The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Friday, April 06, 2007

Predicted CFL Reporting on Iran Hostages

I recently posted on a media phenomenon where the reporting completely misses the part you want to know about most. I have decided to name it "CFL Reporting". CFL, an acronym for Central Field Loss is a vision problem where you only have peripheral vision and cannot see the center. It is the opposite of Tunnel Vision where you can only see the center. CFL Reporting has occurred when the topmost question the average person would want to know is completely avoided during the giving of the story. An example might be where a child was abducted and there was an eyewitness, yet the story would contain no description of the kidnapper.

During the time Iran held the 15 hostages we were all surprised to see the sailors going on camera and admitting to wrongdoing - stating that they were in Iranian waters in a confession style. The most obvious question on everybody's mind is what would it take to cause a trained hardened military person to submit to such an act? One would suspect that if an Iranian captor would approach one of the sailors and asked them politely to "confess" to being in Iranian waters and apologize on camera, that sailor would tell the captor where to go. Most would even think that if the captors were verbally harsh and made threats demanding they do this, it would be met with failure. This would lead to one of the top questions in the story: what did the Iranians do or say to convince the sailors to submit to such humiliation?

Information may be slow to come out, but when such data is available my prediction is that there will be very little focus on this critical detail if any in most stories produced by the media. I predict there will have been more reporting on the clothing and "goodie bags" provided for the sailors' return than on what spurred the "confessions". The next few days will tell if I am correct. I hope I am not, as I wish to know the answer to this puzzle.

Labels: , ,

21 Comments:

  • At 11:27 AM, Blogger Jacob said…

    If I were held by the Iranian military, I would say just about ANYTHING to get them to release me. No physical coercion would be required.

    And yeah, I know what you mean about CFL reporting.

    It reminds me of Harry Potter, when Uncle Dursley complains when the news failed to mention the prison from which Sirius Black had escaped. Of course, they couldn't say which prison he escaped from because it was the magical prison.

    This leads me to believe that some news stories omit certain details because they would expose a huge underground world of magic people.

    [/nerd]

     
  • At 11:52 AM, Blogger SkyePuppy said…

    AICS,

    CFL is a much better term than Ignorting (although mine sounds a bit like "snorting," which I believe a lot of reporters do when they think about the President or conservatives).

    Jacob,

    LOL!

     
  • At 8:29 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    "The most obvious question on everybody's mind is what would it take to cause a trained hardened military person to submit to such an act?"


    Given the context, I'd say that probably 95% of the global population actually made it through that question without taxing themselves and focused on the more important issues.

    In my part of the world, we call that the "womens' weekly" angle that only low class journalists would take.

    Sorry, but you did raise the point. Watching the American networks' coverage of the events clarified in my mind that we really have no hope. It was vacuous and laden with the stupidest propaganda that anyone should scoff at, but doesn't.

    Don't get me wrong ours isn't much better but at least they try to shade the propaganda and make a show of impartiality.

    Concentration of media ownership and the mingling with the MIC has brought fascism that much closer.

    I've seen the enemy and it is us.

     
  • At 8:49 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    Let's ask the top Iraqi military officer in charge of guarding the Shatt al-Iraq waterway where the Brits were actually apprehended. This man is working for the U.S.-backed regime and probably not inclined to make up stuff to embarrass the U.S. president, who gives him his paycheck. So his opinion should be relevant here. Let's ask Brigadier General Hakim Jassim.

    The good general told Associated Press the day after the March 23 incident: "We were informed [about the British troops' arrests] by Iraqi fishermen, after they had returned from sea that there were British gunboats in an area that is out of Iraqi control. We don't know why they were there.'"

    Gen. Jassim---again, working for the Anglo-American occupiers of his nation---does not sound outraged by the Iranian action. And notice how the Iraqi client-state apparatus, which for some time has been telling Washington, "Don't drag us into your anti-Iranian projects" is not calling the detained Britons "hostages." It has indeed (with much of the world) protested the illegal U.S. detention of Iranian diplomats in Irbil, in Iraqi Kurdistan.

    (That particular instance of "inexcusable behavior" hasn't gotten much press in this country. Nor has the subdued Iranian response to the provocation.)

    Gen. Jassim would agree that the Shatt al-Arab river where the Brits were seized has no clearly marked boundary and has been the focus of past quarrels between Iraq and Iran. (Commodore Peter Lockwood of the Royal Australian Navy, commanding the Coalition task force in the waterway last October, said as much: "No maritime border has been agreed upon by the countries.") Craig Murray, once head of the British Foreign Office's maritime section, writes that Prime Minister Blair "is being fatuous" in stating that he is "utterly certain" the British ship was seized within Iraqi territorial limits.


    Some of us are asking how Blair/Bush et al can possibly get away with unilaterally drawing a line on a map, calling it a border, feigning outrage and hardly being questioned by the media on this core issue of credibility.

     
  • At 9:47 PM, Blogger Incognito said…

    Lordy, AICS, looks like you have your hands full!!
    Better you than me.

    And not sure we'll ever know the truth. It's a question of he said/shesaid.. in this case the Brits vs Iran. I have a tendency to believe they were NOT in Iranian waters.. but we'll never truly know.

