Voice of America v. Al Jazeera

[William F. Owen]

Putting all three together it appears four Islamic Jihad fighters attacked Nahal Oz crossing with a view to capturing Israeli soldiers using light arms, in the process they killed two Israel civilians, who worked at the crossings fuel depot. Israeli returned fire with a tank killing two and causing the others to flee. Israel then used artillery and a missile from a helicopter to attack those it felt responsible. Much beyond that seems to be speculation and not even this much is certain.

Who put this together? My take, is that a Hamas sanctioned/approved via lack of action, terrorist operation, aimed at killing civilians, to close down the Nahal Oz fuel depot, resulted in 2 civilians dead, and the IDF then went after and got the others responsible.

Hamas are terrorists, in the same way the IRA were/are, or Timothy McVeigh, was, or the Klu Klux Klan is. The more they can increase the suffering of those in the Gaza, the better they can promote their perceived legitimacy.

[JJackson]

Who put this together? My take, is that a Hamas sanctioned/approved via lack of action, terrorist operation, aimed at killing civilians, to close down the Nahal Oz fuel depot, resulted in 2 civilians dead, and the IDF then went after and got the others responsible.

Hamas are terrorists, in the same way the IRA were/are, or Timothy McVeigh, was, or the Klu Klux Klan is. The more they can increase the suffering of those in the Gaza, the better they can promote their perceived legitimacy.

William in answer to your question: I put this together based on the accounts referenced. I am not sure how your take got Hamas sanctioning or approving anything as one article explicitly said they had no prior knowledge and two others quoted Hamas describing the action after the event as a "heroic and courageous" act. None of the accounts suggested it was anyone’s intention to close the fuel depot although Al Jazeera quoted the Israeli prime minister’s spokesman as saying "The fact that Hamas would deliberately target the major crossing point for the import of fuel into the Gaza Strip in order to kill people and close down the terminal is a clear indication that Hamas has no concern whatsoever for the people of Gaza" which is unsurprising given the source but at odds with other Israeli army comments and those of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
As to who are, and are not terrorist, you and I have been around this before and are not likely to change each others opinions but for me Hamas and the IRA have/had legitimate grievances with little opportunity to have them addressed by those with the power. The KKK were completely different in they had the power and abused it on those who were relatively helpless (more IDF than Hamas for my money) and McVeigh was just an unbalanced individual who probably needed psychiatric help.
Hamas' legitamacy is through the ballot box and by virtue of having a significant level of popular support.

[William F. Owen]

As to who are, and are not terrorist, you and I have been around this before and are not likely to change each others opinions but for me Hamas and the IRA have/had legitimate grievances with little opportunity to have them addressed by those with the power.

Not trying to change your opinion. I am merely presenting an opposing view point to prevent my people being unjustly slandered.

Hamas is anti-semitic organisation - thus unacceptable to me in any shape or form. They maybe elected, but Hitler died democratically elected. If the intent of the operation was to kidnap IDF soldiers, why attack Nahal Oz? if the real intent was kidnapping IDF soldiers, they would have found much easier targets else where.

The (Provsional) IRA were/are common criminals/drug dealers who were never the legitimate voice of the Catholics living in Ulster. - and also a tad anti-Semitic though I am sure you didn't know that.

[Steve Blair]

Ok, folks. Let's all take some deep breaths and possibly a step or two back. This is an interesting discussion, and I'd hate to see it get bogged down or sidetracked by personal attacks.

[George L. Singleton]

Ok, folks. Let's all take some deep breaths and possibly a step or two back. This is an interesting discussion, and I'd hate to see it get bogged down or sidetracked by personal attacks.

Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

Thanks for any feedback on this question.

[Ron Humphrey]

Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

Thanks for any feedback on this question.

This may be an example of why you don't see the amount of concern you might like in how quickly or effectively the VOA arm of government policy is being pushed out. It's not that it doesn't represent a very important part of overall foriegn policy but rather the fact that it is no longer the only game in town for such information dissemination.

The internet has brought forth as you point out an amazing capability of providing direct feedback worldwide within less time than it takes to write this post. This means that although there may not be a laptop in every house there is someone almost anywhere who does have access.

Consider this the opportunity to put forth reasoned and well supported discourse in relation to what VOA has to offer and let it make it's case through standing up against it's competitors. Al Gezeera and others are in their own way representative of the areas they are covering. They tend to hire those who come to them volunteering and as such there will inevitably be somewhat biased reports which come out. But they are at least competing with other media not trying to silence them. So all in all things could be worse.

