The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ] This is an automated compilation of submissions to email@example.com Articles for inclusion in this daily news mailing should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include a full reference to the source of the article. Today's Topics: 1. News about Iraq goes through filters (CharlieChimp1@aol.com) 2. Did US military kill journalists in Iraq? (CharlieChimp1@aol.com) 3. US media corrupt or incompetent? (CharlieChimp1@aol.com) 4. Andy Martin on the looting of Iraq (CharlieChimp1@aol.com) 5. FWD. Accomplices in War Crimes (CharlieChimp1@aol.com) 6. Ramadi - the Next Fallujah (farbuthnot) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: CharlieChimp1@DELETETHISaol.com Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:06:34 EST Subject: News about Iraq goes through filters To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Intelligentminds@yahoogroups.com, email@example.com [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] News about Iraq goes through filters By DAHR JAMAIL February 17, 2005 -How is it that more than 40 percent of Americans still believe Iraq has weapons of mass destruction even though President Bush personally has admitted there are none? How is it possible that millions of Americans believe the recent election in Iraq showed that Iraqis are in favor of the ongoing occupation of their country? In reality, the determination displayed by the roughly 59 percent of registered voters who participated in the election did so because they felt it would bring about an end to the U.S. occupation. How do so many Americans wonder why more Iraqis each day are supporting both violent and non-violent movements of resistance to the occupation when after the U.S. government promised to help rebuild Iraq, a mere 2 percent of reconstruction contracts were awarded to Iraqi concerns and the infrastructure lies in shambles? It's because overall, mainstream media reportage in the United States about the occupation in Iraq is being censured, distorted, threatened by the military and controlled by corporations that own the outlets. Recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Eason Jordan, a CNN executive, told a panel that the U.S. military deliberately targeted journalists in Iraq. He said he "knew of about 12 journalists who had not only been killed by American troops, but had been targeted as a matter of policy," said Rep. Barney Frank, a Democrat from Massachusetts who was on the panel with Jordan. When we hear this statement with the knowledge that 63 journalists have been killed in Iraq, in addition to the fact that in a 14-month-period, more journalists were killed in Iraq than during the entire Vietnam War, one begins to get the feeling that the military clampdown on the media is more than a myth or a conspiracy theory. (Editor's note: Jordan has since resigned from CNN, telling fellow CNN staffers: "I never meant to imply U.S. forces acted with ill intent when U.S. forces accidentally killed journalists, and I apologize to anyone who thought I said or believed otherwise.") I've personally witnessed photographers in Baghdad who have had their cameras either confiscated or smashed by soldiers, who were, of course, acting on orders from their superiors. And no, the journalists weren't trying to photograph something that would jeopardize the security of the soldiers. Even Christiane Amanpour, CNN's top war correspondent, announced on national television that her own network was censuring her journalism. Most Americans don't know that on any given day, an average of three U.S. soldiers die in Iraq as a result of 75 attacks every single day on U.S. forces or that Iraqi civilian deaths average 10 times that amount. Most Americans also don't know there are four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, with the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root diligently constructing 10 others. Most Americans don't know overall troop morale in Iraq resembles that of the Vietnam War, with tours being extended and stop-loss orders imposed. Nor do most folks know where billions of their tax dollars have been spent that were supposed to be used in the reconstruction of Iraq. But who can blame Americans when the military and mainstream media continue, day in and day out, to distort, deny and destroy the truth before it reaches the audience back home? An international peoples' initiative called the World Tribunal on Iraq met in Rome to focus on media complicity in the crimes committed against the people of Iraq as well as U.S. citizens who are paying with their blood and tax dollars to maintain the occupation. The tribunal found Western mainstream media outlets guilty of incitement to violence and the deliberate misleading of people into the war and ongoing occupation of Iraq. Makes you wonder what else Americans aren't being told about Iraq. After spending eight of the past 14 months reporting from Iraq, I can tell you the points made here are just the tip of the iceberg. Dahr Jamail, an independent reporter covering the Iraq war, has several current speaking engagements in Western Washington. For more info, go to _www.dahrjamailiraq.com._ (http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com.