guns, planes, and bioweapons while he slaughters his own people will not make those people grateful when you come twenty-five years later to remove that dictator in order to secure the country's oil supply for your own use.

I do understand the Middle East,

You hide it well.

Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads

Perhaps we should stop the billion-dollar recruitment drive for the other side then.

That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.

No, what Rumsfeld is talking about is what Rumsfeld always talks about: keeping Donald Rumsfeld in a position of power. He was doing it in the eighties when he made up the crap about invisible Russian submarines, he was doing it when he sold WMD to Saddam (receipts are all on file in the Senate Banking Commitee records, in public), and he was doing it when he acted to prevent the UN completing its search for those same WMD because he knew that, against all expectation, Saddam had in fact disposed of them all (partly by dropping them on the Iranians with help from "calibration teams" from the CIA under Bush Sr.)

Rumsfeld is an old liar who's been caught out again and again. But he's one of America's aristocracy and just can't be got rid of. He knows he, and Rice, can talk about democracy until the day they die but they'll never have to face an election if they don't want to. Hardy a glowing example of the superiority of the Western system of government.

TWW

Or Maybe...

[TubeSteak]

Informational Warfare has "News for Nerds" written all over it.

Did you actually read what Rummy is proposing?

From the end of TFA:

Government communications planning must be "a central component of every aspect of this struggle", he added.

"The longer it takes to put a strategic communications framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy."

That sounds really freakin' nerdy to me.

They're talking about creating a radio, tv and print framework in whatever country he has a problem with.

It's relatively easy for the U.S. to blast propaganda into Cuba, since they aren't that far away, but it is a completely different story when you're trying to push information into countries like Iran or Syria.

Think about the technical side of deploying his 'framework'. I bet that would be News for Nerds

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Oldsmobile]

This is because aljazeera.com is the website for alJazeera magazine. It is not affiliated with the Middle Eastern news network Aljazeera whose website is aljazeera.net.

From aljazeera.com:

"About Aljazeera.com
Aljazeera Publishing owns and operates Aljazeera.com, bringing you the world today. Aljazeera Publishing is an independent media organisation established for more than 12 years delivering news and analysis to readers all over the world. Aljazeera.com has a particular focus on events and issues in the Middle East covering major developments presenting facts as they happen.

Important note: Aljazeera Publishing and Aljazeera.com are not associated with the controversial Arabic Satellite Channel known as Jazeera Space Channel TV station whose website is Aljazeera.net."

Embarrasing, I know.

Re:Isn't Faux News already doing it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that and they'd like to categorize the people who criticize them as "terrorists."

Once the public accepts that "propaganda is necessary" and "this is a war of ideas," they'll see that as a mandate to crack down on the "enemy ideas."

Under this government's preferred reading of current law, you are technically providing support to terrorists by criticizing American leaders. All they need is a slightly more scared public; then they can get down to the important business of arresting political prisoners. (Not that they aren't doing this already to a degree; they've just so far limited it to Arabs because it's more acceptable to the xenophobic masses.)

What is an "Islamic scientist"?

[khasim]

I'm a Muslim, and while Im not an Islamic scientist and thus dont know all the rules, I've never, ever read or knew of a rule that says "punishment X for a woman who doesn't cover her body and hair".

Strange, Google doesn't show many hits for "Islamic scientist" (only 466) and most of those refer to people studying science such as optics.

The only thing I read is a verse in the Quran where God orders women to cover themselves. I heard of the "moral police" in Saudi Arabia who threaten women to wear suitable attire among other duties, but honestly I don't know if this is part of Islam or an 'initiative' from the Saudi Government. I should read more about that.

Yes, you should read more.

Perhaps Saddam's regime did this in the name of Islam, but Islam is innocent from these horrible actions.

This is another of those cases where you have not read enough.

Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).

And why is this bad?

A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.

In that case, in Islam, a woman can work trade, fight in a war,teach,get educated, become presidents or parliment members, write poetry, and practically any type of business women in the west can do ( they can even sing, as far as I know, but to a women-only audience).

You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.

Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.

Fair and balanced

[kitzilla]

the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine.'

What? FOX News went off the air?

Re:Slashdot?

[tsm_sf]

And when I say "anti-american" articles, yea saying that 24 propaganda is /. worthy, then articles about the Al Jazeera working with Terror Groups should be up on the home page too, or hell start covering some of the things the Arab media says about us, if all that which you comment on are "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", then it all is

We expect that sort of behavior from totalitarian regimes. When they do it it isn't news. When we start acting like the Ministry of Disinformation, it's not what you'd expect from a country with such explicit values. So it's newsworthy.

You Say Propaganda- I Say Public Relations

[gadlaw]

Come on now. There's plenty of reason to jump on the present administration but this isn't one of them. Every company, every public figure, every organization with an ounce of good sense takes a bit of care with public relations. They have to do so, otherwise folks, organizations and other countries who mean them harm and no good will own the field. If you are the United States military and you only let the liberal pressdanistas define what is reported and said and discussed about you then you're going to have major public relations problems. In other words, if that next door neighbor of yours who doesn't like you is the only one who speaks about you to anyone and everyone guess what everyone is going to think about you? It would be a good idea for you to be able to speak for yourself about who you are and the military in the United States, run by elected civilians, should be able to do the same thing. The very fact that so many of you automatically run to the 'propaganda' tag instead of the 'public relations' tag goes to show that the effort at public relations is needed.

"more cultural than religious"

[glrotate]

"But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious."

