Iraq<Al Qaida>Afghanistan

[Larkin]

Since I work at home, I have the opportunity to watch the cable news channels over the course of the day. In the evening I watch one of the network news. This evening, it was Brian Williams on ABC. I have no idea why I do this because it is totally un-rewarding.

Over the last 5 months, I have noticed something oddly consistent with all of the news programs.
When ever there is a bomb blast in Iraq, the report is editorialized with phrases like,
1.The suicide bomber had ties to Al Qaida.
2.It was done by insurgence that have links to Al Qaida.
3.It is suspected that the IED was planted by elements of Al Qaida.
4.And finally, It is said that Al Qaida has claimed responsibility for the act.

As in tonights news, Brian Williams reported the story of a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Sadly, many troops were killed.
The ones responsible were the Taliban. There was no mention of Al Qaida.

Wasn?t Afghanistan where Osama is suppose to be, or at least on the Pakistan border over 1500 miles from Baghdad, and that?s by air.
Isn?t Afghanistan where the Al Qaida training camps were?
Doesn?t Afghanistan have the weakest American coverage in the war on terror?
Wouldn?t that be where Al Qaida would want to engage the Americans. These mountain tribes were the same ones that drove out the Russians.

The point I am trying to make is that the news programs continuely re-enforce the idea that Al Qaida is in Iraq and they even add disclaimers with words like, suspected or links to. I no longer believe the news. I think it is managed news to tie Al Qaida to Iraq.
I sure that Al Qaida is in Afghanistan but the fact that they are in Iraq is largely exaggerated. That country has enough pissed off people that they aren?t going to tolerate a lot of outsiders coming in to fuck things up even more.

What?s your opinion?

[Spring]

I think the answer is clear!

The American media has ties to Al Qaeda!

[eyebyte_atWork]

I think the answer is clear!

The American media has ties to Al Qaeda!

LOL

[C.J.Woolf]

I agree that the role of al-Qaida in Iraq is greatly exaggerated. What's more, what AQ presence there is in Iraq is because of the invasion and growing hatred of America there.

From the Wikipedia article on al-Qaeda (their spelling):


The number of individuals belonging to the organization is also unknown. According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. Therefore the extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.

AQ has been called more a "brand" than an organization. It serves Osama bin Laden well: If some AQ sympathizers succeed at an act of terrorism (such as the 7 July 2005 bombings in London), they're AQ and bin Laden's legend grows. If they don't, they're amateur AQ-wannabes.

The Taliban, comprised of indigenous Afghans and Pakistanis*, are definitely a real organization, so it is factually accurate to attribute the Afghan insurgency to them instead of AQ. They harbored bin Laden and the foreign Muslims of AQ, as big or small as it might be, but the Taliban provides almost all of the manpower.

*Another embarrassing thing the major media decline to mention is that the Pakistani government, our nominal ally, is leaving the Taliban within their borders alone. Pakistan is a safe haven for them. (Think of Laos and Cambodia in the Vietnam war.)

[Lateralus]

The Pakistani government has left that part of the country alone for decades. Allowing the Taliban to roam free is not a new development.

[C.J.Woolf]

The Pakistani government has left that part of the country alone for decades. Allowing the Taliban to roam free is not a new development.
I know, but thanks for mentioning it. The Pakistani military presence in the Pashto region after 9/11 was pretty much a show. What is new is that Pakistan and Afghanistan are reverting to the way they were before the "War on Terror".

The Taliban's comeback was predictable. The Northern Alliance won a swift "victory" in late 2001 because the Taliban and their supporters had the sense to melt away and bide their time instead of stand and die. Now the warlords are wearing out their welcome again and reminding Afghans of why they liked the Taliban in the first place.

[omnirook]

I wonder myself why I bother w/the news. Then I say, "Well, at least I'll know what lies are being told." There's NO objectivity in the mass media. None. The same handful of corporations own all the outlets, and those corporations are, in turn, tied up w/and into everything else, including the oil and armaments businesses. It's all a big fucking game. And, now that the Constitution has been revoked, there's no hope that anybody of any importance will do more than make a few whines and squeaks, and the only reason he'll get away w/that is because it's still necessary to show that we're free. The number that they did on the Sheehan woman is a warning to anybody else who might have the public's attention. People like me, I can gripe all I want - for 2 reasons. 1) I'm not important; 2) stopping me would be calling attention to the fact that "freedom of speach" applies only to those to whom nobody listens.

What was tried here in this country was a nice idea that almost worked - but, as John Adams predicted, eventually (which is now) the ideals would become empty slogans, providing a facade for a bought up and bought out system. Adams and Jefferson argued about it (interesting - they died on the same day!), and history is showing that Adams was right: all systems, no matter how noble the intentions behind them, wind up corrupt tyrranies. Jefferson argued that America would give the ordinary people a chance to govern themselves; Adams argued that the ordinary people were too stupid and too lazy and too easily bought off by the clever ever to do such a thing. When Sheehan said that she had finally realized that nobody gave a damn as long it did not affect them in tangilbe ways that they could easily feel and easily identify, I knew that she was right. Didn't like it - don't like it - but she is right.

[Chimera]

This is a bit more general, but I've always liked the exchange here in the first paragraph:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1020303,00.html



When I first visited Russia, in 1986, I made friends with a musician whose father had been Brezhnev's personal doctor. One day we were talking about life during 'the period of stagnation' - the Brezhnev era. 'It must have been strange being so completely immersed in propaganda,' I said.

'Ah, but there is the difference. We knew it was propaganda,' replied Sacha.

[immortalmack]

Theres no oil to take and no vibrant market to sell US goods to in Afghanistan.

[Larkin]

Thank you CJ for your informed comments. in reading the definition of Al Qaida, it made me think of the nebulus definition of communisum during the cold war. it seemes that anyone who was against the US could be plausable called a communist. i see something similar here.
The number of individuals belonging to the organization is also unknown. According to the controversial BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, al-Qaeda is so weakly linked together that it is hard to say it exists apart from Osama bin Laden and a small clique of close associates. The lack of any significant numbers of convicted al-Qaeda members despite a large number of arrests on terrorism charges is cited by the documentary as a reason to doubt whether a widespread entity that meets the description of al-Qaeda exists at all. Therefore the extent and nature of al-Qaeda remains a topic of dispute.

I have heard that Afghanistan is important for a pipeline for oil from Post soviet islamic republics through afghanistan and then through Pakistan to the indian ocean.

Theres no oil to take and no vibrant market to sell US goods to in Afghanistan.

[Kami]

I have no idea why I do this because it is totally un-rewarding.
The answer is addiction.


The American media has ties to Al Qaeda!
I keep wondering if this statement has any truth to it.


I no longer believe the news.
Bullshit. You will only stop believing in the news when you stop watching them, completely.


There's NO objectivity in the mass media. None.
Even if you recognize this sad fact of life, this doesn't mean that you are immune to bias.

[hereandnow]

Since I work at home, I have the opportunity to watch the cable news channels over the course of the day. In the evening I watch one of the network news. This evening, it was Brian Williams on ABC. I have no idea why I do this because it is totally un-rewarding.

Over the last 5 months, I have noticed something oddly consistent with all of the news programs.
When ever there is a bomb blast in Iraq, the report is editorialized with phrases like,
1.The suicide bomber had ties to Al Qaida.
2.It was done by insurgence that have links to Al Qaida.
3.It is suspected that the IED was planted by elements of Al Qaida.
4.And finally, It is said that Al Qaida has claimed responsibility for the act.

As in tonights news, Brian Williams reported the story of a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. Sadly, many troops were killed.
The ones responsible were the Taliban. There was no mention of Al Qaida.

Wasn?t Afghanistan where Osama is suppose to be, or at least on the Pakistan border over 1500 miles from Baghdad, and that?s by air.
Isn?t Afghanistan where the Al Qaida training camps were?
Doesn?t Afghanistan have the weakest American coverage in the war on terror?
Wouldn?t that be where Al Qaida would want to engage the Americans. These mountain tribes were the same ones that drove out the Russians.

The point I am trying to make is that the news programs continuely re-enforce the idea that Al Qaida is in Iraq and they even add disclaimers with words like, suspected or links to. I no longer believe the news. I think it is managed news to tie Al Qaida to Iraq.
I sure that Al Qaida is in Afghanistan but the fact that they are in Iraq is largely exaggerated. That country has enough pissed off people that they aren?t going to tolerate a lot of outsiders coming in to fuck things up even more.

What?s your opinion?

All of the question marks populating your message are the result of cut and paste. Why not go back and remove them?

[Larkin]

is that where they come from? i thought is was soda in my keyboard