Things you won't hear in the U.S.

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
It is sad that we, here in the United States, have to go to offshore sources to get this type of news. Here, it is bad news 24/7/365 with no effort on the part of the media to tell us anything good that is happening in Iraq. They will tell us how many U.S. soldiers were killed on a particular day but neglect to tell us how many of the enemy they took with them to the promised land.

Now, it looks like the people of Iraq are just plain damned tired of this crap and they are allying themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qa'eda. Of course, the likes of Senators Reid and Schumer deny that the surge has had anything to do with this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar308.xml

Iraq insurgency: People rise against al-Qa'eda
By Damien McElroy in Husaybah
Last Updated: 2:31am BST 09/10/2007Page 1 of 2

Damien McElroy spent a week in the heart of the insurgency in Anbar province in Iraq. In the second of seven exclusive reports he describes how peace and prosperity have returned to a town formerly riven by sectarian killings.

Day one dispatch: Fighting on the beaches
Telegraph Talk: Brig Stephen Gledhill on the role of British troops
Telegraph Talk: The new vehicles saving the lives of US troops

In a town tucked tight against the Syrian border, US Marines pass softly along a darkened street as the crack of contact rings out. Instead of a panicked rush for cover, the leader of the patrol turns to cheer.

The familiar sound was not from the barrel of gun but the baize of an upstairs pool hall.

A transformation has swept western Iraq that allows Marines to walk through areas that a year ago were judged lost to radical Islam control and hear nothing more aggressive than a late-night game of pool.

Behind the shutters the Sunni Muslim residents of the province are enjoying the dividends of driving out al-Qa'eda fighters who had imposed an oppressive Taliban-style regime.

The popular uprising against al-Qa'eda by residents of Anbar Province turned former enemies into American allies earlier this year. The result was a dramatic restoration of stability across Iraq's Sunni heartland. Husaybah bears the scars of the "terrorist" years - 2004 and 2005 - when al-Qa'eda and its local allies controlled the town.

Buildings stand half destroyed, roads remain torn up and almost half its population has fled. Much of the physical damage was inflicted in Operation Iron Curtain last year when Marine companies fought building by building to retake the town. Amid the ruins, relationships have been built by a softly-softly approach by American troops.

Footpatrols are hailed with cries of Salaam (Peace) and Habibi (Friend) in streets that were in no-go zones for the coalition a year ago. A ten-man unit of US Marines passes nightly along Husaybah's market street and zig-zags down alleys into residential areas. As they walk out, the sounds of a town reviving fill the air.

<more>
 
I've been hearing about this stuff on the news for quite awhile. What news are you watching?

Check it..... lots of articles.


It showed that the reduction of violence in the Anbar province was not due to the surge.
 
Hear it for yourself

The numbers are out and they reflect reduced numbers of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Most mainstream media, with few exceptions, gave little attention to this. If the niumbers were up, they would have a 3 minute lead on how badly the war is going.

But now you can hear it from the mouths of those who won't tell you the good news. They don't think good news should be reported until there is a "trend" the definition of which goes unspoken. The fact is that this is the fourth month of decline but there is no trend until :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

I guess they will let us know when the trend begins. Until then, they will continue to ignore the good news and focus on the bad.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...kurtz-why-good-news-iraq-shouldn-t-get-report

‘Journalists’ Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldn’t Get Reported (updated w/video)

By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 14:35 ET

As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.

To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

I kid you not.

*****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.

After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"

This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):

Transcript w/emphasis added:

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.

One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.

KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
 
I've been hearing about this stuff on the news for quite awhile. What news are you watching?

Check it..... lots of articles.


It showed that the reduction of violence in the Anbar province was not due to the surge.

Note that of the articles you Googled, many had nothing to do with the success in dealing with the warlords. Of the thirteen out of thirty five articles written in the U.S., by MSM most called into question the success of dealing with the warlords. Blogs are not MSM. Some examples (MSM = Mainstream Media):

1) U.S. MSM, SUBJECT: Warlords came up with this, not U.S. First Paragraph asks: "... is Anbar really a good model for stabilizing the rest of Iraq?"

2) U.S. MSM, SUBJECT: Using warlords to acheive peace is doubtful.

"If, region by region, the U.S. can sponsor one man or one organization with a monopoly on local violence, then it will have created a warlord system. It's difficult to imagine that working out, but if it does, and if those warlords can be ushered into what amounts to a cold war among one another, Iraq could be spared the worst.

The likelihood of this, in our view? Very, very slim."


3) U.S. MSM, SUBJECT: The surge is not working and had nothoing to do with declines in deaths and violence. We bought off the warlords.

"U.S. officials say that sectarian killings in Baghdad have declined, but journalists point out that many neighborhoods have already been subjected to ethnic cleansing. Petraeus showed Congress a chart yesterday demonstrating that civilian deaths nationwide had fallen -- but he didn't mention that most of the decline came before the "surge" troops arrived. Meanwhile, according to the United Nations, an estimated 60,000 refugees are fleeing the country each month.

But Petraeus, Bush's handpicked commander, intelligently recognized that something interesting was happening in Anbar province, once a deadly haven for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists. Sunni tribal sheiks were getting fed up with the al-Qaeda foreigners and seemed ready to kick them out.

Petraeus did everything he could to encourage this trend, pouring largess into Anbar to forge new relationships with warlords who used to be bitter enemies. Once the local Sunni leaders decided -- for now -- that they would rather work with the Americans than shoot at them, attacks on U.S. forces in the province fell sharply."
 
By the by ... The comments of these two "journalists" made Brit Hume's October 8 "Grapevine" item on Special Report with Brit Hume:

"Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz spoke Sunday with Post reporter Robin Wright and CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, on the air, about why the media paid so little attention to the shrinking casualty numbers coming out of Iraq. Kurtz asked Wright if the story should have received more play. She responded quote: 'Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet...The numbers themselves are tricky.' Barbara Starr said she needed more than one month's numbers before she gets quote, 'too excited' about the subject. But when Kurtz asked if an increase in casualty figures would have received more coverage, she Barbara Starr replied, quote: 'I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news.'"

Yet she had just heard Charles Gibson's report which started "The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths ..."

So she couldn't get it straight that she was decrying a one month stat as too little info when the true number was four months. I wonder if she could see that as a "trend"; or whether she would get even the least bit excited about it.
 
What are you getting so excited about exactly here? They're not exactly at a low of some sort.

Image.aspx


http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx
 
I've been hearing about this stuff on the news for quite awhile.

I think that's his point in this thread, poster child. That slanted news from the Leftist Mainstream Media is dangled in front of gullible liberal Bush/America haters who snap it up hook, line, and sinker. And reinforced by the dims in the Senate. A liberal's post about Iraq reeks of "How bad things really are over there." The requisite doom and gloom of "how the corrupt Bush administration has covered up the death and destruction of the innocent Iraqis who were doing just fine before evil America occupied and raped their country!" and "If we could only have a dialog with these people to find out what we have done to deserve their hate" and "How many more mother's children must die in Bush's war" is an underLIEing prevalent theme.

It showed that the reduction of violence in the Anbar province was not due to the surge.

Come on.......say it.......go on........what was the reduction due to?.....you know you want to.......it wasn't due to the American military, was it?........the surge isn't really working, is it?......what reeaallyy caused the reduced violence?.......say it lib and say it proud.......

What are you getting so excited about exactly here?

He is excited because he loves his country. He is excited because he supports his country. He is excited because he knows al Qaeda is on the run and we are winning. He is excited because what's good for America is bad for the democrats. Why's that so hard to figure out?
 
I think that's his point in this thread

No, the point was "things you won't hear" which turns out not to be true.


He is excited because he loves his country. He is excited because he supports his country. He is excited because he knows al Qaeda is on the run and we are winning. He is excited because what's good for America is bad for the democrats. Why's that so hard to figure out?

No he was talking about troop death reduction if you bothered to read. Which according to the graph is still quite high.

Are you capable of having a conversation without all the silly rhetoric or is it just some knee-jerk thing you're afflicted with?
 
Where I'm at, I hear stuff like that all the time. Take a look at last year in the last few pages of the Gitmo thread...
 
No he was talking about troop death reduction if you bothered to read. Which according to the graph is still quite high.

Troop deaths have been going down for four months in a row. September showed the "quite high" total of 60.

I have the God given good sense to know indubitably that there will be deaths in a war. Apparently some Libs don't; and they think that every war can be fought from 15,000 feet -- like Kosovo.

I showed you, in their own words how Lib journalists don't believe good news is newsworthy; and that they, apparently like yourself, do not accept four months of troop death reductions as a trend. Of course, they don't tell us what is defined as a "trend" and lie about the timeline saying one month when the truth is four months.

Nearly every mention in the stories you Googled was negative toward the warlords allying themselves with America and of the surge. We paid them off; this is tenuous at best; this won't continue working; the chances are slim to none; none of this is due to the surge. Hell, one of the articles accused the President of lying because there were more troops sent into the surge than he had stated would be sent. I would be willing to bet that the same journalist complained that we sent too few troops to Iraq in the beginning of the war.