</i>) --__--__-- Message: 2 From: CharlieChimp1@DELETETHISaol.com Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:14:04 EST Subject: Did US military kill journalists in Iraq? To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Intelligentminds@yahoogroups.com [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Did US Military Kill Journalists in Iraq? Danny Schechter, tervention Magazine What is needed is an independent investigation by a team of reporters to determine if the U.S. military targeted journalists in Iraq. Wednesday, February 16, 2005 When Dan Rather was caught in a crossfire after the expose of a dodgy document used in a TV report, there was an undercurrent of sympathy based = on the widespread feeling that the questioning of President's Bush=E2=80=99s mili= tary service was basically true. Sadly, it didn't seem to matter. The story flamed out along with much of Rather=E2=80=99s reputation. No media outlets had the guts to pursue it. Now, we have a new case of demolition by media in the shattered career of CNN's Eason Jordan. His "off the record" claim that journalists were kille= d by the US military in Iraq boomeranged into a character assassination and cho= rus of patriotic breast-beating. Without anyone knowing what he said -- the transcript has not been made public -- Fox News and its sisters in =E2=80=9Cstruggle=E2=80=9D at the Ne= w York Post led the charge holding CNN responsible for the comments of its executive with shri= ll accusations of =E2=80=9Csliming our troops.=E2=80=9D (They, of course, had = no self-interest in discrediting the competition!) After a BSunami (blog storm) of derision and pressure rocked the network, Jordan was the next to go, following in the tucked-tail footsteps of Peter Arnett and two top executives of BBC who stepped down when their critical journalism on the war was questioned. (Arnett and BBC Director Greg Dyke h= ave subsequently been vindicated by the facts but no one seems to care.) As my Mediachannel.org colleague, Tim Karr put it: =E2=80=9COne thing his = departure makes clear: hunting down journalists -- not in Iraq, but on the net -- ha= s become the newest bloodsport.=E2=80=9D An editor of the World Association = of Newspapers in Paris condemned the pile-on as a case of intolerance and McC= arthyism. Even the Wall Street Journal criticized the baiting. As for Jordan, it=E2=80=99s widely assumed in the bubble of a parochial an= d compliant media that there was no basis for his concern. Most commentators= seem in denial, dismissing any suggestion of US complicity in media deaths as a preposterous invention. In our unbrave media world no one defended a charge that seemed on the surface indefensible. The operative phrase here is =E2=80=9Con the surface.=E2=80=9D Because, on= ce you delve more deeply under the surface into the swamp of the Pentagon=E2=80=99s insidiou= s media management and information-dominance strategies, official contempt for independent journalism and non-embedded reporters is evident. Corporate media outlets that cheered for the war can=E2=80=99t see that, o= f course, despite the many mea-culpas we have heard about flawed reporting and uncritical coverage by The New York Times, The Washington Post and three n= etwork news presidents. They=E2=80=99ve drunk the Kool Aid. CNN buckled under withering attack showing clearly that you cannot even raise the possibility of US government abuses in Iraq without being demoni= zed -- unless, as in the case of Abu Ghraib, you have pictures. It is well known that the US military was hostile to =E2=80=9Cunilateral= =E2=80=9D reporting from Iraq and that journalists were warned, threatened, intimidated and, yes, killed by not so =E2=80=9Cfriendly fire.=E2=80=9D After two journalis= ts died April 8th 2003 at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel after a tank shell was lobbed into a hot= el known by the Pentagon as a media site, Reuters called for an independent investigation. The International Federation of Journalists angrily demande= d a real probe. Not only were they ignored but other media companies would not even join their call. I dissect the incident in my film WMD (Weapons of Mass Decepti= on) with five footage sources, interviewing a Reuters reporter who survived an= d believes her non-embedded team was =E2=80=9Ctargeted.