The mainstream media, hereafter referred to as the MSM, first touted the presence of foreign fighters to prove the Arab world’s hatred for the U.S. Then it became apparent that this supported this administration’s war on international terrorism and that the Iraqi people were basically being held hostage by foreign militants. Thus was born the “insurgency” model for Iraq. The term “insurgent” confers a credible status on the fighters, labeling them as oppressed people fighting an occupying force.

This isn’t true of course, and the overwhelming presence of foreign fighters is too well documented to even argue anymore. But this doesn’t stop the MSM from promoting their delusional world view on the unaware. They’re now manufacturing stories based upon their original lie of a 100% homegrown “insurgency.”

New York Times
The insurgents in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program or even a unified ideology or cause beyond expelling the Americans. They have put forward no single charismatic leader, developed no alternative government or political wing, displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern now.

The title of that article is the “Mystery of the Insurgency.” Big mystery, huh?

When will the national media wake up and see who the real enemy is in Iraq?Terrorists.Many from Syria, Chechnia,Saudi Arabia,etc.
Most Iraqis do not support the terrorists as they realze that the terrorists are responsible for for the lack of public utilities,schools being closed,and no safe place to live when the "t's"come to their town.And when the "t's" come,hell(in the form of US Marines) is not far behind them.

Let the MSM believe what they want. Every American knows what our Soldiers are doing over there- freeing the population from terrorists that have absolutely no concern for their people's (or anyone else's) welfare.
Well, that and hitting 'em hard to show 'em we're not some sleeping giant to be kicked in the nuts with a cowardly attack upon our citizens.

There has been a lack of truth from many sources during this war. The spin also exists from both sides of the media as well as politicians. The supposition that many people are not smart enough (or well enough educated) to understand the meaning of the word insurgents is correct – so why would they know that it did not refer to people from the outside? Ignorance about a word generally is well balanced from what I have observed.

It's not about Left or Right Harry. I trust John McCain about as far as I can throw him and his 5 ton ego. And he's a supposedly pro-troop Righty.

What its about is our troops and the bad guys. These bad guys who are lopping heads off of civilians, raping and oppressing their women, blowing up innocents and so on.

And anyone who would misreport these events, for political reasons or whatever, is just wrong. Big W, wrong, not just a matter of opinion.

So regardless of the public's abiilty to put a precise definition to the word 'insurgent,' the point is that the MSM is attempting to portray the enemy combatants as local, homegrown opposition to the big, bad occupying forces.

This simply isn't true. Period.

Now look at the situation from a truly wide lens; the NY Times and their cohorts are trying to put a legitimate face on an enemy who regularly saw off the heads of their innocent victims and tape it for all the world to see. And we're bad guys because of what? Lyndie England's on our side?

Confusion reigns when one attempts to package the enemy in a neat and convenient form. We are fighting terrorists. We are fighting insurgents. sometimes the terrorists work with insurgents, sometimes they are at odds. The one thing they agree on is that we are the enemy.

Whether the guy shooting at our troops is an insurgent or a terrorist is not very meaningful to the troops getting shot at. It is not an either/or situation.

Here's a cut n paste that illustrates the situ.


Rift emerges among insurgent factions

By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press

CAIRO, Egypt — There are new signs of hostility between homegrown insurgents in Iraq and extremists fighting under al-Qaida’s banner — including foreigners — with the two camps trading threats and increasingly divided over the strategy of killing civilians to undermine the fragile new government.

The tension comes at a crucial moment as the mainstream component of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency — which remains active, deadly and going strong nearly two years after it began — makes tentative moves to translate its militant firepower into political gain.

What’s driving the change appears to be Iraq’s new post-election realities — a majority Shiite- and Kurdish-dominated political process that’s on course and a population deeply angered by continuing violence that’s picking off ever more of the nation’s fledgling army and police forces.

