Mainstream News Media vs. America

It's become increasingly clear in recent weeks that a second front has opened in the War on Terror. Now, not only is the United States battling Islamic terrorism and its state supporters, it's facing another enemy. That enemy is the mainstream news media that is aided by its allies among so-called international human rights organizations, the anti-American left, and detractors within our own military, government and intelligence services who are leaking as much dirt as they can muster. The mainstream news media is doing all it can to defeat the United States abroad.

The mainstream news media for the most part has long had it out for President Bush as well as being transparently opposed to the war in Iraq. But beginning with the Abu Ghraib story, it started focusing almost solely on the U.S. military. The obsession with Abu Ghraib began a narrative in which U.S. soldiers were always the bad guys and the terrorists they fought just innocent victims of American "oppression" or even "imperialism."

This was familiar territory for the news media that led the charge against U.S. soldiers in Vietnam and, along with the anti-war movement, managed to stain Vietnam veterans' honor for generations. ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran even admitted to the news media's Vietnam Syndrome during a radio interview last month. While the news media held off for a bit after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, it didn't take long for them to return to form. And today we find ourselves back in "babykiller" territory, only this time it's all about the poor, abused terrorists in prison at Guantanamo Bay.

It was there that the mainstream news media's latest campaign against the U.S. military has centered. It all began with a Newsweek story (tipped off by an unnamed government official) of alleged "Koran abuse" at the hands of guards at Gitmo. An allegation was made that guards had flushed a Koran down the toilet in front of a prisoner, something that defies the laws of physics, if not common sense. But it was soon disclosed that the story was false. Still, fellow members of the media continued to make excuses for the Newsweek gaffe and began pushing a shameful "fake yet accurate" narrative that persists to this day.

It wasn't enough that the bogus Newsweek story helped spark riots across the Muslim world leading to 16 deaths and over 100 wounded, or that it gave the terrorists a major victory in the propaganda war, or that it was eventually retracted. America's new enemy just couldn't let the "prisoner abuse" story go. So they pressed on with their offensive.

A week later Newsweek and other media outlets again insisted that "Koran abuse" had occurred at Guantanamo Bay, this time according to leaked FBI e-mails. This retread of the original story was based mostly on the claims of terrorist inmates, making it almost as reliable as the original falsehood. Apparently, none of the reporters involved bothered to read the al-Qaeda manual, which instructs terrorists to claim torture or desecration of the Koran no matter what. Either unable or unwilling to comprehend the strategies employed by America's enemies, the mainstream media is now openly doing the bidding of Islamic terrorists.

The next attack came from Amnesty International that used the news media to compare U.S. treatment of prisoners at Gitmo to the Soviet Union's gulag system, which killed tens of millions of people. Amnesty's report called Gitmo "the gulag of our time." They must have missed the concentration camps in North Korea where people are being gassed to death as in Auschwitz. Or the slaughter of black Christians by Muslims in Sudan, or the hundreds of dissidents rotting in Cuban prisons. Then there's the ongoing destruction of Zimbabwe at the hands of the mad dictator Mugabe. But according to Amnesty International, the United States is worse than all of them.

One argument is that the United States should confer Geneva Conventions rights on the prisoners at Gitmo. But this would be folly at its worst. These terrorists claim no nationality nor do they wear the uniform of any military. They are only loyal to the jihadist cause. In fact, their tactics involve manipulating the West's adherence to the Geneva Conventions. So while our Army tries to tiptoe around the sites protected by the Conventions - mosques, hospitals and schools - the terrorists have no such scruples.

They routinely hole up in mosques and have no compunction about blowing them up either. They use ambulances as moving bomb receptacles and hospitals to house ammunition. They store suicide bomber's vests in schools and take school children hostage. They attack civilian targets as a rule and engage in torture, beheadings and the mutilation of hostages. And, according to the defenders of terrorism, the West should handle this savagery with kid gloves.

When it comes to allegations of torture, the media and its allies just can't seem to make up their minds. The media flips out at any hint of physical torture, but when the military utilizes psychological methods to unsettle prisoners, it turns out they're against that too. Claims that guards at Gitmo used female interrogators to get information out of terrorists and thereby capitalize on Muslim hang-ups about sex were met with shock by the media. This sudden prudery was ridiculously overwrought. Isn't knowing your enemy and using his weaknesses against him what psychological warfare is all about.

The terrorists certainly know how to capitalize on the naivete of the mainstream news media, as well. All one has to do is to read passages of the Koran to see that adherents are instructed to use any means necessary to deceive the "disbelievers" or non-Muslims. The practice even has a name - it's known as "al-Takeyya." Chilling tales have been told by former Muslims about the cold-blooded lies told to "infidels" in the name of spreading Islam. Whether it be Palestinian terrorists battling Israel or al-Qaeda terrorists attacking the United States, all use deception to defeat their enemies.

None of this information is hidden from the public. In fact, it's available all over the Internet and particularly at the website for the Middle East Media Research Institute. Memri.org is the place to find translated and archived print and television media from the Muslim world. One would think that the erstwhile reporters of the mainstream news media would have access to all this information. To continue claiming ignorance while the terrorists themselves brag about lying on a routine basis demonstrates either a willful blindness or an outright hostility towards one's own country. I'm betting it's the latter.

In the end, it turns out that many of the alleged incidents at Gitmo involving "Koran abuse" were actually non-events, such as a Koran being accidentally knocked on the floor or, worst of all, touched by a non-Muslim (horrors!). In one case, a detainee himself ripped up pages of a Koran and stuffed them in the toilet, presumably to stir up the other inmates. Of course, what's lost among all the hoopla is the fact that the inmates only have Korans because the U.S. military furnished them with them. But none of this matters to anti-American Muslims who continue to protest "desecration" even as we speak.

Even if the trumped up "Koran in the toilet" story was true, would that really constitute torture? And if we're talking about the desecration of holy books, how did the mainstream media manage to overlook Saudi Arabia, where bibles are shredded on a routine basis?

Incidentally, they don't allow Judaism or Christianity to be practiced in that country either. Coming from the staunch secularists in the news media who shriek in horror at any expression of Christianity in America, this sudden concern for religious symbols seems just a tad hypocritical.

The media wouldn't be able to put forward these stories without their informants. What about members of the military who keep leaking supposedly classified information to the media? What about government officials who mysteriously disclose America's secrets to the media and by extension, its enemies? The fact that U.S. intelligence services seem to be in on the assault is not reassuring. These all constitute treasonous activities and every effort should be made to track down and punish the perpetrators.

Even when the leak is done with good intentions, as in the photos of Saddam in his skivvies, the end result is the same. Since America seems to have so little control over such information, it does not bode well for success in the War on Terror. We face a nihilistic enemy that seeks to use weapons of mass destruction against us and we can ill afford such leniency.

No one is suggesting censorship, but how about some wartime security standards? Remember the WWII phrase "Loose lips sink ships"? It seems impossibly quaint by today's standards, but there's no doubt that such precautions helped America and the allies win the war against fascism. Just imagine what this war would be like if we had the news media on our side. Short of that, providing aid and comfort to the enemy should at least be considered unacceptable. The news media may be eager to embrace dhimmitude, being second class citizens to Muslims, but the rest of us don't have to facilitate such a surrender.

No longer can the War on Terrorism simply involve soldiers fighting on the battlefield or for the liberation of millions of Muslims from a tyrannical dictator.

If we don't start paying attention to the enemy within, it could very well take us all down.

"Wowsers; another direct hit!"

HA!!
A mere *pea* against the hull of a "Missouri class" battleship, my friend.
No more, and no less.

"How long can the MSM continue to take on water?"

As long as the mega multinational corporate advertiser dollars flood-in to keep their bugger(s) afloat, I suspect.
~eh? ;^)

Of course "we" could always get *rid* of all that baloney, clean *everything* up, and get "patriotism" back where it belongs simply by getting rid of capitalism, but, "we" sure wouldn't wanna see that happen now, would we. ( /sarc + ;^) = :o) )

~snip~

"I've given some thought to what it would take to tear down the Ministry of Truth...I've come to believe it's a chicken and egg thing. Who gets the pink slips first, management or employees?"

My friend.
Wasn't it the Dutch who invented a parable for illustrating the folly of what you've suggested, above?
Finger, dike, Dutch-boy & all that? :^)

"I would submit that neither alone would get the job done because the internal battles would pretty much lead to a status quo. That is, it would take a complete house cleaning to exorcise the cancer. Then again, the patient may be terminal...There is no enemy, foreign or domestic, that is more of a danger to our culture and way of life than the old media."