The Lib MSM press is invested in the defeat of this nation and they build their stories on negativity. They can hardly wait to crawl to the top of the heap of dead American bodies to decry this war. The part they miss is that this volunteer army is trying to give the Iraqis the same rights that they -- our press -- has. Hopefully, the Iraqis will be far more respectful of that right than the American press has been.
 
Are you capable of having a conversation without all the silly rhetoric

Projection, pot, kettle, black.

the point was "things you won't hear" which turns out not to be true.


WRONG, you are the weak-link. . . . thanks for playing and pointing out the actual point.

That majority of what gets reported is hogwash designed to create an illusion that the entire era of GWBush (read: anyone not in the bosom of the DNC) is nothing but failure and that the political rivals (read: DNC) should be in the White House (and congress, the house, the throne above all) with their Enlightened© wisdoms (of socialism)


Seems to me that AA leader knew his life was on the line when he spoke out against the terrorist, and without a doubt, he knew he was a dead man for shaking the hand of GWBush. He was brave and martyred himself for the greater good of his people. -May he receive his 72.


Just as I thought, google proves it, would a quarter-million websites lie?
 
Troop deaths have been going down for four months in a row. September showed the "quite high" total of 60.

Go back to the chart.

June 101
July 78
Aug 84
Sep 66

That's down, up, down. There's been two months since things started with 31. Where is your point?
 
Projection, pot, kettle, black.

Wishful thinking. The rhetoric in this thread is confined to the conservatives.

WRONG, you are the weak-link. . . . thanks for playing and pointing out the actual point.

That majority of what gets reported is hogwash designed to create an illusion that the entire era of GWBush (read: anyone not in the bosom of the DNC) is nothing but failure and that the political rivals (read: DNC) should be in the White House (and congress, the house, the throne above all) with their Enlightened© wisdoms (of socialism)

I think you've just pointed out the actual point. That the Cons in this thread are unable to discuss things without rampant rhetoric...and conspiracy theories. :tinfoilhat:


Seems to me that AA leader knew his life was on the line when he spoke out against the terrorist, and without a doubt, he knew he was a dead man for shaking the hand of GWBush. He was brave and martyred himself for the greater good of his people. -May he receive his 72.

What, more rhetoric? You use a heck of a lot of words that turn out to be completely meaningless.
 
Funny. You'll hear about this, though. Whoever talked would be tried for treason if we were in an actual war, as well as the reporter who got the 'scoop', and the first person to post it on the web. I wonder if thats why war was never declared?
 
. . . shot on the same sound-stage as the moon-landings.




Everyone look happy and say Jihad

60723.jpg

Col. Jon Lehr, commander, 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis, Wash., shakes hands with Sheik Akmid Amir, Oct. 6, in Rashidiyah, Iraq. Amir, a former general in Saddam Hussein's army, now works with coalition forces to bring peace and security to Rashidiyah.

Yeah, it probabally feels like rhetoric, but its not. It's more of an assault on your evasive and closed enlighenment©

Try to stay focused on the original topic son
 
I think you've just pointed out the actual point. That the Cons in this thread are unable to discuss things without rampant rhetoric...and conspiracy theories. :tinfoilhat:

. . . just working with YOUR theme, lest you forgot.


The point was that good news rarely ever get coverage, it always get pulled into rhetiric. It seems though, that your lock-step has brought the paralell point to your being the tool you unwittingly have become.


Using your theory, welfare, illegal aliens, uninsured people are all being bribed to vote demoncrat.

(aint' it the truth thoo)
 
Go back to the chart.

June 101
July 78
Aug 84
Sep 66

That's down, up, down. There's been two months since things started with 31. Where is your point?

Then the numbers have been revised since Charles Gibson declared:

"The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month."

or is one of your Libs in the MSM lying to us all -- including you?

Sorry I got the number (66) wrong. It wasn't a typo, just a brain fart.
 
. . . just working with YOUR theme, lest you forgot.

My theme? I didn't start this conspiracy theory thread.


The point was that good news rarely ever get coverage, it always get pulled into rhetiric. It seems though, that your lock-step has brought the paralell point to your being the tool you unwittingly have become.

Right, unless good news really does get coverage and you're just braindead.


Using your theory, welfare, illegal aliens, uninsured people are all being bribed to vote demoncrat.

What theory is that? I didn't put forth any theories. You ok over there? It's like Winky came back under a different name or something.
 
Back
Top