News What the hell is wrong with the media? Interviewing fu<king terrorists

[wasteofo2]

On CNN now (Newsnight with Aaron Brown), there is an interview with some terrorist who's come to Iraq from Syria to kill americans and talked about his past experience! Due to his request they blurred his face and only referred to him as "Achmed" (jeez, how accomodating CNN is). What the hell is this about, and why the hell don't they kill these pieces of **** when they get them in an isolated room when they admit they've waged terrorist attacks on Americans?

 

[Janitor]

Interesting. I have not seen that yet.

There is sort of a parallel situation that happened in Arizona a couple of years back. Somebody was burning down expensive houses that were under construction. One of the freebie newspapers set up an interview with him, with an agreement not to give away his identity. The interview was carried out. He used the interview to spout his ideas on environmentalism, which I thought kind of ironic considering all the toxic smoke that a house fire puts into the air, plus the fact that more trees have to be cut down in order to make lumber to rebuild on the property. Anyway, he was eventually caught and put on trial. I don't think his capture was aided by the interview that had been done, though I may not be remembering quite right.

 

[Adam]

On CNN now (Newsnight with Aaron Brown), there is an interview with some terrorist who's come to Iraq from Syria to kill americans and talked about his past experience! Due to his request they blurred his face and only referred to him as "Achmed" (jeez, how accomodating CNN is). What the hell is this about, and why the hell don't they kill these pieces of **** when they get them in an isolated room when they admit they've waged terrorist attacks on Americans?

Probably for the same reason the reporters don't shoot Donald Rumsfeld when he makes some smart-arse response about the thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.

 

[HAVOC451]

Can you see no value in learning how the enemy thinks wasteofo2?

 

[Tom McCurdy]

For a very good reason... why the fcuk would we not want to know everything we could about them, Although I agree its it may seem good a first point to kill them but knowledge is sometimes better than one death.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

For a very good reason... why the fcuk would we not want to know everything we could about them, Although I agree its it may seem good a first point to kill them but knowledge is sometimes better than one death.

What the hell is there to learn. They want to kill, cage or convert all those who are not moslems.

 

[HAVOC451]

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tsu - The Art of War

 

[studentx]

criminal profilers try to understand the enemy.They can snap out of it too. In my opinion the majority of people cant, and understanding the enemy brings a lot of confusion.

 

[wasteofo2]

Can you see no value in learning how the enemy thinks wasteofo2?

Sure, learning how the enemy thinks is a great advantage, but you probabally didn't see this interview. Aaron Brown prefaced it with something like "Since the USA entered Iraq, it's become a hot-spot for radical islamic terrorists to target Americans." Then the guy came on, gave his little story "I am from Syria, but when America came to Iraq, I went there to help the Jihad", some reported talks about all the foreign fighters in Iraq, all the stuff they've caused etc., then the guy comes back on "Americans are everywhere, so it's easy to attack them, just find a military command center or a police station and set up a bomb outside it or attack it with RPG's." That was pretty much it. Perhaps they got more information out of him and didn't air it, and perhaps it was insightful, valuable information that they passed on to the FBI, CIA, NSA, whatever, but I doubt that's how it worked.

I could definitely see the use of it if say, it were organized by the military, they got Arabic officers to pose as cameramen for Al Jazeera or something and ask the terrorists about what strategies they used, where they got their materials etc. in a way that seemed flattering. Something like "You're so good at killing americans, where do you get all your fabulous weapons and strategies?". Perhaps there'd be a better method to covertly extract intelligence from people without them knowing they're being used to topple their own terrorist network, and I'm all for that.

But at face value, this was just an interview with a terrorist. If they really did want to get info out of him in order to better the American troops, and they helped in some way, great, but at least kill the bastard after you're done interviewing him.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Two websites I hit every day are http://www.juancole.com/ and http://www.strategypage.com/. Cole is an Iraq expert who mostly gives the Iraqi slant on events so it comes out somewhat anti-american, but he is really able to filet out the different groups and actors and present their thinking. Strategy Page gives the US military slant on many of the same events. Between the two of them you get a richer feel for a complex situation than if you just read US tub-thumper stuff.

For example it turns out that the Zarqawi splurge the other day has a certain Tet Offensive quality. Recall that the Tet offensive during the Vietnamese war turned out to be a disaster for the Viet Cong, but played around the world as a defeat for the US. And Zarqawi's troops were decimated in their attacks, in spite of the way the world press presented it.

The web gives us the opportunity to be better informed than any previous population, but we have to rise above our predjudices to avail ourselves of it.

 

[FZ+]

On CNN now (Newsnight with Aaron Brown), there is an interview with some terrorist who's come to Iraq from Syria to kill americans and talked about his past experience! Due to his request they blurred his face and only referred to him as "Achmed" (jeez, how accomodating CNN is). What the hell is this about, and why the hell don't they kill these pieces of **** when they get them in an isolated room when they admit they've waged terrorist attacks on Americans?