Make time to sit yourself down and watch [a rented copy] of midget-mega-mouth Spike Lee's epic, Malcolm X, OK?

Wait for the scene an imprisoned, drug withdrawing Malcolm Little is approached {HINT: takes place in the prison latrine} by a NOI member who proceeds to give young Malcolm a little *advise*/*insight*.
Specifically informing Malcolm of precisely what he's [been] fighting, and, what Malcolm must do to fight back against the forces.
Forces a FOI is adamant are responsible for & behind his -- & all other oppressed minorities -- predicament.

Using the *hindsight* of my years, FGS, it seems to me if we were to all have the *kind* of "equality" -- visa vi Liberal-Socialist style -- we were destined to one day live in circa 2005?
Then this must've meant a herculean effort had to be made whereby the entire nation would become *equally* "oppressed", and, if my assessment's correct?
Then there's some damned good *advise* in [that] scene out of Malcolm X we could all use, today.
If for no other reason than to *help* us identify exactly *who* the enemy is?
Something I'd think quite crucial if we're to *fight* back; lest, we continue shooting peas against hulls?

I dare you, watch it.
Make my day. {g}

Then we'll talk.

...of dictionaries, dynasties and dictators. ;^)

>As long as the mega multinational corporate advertiser dollars flood-in to keep their bugger(s) afloat, I suspect. ~eh?
"Just a thought, but transnatinal or even sansnational might be a more appropriate moniker for these global giants, hmmm?"

Call 'em what you like, my friend.
All I know is "Americans" are no longer "in charge" of corporations doing business in the United States of America for the most part, any longer.
And we can see the result of that lack of control.
*Why* in the world would said corporations do *anything* "patriotic"?
It's a silly unrealistic expectation, don'tcha think?

OK let's take the Australian Rupert Murdoch for example.
Not including his publishing empire, his American broadcast television interests run the whole spectrum from "news" (with the FNC), to "sports" (with MLB/NBA/NFL/NAZZZCAR) to "entertainment" (with FoxTV & FX) and it was recently reported he dominates *all*??
Wow.

Notice what's happening at his nets?
Murdoch "plays to the room" with the FNC and one needs their head examined if they believe FNC is "conservative".
Yet America's political right is so desperate for representation they've elevated FNC *&* its owner to near demigod status?
Think that's an accident, or, the behavior of and result of being corralled?

Given what's happening at Murdoch's FX & FoxTV et al, the filth, smut and Lord knows what else the man's responsible for being broadcast on America's airwaves he's personally "covered" because of his FNC.
Nuts, just nuts.

Murdoch has single handedly pushed the proverbial "envelope" further than the other 3 sewer-nets, combined.
And he's succeeded in 9 out of 10 instances, too.

And why not?
Ever seen what televison looks like in Australia, England or Europe in general?
If not just watch Murdoch's nets & you'll get a reasonable taste.
And if at some point you realize you've *not* been watching anything reminiscent of "America", it's because it ain't American.
What you/we see is what Murdoch & Co *think* is American be it good, bad or indifferent.
But whatever it is he gets away with impunity, unscathed and making scads of loot.

Sex has always sold inasfar as "entertainment" goes, so Murdoch didn't do anything "creative" or "innovative" by employing the most guttural bottom-of-the-barrel programming content at his entertainment nets.
Hardly.
What Murdoch is, *is* courageous -- if not full to overflowing with a degree of chutzpah never before witnessed in our lifetime -- for *trying* because apparently he took the 1st Amandment, literally.
Because prior to his coming the other 3 nitwit-nets wouldn't have dared airing the kind of smut he does, out of an abject & well placed fear of sponsor backlash, eh?

But what happens when sponsors -- like P&G, Ford et al -- are no longer majority American owned/operated "American" interests, but rather "global"?

What of the corps who were traditionally America owned & operated but are now, unbeknownst to a huge majority of Americans, no longer bound by our customs & mores?
Furthemore what of those corps *&* their BoDs who hold The United States of American, for whatever reason(s), in contempt?
Think they'd object to all manner of shit being smeared around the country of our birth via our airwaves?
Or, are they *responsible* for it?