Also consider that many publications both here and abroad have some of the same problems and thus we find stories coming out which end up being fraudulent and have to be retracted. Again ,could be worse. Finally regardless what happens VOA should be anywhere we can get it simply because it's sole purpose is to give voice to our policies and to help avoid mis characterizations by others. Let's be honest though in understanding that few are going to be listening if locally they are not being made aware of it. So real involvement with the population is required in order to build awareness.

Allowing the discussion to degrade into attacks on personal affiliations or pre-established ideas of entities takes away the ability of the the readers to actually compare the points for and against to test for validity.

For me I ask three main questions

1- Can it help
2- Might it hurt
3-is it possible to accomplish without active participation by the areas being considered.

If the first is true and the second not then as long as the third works let's do it. If there are more things behind the curtain that I don't see that can show it to do more harm than good than lay them out and lets discuss them.

[George L. Singleton]

This is a truncated quote from Ron Humphrey to save space.

Allowing the discussion to degrade into attacks on personal affiliations or pre-established ideas of entities takes away the ability of the the readers to actually compare the points for and against to test for validity.

For me I ask three main questions

1- Can it help
2- Might it hurt
3-is it possible to accomplish without active participation by the areas being considered.

If the first is true and the second not then as long as the third works let's do it. If there are more things behind the curtain that I don't see that can show it to do more harm than good than lay them out and lets discuss them.

Thanks for a very fair minded overview.

1. Voice of America helped us win the Cold War, and before that WW II.
Remember, not sure of your age, Edward R. Murrow who once headed the Voice of America?

2. The 9/11 BipartisanCommission dated July 2004 recommends that Voice of America, which comes under the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors, a bi-partisan grouping of distinguished Americans including whoever The Secretary of State is at the time) be expanded, funded better and have additional languages and more linguists [in today's most relevant languages, which now includes Pashto, Urdu and Punjabi, later two regarding Pakistan, first regarding both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Farsi of course as it relates primarily to Iran, but at a third level behind Pashto and Dari as relates to Afghanistan.]

see http://www.bbg.gov/bbg_aboutus.cfm

and note this short extract from the 9/11 made public July 2004 Report & Recommendations:

BEGIN QUOTE: Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney END 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT 7 RECOMMENDATIONS QUOTE

3. The long term ideological war clearly began on 9/11 by the Islamic terrorists, who have benefitted as already documented herein from the services of Al Jazeera. It is important to recognize that Al Jazeera is not a for profit outfit but is funded by a single shiek out of the UAE, who is a long term oligarch [he overthrew his father before him while Dad was on vacation in Europe].

Again, thank you for keeping a broadbased, more opinion writers who belong to SWJ hopefully will focus as both soldiers and citizens on the long term propaganda war that came upon us, we did not go looking for it.

I repeat that the record, in my view, has shown Al Jazeera to be the advocate of terrorism and extremism in the guise of an all news and public affairs system which is owned and funded by one UAE Shiek, it is neither a non-profit as we understand same nor is it a for profit affair.

Voice of America is mandated as follows, and is of course taxpayer funded:

VOA CHARTER

To protect the integrity of VOA programming and define the organization's mission, the VOA Charter was drafted in 1960 and later signed into law on July 12, 1976, by President Gerald Ford. It reads:

The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts:

1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies. (Public Law 94-350)

Thanks.

[Steve Blair]

Thanks for the guidance applicable to several of us, including me!

Question: Can someone tell me how this discussion [about Voice of America primarily, but discussions of Hamas are within it, too, somehow] is being posted on the open Internet?

Here is the open Internet updated posting I just found the second day in a row now? I guess the SWJ except for the "Members Only" section is open or public domain, but it is curious to me how fast these VOA headlined discussin are making it onto the open Internet, outside of the SWJ.

Any ideas who is posting us, which includes the full formatted SWJ page and such?

Thanks for any feedback on this question.

This isn't very hard to do, especially on any sort of non-AKO/CAC web network (which uses additional external levels of member authentication). On message boards there are any number of "lurkers"...folks who register and then read the posts without necessarily commenting. Think of them as browsers at the local newsstand. They're getting information they are interested in or need, but don't always feel qualified or able to contribute (or can't in some cases). It may be a lurker (or lurkers) who are reposting information elsewhere, or it could be a contributing (as in posting) member. Hard to say.

There are some boards that have additional member forums that add a second level of authentication (in other words a sub-forum with a separate password/login) for close hold information (or sensitive or focused topics). These usually have a specific moderator assigned to screen membership requests (or are joined by invitation only), so lurkers aren't possible. Such sub-forums require a fair amount of work, and even then they can be hacked by someone with enough skill, time and/or interest to do so.