Comments on: Call The Ft. Hood Carnage For What It Was – Terrorism; Not Something Else, For Political Correctness http://donstorch.com/2009/11/07/call-the-ft-hood-carnage-for-what-it-was-terrorism-not-something-else-for-political-correctness/ Columns/Opinion/Satire Sun, 20 May 2012 14:43:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Don Storch http://donstorch.com/2009/11/07/call-the-ft-hood-carnage-for-what-it-was-terrorism-not-something-else-for-political-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-3906 Don Storch Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:21:17 +0000 http://donstorch.com/?p=7286#comment-3906 Interesting how you defend the New York Times use of nefarious sources, yet portray mine as fiction. There has been more proven fiction in the Times than on this website. It is also interesting how you begin the debate on the basis of a source of a comment, disbelieve it, and then move on to the substance of the column. Where were you on the first round? There seems to be a pattern to this dialog, perhaps to the left of Rham Emanuel? Interesting how you defend the New York Times use of nefarious sources, yet portray mine as fiction. There has been more proven fiction in the Times than on this website. It is also interesting how you begin the debate on the basis of a source of a comment, disbelieve it, and then move on to the substance of the column. Where were you on the first round? There seems to be a pattern to this dialog, perhaps to the left of Rham Emanuel?

]]> By: norman http://donstorch.com/2009/11/07/call-the-ft-hood-carnage-for-what-it-was-terrorism-not-something-else-for-political-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-3905 norman Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:56:19 +0000 http://donstorch.com/?p=7286#comment-3905 Is radical Islam one of the most serious threats to our nation as well as to other nations? Absolutely. Must we be constantly vigilant to this threat? Yes. Is this type of enemy that operates outside of national boundaries and integrates itself into the civilian and now military population the most difficult to combat? Certainly. Considering the above our intelligence agencies have performed superbly in tracking and aborting more threats than is known to the public. The dedication of skilled men and women in the intelligence services combined with the most advanced technology have kept us safe and continue to do so. I think we can agree on these facts. Concerning the NY Times article that you refer to you omitted an important fact for the anonymity of individuals. That fact being that the matter is currently under investigation. There is no difficulty in identifying individuals. These are legal precautions. As far as other information in the article is concerned it is sufficient to say that "sources within the FBI", or "officials said" because they are presenting information they possessed and reviewed. Individual names are completely irrelevant and serve no purpose in identifying. Now to your statement: "Among the intelligence community it is believed that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist." Then you say that the comment comes from multiple sources and is a composite of multiple beliefs not necessarily from one agency and that your sources requested anonymity. Since there are a number of agencies involved and we can assume many individuals I have to say that it strains credulity. Either your writing under a pseudonym and your really Bob Woodward or you should be writing fiction. I would be curious to know in what capacity you interviewed or discussed intelligence information,over the years, with agency personnel. But of course this must be highly classified information and you can't divulge it. But now to what concerns me most. Your statement reflects one of the most basest of acts that have plagued humanity over the ages. That is condemning an entire population over their religious beliefs. The most horrendous and inhumane deeds that individuals have done to each other over the ages and still continue to do so, have that common thread. In defending ourselves we have to be strong and understand the violent nature of our enemy and combat it completely until they are defeated. But we can't become them or we lose. Is radical Islam one of the most serious threats to our nation as well as to other nations? Absolutely. Must we be constantly vigilant to this threat? Yes. Is this type of enemy that operates outside of national boundaries and integrates itself into the civilian and now military population the most difficult to combat? Certainly. Considering the above our intelligence agencies have performed superbly in tracking and aborting more threats than is known to the public. The dedication of skilled men and women in the intelligence services combined with the most advanced technology have kept us safe and continue to do so. I think we can agree on these facts.
Concerning the NY Times article that you refer to you omitted an important fact for the anonymity of individuals. That fact being that the matter is currently under investigation. There is no difficulty in identifying individuals. These are legal precautions. As far as other information in the article is concerned it is sufficient to say that “sources within the FBI”, or “officials said” because they are presenting information they possessed and reviewed. Individual names are completely irrelevant and serve no purpose in identifying.
Now to your statement: “Among the intelligence community it is believed that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist.” Then you say that the comment comes from multiple sources and is a composite of multiple beliefs not necessarily from one agency and that your sources requested anonymity. Since there are a number of agencies involved and we can assume many individuals I have to say that it strains credulity. Either your writing under a pseudonym and your really Bob Woodward or you should be writing fiction. I would be curious to know in what capacity you interviewed or discussed intelligence information,over the years,
with agency personnel. But of course this must be highly classified information and you can’t divulge it.
But now to what concerns me most. Your statement reflects one of the most basest of acts that have plagued humanity over the ages. That is condemning an entire population over their religious beliefs. The most horrendous and inhumane deeds that individuals have done to each other over the ages and still continue to do so, have that common thread. In defending ourselves we have to be strong and understand the violent nature of our enemy and combat it completely until they are defeated. But we can’t become them or we lose.

