Al Jazeera is a disgrace

[Coach Tuesday]

Only Al-Jazeera could write an article like this - calling the terrorists "anti-occupation fighters," and not mentioning a single time that the primary casualties of these animals' acts are innocent Iraqi civilians, who have been dying in droves. Don't be afraid to write to the news service to tell them what you think of their coverage - it's obvious whose side they're on.

 

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_serv...service_id=8480

 

Iraqi rebels counter-attack U.S. offensive; Baghdad blast kills 7

5/10/2005 12:00:00 PM GMT

 

Anti-occupation fighters are counter-attacking the U.S. offensive in western Iraq

 

 

Three U.S. marines were killed in fighting in western Iraq Sunday and Monday, according to the U.S. military, but it was not immediately known if they were connected with the ongoing ground and air assault, code-named operation Matador and involving about 1,000 men.

 

A Los Angeles Times reporter embedded with the offensive said 20 U.S. troops also were wounded, but the U.S. military could not immediately confirm that.

 

On Tuesday, fighting was reported in Obeidi, 185 miles west of Baghdad, and the two nearby towns of Rommana and Karabilah, an AP reporter in the region said, adding that large numbers of Qaim residents were fleeing the area.

 

On Monday night, rebels launched a counterattack 5 miles from U.S. Camp Gannon in Qaim, said U.S. Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool. They attacked a Marine convoy with small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and two car bombers, Pool said in a statement.

 

One bomb damaged an armoured Humvee, and a car bomber was destroyed by a Marine tank, but no Marines were killed and 10 rebels surrendered, Pool said.

 

The New York Times reported Tuesday that Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle fighters dropped two 500-pound laser-guided bombs and fired 510 20-millimeter cannon rounds Sunday against anti-occupation fighters around Qaim and that Marine F/A-18 fighters fired 319 20-millimeter cannon rounds.

 

The LA Times reporter embedded with the offensive said the insurgents appeared well-prepared, having sandbag bunkers piled in front of some homes and that fighters were strategically positioned on rooftops and balconies.

 

In the towns of Sabah, Obeidi and Karabilah, the reporter said, rebels fired mortar rounds at U.S. Marine convoys along the Euphrates River's southern edge.

 

Marines who pursued attackers in those towns took part in house-to-house combat against dozens of well-armed fighters, the Los Angeles Times reported.

 

At one point, the paper said, a Marine walked into a house and a rebel hiding in the basement fired through a floor grate, killing him. Another Marine who was retrieving a wounded comrade inside a house suffered shrapnel wounds when a grenade was thrown through a window, the Times said.

 

The report said the anti-occupation fighters were using boats to transport weapons from one side of the Euphrates River to another, and that some were wearing body armor. It said a Marine suffered a broken back and at least two were wounded Sunday when a land mine hit their tank.

 

Baghdad violence

 

A car bomb exploded in a busy street in central Baghdad on Tuesday, as Iraq's foreign hostage crisis deepened with the disappearance of a Japanese security contractor following a firefight with rebels, while the fate of an Australian held hostage remained unknown after a kidnappers' deadline passed.

 

Seven Iraqis were killed and 16 wounded in the Baghdad attack by a suicide bomber against a U.S. patrol which occurred in the morning, an interior ministry official said.

 

According to witnesses the bomb missed its target but set several other vehicles ablaze. However, a police officer said the bomb exploded just as a U.S. military convoy of Humvees and armoured vehicles was passing.

 

The Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said there was no news on the fate of Australian hostage Douglas Wood after the passing of a 1900 GMT Monday deadline set by kidnappers for Canberra to start withdrawing troops from Iraq.

 

Australia currently has about 550 soldiers in Iraq, with 350 more to arrive soon.

 

Another possible hostage drama could unfold, following the disappearance of a Japanese private security guard whose convoy was ambushed by rebels near Hit, some 150 kilometres northwest of Baghdad.

 

A group released identity card copies giving the Japanese hostage's name and said he had been captured during a "fierce battle" in western Iraq.

 

His convoy, of several cars, was ambushed at night after leaving a U.S. base and a firefight erupted between rebels and private security guards who fought each other for several hours before U.S. forces arrived at dawn, according to military and diplomatic sources.

 

"There were casualties, both wounded and dead" among those travelling with the convoy, a U.S. officer told the AFP news agency.

 

"The government is doing its utmost to resolve the case," Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said.

 

The head of the Japan Defense Agency said however that the activities of the 600 Japanese troops in Iraq would not be affected by news of the kidnap.