     
  • At 10:37 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Incognito, it is very simple. The US and anyone associated with them are always wrong and countries like Iran never, ever do anything wrong. Black and White.

    CF, I am not ignoring you purposefully. We just live on two different planes and like Simon says about Sanjaya: I just don't know what else to say.

    First the notion that somebody on the other side of the world that you know nothing about has no reason to lie is naive. I have no way of knowing or not, but you take it as a premise and build an entire case on it.

    Anyway as it is turning out, it appears the Iranians did not mistreat the sailors. Apparently the UK sailors are wussified cowards that heard a gun click and spilled all. Since this puts the Royal Navy in a bad light, there will be no CFL Reporting this go around.

     
  • At 10:45 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Sorry, but you did raise the point. Watching the American networks' coverage of the events clarified in my mind that we really have no hope. It was vacuous and laden with the stupidest propaganda that anyone should scoff at, but doesn't.

    We can both agree that the American media sucks. However, I have not really seen much media anywhere around the world that does not. Do you have a media source that you recommend as being solid? I have not seen any source that I can trust. Even worldnetdaily.com, newsmax.com and cnsnews.com that lean to the right have frequent shortcomings that I cringe when I read. Lacking a consistently credible source, we must sift through the dung to find the occasional diamonds.

     
  • At 2:02 AM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    I've taken a body of opinions of the experts in the field. There is little credibility in Blair's utterings and it probably didn't help him in the public's eyes when Bush supported.

    You don't seem to appreciate that had the Brits fought, it would have been an act of war in reality.

    When you do attack Iran, the world will be irrevocably against you. Everyone knows that the "nuclear stand off" is a crock, constructed for the ignorant masses by the Israeli lobby and their poil hungry cohorts in Washington.

    Can the West be more hypocritical and demonstrate more ill will toward the human beings that populate this small earth?

    No doubt Washington and Tel Aviv will try. Genocidal maniacs the lot.

     
  • At 7:29 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    CF,

    //I've taken a body of opinions of the experts in the field.//

    Care to share their names? Otherwise, you are guilty of "faulty use of authority". (You want to consider adding that logical fallacy to "red herring" and "straw man" to your vocabulary and use it in a sentence everyday like you use the other two.)

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    CF,

    You simply cannot be taken seriously when your template is so solidly US/Israel/UK wrong every one else right. You have nothing good to say about the one side and nothing bad about the other. You seem perfectly comfortable with the notion of Iran having nuclear weapons. There are many non-Isrealis in the Middle-East who are very concerned about a Nuclear Iran. Your complete comfort in this area makes you come off like a quack. You are certainly free to continue this path, but everybody that reads your comments will simply see a seething hatred of the US and their allies. I have tried to dialgue with you, but your approach to every topic is so one sided and extreme, there is simply no credibility to latch onto. You take the faults you accuse me and LA of making and do the same thing exponentially. You either know you do this and are playing games or worse, you are completely blind to it. There is simply no way to debate with that because it becomes a farce. Yet you interpret it that your debate points are so good nobody can stand against them. It reminds me of American Idol tryout weeks where we see a lot of people who seriously think they can sing and yet everybody else sees something different - tone deafness.

    I don't write this to insult you, but there comes a time when you've got to tell somebody that their fly is open or they have a blot of mustard on their face from lunch. It is a waste of words, because I already know how you will take it and respond to it. Well, I tried.

    You seem to have a strong desire to write and have strong opinions. Have you ever thought of starting your own blog?

    AICS

     
  • At 5:34 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    "You seem perfectly comfortable with the notion of Iran having nuclear weapons."


    You would argue that this is not a strawman, yet it most certainly is. How can it not be.

    If you debated the points, we could have a debate. As far as being an extremist goes, you are supporting the policies of a bunch of former extremist Trotskyites who've crossed into a virtual fascism, who casually use war and violence as their main tool of foreign policy.

    You don't even know the background of these nuts, yet you follow their authority without question. Half of them have been charged with and/or accused of spying for a foreign power. Did you know that?

    Who is the extremist here? Your policies go against everything that liberal democracy is yet you accuse anyone who doesn't accept the fallacy as an extremist?

     
  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    LASunsett said...
    CF,

    //I've taken a body of opinions of the experts in the field.//

    Care to share their names? Otherwise, you are guilty of "faulty use of authority". (You want to consider adding that logical fallacy to "red herring" and "straw man" to your vocabulary and use it in a sentence everyday like you use the other two.)

    7:29 AM

    Let's turn that around, as I've already provided a quote from the former head of the FO's maritime section and an Iraqi Coast Guard colonel.

    Can you find any evidence in any official document not related to Blair's spin machine that shows this "border" on a map. Indeed, can you find any agreement between Iran and Iraq which defines this border, or any treaty that says that Iraqi teritory extends across more than half of the waterway?

    My argument all along, has been about jumping on the bandwagon of propaganda with false assumptions. Blair, Bush, Howard etc have nil credibility as they are proven liars, yet AICS said "CLEARLY in Iraqi waters" when it is not clear at all.