“You see a withering of the insurgents that had a short-term agenda, like preventing the January election. But the insurgency is not unraveling yet,” said Peter Khalil, former director of national security policy for the now-defunct U.S.-led occupation authority in Iraq.

The divide among militants, however, is becoming more noticeable.

In Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province and a stronghold of the insurgency, homegrown Iraqi fighters have begun recently to air their differences in menacing fliers plastered on walls and distributed in mosques — making threats and denouncing the tactics of the extremists, according to witnesses who have seen the fliers.

Some of the fliers threaten reprisals against the militants or threaten to inform police of their identity and whereabouts. The extremists have not publicly responded, but residents say the fighters have kept a low profile since the appearance of the fliers in the Euphrates-side city and that some of them may have moved to the outskirts to avoid clashes.

Ramadi’s insurgents argue that al-Qaida fighters are giving the resistance a bad name and demand they stop attacks on civilians and kidnappings. Al-Qaida militants counter that Iraqis who join the army and police are “apostates” — Muslims who renounce their faith — and deserve to be killed.

“They have tarnished our image and used the jihad to make personal gains,” said Ahmed Hussein, a 30-year-old mosque imam from Ramadi, speaking of al-Qaida fighters.

“They have no legitimacy,” added Hussein, who claims insurgency links but says he’s not a fighter himself.

In Baghdad’s mainly Sunni Azamiyah district, another insurgency hotbed, residents have repeatedly brought down from walls and street light poles the black banners of al-Qaida in Iraq.

The rift also involves Sunni Arab tribal leaders frustrated by the continuing violence. And it is being encouraged by Iraqi authorities in hopes it will isolate the violent militants. The Iraqi TV channel Al-Iraqiya has recently been showing nightly interviews with captured Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters, many who speak of alleged links to Syrian intelligence.

Iraq’s newly elected president, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, urged insurgents to sit down and talk with the new government, but he’s made it clear his offer is exclusively available to homegrown Iraqi insurgents and not to extremists or foreign fighters.

“We must find political and peaceful solutions with those duped Iraqis who have been involved in terrorism and pardon them, and invite them to join the democratic process,” Talabani said Thursday as he was sworn in at parliament. “But we must firmly counter and isolate the criminal terrorism that’s imported from abroad and is allied with criminal Baathists.”

Ideological or tactical shifts within the insurgency are difficult to gauge because of the secrecy surrounding the uprising and the different, sometime conflicting, agendas of its disparate groups — with the majority of homegrown insurgents hardcore members of Saddam’s Baath party, former members of his army and security forces as well as religious nationalists.

Associated Press reporters in the insurgency strongholds of Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra say there have been fewer attacks in those towns in recent weeks. They also report rising hostility toward militants associated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian al-Qaida leader in Iraq.

U.S. defense officials say nationwide attacks were down to 40-45 a day in recent weeks, lower than the pre-election daily average of 50-60.

The change was apparent after the Jan. 30 elections, with the number of U.S. troops killed dropping from 58 in February to 33 in March — the lowest monthly death toll since 20 were killed in February 2004, according to an Associated Press count.

Meantime, there are unconfirmed news reports in Arab media that factions of the insurgency may be indirectly negotiating with authorities to lay down their arms in return for amnesty, jobs and reconstruction money. The Iraqi government has not commented.

The signs of a possible change in direction have emerged amid a growing feeling among Sunni Arabs that boycotting the landmark Jan. 30 election may have been a mistake. Shunning the vote left Sunni Arabs, who make up 15 percent to 20 percent of Iraq’s estimated 26 million people, with less than 20 of parliament’s 275 seats.

Some experts believe the insurgency has begun to rely on Sunni Arab leaders, particularly the influential clerics of the Association of Muslim Scholars, to act as its political wing.

Many in Iraq see this as a division of labor in the pursuit of political gains, with one Iraq expert — Ahmed S. Hashim, of the U.S. Naval War College — saying it mirrors the arrangement that existed between the Irish Republican Army in British-ruled Northern Ireland and the groups’ political offshoot, Sinn Fein.

