They aren't cheering loud enough

[duretti]

The massive pro-occupation, anti-insurgency bias in the coverage of the iraq war by all sections of the major western media could not be more obvious.

The overwhelming portrayal is one of the invaders playing a defensive role, protecting iraq against the terrorist insurgents. The war is covered from an american perspective, with a large section of sources used being members of the american military. Huge ammounts of coverage are given to US justifications for their actions, and "good intentions" are asserted in almost all cases.

On the other side, no serious effort has been made to follow the war from the perspective of the insurgency, nor has any serious airtime been given to examining the makeup of the insurgency or its objectives. Whilst the majority of insurgent attacks are against military targets, the majority of coverage of the entire war deals with insurgent attacks against civilians - falsely presenting the insurgency as primarily terroristic. In contrast, Whilst the coalition is responsible for a very large percentage of civilian deaths (84% by october 2004), only a tiny fraction of the coverage given to iraqi civilian deaths is that of those killed by the coalition.

Insurgent sources are not used, and virtually no coverage has been given to the massive non-violent resistance to the occupation.

However, the opposite is widely claimed. It is argued that a dastardly "liberal media" is undermining american efforts with "anti-war" propaganda.

How is this alternative interperetation defended? By shifting the goalposts. Support for the occupying forces is taken as a given, and those labeled "anti-war" are infact supporters of the occupation, who quibble about tactics - people arguing that the coalition isn't doing its "good work" well enough. In short, the claims that media are "anti-war" boil down to accusations that they aren't cheering loud enough.

 

[cherokee]

The massive pro-occupation, anti-insurgency bias in the coverage of the iraq war by all sections of the major western media could not be more obvious.

The overwhelming portrayal is one of the invaders playing a defensive role, protecting iraq against the terrorist insurgents. The war is covered from an american perspective, with a large section of sources used being members of the american military. Huge ammounts of coverage are given to US justifications for their actions, and "good intentions" are asserted in almost all cases.

On the other side, no serious effort has been made to follow the war from the perspective of the insurgency, nor has any serious airtime been given to examining the makeup of the insurgency or its objectives. Whilst the majority of insurgent attacks are against military targets, the majority of coverage of the entire war deals with insurgent attacks against civilians - falsely presenting the insurgency as primarily terroristic. In contrast, Whilst the coalition is responsible for a very large percentage of civilian deaths (84% by october 2004), only a tiny fraction of the coverage given to iraqi civilian deaths is that of those killed by the coalition.

Insurgent sources are not used, and virtually no coverage has been given to the massive non-violent resistance to the occupation.

However, the opposite is widely claimed. It is argued that a dastardly "liberal media" is undermining american efforts with "anti-war" propaganda.

How is this alternative interperetation defended? By shifting the goalposts. Support for the occupying forces is taken as a given, and those labeled "anti-war" are infact supporters of the occupation, who quibble about tactics - people arguing that the coalition isn't doing its "good work" well enough. In short, the claims that media are "anti-war" boil down to accusations that they aren't cheering loud enough.

I'm sorry but it’s the blood lust in Islam that’s driving the Iraqi death toll. Not the US. The insurgency prefers to attack civilian targets over military targets as well. And when they do attack a military target they don’t mind killing 25 Iraqi people to damage one US vehicle. Just having the weapon explode not matter who is killed is seen as a victory to them.

Look IMO going into Iraq wasn’t the smartest thing bush did.

BUT it’s the Iraqi people that have made up their mind they would rather kill each other then rebuild a better country.
The sunni and shia would rather murder in the name of Allah.

 

[duretti]

I'm sorry but it’s the blood lust in Islam that’s driving the Iraqi death toll. Not the US. The insurgency prefers to attack civilian targets over military targets as well. And when they do attack a military target they don’t mind killing 25 Iraqi people to damage one US vehicle. Just having the weapon explode not matter who is killed is seen as a victory to them.

Look IMO going into Iraq wasn’t the smartest thing bush did.

BUT it’s the Iraqi people that have made up their mind they would rather kill each other then rebuild a better country.
The sunni and shia would rather murder in the name of Allah.

Your sources for this? How did you come to know that insurgents "prefer civilian targets"? The iraq war was started (and as such initially driven) by an american invasion, not "the bloodlust in islam". The figures show a massive civilian casualties caused by coalition forces. By 2004, the coalition had killed over twice as many civilians as iraqi militants. It is a mistake to lump all iraqi militants together as "the insurgency". There are sectarian groups, now able to kill civilians for their bloodfeuds as the invasion has destroyed law and order, and there are insurgents fighting to end the occupation - this is why the insurgents are killing, not "in the name of allah". The insurgents may at times use questionable methods (as almost all armies do when outgunned to the extent they are), but their goal is decidedly not blood sacrifices for allah. For the most part, the insurgents are quite distinct from the sectarian death squads.

The iraqi people do want to build a better country, but most know that this will be very dificult under the heel of the US and its proxies - have a look at the track record of governments violently set up (or even armed) by the US (think sadam, saudi arabia, south vietnam, most of south america etc). Thus, they believe that the first thing they need to do in order to to build a better country is to violently remove the occupying force.

Note: This thread was meant to be about media coverage of the war, rather than the justice of the war.

 

[cherokee]

Your sources for this? How did you come to know that insurgents "prefer civilian targets"?

All one has to do is look at the attacks. Where do they take place? Civilian markets and other places they can blend in.

The iraq war was started (and as such initially driven) by an american invasion, not "the bloodlust in islam". The figures show a massive civilian casualties caused by coalition forces. By 2004, the coalition had killed over twice as many civilians as iraqi militants.