=E2=80=9D On the same day Al Jazeera bureau chief Tareq Ayoub was killed when a US plane rocketed Arab Media offices whose coordinates had been provided to t= he Pentagon. There has been no probe or apology. This list goes on. Phillip Knightly, a top historian on war and media writes in scholar David Miller=E2=80=99s Tell Me Lies about propaganda in Iraq that =E2=80=9Cthere = will be no investigations. I believe that the occasional shots fired at media sites a= re not accidental and that war correspondents will now be targeted.=E2=80=9D As a former CNN producer and =E2=80=9CTurner turnover,=E2=80=9D I find this= incident chilling of debate and the real issue of how the US military spun media co= verage of the war and why the networks went along. Many covering Iraq -- not just Jordan -- believe journalists were targeted. The citizens-initiated World Tribunal on Iraq which met in Rome last weeke= nd asks a question that can't be dismissed: =E2=80=9CAre Mr. Jordan's claims = accurate?=E2=80=9D It joined =E2=80=9Cthe calls by international media groups and the famili= es of dead journalists for a full independent investigation by an international team = of reporters who should be given the right to question members of the militar= y.=E2=80=9D Their conclusion is one our media should embrace: =E2=80=9CWe demand that = media outlets stop impugning the integrity of journalists who raise these questi= ons and that CNN examine the charges raised by its former head of news.=E2=80=9D Former network producer Danny Schechter edits Mediachannel.org and directe= d Weapons of Mass Deception :: Article nr. 9725 sent on 17-feb-2005 02:08 ECT :: The address of this page is : _www.uruknet.info?p=3D9725_ (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=3D9725) :: The incoming address of this article is : _www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=3Dmodload&name=3DNews&file=3Dar= ticle&sid =3D10 19_ (http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=3Dmodload&name=3DNews&fi= le=3Darticle&sid=3D1019) --__--__-- Message: 3 From: CharlieChimp1@DELETETHISaol.com Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 04:39:33 EST Subject: US media corrupt or incompetent? To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Intelligentminds@yahoogroups.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] New Documentary Blasts US News 'Journalism' In Iraq Embedded In The Spin Cycle... Isaac Backer NEW YORK, February 16, 2005 (IPS) - An incisive new documentary is taking aim at the U.S. media's one-sided coverage of the war in Iraq, arguing that its collective complicity deceived the populace and made the war possible. "WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception", which cost just 200,000 dollars to produce, points to a wide array of failures in the accuracy of the reporting, as well as an unwillingness to question the George W. Bush administration's claims and actions. It was produced by Danny Schechter, a self-proclaimed "network refugee" who worked for CNN and as a producer for a prominent television news show. "This is the central problem of our democracy," he told IPS in an interview. "This isn't a sidebar issue. You can't have a democracy when people aren't being informed." The film documents the U.S. media's near-unanimous acceptance of the George W. Bush administration's claim that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed nefarious weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and therefore must be removed from power by unilateral U.S. military action. The film also attacks the media's credulity of alleged links between Hussein and the al-Qaeda terrorist network -- claims that were unsupported by any actual evidence. "The fact that they [the media] allowed the Bush administration to manipulate the truth so grossly and so nakedly in the run-up to the war made the war possible," Eric Alterman, media critic and writer for the Nation magazine, says in the film. Schechter told IPS he was disturbed at the adherence to the government's line and lack of journalistic questioning among U.S. news outlets before and during the Iraq war, a time he calls "a really shameful period for journalism." "It hints at the emergence of a state media system in our country," he said. The film references a study by the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) of on-camera sources used in television news in the run-up to the war. Out of 1,167 experts brought on camera during news broadcasts, the study shows, only three percent opposed the U.S.-led invasion. "You had this incredible imbalance where people who were critical couldn't be heard," he said. The film argues that this marginalisation of dissent and the media's refusal to question the war in Iraq was in part due to journalists and networks fear of being seen as "unpatriotic." "In the post 9/11 media there was a lot of patriotic political correctness," Schechter said. "You have a president who says, 'You're either with us or with the terrorists,' so if you criticise him you're with the terrorists. This created an intimidating environment." One aspect of the "media war" the film deals with in detail is the vast number of "embedded" reporters in Iraq, a policy that Schechter says led to jingoistic coverage. An embedded reporter eats, sleeps, and lives every day with a specific group of U.S. troops. The policy was championed by the Pentagon media chief Victoria Clarke and other public relations experts in the Defence Department, who had been planning it before the war started. The film argues that since an embedded reporter's life is essentially in the hands of the soldiers, and they spend so much time together under extreme circumstances, the reporter grows attached to the troops. The bond that is formed jeopardises the reporter's ability to be accurate and objective and leads to cheerleading instead of critical journalism, Schechter says. In the film, several embedded journalists talk about their experiences on the front. "We got to know these soldiers and we wanted them to be successful," says Gwendolen Cates, a reporter for People magazine who was embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq. "How will I be able to handle it if one of my soldiers dies?" Schechter believes that the problem of media irresponsibility goes deeper than just a few journalists or networks who reported the war in a biased manner. "It's hard to get people to see this as an institutional problem," Schechter told IPS. "They focus first on policy failure, second on intelligence failure. I'm saying no, it's a media failure." "WMD" has already received international acclaim and is being screened at theatres from Scotland to Australia. It won the Austin Film Festival and Denver Film Festival Awards for best documentary. However, the documentary has also seen its share of criticism, much of it from the very U.S. media corporations and outlets the film targets. Some critics have argued that Schechter's film is a poor spin-off of Michael Moore's 2004 high-grossing documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11." Vanity Fair magazine said Schechter was merely trying to "out Michael Moore Michael Moore." Schechter, however, was quick to point out to IPS that he made his first documentary in 1968, years before Moore's debut. The film is scheduled to come out on DVD in March to coincide with the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. :: Article nr. 9748 sent on 17-feb-2005 23:33 ECT :: The address of this page is : _www.uruknet.info?p=9748_ (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=9748) :: The incoming address of this article is : _www.rense.com/general63/newdoc.htm_ (http://www.rense.com/general63/newdoc.htm) --__--__-- Message: 4 From: CharlieChimp1@DELETETHISaol.com Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:58:43 EST Subject: Andy Martin on the looting of Iraq To: email@example.com [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR OUT2.COM BY ANDY MARTIN "PAUL BREMER AND THE LOOTING OF IRAQ" (SAN FRANCISCO)(February 19, 2005) I have never met Paul Bremer. Yet like a criminal investigator I have stalked him across Iraq for the past 2-1/2 years. In Baghdad I kept my distance from the "Coalition Provisional Authority." I immediately felt this organization would be a disaster, and I was right. Since his return to the United States last June Bremer has tried to disassociate himself from his own record. Yet there is now no doubt that Iraq was systematically looted under Bremer's administration. Like a piano player in a frontier saloon, Bremer claims to be ignorant of what was going on in the hotel rooms above. But he cannot escape responsibility and liability so easily. President Bush stated that we would treat Iraqi oil money as a solemn trust to be disbursed solely for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Now nine billion dollars of Iraqi funds are missing. Over forty cents ($.40) of every Iraqi dollar supervised by the United States is unaccounted for. Every large organization maintains "petty cash" accounts. Occasionally a "bookkeeper" will embezzle funds, from a bank. MCI officials are on trial in New York for inflating their financial records by more than $10 billion. But $9 billion missing? This has to be the greatest robbery in history. And it took place under Bremer's nose. In a little-noticed lawsuit pending in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia a bogus operation calling itself "Custer Battles LLC" and managed by a former Republican candidate for congress was paid millions of dollars in cash. Again Bremer claims to be ignorant of this defalcation as well. Bremer says "Western" accounting methods were impossible in Iraq because it was a war zone. When Bremer arrived in May 2003 Baghdad was quiet. President Bush had just proclaimed "Mission Accomplished," the roads were safe and violence was at a minimum. The