« Ain't It Lovely? | Main | Shut Up And Fight? »
December 22, 2004
Are Media With Us, Or Against Us In WOT?
You've probably all heard about the attack on the mess tent in Mosul:
The noontime blast, which also wounded 72, tore a foot-wide hole in the thick concrete floor of the mess hall and sprayed shrapnel into a line where American soldiers, civilian contractors and Iraqi troops were waiting to be served lunch, according to one witness.Pools of blood streamed out of the darkened tent as soldiers rushed to evacuate wounded from crumpled and melted chairs and tables, with the only light coming from a vast hole ripped in the roof.
"It's looking more like indirect fire," said Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman in Washington, meaning weapons like mortars, artillery shells or rockets. If it was indirect fire, it is not clear whether the strike was a random hit or whether insurgents somehow obtained coordinates of the dining tent.
In Mosul, officials said that there was a single explosion, and that its shrapnel created uniform perforations in metal kitchen appliances and other objects, as if ball bearings or similar projectiles had been part of the explosive device.
"The crater was right by the serving line," Captain Roddy, of Fort Lewis, said in a telephone interview. Tiles on the floor near the serving line, he said, "were covered with so much blood you couldn't see what color the tiles were." Outside, he added, "there were half-burned boots, not attached to any soldier, and you could see blood trails coming past the concrete barriers."
A reporter for The Richmond Times-Dispatch who was in the mess hall during the explosion, Jeremy Redmon, wrote that it "knocked soldiers off their feet and out of their seats."
"A fireball enveloped the top of the tent, and shrapnel sprayed into the men," wrote Mr. Redmon, whose account was distributed by The Associated Press. "Amid the screaming and thick smoke that followed, quick-thinking soldiers turned their lunch tables upside down, placed the wounded on them and gently carried them into the parking lot."
War is a Hell unlike anything we can imagine, safe here in our homes.
What you won't read in any mainstream media account of the attack is this account, from a Chaplain who was on the scene:
Regardless of what some may say, these are not stupid people. Any attack with casualties will naturally mean that eventually a very large number of care givers will be concentrated in one location. They took full advantage of that. In the middle of the mayhem the first mortar round hit about 100 to 200 meters away. Everyone started shouting to get the wounded into the hospital which is solid concrete and much safer than being in the open. Soon, the next mortar hit quite a bit closer than the first as they "walked" their rounds toward their intended target...us. Everyone began to rush toward the building. I stood at the door shoving as many people inside as I could. Just before heading in myself, the last one hit directly on top of the hospital. I was standing next to the building so was shielded from any flying shrapnel. In fact, the building, being built as a bunker took the hit with little effect. However, I couldn't have been more than 10 to 15 meters from the point of impact and brother did I feel the shock. That'll wake you up! I rushed inside to find doctors and nurses draped over patients, others on the floor or under something. I ducked low and quickly moved as far inside as I could. After a few tense moments people began to move around again and the business of patching bodies and healing minds continued in earnest.
I want everyone reading this to stop and think about this for just one second. Let it sink in.
Someone was sitting out there coolly targeting, not combatants, but a hospital.
We've heard a lot of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth about Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo Bay. About the Geneva Convention, which doesn't even cover non-signatories. About the International Torture Convention which, though ratified by Congress in 1994, was also limited by Congress' deliberate refusal to implement a critical provision of the convention prohibiting "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" -- a fact the media steadfastly refuses to report.
Yet here we have "insurgents" deliberately and cold-bloodedly targeting our wounded and medical personnel, and our media are....silent.
Where is the lurid, Abu-Gharaib-style tabloid coverage?
Why isn't this front-page news?
George Bush was harshly criticized in 2001 for saying "You're either with us or against us in the War on Terror".
It is time for the media to come out of their holes. This is not objectivity.
This is propaganda of the worst sort. And it is, quite frankly, inexcusable.
If the media are not sure, they should at least be asking questions. They should be giving us more than one side of the story. They might even try presenting our side. It would make for a refreshing change.
They have rushed to the presses often enough when it served their agenda. When it made the administration look bad. Yet now, when more American lives have been lost than in any attack since March 2003 (as they take great relish in reminding us), they remain silent.
From covering up Saddam's crimes, to refusing to report the reams of good news from Iraq and Afghanistan, to forging documents to try and sway an election, to misquoting the administration time and time again, the media have gone out of their way to slant the public perception of current events.
It needs to stop. Which side are you on? Ours? Or theirs?
We'll be waiting for your answer.
As always, many thanks to the redoubtable JW for the Belmont Club link.
Posted by Cassandra at December 22, 2004 08:41 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/96
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are Media With Us, Or Against Us In WOT?:
» Bits and Pieces. from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Meanwhile, in an alternate Universe... Cassandra finds something she does NOT think is funny. I'm impressed with the description of the reactions of the soldiers to the problem. I'll let Cassandra handle the media.... [Read More]
Tracked on December 22, 2004 12:28 PM
» Bits and Pieces. from Argghhh! The Home Of Two Of Jonah's Military Guys..
