The Sickly Smell of Surrender

[janon]

besides there are various methods these terrorists use , to counter tracking , and even the Great CIA with all the recources in the world is unable to counter that.

Pretty poor comparison. Is there a terrorist IN THE USA who is giving interviews to the media, that the CIA cannot trace? Here you are talking about your own citizens, operating within your country, giving interviews to your own media, that your intelligence agency cannot trace. The CIA may have difficulty tracing people in another country - and given that difference, they have done admirably well in tracing many, many terrorists half a world away in pakistan, and putting "hellfire" on their heads. ISI is apparently unable to trace people in its own country.

But I agree with @hinduguy that the journalists should not reveal locations, and I doubt they could anyway. I'm sure the terrorists will take precautions against that. Also, there is no point in stifling the media, it is the intelligence agencies' and security forces' job to trace these terrorists. Just tracing a call will lead nowhere, it will only lead to the spokesperson at most. "Shooting the messenger" is a cliché for a reason. It is counterproductive everytime.

 

[muse]

CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE US journalists giving terrorists equal time? nor not alerting authorities of adding questions from the authorities or not being in full cooperation with authorities??

 

[F.O.X]

Pretty poor comparison. Is there a terrorist IN THE USA who is giving interviews to the media, that the CIA cannot trace? Here you are talking about your own citizens, operating within your country, giving interviews to your own media, that your intelligence agency cannot trace. The CIA may have difficulty tracing people in another country - and given that difference, they have done admirably well in tracing many, many terrorists half a world away, and putting "hellfire" on their heads. ISI is apparently unable to trace people in its own country.

But I agree with @hinduguy that the journalists should not reveal locations, and I doubt they could anyway. I'm sure the terrorists will take precautions against that. Also, there is no point in stifling the media, it is the intelligence agencies' and security forces' job to trace these terrorists. Just tracing a call will lead nowhere, it will only lead to the spokesperson at most. "Shooting the messenger" is a cliché for a reason. It is counterproductive everytime.

I will say just this that , there are several methods to counter Tracing , and half of them are pretty simple , and much more efective then you can think , if one of those is used correctly then even USA will not be able to track someone sitting 1 mile away from Langley in few minutes .

 

[janon]

CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE US journalists giving terrorists equal time? nor not alerting authorities of adding questions from the authorities or not being in full cooperation with authorities??

I'm pretty sure your media doesn't give them "equal time".

Besides that, could you tell me why you think that journalists or the media should not air their interviews? How does it hurt your safety or security or welfare?

I understand that you may hate them and what they do. But why should you stifle the media? The more the terrorists air their views, the more opportunity others get to counter their views, and in the free market of ideas, the better ones will weed out the bad ones, and that means less recruitment for the losing side (whichever it may be). That is why freedom of speech should be defended at all costs, even for the other side. It ultimately leads to better understanding of both sides' positions, and hence the natural death of the unsustainable position, and the triumph of the right one.

The journalists and the media are doing the right thing, by giving space to terrorists as well. They would be failing in their duty if they do not do that. As long as they are not glorifying them or sympathizing with their cause, they are doing no harm to society. On the contrary, actually.

 

[muse]

could you tell me why you think that journalists or the media should not air their interviews? How does it hurt your safety or security or welfare?.

Super question - with your permission, lets first be clear about who this or any such group is/are: These are not a political movement in the sense that we understand them, these are a terrorist organization that seek to impose on the nation, their ideology, and seek to do so with the use of not just violence, but to use violence that such barbarity that it's shocking.

We, or rather,no state owes it to any terrorist organization to further the ideology of that organization and any opportunity created by the possibility of interviewing persons associated with terrorist organizations, must be used as an opportunity to inflict serious blows to the organization.

But why should the media be a part of the state's effort? Because the media exist only within the framework the state upholds, after all, would TTP even allow that station and that anchor on TV?? Would it even allow TV?? Would TTP ever allow that channel and that anchor to pose invite, offer time to and allow the opposition to the TTP to answer questions??

See, we started with trying to be clear as to who these people are -- it's not like these are a side lined group that seek to make a case against the state and have been trying to avail all legal, non-violent venues -- on the contrary, their religious and political ideas have an intimate relationship with not just violence, but violence so shocking, so brutal, so mindless as to leave one speechless

 

[Jango]

But I agree with @hinduguy that the journalists should not reveal locations, and I doubt they could anyway. I'm sure the terrorists will take precautions against that. Also, there is no point in stifling the media, it is the intelligence agencies' and security forces' job to trace these terrorists. Just tracing a call will lead nowhere, it will only lead to the spokesperson at most. "Shooting the messenger" is a cliché for a reason. It is counterproductive everytime.

