'The Canadians try to kill everybody'

[dglad]

A free press is important, and this guy's story was used to editorialize on the front page. It's a very bad call on the part of the G & M. No one here is thinks that the Taliban should portrayed in a positive light, they should be portrayed in a neutral light. All of their atrocities should be listed, as well as their...well they haven't really done anything positive  ;D I agree that there IS a line that journalists can cross, and this simply isn't it. You can object to this interview all you like, but when someone says "the media is the real enemy" they are merely exhibitng the knee jerk reaction that the media loves to pounce on. As for this being a wartime situation, it IS wartime for the troops on the ground. However, the very survival of Canada is not dependent on securing Afghanistan. (I am SO going to get flamed for that :) There are a lot of other pressing issues that deserve our attention. This is not to say I am against the Afghanistan mission, I am just being realistic. I don't think we should be muzzling the press because we have 2300 soldiers in harm's way. If its a matter of OPSEC, then definitely. But disallowing reporters to interview the Taliban is going too far.  I hate to say it Probum , but you are right when you point out that many Canadians seem to more concerned with mundane domestic issues while our soldiers are in harm's way thousands of km away, and thats just the way it is. The average Canadian is not sold on this war unfortunately, and to expect them to accept censorship in the name of it is expecting too much.

Where is this coming from?  Censorship?  By definition, censorship can only be imposed by the state, through application of legislation.  One could also self-censor, and I suppose that censorship can be imposed by violence or threat of violence.  Who is advocating any of these things?


 

??? Wait a second, now that you mention it Teddy, I guess killing people for flying kites really IS bad when seen through the prism of Nazism. I didn't realize that before. ;D  It's always amusing when someone brings up the old "nazi argument". Why not use the old "British Empire argument" didn't they put Boers in concentration camps? Or how about the Turkish argument, didn't they kill a lot of Armenians? Or better yet, those damn Romans used to kill Christians all the time! As for the Nazi comparison. No. There isn't a comparison at all, other than the fact that both groups ideologically off the charts. And I wouldn't have problem with G & M interviewing Nazi officials either.I would hazard a guess that just because they are printed in a Canadian newspaper, Himmler and his views on Jews and Russians etc would not be taken to heart by Canadians. Unless you believe everything you read.

Yes, yes, whatever.  For someone who decries "the old nazi argument", you were very quick to use the word "facism".

Actually, your complete lack of information in your profile, combined with rather ill-stated remarks that appear designed to be inflammatory rather than informative or to advocate discussion, suggest to me that you are that most pernicious of Internet ills--a mere troll.  If you wish to change that impression, then perhaps you should complete your profile to indicate who and what you are.

 

[Kilo_302]

I don't see how a complete profile would help you understand my arguments. They should be quite clear. In fact my only aim was to advocate discussion, not inflame. I was responding to earlier blanket statements made by others. For this I will not apologize. As for the question "where is this coming from?"  I believe the nature of this thread would lead us to deal with censorship at some point. This is ridiculous. I agree with most of viewpoints in this thread. I am very supportive of the mission in Afghanistan, and the CF in general. I am merely trying to be a bit more balanced than some on this website. By using the term "facist tinged comments" , I meant to imply that this is how the media will see such arguments (and I don't think they could be blamed for it). And please, I think we can admit here, that of all institutions in Canada, the military is traditionally the most right wing (not that there's anything wrong with that  ) and the media is probably the most left wing, so statements to the effect that journalists are traitors doesn't help the debate much. THATS ALL.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

But there is journalistic integrity, and then there is disloyalty.  When Graeme published those comments without any qualifying context, he is in collusion with the enemy.  At best, he is a gullible idiot, at worst a complicit collaborator.  And regardless of what he said the next day, he wrote words, proofed them, handed them to an editor, they were re-read and published.  To the potential detriment of public attitude towards the CF.  It is not sufficient to say "people know better".  People know what they read. 
If people knew better, they would not have voted Lieberal for 25 odd years.

