Is this why terrorism exists? (1 Viewer)

[mpg]

According to this link, insurgents claim to have dragged the burning body of one of the GIs from that helicopter crash a few days ago. They videotaped it, and posted it on the internet. Something occurred to me when I read that. When pictures of the abuse at Abu Ghraib surfaced, it was an embarassment to the US. On the other hand, insurgents actually want this video in the media. Why is that? The media never condones such acts of barbarism, but the methods seem to be separated from the larger agenda of the insurgents. Any attention that's brought to their cause, generates sympathy for their cause, regardless of the methods. Ther same can't be said about Abu Ghraib. The abuses there were depicted as the real reason for the regime change. It was definitely bad publicity for the US and harmed our larger agenda. It didn't generate sympathy for the US, not even close. I'm not sure if this is media bias, or a bias by the people who watch the news. Terrorists are people who don't have a strong enough military to fight a conventional war. They're the underdogs. Maybe that's why their cause gets so much sympathy. A lot of people don't like rich people and take the side of "the little guy". Is there a similar bias against the world's only superpower? If this video generates little controversy among those in the media (compared to Abu Ghraib), that raises the suspicion of media bias.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_helicopter_video

 

[disneydude]

I understand your point but I'm not sure that I agree entirely. Who is it that sympathizes with the underground terrorists? I don't see any more sympathy for them then I do at the prison abuse situation. I think it is all deplorable.

I don't think that terrorists engage in this type of abuse to gain sympathy, they do it because its graphic and gains them a forum.

I do believe that the US situation is looked upon more critically because we ARE held to a higher standard. People around the world expect this kind of behavior from terrorist groups, not that they condone it, but it is no longer as shocking because it has become their signature.
When the US is caught in similar conduct, we are cast in a much harsher light because as a "civilized" nation it is completely out of character.


Terrorism exists to gain attention. I don't think it exists to gain sympathy.

 

[Donkey1499]

Hollywood sypathizes for the terrorists, or at least the ones like George Clooney. In the movie Syriana, Americans are depicted as oil driven, power hungry barbarians. While there is a human side shown of suicide bombers. Like you have to feel sorry for those who blow themselves up. It's really an innaccurate depiction of the war.

 

[mpg]

I understand your point but I'm not sure that I agree entirely. Who is it that sympathizes with the underground terrorists? I don't see any more sympathy for them then I do at the prison abuse situation. I think it is all deplorable.

I don't think that terrorists engage in this type of abuse to gain sympathy, they do it because its graphic and gains them a forum.

I do believe that the US situation is looked upon more critically because we ARE held to a higher standard. People around the world expect this kind of behavior from terrorist groups, not that they condone it, but it is no longer as shocking because it has become their signature.
When the US is caught in similar conduct, we are cast in a much harsher light because as a "civilized" nation it is completely out of character.


Terrorism exists to gain attention. I don't think it exists to gain sympathy.

Maybe you should reread my post just a little more carefully. I didn't say that terrorism generates sympathy for terrorism, just their larger causes, such as reducing support for Israel, or getting the US out of Iraq. It's a subtle yet significant difference.