The Telegraph – Calcutta : International
Baghdad, Oct. 26 (Reuters): Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi today said “major neglect” by US-led forces led to the murder of 49 Iraqi army recruits by insurgents this weekend.
“There was an ugly crime in which a large group of National Guards were martyred,” he told Iraq’s national assembly. “We believe this issue was the outcome of major neglect by some parts of the multinational (forces).”
Of course the liberal media can do nothing with this story either. How about this for a reason. There is NO LIBERAL MEDIA. Where are they?
It is a crime that trained or “in-training” security forces were not armed, since every grown man in Iraq has an AK-47 (or the de facto right to bear one). The reason is that the Americans don’t even trust the Iraqi security forces they are training, because a significant percentage of them are infiltrators from the insurgents. So it’s just as likely they could be cut down by one of their own with a machine gun.
Or led into a trap, as clearly happened hear, on a road in the middle of nowhere, that they had never traveled on.
They should have been armed or had an armed escort. But having American forces baby sit Iraqi forces will not scale up. They have to defend themselves. If they had been armed they would have had a fighting chance.
Or would they…
The situation is: the insurgents think they are fighting and martyring themselves for God, and the Iraqi police and security forces don’t know who or what they are fighting for. They don’t even have the balls to defend themselves against people about to murder them.
Andrew Wong of the NYT said on the Newshour that there was no evidence of a struggle. Only a small group tried to run away and was gunned down. Yes, they were not armed, but it highlights the fact that most Iraqi security forces do not want to fight back against their fellow Muslims and country men. Men who then shot them in the back of the head, one by one. Someone — apparently a Muslim cleric, since logic holds no sway — needs to tell them that the insurgents are their enemies, and would just as soon see them dead and their country in chaos as embrace them as a Muslim brother.
John, I fail to see how this story substantiates or repudiates the claim that the media has a liberal bias. Firstly, most people that make that claim are specifically talking about the American media. Secondly, if you are looking for evidence of that claim, this story is not the best example. For evidence of the liberal bias, one needs look no farther than CBS. 60 Minutes did an entire one hour show on Clintons biography. 60 Minutes II did the famous show on the Bush memos. Yet, you will notice that neither show did anything about the Swift Boats claims nor anything else disparaging against Kerry (certainly not for lack of evidence).
Much (nothing is absolute in this world) of the American media does have a liberal bias. It shows itself in the way that stories are positioned, the facts that are presented and most insidious of all, the facts that are not presented.
Agree 100% – they’ve been MIA for years now it seems. Where is the media of old that used to keep politicians in check – the media that would ask the hard questions. All we have these days are a bunch of partisan cheerleaders flooding the airwaves with their “rah rah” chants. It’s pretty disheartening.
The nice thing about your blog, John — as opposed to a couple of regular forums I inhabit — is I don’t worry about whether or not a mean-spirited remark is socially/politically-productive or not. I don’t think that’s a criticism of anything other than too many years dedicated to trying to change shit — and I can’t lose the habit.
I also guess that’s a compliment to the free-flowing and eidetic neighborhood you seem to be building over here.
Anyway — Liberal Media? Regardless of the paranoia neo-cons constantly spout over LM — we’re talking about gutless talking heads with little or no inclination to stray beyond the PR releases they’re handed.
T.C.
They dont even have the balls to defend themselves against people about to murder them.
Can’t we also say this about all the people who have been kidnapped and beheaded?
Andrew Wong of the NYT said on the Newshour that there was no evidence of a struggle. Only a small group tried to run away and was gunned down.
I’d like to think I would have the “Let’s Roll!” mentality, and not go down without a fight – but I might just be fatalistic in the face of over-whelming superiority of armed killers. (How many murderers with guns does it take to corral 50 men?) We may never know what threats were used to cower them i.e could their families have been threatened if they didn’t submit?
Anyway, I just don’t know how I would react to the choice of which way to die.
Especially if the threat is that I take a bullet in the head or … ?
If it’s a choice between a relatively quick death, and getting hacked-up by guys with swords, or being mortally-wounded by multiple gunshots – and no other options – I would probably lie face-down in the dirt, and give thanks I was given that option. 🙁