“The insurgency’s political wing needs the leverage provided by the military wing,” said Hashim who had spent time in postwar Iraq. “Military operations ensure that Sunni Arabs can be taken seriously.”

In the most striking example so far of the shifting Sunni ground, the Association of Muslim Scholars — which has tacitly supported the insurgency — made a surprise about-face last week and appealed to supporters to join Iraq’s nascent army and police.

If heeded, that move could improve the perception of Iraq’s U.S.-trained army and police as the exclusive domain of Shiites and Kurds. it also could — significantly — lure away from the insurgency any fighters looking for a regular income and a less perilous life.

In addition, in towns across the mostly Sunni Arab Anbar province, worshippers have recently been asked to fill questionnaires about whether Sunni Arabs should take part in drafting the country’s new constitution or participate in the next general election.

It’s not known who is behind this polling exercise, but those who received the forms were asked to return them to mosque imams.

And since the Sunni's are an overhwelming minority, being led by an even smaller minority of religious fanatics, who are in turn grudingly following foreign fanatic leaders, the term 'insurgent' as it's meant to be understood by the MSM, is completely false.

Not just mistakenly wrong, but wrong with malice.

War is hell ain't it?

Airwinger:

The MSM has always been a problem during war and it is because it is a business and profit is the motivator more that truth -- it has always been that way and probably will be. I also believe that they are much more ignorant than you give them credit for.

Is it possible that we may putting to fine a point on the issue of bias in the media, when an political agenda is given to the use of the term 'insurgent' versus 'foreign fighter'.

Both clearly exist.

The Sunni minority, in power under Saddam, is fighting to regain control for themselves and welcomed the increasing support from outside elements.

Now, as the power shifts to the political, they are beginning to have second thoughts... as they cannot control the outside influence, strategy or tactics.

The Sunni's are going to have to become part of the process or be left out.

The Shiites, a clear and convincing majority, with alliances with Iran... will be hard to ignore under the best of circumstances, no matter how many Sunni insurgents or al-Qaida foreigners we kill.

And neither the Sunni's, nor Shiite's (nor Turk's for that matter) like the Kurd's.

And there lies the lasting problem... which no military force on Earth can fix.

There is no question that there are biased reports... both left and right... and I suppose one could make an argument using Dan Rather and Newsweek... but you would certainly have to balance that overall with the Shock and Awe coverage and 'embedded' journalists in the beginning of the campaign.

Personally, I do worry about the American public getting 'sick and tired' of the statistics of dead and wounded sons and daughters... coming home in boxes every week.

I am not certain that that comes from reporting the fact that it is happening, in fact... not reporting those 'home town' events is hiding the fact that there have been ultimate sacrifices paid by many.

If there is a clear and certain goal and a rightness of the cause... it is the Administrations responsibility to make that clear... and convincing.

This becomes increasingly more difficult as the 'war' shifts from 'taking ground and killing the enemy' to 'holding ground and winning the hearts and minds'.

Some of you probably have more faith in the 'silent majority' of the Iraqi people and their appreciation of our 'saving them' from Saddam, than I do.

When faced every day, with the opportunity to be killed by us... and be called collateral damage... or to be killed by 'insurgents' or al-Qaida foreigner, who have a different agenda... is a point completely lost on the average civilian, whether it be Vietnam or Iraq or an Afgan or even a Muslim.

Unfortunately, you may be right for the wrong reasons, however... the 'pen is mightier than the sword'... I just think we should blame the guys... not writing the history versus the ones that are writing it.

If we win this thing... even if we are wrong... history will be written in our favor.

If we don't win... well, you know about that already... right?

There is a case for splitting hairs on the issue of whether a news source is trying to be “spectacular” or genuinely attempting to smear America.

Generally speaking, bad news sells and I’ll cut some slack for human nature being what it is and not hold it against them per se.

But if one really follows the news, they’ll see the difference in blowing up a spectacular headline and a concerted effort to always paint things in the worst possible light.

