KILLING CIVILIANS JUSTIFIED

[Turfgrass]

Whenever we get criticized in the Arab world for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, people point to civilian causalities. No number of unintentional innocent deaths is acceptable, says the anti-war crowd. So what do the Islamic terrorists on the other side of the fence think?

A new audio message thought to be from Islamic terrorist and Al-Qaeda mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi says that Islam allows the killing of innocent Muslims by Arab terrorists. According to the voice on the tape, believed to be that of Zarqawi, "The shedding of Muslim blood ... is allowed in order to avoid the greater evil of disrupting jihad." This is the kind of thing you expect from Al-Qaeda, but carefully watch the reaction to this news report.

Will we hear from CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations) condemning Zarqawi's comments? Will they hold a press conference, and announced that at no time is it acceptable to kill innocent Muslims? What about the Muslim leadership in other countries. Will they publicly speak out against Zarqawi? Yeah ... we'll all hold our breaths.

And that's why Islam has an image problem. If Islam is peace, then why do they tolerate terrorism in their midst? Why is the silence so deafening when heinous acts are committed against innocent people in the name of Allah?

But the media never calls them on it. They're too busy cooking up stories about somebody flushing a Koran down the toilet somewhere.

 

[smurphy]

If we did our homework ahead of time, we would have known this is exactly what would be waiting for us. We are naive to think otherwise. We have to deal with it, and we can't make exceptions.

By the way, we have killed upwards of 10,000 civilians. Lots of people aren't gonna like us for that, regardless of our intentions - which I do believe are noble.

We can bitch about it, bitch about the media, bitch about the Muslims, or just figure out a way to deal with it. We chose to invade - it's our cross to bear. Our leadership did not think this through very well. I praise every serviceman and woman who keep their wits, keep their ethics, and push ahead - even though the administration has not really looked out for them.

 

[Turfgrass]

If we did our homework ahead of time, we would have known this is exactly what would be waiting for us. We are naive to think otherwise. We have to deal with it, and we can't make exceptions.

What was waiting for us? Our media trying and make the USA look as bad as possible at every turn just because it sells magazines?

Don?t you think we tried to take some precautions to avoid civilian causalities? Or did we just go into a town and start blowing people away?

Do you see any difference at all, or are you going to just take the position ?Well, we should have known this was gonna happen.?

My contention is the journalistic standards that seem to be going on are atrocious. The "standards" bear close resemblance to the following:

1. The Bush Administration didn't rely on faulty intelligence in its move to depose Saddam Hussein; instead, Bush "lied."

2. Any story from an anonymous source critical of a Republican president, no matter how thinly based or weakly corroborated, must be initially believed as true and may be reported as such if deadlines are close.

3. Torture of Muslims is a widespread and accepted part of the U.S. military culture.

4. Virtually all of the detainees being held in Guantanamo are innocent and should be immediately released, perhaps with reparations payments for their incarceration.

Newsweek had a story that could embarrass the Bush Administration and denigrate our military. Under Newsweek's loose standards the story ran. It fit the template ... that template being that any story critical of the Bush administration, our war effort in Afghanistan or Iraq, or our military must be given every benefit of the doubt.

But I guess we should have known that this is exactly the what would be waiting for us. We are naive to think otherwise. We have to deal with it, and we can't make exceptions. :cursin:

 

[kosar]

I wonder what the reaction will be to the NY Post putting pictures of Saddam in jail, in his tighy-whities and nothing else, on their front page. The headline: Butcher of Saghdad.

This one could get confusing for the 'who cares if we humiliate people-they deserve it' crowd because it was done by a liberal paper and the White House has said it clearly violates The Geneva Convention. And we all know that whatever emanates from the White House is gospel. At least to some.

 

[gardenweasel]

coming right on the heels of the newsweek fiasco.....even given the fact that the post is a tabloid.....what`s the point of printing those photos?....

they are reportedly a year old....what`s the story?....what does this accomplish?...other than to do more harm to america`s perception around the world?....

i don`t get it..

al jazeera?...sure....

more anti-american crap...this one from the great,hallowed halls of academia...

from the weisner art gallery...affiliated with m.i.t...

for once i agree with o`reilly....

pinheads...

 

[AR182]

turfgrass,

great second post & right on point !!

