top
Iraq
Iraq
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

News Media Is Encouraging Attrocities In Iraq: Use Of Nazi Terms Like Subhuman Now Common

by Racism+War=Genocide
In the last week, many right-wing newspapers (and even the Wall Street Journal) have started to openly condone war crimes. Here is a sample that the rest of the world needs to see to understand how dangerous the US has become and how important it is to build alternative power structures to stop what is is comming.
In Iraq, we are dealing with a species of subhuman lower than a rabid animal. They are not warriors. They are not even men. They are poisonous vermin that have relinquished all rights as human beings. With their beheadings and butchery, they have earned the right to be exterminated.
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab2.cfm?newsid=13419041&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506071&rfi=6

U.S. troops and combat aircraft unleashed artillery and precision strikes yesterday on terrorist hide-outs in Fallujah, shaping the battle space for what is designed as a final ground assault to cleanse the renegade city of foreign and Iraqi insurgents.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041105-114300-5466r.htm
Note the use of the word "cleanse". In Serbia seperating fighting age men from women and children and gunning them down was called ethnic cleansing and considered a war crime but in Falluja the US took a city of 350,000, only let women and children leave, defined everyone of fighting age to be "terrororists" and gunned down thousands. Yet most US media from Fox News to the WSJ to NPR to Air America cheered on the war crime as merely "cleansing".

Sadly, this investigation -- whether the Marine is disciplined or not -- has set a devastating precedent. Soldiers and Marines are trained to react and they shouldn't have to think if there's a cameraman or reporter nearby before they pull the trigger. That split-second hesitation is the difference between a U.S. troop dying and a terrorist dying. And, that's unacceptable. The Abu Ghraib scandal has forced everyone to take a second look. Was that use of force okay? Was that necessary? Those questions don't solve anything and they actually make things worse.
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/9_47/commentary/32187-1.html
So, while the military tells the international media that this type of killing was wrong one can see from this (and many other military responses) that most in the military dont see the killing of a prisoner as a "big deal" since "terrorists" are somehow not like "us"
U.S. Marines rallied round a comrade under investigation for killing a wounded Iraqi during the offensive in Falluja, saying he was probably under combat stress in unpredictable, hair-trigger circumstances. "Marines interviewed on Tuesday said they didn't see the shooting as a scandal, rather the act of a comrade who faced intense pressure during the effort to quell the insurgency in the city. "I can see why he would do it. He was probably running around being shot at for days on end in Falluja. There should be an investigation but they should look into the circumstances," said Lance Corporal Christopher Hanson. "I would have shot the insurgent too. Two shots to the head," said Sergeant Nicholas Graham, 24, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. "You can't trust these people. He should not be investigated. He did nothing wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6828512

Kevin Sites, the man who filed the shooting of the wounded man in a mosque has been subject to death threats on hundreds of blogs (and the WSJ also condemned him since unlike human rights abuses in other countries Americans have no right to condemn abuses by the US military):
While the journalist’s images revived criticism of the Iraq war abroad, they drew scorn and even death threats at home. Internet writers blasted him as a member of a liberal media bent on undermining a nation at war. One advised him to sleep "with one eye open". The Wall Street Journal said no one had the standing to judge the Marine from the "safety of his Manhattan sofa". In an editorial, the newspaper asked if the world had "lost all sense of moral proportion" by focussing on the death of a single Iraqi after 40 Marines had been killed in a "terror den" where the enemy booby-traps dead bodies, disembowels Iraqi women and opens fire as it surrenders.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1370611,00.html

as soon as Sites' video aired Monday, many people were shouting to ban the embeds ---- or worse. When I got to my Oceanside office Wednesday, the first phone message I retrieved was from an angry reader who said she was disturbed that ---- in a follow-up article on Sites' Fallujah report ---- I had called the slain Iraqi man a "fighter," and not a "chicken fighter."
More important, she called for an end to the military's embedding program, and demanded that Sites be arrested for "causing more problems" and charged with "sedition" and "treason." She said the Marine who shot the Iraqi on the floor "should get a Medal of Honor," echoing several prominent radio commentators Wednesday.
That was kid stuff.
Others sounded like members of a lynch mob or a McCarthy hearing committee. One columnist said that "Sites' broadcast makes him an accomplice to al-Qaida and Saddam," and that "Sites deserves to be shipped back to America in shackles and tried for treason."
Conservative bloggers with names like "The Crusader" said it was Sites, not the insurgent, who should have been shot. "Kill all the reporters," one patriot said.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/11/21/opinion/commentary/14_23_1711_20_04.txt

Related Stories On US Coverage Of Falluja:

US media applauds destruction of Fallujah
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1705672.php

US media and liberal establishment: accomplices in the assault on Fallujah
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/11/1705144.php
§When Seeing Is Not Believing
by Arab News (repost)
CAIRO, 23 November 2004 — Unless you’ve spent the past week meditating on a mountaintop, you’ve watched the video everyone is talking about. It’s the one where a US Marine walks into one of Fallujah’s mosques and cold-bloodedly shoots a wounded, unarmed combatant in the head.

