the real story?

[nostatic]

This is the first war in a weblog-enable world. Interesting times and posts indeed...

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

[dd74]

Good stuff, Todd. On a related topic, Rumsfeld has been asked to provide 10,000 more U.S. soldiers to Iraq.

Did someone say "quagmire"?

[fintstone]

Sounds reasonable. The bad guys are going all out to prevent the upcoming handover of government. A show of force might be in order.

[GrindingGears]

I think the hood scoop is a huge part of the....oh wait, wrong thread.

[dd74]

Well, June 30th seems increasingly like a symbolic date and gesture. US troops will stay in place. The UN seems unresolved to help out. I don't think it'll be the rainy season in Iraq, though that won't prevent us from being bogged down in proverbial mud by then.

[Superman]

Thanks for posting that link. I couldn't read through it all, and that's not just because of time limitations. I wish the media could show us what's happening. It would certainly be very bad for our "president's" reelection campaign.

[RoninLB]

this whole Iraq bs is delaying Syria's party.

[power]

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Blah.
Blah.
Blah.

As long as it's anti-America, it must be right, right? Welcome to menticide, check your analysis at the door.

Edit: aw, crap. I just checked Todd's comments on the other thread. I'm too beat down right now for a point-by-point "Fisking" of NS' reference material, but I'd say to my antagonists, read Bush's remarks last night and listen to the "song, not the singer." Imagine it was someone (ie other than Bush) that you didn't viscerally despise, and it makes a lot of sense.

JP

[island911]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.

As long as it's anti-America, it must be right, right? . . .

Saddly, that does seem to be the theme. (assuming by "right" you mean "correct" . .. . otherwise replace "it must be right" with "it must be left")

I believe some look for opportunities, such as anti-Americaism, to demonstrate, to the world, that they are self-critical.

Flagrantly self-critical people are better than the rest of us, doncha know.

It's a strange standard that allows them to throw out the baby with the bath water?
. . .oh wait. . . .maybe that should be; throw out the dead-baby picture, with the Ba‘athist wallowing. (?)

[CamB]

The blog isn't that bad JP. It certainly offers a viewpoint that most aren't going to get...

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
Blah.
Blah.
Blah.

As long as it's anti-America, it must be right, right? Welcome to menticide, check your analysis at the door.

You read that as anti-American. I read it as an account from a person who is living with the war. Does the writer have bias? Of course...but I'll gladly take those writings as a data point. The war isn't in our back yard. We have the media and administration telling us what "the story" is. There is plenty of bias there. It is useful to get some other perspectives. The post from yesterday is especially "on target" with regards to media coverage of the war. Is it the "truth"? I'm not sure...but I'll consider carefully.

Just becuase something is "pro-American", it must be right, right?

From riverbendblog 14Apr04:

Media and Falloojeh...
There has been a lot of criticism about the way Al-Arabia and Al-Jazeera were covering the riots and fighting in Falloojeh and the south this last week. Some American spokesman for the military was ranting about the "spread of anti-Americanism" through networks like the abovementioned.

Actually, both networks did a phenomenal job of covering the attacks on Falloojeh and the southern provinces. Al-Jazeera had their reporter literally embedded in the middle of the chaos- and I don't mean the lame embedded western journalists type of thing they had going at the beginning of the war (you know- embedded in the Green Zone and embedded in Kuwait, etc.). Ahmed Mansur, I believe his name was, was actually standing there, in the middle of the bombing, shouting to be heard over the F-16s and helicopters blasting away at houses and buildings. It brought back the days of 'shock and awe'...

I know it bothers the CPA terribly to have the corpses of dead Iraqis shown on television. They would love for Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia to follow Al-Hurra's example and show endless interviews with pro-occupation Iraqis living abroad and speaking in stilted Arabic. These interviews, of course, are interspersed with translated documentaries on the many marvels of... Hollywood. And while I, personally, am very interested in the custom leather interiors of the latest Audi, I couldn't seem to draw myself away from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia while 700+ Iraqis were being killed.

To lessen the feelings of anti-Americanism, might I make a few suggestions? Stop the collective punishment. When Mark Kimmett stutters through a press conference babbling about "precision weapons" and "military targets" in Falloojeh, who is he kidding? Falloojeh is a small city made up of low, simple houses, little shops and mosques. Is he implying that the 600 civilians who died during the bombing and the thousands injured and maimed were all "insurgents"? Are houses, shops and mosques now military targets?