]]> By: Don Storch http://donstorch.com/2009/11/07/call-the-ft-hood-carnage-for-what-it-was-terrorism-not-something-else-for-political-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-3904 Don Storch Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:47:36 +0000 http://donstorch.com/?p=7286#comment-3904 The comment comes from multiple sources and is a composite of individual beliefs, not necessarily one agency. For obvious reasons the sources requested anonymity. As you might suspect, for political correctness, no single agency would make such a statement in today's environment. I might refer you to the lead story on the subject of the Fort Hood shooting in Today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1 , not only does it contain some interesting developments - but it too has difficulty in identifying sources, especially when it comes to intelligence agencies. It makes reference to the FBI, but does not identify a source from within. When quoting the source the Times says "he and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity." The article generically refers to counterrorism and military officials. It concludes comments and quotes from others within the intelligence and military communities by identifying the source as "officials said" at least 5 times. Your question of source raises an issue in the field of journalism, which has been hotly debated. And that is if you can't identify the source directly with a name, should you use the material at all? Some would go as far as to say one should not quote a source such as the "White House said" or the "FBI said" without identifying a person. Over the years I have talked to agents within the intelligence community and never identified the source unless I was given permission to do so, and that would apply to the agency or the individual. There is an understandable sensitivity within this arena that does not apply to all sources of information. It is a judgment call, especially if you know the source to be sound and the information critical to the story. Sorry for the long answer. I'm sure the debate will continue in the field of journalism. The comment comes from multiple sources and is a composite of individual beliefs, not necessarily one agency. For obvious reasons the sources requested anonymity. As you might suspect, for political correctness, no single agency would make such a statement in today’s environment.

I might refer you to the lead story on the subject of the Fort Hood shooting in Today’s New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/us/10inquire.html?_r=1 , not only does it contain some interesting developments – but it too has difficulty in identifying sources, especially when it comes to intelligence agencies.

It makes reference to the FBI, but does not identify a source from within. When quoting the source the Times says “he and the other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity.” The article generically refers to counterrorism and military officials. It concludes comments and quotes from others within the intelligence and military communities by identifying the source as “officials said” at least 5 times.

Your question of source raises an issue in the field of journalism, which has been hotly debated. And that is if you can’t identify the source directly with a name, should you use the material at all? Some would go as far as to say one should not quote a source such as the “White House said” or the “FBI said” without identifying a person.

Over the years I have talked to agents within the intelligence community and never identified the source unless I was given permission to do so, and that would apply to the agency or the individual. There is an understandable sensitivity within this arena that does not apply to all sources of information.

It is a judgment call, especially if you know the source to be sound and the information critical to the story.

Sorry for the long answer. I’m sure the debate will continue in the field of journalism.

]]> By: norman http://donstorch.com/2009/11/07/call-the-ft-hood-carnage-for-what-it-was-terrorism-not-something-else-for-political-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-3903 norman Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:37:57 +0000 http://donstorch.com/?p=7286#comment-3903 Please name one intelligence agency that believes"that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist"; and your source for that information. Please name one intelligence agency that believes”that there is a fine line between the practice of Islam and the segue to becoming a radical Islamist”; and your source for that information.

]]>