It is a collective effort by the nation and the people.

It is not only the Army's job...it is the people's social and moral responsibility as well. It is not the Army's country that it is fighting for, it is the people's country, so they have to bear some responsibility as well, journalists included in this category.

You must have seen those Wanted posters, why are they published? It is the army's or police's job to apprehend criminals, right? Then why should citizens go in and report a wanted person to the authorities? It's not their problem...right...? Wrong!

You getting my point now?

There are no moral problems in reporting the location of a terrorist. And comparing confidentiality of doctor-patient, lawyer-accused with journo-terrorist is like comparing apples and oranges. A terrorist is a person wanted by the authorities, one who openly defends his crimes and is going rogue against the state. He directly affects the society. So he cannot be compared to patients and accused in a court case.

When a journo goes to interview some captured soldiers and then doesn't report their location to the authorities, that is paramount to assisting murder IMO. Ethics and confidentiality go out the window in this case.

As for the terrorists taking precautions, I do believe that they do have some counter-intel procedures in place (remember, they have some tech experts themselves).

 

[muse]

Nukilr

I understand you to mean to be arguing Rights and Responsibilities, and that as full stake holders, Citizens have not just rights but also responsibilities, especially towards their personal and collective security?


But how does this let the Pakistan Armed Forces off the hook? After all, is not their primarily responsibility the safety, security of the People, the people's property and the Pakistani state?

 

[janon]

1) Super question - with your permission, lets first be clear about who this or any such group is/are: These are not a political movement in the sense that we understand them, these are a terrorist organization that seek to impose on the nation, their ideology, and seek to do so with the use of not just violence, but to use violence that such barbarity that it's shocking.

2) We, or rather,no state owes it to any terrorist organization to further the ideology of that organization and any opportunity created by the possibility of interviewing persons associated with terrorist organizations, must be used as an opportunity to inflict serious blows to the organization.

3) But why should the media be a part of the state's effort? Because the media exist only within the framework the state upholds, after all, would TTP even allow that station and that anchor on TV?? Would it even allow TV?? Would TTP ever allow that channel and that anchor to pose invite, offer time to and allow the opposition to the TTP to answer questions??

See, we started with trying to be clear as to who these people are -- it's not like these are a side lined group that seek to make a case against the state and have been trying to avail all legal, non-violent venues -- on the contrary, their religious and political ideas have an intimate relationship with not just violence, but violence so shocking, so brutal, so mindless as to leave one speechless

1) No doubts about that in my mind. But the fact is that not everybody would agree with you or me on that. Like it or not, many of your countrymen sympathize with them, and you can find a few such people on this very forum. Many of them do not understand this very point that you are saying, of how vile and abominable the Taliban's ideology is. Asking tough questions to the talibanese about their ideologies and the kind of society they wish to perpetuate, would immediately lose them a lot of supporters. Many people sympathize with them precisely because they don't know what you and I know, about the barbarity and vileness of the kind of society they wish to create. That is why all that should be brought out in the open. To let their supporters understand that what they will get if the talibanese come to power is not some kind of imagined glorious Islamic paradise, but pretty much what poor afghans lived like, pre 2001.

2) The state doesn't "owe" them anything. The media doesn't "owe" them anything either, but any journalist would jump at the opportunity to interview a terrorist - for selfish reasons of course, but not because they all sympathize with the terrorists, or wish to perpetuate their cause.

3) The first sentence there is a slippery slope. If you say the media should always toe thee state's line, that would make the media nothing but a propaganda arm of the existing power structure. There will be Orwellian consequences. But coming to the other questions in that paragraph - those are excellent questions that either the interviewer or somebody else on the panel (representing the state or government) can ask the terrorists. Asking them such questions on air, for everybody to witness, will put them in a tough spot. Make it known to everybody that they are enjoying certain freedoms which they will not if the talibanese come to power. Freedoms which they presently take for granted (as they should). Heck, you could even ask them if television itself would be possible at all in the "paradise" the wish to create. With no western education, no scientific or technological learning, no education at all for women, would there even be televisions or mass communication anymore? That could have been an excellent question to ask their spokesperson, to let everyone know what it would be like if they were to live under the Taliban.

No state has ever collapsed because of too much media freedom or freedom of speech. Many have fallen because of lack of these. What you don't seem to remember is the fact that for every talibani voice on TV, there could be a hundred rebuttals on TV and print media by saner voices of society. This, as I said before, leads to a better understanding of both sides, and the vile, evil, abominable voice would lose.