    That is the point. You know it and all your obfuscation and dissembling is just irrelevant piffle.

    Either address the actual point or f*** off you obsequious twit.

     
  • At 7:18 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    CF,

    Can you find any evidence in any official document not related to Blair's spin machine that shows this "border" on a map. Indeed, can you find any agreement between Iran and Iraq which defines this border, or any treaty that says that Iraqi teritory extends across more than half of the waterway?

    You yet again prove my point that US/UK/Israel all bad, the rest good. If the waters that the sailors were taken in were in dispute, you would be EQUALLY angry with Iran for taking the sailors in disputed waters and demanding it is Iranian waters as you so clearly are angry at the UK from having sailors in the disputed waters and claiming they were Iraqi waters.

    Never an angry word about Iran doing the same thing you accuse the US/UK of doing. You are so biased and full of hatred it boggles the mind.

    Either address the actual point or f*** off you obsequious twit.

    Yet another in a LONG list of names you have called me and others here. Name calling truly is your highest talent.

     
  • At 1:34 AM, Blogger confusedforeigner said…

    I was (very obviously) talking to the other twit.

    YOU said "CLEARLY in Iraqi waters". Untrue propaganda. Wrong. Nothing "clear" about it.

    This is not difficult logic to follow. The point is that you jump in to condemn the OTHER (at this point, a muslim country) when told to do so by your right wing authoritarian masters. You are preprogrammed based on falsehoods and lies.

    You said you think for yourself and then make up your mind on the evidence. I think you believe that.

    Clearly you don't and you won't admit it, even to yourself, when it is put in front of you on a platter.

    You so clearly fit evidence to your predetermined view, based on a childish and utterly stupid black v white view of the world. A world that you so very clearly don't have a frigging clue about.

    Watch your Fox News and stay frigging ignorant.

    You're a study in high rwa exceptionalism on your own. You are ignorant and actually like being ignorant.

    You are following extremist Trotskyites and you haven't a clue about what they are doing.

    I guarantee that the people who tell you what to think, don't think your way. They think like me and tell you what to think because they know you are dumb as a bag of hammers and will follow them no matter how illogical and blatantly obviously inane whatever they need (for their profit) for you to follow.

    I give up. You're beyond reason. You live in the most ignorant population on Earth and manage to lower the standard.

     
  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    CF,

    What is so hard to follow what I said last comment? I will try once more in slow motion.

    You called me on stating that they were CLEARLY in Iraqi waters. You claim the waters there are in dispute.

    Yet Iran claims the waters are CLEARLY Iranian waters and used that as justification to take the hostages.

    I claim it is clearly Iraqi and I am wrong and full of propaganda, etc. Anger at me. Anger at the UK, US. Blah, blah blah.

    Iran claims it is clearly Iranian and no anger. They are wonderful. Would never tell a lie, never engage in propaganda.

    I am pointing to your inability to be objective and you miss the point, purposely or not. Yours truly is a sad case. And yet you accuse me of everything that you are.

     
  • At 7:25 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Also, you slam Fox News. Yet even when I asked you, you never did provide a news source that was trustworthy and lacking propaganda. I don't think you dare.

     
  • At 10:05 AM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    CF,

    //Either address the actual point or f*** off you obsequious twit.//

    I have to say that it takes a pretty small person to call people names from the safety and security of their computer room. I guarantee you right here and now, you wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face. Because to do so, would constitute a serious gamble on just how good your healthcare insurance is.

    The bottom line here is, you cannot adequately defend your positions. So, as a result, we can see what you resort to when you cannot. Name-calling and ugly comments demonstrates who you are and how immature you are.

    Face it, CF. Despite the fact that your arguments were very weak and based on faulty thinking, up until the point you called me a name, you were still in the game. But now, you have shown your true colors in the face of adversity. Therefore, it is plain for everyone to see that you lose.

     
  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger cringinginamazement said…

    How do you wingnuts make it through life with such fucked up "logical" and reasoning skills?

    You haven't addressed a single point.

    Christ on a bike. It is no wonder we have become the Nazis.

     
  • At 5:58 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Cringing,

    Do you think you are fooling anybody? Please, do yourself a favor and don't embarrass yourself by trying to log in as someone new.

    Always tricks, names, rhetoric and spin with you lefties. Can't just have an honest debate.

     
  • At 5:13 AM, Blogger cringinginamazement said…

    http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/index.html


    Make it difficult to post and I'll just keep creating other accounts. You're a coward like most of your ilk.

     
  • At 5:17 AM, Blogger cringinginamazement said…

    "I claim it is clearly Iraqi and I am wrong and full of propaganda, etc. Anger at me. Anger at the UK, US. Blah, blah blah.

    Iran claims it is clearly Iranian and no anger. They are wonderful. Would never tell a lie, never engage in propaganda."


    You think that this is objective thinking? LOL. It is a strawman yet again. I have never claimed that Iran wouldn't tell a lie or create propaganda. i.e. a logical fallacy on your part designed to discredit an argument that hasn't been proposed.

    Get it?

    Probably not.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home