Heavily biased effort by US media to distort the truth about the ugliness of war

There's absolutely nothing wrong with identifying the sources of types of propaganda. And this board has many purposes; mainly the search for truth. But when you say, "American opinions are tainted with right-wing zionist propaganda", then something is wrong. That's just slander, and it won't help you to prove your point.

And, believe me, Europe is not exclusive in believing that all men created are equal.

Meph,,iI am ready and willing to believe you provided you can explain to me why the following irrational 'holy cows' are, either explicitly or implicitly, being colported in (some) US media :

- A danger emanates from muslims

- Arafat is first and foremost a terrorist and a criminal and should be forgotten as soon as possible

- Iraq has (had) evil intentions

- Iran has evil intentions

- Syria has evil intentions

- It is not in the US's best interest to cooperate with the international community

- Palestinian suffering under israeli occupation is not worth reporting about

- Hizbullah is a terrorist organization

- Europe is the ennemy of the united states

- Gruesome treatment of arabs is somehow 'ok'


If this is not, one to one, the (right-wing) zionist agenda, what is it then ?





[edit on 1-12-2004 by Mokuhadzushi]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
The US media are clearly distorting the truth about the war in Iraq.

The Muslim medias are clearly distorting the truth about
what Mosques are ... 3/5 are not houses of worship,
they are military buildings and therefore legitimate targets.

Well lets look at it with an open mind shall we?

Firstly, isn't it nice how they left the guns leaning up against the wall like that?

Secondly, is that bodily fluids coming out of those magazines and running down the walls?

Third, why would they leave their guns behind? It would be rather easy to collect weapons from dead bodies and place them neatly for a photo opportunity, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying thats the way it happened but photo's don't always represent the true picture.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
(Iraq is dangerous, Iran is dangerous, Europe (and especially France) is evil, Beware of Muslims, Hizbollah is terrorist, Syria is a monster, Palestinians are animals, Arafat should be brandmarked terrorist and forgotten as soon as possible)

True - Saddam's Iraq was dangerous (ask any Iraqi who had a
family member raped, tortured or murdered. There are hundreds
of thousands of them ... go ahead ... ask 'em ... now that freedom
is coming, they will actually be able to speak the truth. That's some-
thing they couldn't do for the past 40 years.)

murderous Wahabbi cult.

True - Hizbollah is terrorist. Of course this is true.

TRUE - Arafat was a terrorist. Of course this is true.

FALSE - Arafat should be forgotten. Absolutely not. Everyone
should remember him and learn that having a murderous sicko
like him running the PA caused death, bloodshed, and tears
for everyone. Definately never forget him. He was a sick and evil
man and that should be remembered so that error will not be
repeated.

Label me a zionist all you want. That's . The dictionary says
that a zionist is someone who wants the soverign country of
Israel to exhist. IT ALREADY EXHISTS. Therefore the term
'zionist' is really obsolete.

Mokuhadzushi,

Your beloved Jihadunspun is US media.

Id love to post the link to Jihadunspun where the owner/author explains her background and where she resides from, but that part of the site has been down for days. Mmmmm...interesting....

Originally posted by Psychoses
Secondly, is that bodily fluids coming out of those magazines and running down the walls?

Third, why would they leave their guns behind?

I was in the army. In training, we always propped our weapons up
against the wall. They would be fully loaded and ready to grab and
shoot. (I'm talking about from a vantage/lookout position)

Can't tell about the 'bodily fluids' coming out of magazines. I don't
see it. However, there are fluid marks on the walls. They don't look
like blood, but they could be heavy sweat or drool.

Leaving guns behind? Dunno. They could have gotten everything
ready and then our guys came in too fast for them to get to their
weapons. In training we were always set up ... but it doesn't
mean we could get to everything when action broke loose.

Anything is possible. HOWEVER, considering how the
liberal media is just dying to get ahold of anti-American shots or
plain ol' shots to twist into being anti-American ... I would think
that the photographer would have not bothered with broadcasting
a picture that had been set up in what could be taken as a
pro-American slant.

