Civil War in Iraq

[Usually Lurkin]

well, maybe not so "civil"


http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007..._has_becom.php
In a rather stunning development, the Iraqi Islamic militant faction known as Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya (a.k.a. "the Iraqi Jihad Union") has issued a new statement dated October 5 suddenly accusing Al-Qaida's "Islamic State of Iraq" of deliberately killing its fighters in Diyala province and mutilating their bodies: "To make things worse, they dug up their bodies from the graves, further mutilated them, beheaded them, and showed them off from their vehicles while driving through the towns. [The ISI] even killed our men’s wives and children." An English translation of the communique is now available for download from the NEFA Foundation website.

Though this is actually the second time this week that similar charges have been leveled at Al-Qaida in Iraq by fellow Sunni insurgents, the source of the latest set of allegations--Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya--is most unusual. Less than three months ago, the very same organization was openly working in operational partnership with Al-Qaida, and was even rumored to be considering merging its forces with Al-Qaida's "Islamic State."

[dude1394]

It appears that the tide has really turned against Al Queda. You can tell because there is no news coming from Iraq at all from the media. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative. Pretty pathetic really, the media must be part of the 20% who hope that the US loses to Al Queda in Iraq.

I expect we'll see Al Queda focus their interests in Afghanistan now that it's been shown that the dubya isn't clinton.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It appears that the tide has really turned against Al Queda. You can tell because there is no news coming from Iraq at all from the media. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative. Pretty pathetic really, the media must be part of the 20% who hope that the US loses to Al Queda in Iraq.

I expect we'll see Al Queda focus their interests in Afghanistan now that it's been shown that the dubya isn't clinton.

are you serious?

"no news coming from iraq at all"???

here's what is on "Top Stories" at yahoo as I type this...

Rice issues new rules for Blackwater

Iraq Shiite leaders agree to end rivalry

Rare march in Baghdad against new U.S. wall

Iraqi Shi'ite leaders sign deal to curb violence

U.S. military says kills 37 Iraqi militants

Double US air strike kills 25 in Iraq

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It appears that the tide has really turned ......etc....etc...etc... You can tell because there is no news coming from Iraq at all from the media. Doesn't seem to fit the narrative. etc...etc...etc....

You know, after four years.... hearing basically the exact same line every two or three weeks kinda loses its lustre. We get it... the mainstream media has failed to correctly report the item of news that confirms that the war is won FOR THE 478th STRAIGHT WEEK. Had the media correctly reported all 478 complete and total victories in Iraq, the Dow would now be at 100k, poor people would be complaining about the texture of the bernaise sauce for their Prime Rib, and Israel/Palestine would be fielding a unified olympics team of love and mutual affection for the 2008 Olympics.

Damn the media... damn them all to hell...Soylent Green is PEOPLE........

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

You know, after four years.... hearing basically the exact same line every two or three weeks kinda loses its lustre. We get it... the mainstream media has failed to correctly report the item of news that confirms that the war is won FOR THE 478th STRAIGHT WEEK. Had the media correctly reported all 478 complete and total victories in Iraq, the Dow would now be at 100k, poor people would be complaining about the texture of the bernaise sauce for their Prime Rib, and Israel/Palestine would be fielding a unified olympics team of love and mutual affection for the 2008 Olympics.

Damn the media... damn them all to hell...Soylent Green is PEOPLE........

I hear ya' brotha', I hear ya'.

[dude1394]

Here's some more good news with respect to Al Queda's efforts. I seemed to have missed this one as well in the NYTimes.

Guess my point is that factual data is coming out of Iraq and pretty much not being reported by the MSM. Seeing as how good things in Iraq is good for the country and the world, I would expect it to be touted. Good thing for bloggee'rs...
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...offensive.html

I never count al Qaeda out, and I had little doubt that they'd make good on this promise. They still might, but I am beginning to think that reports of al Qaeda's rapid demise in Iraq might be true. I cannot tell if I am just letting my hopes get in the way of my objectivity, but a preliminary analysis suggests that civilian deaths from suicide bombings in Iraq plummeted in September:
..
What you see in this chart is al Qaeda's "Tet Offensive" in August that was almost surely designed to discredit the upcoming report by General Petraeus. What you see in September is a mind-boggling drop in casualties from suicide bombers. This drop occurred during the very period that al Qaeda in Iraq threatened its "Ramadan Offensive." We still have a few days to go in Ramadan, but casualties in Iraq have remained incredibly low during the first week of October as well. If Ramadan concludes with no sign of al Qaeda's Ramadan offensive, then it will be reasonable to conclude that reports of al Qaeda's demise in Iraq are not premature. I'll let you know, one way or the other.

