3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Banerjee - Desk Jockey Propaganda vs. The Hard Brutal Reality

Reader comment on item: Islamist Turkey vs. Secular Iran?
in response to reader comment: A response to Michael C Zala

Submitted by Michel C. Zala (Switzerland), Dec 29, 2010 at 12:01

>>>>as a messenger and a messenger should not be considered "a criminal".>>>>

Great Analogy: we too in our culture have a saying :" don't shoot the messenger". The propblem with this analogy however is, that this "messenger" has a choice. By choosing to publish illegally obtained information in utter negligence of any consequences, implicitly accepting potential harm to innocent life, Assange, as opposed to the innocent messenger sent to the enemy with a message and subsequently killed, due to the offense delivered by his authorities, must therefore logically accept the consequences imposed upon him.

I will however concede the point, that sometimes there is indeed a moral obligation to reveal (whistleblow) circumstances and information to prevent or stop injustice or even a crime. Watergate was a great example of such journalism.

When that thin line however gets crossed, such as with the publication of death lists of terror targets, it must no longer be interpreted as exercising the Freedom of Speech or the Freedom of the Press, but criminal negligence at least, if not outright aiding and abetting terrorism. In the US we know yet another constitutional right: The right of the defendent to face his/her accuser(s). In other words, everyone has the civil right to a defense. The publication of the gunship video without any comment was damning and inflammatory, accused the US military of terrible actions without any chance for an explanation or a defense. 1 Minute before, they could have been shot at from exactly these people, who then seemingly acted so innocently. This video was a violation of the civil rights of the soldiers, as they did not get a chance to defend their actions. Not only that, by publishing this video, any (islamic) audience will now be logically prejudiced with the foreseeable outcome, that fanatics will justify their future atrocious acts against innocent civilians with precisely this video. What about the rights of these victims? Did Assange consider the possibility, that innocent people may die, because he stirred up hateful emotions?

The reasonable and responsible journalist must ask himself at all times, if in such a case his material will do damage or will help someone. In this case, it helped only one man and his organization to stay in the news, get publicitiy and thus get funds. It is about money, good man...nothing else.

>>>Now if you consider yourself a resonable,decent enough human being (which from your post I belive you do) what would be your response ? Obviously you would take up arms to avenge those who have done such great harms to you.>>

Only some decades ago, the militaries would during a war carpet bomb entire cities to destroy the enemy. In the history of warfare only the Americans have used their (superior) technology to avoid wide collateral damage. The Russians just a few years ago bombed Groszny, the capital of the Tschetschens into the stone age. No drones, laserguided missiles and special forces on the ground guiding manually ammo to a precise target in order to avoid hitting civilian buildings. The actual war in Iraq was won with less than 50000 casualties, while Saddams Army was considered as one of he top 20 forces in the world. Instead of appreciating this result of western warfare which is subject to civilian oversight and conducted according to a code of honor, as opposed to most any other armies in the world (eg CHI, RU), where until recently even internationally outlawed chemical weapons were indiscrininately used by Saddam for instance, The Americans are condemned for comparably rare occasions, where a civilian building is hit.

Mr. Banerjee, wake up! War is ugly, nasty and accompanied by death, which is, why it must be avoided at all cost. But.... and here is the point.... when war erupts, it is only the Americans who wage it with civilians in mind. Neither Saddam, nor Putin or the Chinese or any islamist army ever gave a crap about how many civilians they kill, as long as they hit the actual target.

What you also fail to understand is the simple fact that it was Al Kaeda and the Taliban declaring war on America and not the other way around. In this asymmetric warfare they follow no code of honor or try to avoid civilian casualties. So, please stop with your whining about drone attacks. Your people declared war upon us and blow up women, children and old people on a regular basis. Look just what they did in Mumbai. Buhuu, you bigot deplore the innocent wedding party killed, at best case an accident, while the actual targets in Mumbai were civilians. Your holy warriors did not even try to attack a military target.

Do you see the hippocricy in your post? It is a double standard you apply. You justify and defend Djihaadists who kill indiscriminately worldwide, while you arrogantly condemn the Americans for killing civilians, when they in fact kill such accidentally after using technology to avoid collateral damage. They might as well just use cheaper area bombs and annihilate entire villages and towns, as the result (PR and military) would be the same.

>>>then why the rest of the World can not celebrate someone like Julian Assange who at least have shown the courage to fight the imperialism in our age and time. >>>

Aha.....now you at least admit that WL is anti-American and pursues the corresponding ideology. They themselves vehemently deny this and describe themselves as "unbiased and objective".

As far, as the notion of imperialism goes, please read up on this topic. As opposed to CHI, RU, Iraq to name just your favorites, America has never occupied territory to build an empire. We have come, liberated and then left. If you consider the free markets and economies, the democratic, prospering societies we established and supported ( Germany, France, South Korea, Japan) as Imperialism,, you may think about changing your reading glasses. Name one single country owing its freedom to China or Russia. Ask the people of China, the Tibetans, Iran, Iraq under Saddam, the women under Taliban rule or the oppressed minorities within the Russian empire about freedom or liberties or quality of life. Ask them about imperialism. 99% of these people would prefer to live in a free American style democracy, which is also the foundation for a beginning prosperity in your own country, India, is it not?

The fact that Americans are currently bleeding in Afghanistan, because they want to prevent Radical Islamism to swapp over to your country, hurdeling it back into the middle ages, thus protecting your freedom, Mr. Banerjee, to freely post stupidities on the internet, is likely too complex for you to grasp. Once a Taliban like regime would take over in India, you, Mr. Banerjee, would no longer be able to exercise your Freedom of Speech. Do you get that, or have you become victim of the self serving propaganda of the true imperialists of the world already?

But here you are right: Assange is indeed the enemy of America and should be treated as such. By proxy however, Assange is therefore also the enemy of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and civil rights and liberties. By perverting the values, principles and the intent of all these Freedoms for self-serving motives, he becomes the enemy from within.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Banerjee - Desk Jockey Propaganda vs. The Hard Brutal Reality by Michel C. Zala

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)