[chicot]

No, I don't think I'll be complaining about Al-Jazeera's coverage. Why is it so difficult for people like you to comprehend that the armed resistance is not a single body? There are umpteen different groups each with their own aims and methods, some do indeed kill civilians in "droves" and I have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists, some do not particularly care whether civilians die or not, and some go to some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Some may have had relatives killed or tortured by the US and this may have drove them to fight back against the US. Can you truly say you would not do the same and would you be a "terrorist" if you did so?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No, I don't think I'll be complaining about Al-Jazeera's coverage. Why is it so difficult for people like you to comprehend that the armed resistance is not a single body? There are umpteen different groups each with their own aims and methods, some do indeed kill civilians in "droves" and I have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists, some do not particularly care whether civilians die or not, and some go to some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Some may have had relatives killed or tortured by the US and this may have drove them to fight back against the US. Can you truly say you would not do the same and would you be a "terrorist" if you did so?

332634[/snapback]

 

Pardon me if I discount your opinion as biased and ridiculous.

 

Take a look at the casualty lists over the past few months. Hell of a lot of Iraqis, not a whole lot of Americans.

 

What's happening in Iraq is simple: an embittered Sunni minority lashing out against Shias and Kurds and in the process killing themselves as well. Good for them. It's just this kind of activity that proves my point that Arab culture at its foundation is a MESS.

[chicot]

Pardon me if I discount your opinion as biased and ridiculous.

 

Take a look at the casualty lists over the past few months. Hell of a lot of Iraqis, not a whole lot of Americans.

 

What's happening in Iraq is simple: an embittered Sunni minority lashing out against Shias and Kurds and in the process killing themselves as well. Good for them. It's just this kind of activity that proves my point that Arab culture at its foundation is a MESS.

332636[/snapback]

 

Consider yourself pardoned There was a recent US report breaking down the percentage of attacks in Iraq (I'll see if I can dig it up). It found that 75% of attacks were against the US military, only 4% targetted civilians (the remainder being attacks against Iraqi security forces). The difference in casualties is explained by the simple fact that if you plant a bomb in a market place you're likely to kill a hell of a lot more people than if you attack a heavily fortified US base.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Consider yourself pardoned    There was a recent US report breaking down the percentage of attacks in Iraq (I'll see if I can dig it up). It found that 75% of attacks were against the US military, only 4% targetted civilians (the remainder being attacks against Iraqi security forces). The difference in casualties is explained by the simple fact that if you plant a bomb in a market place you're likely to kill a hell of a lot more people than if you attack a heavily fortified US base.

332647[/snapback]

 

Whether or not they're targeting Americans, the fact remains that they're killing scores of Iraqis for each American. If I was an Iraqi, I'd go out of my way to kill those bastards before they killed me, but hey, that's just me.

 

Also, are you denying that most of these terrorists are Sunnis?

[chicot]

Whether or not they're targeting Americans, the fact remains that they're killing scores of Iraqis for each American. If I was an Iraqi, I'd go out of my way to kill those bastards before they killed me, but hey, that's just me.

 

Also, are you denying that most of these terrorists are Sunnis?

332654[/snapback]

 

I would only use the term "terrorist" to describe those attacking civilians, but I wouldn't deny that most of the resistance is coming from Sunnis, though there is still trouble in Amarah (a UK soldier was killed there last week) and that is a Shiite town. I agree with you that those who are killing civilians need to be dealt with, but my whole point is that you cannot automatically assume that everyone who is opposing the occupation falls into that category.

[Thurmal34]

The thing to remember here is not all these fighters are terrorists. Some are simply not down with a foriegn power having troops on their soil.

[Tux of Borg]

I'm surprised the US hasn't launched a propaganda channel of our own over in the middle east.

[todd]

I'm surprised the US hasn't launched a propaganda channel of our own over in the middle east.

332685[/snapback]

 

All they'd need to do is broadcast Faux news in arabic.

 

Oh, so sorry, that would be Fox news. :-)

[RkFast]

All they'd need to do is broadcast Faux news in arabic.

 

Oh, so sorry, that would be Fox news. :-)

332687[/snapback]

 

 

That New York Times is real "Fair and Balanced".

[Reuben Gant]

I'm surprised the US hasn't launched a propaganda channel of our own over in the middle east.

332685[/snapback]

They have.

Al Arabia

http://www.alarabiya.net/english.aspx

and a decent outline of the players:

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/spreading.html

[RkFast]

No, I don't think I'll be complaining about Al-Jazeera's coverage. Why is it so difficult for people like you to comprehend that the armed resistance is not a single body? There are umpteen different groups each with their own aims and methods, some do indeed kill civilians in "droves" and I have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists, some do not particularly care whether civilians die or not, and some go to some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Some may have had relatives killed or tortured by the US and this may have drove them to fight back against the US. Can you truly say you would not do the same and would you be a "terrorist" if you did so?

332634[/snapback]

 

If so much of this is all about freeing Iraq from the "terrible" grip of the "oppressive" Americans, than why are so many of the attacks targeting IRAQI police stations and military installments?

