You are very confused. Read things in context. In terms of ANA and ANP combat casualties the war is not winding down. As a separate measure for civilians looking at the past 46 months and comparing the first 24 months to the most recent 24 months the war is winding down despite a ten percent increase in civilians killed comparing 2013 to 2012.
Are you confused that ANA and ANP are security forces and not civilians?
You are wrong. That is not accurate. I explained why I posted Bill Roggios mention of Taliban hitting soft targets and it is not to explain what happened in 2013. It was to correct you on your silly accusation that I made a possible explanation for 2013 up out of whole cloth. You were wrong. I used to read Roggios blog and I wanted to give credit where credit is due.
When did the biggest downturn in civilian casualties begin if you compare year to year? Yes that would be 2012. So the year with the highest number of casualties is 2011. Now you tell me if total civilian deaths in 2013 is higher than 2011. If you cannot you are wrong.
Here’s a fun approach: what would that article look like if it was propaganda?
Wow. You really are dragging in a quote from 2006 to justify your fabricated explanation of what happened in 2013. Look, believe whatever you want to believe. Just don’t expect any of us to be fooled by the same nonsense.
That is all I have to say on this subject.
That is fine since everything you have said is wrong, incorrect or some aberration from the subject that contributes nothing to it. When you are proven to be wrong you leave. Nothing at all new here.
What’s more important is that I have shown Human Action that the Holiday Story is not propaganda since the writer did not offer any argument for one side or the other about the little degree of understanding in Afghanistan about societies infuenced by Christian religion. Therefore the story is not propaganda by any definition however watered down of what propaganda means that Human Action wishes to employ.
That’s not necessary. Claiming that the event “strengthens friendships of two different cultures”, with no comment from any representatives of one of the cultures, is making an argument intended to change minds, without presenting more than one side of it. Hence, propaganda.
For the third time, feel free to provide a different definition of propaganda.
So you are withdrawing one piece of your foundation from your claim that the story is propaganda by the broad definition you are clinging to.
You have not made a case that the author is presenting it as an argument that the ’ ‘event strengthens friendships of two cultures’ that were represented in that room. No writer, to avoid accusations that they are propagandists, must anticipate what every reader of his or her work wants to argue about in it. And that includes the ridiculous off the wall notion that some may want to argue the the friends gathered in that room will have their friendships decreased by having a dinner to celebrate the Christmas holiday at a military outpost of a twelve year war zone.
Seeking to argue that holiday event would decrease friendships acquired on the field of battle is so absurd that it would not even enter the writers’ mind.
So no comments were not left out to push one side of an argument. And no it was not presented as an argument. Therefore your definition of propaganda is not met.
How do you measure increase or decrease of friendship in scientific terms? To argue such a silly point that this event might decrease their friendships is pointless anyway. The writer used language to inspire and uplift. If you want to call it propaganda keep it up. However You’ve shown nothing that makes that story fit the definition of propaganda you. cited to try and make it fit. There is no one sided argument presented in the story. Finding some Afghans who say they will decrease their friendships because of the Holiday event will not be measurable against some who say theirs will increase,
No, reference to the broader picture of Afghanistan is a nice-to-have, it’s not essential. Covering more than one side of the event itself is essential.
Fourth attempt: if you hate this broad definition so much, what definition would you prefer? Saying that is one is broad, or watered down, or whatever is completely meaningless in a vacuum, without reference to a different definition.
I did, actually. I can do it again, because it’s pretty easy:
Unless you intend to accuse the writer of lying, of course.
Again, I was a business major, but it seems to me that if someone is writing a story about an event bringing to cultures together as friend, one should verify that by actually, y’know, speaking to both sides. If it didn’t enter into the writer’s mind to do that, and he just assumed everyone there agreed with his preconceived ideas, then he’s a bad journalist.
I get that you take this story as gospel, because it’s what you want to hear, but for the rest of us, it is not absurd to think Afghanis wouldn’t be thrilled about going to a) a Christian event with b) American soldiers, given the aforementioned status of Christianity in Afghanistan, and the friction between between the ANA and American troops, and the stark contrast in how Afghans view the American and Afghan troops.
A poll, I guess, but I said nothing about science. If you were writing an article about Americans and Aghans coming together for a party and grooving on each others’ culture, wouldn’t it be automatic to interview people on both sides? “Lt. Bob American says this is a symbol of friendship and cooperation. Maj. Muhammed Afghan says his troops welcome their American partners.” Seems like a lay-up to me, and it’d have some journalistic integrity. Maybe this writer was lazy, maybe he didn’t like the responses he got from the Afghans. Who can know? All I can do is evaluate the article as written, not speculate endlessly as to the writer’s state of mind as you do.