Now, the word ‘insurgent’ can be used to describe someone who is only to trying to overthrow without having an agenda of their own to replace the old system with. However, this is not the context that the word is being used in the MSM, particularly the NY Times, the Washington Post or the LA Times.

The context that they have been using it in is that there is a grass roots movement to oust the American “occupation” and this simply isn’t true. This is evidenced no more strongly than in their own article on their supposed “mystery.”

Again, the trajectory that the media has taken us on was from one of opposing the war on the basis that we were turning the Arab world against us (as if this would be a new development). They attempted to do so by trumpeting the presence of foreign fighters. The hawks simply said “great, better we face them there than in NY City” and the world already knew that the Arab world hated us, Israel’s strongest ally.

Next, was the insurgent tactic. The Iraqis really hate us and we’re making it worse by our occupation. We should just leave. And they tried to prove this by contradicting their earlier reporting of the foreign fighters and assigning all of the “resistance” to local Iraqis. (I also the love the use of “resistance.” It conjures up beret wearing Parisians in WWII stealing away a downed Allied pilot out of Nazi occupied France.) Reading the reports of various battles, particularly Matador, the presence of foreign fighters is usually presented with a raised eye brow of sorts as if to say “Maybe they’re there, maybe they’re not.”

And now they’re lending even more credence to their fabricated ‘resistance movement’ by reporting on it as if it’s accepted fact. They’re basically repeating a lie often enough that the public becomes inured to it; then they start reporting on the same lie to reinforce that they’ve been telling the truth all along.

None of this is to say that there aren’t Iraqis fighting against our men over there. But it’s a long stretch to an even semi-organized insurgency involving unified people with a common positive goal.

It sounds more like paranoia than fact. The media is guilty of the same crime against the truth as most politicians. I was listening to a conservative news broadcast the other day while they were discussing the Democrat’s violation of the constitution because of the filibuster. This was just as much a crock as people quoting the founding father’s meaning (remember slavery, women not voting, the bill of rights not granted to citizens of the states, etc). It all boils to sending the message the majority of the audience wishes to hear.

I dunno, airwinger does have some lucid moments in there that I have to agree with. I, for one would sooner trust a room full of rattlesnakes than a reporter anyday. At least I know up front what's gonna occur and what actions I can take after the fact. Not so with the media. Wingers bit about some of the images created by the way they (MSM) word particular things is a very valid point. The term 'resistance' does in fact bring up those images......not that I can see an Iraqi wearing a beret though...I tried.

While I don't agree that we should just up and leave, we do need to head in that direction, and the sooner the better. We have to at a minimum, leave a semi-stable govt in place before we do so. Otherwise all this sacrifice is for naught.

Gunny:

I agree that Airwinger makes some valid points but what I disagree with is his stating that it is not about the left or right and then subsequently targeting the most liberal newspapers. My point is that they are all guilty of bias and will turn the news to meet the desires of their main core audiences/readers in order to make a profit.

This is not new and reading or listening to a conservatively slanted media outlet will give one their slant on the news – such as using the term terrorists when insurgents is correct for that instance (yes, it can be the same thing but we are nit picking here).

It works pretty much the same way on the boards here... or BLOGS... as the Press or TV.

Controversey Sells!!! Period!!!

The extreme Left or Right becomes the vocal catylst to illicit whatever capital can be gained from the issue and people will "line up", dutifully on one side or the other.

If you had "insurgents" or "terriorists" on their knees, with their hands tied behind them, a sand bag over their head and emptied two magazines into their backs... some would say... you weren't there, you don't know, maybe he was Houdini and had a grenade up his arse!

Others would say if the guy was firing an AK-47 at a full gallop, with a fixed bayonet... missed... ran out of ammo... and you happened to kill the bastard "after" the last round was fired... its murder! (Like you should be counting the rounds fired.)

