Jane's no longer objective?

[Brett Bellmore]

Just read a brief story in the latest Soldier of Fortune. Seems they're rather peturbed at SOF, because Jane's latest book on terrorism, along with their website on the subject, lists a number of Second amendment lobbies and even gun clubs here in the US as "terrorist organizations". Such as, for instance, Gun Owners of America.

Tried to verify this myself, but Jane's is a pay site. There must be someone among the TFLers who has access, and could check! Is this on the level? Here's the article, from SOF's "Bulletin Board":

Jane's goes down the Flusher

Staffers at SOF have long used the various reference books and periodicals put out by Jane's, and considered them generally reliable. Indeed, there is a certain amount of cross-pollination between authors who write for both SOF and Jane's. That practice is now under review here, in light of which organizations Jane's Counter-Terrorism, by author Christopher Kozlow, lists as terrorist organizations. Hard to say if it PC-newspeak or just incredibly sloppy journalism, but included on the list are the Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America - even Blue Trails Range, which is a public shooting range in Connecticut. Jane's Terrorist web site lists Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership as a U.S. terrorist organization. Huh? Does Jane's not know the difference between a peaceable PAC and a terrorist organization, or do they not care, or did sombeody lead them to believe U.S. libel laws had been repealed? Incredible!

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited September 28, 1999).]

 

[Coinneach]

Please, G*d, no. No. NO!

(cut to long shot of Coinneach curled into a fetal ball, sobbing disconsolately)


------------------
"America needs additional gun laws like a giraffe needs snow tires."
--Rabbi Mermelstein, JPFO

 

[TheBluesMan]

Can someone at least find an e-mail address for a contact at Jane's? Let's get this straight from the horses mouth if we can. How about sending an e-mail to SOF and asking the author of the article for his source. I would really like to see this disproved, but SOF is a reliable mag, so I dunno...

I can't help but wonder if this is true that eventually TFL, AR15 and GlockTalk could be added to that list. Scarrrrryy!


------------------
RKBA!

"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you." - Ramsay Clark

"Rights are liable to be perverted to wrongs when we are incapable of rightly exercising them." - Sarah Josepha Hale

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Try info@janes.com
That's the email address they give for "feedback" in the U.S. Their website is www.janes.com I've already sent them a note pointing out that I'm a member of GOA, and aquainted with some of the other groups they've labeled terrorist organizations, and that in my opinion there's no legitimate way someone could mistake those groups for terrorists. I suggested that they make a very public apology to the roughly half million people they just libeled, and put a prominent retraction on their site.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!

 

[Danger Dave]

If true, this could be used open a slander suit against Jane's. Isn't Janes published in England? As I recall, the English laws favor the allegedly slandered party - the accused has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that everything they said was fact - a long, arduous, and often impossible task, even if they're right (and in this case, they're certainly not).

Myself, I'd love to find out that this was a misquote. If not, I'd like to see their criteria for what constitutes a terrorist organization.

You know, I've heard Jane's referred to (by military types) as an espionage organization...

 

[rabbit assassin]

I'm sure it's sold in Australia as well, we have similar slander laws. If they did that here they would lose a lot of money.
One famous radio announcer made completely false and slanderous statements about the Shooters Party - The Shooters Party took him to court and won. The radio announcer had to pay up. Although the radio station may have paid for him.

 

[Karanas]

As a card carrying member of both the GOA and the JPFO I guess that my stock as a terrorist is skyrocketing!
Once the State Dept. puts a cash bounty on my head I'll know that I have truly "arrived" in the international terrorist community.
I guess I better start looking into that AK-47 for a chicken deal in Africa that someone mentioned in another thread.
I wonder what Muammar is doing for lunch tomorrow?

[This message has been edited by Karanas (edited September 28, 1999).]

 

[Gwinnydapooh]

I'm not a member of GOA, but if they hate it THAT much, maybe it's time . . . . just like I don't really have a use for an AR since I have a decent shotguns and my dad's AR and SKS are at my disposal, but if it pisses off the liberals at large, I can't resist.
Terrorists are perverse creatures.

 

[Fred S]

I have an online version of Jane's World Insurgency and Terrorism, Jan 1999. It does not have any reference to the NRA, GOA or JPFA in it, period.

It lists some of the various "right wing militias" under a section called Groups, Unitied States of America. It lists the Michigan Militia, Montana Militia, North American Volunteer Militia, the Big Star One, Texas Constitutional Militia, Indiana Milita and West Virginia Volunteer Milita in this catagory. The article goes on to give a pretty good explanation of what these groups are about and does not really make them out to be "terrorists" in the traditonal sense.

There is another section on US groups and it lists Los Macheteros, the FALN, Armed Forces of Popular Liberation, Organization of Volunteers for the Peurto Rican Revolution (where have Iread about these guys recently?), Armed Forces of Popular Resistance, People's Revolutionary Commandos and Armed Commandos for National Liberation.

So there it is...

Fred

[This message has been edited by Fred S (edited September 29, 1999).]

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Fred: I rather doubt SOF would have made this up. On the other hand, given the long lead time for print publications, I suppose it's entirely possilbe that Jane's corrected the errors long before this issue of SOF hit the street.

Still, assuming that the SOF article was accurate at the time it was written, I'd love to know how such a mistake could have happened. Maybe Jane's will explain the whole mess in response to one of our emails.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!