Comments on: Comments on 11319

Post number 11319

Steven Den Beste — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:35:36 -0800

Mullah Omar speaks to the people of Afghanistan and Muslims around the world. But Voice of Shariat was destroyed in the bombing. So a tape of his speech was delivered to Voice of America and the BBC World Service, and they both broadcast it.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:36:12 -0800

(Yup, it's my third post of the day. Deal with it.)

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:39:42 -0800

Are we supposed to be upset that they broadcast it? Not being snarky, just curious.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:41:36 -0800

On the contrary. VOA and the BBC have credibility around the world because they do air opinions critical of their own governments. No, what's remarkable about this is that Omar asked. He actually expected his mortal enemies to broadcast his speech to his own people.

By: preguicoso

preguicoso — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:44:31 -0800

"America is using its most modern weapons, but we have the best weapon to defeat them, our Muslim faith," he said. I dunno about you all, but I wouldn't want to fight the U.S.'s modern weapons with "muslim faith"...

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:46:13 -0800

Then, perhaps the emphasis should have been on the fact that a tape of his speech was delivered, instead of the fact that they aired it. Pretty interesting stuff, though, thanks for the link.

By: Qambient

Qambient — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:46:32 -0800

He seems to think all muslems like the Taliban. Well with all the good work they did their, its hard to not like and agree with them. /sarcasm

By: owillis

owillis — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:46:38 -0800

On the other hand, Ari Fleischer is now dictating news content. Confirming my suspicions that he is both: a)scum b)lower than scum Very rarely is someone both those simultaneously.

By: holgate

holgate — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:48:34 -0800

Well, the words "media savvy" and "Taliban" don't really go together. Unlike Saddam Hussein, who's a master of spin-doctoring. I dunno about you all, but I wouldn't want to fight the U.S.'s modern weapons with "muslim faith"... Check back with the Red Army, perhaps?

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:48:48 -0800

Or are we supposed to applaud them? It would look bad if they censored the guy while attempting to be the objective press. Its interesting how little the US gets criticized for destroying media outlets, this and Yugoslavia's TV station.

By: monosyllabic

monosyllabic — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:49:38 -0800

I dunno about you all, but I wouldn't want to fight the U.S.'s modern weapons with "muslim faith"... Maybe they have some kind of awesome Muslim-faith-powered bomb.

By: tpoh.org

tpoh.org — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:54:49 -0800

As much as a free-speech advocate as I am, I honestly don't think that this recording should have been broadcast by the VOA/BBC, or at least not in their entirety. Your transmitters have been bombed into shrapnel? Oops, too bad for you. I thought that was the entire point of targeting their communications. Anyway, as was mentioned on NPR today (and as I've thought all along), these taped speeches could very well contain coded messages to terrorist operatives. We don't need to have our own government providing the means by which some zealot gets the cue that it's their turn to "die for Allah".

By: Dean King

Dean King — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:10:57 -0800

Absolutely right, tpoh. This isn't about censorship. This is about destroying the enemy's ability to communicate. Fleischer's a worm, no doubt, but I agree with him on this one. "At best, Osama bin Laden's messages are propaganda calling on people to kill Americans," intoned White House spokesman Ari Fleischer in the midst of an early afternoon briefing. "At worst, he could be issuing orders to his followers to initiate such attacks." Let's not provide a mouthpiece for the enemy. (And really, he's not actually dictating content: "[Rice] stressed that she is making a request and that editorial decisions can only be made by the media," Fleischer said.)

By: Mo Nickels

Mo Nickels — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:14:55 -0800

I'm a free speech purist, too, and I say more good than harm was done by broadcasting those speeches. Running the tape tends to emphasize separation of media from government (even if both services are state-sponsored) in favor of its targeted language-based audience, reinforces a willingness to present opposing points of view, and confirms a tendency towards appreciating something for its news value rather than for its propaganda value and thus enhancing the idea of objectivity. Further, the speech run allows a link of trust to be formed: other items may now be passed down this new conduit in both directions. Finally, from a more practical perspective: everything I wrote above could be wrong. Because, as the article says, he was slurring his words and speaking haltingly--in his native language, no less--they may have felt that would undermine trust in him. Alternately, if there was some doubt whether he was alive or not, confirming that he is still living may have the benefit of quelling future riots. If he was believed to be dead, there's no telling what kind of new, false rumor would appear accusing the West of killing him. That would be a rage-maker, wouldn't it?

By: Mossy

Mossy — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:26:46 -0800

they're also jamming any remaining transmitters and sending out US propoganda from somewhere in Cali on those frequencies.. This is an odd war indeed. That is all.

By: msacheson

msacheson — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:32:27 -0800

Mo, I appreciate and respect your opinions on this matter (BTW, why no updates to World New York recently?). And I do agree with some of the points you make about the possible good done by broadcasting his comments. I hope and trust that all of us on MeFi support free speech. I do agree with Dean King's take on this, however, and I support the request made by the Bush Admin. for the media to practice restraint with what it broadcasts. I think there may be harm done through passing along the views and comments (and, yes, possibly coded messages) of the extremists on the other side of the battle with the U.S./Rest of World. Yes, it might be tough to walk the thin line between security and freedom. That will be the challenge for all of us.

By: msacheson

msacheson — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:37:16 -0800

And Mo, if I may add, from Oakland, CA: Go Yankees!

By: fold_and_mutilate

fold_and_mutilate — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:42:30 -0800

Have Rice and Fleischer also considered getting the "thought police" from the Ministry of Truth involved in this as well. Thoughtcrime is insidious, as you know, and can well up among the proles at any damned time , even if we destroy the broadcast of any point of view except Big Brother Bush's. Also, maybe a nice "two minute hate" would help stifle all this pesky un-American dissent, and would go over well along with Friday's planned mass pledge of obedience... *cough* ...allegiance. Room 101, BBC and VOA.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:50:06 -0800

I dunno about you all, but I wouldn't want to fight the U.S.'s modern weapons with "muslim faith"... Check back with the Red Army, perhaps? Muslim faith didn't do the mujahideen much good until they had the U.S.'s modern weapons to back it up. Presumably this time around the CIA won't be supplying the Taliban with stinger missiles and whatnot. -Mars

By: geneablogy

geneablogy — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:09:46 -0800

they're also jamming any remaining transmitters and sending out US propoganda from somewhere in Cali on those frequencies. Actually, they're broadcasting from an airplane flying over Afghanistan. They're also airdropping wind-up single-frequency radios so that people can listen to them. Broadcasts from the VOA in California (and North Carolina, and Morocco, and the Northern Marianas Islands, and...) aren't connected with the psyops propaganda efforts.

By: msacheson

msacheson — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:23:11 -0800

Is there any way that I can listen to the VOA in Oakland, CA?

By: gazingus

gazingus — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:31:00 -0800

VOA webcasts

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:35:41 -0800

I dunno about you all, but I wouldn't want to fight the U.S.'s modern weapons with "muslim faith"... Check back with the Red Army, perhaps? I think the Gulf War proved pretty conclusively that equating American weapons with Soviet weapons is like equating a shotgun and a slingshot.

By: msacheson

msacheson — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:00:33 -0800

Thanks gazingus. Yes, I saw that at their site, but couldn't find a local over-the-air frequency to listen to them when not at a computer. That's what I'd like to find.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:33:30 -0800

Thanks gazingus. Yes, I saw that at their site, but couldn't find a local over-the-air frequency to listen to them when not at a computer. That's what I'd like to find. http://www.voa.gov/allsked.html You will, of course, need a shortwave radio for this.

By: ljromanoff

ljromanoff — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:34:12 -0800

http://www.voa.gov/allsked.html Working link. Sorry.

By: tpoh.org

tpoh.org — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:04:54 -0800

Here's a summary of Pashto programming.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:14:34 -0800

Presumably this time around the CIA won't be supplying the Taliban with stinger missiles and whatnot. One would certainly hope not. Then again, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.... Maybe the solution is to air the Taliban and bin Laden speeches, but to only broadcast them on tv, where we can make it appear that the voices are coming from a puppet named Bert.

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Wed, 10 Oct 2001 18:43:56 -0800

From the report, it sounds like this speech may have done him more harm than good, what with slurring and pauses; it sounds like he may not be all together. But that's beside the point. Because they broadcast this speech, it means that the Afghans will listen to the other things they broadcast. That's worth a lot.