thom@dewey.soe.Berkeley.EDU (Thom Gillespie) (01/29/91)
Sorry to digress so quickly from Timothy's initial question but I'm wondering why there isn't more 'mail' communication from the Gulf about the Gulf. During Tiennamen Square we had Soc.China. Where's Soc.Gulf 'from' the Gulf. With China it looked like countries were without walls. It seems to me that the US and Israel have erected amazing 'computer-assisted' walls to insure that we have 'no' communication with 'the people' of Irag, not just Saddam. For me, this seems much more dangerous than all the 'smart' weapons used so far. I hope I'm wrong and that someone can direct me to a lively discussion from within Iraq. I walked with 250,000 peace loving folks down Market street in San Francisco and then watched the NBC National News make not one mention of this event at 6 o'clock. Thom Gillespie
taylor@intuitive.com (Dave Taylor) (01/29/91)
Thom Gillespie asks about the use of technology and computers as a vehicle for communication and information dissemination in the Gulf War currently raging in the Middle East. A few thoughts: First off, there are Usenet groups specifically discussing the war: "alt.desert-storm" and "alt.desert-storm.facts" (demonstrating by their very names the continuing clash between fact and opinion) Prior to the actual launch of the offensive, there was a group in the same heirarchy "alt.desert-shield" which transitioned. Secondly, I'm sure that there are not only other groups discussing the topic, but I know that there are other mailing lists that have information from Israeli correspondents showing up regularly. In particular, CRTNet has done a great job of reporting not only on what's going on in Israel, but adding thoughtful comments about the importance and limitations of computer-based media in a situation like the Gulf War. Whether the NBC national news covers the peace demonstrations is, most unfortunately, a function of their belief in whether they can get "the best ratings" of the news shows competing for the viewer dollar. The National Broadcasting Company ultimately cares little as a commercial organization about the morals and ethics of the current situation; they're more concerned with people flipping to CNN instead of NBC for the news, taking away their advertising revenue. It's a hard fact of our capitalistic society. (by the same token, how many companies that have donated to the troops have done it out of a feeling of patriotism and support? If they did, why the press releases? Why the stories about them? Sadly, there are quite a few companies around the world cashing in on the war, ignoring the death and destruction to both sides) Last week the Wall Street Journal had a very interesting article about computer BBS systems located in Israel and elsewhere, where submissios from throughout the Middle East were de rigeur and were avidly read by those not in the thick of things. I recommend that you check it out, Thom; page one, column four, from either Thursday or Friday of last week. The people of Iraq, by the way, can't communicate with us via electronic means because they haven't the technology to do so, for the most part. Additionally, there are significant problems with not only getting any electricity but in finding working phone lines that aren't being pre-empted by diplomatic/official uses. I also wonder what we'd hear from the Iraqi people -- would they echo the sentiments of their leader? Would they question the value of the war? Or would they, as Jordan has been reporting to their people, talk about the war between Israel and Iraq, noting how the US has come to "defend the Jewish State yet again"? Since we're in a state of war, the information disseminated by our government (and the governments of the rest of the allied forces) is intended not only to keep us, the American (Allied) populace informed, but to convey information to the Iraqi government too. By the same token, when Hussein addresses his people via a national radio broadcast, he knows that we'll hear it in this country too. Again, citing the Wall Street Journal, they were surprised to find that about 85% of the people surveyed in the US believe that the Pentagon and White House are doing a fine job of keeping us informed and balancing the secrets of wartime with the need for public dissemination of information. By contrast, journalists at the briefings are clearly more and more disgruntled with the obstacles they perceive in "getting the real story". Frankly, as a journalist myself, I'm a bit embarrassed at my colleagues who insist that the right to know ALL that's going on is tantamount and more important than any sort of security and confidentiality. Freedom of the press, to me, means that the press is free to publish what they choose, not that they have the inherent right to all information, regardless of validity or external environmental factors and concerns. After all, they don't publish accusations of child molesting since the cases where people have had their reputations irrevocably besmirched then afterwards proven innocent... Whether or not we should be in the Gulf, and whether or not we should have launched the Desert Storm offensive is not particularly relevant to this group, frankly, so I shall refrain from any comments, and hope that others responding to this most interesting topic do the same. Remember, there *are* other forums for those that are interested in discussing these topics. Dave Taylor
adamg@world.std.com (Adam M Gaffin) (01/29/91)
Robert Werman, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been posting daily accounts - sort of a "Jerusalem Diary" - in the Usenet group soc.culture.jewish. A couple of other Israelis have also posted various accounts there. Adam Gaffin
thom@dewey.soe.Berkeley.EDU (Thom Gillespie) (01/30/91)