fact that the United States has lost forty cents of every Iraqi dollar Bremer administered is a disgrace. Why did President Bush award Bremer a "Medal of Freedom" for this mass incompetence and corruption? Where is the missing money? The magnitude of the defalcated funds staggers. Nine billion dollars? Millions of dollars paid out in cash to suspect characters? And now the United States Government claims in a federal court it needs more than a month to explain how Bremer came to me in Iraq and who conferred authority on him. How can Attorney General Gonzales plead ignorance? Wasn't Mr. Gonzales--who worked in the White House--watching TV or reading the newspapers? Bremer was appointed by the United States; he was Rumsfeld's man, the neo-con "man on a wedding cake" as I characterized him in my reporting from Baghdad. How can federal attorneys now plead ignorance of our role in Iraq, and seek to shuffle the blame on Britain, Poland and maybe Tonga as well? Lawyers sometimes make their clients look like asses; this is one of those occasions. President Bush must take decisive action to revoke Bremer's medal, and to demand an independent counsel (special prosecutor) or he will find the United States increasingly isolated as a predatory and unscrupulous nation of thieves who looted Iraq while mouthing pious platitudes about trust and responsibility. The credibility of our nation has been undermined by Bremer; he has disgraced the United States. Iraq has been boldly and blatantly looted. Who is responsible? Bremer, and who else? "Custer Battles" is making a "last stand" in a federal court in Virginia. What about Bremer's last stand? He destroyed Iraq. Now he is under the gun. It is a shameful episode in our history, and it will only lead to more embarrassment and more disasters. Attorney General Gonzales, President Bush, are you listening? ---------------------------------- Andy Martin, a Middle East expert with 33 years experience in the region, is America's most respected independent foreign policy analyst. He has served as Baghdad Bureau Chief for Out2.com since April, 2003. See Out2.com (Govt & Politics, Featured Writers). Martin began a series of columns attacking Bremer and his mismanagement of Iraq in June, 2003. Martin is also independent Contrarian Columnist for Out2.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639; E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org --__--__-- Message: 5 From: CharlieChimp1@DELETETHISaol.com Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:36:43 EST Subject: FWD. Accomplices in War Crimes To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Accomplices in War Crimes Ghali Hassan February 21, 2005 - "Information Clearing House" - - Worldwide polls conducted before and during the US war on Iraq, revealed clear majority of= world public opinion opposed the US war without UN approval. However, polls cond= ucted during and after the war found that only a minority of US citizens were aware of this. A significant majority of Americans believed that Iraq had = links to al-Qaeda and Iraq involved in the 9/11 attacks. Further, before the war overwhelming majorities believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD= ) . Despite numerous reports clearing Iraq from any link to al-Qaeda and involvement in 9/11 attacks, or in procession of WMD, the numbers of Ameri= cans supporting the war remain almost the same. Even President Bush has publicl= y admitted =E2=80=98there are no WMD in Iraq=E2=80=99. Yet recent US poll co= nducted by Scripps Howard News Service and the Ohio University reveals that 47 percent of US = citizens approved of the war against the Iraqi people compared with 44 percent. How these misperceptions developed and persisted when all the allegations against Iraq proved to be fabricated lies? This distortion of the truth is= due to the fantastic performance of Western mainstream media. The best description of it is that it is the =E2=80=98art of deceiving the public= =E2=80=99 . Together with the governments, mainstream media, led by Britain, the US and Australia, managed a campaign of deception and lies in order to soften the public to = support an illegal act of aggression against the defenceless people of Iraq. Despite the horrific crimes and wanton destruction caused by an illegal ac= t of aggression and Occupation, mainstream media continues to promote the Occupation of Iraq as a =E2=80=9Chumanitarian=E2=80=9D act. And ignoring i= nternational law experts who have substantiated that the war was an =E2=80=9Cillegal=E2=80= =9D act of aggression against the Iraqi people. Major mainstream media particularly in Britain a= nd the US have deliberately failed to inform their citizens that the war on I= raq is not sanctioned by the UN, and therefore was illegal and in violations o= f UN Charter. In Britain, the BBC, the mother of all acts of