Because otherwise, no one would give interviews. And the terrorists will just use it as another blow in the war on hearts and minds. "Yes, the Americans don't want you to hear the truth." etc etc. Then, you will end up with even more terrorists than before.

What the hell is there to learn. They want to kill, cage or convert all those who are not moslems.

Perhaps you shouldn't have missed the various interviews, then, if that is the degree of sophisticated knowledge you hold.

 

[Dagenais]

I agree with wasteofo2 here.

The CIA probably already knows how the basic terrorist thinks and if not, it won't help interviewing them and hiding their identity.

Couldn't they place them under arrest, then interrogate instead? More information will probably come out that way.

But you don't interview them and promise to hide their identity.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Perhaps you shouldn't have missed the various interviews, then, if that is the degree of sophisticated knowledge you hold.

Do you think these fine upstanding individuals are going to provide us with a schematic of their operation showing command structure, cell locations and money laundering channels? I think not. What your going to find out is these sob's hate us for what we are.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

The (Other) Foot...

Damn,
I just wish the USA would provide us with this;

Posted by Robert Zaleski;
“Do you think these fine upstanding individuals are going to provide us with a schematic of their operation showing command structure, cell locations and money laundering channels? I think not. What your going to find out is these sob's hate us for what we are.”

 

[revelator]

But you don't interview them and promise to hide their identity.

Actually, that's just what the reporters should be doing. Their job is to get us whatever information they can about these guys, and if they start handing over their contacts, no one else will come forth with anything to say.

The more you know the better. Ignorance solves nothing.

 

[Dagenais]

Actually, that's just what the reporters should be doing. Their job is to get us whatever information they can about these guys, and if they start handing over their contacts, no one else will come forth with anything to say.

Nobody else will come forth anyways. These are terrorists! They hate North Americans, so why the hell would they help North Americans!?

They teach reporters nothing except things we already know. Capturing them and interrogating them is a much more effective method for what they are - extremely dangerous criminals.

The more you know the better. Ignorance solves nothing.

Again, they teach us nothing that we don't already know.

 

[wasteofo2]

Man, you people that think the interview gave any insight obviously didn't see it. His message was really just "I came to Iraq to help the Jihad and kill Americans, it's easy, you just shoot stuff at them or plant bombs near their bases, I think I'll become a suicide bomber eventually for the Jihad."

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

I saw it.

It's no different (and NO less "noble") than an American marine saying "I came to Iraq to free the persecuted people from a dictator with weapons of mass-destruction".

It all depends on your "opposing" point of view...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Man, you people that think the interview gave any insight obviously didn't see it. His message was really just "I came to Iraq to help the Jihad and kill Americans, it's easy, you just shoot stuff at them or plant bombs near their bases, I think I'll become a suicide bomber eventually for the Jihad."

I think that that provides information that would be good for some people.

You may disagree with that, but I hope that you realize that the interviewer probably had no idea of what information he would actually get in this particular interview beforehand...

 

[revelator]

They teach reporters nothing except things we already know. Capturing them and interrogating them is a much more effective method for what they are - extremely dangerous criminals.

That's the military's job, not the reporters.

Also, let's say that one of the Arab news stations did that. Asked for an interview with one of the coalitions reps, and then captured them and interrogated them? The coalition would be up in arms!

 

[franznietzsche]

That's the military's job, not the reporters.

Also, let's say that one of the Arab news stations did that. Asked for an interview with one of the coalitions reps, and then captured them and interrogated them? The coalition would be up in arms!

Hate to break it to you, the terrorists are already up in arms.

 

[FZ+]

What your going to find out is these sob's hate us for what we are.

Then you will at least find out what they think we are.

Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of principle. In a democratic society, the media have a duty to be a source of information, not propaganda. The press is not part of the army. We can't tell the press to be 'on side'.

 

[wasteofo2]

I saw it.

It's no different (and NO less "noble") than an American marine saying "I came to Iraq to free the persecuted people from a dictator with weapons of mass-destruction".

It all depends on your "opposing" point of view...

I get your point, and I wouldn't expect Hamas, Al Quada or any other terrorist organization to sit down and have a civil interview with an American marine. Terrorists view us as their enemies, and they kill us, and in turn, we kill them.

Hell, forget how pissed off I am about this, it was a retarted thing to do anyway. Terrorists kill random people all the time, why did the news people think that they were somehow safe? He could have easily taken some weapons with him and when he was checked go Matrix on the guards and start shooting them all up. Sure, there were probabally armed people, but those guys don't mind dying, could have easily been a martyrdom plot.

 

[revelator]

Hamas and Al Qaeda aren't reporting agencies. Why would they conduct an interview witha marine?

I wonder if Al Jazeera can be expected to conduct a civil interview with an American soldier? I would hope so.

It just seems that your comparison is flawed, as your comparing terrorist organizations to news agencies. Of course you couldn't expect Al Qaeda to have civilized interview, it's their business to kill people, not listen to what they have to say.