The real problem is that we will face more and more of this... as we continue to occupy a nation that has been completely destabalized... and our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen (and women <grin> are left "holding the bag".

We can't get out and we can't fix the problem.

Meanwhile, we have our eye cut toward Iran, hoping to intice those "oppressed" folks to throw out the Powerbase of Clerics! Good Luck!

Our personnel quotas are stretched out... our support of the people sucks... and there already is a Draft in place (on the back-end).

If we want to Police the world, we had damn well better be prepared to pay for it!

And... technology... no matter how good (and this is coming from a technolgist)... will NEVER replace a grunt... it won't happen!

(While some are still trying to get rid of the Marine Corp altogether... how does that sit... is that a Democratic conspiracy?)

It sure is "more fun" to debate a coward that refuses to go back to Iraq with his unit!

It is more fun to debate a bunch of degenerate jail guards and their actions!

...or whether someone did or did not flush a Koran down the toilet... and even if they did... who the Hell cares...!!!

The real debate is not those issues or the media slant... the real debate is "How we get into these messes... does the American public have the stomach for it or not... and if they do, it won't make any difference what Newsweek or CBS says one way or the other...

...if they don't... it won't make a damn bit of difference what we say here!

But it sure gets the blood boiling... right!

Harry...when yer right...yer right! It certainly is profit driven first, and if the truth is actually reported,(by some odd coinkeedink!) it only gets published when it follows thier slant on things.

quote:

Originally posted by MAGForce
The real debate is not those issues or the media slant... the real debate is "How we get into these messes... does the American public have the stomach for it or not... and if they do, it won't make any difference what Newsweek or CBS says one way or the other...

I disagree.Do you believe that most people think for themselves,read between the lines,THINK about what the media is forcing down their throats?They don't!They eat dinner,watch the news,then tune in American Idol.No thinking involved.
May I remind you about the media and Viet Nam?
Night after night,saying the war is wrong,the sheeple begin to believe it!
I'm sure you've read the book "1984".Orwell tells how the media controls what people think.
Repeat it over and over and people believe.
If you don't THINK about what ANY media outlet is putting out you do a disservice to yourself.

quote:

The real debate is not those issues or the media slant... the real debate is "How we get into these messes... does the American public have the stomach for it or not... and if they do, it won't make any difference what Newsweek or CBS says one way or the other...

...if they don't... it won't make a damn bit of difference what we say here!

You left out the second half of the quote. <grin>

Assuming you are absolutely correct and the only two people on this continent that think is YOU... and I...

and the Left or Right, Mainstream or Cable... East Coast ink or West Coast ink... will not desuade either of us...

But whoever wins that battle will absolutely control the sheep...

Then you don't have a prayer... one small voice crying in the wilderness!

At least this Administration is not "gunning down" radical elements on the college campus' and I think Bush et al has certainly learned a lot about media control in 35-40 years.

Do you think you should include... in your analysis... along with a stick in the eye for money grubbing media circus performers...

...some analysis of "Where is Bush, Rummy, Conda-Leeza... march a few Generals out once in a while and tell us how proud they are of our men and women...

...maybe show up at something to wave the flag!

The couple that had a variety show even went to perform for the troops, for God Sake!

I don't know if anyone has been paying attention or not... but Bob Hope died!

So I guess my question would be... if you had to write an Email... complaining about the slanted coverage... would you send it to the Editor of the Times or the White House?

I am not sure whether you are Republican or not <grin> but spitting on a fire won't put it out.

The Commander should take an accounting don't you think... marshall some of his leverage!

Maybe I am wrong... you tell me!

Harry,
I don't trust too many sources as stand alone sources either. But the topic isn't about Left media versus Right media but about whether or not the MSM, who are liberal from the top of their heads to the bottom of their feet, are purposely misrepresenting the war in Iraq.

And indeed they are.

Cry paranoia and try and change the subject if you like, but representing the "resistance" in Iraq as anything resembling a "freedom fight" is simply wrong. There's no excuse for it.