(and I agree with the others, fill out your profile.  PROFILE=CREDIBILITY)

 

[cplcaldwell]

I argued a while ago that gathering news can be a messy business. That sometimes reporters get part of the story but because it is so "hot" they have to publish what they have and develop the story  as time passes.

Sometimes that part of the story offends people like us because we know a lot more about it. Nonetheless, any such exercise is still a journalist doing his/her job, so long as the development and follow up is done.

I still hold that thesis. (Even though I got a good sound bollocking for saying it then)

Having said that I see no application of that thesis to this instance. This story was poorly told, not in context and handled very badly editorially (okay, I'll be frank it was captioned and placed in such a manner as to pander).

I think the editorial handling of this story is the real issue here.. very poorly done

As for the CF being right wing, pish off , I believe in EI, Regional Equalization, rights for Gays, subsidized education and high immigration levels....  .... that I would fight for them does not constitute "right wing".

I also believe in a robust foreign policy, standing by allies and a capable defence force that stands for Canada... being for them does not constitute "right wing".


Unsolicited Free Advice:
Choose your words, K_302, I understand, but respectfully disagree, there's lotsa folks that'll come on board you right quick here. Good luck, thanks for commin out.

 

[dglad]

I don't see how a complete profile would help you understand my arguments. They should be quite clear. In fact my only aim was to advocate discussion, not inflame. I was responding to earlier blanket statements made by others. For this I will not apologize. As for the question "where is this coming from?"  I believe the nature of this thread would lead us to deal with censorship at some point. This is ridiculous. I agree with most of viewpoints in this thread. I am very supportive of the mission in Afghanistan, and the CF in general. I am merely trying to be a bit more balanced than some on this website. By using the term "facist tinged comments" , I meant to imply that this is how the media will see such arguments (and I don't think they could be blamed for it). And please, I think we can admit here, that of all institutions in Canada, the military is traditionally the most right wing (not that there's anything wrong with that  ) and the media is probably the most left wing, so statements to the effect that journalists are traitors doesn't help the debate much. THATS ALL.

Your not making any arguments.  A true argument consists of a thesis, and then a series of fact-based propositions intended to demonstrate the truth of that thesis.  So:

I believe the nature of this thread would lead us to deal with censorship at some point.

That isn't an argument.  It's an unfounded assertion of something that might occur, based solely on opinion.

I meant to imply that this is how the media will see such arguments

This isn't an argument.  This is reducing the "media" to a monolithic block and then offering an unfounded opinion as to how "they", as a collective, will view "arguments" (and, frankly, very little on here is "argument".  It's MOSTLY opinion)  Christine Blatchford has already demonstrated, in writing, that she agrees with these opinions.  Therefore, she doesn't "see" them the way you suggest; ergo, neither does the media, as a "collective".

And please, I think we can admit here, that of all institutions in Canada, the military is traditionally the most right wing (not that there's anything wrong with that  ) and the media is probably the most left wing, so statements to the effect that journalists are traitors doesn't help the debate much.

Again, opinion.  While I would accept that, institutionally, the military has a tendency towards the sort of conservatism often considered "right wing", it's individual members are all over the political map.  The media is far more diverse, even institutionally; the various media components span the entire political spectrum.  And as for calling them "traitors"...once more, where did that come from?  Who made that claim?  Go to each page of this thread, starting with the first, and do a search on the word "traitor".  See where it first appears in this thread.  And you're not trying to inflame?

Again, if you wish to dispell the idea that you are simply here to provoke, truthfully fill in your profile and let everyone know who you are, where you come from and what you do.  The way in which this will help readers "understand your arguments" is that it will eliminate the idea that you are trying to hide behind a veil of anonymity--a definite red-flag in a forum where most participants are generally quite up front about their identities.

 

[cplcaldwell]

Again, if you wish to dispell the idea that you are simply here to provoke, truthfully fill in your profile and let everyone know who you are, where you come from and what you do.  The way in which this will help readers "understand your arguments" is that it will eliminate the idea that you are trying to hide behind a veil of anonymity--a definite red-flag in a forum where most participants are generally quite up front about their identities.

dglad is right, it would take me twenty minutes to find him in the 'system', but he maintains that level of anonymity required to speak freely here.