deception, led and is still leading the chorus of mainstream media deception in its war against the pe= ople of Iraq. A study by the Cardiff School of Journalism found that the BBC followed a more pro-government line than its commercial rivals. It stated = that the BBC was more likely to unquestioningly relay false stories such as th= e non-existent scud missiles supposedly fired into Kuwait in the early stage= s of the war as well as the mythical Basra =E2=80=98uprising=E2=80=99. The stud= y also made reference to Tony Blair claim that captured British soldiers had been exec= uted by the Iraqi authorities; a claim the British Government retracted the next d= ay, but not the BBC. Professor Justin Lewis, the study leader concluded that t= he BBC is leading the way in its support for the British Government pro-war propaganda , and failing its responsibility to the people. By contrast,= in Germany, the public broadcasters' ARD and ZDF provide more balanced covera= ge of the event than the commercial RTL=E2=80=9D, writes, David Ward of the Cent= re for Media Policy and Development . A second study of the media was carried out by the Media Tenor group (cite= d in David Ward), which looked at the performance of different broadcasters = in five countries, found that the BBC gave least airtime to anti-war views wi= th just 2% of airtime given over to opponents of the war. By contrast the American ABC gave 7% of airtime over to anti-war views . This is fright= ening because many people around the world, including the British people, follow= ed world events (i.e. wars) on the BBC. In the US, the cheerleaders of the war on Iraq are America=E2=80=99s bigge= st: Fox, CBS, ABC, CNN and NBC, followed by the print media and National Public Ra= dio (NPR). =E2=80=9CAmerican had these misperceptions not simply because of in= ternal biases but because of the important role being played by variations of the stimuli they received from their mainstream media=E2=80=9D, writes Steven = Kull, of the University of Maryland. A study conducted by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found that t= he pro-war views on the major networks were overwhelmingly more frequent than the anti-war views. The role of the major media network is to promote the government policy rather than serve the community and provide balance repo= rting. Like the selling of the war, and the destruction of the vibrant city of Fallujah, the continue Occupation of Iraq by US and British forces is sold= by mainstream media and journalists as democracy under occupation. It is a li= e that brings only more suffering and misery to the Iraqi people. Journalists have failed in their moral responsibility and principles to protect the truth. With the exception of honourable few, Western journalis= ts and correspondents are relegated to =E2=80=98embedded=E2=80=99 propaganda agen= ts serving the interests of imperial power. =E2=80=9CJournalists are supposed to perform = a watchdog function, not a lapdog function=E2=80=9D, said Danny Schechter, editor of Mediachannel.org, and a former journalist with CNN and ABC. Those who woul= dn't toe the line were swiftly dismissed, if not deliberately killed to eliminate any witnesses to US-Britain crimes in Iraq. =E2=80=9CAt least 12 journalists= =E2=80=9D were killed by US military in Iraq, reported Dominic Timms of the Guardian on 18 February 2005. Here in Australia, the media plays its most vital role in keeping the Australian people well entertained and poorly informed. The Government of = Mr. John Howard (the most insignificant of the =E2=80=9Ccoalition of the willing=E2= =80=9D) managed to cover-up Australia=E2=80=99s role in the war, and Australia=E2=80=99s invo= lvement in the imprisonment, torture and murder of innocent Iraqi prisoners and detainees= . It is reported recently that Australian interrogators were involved in the murder of a well-known Iraqi scientist during interrogation. This is natur= al. Australia has the most controlled and the most deceptive media in the West= ern world. The Australian John Pilger described the media here accurately as a= =E2=80=98 small fishpond=E2=80=99 with only very few large white sharks swimming fre= ely at the expense of the Australian people=E2=80=99s interests. With no independent = media and a foreign policy subservient to US interests, Australia is virtually a propa= ganda outpost for US imperialism. The purpose of this imperialist propaganda is to deny the Iraqi people the= ir rights to rule their country by themselves. Omitted by the mainstream medi= a is how Iraqis are arrested abused and murdered at ease by soldiers of coalition forces and mercenaries. The Iraqi National Resistance against th= e Occupation is portrayed as a band of =E2=80=9Csuicide bombers=E2=80=9D. Lik= e in Israel, =E2=80=9Csuicide bombing=E2=80=9D is promoted and amplified in mainstream media in order to= discredit the name and image of people=E2=80=99s struggle, including the Iraqi Resis= tance struggle, against the injustice of foreign occupations. As John Pilger wri= tes, =E2=80=9C Those who kill people with car bombs are =E2=80=98terrorists=E2=80=99; tho= se who kill far more people with cluster bombs are the noble occupants of a =E2=80=98quagmire= =E2=80=99=E2=80=9D. Reports from Iraq have contradicted this distorted image of a legitimate popular Resistance movement fighting against illegal and tyrannical occupation = . Furthermore, Article 51 of the UN Charter guarantees resistance against fo= reign occupation. Despite the chaotic situation wrought by the tyrannical nature of the Occupation, the mainstream media alleged that Iraq is now on its way to = =E2=80=9Cfreedom=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cdemocracy=E2=80=9D. The new front is Syria and Iran. The drumb= eats of war against Syria and Iran have already begun. After the assassination of Rafi= q al-Hariri, former Lebanese prime minister, Western mainstream media immedi= ately pointed the finger at Syria, not Israel that stands to benefit from any cr= isis in Lebanon, and is probably responsible for Mr. Al-Hariri=E2=80=99s assass= ination. Israel=E2=80=99s crimes and terror are taboos in Western mainstream media.= The al-Hariri's death is part of the US-Israel plan to divide the region and w= eaken the unity of its peoples. The pretexts for war are the same. Nothing has chang= ed. It is as if war is replacing peace and death is replacing life for those living outside the empire and its peripheries. Last October, the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet published= a study by a team of Johns Hopkins University, Al-Mustansiriyah University i= n Baghdad and Columbia University researchers showing that over 100,000 Iraq= i civilians had been killed since the war began in March 2003. The study, wh= ich was a conservative estimates, had very short life and generally dismissed and ignored by Western mainstream media. Dr. Les Roberts, the researcher a= t John Hopkins University and the lead author of the study expected the publ= ic response to his study to be =E2=80=9Cmoral outrage=E2=80=9D; instead he wa= s shocked by the muted or dismissive reception. Can you imagine what the response will be t= o 100,000 civilians dead in New York or in London? =E2=80=9CFor years, the neocons=E2=80=99 [new euphemism for Americano fasc= ists] push for war against Iraq was largely uncovered by the US media. For even longer, t= he neocons=E2=80=99 close connections to Israel have gone largely unmentioned = in mainstream American news reports. As a result, very few Americans know to = what degree many of those responsible for the tragic US invasion and occupation of Ira= q have been motivated by Israeli concerns. The omission in coverage of Iraq = has been profoundly disastrous, both for the Middle East and for Americans=E2= =80=9D, writes Alison Weir of If Americans Knew. The true function of the media is= to tell the truth and to hold accountable those in power. The fact that mainstream media has had some roles in promoting illegal wa= r of aggression, particularly the US-Britain war against Iraq, is enough to suggest that the media failed its true function and is complicit in war cr= imes, and =E2=80=98crimes against humanity=E2=80=99. According to the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI), an international peoples initiative investigating the truth about the US war against and occupation= of Iraq, found that mainstream media reporting on Iraq violated the principle= s of Article (6) of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Article (6) of the Nuremberg Tribun= al set to investigate crimes committed by the Nazis stated that: =E2=80=9CLea= ders, organisers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation o= r execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing cr= imes (crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity) are respons= ible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such a plan=E2=80=9D= . Dr. Tony Alessandrini, a human rights activist and one of the organiser of the WTI = told the meeting in Rome, Italy, that =E2=80=98evidence of active complicity of= the mainstream media in wrongs committed against the people of Iraq, and the w= rongs of deception and incitement, was now overwhelming=E2=80=99, reported IPS news= on 14 February 2004. No matter what, the responsibility of aggression and violence reverts on t= he leaders and their accomplices who waged an illegal war, which was rejected by the majority of the world community. Mainstream media shares responsibility and should be held accountable for the lies they promoted a= nd for failing in their duty to honestly inform the public. Ghali Hassan lives in Perth Western Australia. He can be reached at e-mail= : _G.Hassan@exchange.curtin.edu.au _ (mailto:G.Hassan@exchange.curtin.edu.au= ) Notes: . Steven Kull et al. (2003-2004). Misperceptions, the Media, and the Ir= aq War. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118 (4). _http://www.psqonline.org_ (http://www.psqonline.org/) . Mark Curtis. (2004). =E2=80=98Unpeople=E2=80=99. London: Vintage. . Justin Lewis. (2004). Television, Public Opinion and the War in Iraq: The Case of Britain Int. J. Pub. Opinion Res. Vol. 16 (3), 295-310. _http://ijpor.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/3/295_ (http://ijpor.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/16/3/295) . David Ward. (2004). Public Service Broadcasting in Europe and the Coverage of the Iraq War. 14th JAMCO International Symposium. _http://www.jamco.or.jp/2004_symposium2/en/02/_ (http://www.jamco.or.jp/200= 4_symposium2/en/02/) . Molly Bingham, Boston Globe, 15 December 2004. Copyright =C2=A9 Information Clearing House. All rights reserved. You may republish under the following conditions: An active link to the original publication must be provided. You must not alter, edit or remove any text = within the article, including this copyright notice. :: Article nr. 9868 sent on 21-feb-2005 20:42 ECT :: The address of this page is : _www.uruknet.info?p=3D9868_ (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=3D9868) :: The incoming address of this article is : _informationclearinghouse.info/article8132.htm_ (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8132.htm) --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:51:19 +0000 Subject: Ramadi - the Next Fallujah From: "farbuthnot" <asceptic@DELETETHISfreenetname.co.uk> To: firstname.lastname@example.org [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Will the accountless slaughterers ever stand in the dock with Iraq's illegally disappeared government I wonder. Or has America's President ditched Nuremburg's rulings along with all the other painstakingly worked treaties and conventions he has discarded. f.a. Marines Launch Bid to Secure Iraq City of RamadiSun Feb 20, 2005 07:06 AM E= T Printer Friendly=A0| Email Article=A0| Reprints=A0| RSS=A0 (Page 1 of 2) = =A0 More story pictures By Majid Hameed RAMADI, Iraq (Reuters) - U.S. and Iraqi troops launched a large-scale operation around the rebellious city of Ramadi on Sunday, as part of a nationwide effort to restore order in the wake of last month's election. Troops from the 1st Marine expeditionary force, supported by Iraqi soldiers= , set up a ring of checkpoints around the city, 70 miles west of Baghdad, and imposed an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew under Operation River Blitz. The move comes less than three months after a major Marines offensive against the former rebel stronghold of Falluja, just east of Ramadi, which the U.S. military took back from insurgents after three weeks of furious fighting. It was not clear if Sunday's operation was a prelude to a larger offensive on Ramadi, which has essentially been in guerrilla hands for most of the past year. The operation also comes as Iraq is in the process of trying to form a government following the Jan. 30 election, which handed power to the country's 60 percent Shi'ite majority for the first time after decades of Sunni Muslim dominance. "Operation River Blitz is designed to target insurgents and terrorists who have attempted to destabilize the Anbar province by terrorizing the populac= e through wanton acts of violence and intimidation," the U.S. military said i= n a statement. "We were asked by the Iraqi government to increase our security operations in the city to locate, isolate and defeat anti-Iraqi forces and terrorists,= " said Major General Richard Natonski, commander of the 1st Marines expeditionary force. The operation comes after a series of suicide bombings and other attacks on Shi'ite Muslims marking Ashura, the most important day in the Shi'ite religious calendar, in which at least 50 Shi'ites were killed in two days o= f violence. The attacks are believed to have been the work of Sunni Muslim militants determined to foment sectarian division among Iraqis and drive the country toward civil war. Ramadi -- a city of several hundred thousand people -- Falluja and the whol= e of Iraq's vast western Anbar province, which stretches to the borders with Jordan and Syria, have been a hotbed of the insurgency over the past 18 months. Natonski described the militants in Ramadi as "intent on preventing a peaceful transition of power between the interim Iraqi government and the Iraqi transitional government," which is being currently formed following the election. =A0=A0=A0Continued ... =A9 Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. =A0 1 | 2 =A0=A0Next End of casi-news Digest _______________________________________ Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk