March 28, 2006

The Latest Blood Libel Lie in Iraq

What would you do if every day you saw images of dead civilians, women, and children? Now, imagine that you are told these deaths were the result of Americans intentionally killing civilians. If this was your perception of reality, then you too would probably feel an obligation to fight America. At the very least, you would support those that took up arms.

Now imagine that it was mainstream media sources that were reporting Americans had massacred Iraqi civilians. The media, instead of challenging the version of the story as delivered by radical Islamists that routinely lie, equivocate and act as if the story told by U.S. soldiers is only one version of the truth. That the word of a U.S. soldier is just as suspect as that of Muqtada al Sadr.

Propagating the lie that U.S. soldiers massacre mosque worshippers constitutes a form of blood libel. By portraying American troops as blood thirsty murderers, jihadi propagandists create an atmosphere of obligatory vendettas. What moral person could stand by and let the Americans get away with this type of murder? By treating that lie as if it was a legitimate viewpont, the media help prolong the war on terror. Worse, they give jihadis recruiting power, which leads to the death of more U.S. soldiers and eventually civilians.

Take for instance this story from the Christian Science Monitor--a publication usually known for its excellent reporting--which treats the 'truth' as something unknowable:

Did US forces attack a mosque in a Shiite district of Baghdad Sunday night, killing 17 unarmed worshippers, an act that Iraq's Shiite interior minister called a "horrible violation" that has dominated Iraqi TV and sparked a political outcry?

Or, did Iraqi special forces, backed up by US advisers, take on a "terrorist cell" at an office complex, kill 16 "insurgents," and free an Iraqi hostage - only to have Iraqi provocateurs, as top US commanders allege, "set the scene up" to look like an atrocity?

The Asian Tribune is even worse, stating that a massacre occured as a matter of fact:

Iraq: US mosque massacre deepens occupation’s crisis

The massacre of as many as 40 unarmed worshipers in a northeast Baghdad mosque Sunday has triggered a political crisis that threatens to accelerate Iraq’s descent into civil war while sharply intensifying the hatred of millions of Iraqis for the three-year-old US occupation of their country.

Deadly mosque raid in Iraq enrages Shiites

Shiite political leaders erupted in anger Monday over a U.S.-Iraqi raid that killed at least 16 people at a Baghdad mosque complex, suspending negotiations on the formation of a new government and spurring the provincial governor to cut ties with U.S. officials.

The British taxpayer supported BBC aids in the murdering of its own troops in Iraq by publishing pictures of the aftermath of the raid in which it declares as a matter of fact that it was against 'a Baghdad prayer complex'.

And here is a Washington Post article which also equivocates between the two sides. It identifies AP reporters who were oonvinced the complex raided was a mosque. Hmmm, I wonder if it was local pro-insurgent AP stringers often employed by that organization?

The question that arises is whether or not the media has some culpability in the death of U.S., British, Iraqi, and other Coalition soldiers when the stories they write inflame the fans of hatred and make winning the war impossible. When did the Chicago Tribune forget that it was in Chicago? When did the Washington Post forget that it was in Washington? Do these organizations have any loyalty whatsoever to their country and fellow citizens? Or are they so cosmopolitan that they believe the death of a U.S. soldier is no more sad than the death of a member of Muqtada al Sadr's terror brigades?

UPDATE: More commentary from Bluto here.