Hey, you’re getting it!
I don’t know what else I can do. I gave you the definition, I pointed out how the article met that definition. I asked you for a different definition; you didn’t give one. I asked you what would have to be changed to make the article into propaganda; you didn’t say. If you’re going to handwave everything, what else can I do?
That’s no excuse for consulting zero Afghans, as the same is true of every news story ever.
You gave me a definition and I have shown you that your intent to turn uplifting words into a propagandistic presentation of a one-sided argument is neither arguable in and of itself or verifiable. And that is unless truth about the increase or decrease of the friendships in that room could could be truthfully extracted somehow from each participant with some measurable means to validate it all to your satisfaction.
You are calling for all that nonsense to happen in order to call that report propaganda no matter how many definitions of propaganda there are in existence.
The problem is not the definition it is the nonsense.
Going back to see where Mace labeled the story propaganda. His link has nothing to do with an argument about an increase in friendships. It is about rejection of Christianity in Afghanistan culture.
Propaganda is a derogatory term as Mace used it because of the link to the broader situation in that room.
Human Action has not found an intent in that report to present a one sided argument against the conditions that are referred to in John Mace’s link.
How about this: ask the people in the room? Exotic, I know, and unprecedented in the field of journalism, but it’s so crazy it just might work.
So, you couldn’t find a definition that doesn’t cover this article, eh?
He’s stuck thinking propaganda = bad. You’ll never get him to admit that’s wrong, even with something like this, from wikipedia:
For instance, pretty much every speech any politician ever gives could be called propaganda. Politicians are rarely interested in presenting anything other than their own point of view. And there’s nothing wrong with that, as long as you aren’t fooled into believe it to be a piece of objective reporting. Most of us aren’t fooled by such things, but some still are.
Neither Mace nor H.Action have shown the Military Officer’s reporting to show one side of an argument (propaganda) intended to influence anyone exposed to this report to believe that Afghans in general are antagonistic toward Christians. Mace accused the military officer of trying to do just that when Mace posted a link to incidents of Afghan ill will toward Christians.
Mace then further went on that the report involved a form of propaganda known as let’s pretend this is not happening. Here it is;
“Let’s not pretend that this is a country where Christians can openly practice their faith unless they are under the protection of the US or NATO military.”
There is not one presentation of one side of an argument in the Holiday event report that can be construed by some reader that Afghans in general accept and are friendly towards Christians. Mace made a derogatory slur against a US military officer accusing him of doing just that.
So H.Action came along to bail Mace out by trying to sell a silly notion that there are readers of the report who would feel the need to argue that a Holiday party decreases friendships of those that attend instead of increases them. And that the writer failed to anticipate that such silly argumentative people might stumble across the report and call it propaganda. Nice!!! propaganda!!!
Mace originally used propaganda in its nasty connotation sense and is now trying to run from it with H.Action trying to cover his back.
Correction to my previous post:
(Neither Mace nor H.Action have shown the Military Officer’s reporting to show one side of an argument (propaganda) intended to influence anyone exposed to this report to believe that Afghans in general are NOT antagonistic toward Christians. Mace accused the military officer of trying to do just that when Mace posted a link to incidents of Afghan ill will toward Christians.)
I am addressing the definition you have chosen. No need to find another one.
I’m not his tag-team partner, for crying out loud. He just happened to be correct that that article was propaganda.
Again, it’s fine if you personally believe that it’s impossible that the holiday party could have a negative effect, or no effect, on mutual friendship and understanding between the Afghan and American soliders. That’s a position of faith, however, and it has no place in objective reporting. And that’s the distinction drawn by using the word “propaganda” - not that the material is untrue, or malicious, but that it’s not objective.
Lastly, it’s bordering on offensive to so blithely assume that Afghan soldiers have the exact same attitudes toward an event that Americans do, as though the Afghans don’t have their own culture, values, material circumstances, and point of view.
ETA:
Then can you please stop complaining about the definition, if you can’t be bothered to find one that suits you better?
Nope. Once again, that’s something you made up.
Do you deny that you accused the writer of the report of wanting us to pretend something bad towards Christians in Afghanistan does not exist?
““Let’s not pretend that this is a country where Christians can openly practice their faith unless they are under the protection of the US or NATO military.””
These threads would be about 90% shorter if we could just eliminate the stuff that you make up. Won’t someone think of the electrons?