Then by all means show me where you get this data from to back up your casualties figures.

It is a mistake to lump all iraqi militants together as "the insurgency". There are sectarian groups, now able to kill civilians for their bloodfeuds as the invasion has destroyed law and order, and there are insurgents fighting to end the occupation - this is why the insurgents are killing, not "in the name of allah".

Can you tell me the names of the groups that are fighting for the freedom of Iraq? Can you even tell them apart? Is that why we clear out an area only for the people to allow the insurgents to come back in and start killing anyone that doesn’t think like they do?
Are you another one who believes the Iraqi government that was elected by the People Of Iraq is nothing but a puppet?

The insurgents may at times use questionable methods (as almost all armies do when outgunned to the extent they are), but their goal is decidedly not blood sacrifices for allah. For the most part, the insurgents are quite distinct from the sectarian death squads.

Yes I would have to say blowing up kids gathered at the back of a hummer falls under "questionable methods" THEN having the balls to call the kids they just killed martyrs.....:roll:

The iraqi people do want to build a better country, but most know that this will be very dificult under the heel of the US and its proxies.

The US has been trying to do everything it can to help the Iraqi people rebuild a better country. BUT like I said before the people would rather kill each other. Can you prove this to be wrong?

have a look at the track record of governments violently set up (or even armed) by the US (think sadam, saudi arabia, south vietnam, most of south america etc).

When did the US "set up" any of these places? Define "Set Up"

Thus, they believe that the first thing they need to do in order to to build a better country is to violently remove the occupying force.

If the US pulled out today, a civil war would start hours later and then you would blame the US for pulling out. I'm sorry but from what I have read and seen from sites all over the web the Iraqi government doesn’t want us to pull out yet. Only the "insurgents" want the US out. And your last remark. Does that include anyone who gets in their way..I think it does. They have proved that 10000 times over.

 

[duretti]

All one has to do is look at the attacks. Where do they take place? Civilian markets and other places they can blend in.

No actually. Whilst such attacks recieve the most media coverage, by far the most common attacks are roadside bombs against coalition forces.

Then by all means show me where you get this data from to back up your casualties figures.

Be happy to. Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A study doen for the lancet - a respected british medical journal. You need a log in to view the actual report.

Can you tell me the names of the groups that are fighting for the freedom of Iraq? Can you even tell them apart? Is that why we clear out an area only for the people to allow the insurgents to come back in and start killing anyone that doesn’t think like they do?

Obviously I believe that the coalition (do not say we) shouldn't "clear areas out". As with any guerilla army, the insurgency is difficult to precisely specify, and indeed does not have a central heirarchy. 3 of the broad ideological factions are the iraqi nationalists, the islamicists and the kurdish nationalists. The majority are not interested in "killing anyone who doesnt think like they do" - just the invaders, and traitors who collaborate with them.

Are you another one who believes the Iraqi government that was elected by the People Of Iraq is nothing but a puppet?

Hmmmm.... Yes. Hitler was democratically elected, so was mugabe. Formal democracy (of only the representative form) does not ensure a governments benevolence, or prevent it from being the puppet of a foreign power.

Yes I would have to say blowing up kids gathered at the back of a hummer falls under "questionable methods" THEN having the balls to call the kids they just killed martyrs.....:roll:?

Completely agreed. But the civilian deaths caused in this way are a drop in the ocean compared to the coalition bombings of iraqi cities.

The US has been trying to do everything it can to help the Iraqi people rebuild a better country. BUT like I said before the people would rather kill each other. Can you prove this to be wrong?

:bs

I suppose destroying their infrastructure and law & order was doing everything they can to help? As was killing over 100000 civilians by 2004 (lancet study again)? As is ensuring that oil is not nationalised, so american companies can control it as they do in saudi arabia, ensuring iraq will remain in poverty?

When did the US "set up" any of these places? Define "Set Up"

What Uncle Sam Really Wants. A good but concise history of the south american ones can be found here. "setting up" involves supplying arms, money and training to proxies who will overthrow the government and set up a new regime.

Surely you know by now that sadam got most of his weapons from america, and america supplied him throughout his worst attrocities? Why did they supply him? Because the wanted him in power, to ensure a stable region the US could exploit. He served his masters faithfully untill the first gulf war. Even after that, there was a massive iraqi uprising against sadam, but the US intervened to prevent them getting access to weapons, and ensure that sadam could slaughter them and remain in power.

Saudi Arabia recieves huge military aid from america and america has bases there. This ensures that the opressive rulling class remains in power.

If the US pulled out today, a civil war would start hours later and then you would blame the US for pulling out. I'm sorry but from what I have read and seen from sites all over the web the Iraqi government doesn’t want us to pull out yet. Only the "insurgents" want the US out. And your last remark. Does that include anyone who gets in their way..I think it does. They have proved that 10000 times over.

OFC the "government" doesn't want the US out. The "government" was set up by the US and depends on them for its power. The iraqi people however, certainly want the US out. If the US pulled out there would be a revolution, and perhaps a secession of the kurdish parts. A civil war would be very unlikely.

Note: As I said before, my intention was to argue that the media coverage was biased, not about who was right or wrong. If you believe the US to be a lesser evil to the insurgency, would it not be possible for media to be biased in favour of that lesser evil.

 

[duretti]

Naturally, the US would not just pull out, as this would lead to it losing control of the oil reserves it has fought so hard for. Any withdrawl is likely to be matched by massive military aid to the puppet government. If the US strengthens this enough, the revolution may turn into a civil war.

 

[cherokee]

No actually. Whilst such attacks recieve the most media coverage, by far the most common attacks are roadside bombs against coalition forces.

