Posted on 05/22/2004 6:09:55 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
New York, NY - PipeLineNews - The left-wing American press is in possession of some of the most gruesome video scenes ever witnessed in the Western world, documenting abuse of Iraqi citizens on a scale heretofore unimaginable.
These ghastly video images, which are in the hands of the Washington Post, ABC news and - one would have to assume, the rest of the so-called legitimate press - show Iraqi prisoners being beheaded, having fingers slowly cut off, having their tongues cut out – blood gushing everywhere and screaming in unbelievable agony as they are having their testicles roughly hacked off by government goons.
The tape also shows Kurdish babies being gassed to death.
Mideast television station Al Hurra’s news director, Mouafac Harb, stated that he received the video evidence on Monday, May 17 and has judged it to be authentic
Harb said, "I was approached with a tape, which I had not seen before [one that] I had not seen on the popular Arabic satellite channels any program like this."
Why the sudden reticence of the US journalism to air such horrific footage?
Has Donald Rumsfeld gotten to them, have they been silenced by John Ashcroft, perhaps under threat of legal action under the Patriot Act?
Not exactly, you see the video footage was produced at the behest of Saddam Hussein and shows the full range of his regime's brutality.
ABC, CBS, NBC, the Washington Post, NY Times et all, have deemed that the American public will never be shown this evidence because it doesn’t serve their anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-Islamist agenda.
...percolating...
I understand that the removal of the right hands of the eight Iraqi businessmen, who were recently given (free) bionic hands by Americal doctors and hospitals (Oh, the humanity. Corporate hospitals????), was also video taped.
but we are trying to make an analogy to Iraq. Imagine if the american media had been solidly against the US war in Europe - Hitler wasn't part of the war against those who attacked us at Pearl Harbor, etc, we all know the spin. Then, after the Nazis were defeated (in a war supported by only 50% of americans) - imagine if the american media was trying to destroy FDR, could they have shown what really happened in the holocaust?
Because the satanists do not like to publicly implicate themselves yet. They are not in power quite totally enough, yet.
its part of the documentary. the description I heard was hideous - Saddam had cameramen filming the men right as they awoke from surgery, so he could capture the horror on their faces when they first viewed their arms with no hands.
They did look the other way. In fact they were censored. Other than a few stories in the back pages of the New York times that spoke vaguely about Nazi atrocities- it was a near total news blackout.
When I was a junior in high school I had to sit through Holocaust documentaries that gave me nightmares. If I can get through that, I can get through this. But why do I have the feeling it's not my sensibilities, delicate or otherwise, that the lamestream media is worried about.
Of course they would - there's plenty of precedent. For example, the German population.
One finds oneself wondering why the depiction of slow torture and dismemberment would even be worthy of airtime in the Arab world(?)
that gives the media the sole "right" to decide what to show and what not to show, and what to use to shape public opinion. who the hell gave them that right?
indeed, the documentary series "The World at War" showed far worse, on regular TV, in the 1970s. Bulldozers burying bodies, the techniques and results of experimental surgeries by the nazis, etc. So why now can't they show the Saddam videos and the Berg killing?
I agree the tapes should not be shown. But the media could discuss the fact they have them and choose not to air them because of the content. As it is, they simply ignore their existence and make a conscious effort to refrain from broadcasting anything that might make viewers toughen their stand against terrorism.
MY point is this. Imagine if American media wasn't censored during WWII and say the Chicago Tribune leaks a story before D-day from the infant OSS about how FDR refuses to even talk to high level German military officials about killing Hitler? What would have been the reaction? Outrage and rightly so. Perhaps FDR then would have felt pressure to contact Canaris to get rid of Hitler and thus end the war without the Sovs taking over half of Europe and trainloads of Jews being gassed to death day after day.
A censored press is NEVER a good thing.
Wouldn't want the nation's collective spine stiffened, would they? Too bad. The internet has made the lamestream increasingly irrelevant.
You mean our Politically Corrupt media?
I'm shocked to the core, I tell you! Shocked!
Would you still say that if the press switched sides and started reporting the truth that shows America in a good light?
Do you mean like this story?:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140464/posts
CNN too. But arn't they just a bunch of leftie liars?
What media do you believe or do you just believe what the Government tells you?
Kerry wants to be the Commander-In- Chief of our great military. He has yet though to visit the troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the wounded at Walter Reed or any military hospital in the states. I can not see this sitting well with the troops at all
Indeed, but a free press with the kinds of biases present today is even more of a disaster. more americans think US soldiers in Vietnam were "baby killers", then have any idea who Pol Pot even is much less what he did. what do you call that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.