T Nation

Iraqi Al Queda Atrocities

Why don’t stories like these get more media coverage: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

There are two possibilities: 1) The media is too lazy and can’t be bothered to follow up on the stories; 2) They don’t deem them newsworthy. If 2), the question would be: Why? One possible and cynical answer: Because it might be good for the MSM’s disfavored political position.

Fox picked up the story on Foxnews.com – make of that what you will.

Somehow, I just can’t comprehend how this is ignored by news professionals.

This should be front page NYT.

Good article.

I fear the left will excuse the terrorists, because, after all these men are honorably trying to free their country from foreign occupation.

Blame the US for these deaths, even though we are determined to defeat the bastards who did these crimes.

Say that life was better under Saddam. (which makes me wonder, if you like life under Saddam so much, why don’t you like life under any muslim dictator? These same people constantly attack the US for backing Pakistan, the Saudis, Iran under the Shah, and Egypt, while saying life was better under Saddam. Sounds like a double standard to me.)

Let’s see if I am right.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This should be front page NYT.[/quote]

It would probably be more useful if it was shown on Middle Eastern media…

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Good article.

I fear the left will excuse the terrorists, blah blah blah.[/quote]

I’m amazed you would consider the fringe around here as representatives of “the left”.

Only in right wing wet dreams do these guys have any type of representative viewpoint.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Say that life was better under Saddam. (which makes me wonder, if you like life under Saddam so much, why don’t you like life under any muslim dictator? These same people constantly attack the US for backing Pakistan, the Saudis, Iran under the Shah, and Egypt, while saying life was better under Saddam. Sounds like a double standard to me.) [/quote]

Your view of the world is very polarized. You see, there’s a sea of possibilities between “support and arm” and “invade and obliterate”.

Have you ever heard of auto-determination?

This argument is retarded. Everyone, including probably even the REAL fringe left (Michael Moore) understands that Al Qaeda and its ilk are evil people. They flew buildings into the World Trade Center. It’s pretty clear.

The media doesn’t throw these stories up much because they’re not newsworthy, i.e. they are not NEWS. They cut Nick Berg’s head off, this is not news anymore. There is no media conspiracy in denying Al Qaeda crimes to turn support against Bush and this disastrous occupation. American or coalition atrocities are news because we’re supposed to be better than that. Why is this so hard to understand?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This should be front page NYT.

It would probably be more useful if it was shown on Middle Eastern media…[/quote]

That would be good.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
This argument is retarded. Everyone, including probably even the REAL fringe left (Michael Moore) understands that Al Qaeda and its ilk are evil people. They flew buildings into the World Trade Center. It’s pretty clear.

The media doesn’t throw these stories up much because they’re not newsworthy, i.e. they are not NEWS. They cut Nick Berg’s head off, this is not news anymore. There is no media conspiracy in denying Al Qaeda crimes to turn support against Bush and this disastrous occupation. American or coalition atrocities are news because we’re supposed to be better than that. Why is this so hard to understand?[/quote]

Complete bullshit. Why isn’t AQ massacring a village newsworthy yet if an American accidentally kills a civilian it is front page material?

There certainly is an agenda in our news media with regard to what news they chose to present.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
There certainly is an agenda in our news media with regard to what news they chose to present.

[/quote]
It must be one of them there conspiracies!

I thought everyone agreed the agenda was to shock citizens so they will watch the news… ?

Reading that story and seeing the pictures reminded me of the Viet Cong stories I’ve read.

U.S. soldiers would pass through a village and dispense vaccinations to children. Some time later, they would return to find the arms of all those vaccinated had been chopped off and were sitting in a basket. This was done to send a clear message: there could be no support given to nor taken from the foreign invaders. They had to be driven out at all costs. There was no middle ground. Anyone who did not directly oppose them was an enemy of the resistance movement.