Then you would have to say that ALL the media sources in the world are covering up the other supposed attacks. Can you claim this?
Just so you know I don’t rely on just the US site for my news.

Be happy to. Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A study doen for the lancet - a respected british medical journal. You need a log in to view the actual report.

This is nothing more then guessing. If you’ll note the key word is “survey”.
This report proves nothing because its based on nothing. No facts, no hard cold data while this type of report may work for you or others at information clearing house it doesn’t work for me.

Obviously I believe that the coalition (do not say we) shouldn't "clear areas out". As with any guerilla army, the insurgency is difficult to precisely specify, and indeed does not have a central heirarchy. 3 of the broad ideological factions are the iraqi nationalists, the islamicists and the kurdish nationalists. The majority are not interested in "killing anyone who doesnt think like they do" - just the invaders, and traitors who collaborate with them.

Try again. The Kurdish are the only group rebuilding itself. The Sunni and Shia are far too concerned with forcing their version of Islam on the Iraqi people. The groups left are AQ and Saddam loyalist (which are the few not caught up in the sunnia and shia war.) Face the facts Sir. The “majority” as you call them only wish their version of Islam to dominate Iraq.

Hmmmm.... Yes. Hitler was democratically elected, so was mugabe. Formal democracy (of only the representative form) does not ensure a governments benevolence, or prevent it from being the puppet of a foreign power.

So now you compare the people who faced death threats if they voted to that of Nazi Germany? Sorry but that doesn’t fly. These people risked their lives to vote for their leaders.

Completely agreed. But the civilian deaths caused in this way are a drop in the ocean compared to the coalition bombings of iraqi cities.

So do you believe that this sort of killing is ok, Since you stated it was only a drop in the ocean? Show me the proof with out any surveys if you can..

:bs
I suppose destroying their infrastructure and law & order was doing everything they can to help? As was killing over 100000 civilians by 2004 (lancet study again)? As is ensuring that oil is not nationalised, so american companies can control it as they do in saudi arabia, ensuring iraq will remain in poverty?

The survey again? If the US only wanted Oil then why didn’t just lift the UN sanctions? Why bother with a war? Or better yet why not just go in and kill every single Iraqi and dominate the country? Since you believe we are so evil.

What Uncle Sam Really Wants. A good but concise history of the south american ones can be found here. "setting up" involves supplying arms, money and training to proxies who will overthrow the government and set up a new regime.

Noam Chomsky is nothing more the a terrorist supporter. I will admit some mistakes were made in SA but answer this. How many countries are under US control there? Hmmm?

Surely you know by now that sadam got most of his weapons from america, and america supplied him throughout his worst attrocities? Why did they supply him? Because the
wanted him in power, to ensure a stable region the US could exploit. He served his masters faithfully untill the first gulf war. Even after that, there was a massive iraqi uprising against sadam, but the US intervened to prevent them getting access to weapons, and ensure that sadam could slaughter them and remain in power.

More BS. You need to get your facts right. It was France and Germany that supplied the bulk of Saddams weapons during his war with Iran. And what happened near/ after the end of the Iraq/Iran war The US started cutting its ties with Saddam. If Saddam was such a friend then why did the US fight him in the Gulf War? Why didn’t we protect him?

Saudi Arabia recieves huge military aid from america and america has bases there. This ensures that the opressive rulling class remains in power.

Yes they do buy US weapons, so what? So do lots of other countries in the world.
And now to really bust your bubble….it’s the peoples own fault they are living under repressive dictatorships not ours..

OFC the "government" doesn't want the US out. The "government" was set up by the US and depends on them for its power. The iraqi people however, certainly want the US out. If the US pulled out there would be a revolution, and perhaps a secession of the kurdish parts. A civil war would be very unlikely.

Again with your lies…The Iraqi people VOTED for its government not the US.
You my friend live in a dream world. The “revolution” is also known by a different name. Its called a blood bath.


Now lets look at some of the other stories from you sites (you posted)
What nothing about Elvis and the aliens? Nope but I do see a lot of Middle East BS!
The very same as “The world is trying to exterminate muslins”

GlobalResearch.ca - Centre for Research on Globalization

Iraq’s Death Squads: An Instrument Of The Occupation
by Ghali Hassan

The "Demonization" of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-01-04
-
Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?.
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2007-01-07
-
The Barbaric Lynching of President Saddam Hussein
- by Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad - 2007-01-01

JFK and 9/11
- by Dr. Peter Dale Scott - 2006-12-20
In both 9/11 and the JFK assassination, the US government and the media immediately established a guilty party. Eventually, in both cases a commission was set up to validate the official narrative.
And links from the site.

Air strikes On Somalia: A New Stage
In Washington’s Illegal “Terror” War
By Chris Marsden

Towards A Counter Movement!

Terrified Soldiers Terrifying People
By Dahr Jamail & Ali al-Fadhily
More than 5,000 civilians killed by U.S. soldiers have been buried in Fallujah cemeteries and mass graves dug on the outskirts of the city, according to the Study Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, a non-governmental organisation based in Fallujah

Israel’s Purging Of Palestinian Christians
By Jonathan Cook
Although there are no figures available, it can probably be safely assumed that a disproportionate number of Palestinians losing their residency rights are Christian. Certainly the effect of further damaging the education system in the occupied territories will be to increase the exodus of Palestine’s next generation of leaders, including its Christians

The Making Of Another Iraq
By Abukar Arman
The presence of foreign troops has profoundly changed the political dynamics in Somalia. A grassroots-driven, wrathful nationalism will intensify, with ramifications beyond the Somali geographical boundaries. Indeed, unless the current trend is immediately reversed, the conflict will likely set the entire Horn of Africa on fire, spark an unprecedented humanitarian crisis, and widen the divide between the West and the Islamic world

US-Ordered Rush Job
By Gwynne Dyer
The American government wanted Saddam Hussein executed for the Dujail killings to avoid revealing its complicity in his bigger crimes

 

[ashurbanipal]

Cherokee,

I'd be interested to see any proof you have that any of those stories are "BS".

