For 175 years the sect has counted among its strange proscriptions ... an absolute ban on worldly politics.
For 175 years the sect has counted among its strange proscriptions ... an absolute ban on worldly politics.
Propaganda. Sometimes it done not be good. And everyone thinks so. Mostly.Friday, June 02, 2006
Rwanda radio broadcaster sentenced to six years for inciting genocide
Joshua Pantesco at 1:54 PM ET
[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] on Friday sentenced Joseph Serugendo [case materials] to six years in prison [press release] for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity under a plea agreement where the ICTR dropped the more serious charges of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity to commit genocide in exchange for Serugendo's guilty plea. Serugendo is the former technical director of a Rwandan radio station that promoted the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive], and admitted to the ICTR that he provided technical assistance and moral support to broadcast anti-Tutsi messages over the airwaves.
The tribunal considered Serugendo's terminal illness and his cooperation with the tribunal in the decision to limit his sentence to only six years in prison. Serugendo was arrested in September 2005 and initially pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges.
For more, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654389.htm.
Also UN News Centre has additional coverage.
Propaganda. Sometimes it done not be good. And everyone thinks so. Mostly.Friday, June 02, 2006
Rwanda radio broadcaster sentenced to six years for inciting genocide
Joshua Pantesco at 1:54 PM ET
[JURIST] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] on Friday sentenced Joseph Serugendo [case materials] to six years in prison [press release] for direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity under a plea agreement where the ICTR dropped the more serious charges of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity to commit genocide in exchange for Serugendo's guilty plea. Serugendo is the former technical director of a Rwandan radio station that promoted the 1994 Rwandan genocide [HRW backgrounder; JURIST news archive], and admitted to the ICTR that he provided technical assistance and moral support to broadcast anti-Tutsi messages over the airwaves.
The tribunal considered Serugendo's terminal illness and his cooperation with the tribunal in the decision to limit his sentence to only six years in prison. Serugendo was arrested in September 2005 and initially pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to the charges.
For more, http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654389.htm.
Also UN News Centre has additional coverage.
I find it interesting how many of those who label contemporary evolutionary theory as 'neoDarwinism' have no background in science. Indeed, as soon as someone uses the term I am immediately on alert to identify whether they are in the religious camp or the political one.
Back in my days as an undergraduate biology student (I majored in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology) I attended a lecture on the philosophy of science over the other side fo the campus in philosophy. I was curious, and hoping to date one of the class. The lecturer didn't get halfway before we were in a stand-up shouting match (he began the shouting).
As a third-year biology major, I was well aware of the models of science used by scientists. This guy mentioned the prevailing models in science in passing ... and launched into some esoteric stuff about power and hegemony. Then it was on ...
Scientists are under no illusions about the power of the dominant ideas in science. The whole point of peer review and so forth is to find a balance between accepted ideas and challenges. But science is an *empirical* process, not merely a bunch of guys arguing over a few beers (though we do that too).
Sociologists, and other social scientists, seem to have significant difficulties really understanding what science is - they are under some illusion that if they don't understand it, no one else does either ...
As to the methods used by the various factions arrayed against contemporary science, they all read form the same book of propaganda techniques. The past hundred years or so have seen huge developments in the art and science of propaganda - driven largely by advertising (the oft overlooked 'benign' 'version'). Anyone can hire a PR/Marketing/Ad Monkey, or read a book, or take a course. The principles are pretty consistent.
No one has a monopoly on self-reification. And presuming that "if I don't get it, no one else does either" (and it's opposite) is a common psychological game that makes people feel better. Otherwise, simplistic, irrational ideologies would be far less common than they are.
I find it interesting how many of those who label contemporary evolutionary theory as 'neoDarwinism' have no background in science. Indeed, as soon as someone uses the term I am immediately on alert to identify whether they are in the religious camp or the political one.
Back in my days as an undergraduate biology student (I majored in molecular biology, genetics, and microbiology) I attended a lecture on the philosophy of science over the other side fo the campus in philosophy. I was curious, and hoping to date one of the class. The lecturer didn't get halfway before we were in a stand-up shouting match (he began the shouting).
As a third-year biology major, I was well aware of the models of science used by scientists. This guy mentioned the prevailing models in science in passing ... and launched into some esoteric stuff about power and hegemony. Then it was on ...
Scientists are under no illusions about the power of the dominant ideas in science. The whole point of peer review and so forth is to find a balance between accepted ideas and challenges. But science is an *empirical* process, not merely a bunch of guys arguing over a few beers (though we do that too).
Sociologists, and other social scientists, seem to have significant difficulties really understanding what science is - they are under some illusion that if they don't understand it, no one else does either ...