 

[smurphy]

This is all just falling down partisan lines as usual. Nobody reasonable is defending Newsweek. I hope they go down in flames. But we have to let it go and move on.

I defend all media for the right to report without censor. It's not our free media that instills hatred from Islamists. I think the article Kosar posted hits on this correctly.

What it looks to me is happening is the overall media is being built up a scapegoat for any struggles we have in accomplishing our goals in the ME. Rather than it being poor planning and strategy, it's the fault of the media because some of it's elements lean left. Well, plenty of it's elements lean right as well.

The media is not supposed to be the administration's cheerleaders. If they cheat and lie or cut corners like Newsweek - yeah, punish the hell out them, don't patronize them, they should go under. But if they accurately report things that people simply don't want to hear, you can't really criticize them for that.

As for anti-American or anti-administration artwork in galleries ...who cares? Freedom of speech is a bitch I suppose.

 

[gardenweasel]

it galls patriotic americans when it all comes from left wing extremists that live in the bizarro world.....

why is it always left wing academia...or hollywood...or the media...that are engulfed by such self hatred?

tell me smurph....explain to me the point of publishing year old skivvy shots of saddam...

doesn`t look like he was being buggered....or abused...looks like maybe he was just getting dressed or getting out of a shower...

why?....what`s the news value?...other to inflame islam...

and,it`s kind of doubtful.imo,that it will even do that....even though,i`d say that`s the purpose....

so,what`s the point?...

 

[gardenweasel]

btw...the photos originated from a british rag.....

that`s explains things a bit....

 

[kosar]

btw...the photos originated from a british rag.....

that`s explains things a bit....

No, they 'originated' from one of our troops/CIA...etc.

WTF is that all about?

 

[StevieD]

Considering the photos were printed in a Murdoch tabloid I would doubt they were printed to be anti-war. Political yes, maybe to show to Saddam folloers that he is just a man, not some kind of a god to be worshiped. To show that it is all over for him and hopefully get them to stop fighting for him? I dunno. It's as wacky as anything that Murdoch does.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"No, they 'originated' from one of our troops/CIA...etc."

I would not be so sure Matt.

other possibilties --anyone who had access to security tapes--including>anyone of his attorneys----any human rights org--any news liberal news media--Whose agenda fits the bill more???
I think we'll probably find out.

 

[gardenweasel]

i`m sure saddam`s containment area is monitored....that`s probably how these photos got out....

"Political yes, maybe to show to Saddam folloers that he is just a man, not some kind of a god to be worshiped".....

that`s a stretch...coming on the heels of newsweek and the riots....

still,don`t see the relevance of publishing them....unless it`s to further smear the military...and the administration...

i wish they`d cover some fricking news,for a change of pace...

the liberal media had it their way for sooo long....now,the internet,bloggers and talk radio has counter balanced the imbalance...

it`s a good thing,too......or rather,newsweek et al go unchallenged...

 

[StevieD]

GW this is far from the Liberal Media. They were posted by a Murdoch rag. The same Murdoch who owns Fox News. Him and all his papers are friggen mouth pieces for the Administration. This guy even smeared McCain when he was running against Bush in the GOP Primaries. I know you have a hatred for the Corporate Press but let's not label it liberal when it is not. And we do agree that they should be covering news. But the news isn't that good.

 

[gardenweasel]

i`m hearing that it was the star...from britain...that led the charge on this one.....

maybe i`m wrong...i`ll check around......

here it is...it was "THE SUN".... a london paper...

Pentagon Probes Release of Saddam Photos
By Al Pessin
Washington
20 May 2005

Pessin report (Real Media) - Download 364K
Listen to Pessin report (Real Media)



New York Post cover, Friday
The U.S. Defense Department says it did not orchestrate the release of photos of Saddam Hussein in jail, wearing only underpants in one picture, and is investigating how the shots were taken and published.

A statement issued by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq says it is 'aggressively' investigating who took the pictures and how they were made public. The statement says the photos were taken in what it calls "clear violation" of procedures, and appear to be more than a year old. It says the command is "disappointed at the possibility that someone responsible for the security, welfare and detention of Saddam would take and provide these photos for public release."

At the Pentagon, spokesman Brian Whitman expressed regret at the release of the photos. "Clearly these are images that should not have been released to the public," he said.