 

[Vader]

Naturally, the US would not just pull out, as this would lead to it losing control of the oil reserves it has fought so hard for. Any withdrawl is likely to be matched by massive military aid to the puppet government. If the US strengthens this enough, the revolution may turn into a civil war.

The war was never about oil. Stop listening to the propaganda sites...they are all full of ****.

:mrgreen:

 

[duretti]

I love how cherokee sets such widely different standards of proof for himself and others. He can declare huge swathes of articles BS by merely looking at their titles (im assuming he didn't read them all), and dismiss a book based on an unsubstantiated one line ad hominem against the man who wrote it - but the findings of a respected medical journal apparently offer no support to arguments opposed to his own.

It seems this thread has degenerated into a debate for and against the occupation, as opposed to the discussion of media coverage it was intended as. Oh well. more detailed response later.

 

[jfuh]

The massive pro-occupation, anti-insurgency bias in the coverage of the iraq war by all sections of the major western media could not be more obvious.

The overwhelming portrayal is one of the invaders playing a defensive role, protecting iraq against the terrorist insurgents. The war is covered from an american perspective, with a large section of sources used being members of the american military. Huge ammounts of coverage are given to US justifications for their actions, and "good intentions" are asserted in almost all cases.

On the other side, no serious effort has been made to follow the war from the perspective of the insurgency, nor has any serious airtime been given to examining the makeup of the insurgency or its objectives. Whilst the majority of insurgent attacks are against military targets, the majority of coverage of the entire war deals with insurgent attacks against civilians - falsely presenting the insurgency as primarily terroristic. In contrast, Whilst the coalition is responsible for a very large percentage of civilian deaths (84% by october 2004), only a tiny fraction of the coverage given to iraqi civilian deaths is that of those killed by the coalition.

Insurgent sources are not used, and virtually no coverage has been given to the massive non-violent resistance to the occupation.

However, the opposite is widely claimed. It is argued that a dastardly "liberal media" is undermining american efforts with "anti-war" propaganda.

How is this alternative interperetation defended? By shifting the goalposts. Support for the occupying forces is taken as a given, and those labeled "anti-war" are infact supporters of the occupation, who quibble about tactics - people arguing that the coalition isn't doing its "good work" well enough. In short, the claims that media are "anti-war" boil down to accusations that they aren't cheering loud enough.

Non-violent insurgency?
The anti-west insurgency rants death to America and the obliteration of israel from the face of the earth.
If there is bias against the insurgency in the media, good, very good. The insurgencies need to be completely annihilated.

Let's keep up the anti-insurgency bias. Death to terrorism and all terrorists - sorry there're no virgins waiting for you, you're going straight to hell.

 

[duretti]

"Then you would have to say that ALL the media sources in the world are covering up the other supposed attacks. Can you claim this?
Just so you know I don’t rely on just the US site for my news."

BBC NEWS | Middle East | IEDs: Iraq's deadly roadside bombs. Doesn't look like there is much of a cover up to me.

"This is nothing more then guessing. If you’ll note the key word is “survey”.
This report proves nothing because its based on nothing. No facts, no hard cold data while this type of report may work for you or others at information clearing house it doesn’t work for me."

What does work for you then? No hard cold data exists as most of the civilian murders by coalition forces will never be reported - this is a feature of most wars. Such guesses are the best data we have.

"Try again. The Kurdish are the only group rebuilding itself. The Sunni and Shia are far too concerned with forcing their version of Islam on the Iraqi people. The groups left are AQ and Saddam loyalist (which are the few not caught up in the sunnia and shia war.) Face the facts Sir. The “majority” as you call them only wish their version of Islam to dominate Iraq."

There is more than one kurd in iraq. Whilst some are collaborating with the invaders, there is certainly a kurdish nationalist element to the insurgency. You offer no substantiation to your claims here. ABC News: Insurgency Gains Alarming Support Among Iraq's Sunni Muslims
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm- the masses support the insurgency.

"So now you compare the people who faced death threats if they voted to that of Nazi Germany? Sorry but that doesn’t fly. These people risked their lives to vote for their leaders."

So intimidation makes elections more legitimate? Thats a good one. Coming to think of it, they had that in nazi germany as well.

"So do you believe that this sort of killing is ok, Since you stated it was only a drop in the ocean? Show me the proof with out any surveys if you can."

No, I do not believe it is ok. I do believe it is better to focus opposition on larger scale killings - such as those perpetrated by the coalition. Attacks on civilians are not only wrong in their own right, but bad tactics longterm as they severely undermine support.

"The survey again? If the US only wanted Oil then why didn’t just lift the UN sanctions? Why bother with a war? Or better yet why not just go in and kill every single Iraqi and dominate the country? Since you believe we are so evil."

Because sadam would get all the profit from the oil. They dont want the oil per se, they want the huge profits to be gained from selling it to the worlds emergine economies.

Whilst US leaders are likely no better than ghengis khan, the US has an (albeit terribly broken) democratic system. There are checks and balances, the whitehouse has to appease congress, and if the american people get too pissed off they can vote them out at the next election. Thus they moderate their actions.

"Noam Chomsky is nothing more the a terrorist supporter. I will admit some mistakes were made in SA but answer this. How many countries are under US control there? Hmmm?"

