Behind Taliban Lines

[Jack]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/talibanlines/

Open discussion, but please, no conspiracy theories. This isn't about the war, but rather about reporting different aspects of it. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_i ... ontroversy

[[KMA]Avenger]

lol, i take it that snipe about conspiracy's is aimed at me?!

no problem

[Jack]

lol, i take it that snipe about conspiracy's is aimed at me?!

no problem

Not you, just people in general. I don't mind a good, intelligent discussion on conspiracies(something you can't really find here thanks to closed minded fools and trolls), but not now.

[Hitchkok]

what's the question?
and is it regarding the war in afghnistan or the one in Iraq? or is it a general one regarding war as a concept?

[Jack]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/talibanlines/

Open discussion, but please, no conspiracy theories. This isn't about the war, but rather about reporting different aspects of it. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_i ... ontroversy

[Hitchkok]

what's the question?
and is it regarding the war in afghnistan or the one in Iraq? or is it a general one regarding war as a concept?

[Jack]

what's the question?

It's made obvious by the topic(or atleast I thought it was obvious): what are your thoughts on reporting both sides of the war?

and is it regarding the war in afghnistan or the one in Iraq? or is it a general one regarding war as a concept?

I'm not really sure why your opinion on reporting both sides of a war would change pending on the war, but the topic is about the "war on terror" though it can apply to any war, so it's general.

[Sir Balor]

people should report how it really is, i wholeheartedly support the six days in fallujah developers and other things, like the hurt locker movie.

if things arent reported truthfully you end up with things like the 'ZOMG AMERICA ARE THEIR FOR TEH OIL' crap that the idiots eat up. or worse the 'ISREAL ARE THE BEST EVAR AND NEVER DID A THING WRONG, AND NEVER WILL'.

[Hitchkok]

let's try and make a point through the example.
is "six days in fallujah" an accurate account of what the six marines experienced? according to the developers (and for the sake of argument) - yes.
does that make it true to reality? to an extent.
would a game made by the same methods, but with six Iraqi insurgents as the main characters be an accurate account? yes.
would a game made by the same methods, but with six Iraqi civilioans as the main characters be an accurate account? yes.
would that make them true to reality? just as much as the existing game.
and here's the punch:
would any of these game be even remotely similar to one another?
well, despite depicting the same events, the answer to that would be "No".

now, actually the example is a brilliant one. because this game (if it's all it's cracked up to be) takes reporting to it's extreme.
my point is that: balanced reporting is non existent. a reporter these days is a story teller. he tells a story, all to often a story he written in advance, and coats everything with a fine veneer of "balance" and "replies from mentioned parties". now, war doesn't have two sides. it has miriads of facetes. there are the political leaders of each sides, then the generals, who doesn't neccesarilly agree with their missions, and lower level commanders, and the privates themselves, and their families back home, and civilians who don't know any soldiers, but are affected none the less by the need to fund the war, or by soldiers breaking into their houses and conducting searches, and the unborn baby that will never meet his dad, and the father that will return to his home to find a rocket hit it and killed his family, and the political leader that truly wants peace, and has a nobel to show for it, but is dragged into a major offensive, and the person who lost all but his honor, or pride, and will use them as his last weapon, and so on and so on and so on.
so many stories, all of them related to each other in the thin web we call humanity, all affecting each other. how can a reporter ever hope to give a balanced account?
and one for the road: should he?

[Jack]

The thing with the game, is that the developers didn't only interview allied soldiers, they also interviewed insurgents.

[Hitchkok]

true, but the protagonists are marines none the less.

[KnowLedge]

so what is going to happen?

british tried to invade afganistan.. failed
russia tried and failed
america/nato will try and fail again?

i dont see what the nato is trying to do anymore.. as soon as they leave after making it a better country.. the evil people will be back in command of the country

[Lord Yojimbo]

so what is going to happen?

british tried to invade afganistan.. failed
russia tried and failed
america/nato will try and fail again?

i dont see what the nato is trying to do anymore.. as soon as they leave after making it a better country.. the evil people will be back in command of the country

Good point but where the British and Soviets just used brute force with no knowledge of counter acting a gurellia type war - the US/NATO have at least somewhat countered that so this will at least improve the chance of a victory in the long run but as it has being said and will say again - If you dont win the people over you have no hope - at least the US/NATO are trying to which is another move in the right direction.