Good points, FlyersFan

It's just that to me the photo looks staged, that's all. Even if they did lean them up against the wall like that, why so close? Isn't the best place for your gun close to you so it is easy to grab? The fighters would be tripping over themselves trying to get at those guns in a hurry?

Originally posted by Psychoses
Even if they did lean them up against the wall like that, why so close? Isn't the best place for your gun close to you so it is easy to grab? The fighters would be tripping over themselves trying to get at those guns in a hurry?

Think of the Mel Gibson movie - 'The Patriot'. Remember the scene
where the oldest son was taken prisioner by the English? Mel's
character and the two youngest sons were on a ridge above the
road. They had about 10 loaded guns that Mel placed behind
trees ... leaning up against them .... for quick access. They were
fully loaded and ready to go.

Yes, usually you never leave your weapon at any time in a war. That
is the first thing we are taught in basic (that, and never let your P38
out of your sight ... because you could starve to death without it).

Anyways ... When I saw the picture that is what I thought of. That
these guys were in an urban setting. They had all their weapons and
magazines and ammo all set and ready to just pick up and start
shooting. They were all probably back in their homes or other places
before the urban combat started ... but had everything all set to make
a mad dash to the mosque (high point in the town and considered
'safe' because they know Americans try not to hit mosques, schools,
hospitals etc.)

As far as the fighters tripping over themselves to get the guns...
could be. No one said they were smart. But perhaps they were all set
there like in the movie Patriot. Just a few fighters would be by the
high stationed window and they had a bunch of loaded weapons
ready so they wouldn't have to keep re-loading.

Makes sense to me. (but what do I know ... I'm just a stay-at-home
homeschool mom now ... not exactly a wartime general. ) From
my five years in the Army ... the picture made sense to me.

...So let's hear from a Marine who was there:

The civilians we killed

If only those who sent us to Iraq lay awake at night

Michael Hoffman
Thursday December 2, 2004
The Guardian

The chaos of war should never be understated. On the way to Baghdad, I saw bodies by the road, many in civilian clothing. Every time a car got near my Humvee, everyone inside braced themselves, not knowing if gunfire would suddenly erupt out of it. When your enemy is unclear, everyone becomes your enemy.

I will not judge the marine who killed the wounded Iraqi. I do not know what was going on around him or what he experienced in the hours before. But I do know what the stress of combat will do. I remember talking to a friend who told how, after a greatly loved lieutenant was killed in Nassiriya, the unit started shooting anyone that got close. I remember when a pickup truck got too close to my convoy, the armoured vehicle up front shot the passenger to get the message to the driver. Just as these marines should face charges, then those that put us in these situations should have to answer for their actions.

In his book The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien said: "You can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromised allegiance to obscenity and evil." This is something people in the US have forgotten after years of watching CNN. War is dirty, always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable. That is why all these horrible things must rest on the shoulders of those leaders who supported a war that did not have to be fought.

I know the commitment it takes to serve your country, but I also know this war has nothing to do with protecting my country. My sergeant put it best a week before we left for the Middle East: "Don't think you're going to be heroes. You're not going for weapons of mass destruction. You're not going to get rid of Saddam, or to make Iraq safe for democracy. You're going for one reason, and that's oil."

continued in the Guardian ( God knows a US paper wouldn't print it)

Michael Hoffman took part in the invasion of Iraq as a US marine and is co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War (www.ivaw.net)

Well I think one thing we all seem to agree on is that we the general public really have no idea as to whats really going on and the real reasons behind it. I wish it would all just end cause I am just sick of all the death and destruction.

Well, this link seems to add to the depth of discussion in this thread:


Iraq's civilian dead get no hearing in the United States

By Jeffrey D. Sachs

Thursday, December 02, 2004


Evidence is mounting that America's war in Iraq has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and perhaps well over 100,000. Yet this carnage is systematically ignored in the United States, where the media and government portray a war in which there are no civilian deaths, because there are no Iraqi civilians, only insurgents.