But the US wasn't after direct control. It was after countries with "free markets", which its corporations could exploit. With the exception of the recent chavez hiccup, it definitely. got that.

"More BS. You need to get your facts right. It was France and Germany that supplied the bulk of Saddams weapons during his war with Iran. And what happened near/ after the end of the Iraq/Iran war The US started cutting its ties with Saddam. If Saddam was such a friend then why did the US fight him in the Gulf War? Why didn’t we protect him?"

Because he went rogue, and tried to take kuwait and its precious precious oil. This had to be stopped. The US supplied a huge chunk of sadams weapons.

"Yes they do buy US weapons, so what? So do lots of other countries in the world."

Wow. That makes the USA so much better. Iraq is indeed the tip of the iceberg.

"And now to really bust your bubble….it’s the peoples own fault they are living under repressive dictatorships not ours."

Yep. give a someone a gun, and its the fault of the man whos heads he puts it to that hes opressed.

"The “revolution” is also known by a different name. Its called a blood bath."

Proof?

As for the other articles, I havent read them, but looking at the titles, I'd say there was a high chance they are all true.

 

[MSgt]

Have we been hit with a wave of High School projects lately or something?

The massive pro-occupation, anti-insurgency bias in the coverage of the iraq war by all sections of the major western media could not be more obvious.

The media coverage with regards to iraq has been largely anti-American. "First" Fallujah and Na Jaaf were media victories supported by Presidential weakness and handed over to the insurgency and the terrorists.

The overwhelming portrayal is one of the invaders playing a defensive role, protecting iraq against the terrorist insurgents. The war is covered from an american perspective, with a large section of sources used being members of the american military. Huge ammounts of coverage are given to US justifications for their actions, and "good intentions" are asserted in almost all cases.

On the other side, no serious effort has been made to follow the war from the perspective of the insurgency, nor has any serious airtime been given to examining the makeup of the insurgency or its objectives.

Perhaps you wish the insurgency to be portrayed as "freedom fighters" rather than what they are? And do they, in fact, fight for freedom? Are their objectives to bring freedom to Iraq and equality amongst sects? Is the objective to support the great progress the Kurds have made and the wishes of the local government? Is your needs for drama so great that you need a camera crew to follow around these human monsters as they amount their carnage for your TV pleasure?

The insurgency fights for the past, not the future. They fight for their life style and not all of their life styles. What is being offerred is equality, but the insurgency fights for superiority. And why do they fight? Do the Sauds, Syrian Baathist Party, and old mullahs in Tehran (that would be the capital of Iran) wish for a legitimately free Arab nation where all are equal and treated humanely? Of course not, but they also don't want to share a border with a terrorist nation, which is why we have seen the softening of these nations lately.

Feel free to crack a book or two, because I tire of explaining reality to every individual who merely wishes to complain about things he doesn't understand.

Whilst the majority of insurgent attacks are against military targets, the majority of coverage of the entire war deals with insurgent attacks against civilians - falsely presenting the insurgency as primarily terroristic.

And what makes you believe this? Or are you simply a liar? I can assure you that civilians are the preferred target. When car bombs fo off, they are within civilian crowds, not military crowds. We are considered a "hard" target and civilians are considered a "soft" target. If the goal is to disrupt the current government and destroy the hopes of those for a "free" Iraq, then the "soft" target is preferred. The vast majority of civilian death has been a result of the Sunni insurgency targetted terror upon the population and government, which is encouraged by international terrorists from across the borders. The Shia militia has focused it's efforts on the Sunni for revenge.

In contrast, Whilst the coalition is responsible for a very large percentage of civilian deaths (84% by october 2004), only a tiny fraction of the coverage given to iraqi civilian deaths is that of those killed by the coalition.

Is this more simple lying? One would hope that you could manage to tell a better one. The death percentage from coalition forces was higher in October 2004 because of the initial invasion and two seperate attacks into Fallujah and NaJaaf. The vast majority of all civilian deaths have been a result of sectoral and international terrorist violence. While I cannot simply enlighten you to my sources, there are plenty of civilian surveys on line and even those that are highly exxagerated have a bit more honesty in them than what you are portraying.

Insurgent sources are not used, and virtually no coverage has been given to the massive non-violent resistance to the occupation.

And why would insurgent sources be used for anything? Was the Nazi struggle supposed to be produced so that we could have full coverage? Is "non-violent resistance" supposed to be an attempt at a joke? There are plenty of Shi'ites and Kurds that smack you in the face for that.

And what is a credible insurgent source? Al-Jazeera? The Arab rag that is forbidden from reporting on Arab attrocity throughout the region and maintains a concrete conviction tat Jews caused the tsunami in Indonesia that killed Muslims? The media that claims that 9/11 was a Jew conspiracy and making false claims that no Jews were present in the rubble? Tell you what....just create your own lies. At least you will know the credibility.

How is this alternative interperetation defended?

By reality. Check it out.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The massive pro-occupation, anti-insurgency bias in the coverage of the iraq war by all sections of the major western media could not be more obvious.

The overwhelming portrayal is one of the invaders playing a defensive role, protecting iraq against the terrorist insurgents. The war is covered from an american perspective, with a large section of sources used being members of the american military. Huge ammounts of coverage are given to US justifications for their actions, and "good intentions" are asserted in almost all cases.

On the other side, no serious effort has been made to follow the war from the perspective of the insurgency, nor has any serious airtime been given to examining the makeup of the insurgency or its objectives. Whilst the majority of insurgent attacks are against military targets, the majority of coverage of the entire war deals with insurgent attacks against civilians - falsely presenting the insurgency as primarily terroristic. In contrast, Whilst the coalition is responsible for a very large percentage of civilian deaths (84% by october 2004), only a tiny fraction of the coverage given to iraqi civilian deaths is that of those killed by the coalition.