If the victim had been a dog or a horse, American indignation would have been palpable. But because the dead man is prejudged and demonized, he is automatically the bad guy, the wretched face of evil incarnate, while the US corporate media churns out a litany of psychobabble excuses for his trigger-happy killer.

Texas Democrat Sylvester Reyes blames the embedding of reporters for the public display of America’s dirty laundry. “We should not be providing Al-Jazeera with the kind of propaganda they’ve had the last couple of days,” he told the House Armed Services Committee. “We don’t want to know everything that is happening on the field,” he said in true “hear no evil, see no evil” style.

The bullyboy of Fox News Bill O’Reilly, far from holding the Marine accountable for his breach of the Geneva Conventions, targets the Qatar-based Arabic network.

Proud that his “Factor” was the only show, which purposefully refrained from showing photographs and videos of the abuses at Abu Ghraib, he blames Al-Jazeera for re-running the incriminating tape, claiming it foments hatred and endangers US troops.

O’Reilly, like America’s newly anointed Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales, appears to consider those clauses of the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of prisoners as “quaint”. Translated, this applies only to non-Americans detained by the US and not the other way around.

If we cast our minds back to the invasion when five captured US soldiers were shown sipping tea on the now defunct Iraqi television, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bitterly complained the relaying of pictures showing prisoners of war violated the Geneva Conventions.

His views were echoed at the time by that dour Lebanese-American fellow Gen. John Abizaid, who went for Al-Jazeera’s jugular at a press conference for re-broadcasting, and more recently singled out the network as portraying the US “as purposely targeting civilians”.

While few would thus accuse the US, some believe the Pentagon has shown a callous indifference toward what it terms “collateral damage” leaving it to others to tally up its deadly handiwork.

While civilian deaths and US military abuses are conveniently brushed aside by the Bush administration, and its mouthpiece Fox News, O’Reilly complains the tape showing the murder of Margaret Hassan was deliberately buried by Al-Jazeera. The network itself insists it was “too graphic to broadcast”.

So here we have it. According to O’Reilly, videos of the US military threatening naked detainees with attack dogs should not be seen by the sensitive viewing public, but the graphic murder of a female charity worker is par for the course.

Naturally, religious right-wingers like O’Reilly would love that tape to be broadcast over and over again because it reinforces the perception of the bestial insurgent while bolstering the invaders’ moral high ground. In this way, he hopes, sickened and disgusted, we would all leap on to the crusading Bush bandwagon to fight the good fight.

This is pure speculation on my part but Al— Jazeera’s reluctance may stem from the brewing debate over “who killed Margaret Hassan?”

British journalist Robert Fisk cleverly highlights the strange circumstances surrounding Margaret’s kidnapping in a recent article. He writes: “So, if anyone doubted the murderous nature of the insurgents, what better way to prove their viciousness than to produce evidence of Margaret Hassan’s murder?” He concludes with the thought-provoking question: “Who gains from Margaret Hassan’s death?

Certainly not the insurgency. Mrs. Hassan was married to an Iraqi, had dual British-Iraqi nationality, spoke fluent Arabic and was a convert to Islam. She had spent some 30 years caring for the Iraqi people and had been a vehement opponent of the US-led sanctions and invasion. So why was she taken in the first place? Even Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi’s ruthless band of thugs urged her immediate release.”

Every crime has a motive. In the case of Mrs. Hassan it is difficult to see what this could be from the point of view of the resistance.

When compared to previous militant tapes, the videos of Mrs. Hassan pleading for her life were unique. There were no banners, no armed, masked men in the background, no claims of responsibility, and, in a departure from the usual decapitation, Margaret was hooded and shot.

Muslims rarely kidnap and kill women. In the1980 s, there was a spate of hostage taking in Lebanon but women were generally off limits.

When the fanatical Taleban captured the British journalist Yvonne Ridley during the invasion of Afghanistan she was well treated until she was set free at the Pakistani border.

In Iraq, two female Italian aid workers were taken and subsequently released, as were female members of Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s family and a woman with duel Polish-Iraqi citizenship. We may never know who killed Margaret Hassan but we do know who shot an injured man taking refuge in a place of worship. Both killings are reprehensible. Both killings are an affront to humanity. And both must be investigated and universally condemned.

A third contentious video showed Al-Zarqawi’s Fallujah headquarters to which embedded journalists were taken on a guided tour.

So nice of the terrorist to put up an Al-Qaeda sign on the wall just in case his visitors were confused about where they were, and it was even nicer of him to leave behind computers bursting with intelligence goodies so that all his friends and associates can be traced. Shades of the Jessica Lynch show, courtesy of Pentagon Productions, or evidence that America’s enemy No. 2 is deficient in gray matter? You decide.

— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback

http://arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=54943&d=23&m=11&y=2004
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$330.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network