What I'm trying to say is that we don't need news networks to make us angry or frustrated. All you need to do is talk to one of the Falloojeh refugees making their way tentatively into Baghdad; look at the tear-stained faces, the eyes glazed over with something like shock. In our neighborhood alone there are at least 4 families from Falloojeh who have come to stay with family and friends in Baghdad. The stories they tell are terrible and grim and it's hard to believe that they've gone through so much.

I think western news networks are far too tame. They show the Hollywood version of war- strong troops in uniform, hostile Iraqis being captured and made to face "justice" and the White House turkey posing with the Thanksgiving turkey... which is just fine. But what about the destruction that comes with war and occupation? What about the death? I don't mean just the images of dead Iraqis scattered all over, but dead Americans too. People should *have* to see those images. Why is it not ok to show dead Iraqis and American troops in Iraq, but it's fine to show the catastrophe of September 11 over and over again? I wish every person who emails me supporting the war, safe behind their computer, secure in their narrow mind and fixed views, could actually come and experience the war live. I wish they could spend just 24 hours in Baghdad today and hear Mark Kimmett talk about the death of 700 "insurgents" like it was a proud day for Americans everywhere...

Still, when I hear talk about "anti-Americanism" it angers me. Why does American identify itself with its military and government? Why is does being anti-Bush and anti-occupation have to mean that a person is anti-American? We watch American movies, listen to everything from Britney Spears to Nirvana and refer to every single brown, fizzy drink as "Pepsi".

I hate American foreign policy and its constant meddling in the region... I hate American tanks in Baghdad and American soldiers on our streets and in our homes on occasion... why does that mean that I hate America and Americans? Are tanks, troops and violence the only face of America? If the Pentagon, Department of Defense and Condi are "America", then yes- I hate America.

[Purrybonker]

JP declares:

"Blah.
Blah.
Blah.

As long as it's anti-America, it must be right, right? Welcome to menticide, check your analysis at the door."

...wow man, you're a bit over the top with your paranoia, aren't you? How does a factual report by someone on site become anti-American?

Well, I guess if you were to read: "gee, I wish those guys would stop destroying my city and blowing my friends and relatives into hundreds of bitty pieces..." as anti-American, then there is little anyone on this board can do to help...

good luck to you.

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
You read that as anti-American. I read it as an account from a person who is living with the war. Does the writer have bias? Of course...but I'll gladly take those writings as a data point. . . .

huh.
. . .and here I too, thought you meant that "data point" to represent the center piece of your thread, here, called "The Real Story".

I feel so silly . .. oh hey wait a minute. . .you wouldn't be tyring to change the focus here, would ya?

[Overpaid Slacker]

I, too read "The Real Story" thread title not to be "here's another of a spectrum of viewpoints" but as an endorsement of these particular ramblings above all others. Thus my response.

"How does a factual report by someone on-site become anti-American"

-- I'm not sure whether you're asking actually "how" a report becomes anti-American (like how does a bill become a law) or whether you mean to say that a factual report by someone on-site could not possibly be anti-American. Neither is particularly acute, and the latter is too ridiculous to merit a detailed response. Suffice to say that a dose of fact does not innoculate against bias.

JP

[nostatic]

go back and read the title:

the real story?

or is that too subtle for you guys?

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
go back and read the title:

the real story?

or is that too subtle for you guys?

is that some sort of statement!?

(Kidding)

SO, with the title "the real story?" you challenge the reader to consider, what you provide, as the real story.

Your choice of title does not challange the reader to consider the story as a "data point"

[Overpaid Slacker]

Whatever. It was a misunderstanding. I blame me.

My computer needs a breathalyzer-deactivation thingy. Well, the one at home, anyway.

JP

[dd74]

What is "real" can in fact be elastic, if not entirely made up.

Like WMDs, for example...

Sheesh!

[nostatic]

Originally posted by island911
Your choice of title does not challange the reader to consider the story as a "data point"

Actually I think it does. By using the title "the real story?", I was seeking to challenge the reader to expand their horizons beyond mainstream media and administrative briefings, and consider some alternative sources and viewpoints. Whether it is "real" is left up to the reader...hence the question mark.

As I have argued before, ALL "media accounts" (and I now include personal publishing like weblogs in that group) are clouded by bias. It is up to the reader (and more broadly, the community) to try and determine the veracity and motives of the writer. I would like people to think instead of just blindly following the media or the party line, be it right *or* left.