Insurgent sources are not used, and virtually no coverage has been given to the massive non-violent resistance to the occupation.

However, the opposite is widely claimed. It is argued that a dastardly "liberal media" is undermining american efforts with "anti-war" propaganda.

How is this alternative interperetation defended? By shifting the goalposts. Support for the occupying forces is taken as a given, and those labeled "anti-war" are infact supporters of the occupation, who quibble about tactics - people arguing that the coalition isn't doing its "good work" well enough. In short, the claims that media are "anti-war" boil down to accusations that they aren't cheering loud enough.

You sir are a lier and a Jihadist propagandist, even the most biased estimates only put civilian casualties caused by the coalition at 30%. You want to come at it from the jihadist perspective? You want to know their objectives? Their objective is to set up an Islamic Fascist state based on the tenants of nazi supporters Sayyid Qutb and al-Banna in order to use Iraq as a spring board to destroy all secular regimes and to reestablish a pan-Islamic caliphate under puritanical sharia law. Now run along Nazi your propaganda gets no play here.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Because he went rogue, and tried to take kuwait and its precious precious oil. This had to be stopped. The US supplied a huge chunk of sadams weapons.

By way of illustrating just how ridiculous media coverage is in this country, I'd like to expand on this point just a little:

Saddam actually didn't go rogue. He was quite reasonable with Kuwait; invasion wasn't exactly a last resort but he was far slower to invade than we have been.

After the Iran/Iraq war (which was a proxy war of our making, BTW--we wanted Iran weakened after they kicked out the Shah), Iraq had suffered terribly. The Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and several other Arab states had financed Iraq, in return for Iraqis doing most of the dying to prevent a Persian resurgence in the Middle East. Iraq's infrastructure was highly damaged. They weren't broken by any means, but they were certainly hurting.

Saddam asked his creditors to give him a little more time to pay off the money he owed (it had been to the benefit of the nations to his west and south, especially Saudi Arabia, that Iraq fight Iran. Had Iran been allowed its resurgence, the hardliners in Iran would likely have stirred hardline Muslim elements in Saudi Arabia to a civil war.). Everyone agreed except Kuwait. The Kuwaitis covetted the Rumalyah oil field which actually crosses the border between Iraq and Kuwait. It is one of Iraq's more productive fields, though it isn't their biggest by any means.

The Kuwaitis began slant-drilling into the Iraqi side (or that was Iraq's contention; it's not completely substantiated but the documentation that's been discovered since makes it appear likely they were doing that). They actually pumped more oil than OPEC allowed them to. This had the effect of depressing the price of oil somewhat--so they were stealing oil from Iraq and using it to impair their ability to repair damage from the war and repay their debts.

Iraq understandably didn't like this at all. But rather than invade immediately, Saddam tried diplomacy for a few months. The Kuwaitis basically demanded complete drilling rights to Rumalyah, and Iraq refused--they had to. Eventually, Saddam decided to invade. He asked April Glaspie, our ambassador to Iraq, whether we cared. She said that we had no interest whether he invaded Kuwait or not.

So he invaded. And initially, we didn't care. It took some of the Neocons (yes, they were around back then, and yes, even at that time they wanted to invade Iraq) hiring an actress to go on the floor of Congress and impersonate a Kuwaiti princess. She tearfully told of attrocities perpetrated by Saddam's infantry, when in fact she had been in Paris (IIRC) the entire time and obviously couldn't have witnessed anything. This widely publicized event motivated public opinion, which now supported a war. We were also granted greater access to both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in return for kicking Saddam out. So that's what we did.

Now, was Saddam Hussein a nice guy? No, he was a murdering bastard who deserved far worse than he got, IMO. But that being so doesn't mean that we don't also have blood on our hands. And that being so is beside the point. The average American is completely unaware of this account. If you ask why Saddam invaded Kuwait to begin with, most people will either say it was because he was a murdering psychopath (again, no argument from me, but that's not really why it happened) or because he was greedy.

So why doesn't this information get broadcast to us? I think the answer is that it defies our myths, and we--ourselves and the people doing the reporting-- wouldn't know what to do with it. We like to think that we, as Americans, are part of the best nation that's ever existed. We're not only powerful, we're also economically potent, creative, vibrant, forward-thinking, compassionate, morally correct and genuinely morally superior, intelligent, friendly, just, and downright good. The truth is that we are simply a very powerful nation. We're not better than any other nation that ever existed. We're just as apt to take on and manipulate vassals as any other powerful state ever has been. We're just as apt to use our power to further our own interests at the (sometimes extreme) expense of others. And so on.

And this really shouldn't shock anyone. The Romans thought of themselves as morally superior, but we, looking back over the centuries, see that they were no better than the tribes they conquered, or the ones that eventually conquered them. The Arabs thought themselves morally superior during their golden age. We know that they were not. The Persians thought themselves morally superior. We know they were not. The Spanish thought themselves morally superior. We know they were not.

But though this ought not shock anyone, stating this very reasonable position and interpretting current events through its lens is enough to cause people to want to actually fight you. People are so emotionally bound up in the idea that we're better than other nations, that presenting information that contradicts that idea is simply not done. Indeed, it's not something that our news media even thinks about, because they are like the rest of us, and they believe, just as strongly as most everyone else, that we are better. The notion that Saddam Hussein might have had some justification for the invasion of Kuwait (or at least a case we ought to carefully evaluate) undermines our myth of being morally superior. After all, someone who is morally superior does not punish someone who was justified in attacking someone else. But because we are morally superior, so this reasoning goes, this stuff couldn't have happened, and anyone who says it did is anti-american, a Nazi, a jihadist, etc. etc.