Lets face it tho: the afgan people are one of the most war hardened people in the world - countless powers have used them as pawns and thus supplied them in covert ways with arms and cash to fight the invading forces but this time their resources are less even though there is still outside influence being wielded from iran and others that comiserate witht he talibans cause....this is probably the best and last chance to win the war and bring some sort of stability to this war torn region

Still where afganistan has become a war zone - yemen has replaced it as a terrorist hub - its exactly how terrorism works these days. Cut the head off the organisation and another replaces it - and since all cells operate independently - this trend will continue to work - only thing that can counter is to turn the people against them thus slowing down recruitment - also to stop the propoganda that portrays the west as a imperial system of domination (true the west has its flaws but we all do vote our governments in and have the power to topple them if we protest).

the only major fault of the west is the fact that it is needed to be realised that the western govermental style needs to be adjusted for adaptation in this situation to include the beliefs of a nation since islam is a major corner stone of most nations in the middle east and central asia.(acceptable to all forms of islam - whether it is sunni or sheite plus personally I prefer a secular government anywday but it could be considered as an alternative which could be more palatable to the afgans in the shorter term)


The whole point is the war will likely succeed if US/NATO persevere but it will then come down to the system of governence and with maybe religious components intregrated into such a system - the system will be more acceptable and interactive with the general populace - but there is a fine line with such a system which can be seen with iran and saudi arabia (even if it is a monarchy) to a lesser extent.

As for reporting: propoganda will always feature in any side of this war - western government are excellent in exploiting the media but still we do see some great and true media coverage of the war while the otehr side has its own tactics - state control of media organisations but not really in this case - the talibans main propoganda is through the internet and through fear in its actions.

Propoganda and thus news is always played not for anyone else but the home audience. Goverments need it to instill support or to put peoples concerns at bay and to instill the powerful suggestion of "support the war - support the troops" no matter what (although G.W.Bush went to the extreme and used it to ratchet up fear in the US in order to drive up support) while terrorists use it to great effect to instill fear against its enemies.

The Propoganda War => Its all about the point of view.

[Jack]

@Lord Yojimbo: I'm watching Burn Notice and your post is too long to read in the middle of it, so I'll come back and read it then address it where necessary when I get a chance.

true, but the protagonists are marines none the less.

That's true, but it does not necessarily mean that they are not still going to tell the other side as well. There are two examples I can think of off the top of my head where the devs did similar. In Halo 2, you played both the protagonist and the antagonist. In Ace Combat 4, you played the hero while the story was told from the viewpoint of a boy whom was stuck behind enemy lines after the enemy invaded in occupied his town. At first, the enemy was demonized by the boy. But then later as the boy got to know the antagonist better, the boy began to admire him. You see, the point of telling it from their side was to humanize your opponents, it showed that not only were they human like you and I, but that they were good, honorable people that deserved respect.

Of course, this wasn't a one sided story praising the enemy and demonizing the protagonist. It was just that you "lived" through the story for the "good guys" while the story of the "bad guys" was told to you through a man(the aforementioned boy all grown up) writing a letter about his experiences during the war.

Ace Combats Zero and 6 also told the story from all sides of the fight.

[Lord Yojimbo]

@Lord Yojimbo: I'm watching Burn Notice and your post is too long to read in the middle of it, so I'll come back and read it then address it where necessary when I get a chance.

true, but the protagonists are marines none the less.

That's true, but it does not necessarily mean that they are not still going to tell the other side as well. There are two examples I can think of off the top of my head where the devs did similar. In Halo 2, you played both the protagonist and the antagonist. In Ace Combat 4, you played the hero while the story was told from the viewpoint of a boy whom was stuck behind enemy lines after the enemy invaded in occupied his town. At first, the enemy was demonized by the boy. But then later as the boy got to know the antagonist better, the boy began to admire him. You see, the point of telling it from their side was to humanize your opponents, it showed that not only were they human like you and I, but that they were good, honorable people that deserved respect.

Of course, this wasn't a one sided story praising the enemy and demonizing the protagonist. It was just that you "lived" through the story for the "good guys" while the story of the "bad guys" was told to you through a man(the aforementioned boy all grown up) writing a letter about his experiences during the war.

Ace Combats Zero and 6 also told the story from all sides of the fight.

Ah what can I say - Ive alot to say (whether its right of wrong - its only a opinion and a perspective after all) when it comes to the politics and wars of this world -