Sorry, but I'm not buying that one anymore. That argument just doesn't hold water when Muslims are rioting from Nigeria to Indonesia. Futhermore, isn't the culture in these countries defined, to a great extent, by Islam?

I think many in the West are finnaly getting wise to what the "religion of peace" is all about. After the Van Gogh murder, the subway attacks, the French riots, and now the "cartoon riots", I think many of use who once felt that islam was being portrayed unfairly are reconsidering our position.

Re:"more cultural than religious"

[Stalyn]

Then why aren't any Muslims in the United States rioting? The truth is the whole cartoon thing is about politics. Muslims in the USA have a voice and avenues to express themselves. In these other countries Muslims are pretty much oppressed by authoritarian regimes. The cartoons just ignited all their frustrations about their lives and gave it focus. These people are angry but it's not about cartoons.

Here's an idea

[deanj]

How about actually reporting ALL the news that's going on there.

Not just the bad things.

The American people have such a screwed up idea of what that whole country is like... You'd think that ever square inch of that place was ready to explode, rather than what's happening in a relatively small area where Saddam loyalists and jihadists (who came over the border) are right now.

Cheney thought he was hunting Quayle

[Anonymous Coward]

why not arm Parliament and Clinton and send 'em out into the Bush.
Damn, that would freak the funk!

deeply disingenuous as usual, slashdot

[argStyopa]

In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"

I think this is simply disingenuous. The United States certainly has propoganda organs, but I think it's indisputable that it also has the most free and open media community (circus) in the world.

I think Rumsfeld's point is more that, Fox news aside, every other media outlet in this country seems dedicated to 'taking down' the president in any way that they possibly can. In an era where a higher percentage of Washington reporters voted Democrat than REGISTERED Democrats, and where media networks formerly of some standing don't hesitate to run stories without research, plaigarize from web blogs, and outright fabricate evidence (Courier Font for the win, Dan) out of their irrational hatred of George Bush, I don't think it's suprising for a senior member of the administration to say that it would behoove the government to act more aggressively to get GOOD news about US efforts out and AROUND the anti-US media conglomerates.

Re:deeply disingenuous as usual, slashdot

[micilin]

You think its indisputable? Fair enough. I think it's arguable that the united States has the 22nd most free and open media community (circus) in the world. Here's a link to a journalist's association that have an interest in these matters:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

Re:Let me get this straight...

[yndrd1984]

No one is saying that conservatives can't be on TV, or that they can't say what they want. Most people don't think it's right for a PR firm working for the Republican Party to advertise themselves as politically neutral. If their tagline was "News for Conservatives" or if they got a sense of humor and called themselves "The 24-hour Right-Wing "Daily Show"", people wouldn't be so upset. But when they call themselves "Fair and Balanced", they need to make an honest effort, which they haven't done.

I mean, your post sounds like you're parroting one of their ads. Have you ever gotten your news from another source?

What kind of propaganda system do they want?

[Simonetta]

What kind of propaganda system do they want? Are they talking about a news service like Voice of America used to be for Eastern Europe during the Cold War? Basically an unbiased news service that brought the same news found in USA newspapers to people who had no access to non-Communist news sources? That service is already provided by CNN and, to a certain extent, the newer-more open Arab news services like al-Jazira.

    Or do they want a focused pro-American pro-West service to counter the incessant anti-American message coming from Iran?

    Perhaps they are talking about a 'black' propaganda service, where stories that may or may not be true are introduced into the 'Arab street' for the sole purpose of provoking an extreme reaction. The Arabs and the Pakistanis will go into violent riot mode on just rumors now. For example, I doubt that anyone rioting in Libya, Syria, or Pakistan has actually seen any of these editorial cartoons that have whipped them into a frenzy. It is also doubtful that anyone in the west would have started massive street riots without actually seeing the provocative images themselves. It's unlikely that provocative images or unproven news rumors would cause riots in the west anyway.

    Having a 'black' propaganda service that could introduce false rumors would allow the controllers of this service to have a 'light switch' to start violent street riots in the Islamic world at any time that is convenient for them.

Mr. Bush is doing a fine job?

[TomRitchford]

I think Mr Bush is doing a fine job.

Let's see, we have two major terrorist attacks on the United States, where neither Bin Laden nor the anonymous anthrax mailer were ever caught. We have the completely failure of our intelligence and defense forces on 9/11 with no explanation and no plan to fix. We have a trillion -- a *trillion* dollars, do you have the slightest idea how much that is? -- pissed away in a war in a country most Americans couldn't identify on a map, for *nothing*.

We have double-digit increases in the military's main budget every year *on top of* this crazy war; and as a result we have cutbacks in all the services that might make life worthwhile if you weren't crazy rich.

We all watched over *days* while the government sat there and did nothing and we lost New Orleans. George Bush lost New Orleans. He didn't even *pretend to try* to save it. He didn't act concerned, he didn't do anything, and the city was destroyed.

But the worst part is all the dead. There are the thousands of American dead in the ruins of the World Trade Center, the thousands dead in the rubble of New Orleans, the thousands of young American men and women finding miserable and painful deaths in Iraq for nothing (not to mention the tens of thousands of young people returning multilated and crippled) -- and there are the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed by Americans, very many of whom were women, children, or simply people who were trying to mind their own business when an American bomb went off in their vicinity.

You think Mr. Bush is doing a fine job, do you?

On the contrary, even if Bush were impeached this very moment, based on the results of the first five years he'd still be by far the worst President the United States ever had.