And that is all.

P.S. for documentation on the Iraq-Kuwait saga, see:

October 21st, 1991 edition of the London Observer

"What Every American Should Know About Who's Really Running the World" by Melissa Rossi.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The media coverage with regards to iraq has been largely anti-American. First Fallujah and Na Jaaf were media victories handed over to the insurgency and the terrorists.

I think it's been more mixed lately, but there's no question that initially, that was not the case. But I still see positive-slanted stories on MSN, CNN, etc. Even the stories that report things like "Bloody month in Iraq" stringently avoid anti-Americanism.

Unless you think that giving a negative report, or a report on the negative aspects of the war, is anti-American. Do you?

Perhaps you wish the insurgency to be portrayed as "freedom fighters" rather than what they are? And do they, in fact, fight for freedom? Are their objectives to bring freedom to Iraq and equality amongst sects? Is the objective to support the great progress the Kurds have made and the wishes of the local government? Is your needs for drama so great that you need a camera crew to follow around these human monsters as they amount their carnage for your TV pleasure?

Now wait a minute--why do they have to be fighting for freedom? Why not just fighting to acheive their objective, which is exactly what we're doing?

And why would insurgent sources be used for anything? Was the Nazi struggle supposed to be produced so that we could have full coverage?

I would think the obvious answer to this would be yes. Of course we needed to know what the Nazis thought. We needed to listen to them lay out their case the best way they could. Because once they've done that, it's easy to see why Nazi ideology is mistaken. If we don't let them do that, there will always be a question.

Just as there are questions now about exactly how justified our presence in Iraq, and all the damage we've done, really is. If it is all justified, then we ought to be able to listen to the insurgents make the best case they possibly can. If it is justified, then after that we will know the truth. Until then, we cannot fully know the truth, and are justified in suspecting that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

[ashurbanipal]

You sir are a lier and a Jihadist propagandist, even the most biased estimates only put civilian casualties caused by the coalition at 30%. You want to come at it from the jihadist perspective? You want to know their objectives? Their objective is to set up an Islamic Fascist state based on the tenants of nazi supporters Sayyid Qutb and al-Banna in order to use Iraq as a spring board to destroy all secular regimes and to reestablish a pan-Islamic caliphate under puritanical sharia law. Now run along Nazi your propaganda gets no play here.

TOT,

You know, I just realized I don't think I've seen a single thread you've posted in where you didn't resort to calling someone names. Usually, it's after your opponent has backed you into a corner, but you seem to be starting early here.

 

[MSgt]

Now wait a minute--why do they have to be fighting for freedom? Why not just fighting to acheive their objective, which is exactly what we're doing?

You tell me. I'm not the one labeling them that. And should we allow them to meet their objective?

I would think the obvious answer to this would be yes. Of course we needed to know what the Nazis thought. We needed to listen to them lay out their case the best way they could. Because once they've done that, it's easy to see why Nazi ideology is mistaken. If we don't let them do that, there will always be a question.

An obvious answer of yes? You are referring to intel and an understaindg to what happened. The thread creator is talking about somehting else. Do you think that you needed explanation as to what Nazi thought process was to call it what it was? They needed to present their case as to why they slaughter in order for you to act? Do you have questions today about them? Wars are not won by giving your enemies credibility and a voice as you strive to defeat them. And it is foolish to give your enemy any advantage while he remains determined to kill you.

 

[ashurbanipal]

You tell me. I'm not the one labeling them that. And should we allow them to meet their objective?

My answer would have to be "I don't know" on both.

What I do know is that we can't leave Iraq any time in the next twenty years, at least. If I were in charge of the fight there, I'd insitute a draft, put a million combat soldiers there ASAP, and really get control of the situation (I'd also kick out western contractors who are making astronomical profits, and hire Iraqis to do the same work for the same pay. And I'd let Iraq nationalize its oil).

But this is a bad position to be in; I don't think we should have gone there in the first place. But going at it with talk and half-measures will just result in more blood in the long run. Leaving may well plunge the world into chaos. Our only option, now that we're there, is to remain and to get control.

An obvious answer of yes?

That is what I said.

So you think that you needed explanation as to what Nazi thought process was to call it what it was?

Absolutely.

They needed to present their case as to why they slaughter in order for you to act?

Absolutely not. But before we could declare real victory, we'd have to know, they'd have to know, and the world would have to know why they were wrong.

Do you have questions today about them?

Again, absolutely not. But that's because they did get to present their case. Now that their case is known, it's easy to understand why it's wrong. It's easy to understand why it was necessary to smash Germany to bits.

Wars are not won by giving your enemies credibility and a voice.

Depends on what you mean. Of course, that would not be the only thing that would win a war. But I think it's necessary more than you might like to admit.

And it is foolish to give your enemy any advantage while he remains determined to kill you.

Only if you're not concerned about making sure you're right. What if our children turn to us, one day many years from now, and condemn us wholeheartedly for what we are now doing? What if history thinks of us as the wickedest generation of people who ever lived? What if, at the end of our lives (those of us who live to see the end of this bloody mess), we realize that we have lost our honor completely, and we go to our graves as nothing but murderers and thugs?

I want to live as much as the next guy, but there are some things worse than death.

Now, that said, I'm not sure why it would be some kind of disadvantage for us to try to understand the motives of someone trying to blow us up. I'm not advocating that we just lay down our arms and try to give them a big hug. But if we're doing something that would legitimately anger someone, we ought to stop.