[dude1394]

So you guys tell me what to think. If casualty numbers go up they are plastered everywhere. But if they show improvement and go down, they are not highlighted? Why is that? Isn't that good for the US? Good for Iraqi's? Guess Not.

So if it's bad news, it's reported immediately, but if not, then it's qualified, thought about and filtered. That is a huge reason why the media is taken as "players" not reporters.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...n-t-get-report

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.

One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.

KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

So you guys tell me what to think. If casualty numbers go up they are plastered everywhere. But if they show improvement and go down, they are not highlighted? Why is that? Isn't that good for the US? Good for Iraqi's? Guess Not.

So if it's bad news, it's reported immediately, but if not, then it's qualified, thought about and filtered. That is a huge reason why the media is taken as "players" not reporters.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...n-t-get-report

frankly, the answer is the news is what you want it to be.

you want to see news reports that show the number of civilain casualties have gone down? yes, it's right there in the very same newspaper you habitually deride, the new york times.

you want to see a news report that says the military is cooking the numbers on civilain casualties to portray the "surge" is working? yep, right there in the very sme newpaper.

so the answer dude is you find what you want to find, and the stories are out there to support whichever side of the issue you want to support.

that's the modern, web enabled media.

it's a buffet line, pick what you want to digest and leave what doesn't satisfy your palate..

[dude1394]

Front page versus page 14. Sure I agree it's "there" but doesn't position and emphasis count for anything? I would think so.

And sure thank goodness that the media doesn't have a monopoly anymore because as these reporters admit, their reporting is influenced by their own filters as you would expect it to be. And as the majority of the major media's filters are liberal (by their own admission) then that filter is going to be liberal.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Front page versus page 14. Sure I agree it's "there" but doesn't position and emphasis count for anything? I would think so.

there are 4 or 5 stories on the front page of a newspaper on any given day. there are local news stories, human interest news. a newspaper cannot put an iraq story on the front page every day, or every other day, unless it is breaking news.

ask yourself this: do you only read the front page? seems to me that most everyone who reads the paper goes inside to see what stories they can find.

the point i that the news is there, the stories are there, if you want them. just like the story that the newspapers aren't putting the stories you want to see on the front page...

And sure thank goodness that the media doesn't have a monopoly anymore because as these reporters admit, their reporting is influenced by their own filters as you would expect it to be. And as the majority of the major media's filters are liberal (by their own admission) then that filter is going to be liberal.

so your assertion is the media had a "monopoly" on the media?

there has always been a variety of sources of news,and today there is an even larger variety of sources. there's the major news organizations, there are the local news organizations, and there's the personal news sources like blogs.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there are 4 or 5 stories on the front page of a newspaper on any given day. there are local news stories, human interest news. a newspaper cannot put an iraq story on the front page every day, or every other day, unless it is breaking news.

ask yourself this: do you only read the front page? seems to me that most everyone who reads the paper goes inside to see what stories they can find.

the point i that the news is there, the stories are there, if you want them. just like the story that the newspapers aren't putting the stories you want to see on the front page...



so your assertion is the media had a "monopoly" on the media?

there has always been a variety of sources of news,and today there is an even larger variety of sources. there's the major news organizations, there are the local news organizations, and there's the personal news sources like blogs.

Yes prior to the internets, and cable technologies the MSM did pretty much have a monopoly. TET is a good example when one guy can report incorrectly something and pretty much change the perception of a nation.

But no I don't expect an iraq story on the front page every day and I realize that those stories may be inside the newspaper (however a 20minute tv broadcast will not have that) but the front page is important. It shows what the paper thinks is important and it creates a much stronger perception than a page 14 story, that's why the put it on the front page.