 

Does it not make sense for those wanting America out to HELP the very same group that will take over? If so, then why are the primary targets of so many of the terrorist attacks against Iraqi targets?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If so much of this is all about freeing Iraq from the "terrible" grip of the "oppressive" Americans, than why are so many of the attacks targeting IRAQI police stations and military installments?

 

Does it not make sense for those wanting America out to HELP the very same group that will take over? If so, then why are the primary targets of so many of the terrorist attacks against Iraqi targets?

332724[/snapback]

 

That's a good question. I'm waiting with baited breath for chicot's timely reply.

[Tortured Soul]

Because they see the Iraqi police force and government as pawns of the American occupiers and traitors to the concept of Iraqi independence. They don't trust American promises to leave the country once an Iraqi security force is established. They see them as scabs crossing the picket lines.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Because they see the Iraqi police force and government as pawns of the American occupiers and traitors to the concept of Iraqi independence.  They don't trust American promises to leave the country once an Iraqi security force is established.  They see them as scabs crossing the picket lines.

332767[/snapback]

 

And in all cases they're wrong.

[Tortured Soul]

Is America really that trustworthy at this point? We did invade because of WMD's that didn't exist. I could see some Iraqi people not trusting American statements that they're there to liberate and not to get oil.

 

And before we get into a spitting contest, Joe, let me say that it's worthwhile to try to understand what the Iraqi people are thinking without necessarily agreeing with them, and it can't hurt to understand.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Is America really that trustworthy at this point?  We did invade because of WMD's that didn't exist.  I could see some Iraqi people not trusting American statements that they're there to liberate and not to get oil. 

 

And before we get into a spitting contest, Joe, let me say that it's worthwhile to try to understand what the Iraqi people are thinking without necessarily agreeing with them, and it can't hurt to understand.

332804[/snapback]

 

Oh, I understand what they're thinking. They're thinking we're there to "occupy" them. Correction: SOME of them think we're there to "occupy" them. As if their sh!thole of a country is really worth whatever oil is there.

 

The rest (Kurds and Shia) understand why we're there and are being cooperative. It's just the Sunnis. They've held power illegally for so long, they don't want to give it up. I say we let the Shia run rampant through their villages. Let the Kurds have at em too. let the Peshmerga pay back Sunni aggression with violence. That will teach the Sunnis.

[RkFast]

Because they see the Iraqi police force and government as pawns of the American occupiers and traitors to the concept of Iraqi independence.  They don't trust American promises to leave the country once an Iraqi security force is established.  They see them as scabs crossing the picket lines.

332767[/snapback]

 

bull sh--.

 

Because if that was the case, nobody would have shown up to vote in the Iraqi elections. The fact that the turnout was so big proves without a doubt that the vast majority of Iraqis see the new government as legit.

[chicot]

Oh, I understand what they're thinking. They're thinking we're there to "occupy" them. Correction: SOME of them think we're there to "occupy" them. As if their sh!thole of a country is really worth whatever oil is there.

 

The rest (Kurds and Shia) understand why we're there and are being cooperative. It's just the Sunnis. They've held power illegally for so long, they don't want to give it up. I say we let the Shia run rampant through their villages. Let the Kurds have at em too. let the Peshmerga pay back Sunni aggression with violence. That will teach the Sunnis.

332819[/snapback]

 

And the Mehdi Army? How do you account for them? Didn't they fight battles with the US in Najaf and Sadr City? Are they or are they not Shia muslims?

[GG]

No, I don't think I'll be complaining about Al-Jazeera's coverage. Why is it so difficult for people like you to comprehend that the armed resistance is not a single body? There are umpteen different groups each with their own aims and methods, some do indeed kill civilians in "droves" and I have no hesitation in describing them as terrorists, some do not particularly care whether civilians die or not, and some go to some lengths to avoid killing civilians. Some may have had relatives killed or tortured by the US and this may have drove them to fight back against the US. Can you truly say you would not do the same and would you be a "terrorist" if you did so?

332634[/snapback]

 

 

The inherent flaw in the logic of Jazeera's reporting is that while it labels the US as an occupying force, it ignores the role of foreign fighters that are stroking the insurgency.

 

You are right, the opposition takes many colors and flavors. But the ongoing offensive is done to root out the core of the resistance that is heavily fortified with foreign influence. Why was there no mention of that tidbit in the Jazeera story? Why are Syrians allowed a free pass to blow up Iraqis, by Jazeera?

 

You can evoke all the polls that show most ordinary Iraqis would like to have US leave as soon as practicable. The same polls also show that most ordinary Iraqis don't want the foreign insurgents in their country NOW.

 

Wouldn't it be great if Jazeera covered that little story?