It would take dglad about three minutes to find me, but he respects my level of anonymity.

Publish some profile info. Add to your credibility or PM a moderator with your 'bona fides'.

 

[Trinity]

Publish some profile info. Add to your credibility or PM a moderator with your 'bona fides'.

Why...  I don't like the guy. I don't like his arguments and no profile just
means to me he's pretty useless.

Even if he filled his profile in I'm not going to buy his argument.
It's not against the site to NOT fill in your profile.

We need to respect the fact he doesn't want to identify himself for whatever
those reasons are.  It could be that he's afraid to get in trouble where he
works.  Maybe he's a spineless troll.  We don't have to respect his argument
(if there was one)

The site has his IP and email address.  That's all the site requires so
why are we jumping down his neck.  He knows that filling it out would
help us and he doesn't want to.  Take from that what you will.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24937.0.html

Public Profiles

I strongly encourage you to fill out all the sections of your public profile that you're comfortable with. We respect your privacy and won't force you to fill out your profile if you don't want to. Bear in mind though, that the amount of identifyable info in your profile will increase your general credibility here. Those with empty profiles are much harder to verify and will have to put a lot more effort into building a credible presence here.
 

 

[cplcaldwell]

Two excellent points in less than a month...

You're slipping... ;D

Okay, point taken.

 

[GO!!!]

Yes the Taliban has done terrible and evil things. Does that make every tribesman who has taken up arms, possibly against Canadians, evil? No.

Right. They're just misunderstood - is that why we kill them by the score?

An informed Canadian public is essential in ensuring our government doesn't make bad policy. On the otherhand, a lot of Canadian journalists HAVE played up the whole "combat" thing, knowing Canadians are woefully ignorant of military affairs.

Really? Most of the combat video clips are from an american reporter - Mme. Blatchford notwithstanding, most reporters place the disclaimer "the military claims..." as a prefix on all mentions of serious ground combat. 2000 Taliban killed - why is that not national news?

But blanket statements tinged with facism towards the press doesn't help the situation either.  "The media is the enemy"?! Come on.   I think the Pentagon has shown us with embedding that the media can be a very valuable tool! And I use the word "tool" here with some irony. ;D The Canadian media loves depicting the military, and those who support it as press-hating, book burning anti-intellectuals. So please, let calmer heads prevail.

What would you refer to call those who (as a group) claim that all of the CFs assertations are suspicious, dine with our enemies, spread his propaganda (for free) and whose very presence necessitates silence or strict rules for even speaking to them?

 

[Kilo_302]

meh i give up

 

[armyvern]

meh i give up

Please give up the MSN speak....and pick up the capitalization. 

 

[George Wallace]

MSN speak and lack of capitalization, does help in identifying who we are carrying on a discussion with.  Usually those are signs of one who is not knowledgeable in the subject and not professional in their occupation.  It goes a long way into identifying the person as a member of one group in general, and not a member of another group in particular.

 

[geo]

(aka trolls)

 

[Kilo_302]

Wait a second. Because I used "msn speak" that means I am not knowledgable in the subject and not professional in my occupation? I was pretty sure that no one knew what my occupation is.  I understand you guys want proper grammar etc, but this is taking it too far. If you have a problem with my views, go after them.  I would say about half the posts on this site feature grammar of a level that is frankly embarrassing. That is why its a WEBSITE not an academic journal.

 

[aesop081]

That is why its a WEBSITE not an academic journal.

Feel free to leave if you dont like it......

 

[paracowboy]

Feel free to leave if you dont like it......

meh. At the rate he's going, his absence will be forthcoming in the near future, anyway.

I've looked over his posts, and while his Leftist-leaning slant is irritating, it can be simply explained away by mental lethargy, chemical imbalance, or some other genetic defect. What is not, is his constant posting in direct opposition to those who are knowledgeable on the subject at hand. A habit he seems to have developed early.

Right now, we have someone who refuses to fill out a profile. That, in itself, is a red flag that the posts of the individual are worthy of ignoring, and very little else. Military members (in the main) fill out their profile, as they are proud of their contribution to society. Posters who don't, generally have no military experience. So, we have a civilian arguing military matters with military members. That very seldom ends well.

So, enough on him and his profile or lack of same. Let's deal with the subject matter of the thread itself.

 

[George Wallace]

Wait a second. Because I used "msn speak" that means I am not knowledgable in the subject and not professional in my occupation? I was pretty sure that no one knew what my occupation is.  I understand you guys want proper grammar etc, but this is taking it too far. If you have a problem with my views, go after them.  I would say about half the posts on this site feature grammar of a level that is frankly embarrassing. That is why its a WEBSITE not an academic journal.

Let's put it this way; because of your "MSN Speak" and lack of professionalism in some of your discourse, then you are showing yourself not to be a member of a professional group.  As you want to remain anonymous, we can grant you that request, but we also can deduce from your posts that you are not someone in a certain profession.  We are saying that in your anonymity you are still identifying yourself as someone.  We will consider you to be a member of that 'group', and not a member of our 'group' or in other words, an 'outsider'.

As for this being a website and not an academic journal; you are correct it is a website that tries to maintain a professional posture in its discussion.  We are not a Gamer's Forum.  We are not a Chat Site.  We are a site where 'professional' military minded folk can come to discuss military related subjects 'professionally'.  We would prefer to maintain a 'professional look' to the site.  People are reminded of this from time to time.  Grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure have been hot topics here.  You can simply SEARCH any of those words and come up with several discussions on those matters.  We, however, can not turn this into an "English 101" or "English for Dummies" site or we would loose what the owner originally set the site up to be.....Army.ca.

The military is a profession, and as such, it's members must learn to communicate in a professional manner.  It differentiates us from the mindless hordes that the "Left" likes to paint us as and the Professionals that we are required to be.  Any Soldier, Sailor, or Airman, who wishes to advance, must learn to master communication skills and that includes good writing habits.

 

[Kilo_302]

meh.

MSN speak?! 

I've looked over his posts, and while his Leftist-leaning slant is irritating, it can be simply explained away by mental lethargy, chemical imbalance, or some other genetic defect. What is not, is his constant posting in direct opposition to those who are knowledgeable on the subject at hand. A habit he seems to have developed early.

I think personal attacks here are unwarranted. Furthermore, this thread is dealing with a journalist who interviewed members of the Taliban and the ethics of such an interview. I would think this is beyond strictly military matters. And yes, I am not in the military. As far as strictly military subjects go, I will, and I think have, only participated in areas where I can make somewhat of an informed contribution. If I havent, I apologize. However, I do not think you need to be in the military to have an opinion on international deployments, or geopolitical strategy in general.

 

[Munxcub]

... Furthermore, this thread is dealing with a journalist who interviewed members of the Taliban and the ethics of such an interview. I would think this is beyond strictly military matters. ...

I think it is more about the irresponsible reporting of said interview, not necessarily the interview itself.

 

[Edward Campbell]

At the risk of repeating myself:

1. I think the Taliban scored.  They threw out the audacious and totally unfounded statement that Canadians are worse than Americans because they (we/ you fellows) are indiscriminate killers of innocent villagers, etc.  The remark got published, with neither context nor challenge.  It will, without doubt, aid the large and growing anti-war/anti-CF wing (it’s well beyond being a fringe, much less a lunatic fringe ).

2. The reporter and the Globe and Mail became unwitting agents of the Taliban (because they are ignorant, careless or both).  Instead of reporting on the enemy – a legitimate and useful thing to do, in my opinion, they allowed themselves to be conduits for enemy propaganda.  They (Smith and the Good Grey Globe) then became part of a larger story: Information Warfare in Afghanistan.  To that extent Smith and the Globe both failed, in so far as I understand journalistic mores and ethics.