Journalists consider themselves impartial. I saw that in
. Deskmerc wonders
their impartiality extends, but I'm honestly starting to wonder just how they can consider themselves impartial when they
Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade Â— all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.
Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.
Saddam's torture videos may be too awful to show, but it's hard to explain the low media interest in the story of seven Iraqi men who had their right hands chopped off by Saddam's thugs Â— and then got new prosthetic arms and new hope in America.
They're eloquent, they're available, they're grateful for the U.S. liberation of Iraq. No one can better talk about Saddam's tortures Â— and no one is more eager to do so. Yet, as of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib Â— with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men.
They are getting to be nothing more than propaganda machines, and not friendly ones at that.
Posted by: John at June 17, 2004 05:14 AM (crTpS)
Hahaha, this post is funny. Saddam's henchmen torturing Iraqi's is *unequivocally good news*. Remember: US not as bad as Saddam. Oh wait, this post isn't funny at all.
P.S: How many stories have Fox News written on these 7 men compared to Abu Ghraib? I don't have access to Lexis-Nexis, but a search on their web page reveals that they mention Abu Ghraib in about 5 stories every day.
Posted by: Sander at June 17, 2004 11:11 AM (9v8mw)
I don't think that any reasonable person could deny that Saddam Hussein committed horrific atrocities, for which he deserves to be removed from power. In fact, one of the (many alleged) reasons we went to Iraq was to stop his abuses on the Iraqi people.
Now, because we claimed a humanitarian reason for fighting the war on Iraq, one of the consequences is that we must
have a humane occupation of Iraq. Note that I'm not arguing we have to put up with armed attacks or any other similar pacifist arguments. However, I do believe that what we can't do is be perceived as doing the same things as Saddam Hussein did.
Now, suppose you were an Iraqi, and you heard about what was happening at Abu Ghraib. Would your response most likely be:
[a] "Oh, they're doing that to protect our freedom."
"It's only six soldiers; the rest are OK."
| "The Americans are no better than Saddam Hussein."
I don't honestly think that [a] or are realistic options for the majority of Iraqis right now.
What the Abu Ghraib incident, and our handling of it, is showing--to us as a nation, and to the world at large--suggests that we are not behaving like a beneficent occupier, but almost as a vigilante group.
Dealing swiftly with the Abu Ghraib incident and with other incidents of abuse will show the world that we're serious about treating the Iraqis humanely. If they know that we will make sure that they do not suffer as they did under the Hussein regime, they would have less reason to rebel. On the other hand, ignoring the justifiable outrage this incident is engendering will only give the Iraqis an erroneous impression--that we don't really think that they're worthy of democracy and independence.
If the media is reporting the current news of the Abu Ghraib incident and other problems in Iraq, they're doing their job. We, as a people, need to know what the military is doing. The military has the right to some security and screeing from scrutiny during actual operations, but we also have to remember that they are acting as our vanguard. If we screw up in Iraq--and all signs still point to trouble--we are going to have zero credibility in the war on terror.
Do we simply ignore the news coming out of Abu Ghraib, if we know the rest of the world will be be paying attention, and judging us on our actions? We know that the Arab world will see this and be incensed. We know that leaders of nations on the fence about joining the "coalition against terror" will see this, decide that they can't take the risk, and sit it out. What will this mean?
Ultimately, we will have no credibility to take the next step. Moreover, without support from other nations, we will have no resources to fight another war--unless we return to the draft.|
Posted by: Can't win at June 17, 2004 12:05 PM (aQOKC)
Is there some moral equivalency to be found here, Sarah?
The implication you seem to be forwarding is the atrocities of a dictorial tyrant ought to be viewed in the same light as the abuses of our nation.
Doesn't speak well for us.
Posted by: Jadegold at June 19, 2004 03:38 PM (YVlbU)
| Add Comment