Adam M. Gaffin writes: > Robert Werman, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has been > posting daily accounts - sort of a "Jerusalem Diary" - in the Usenet > group soc.culture.jewish. A couple of other Israelis have also posted > various accounts there. Thanks I'll check this out and the suggestions by Dave Taylor, the Wall Street journal article, but I'd like to hear some news from Inside Iraq. Dave suggested that "The people of Iraq, by the way, can't communicate with us via electronic means because they haven't the technology to do so, for the most part." I can't believe that the people of Iraq are any less advanced than the people of China were during the Tiennamen Square event -- that was an information fire storm with email and fax addresses bouncing all over the place. I may be just imaginative but I can't help but imagine that we've killed tens of thousands of civilian iraqis -- like in Vietnam -- and it isn't showing up on our news because the public doesn't like to see stuff like that. I mean who do you trust in this situation? Dan Rather? Robert Werman? Why? And I do think that this is the proper forum for discussing computers in the war whether they are used for smart bombs or communications, it is all computers in society. Is there anyone who doesn't realize that the Gulf War is also an enormous weapons testing research project. We are told about the successes, what about the failures? How many have there been and what have been the consequences? Thom Gillespie
pete@saturn.ucsc.edu (Peter Hughes) (01/30/91)
Thom Gillespie writes: > I walked with 250,000 peace loving folks down Market street in San > Francisco and then watched the NBC National News make not one mention of > this event at 6 o'clock. NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the largest military contractors. Three guesses why they didn't cover the march (the first two don't count). Peter Hughes
bradley@cs.utexas.edu (Bradley L. Richards) (01/30/91)
Thom Gillespie writes that he wants to hear news over the net from inside Iraq, and can't understand why we haven't heard from them like we did from folks inside China about Tiennamen Square. There are two reasons to consider. First, China has nearly 100 times the population of Iraq. Even though both countries are relatively poor, it's a fair bet that there are a lot more folks with computer access in China than in Iraq. The second, obvious, reason is that Tiennaman Square was not an attempt to destroy the military and industrial centers of the country. Communications in Iraq at this point are probably chancy at best, and even electrical power is unavailable in many areas. So it's little wonder that we don't see lots of Iraqi messages on the net.... Thom, you also say "is there anyone who doesn't realize that the Gulf War is also an enormous weapons testing research project. We are told about the successes, what about the failures?" Now, there's no doubt that the military and the contractors are paying very close attention to how well different weapons systems are working--they'd be foolish not to. But your implication that this is the reason (or even *a* reason) to go to war is uncalled for. No doubt there have been failures. Bombs have been dropped off-target, and no doubt you've seen the photos of the town northwest of Baghdad that was destroyed. But what kind of information do you expect? There's only one western journalist left in the whole country, and everything he says has to pass by Iraqi censors. Iraq portrayed that village as an example of the kind of indiscriminate bombing that they claim we are doing. But I'd lay odds that there was a military target of some sort in that village (perhaps one of the mobile Scud launchers?), as it was just too far out of the way to get bombed by accident. Bradley
thom@dewey.soe.Berkeley.EDU (Thom Gillespie) (01/31/91)
Bradley Richards writes: > Thom, you also say "is there anyone who doesn't realize that the Gulf > War is also an enormous weapons testing research project. We are told > about the successes, what about the failures?" Now, there's no doubt > that the military and the contractors are paying very close attention to > how well different weapons systems are working--they'd be foolish not > to. But your implication that this is the reason (or even *a* reason) > to go to war is uncalled for. This is not uncalled for. Years ago I worked on a piece regarding Hiroshima. In the process of doing the show I discovered -- in public libraries -- that a major reason for dropping the Atomic bomb was as a research project. The biggest stumbling block was where to drop the bomb. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not good research sites for a quantitative test site because they are flat. If you really want to test the bomb you want a good valley or bowl shape -- just like Kyoto, the religious center of Japan. This was considered a good site because it was bowl like -- the fact that it had no significant military sites and it was a religious center had little meaning for many of the decision makers. Luck and common sense will win out -- some say !! I was not suggesting that we went to war to test weapons, I was suggesting that this becomes a good test site for 'testing new weapons' > ... Iraq portrayed that [bombed] village as an example of the kind of > indiscriminate bombing that they claim we are doing. But I'd lay odds > that there was a military target of some sort in that village ... This was the same reasoning which suggested that the baby food factory could have been used for chemical weapons testing after the designers of the factory from New Zealand said that it was a baby food factory. Thom Gillespie
sac@apple.com (Steve Cisler) (01/31/91)
You might read comp.risks for a discussion of technology that is not working in the War. Re: Iraq communications. I know that short-wave radios are banned in Iraq, so I doubt that modems are commonly used. I did meet a U.N. telecomms consultant who was helping Iraq set up a Minitel system (they never did) so that the Iraqi women could be educated at home. This was meant to appease the Shiite fundamentalists within the country. I have also see reference to American firms receiving faxes from Iraqi organizations (requesting weapons components, etc), but I'll bet there are few in the hands the techno-geeks in Baghdad or Basra. Steve Cisler