American behavior and self-perceptions reveal the ease with which a civilized country can engage in large-scale killing of civilians without public discussion. In late October, the British medical journal Lancet published a study of civilian deaths in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion began. The sample survey documented an extra 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths compared to the death rate in the preceding year, when Saddam Hussein was still in power - and this estimate did not even count excess deaths in Fallujah, which was deemed too dangerous to include.

The study also noted that the majority of deaths resulted from violence, and that a high proportion of the violent deaths were due to U.S. aerial bombing. The epidemiologists acknowledged the uncertainties of these estimates, but presented enough data to warrant an urgent follow-up investigation and reconsideration by the Bush administration and the U.S. military of aerial bombing of Iraq's urban areas.

America's public reaction has been as remarkable as the Lancet study, for the reaction has been no reaction. On Oct. 29 the vaunted New York Times ran a single story of 770 words on page 8 of the paper. The Times reporter apparently did not interview a single Bush administration or U.S. military official. No follow-up stories or editorials appeared, and no Times reporters assessed the story on the ground. Coverage in other U.S. papers was similarly meager. The Washington Post, also on Oct. 29, carried a single 758-word story on page 16.

Recent reporting on the bombing of Fallujah has also been an exercise in self-denial. On Nov. 6, The New York Times wrote that "warplanes pounded rebel positions" in Fallujah, without noting that "rebel positions" were actually in civilian neighborhoods. Another story in The Times on Nov. 12, citing "military officials," dutifully reported: "Since the assault began on Monday, about 600 rebels have been killed, along with 18 American and 5 Iraqi soldiers." The issue of civilian deaths was not even raised.

Violence is only one reason for the increase in civilian deaths in Iraq. Children in urban war zones die in vast numbers from diarrhea, respiratory infections and other causes, owing to unsafe drinking water, lack of refrigerated foods, and acute shortages of blood and basic medicines in clinics and hospitals (that is, if civilians even dare to leave their houses for medical care). The Red Crescent and other relief agencies were unable to relieve Fallujah's civilian population.


On Nov. 14, the front page of The New York Times led with the following description: "Army tanks and fighting vehicles blasted their way into the last main rebel stronghold in Fallujah at sundown on Saturday after American warplanes and artillery prepared the way with a savage barrage on the district. Earlier in the afternoon, 10 separate plumes of smoke rose from Southern Fallujah, as it etched against the desert sky, and probably exclaimed catastrophe for the insurgents."

There is, once again, virtually no mention of the catastrophe for civilians etched against that desert sky. There is a hint, though, in a brief mention in the middle of the story of a father looking over his wounded sons in a hospital and declaring: "Now Americans are shooting randomly at anything that moves."

A few days later, a U.S. television film crew was in a bombed-out mosque with American marines. While the cameras were rolling, a marine turned to an unarmed and wounded Iraqi lying on the ground and shot the man in the head. (Reportedly, there were a few other such cases of outright murder.) But the American media more or less brushed aside this shocking incident, too. The Wall Street Journal actually wrote an editorial on Nov. 18 that criticized the critics, noting that whatever the U.S. did, its enemies in Iraq did worse, as if this excused American abuses.

It does not. The U.S. is killing massive numbers of Iraqi civilians, embittering the population and many in the Islamic world, and laying the ground for escalating violence and death. No number of slaughtered Iraqis will bring peace. The American fantasy of a final battle, in Fallujah or elsewhere, or the capture of some terrorist mastermind, perpetuates a cycle of bloodletting that puts the world in peril.

Worse still, American public opinion, media, and the recent election victory of the Bush administration have left the world's most powerful military without practical restraint.


TextJeffrey D. Sachs is a professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. This commentary is published in collaboration with Project Syndicate

[edit on 2-12-2004 by Aelita]