If you wanted to slant the news you would put what you wanted to highlight on the front page and what you didn't on page 14. It's the reason that corrections are never effective as no one reads them like they do the front page.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yes prior to the internets, and cable technologies the MSM did pretty much have a monopoly. TET is a good example when one guy can report incorrectly something and pretty much change the perception of a nation.

just what did the "one guy" report about the tet offensive that was incorrect?

[dude1394]

I was thinking Walter Cronkite.....My history may be wrong here...I pulled up a google blurb on it. I think I read that his opinion was a turning point in support for "nam..

November 14, 2004
Walter Cronkite on the Tet Offensive

"Report from Vietnam," Walter Cronkite Broadcast, February 27, 1968.

Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective. Who won and who lost in the great Tet offensive against the cities? I'm not sure. The Vietcong did not win by a knockout, but neither did we. The referees of history may make it a draw. Another standoff may be coming in the big battles expected south of the Demilitarized Zone. Khesanh could well fall, with a terrible loss in American lives, prestige and morale, and this is a tragedy of our stubbornness there; but the bastion no longer is a key to the rest of the northern regions, and it is doubtful that the American forces can be defeated across the breadth of the DMZ with any substantial loss of ground. Another standoff. On the political front, past performance gives no confidence that the Vietnamese government can cope with its problems, now compounded by the attack on the cities. It may not fall, it may hold on, but it probably won't show the dynamic qualities demanded of this young nation. Another standoff.

We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that-negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.

To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.

This is Walter Cronkite. Good night.

[Mavdog]

there were anti-war protests as early as 1963.

and guess what, most every newspaper in america had reporters in nam.

so even back then there were a wide variety of sources for people to get their news.

and lastly conkite was giving his opinion, and he wasn't necessarily "incorrect" either.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there are 4 or 5 stories on the front page of a newspaper on any given day. there are local news stories, human interest news. a newspaper cannot put an iraq story on the front page every day, or every other day, unless it is breaking news.

Some of these newspapers should not be defended.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...Y0NTgwODU3OTQ=

Today, on the front page of The Washington Post, we see the third in a three-part series on roadside bombs in Iraq. The stories in this series have been centered on the top half of the page and highlighted in red (a device I don’t recall seeing before). Next to that is a huge headline about allegations of killings In Iraq by Blackwater. Below that is a headline that reads "Most in Poll Want War Funding Cut." Meanwhile deep inside the paper, on page A14, we find the following article: "U.S. and Civilian Deaths Decrease Sharply in Iraq: American Military Credits Troop Influx." True, nestled between the other screaming headlines on page one, there is a brief minuscule teaser for this far more positive story about Iraq. Yet the bias here is clear.

If the top story is Iraq, then I don’t see how you can put those three stories on the front page, while burying the other one on page 14. Arguably, an actual report of substantial positive progress in Iraq is more important, and more dramatic, than any of those other stories. By rights it ought to have been headlined on page one. The Post seems more interested in fighting our political battle over the Iraq than in reporting on it. So if the poll data the Post is pushing reflects less support for the war than it might, that clearly has a great deal to do with the way biased coverage by the Post is skewing public perceptions of the war. I’m not saying all is well or that success is inevitable–far from it. Yet the relative placement of these stories by the Post is profoundly biased and misleading.

Here, a couple media members defend this kind of reporting by claiming, "if deaths go up, we report it. If deaths go down, it's not worth reporting."
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...n-t-get-report

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Some of these newspapers should not be defended.

yes they should.

for example, the national review blog you post is cherry picking to prove the point they set out to prove.

did they mention the article on 9/25 placed squarely on page one that discusses how the death numbers were tallied, with this quote: "In recent months, most of the military's indicators [on civilian deaths] have pointed in a favorable direction"

so yes, the news is being reported, and imho it's a wide variety of news reports that we as readers have the capability of deciding which to digest.

Here, a couple media members defend this kind of reporting by claiming, "if deaths go up, we report it. If deaths go down, it's not worth reporting."

where did you find that specific quote (it is in quotation marks...) by the reporters? I didn't see it in the interview, did I miss it?

or was it just made up?

[Usually Lurkin]

so first you will deny the bias against positive numbers that reporters themselves not only accept, but defend and promote, then you'll nitpick a paraphrase instead of addressing what the reporters argue. Boy, talk about cherry-picking.