Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. Jun 25, 2004 #1
    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?
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 25, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
  4. Jun 26, 2004 #3
    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.
  5. Jun 26, 2004 #4
    Can you see no value in learning how the enemy thinks wasteofo2?
  6. Jun 26, 2004 #5
    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 knowlege is sometimes better than one death.
  7. Jun 26, 2004 #6
    What the hell is there to learn. They want to kill, cage or convert all those who are not moslems.
  8. Jun 26, 2004 #7
    "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
  9. Jun 26, 2004 #8
    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 alot of confusion.
  10. Jun 26, 2004 #9
    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 definately 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.
  11. Jun 26, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
  12. Jun 28, 2004 #11


    User Avatar

    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.

    Perhaps you shouldn't have missed the various interviews, then, if that is the degree of sophisticated knowledge you hold.
  13. Jun 28, 2004 #12
    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.
  14. Jun 28, 2004 #13
    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.
  15. Jun 28, 2004 #14
    The (Other) Foot...

    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.”
  16. Jun 28, 2004 #15
    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.
  17. Jun 28, 2004 #16
    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.

    Again, they teach us nothing that we don't already know.
  18. Jun 29, 2004 #17
    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."
  19. Jun 29, 2004 #18
    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...
  20. Jun 29, 2004 #19
    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...
  21. Jun 29, 2004 #20
    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!
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook