Friday, March 04, 2005

You wrote,"Um, how about relying on a NEUTRAL investigative team before you accept the word of former Saddam administration officials. Who knows where his loyalties lie? "

That fact is that this is the current Iraqi government which was established under US influence.
The fact that these allegations have been made is a story in itself. that should be reported

It should have been reported as "Allegations made by ... etc." (the fact that this is what the Iraqi Health Ministry is reporting that the US has done these things is news itself. Any way you slice it, it is news in itself (unless you instictively serve state power and are want to sweep things under the rug)

The media is unwilling to report the allegations. You can make any excuse for why the allegations were made by the Iraqi Health Ministry but the fact that they have said these things is news in itself. Think about it. This is the problem with the people who have it in there heads that "the media is liberal" and "they would report things critical of the government". People who believe "the media is liberal" don't realize that what gets reported is selected and that there are things that the media decides not to report.

Your response ignores the fact that the Iraqi Health Ministrymade these allegations and that is news in and of itself. THINK. Are the allegations true or not? If not and things are made up by someone with "loyalties to Saddam" then that is news! Think about this, if you want to claim that someone in the new Iraqi government is fabricating war crimes against the US then can we say that US efforts to create a model of a desirable Middle East government have failed to some degree? It is a serious charge, ignoring that the charge has been made is not a valid response. (people wonder how crimes could< happen like this. It happens because when allegations are made, the media is UNWILLING OR RELUCTANT to report them.)

You wrote,"Try verifying with multiple sources BEFORE saying something is possible."

No, that would be going towards proving something happened, it is not necessary for saying something is possible. given the track record and the fact that the US possesses these weapons and has a history of using weapons like this is enough to give it some serious thought. apologists for state power are unwilling to do this.

The media has shown that it is not eager to report these things, first of all they would have to make an effort to try to find out things the military doesn't want known. Look at the fact that the allegations were made and yet mainstream media is unwilling to mention this allegation. The fact that Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli held a press conference in the Health Ministry building and reported that these things is news itself, why didn't mainstream media suits think so?

As far as reliable stories of war crimes, the US military concluded that they did occur with regard to Vietnam has the mainstream media made this clear? when we heard the constant bashing of Kerry about his testimony why didn't the mainstream media report that the US Army has verified ever single allegation that Kerry had listed. Everything that Kerry said the Vietnam Vets had told him turns out to have happened! "John Kerry is being pilloried for his shocking Senate testimony 34 years ago that many U.S. soldiers—not just a few "rogues"—were committing atrocities against the Vietnamese. U.S. military records that were classified for decades but are now available in the National Archives back Kerry up and put the lie to his critics." - Nicholas Turse, "From the National Archives: New proof of Vietnam War atrocities" SEE LINK:

WHY DIDN'T MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORT THAT? Also see: Denying Facts and Mmbracing Myths

No comments: