This past week I have seen two TV shows that question AP new stories concerning reports of violence in Iraq.

In a nut-shell, AP have use Badhgad Police Captain Jamil Hussein as a source of info for a number of news stories over the past several months. These news reports were about some of the worst violence in Iraq. The problem is that the no one can find this person or some of the statements made in the reports cannot be backup by anyone else. Do a Google source of Police Captain Jamil Hussein to learn about this issue. The bottom line is that this source of the some of AP news reports could be not be true. So some of the violence in Iraq may not happen as reported.

not surprised to see AP running bullshit though, isn't Cheezbolla and the UN one of their biggest clients?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Police+Captain+Jamil+Hussein&btnG=Google+Search

-- Modified on 12/2/2006 12:03:27 PM

successfully terrorizing civilians into silence?

You'd have to believe that 90% of the violence was false, and that the Iranians were not in bed with the Iraqis.

You're missing the point like all neo-cons, because you havent read Mao's protracted war, and you don't know shit about patterns of irregular warfare.

Yes, there is a lot of violence in Iraq. And the Iranians are part of the violence there.

The point is that AP is not accurately reporting the news. Maybe making things up or making it worst then it is.

How can we form good opinions about an issue, if we do not get accurate facts?

It seems that the terrorists are using our own news media to try to defeat us.

no trouble making up facts that suit you.

Violence could be half what the reports are, and the significance of the pattern is the same:  the insurgents are following classic guerrilla patterns of intimidating civil dissidents, and it's close to impossible for foreign occupiers to break that cycle.  In fact, it's never been done by people who were not already established.

2ndly, the Iraqi govt itself is now negotatiaing with the iranians, and that was inexcusably both a strategic and tactical surprise to the USA.  

Apart from the massive incompetence, the point here is that the news would have to be off by a FACTOR of 5 or so, enough to change the QUALITY of the situation.

You're saying that the paint job on the Titanic was inaccurately reported.  So what if it was?

you stated "...no trouble making up facts that suit you.

What facts did I make up? Back up your statement.

Agree with most of what your wrote.

The point of my post is: Can we believe what AP or other news sources put out as the true?

Maybe they (some new organizations) want the America public to think one way or another on the way the war on terrorists is going.

The sad point is no matter what side of all these issues we take concerning Iraq, Iran and terrorists, we ALL many LOSE in the long run.

(1) Media bias - we've heard it all before.  Yes, media is biased, everybody is biased.  Media is biased toward a quick, flashy story that makes money, and everybody else is biased to the belief that the entire world rotates around their story.

Meida that is biased to something other than money, ie partisan politics  has a competitive disadvantage next to those that are, and doesn't last unless they are a captive in-house organ.  Even then, the best propaganda is the truth.

(2) No, you can never believe anything.  You always have to take your chances, and one of the biggest chances is not that the news is not true, but that you don't understand why, and it will change unpredictably before you get there.  Whereas, if you DON'T GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM BEN'S SCRIPTURE, you have a better chance of figuring out which way the wind is blowing, so you know what's going on when you get there, and won't have beg God's forgiveness for fucking up again.

(3) AP is one of the oldest established news services.  It's bias to making money is fairly well established.  Yes, sometimes it gets things wrong.  However, that wouild not be the way to bet.

(4) In this particular case, it does not matter if AP picked up a lie and passed it on.  How can it possibly be less reliable than an administration who started this war on the representations that (a) they wouldn't fuck up a classic "nation-building" exercise, and (b) Saddam had WMDs?   All of the sources involved say that Iraq is in civil war - don't mince words, when people are killing each other left and right for political purposes, it's civil war.

(5) Study the history of irregular war in the 20th century - Mao is a good starting point, although it is an arbitrary point.  The 20th century is shot full of examples of irregular wars, which the Bushites pretend are new, by calling them "asymmetrical" meaning that there's one force or regulars, and another which tries to avoid engaging in open combat.  Iraq is a classic example of this.  The purposes may be different from say Vietnam, but the strategy and tactics are classic guerrilla warfare.

(6) Even if AP is lying thru their teeth, which is much less likely here than Bush lying thru his teeth, the existence or not of this fellow DOES NOT MATTER.  What matters is that Iraqis are killing each other in the streets over politics - this is a battle of the death squads, and the US and US established govt can't control it; and the political path of this campaign is out of US control.  Our own allies/puppets are going over to the Iranians.

(7)  Your question - which amounts to a complaint that the paint job on the Titanic was mis-reported - shows your own bias.  FOr some reason, you have lost sight of the forest for this particular tree.

(8)  Now, I would like to believe that Bush supporters are merely ignorant, but for reasons I have discussed at length, I can't.  In fact, it doesn't matter anymore.  When they think somebody is being impolite by saying something they don't want to hear, they hyperventilate, because it's a convenient distraction from thei massive fuckup.  Like they were on fucking Oprah, who, incidentally has a better batting average than Bush 2.

(9) The probable reason Bush supporters can't figure it oout is that they are chickenhawks (that's the polite word) who really don't care that they kill 19 year olds as long as they're in office, and can hand out the corruption, and be satisfied that their own particular insanity is the loudest.

(10) We're a nation that fucked up immensely by letting religious right assholes control enough of a margin of vote to put Bush and comparable assholes into office.  The fact that we are still complaining about the paint job on the Titanic shows that we're still too stupid to figure out what matters.  People like Jimmy Webb are obviously going to have to do more than refuse to play Bush's game - we're going to have to stick some Republicans into their fucking wall sockets to get their attention.  A draft would be a good attention-getter, and a very democratic way of spreading the cost of war.

(11) This war is not going to be lost sometime in the future.  It WAS lost when we landed, because Bush set our troops to an unacheivable objective, ie building a nation that didn't want to be built.  It's like driving to NY from LA by heading west on Sunset - that is precisely how stupid the Bushites are.

(12) Why are they so stupid?  Because they don't do their basic homework.   They are so profoundly anti-intellectal and lazy that they refuse to google for information.  They listen to the voices in their head, instead.  They bluff (like Bush) and sling bullshit (like Ben).

It's not a matter of liking people or not.  It's a matter of liking massive fuckups, or not.  You folks can go fuckup on your own dime.  Don't expect my family or money.   Bush is obviously dangerous to America, far more dangerous than OBL.

-- Modified on 12/3/2006 9:59:50 AM

through rightwing blogs looking for conspiracy theories that will prove that Iraq is not the political fuckup of all time. Even Rummy now has admitted it is a clusterfuck. If you are more deluded than Rummy then you are beyond salvation.

Show me some facts that I am wrong on this post about that NO ONE has seen or know of Police Captain Jamil Hussein.

Assume that AP is lying.  Show me what difference it would make.  Does that somehow mean you think the situation in Iraq is materially different?

"Hussein confirmed the burning story on three separate occasions. AP reporters also went to the neighborhood and found three witnesses to the immolations who told nearly identical stories. Since then more people in the neighborhood have told about the incident in a similar fashion. Pictures of the Mustafa mosque where the incident occurred show that it is badly damaged by explosives and shows signs of scorching from fire." So the story has been corroborated by several witnesses. Now we have an AP reporter who has dealt with this guy in uniform in the police station for two years and the Ministry of the Interior denies something that makes the government look bad. Since it looks like the Ministry was lying about the incident why should I believe them when they say this guy does not exist?

From independentsources.com:

...Here is more of the the saga of Capt. Jamil Hussien.  An AP source whose identity was questioned by Curt at Flopping Aces; the apparent inability of the US Military (CENTCOM), the Iraqi Police, or the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior to verify his existence has cause quite a stir in the blogosphere. ...

Why is it puzzling? The facts are in question. Even the New York Times questioned the story. As many others have said the way to solve this issue is simple - produce Capt. Hussien, produce the burned bodies, or produce an editor who has met Captain Hussien and who has verfied his credentials.

...The witnesses who are quoted as confirming the original story are anonymous.

To my knowledge no editor or other management offical at AP has independently verified Capt. Hussiens bona fides.

Finally as you yourself point out the New York Times could not verify the story.

Another web site reported:

Contrary to recent media reporting that four mosques were burned in Hurriya, an Iraqi Army patrol investigating the area found only one mosque had been burned in the neighborhood.

Soldiers from the 6th Iraqi Army Division conducted a patrol in Hurriya Friday afternoon in response to media reports that four mosques were being burned as retaliation for the VBIED attacks in Sadr City on Thursday.

The Soldiers set up a checkpoint near the Al Muhaimen mosque at approximately 2 p.m. and found the mosque intact with no evidence of any fire at the location.

While investigating the Al Meshaheda mosque, the patrol received small arms fire from unknown insurgents. The patrol returned fire, and the insurgents broke contact and fled the area. A subsequent check of the mosque found the mosque intact with no evidence of a fire.

At approximately 3:50 p.m., a local civilian reported to the patrol that armed insurgents had set the Al-Nidaa mosque on fire by throwing a gas container into the mosque. The patrol pursued the insurgents but lost contact with them.

The Soldiers called the fire department and set up a cordon around the mosque. Local fire trucks responded to the scene and extinguished the fire at approximately 4:00 p.m. The mosque sustained smoke and fire damage in the entry way but was not destroyed.

An alleged attack on a fourth mosque remains unconfirmed. The patrol was also unable to confirm media reports that six Sunni civilians were allegedly dragged out of Friday prayers and burned to death. Neither Baghdad police nor Coalition forces have reports of any such incident.

So the Baghdad police had not received reports fo this burning either? Who in the hell is this Capt. Jamil Hussein then? Is he part of the Iraqi police or an insurgent stringer for the AP?


I could copy and paste more...but that all I have time for now.

As I stated before, Iraq is in bad shape. Again as I stated before, it seems that the terrorists are using our own news media to try to defeat us.

I guess I'll just have to say from now on that "Iraq is just a bloodstained failure of momentous proportions."  

help, dude. You are deep in the thralls of wingnut paranoia. All you give me are more links to rightwingnutty blogs. The statement about the NY Times is made by a blogger with a link to an article that is beyond the TimesSelect wall so I could not verify the context. I am sure that you will continue with this, though, because from what I can tell, you are insane. Peace.

Is he a terrorist too? Are you aware that you are calling 60% of the American population terrorist sympathizers? You are in the lunatic fringe, man. Snap out of it. Walk towards the light before it is too late.

P.S. "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nine U.S. troops died in Iraq during the weekend, including five killed by roadside bombs, the U.S. military reported Sunday.

Two soldiers were killed and two wounded Sunday when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle in northern Iraq, U.S. commanders in the northern city of Tikrit announced. The soldiers were assigned to the Army's 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division.

...

Iraqi police found 51 bodies across the Iraqi capital, all shot to death, a Baghdad emergency police official said Sunday. Some were blindfolded with bound hands, and showed signs of torture. They are believed to be victims of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian warfare."


-- Modified on 12/3/2006 8:23:39 PM

…along with ALL the right wing blogs and Greg Beck, find me a blog or new story that shows the existence of Police Captain Jamil Hussein (you still not have done that). I read where AP even change their tone of the report.

It, is interesting that so many people if they cannot win an argument with facts or reason, they go to name calling.

BTW, most people that really know me, do NOT think I am insane.

Remember, that the only people that profit from running down other people are elevator operator.

all the people that know you in that institution you are housed in don't think that you are insane. I see that sewer that you have crawled into and I choose not to follow you in. Good luck. At least I tried.

-- Modified on 12/4/2006 6:40:18 PM

Are you aware that you are calling 60% of the American population terrorist sympathizers?

When did I say this?