 

[duretti]

You are referring to intel and an understaindg to what happened. The thread creator is talking about somehting else. Do you think that you needed explanation as to what Nazi thought process was to call it what it was? They needed to present their case as to why they slaughter in order for you to act? Do you have questions today about them? Wars are not won by giving your enemies credibility and a voice as you strive to defeat them. And it is foolish to give your enemy any advantage while he remains determined to kill you.

Couldn't have asked for a better proof of my point. An objective media does not have enemies.

The comparison to the nazis is ridiculous, as iraqi insurgents (or the sadamist regime before them) have not the slightest chance of invading or conquering the coalition nations.

 

[Obama08]

As is ensuring that oil is not nationalised, so american companies can control it as they do in saudi arabia, ensuring iraq will remain in poverty?

I agree with your point that they're going to try and control it, but Saudi Arabia is not in poverty. Saudia Arabia keeps a share of the oil profit..it doesn't all go to American companies.

 

[Iriemon]

...

The insurgency fights for the past, not the future. They fight for their life style and not all of their life styles. What is being offerred is equality, but the insurgency fights for superiority. And why do they fight? Do the Sauds, Syrian Baathist Party, and old mullahs in Tehran (that would be the capital of Iran) wish for a legitimately free Arab nation where all are equal and treated humanely? Of course not, but they also don't want to share a border with a terrorist nation, which is why we have seen the softening of these nations lately.

Feel free to crack a book or two, because I tire of explaining reality to every individual who merely wishes to complain about things he doesn't understand.
...

And if you read one or two, you may find out that some fighting in Iraq for some strange reason fight because they have some unfathomable objection to a foreign infidel nation militarily occupying their lands.

 

[duretti]

The media coverage with regards to iraq has been largely anti-American. "First" Fallujah and Na Jaaf were media victories supported by Presidential weakness and handed over to the insurgency and the terrorists.

:spin: Anti americanism is strictly avoided in almost all reporting. They never do a long "look at all the poor civilians the evil americans have killed" bit of news as they do with civilians the insurgents have killed.

Perhaps you wish the insurgency to be portrayed as "freedom fighters" rather than what they are? And do they, in fact, fight for freedom? Are their objectives to bring freedom to Iraq and equality amongst sects? Is the objective to support the great progress the Kurds have made and the wishes of the local government? Is your needs for drama so great that you need a camera crew to follow around these human monsters as they amount their carnage for your TV pleasure?

No, my goal is an objective media - a key requisite of a functional democracy.

What is being offerred is equality

:spin: :shock: Is that what theyr calling capitalism nowadays?

And what makes you believe this? Or are you simply a liar? I can assure you that civilians are the preferred target. When car bombs fo off, they are within civilian crowds, not military crowds. We are considered a "hard" target and civilians are considered a "soft" target. If the goal is to disrupt the current government and destroy the hopes of those for a "free" Iraq, then the "soft" target is preferred. The vast majority of civilian death has been a result of the Sunni insurgency targetted terror upon the population and government, which is encouraged by international terrorists from across the borders. The Shia militia has focused it's efforts on the Sunni for revenge.

And I should take your assurances?

Is this more simple lying? One would hope that you could manage to tell a better one. The death percentage from coalition forces was higher in October 2004 because of the initial invasion and two seperate attacks into Fallujah and NaJaaf.

You accuse me of lying, then you confirm what you originaly said was a lie. Or do you want us to discount the massacres of the initial invasion and Fallujah? If so, why?

The vast majority of all civilian deaths have been a result of sectoral and international terrorist violence. While I cannot simply enlighten you to my sources, there are plenty of civilian surveys on line and even those that are highly exxagerated have a bit more honesty in them than what you are portraying.

Yep, I am sure military sources are entirely trustworthy :mrgreen:. What proof do you have that these other sources are honest, or that the lancet (a respected medical journal) is dishonest?

And why would insurgent sources be used for anything? Was the Nazi struggle supposed to be produced so that we could have full coverage? Is "non-violent resistance" supposed to be an attempt at a joke? There are plenty of Shi'ites and Kurds that smack you in the face for that.

Sure, as there were plenty of borgoise indians who would slap you in the face for raising awareness about ghandis nonviolent resistance against the british occupation from which they benefited.

And what is a credible insurgent source? Al-Jazeera? The Arab rag that is forbidden from reporting on Arab attrocity throughout the region and maintains a concrete conviction tat Jews caused the tsunami in Indonesia that killed Muslims? The media that claims that 9/11 was a Jew conspiracy and making false claims that no Jews were present in the rubble? Tell you what....just create your own lies. At least you will know the credibility.

No, I was talking about the insurgents themselves, not arab news media. Obviously they will not be a reliable source - but neither are the invaders (as in government sources) which are one of the main sources currently used.

 

[aquapub]

falsely presenting the insurgency as primarily terroristic.

Yeah, how dare the media represent those road side bombs, suicide attacks, and "insurgents" hiding within mosques and other civilian targets as terrorists! What an outrage. :roll:

And yes, when the media relentlessly shows only the most negative images, incessantly misrepresents the terrorism campaign being waged in Iraq by foreign powers as a "civil war," gives us a daily body count accompanied with how many days it's been since Bush declared that the mission was accomplished (he was referring obviously to the invasion), and downplays huge milestones for Iraq...

That DOES indicate a liberal, hence anti-U.S. bias.

 

[duretti]

I agree with your point that they're going to try and control it, but Saudi Arabia is not in poverty. Saudia Arabia keeps a share of the oil profit..it doesn't all go to American companies.

Most of saudi arabi is definitely in poverty. Sure, some saudi arabians get crumbs from the table - but its an incredibly tiny minority, and most of those get money because they help to keep the brutal regime in place.