 

[muse]

But the fact is that not everybody would agree with you or me on that. Like it or not, many of your countrymen sympathize with them, and you can find a few such people on this very forum. Many of them do not understand this very point that you are saying, of how vile and abominable the Taliban's ideology is. Asking tough questions to the talibanese about their ideologies and the kind of society they wish to perpetuate, would immediately lose them a lot of supporters.

This was not particularly cleaver and indicates lack of clarity about the first issue, namely who and what are they -- See, this movement does not have support on issues what you and I and a majority of the world see as political or economic, the TTP is not seeking changes to particular framework, they seek the death of the Pakistani state and it's replacement by their ideology, which is a ideology associated with 18th century Arabia and seeks to link society to their vision of 7th century Arabia -- They do not have support other than in those circles influence by that very same Arabian ideology, so the question of them losing or gaining adherents is really not a question at all.

The first sentence there is a slippery slope. If you say the media should always toe thee state's line

You misunderstand, not suggesting media toe the state's line and in Pakistan,this would be entirely unreasonable, regardless of the State's position - What I did point to was to be aware of the framework under which the media, actually any institution which is formed and exists in a particular framework - See, is it possible to play football with a team that does not recognize the rules of the football game?? I don't know if I have offered a example you can wrap your head around. Imagine that you actually were playing football with a team that does not recognize the rules of the game, football, what would you be actually playing?? And now you maybe you can understand the confusion of the Pakistanis.

 

[surya kiran]

That would be dependent on some factors. Whether intel agencies monitor news channels 24/7? Was some high up looking at the program so that the agency could be informed in time?

Remember, it is only a few minute slot so you have to be pretty darn efficient. I have absolutely no idea how calls are traced, Oscar may know about it, but I am guessing the other guy has to be on the line so he could be traced or else it's a dead end.

A better option now would be to perhaps make a trap for him or the news agency informs some government agency beforehand that they are going to contact some high profile terrorist.

PEMRA's action should be to make effective legislation against this, because if you have the TTP spokesman on live TV at 8 o clock, you are effectively airing his propaganda.

But I guess TV channels also give some guarantees, or else if a guy dies quickly after a phone call, the affiliates of the dead will surely know that it was through a traced call, and the news channels will then get the backlash.

Tracing a call is a matter of minutes, if not seconds. Intelligence/law agencies, have specialised machines located at every exchange if its a landline and if i am not mistaken at the mobile switching centre level. The main problem in getting the trace is not systems, but humans and bureaucracy. There are set regulations on how an agency can activate the real time track.

Also, even if the call is completed/dropped, it is possible to locate it to the nearest base station. This can then be used to create a radius of operations. Ofcourse, all ths is valid only IF you want to get the person

 

[muse]

One would have thought the "seycurity" agencies are on the case of the TTP 24/7 -

 

[RazorMC]

Tracing a call is a matter of minutes, if not seconds. Intelligence/law agencies, have specialised machines located at every exchange if its a landline and if i am not mistaken at the mobile switching centre level. The main problem in getting the trace is not systems, but humans and bureaucracy. There are set regulations on how an agency can activate the real time track.

Also, even if the call is completed/dropped, it is possible to locate it to the nearest base station. This can then be used to create a radius of operations. Ofcourse, all ths is valid only IF you want to get the person

Not possible if the interview was recorded earlier.

Ehsan records his speech and sends it out to the TV station. The anchor then frames the questions according to the pre-recorded audio and poses them as a live interview to gain some massive ratings. In some cases, the anchor is able to send out the intended questions in advance so the answers can be more in tune to what the anchor has decided.

This is why anchors are usually unable to ask the tough questions; because the whole thing is faked.

How can the Armed Forces track a pre-recorded statement using technology that traces live calls?

 

[Jango]

Nukilr

I understand you to mean to be arguing Rights and Responsibilities, and that as full stake holders, Citizens have not just rights but also responsibilities, especially towards their personal and collective security?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.

But how does this let the Pakistan Armed Forces off the hook? After all, is not their primarily responsibility the safety, security of the People, the people's property and the Pakistani state?

I am not advocating for the army to be let off the hook, but merely presenting the other side, the role of the society.

 

[Spring Onion]

Once a call is made the number & instrument can be tracked / monitored .

Intel agencies can ' create' programmes where such Gents are called in .

if that was the case then why CIA or for that matter other foreign intel agencies failed to trace him for a drone attack after all he calls Reuters, AFP, AP and so on as much as he calls Pakistani media persons

 

[third eye]

if that was the case then why CIA or for that matter other foreign intel agencies failed to trace him for a drone attack after all he calls Reuters, AFP, AP and so on as much as he calls Pakistani media persons

The will maybe ? Or he maybe serving a purpose ......

There are wheels within wheels.