I agree Stephen! I would add guys like Larry Johnson, Col Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter for interesting thoughts on "war". I sure don't agree with all they say but they are knowledgeable and thought provoking.
Fifteen years ago I spoke with Lew Mackenzie, the UN commander and "Saviour of Sarajevo." He said all sides had their agendas but the Croats and Bosnians were the worst. He was finally moved home because of death threats, not from the Serbs, but from the supposed allies of UNPROFOR. I guess he was too vocal against the media's anti-Serb commitment. Also, look up the battle of the Medjak Pocket. A Canadian defence after being attacked by Croat troops. After being fired upon, and showing what a professional army can do, the Canadians dug in and returned fire. Four Canadians were wounded, and when the Croats pulled out they left 27 dead. My neighbour was one of the Canadians and he told me the story before it finally leaked out years later. When the Canadians moved into the nearby Serb village they found dead Serb civilians. I guess the Croats didn't want the Canadians to know of their misdeeds and tried to scare them away. But we never heard of the Medjak pocket because Chrétien didn't want our country to know we had been in a fight. (I can only guess this) The four wounded soldiers were clandestinely returned to Canada under orders not to speak of the fight. After all, "Canadians are peacekeepers."
I envy your conversation with Gen. Mackenzie, Kim!
Scott Taylor wrote a lot about the Medjak Pocket and said that all participants were threatened if they discussed it when they went home. I guess he thought that, as a journalist, he wasn't included. The Canadians acquitted themselves well but the episode didn't fit the narrative of the war. "It is the Serbs who are bad! Not the other guys!"
If that war is of interest and you haven't done so, read Diane Johnstone's book. It is very counter to the narrative but, for a number of reasons, I think she is right. A real eye opener.
You are correct in assuming that the 'news' is almost always intentionally tweaked to increase support for a group. I don't believe there's any way to be certain what is true unless you are in the midst of the developing story. Because of that, I refuse to join any 'side', and am focusing on local community. There's no point wasting my limited energy on arguing either way when I have no way to know who's lying.
I would generally agree but the engagement is also necessary because someone needs to model the humility that is lost in so much modern discourse. It is not necessary to "know" as much as it is to ask questions of all sides to demonstrate that they might not have all the facts and that is ok. Informed opinions are useful when the bases of opinions are revealed and everyone is prepared to say, "I may be wrong." Socrates is famous and studied, not for his knowledge, but for his humility in getting to knowledge by honestly asking questions.
Yes, I agree with questioning, especially when others hear the questions. That is modeling critical thinking which needs to be done so others see the process of seeking information as valid. Often cancel culture has taught people that questioning ideas is not acceptable.
I agree Stephen! I would add guys like Larry Johnson, Col Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter for interesting thoughts on "war". I sure don't agree with all they say but they are knowledgeable and thought provoking.
Here’s a formula (I could be wrong) for finding the elusive truth tellers.
Look for those who are red pilled , like Naomi Wolfe or Tulsi Gabbard.
And consider those reporters who were fired or otherwise departed from mainstream media.
Some examples:
Mark Steyn (ex Macleans, GB News and many more)
Lara Logan (ex CBS)
Sharyl Attkisson (ex CBS)
Tucker Carlson (ex FOX)
Fifteen years ago I spoke with Lew Mackenzie, the UN commander and "Saviour of Sarajevo." He said all sides had their agendas but the Croats and Bosnians were the worst. He was finally moved home because of death threats, not from the Serbs, but from the supposed allies of UNPROFOR. I guess he was too vocal against the media's anti-Serb commitment. Also, look up the battle of the Medjak Pocket. A Canadian defence after being attacked by Croat troops. After being fired upon, and showing what a professional army can do, the Canadians dug in and returned fire. Four Canadians were wounded, and when the Croats pulled out they left 27 dead. My neighbour was one of the Canadians and he told me the story before it finally leaked out years later. When the Canadians moved into the nearby Serb village they found dead Serb civilians. I guess the Croats didn't want the Canadians to know of their misdeeds and tried to scare them away. But we never heard of the Medjak pocket because Chrétien didn't want our country to know we had been in a fight. (I can only guess this) The four wounded soldiers were clandestinely returned to Canada under orders not to speak of the fight. After all, "Canadians are peacekeepers."
I envy your conversation with Gen. Mackenzie, Kim!
Scott Taylor wrote a lot about the Medjak Pocket and said that all participants were threatened if they discussed it when they went home. I guess he thought that, as a journalist, he wasn't included. The Canadians acquitted themselves well but the episode didn't fit the narrative of the war. "It is the Serbs who are bad! Not the other guys!"
If that war is of interest and you haven't done so, read Diane Johnstone's book. It is very counter to the narrative but, for a number of reasons, I think she is right. A real eye opener.
You are correct in assuming that the 'news' is almost always intentionally tweaked to increase support for a group. I don't believe there's any way to be certain what is true unless you are in the midst of the developing story. Because of that, I refuse to join any 'side', and am focusing on local community. There's no point wasting my limited energy on arguing either way when I have no way to know who's lying.
I would generally agree but the engagement is also necessary because someone needs to model the humility that is lost in so much modern discourse. It is not necessary to "know" as much as it is to ask questions of all sides to demonstrate that they might not have all the facts and that is ok. Informed opinions are useful when the bases of opinions are revealed and everyone is prepared to say, "I may be wrong." Socrates is famous and studied, not for his knowledge, but for his humility in getting to knowledge by honestly asking questions.
Yes, I agree with questioning, especially when others hear the questions. That is modeling critical thinking which needs to be done so others see the process of seeking information as valid. Often cancel culture has taught people that questioning ideas is not acceptable.