Media and Falloojeh

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

This is taken from the latest entry on this person’s blog. She is an Iraqi female, 24 and says she survived the war. Interesting read.

Baghdad Burning

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

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.

2

If you use a building to fire, it becomes a military target. Lesson for today.

3

I have been fighting this fight for over two years, propagandizing of body counts and how it "resonates" in the Muslim world. Let me give you my conclusions.

1) In Bosnia/Kosovo claims of civilian deaths were grossly exaggerated. Media claims of over 10,000 deaths were actually around 200 when researched by independent sources after the fact. The same with the gulf war in '91. Baghdad claims were orders of magnitude higher than independent after action counts by an independent third party.

2) Somehow questioning the media claims is almost "unIslamic".

3) When you look at Al-Jazeera, there is not a single body of a "fighter", as if they did not exist. Does that strike anybody as odd?

4) There is always a strong presumption that EVERY casualty is the result of the US/Coalition. Somehow insurgents/fighters must have super human aim. Nothing could be further than the truth. The prefered method of shooting in Iraq is for a fighter to jump into the street with his AK on his hip, and to spray a whole magazine ala Tony Montana in "Scarface". Even worse with RPG's and mortars. Quite simply they are pumped with adrenaline, never methodically practice, and are completely unconcerned about where the bullets land. Yet somehow no one has the guts to imply that the fighters might be killing as many or more of the civilians.

5) In cases like Fallujah, the political crisis of is alway laid at the feet of the "oppressors". Never mind the fact that the former Baathists are instigating a fight each and every time a target becomes available, torching contractors and pot shotting troops each day. What were they thinking? If they really cared about the good people, they would not provoke a fight, they would prevent it, and join in a political jihad for the future of their country.

6) With the media solidly in their corner, "they" can use ambulances, and mosques in the fight. No one DARES question whether or not this is correct. When the US hits a mosque the outrage is pavlovian. Not a soul would dare challenge the status quo by saying "What were those guys thinking bringing a fight into a Mosque?" No matter how hard we try to avoid damaging a mosque, it is not beleived, so frankly, why are we so worried about it if the insurgents are not?

7) Rumors run wild. Somebodies cousin tells someones neighbor that Americans are shooting whole families and raping women and suddenly it becomes iron clad fact. If it appears on the internet it must be true.

Now argue as you wish about the US Media, US foreign policy, whatever. The propagandizing of body counts and civilian casualties is pathetic and preys on the ignorant. No one wants innocent people hurt (well,the definition of innocent varies in some quarters) but the gross exaggeration of casualties is nothing more than ghoulish politicing. And yes, I believe that US press coverage should not be sanitized to believe that there are NO civilian casualties.

4

there are independent body counts, and figures estimated by multiple independent sources.

you're suffering from a major case of denial. you've found a way to justify to yourself and be at ease with any number of people getting killed.

i guess once you've killed a certain number you stop caring how many more you kill.. just think about how to justify them.

and when you're aiming at an ambulance and sniping at white-flag waving injured people, you can get away with only so many explanations.

5

Show me the "independent" reports, and we will discuss them. I have seen a nameless doctor, a report from the hospitals, (they are currently treating hundreds of insurgents), and scattered reports from people leaveing, all of whom are highly partisan. Most of all we have Al-Jazeera, whose reporters would be shot if they did not folow the party line.

The real truth will not be know until fighting ceases.

In case after case, in various threads people have cited civilian casualties in other conflicts, and once investigators are able to verify the claims they are a small fraction of the initial claim. Having been through this exact debate before, I am hardly in denial.

6

what about this then for starters:

7

Please read the freaken' data you quote!

The "data" is press reports that includes Christian missionaries killed by insurgent bombs, US citizens killed by roadside bombs, and hundreds of other dubious entries. What's more, as the Iraqi army frequently did not wear uniforms, virtually all Iraqi entries are "civilians" even when the "victims" are clearly men of military age.

Your source sucks.

8

"That is has murdered no civilians?"

Murder? No. Civilians have been injured and killed in this conflict, absolutely.

America has not used excessive force, ask Saddam about excessive. What would the Russians have done? They leveled Grozny.
Are we in a fight? Damn skippy.

Discredit the source? Yes, when the source is propaganda and it is innaccurate.

The word you are struggling with is intent. If I drive my car down the road in bad weather and collide with a Muslim family and they die, is it Murder? No. If I was not driving responsibly it was negligence, but there was no intent to harm. If the weather was to blame it is simply an accident. There is also the chance that the Muslim car driver was at fault.

You are running down the street screaming "American slaughters Muslim family in car." without knowing or caring about the circumstances, apportionment of blame, or caring about the facts. What's more, Al-Jazeera would show the bloody images of the family in the car with a screaming headline implying that implies that I was able to discern that a Muslim was driving the car and ran into it because a Jew in the back seat wanted them killed.

It is hate mongering, cleverly disguised.