 

[devil-fire]

in a war of public opinion these kinds of interviews are part of the battle ground. when you hear this guy say 'yes, I'm am the annonomis terrorist in iraq and all i do it kill your people because they don't have guns big enough to shot me back' it really encourages you, the viewer to support more arms being put into iraq. now if the terrorist said something more in the lines of 'yes, I am the annonomus terrorist in iraq and what i did was shoot at an airport that is a take off point for a lot of the bombings in my naborhood' then it well make people think they terrorists in iraq are now a result of agression

to me this sounds like it was just a tool of someone who wants to inspire feelings of agression tword iraq from america. i don't even think it was a real terrorist from what iv read so far here.
it might vary well have been a person who really did do the things that he said he did but why would the tv station go through all the trouble of that if they could just get the camraman (or anyone, since it wouldn't have to be a real terrorist) to do it and and they get the same story?


just my thoughts

 

[JohnDubYa]

This is just good publicity for the terrorists. Remind me who Ted Turner is married to again.

 

[the number 42]

...to me this sounds like it was just a tool of someone who wants to inspire feelings of agression tword iraq from america. i don't even think it was a real terrorist from what iv read so far here.

just my thoughts

My thoughts too. 'Truth is the first casualty of war'. Difficult a task as it is, all news needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. A while back on the BBC there was a very convincing interview with a woman talking about distressing experiences in Iraq; it turned out that she was making it up for her own ends. I was shocked as she had cried so convincingly, and also because it had made me think twice about my opposition to the war.

Beyond that sort of trickery, I am all for hearing opposing views; if you don't talk, what are the alternatives?

 

[Monique]

I've seen many interviews on television with people who commited gruesome acts, why would these people be any different.

 

[JohnDubYa]

C'mon Monique, think about it. Terrorists are not just common criminals. They use terror for political gains, and providing them a media outlet to express their views exacerbates the problem.

 

[Monique]

I haven't seen the interview, but wasteof2o quoted the interview:

"Americans are everywhere, so it's easy to attack them, just find a military command center or a police station and set up a bomb outside it or attack it with RPG's." That was pretty much it.

There have been serial killers and mass-murderers describing all their thoughts in interviews so that can't be the issue here.

But what I seem to understand now is that these people committed horrible acts and said they were going to continue to kill, and there is nothing that can be done to stop these people? That would be a more understandable viewpoint, since I wouldn't want a serial killer to walk the street after giving such an interview.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I think you completely missed my point. Oh well.

 

[Monique]

I know what you meant, serial killers also take power out of such interviews.

What you have to think about it is that you are voicing these terrorists' opions through those interviews, I'd rather have verbal terror than them targeting civilians to get some attention.

As I said, I can't comment on the content since I didn't see the interview, just a thought.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I know what you meant, serial killers also take power out of such interviews.

No serial killer is going to unite others in his cause by giving an interview. Furthermore, few serial killers are looking for interviews as rewards for their crimes.

What you have to think about it is that you are voicing these terrorists' opions through those interviews, I'd rather have verbal terror than them targeting civilians to get some attention.

Here, terrorists are being granted interviews because they kill. So in effect, we are rewarding them for their crimes by giving them a voice when they wouldn't have otherwise. This sends the message to other terrorists that attacks against civilians will give them similar exposure.

Are you really naive enough to think that a terrorists is sufficiently satisifed with voicing his statements in an interview that he won't kill again?

 

[Artman]

Take the media completely out of the picture, and terrorism wouldn't work. If you blow up a building and only you and a handful of people know about it, who did you terrorize?

Like it or not, we're in a war. The press should be more responsible, not try for sensational, which is exactly what that interview was intended to be.

 

[russ_watters]

Take the media completely out of the picture, and terrorism wouldn't work. If you blow up a building and only you and a handful of people know about it, who did you terrorize?

Like it or not, we're in a war. The press should be more responsible, not try for sensational, which is exactly what that interview was intended to be.

That's a catch-22 that the media is not equipped to deal with. The media only plays ball by accident: they were used by the military in both Gulf wars as a propaganda tool and they didn't even know it.

 

[JohnDubYa]

When the World Trade towers come down, the media obviously has to report it. But they do not have to allow a terrorist an opportunity to try and increase sympathy for his cause.

 

[the number 42]

But they do not have to allow a terrorist an opportunity to try and increase sympathy for his cause.

This sort of argument seems to overestimate the terrorists' powers of persuasion, and minimise the importance of letting the public's come to their own conclusions using their own common sense.

 

[Artman]

This sort of argument seems to overestimate the terrorists' powers of persuasion, and minimise the importance of letting the public's come to their own conclusions using their own common sense.

What conclusion did you hope to glean? What is news worthy about this terrorist? How do we even know he is who he said he was if his face was blurred? This is sensationalism, not news. The public doesn't need this kind of reporting.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The terrorist isn't trying to win an election. All he needs to do is convert a few nuts to his cause, and such interviews are one one way of acheiving this goal.

This is like saying I should be allowed to call for violent acts against the President. After all, the majority of the population won't follow my urging, so what's the harm?

That is the very reason why the terrorist agreed to the interview in the first place. They're not trying to educate the public about both sides of the issue.