The kind of change which has so many "old school" Americans so angry and upset only happened after the traditional American MSM became [quite] emboldened, and that happened after they'd witnessed the success Murdoch had peddling shit *and* the total absence of consequence.
Only then did ABCNBCCBS rush hell-bent for the lowest possible denominator to be the content of their programming, too.

Mr.C?
Why do you suppose foreign entities are prohibited from owning broadcast mediums -- of any type -- in other nations like say Japan, to name just one?
What do leaders of other countries know that ours don't?

Has anyone who's advocating coporate America take the lead in "cleaning things up" thought much about what the three Murdoch interests are actually doing in an effort at understanding how the shell game's now being played?
Methinks not; hence, the angst.

>Finger, dike, Dutch-boy & all that?
"These days that sorta language takes on a whole new perspective...don't it?"

HA!!
I was deliberately gender specific, my friend.
Your close & prolonged exposure to MSM rays has, I'm afraid, taken a toll. {g}

>Forces a FOI is adamant are responsible for & behind his -- & all other oppressed minorities -- predicament.
"Sounds provocative."

It is.
OBTW you *did* notice *who* recently -- or soon to be -- "qualifies" as a "minority" in The United States of America?
The demographics my friend, they are-a-changin'.

The world you & I knew as youngsters was a "culture" Mr.C...and today it may be said it's a dead culture.
I do not say that to be provocative or controversial, hardly.
Just stating a fact.

The United States of America will continue [on] for many, many years to come; however, it will not be an America you & I recognize because that America's been destroyed.

Can one rely of the constitution today?
A constitution which has become increasingly irrelevant and/or meaningless with every passing day?
I don't *think* so.

How about the ballot box?
Vote on/for anything going against the grain of some *ideal* devised by *someone/body* and within a short period of time the election & will of the people's negated, annnnnd done so by a *single* member of our judiciary, to boot.
In fact that bullshit's become quite routine, huh.

Minimal standards for "decency" for our media?
That too has gone out the window because what's considered "decent" in the United States is not the same as [in] another part of the globe.
As they say, "possession is nineteenths of the law," eh?
Ask Rupert if I lost ya on that one, OK? :o)

Malcolm X was handed a dictionary and told -- matter of factly -- he was to read the book from the very first word on the very first page to the very last word of the very last page.
When he was finished, thoroughly knew *&* understood the meaning of every word contained within that dictionary?
He was to then use every one of those words against "the man" [read: white man].

While today it isn't the "white man" who's necessarily the target of such rage any longer, that rage is directed toward a specific *ideology*; but, it does serve nicely as a metaphor, don't you think? :o)
In any event methinks someone's used the words I learned growing up, against me, just the same.

"In the meantime, I'll check in with my brother on the subject. He's seen the movie and I believe he said it was worth a look. Trouble is, I can sit at this computer for 5 - 6 hours at a whack easier than I can sit and watch a 2 hour movie. Go figger."

That is precisely why I told you "Sit yourself down".

>Something I'd think quite crucial if we're to *fight* back; lest, we continue shooting peas against hulls?
"Well, you know me, the eternal optimist."

And may God richly Bless you for that optimism, my friend.
But I caution you against seeing exactly what you want to see, at the same time.
That'd be the first sign of a fool, and a fool you're not.

"'Course having been "in the woods" for some years now, has given me a little different outlook generally."

Now that I occupy this mountain top parcel tucked away here in Wisconsin's Kettle Moriane, I can *relate*. ;^)

"Different kind of people. Good people for the most part that too often take what their "leaders" say as the gospel."

Good people all, and soon to be victims.
Yet these *new* victims will never enjoy the luxury of "victim status" either, for by the time they've officially recognized their situation the definition will have changed.
Their angry reaction(s) will be labeled "extremist", "Militant", or whatever else marginalizes 'em.

"BUT, I wouldn't want to be on the other side when/if they discover they are being had. Slow to anger but tough as nails they are."

Their numbers won't be nearly large enough to constitute an "army" I'm afraid. and it's only an "army" who commands respect in a place where things have become so screwed-up and convoluted.
Whether or not "they" *agree* with that which they discover is their immediate fate they'll nonetheless be expected to do as they're told, or else.
Those will be the rules.

"And anyhow, that pea could hit a bad rivet near a weak bulkhead you know"

HA!!
Optimists.

What I wouldn't give right about now.

...for a good slingshot. ;^)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.