Meanwhile, in an alternate Universe... Cassandra finds something she does NOT think is funny. I'm impressed with the description of the reactions of the soldiers to the problem. I'll let Cassandra handle the media. Plus, she gives me Gun Pr0n!... [Read More]
Tracked on December 22, 2004 12:48 PM
» They're busy trying to find a way to blame Bush from PPK Blog (Priest, Prophet, King)
This is a question that deserves to be asked. Why does propaganda that supports their views make it to the front page, and objective news that doesn't make it not at all? Is the WoT so unimportant that we shouldn't demand our own media at least keep us... [Read More]
Tracked on December 22, 2004 05:53 PM
» The Mosul Bombing & The Media from Flopping Aces
They have always been on the side of the anti-american since the 60's, will it ever turn back? I can't see it happening. Not with the liberal jackass professors that permeate our college campuses teaching the next generation. It will be up to us to m... [Read More]
Tracked on December 22, 2004 11:32 PM
Comments
!@#%@%&*()&^*^@$!#@%^&*&^*^&(&#^@##$@@#!$#$^$%^&#%$@%#$%@#$^%^&*$^&@#%@#$%@#
*deep breath*
*(&^&%$%$@#%^&*(^^$%^$@@!*&^*(&^*&%#$#@!#@%^$#$#$#@^&%$%^$##$%^$&^%
Posted by: Masked Menace© at December 22, 2004 10:39 AM
It's been 4 hours and I still can't intelligently express the horror and anger I feel at this.
I am reminded that sometimes the intellect is simple incapable of translating the emotions of the heart.
Posted by: Masked Menace© at December 22, 2004 03:35 PM
Good post. Yes it's horrible. But the paradigm for most of the media is the Sixties canard about the villainous West oppressing the noble savages of the Third World. So Third World people aren't held to the same ethical & moral standards as the West.
This is a patronizing worldview that sees Third Worlders as savages, hence incapable of moral choice. This is why educated liberals excuse Palestinian atrocities, & searched longingly for the mysterious root causes of 9/11.
I on the other hand see them as human beings capable of making moral distinctions, & hence guilty of atrocities.
Posted by: jeff at December 22, 2004 03:43 PM
Astute observation... I was thinking something along the same lines this morning. It calls to mind that old line about the "soft bigotry of low expectations".
They are also very intelligent - intelligent enough to exploit our weaknesses and hold our own standards against us. And the press are their willing accomplices in this.
Posted by: Cassandra at December 22, 2004 04:03 PM
Silly me.
I thought this was a ragtag assemblage of "freedom fighters", insurgents as the SheepStream Media would have us believe.
What were they doing with mortars, artillery, rockets? I bet no one in the SheepStream Media asked that question.
Kill the "insurgents", to the last man. Each and every one.
Then start on the New York Times Building!
I know I'll be accused of insensitivity, or just being a right wing nut case, but a crater where the Times stood would be a step in the right direction.
(stepping down, dusting off soapbox, returning to my well deserved vacation, again blissfully unaware of the events of the world)
Posted by: purple faced with rage raider at December 23, 2004 12:31 AM
Purple, yet another Dark Lord would appear.
I have no faith in the lame stream media to be sensible. I leave that to the bloggers. I have been hanging out on blogs for over a year now, and
what has me amazed is that even the left gets it
ON LINE.
Posted by: Cricket at December 23, 2004 08:51 AM
Cricket,
That's good! "Another Dark Lord would appear"
How true. Why should they be sensible when they don't have to be? Does it pay?
I know that I am truly tired of it all, but it's not going to change just because many people such as "Villainous Company" are "tired" of it. This is the way of the world.
It's why many semi-rational people who blog get burned out and stop because they ARE NOT crazy and NOT filled with HATE as their motivating engine to write.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at December 23, 2004 09:18 AM
I saw a show that was produced in the 80's on the topic of journalism ethics during war and Peter Jennings was asked a hypothetical question that if he was traveling with a group of militants that were setting up an ambush on our troops, what would he do? Would he try to warn our troops to save their lives, or would he just accept that that is war and film them getting killed?
Jennings stumbled with an answer and then said "he'd warn the troops". Mike Wallace didn't like that answer and told Jennings and the audience that journalist aren't supposed to take sides. And he was astounded that Jennings would do so. He embarrassed Jennings enough for Jennings to change his mind and say he was wrong and he'd hope that if he ever was in that type of a situation, that he'd have the courage to act like Mike said he would.
That's not exact but generally what Wallace said. He'd just allow American soldiers to die in ambush while he filmed it.
Kevin Sites practices that kind of journalism too. If our MSM wasn't gleefully broadcasting the poll numbers that show American support for the Iraq war at an all time low, then maybe the terrorist wouldn't have any hope in winning and quit.
Posted by: Gary B. at December 23, 2004 10:51 AM
Oops. That wasn't Peter Jennings, it was Brian Williams I believe.
Posted by: Gary B. at December 23, 2004 10:53 AM
No Gary, I know what you're talking about. It was Peter Jennings.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at December 23, 2004 11:15 AM
As I seem to be saying a lot these days: Rope. Tree. Foo. Some assembly required. For the current problem, Foo=Mainstream Journalists.
Posted by: Cybrludite at December 26, 2004 10:01 AM