The tactic worked. We got out of that country. The same thing will happen, and already is happening, in Iraq. It goes to show you that the tactics being used by the Muslim extremists are by no means new, nor do they constitute a threat to our national security. The VC, who planted grenades in children’s diapers, did not follow us home. Today, as Ron Paul pointed out in the Republican debates, we enjoy a friendly trading relationship with that country.

Vietnam taught the establishment that the U.S. public hasn’t got the stomach for a protracted occupation and guerilla warfare campaign. We’ll be out of Iraq by 2008. Hillary Clinton will do it if the Republicans won’t. That’s why Ron Paul is going to be the only viable Republican candidate this election.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
There certainly is an agenda in our news media with regard to what news they chose to present.

It must be one of them there conspiracies!

I thought everyone agreed the agenda was to shock citizens so they will watch the news… ?[/quote]

Please. They all have an agenda beyond the obvious ratings/money making.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
This argument is retarded. Everyone, including probably even the REAL fringe left (Michael Moore) understands that Al Qaeda and its ilk are evil people. They flew buildings into the World Trade Center. It’s pretty clear.

The media doesn’t throw these stories up much because they’re not newsworthy, i.e. they are not NEWS. They cut Nick Berg’s head off, this is not news anymore. There is no media conspiracy in denying Al Qaeda crimes to turn support against Bush and this disastrous occupation. American or coalition atrocities are news because we’re supposed to be better than that. Why is this so hard to understand?

Complete bullshit. Why isn’t AQ massacring a village newsworthy yet if an American accidentally kills a civilian it is front page material?
[/quote]

I think I was pretty clear, in that we are the “good guys” (not deriding that idea, just the term), so it is a problem when we kill civilians, however inevitable that may be.

And anyway, what leads the Iraq news most days, if not U.S. combat deaths, is jihadist car bombs blowing up crowds of pilgrims or students or shoppers in Iraq. That’s pretty clear evidence of Al Qaeda’s evil.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
…the tactics being used by the Muslim extremists are by no means new, nor do they constitute a threat to our national security. …[/quote]

The VC never crashed planes into the twin towers.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Please. They all have an agenda beyond the obvious ratings/money making.[/quote]

LOL.

As right wingers like to state, things happening that you don’t like doesn’t equate to an agenda.

Internal memos directing staff to cover news in a specific slant would be good support for your argument…

I don’t suppose you have anything to back up your statements other than simply not liking the coverage?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
…the tactics being used by the Muslim extremists are by no means new, nor do they constitute a threat to our national security. …

The VC never crashed planes into the twin towers. [/quote]

And that’s likely because we only occupied them for 10 years instead of 50.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Complete bullshit. Why isn’t AQ massacring a village newsworthy yet if an American accidentally kills a civilian it is front page material? [/quote]

I thought we already established that Al-Qaeda was a murderous organization with ruthless and barbaric members back in 2001. I don’t think you’ll find anyone that challenges that.

You’re comparing a criminal organization that proclaims it’ll harm civilians deliberately with an entity that claims to be “spreading democracy” and “fighting for freedom”. I don’t think it’s fair to put them to the same standard.

Here’s the million dollar question though: Would Al-Qaeda have massacred that village had it not been for the 2003 invasion? Answer that and you might start to understand why some Iraqis are shooting at your soldiers.

Let me guess…they’re all anti-Americans and are on Al-Qaeda’s payroll.

Close enough?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
The VC never crashed planes into the twin towers. [/quote]

Neither did the Iraqis!

[quote]lixy wrote:

Here’s the million dollar question though: Would Al-Qaeda have massacred that village had it not been for the 2003 invasion? Answer that and you might start to understand why some Iraqis are shooting at your soldiers.
[/quote]

Rip on my above post all you want, he just blamed it on the US. I called it.

But even if we did cause it, that allegedly being the case, what do we do? Is it right to fight these bastards, or do we just cut and run? I saw we have a duty to destroy them and stop this barbarity.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
And that’s likely because we only occupied them for 10 years instead of 50.[/quote]

The Vietnamese people had been fighting invaders for something like 700 years. That’s why they were so good at it.