Posted on 06/07/2006 5:16:01 AM PDT by Dark Skies
You can do it yourself.
http://www.customink.com/cink/r.jsp?R=
Thanks for the PING. one of the best analysis so far.
This is what I've been saying all along.
The author's theory is plausible for one basic reason: for months, the enemy's basic tactic has been to kill innocent Iraqis - THAT IS WHAT THEY DO. I believe that Saddam even had some of his own lawyers killed so as to try to discredit and delay and nullify his trial. The enemy stops at nothing, routinely violates every principle of warfare, yet our own media take the side of the insurgents and magnify beyond proportion any crime on our side. Abu Ghraib was a piddling crime compared to the suicide bombings that happen every day, yet it got 10,000 times the negative press worldwide.
I agree--wish it could receive more attention.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644753/posts
Media dance macabre
Washington Times ^ | 6/7/06 | Tony Blankley
Posted on 06/06/2006 10:40:58 PM PDT by duckln
The Marine incident, and its aftermath, at Haditha tells us much more about the media than it does about the Marines. And what it tells us ought to outrage us to the core.
On every radio and television show I appeared on last week (and all I observed) in which this topic came up, without exception at least one of the media people immediately attempted to implicate not just the still-presumed-innocent Marines, but the American military's leadership and methods in general.
The "Drive By Media" (Rush Limbaugh's scientifically accurate description) has already started to report this story in a manner that is likely do vast damage that may last for several years to the morale (and possibly recruitment) of our military. It will create a propaganda catastrophe of strategic proportions in our mortal struggle with radical Islam and their terrorist spear point.
And all this is being done by journalists who are seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their acts.
snip ...
But in the lunatic asylum which is today's America-at-war journalism, one possibly unfortunate event opens a flood gate of over-reporting, mis-reporting and just plain lying. Nothing is too harsh or too untrue to say about our military by these [fill in the blank].
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
If you examine the track record of the U.S. military and the terrorist, it is clear that the terrorist have absolutely no scruples about killing civilians of any confession or nationality.
Aside from your silly shouting, you have no idea what I have read about this. And your 'facts', unless they come from the lips of the Marines who were there, are not facts at all but suppositions.
I am not accepting any story, the media's or yours. I will wait to hear from the Marines. And if the Corps decides that there is no reason to take this public because they are satisfied that there is nothing there then that's good enough for me.
btw...your statement that, "The only witnesses were terrorists and/or terrorist sympathizers." is ridiculous...what about the Marines, doesn't their story count for you?
Thanks.
The Marines, thus far, are not talking--and when they do, they will be automatically discounted by their detractors--something you should have figured out by now. They will claim what the Marines say is "self-serving." One or two lawyers who say they represent them have said one or two things--and these statements would seem to absolve the Marines. But so far they are not going on the record.
What I stated in my post are facts we now know. The history of the doctor who did the forensics and the "journalist" are well documented.
So, the truth is, you don't know the truth yet, do you?
The more things change, the more they stay the same:
The mission of antiwar protestors "There are four matters in which concord may be lacking. When there is discord within the country the army can not be mobilized. When there is discord in the army it can not take the field. When there is lack of harmony in the field the army can not take the offensive. When there is lack of harmony in battle the army can not win a decisive victory." — Sun Tzu and the Art of War.
ping
They all come here intending to shill for their party, and then they all shill for their party.
Everyone here in Iraq, the Islamic world at large, and most especially the Jihadist Movement's leadership, follow the American media closely, in order to monitor the American people's headspace, primarily with regard to whether or not we will continue the fight on to the establishment of a successful democratic, capitalistic, and modernized society here, or whether we will run in self-imposed defeat. The morale of the International Jihad Movement is almost entirely dependent on the posture of the American media. Their strategies, indeed, are primarily determined by it as well.
The Iraqi People, and I mean all the Iraqi people, not just in certain areas, have a term for the insurgents – it is the same term they use to describe a common thief. It is Ali Baba. In every house, street, and scene of violence I was at, like the suicide bombing, the common Iraqi referred to the insurgents as "Ali Baba". There is no other term they use. The insurgency in Iraq is not a popular insurgency. It's Baathists and terrorists. People looking to steal the future of Iraq from the common man and a common democracy: Ali Baba.
The Iraqi people (and I have this repeatedly on videotape) also have a term for CNN and Al Jazeera. The term is Ali Baba. In one particular passionate interview, a group of Iraqis tell me of an incident where insurgents murdered a group of Iraqis in broad daylight. Al Jazeera showed up, found out what was happening, went live on the air, and reported that the Iraqis had just been killed by American soldiers. According to the taped interview I have, the crowd went berserk and attacked the Al Jazeera reporters for blatantly lying in aid of the insurgency. I have interviews where it is repeated over and over that Al Jazeera is in total league with the insurgency. Ali Baba.
parts of Iraq are not really covered by the mainstream media; they rely on "stringers", locals they supply with sattelite phones and other gear to feed stories and pictures to them. Many of these stringers (people being paid by CNN and other outlets, (read: paid by American dollars like yours and mine that flow into CNN and the NY Times, et. al.) are, in fact, insurgents themselves. They feed lies to our media, they feed our media's money to the insurgency, they gather intel for the insurgents.
PATRICK DOLLARD IN IRAQ http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644762/posts
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!
Incredible post! Keep getting this out. Everyone must read it.
You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the arse. Give it up. Anyone with half a brain would look at the sources of the accusations--which you refuse to do--and realize that the accusers one and all have a good reason to lie. Such good reasons, in fact, that they probably ARE lying. Anyone who chooses to ignore all the evidence except one piece of it (the Marines' testimony) is an idiot.
Assuming the terrorists didn't just kill all the "civilians" that weren't killed by the Marines return fire at the terrorist. And assuming there was only a lone terrorist, and the two AKs they found were all there were, that is that some of the terrorists didn't get away, and hide the weapons elsewhere.
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.