The pictures were first published by The Sun newspaper in London. The paper reported it received them from a U.S. military source who hoped the humiliating photos would hurt the Iraqi insurgency, which has been conducting an intensified bombing campaign in recent weeks. The Sun quotes its source as saying the pictures show that Saddam is a "humble, old man now" and that they prove that his Baath Party is "never coming back."

But Brian Whitman, the Pentagon spokesman, says the Defense Department did not release the photos officially. "No, it wasn't an official release by the military, and I'm not sure that's an accurate representation of how these things made it into the media, either," he said.

Mr. Whitman acknowledged that the pictures could have been released by an individual soldier, in violation of Defense Department policy. And he said they could be a violation of the Geneva Convention, too. "Well, it's possible. Clearly, these are in contravention to our policies and, depending on when they were taken, possibly could be a violation of Geneva Convention guidelines for humane treatment of detained individuals," he said.

The Pentagon spokesman says the question of whether there was a Geneva Convention violation would in part depend on whether the photos were taken when Saddam was officially a U.S. prisoner, or more recently when he has technically been in Iraqi custody, with U.S. help in providing his security. Either way, he says if a U.S. soldier was involved in the photo release, it would be a violation of Defense Department procedures.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon declined to comment for publication on a New York Times report detailing widespread abuses of prisoners in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. The Times says it obtained a confidential file from a U.S. Army investigation. It reports that young, poorly trained soldiers chained a prisoner's hands to the ceiling of his cell for most of four days, stood on a prisoner's neck and kicked at least one in the genitals, among other abusive practices. The report appears to provide details of incidents that were already known, and which resulted in the deaths of two detainees and criminal charges against seven soldiers.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Believe the Sun is owned by Murdoch also--

Here is what I fail to comprehend---human rights groups-media-attorneys ect rant on and on about Muslims being embarrased and humiliated by our forces--but appear to care less that the Musims fanatics behead their captures.

Saadam attorney's is going to sue because Saddam got got caught in picture with his panties in a wad--how many attorneys have ever filed suit against him for hundreds of thousands of families he committed genocide on?

 

[StevieD]

Dogs, for once we can agree on something. I can understand following the Geneva Convention but I don't understand why we get so upset about this embarrassment issue. I hope it is not put out there to cover up some real totures we might be committing and the Corporate Press jumps on issues like this to cover them up. But it boggles my mind. Even if we did piss on the Koran who cares?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hey a 1st Stevie

Goes back as far as one can go.

The Batan death marches where thousands of Americans died of prisonors died from the elements--I could see headlines if one died at Guatanamo or in Iraq.

As you said --Geneva set up rules to treat prisonors humanely.

I'd like for those rights group to point out any place in history where are pow's had attorneys--and wouldn't have been elated if only measures used against them were humiliation.Don't think even the extreme far right would have rioted and killed if they wiped their ass with the bible. As you said-- who cares what others do with any type of literature.

 

[kosar]

"No, they 'originated' from one of our troops/CIA...etc."

I would not be so sure Matt.

other possibilties --anyone who had access to security tapes--including>anyone of his attorneys----any human rights org--any news liberal news media--Whose agenda fits the bill more???
I think we'll probably find out.

I HIGHLY doubt that his attornies and/or human rights groups take posession of any such tapes or pictures. Allowed to see them, sure. But not to take a copy for themselves.

The Sun now claims that it was a US military official that gave up the pics for a price(that they wouldn't disclose). The reason(other than the dough, I suppose), as Stevie mentions, was to 'put the hammer down'(or something similar) on the insurgency by showing exactly who they're fighting for(even though that in itself isn't the case). Maybe take it with a grain of salt, or maybe not, but that's what's out there.

Also, even though Murdoch owns the Post, it is not a right leaning paper.

 

[djv]

Don't they all fall back on there stories are as good as there sources. We went to war in Iraq on some real good sources. Of course that were all wrong. It seems all media rushes to be first even Fox. And they don't double check there info and get half truths and B S And we get B S for news. Other times stories are manipulated by yes the government to fit there needs. Follow the S S debate if you want to see B S. Follow the color codes to scare the hell out of folks. By the way have we had any color code alerts since the election. Did they disappear after November. Seems before the election we had one a month. Manipulation??