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

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

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

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



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



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?



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.....

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?


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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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



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?

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.

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

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.


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.

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.


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 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..

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.


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?


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?




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..

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

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

__________________

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.