9

its a count of people killed in iraq since the war began verified from a number of independent news sources. they only add to the count when agencies independently concur as to findings.

you say it includes missionaries and american soldiers. fine, remove those. take out 600 people from the minimum, and you’re left with 8000 odd.

and men of military age are not soldiers. this is exactly the kind of mentality, justifying indiscriminate use of weapons, that i find unbelievable.

10

No, once again, you need to actually read what you are quoting. Right there in the little print is says that UP TO 7350 (maximum number, funny how the minimum number dissappears.) may have been killed during the period of "Major Combat". Of that 7350, nearly 1200 are based on a survey of Iraqi hospitals where less than 30% were known to be women and children, yet ALL were presumed to be "civilians". It is not known what the "normal death" rate absent combat would have been, nor how many of the 1,200 were really soldiers. (possibly as many as 900?).

Now each one of the "press reports" are subject to wide variance, as most of the "press reports" were done by interviewing Iraqi officials during a period of wartime. Could they have exaggerated their reports? yes, certainly. Could they have been FORCED to exaggerage their reports? Yes. Could as many as half of these "Civilians" have really been soldiers? Yes. Could many of these "deaths" have been the Fedyeen killing those that they thought were spies? How about how many were killed by Iraqi munitions?

In the end, I believe that it is possible that 3,000-4,000 civilians have probably died. (That was a good MONTH for Saddam) Since the end of combat, at least 1,500 civilians have been killed, 90% by bombs from the "insurgents". And those civilian deaths were INTENTIONAL, not accidental. Where is your outrage for this?

In all, I see claims of death much higher than your site shows, and many in the Muslim world swallow the claims hook line and sinker.

Why?

To breed hate.

11

how difficult is it to ascertain the impact of dropping a bomb into a crowded civilian area?

is that something you would normally be doing, and it just so happened that the crowded civlian area came under the bomb?

how naive are you, when dropping cluster bombs in cities, that it will only be your bad luck if the bomb doesnt happen to land in a congregation of terrorists where civilians dont normally roam?

its very much understood what the impact of the kind of bombing we've seen recently has to people who chance to be near it. its mutilation either way. in the 'freedom fighter's case, they merely give it a more personal touch.

12

How difficult is it for you to understand that the US is not indiscriminatley bombing population centers? If they were then there would be no argument to civilian death tolls in the tens of thousands. There has never been a war of this magnitude where so much care has been taken to keep civilian casuaties so low. Does that mean that the US military has magical weapons that can take out only the terrorists when they hide in civilian populations? No. BTW, which of these well researched media sources are telling you that they are dropping daisy cutters in cities?

13

you're incorrect seminole. even according to US official sources, 26 1000 pound bombs were dropped in civilian, city areas.

14

Please focus.

Look at the data base that YOU site. 15% of the deaths come from the "municipality of Baghdad". Other extremely large entries are attributable to city officials who worked for Saddam. Remember Baghdad Bob? Was he always truthful? Look at the Frequently asked Questions section, Is there a question on "How can you tell civilians?" No.

Here IS a quote from the FAQ section:

"Won't your count simply be a compilation of propaganda?

We acknowledge that many parties to this conflict will have an interest in manipulating casualty figures for political ends. There is no such thing (and will probably never be such a thing) as an "wholly accurate" figure, which could accepted as historical truth by all parties. "

Now I am not denying the possibility that mistakes were made, and civilians were killed. It is highly probable that thousands of civilians died in this conflict.

It is also absolutely certain that casualites are grossly exaggerated to inflame people. Like you.

15

[quote]

Now I am not denying the possibility that mistakes were made, and civilians were killed. It is highly probable that thousands of civilians died in this conflict.

[/quote]

thats what im saying too. it doesnt matter if you say its 6000, i say its 10000, thousands did die.

consider now your state dept official who consistently denied that civilians had died in the thousands.

not very truthful.

16

Please provide a link for your contention, I think almost anyone in the US government says, "we don't know" how many were killed.

My contention is that the Arab Media grossly exaggerates civilian casualties, and that this is a key propaganda element.

Apparently, it works. They certainly have got you....

Next will be Fallujah....

17

http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=145582#post2391504

happy viewing.

and there isnt much “gross” exagerration if your figure comes to 5000, and theirs to 8k.

and ibc isnt arab media, its UK based.

you seem to see arabs everywhere. i see that you’ve developed a pet theory of everything wrong in the world, like the much vaunted ‘jew theory’.

18

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ravage: *
you're incorrect seminole. even according to US official sources, 26 1000 pound bombs were dropped in civilian, city areas.
[/QUOTE]
It does matter when you say Americans are dropping 15,000 lb daisy cutters in cities.

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
It does matter when you say Americans are dropping 15,000 lb daisy cutters in cities.
[/QUOTE]

did i say that?

20

The point is that over time the estimates grow and grow without explaination.