As to the methods used by the various factions arrayed against contemporary science, they all read form the same book of propaganda techniques. The past hundred years or so have seen huge developments in the art and science of propaganda - driven largely by advertising (the oft overlooked 'benign' 'version'). Anyone can hire a PR/Marketing/Ad Monkey, or read a book, or take a course. The principles are pretty consistent.
No one has a monopoly on self-reification. And presuming that "if I don't get it, no one else does either" (and it's opposite) is a common psychological game that makes people feel better. Otherwise, simplistic, irrational ideologies would be far less common than they are.
Humanism and Terror
(What Are You Going to Do With That?)
MARK DANNER[The following is based on the commencement address given to the graduating students of the Department of English of the University of California at Berkeley in the Hearst Greek Theatre, May 15, 2005.]
( Read more... )
Humanism and Terror
(What Are You Going to Do With That?)
MARK DANNER[The following is based on the commencement address given to the graduating students of the Department of English of the University of California at Berkeley in the Hearst Greek Theatre, May 15, 2005.]
( Read more... )
The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.
This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.
"Thinking outside the chamber", road to surfdom, March 09, 2006
It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.
The terms 'brainwashing' and 'deprogramming' and 're-education' get bandied about in this discussion. Language such as 'turned him around' is used.MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.
The idea that terrorists might be people after all, is beginning to seep in ... from Indonesia. Rehabilitation of terrorists is being considered as a real possibility.
This idea put forward by Police Commissioner Mick Keelty on telly last night, that the Australian government is considering a system of rehabilitating terrorists, is quite extraordinary.
"Thinking outside the chamber", road to surfdom, March 09, 2006
It is extraordinary because until now the kill, kill, kill approach has been adhered to so steadfastly by our political leaders.
The terms 'brainwashing' and 'deprogramming' and 're-education' get bandied about in this discussion. Language such as 'turned him around' is used.MICK KEELTY: Well, it would require a policy change here and, to put it into some perspective here, if you take, for example, the problem of drugs, for many years people have thought, well, can we force people into treatment to get them to overcome their problem? Even in the jail system, can we impose a treatment regime on people and it's a policy question that really hasn't been addressed here and really certainly hasn't been imposed. There's nowhere in Australia where drug addicts, if you like, are forced into treatment to overcome their problem. So, essentially, it would be a threshold question in terms of policy as to whether we would engage in something that forces people into some sort of deprogramming or deradicalisation.
US losing web war, says Rumsfeld
Daniel Trotta in New York
FEBRUARY 20, 2006
wtfomgbbq!THE US lags al Qaida in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
Modernisation is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Mr Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included email, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and blogs.
"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ? our country has not adapted," Mr Rumsfeld said.
"For the most part, the US government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Mr Rumsfeld said.
Mr Rumsfeld said US military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions.
The military's information offices still operate mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges they faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."
Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy immediately criticised Mr Rumsfeld as missing the point.
"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Senator Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased al Qaida recruitment and made America less safe than the war in Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."
Mr Rumsfeld said that vast media attention about US abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "Saddam Hussein's mass graves".
On the emergence of satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilised this forum for many years - we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."
US losing web war, says Rumsfeld
Daniel Trotta in New York
FEBRUARY 20, 2006
wtfomgbbq!THE US lags al Qaida in getting out information in the digital media age and must update its old-fashioned methods, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
Modernisation is crucial to winning the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide who are bombarded with negative images of the West, Mr Rumsfeld told the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included email, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and blogs.
"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ? our country has not adapted," Mr Rumsfeld said.
"For the most part, the US government still functions as a 'five and dime' store in an eBay world," Mr Rumsfeld said.
Mr Rumsfeld said US military public affairs officers must learn to anticipate news and respond faster, and good public affairs officers should be rewarded with promotions.
The military's information offices still operate mostly eight hours a day, five or six days a week while the challenges they faces occur 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr Rumsfeld called that a "dangerous deficiency."
Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy immediately criticised Mr Rumsfeld as missing the point.
"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Senator Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased al Qaida recruitment and made America less safe than the war in Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."
Mr Rumsfeld said that vast media attention about US abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq outweighed that given to the discovery of "Saddam Hussein's mass graves".
On the emergence of satellite television and other media not under Arab state control, he said, "While al Qaeda and extremist movements have utilised this forum for many years - we in the government have barely even begun to compete in reaching their audiences."
seems everyone has an opinion on incitement these days. particularly in support of laws prohibiting it.
but just what is incitement? who gets to decide? and what is to be done about it that doesn't simply entrench the opinions it represents?
what happens if it is a government that is incitining? can a government incite?
seems everyone has an opinion on incitement these days. particularly in support of laws prohibiting it.
but just what is incitement? who gets to decide? and what is to be done about it that doesn't simply entrench the opinions it represents?
what happens if it is a government that is incitining? can a government incite?
