One suicide bombing, two divergent storylines
the international herald tribune got it right, and the los angeles times blew it
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I first saw the offending LA Times article via Captain Ed. I read his blog several times a week because of his knowledge and judgment. However, in this case the good Captain missed the real story, but I can't say as I blame him. The poor fella was reading the Los Angeles Times, and here's how the first paragraphs read:
Read on...
A suicide car bomber attacked a crowded market in this holy Shiite city Tuesday, killing at least 16 people, injuring more than 70 others and further stoking tensions between rival Shiite militias.
The bomb was detonated in a gray sedan beside a restaurant and across the street from a girls primary school.
An angry mob that included members of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada Sadr's Al Mahdi army quickly gathered around the blast's crater and loudly blamed the United States and Iraqi police for allowing the attack. Most of the police in Kufa are linked to a rival Shiite militia, the Badr Organization, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country's biggest Shiite political party.
While the tension between various Shiite groups is real (as is the animosity toward Americans), the LA Times said not one word about who was responsible for this grisly suicide terrorist bombing. The guilty party is al Qaeda or a like-minded affiliate, and they are the principal agents who fomented this Shiite-on-Shiite tension in al Kufa. Why am I so sure it was al Qaeda or an affiliate? Because when it comes to Iraq, they're the only ones who instigate suicide bombings.
Because of this, the LA Times' editors missed the larger story, mischaracterizing it as a "blame America" protest and hinting at tribal angst between Shiite groups. Half true at best. To get an accurate picture of what really happened, you have to go to the International Herald Tribune. The first few paragraphs:
A suicide car bomber blew up an explosives-packed sedan in a crowded market near the main mosque in the Shiite city of Kufa on Tuesday, killing at least 16 people and wounding 70 others, police and government officials said.
The explosion disintegrated vendor stalls and bloodied shoppers who had gathered roughly 500 yards from the golden-domed shrine where the Shiite cleric Moktada Al-Sadr has often delivered Friday prayers.
It was the third car bomb in a month to explode near a sacred Shiite mosque in the south. Combined, the bombers have killed at least 110 people and wounded more than 400.
Tuesday's attack in particular seemed aimed at undermining and provoking Sadr, who has made Kufa his headquarters. Witnesses said security in the Shiite-majority south, home to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, seemed to be deteriorating.
And the truth shall set you free. [Update: But IHT doesn't go far enough, since they were refer to suicide bombings by al Qaeda in Anbar province, but do not make the connection to a suicide bombing in al Kufa, even though suicide terrorism is the exclusive trademark of al Qaeda & Co. /Update:] Since the surge strategy bagan, al Qaeda has had a tougher time mounting attacks inside Baghdad so they've been targeting the outlying areas, and al Kufa was particularly vulnerable to attack because of the "deteriorating security situation".
These two articles exemplify the problem facing Americans and the world. One article muddied up the cause of violence, leaving readers to pass it off as just another example of an endless civil war (which dovetails right into the Democrats' portrayal of Iraq), only this time Shiites were tussling with fellow Shiites. The truth is in the latter link. Al Qaeda launched a suicide terrorist attack right under the nose of Muqtada al Sadr's headquarters, in the hopes of stoking sectarian violence (or any other kind of violence that could be had).
Captain Ed is a smart and knowledgeable guy, but he missed the larger story, in my opinion, and it makes me wonder how many others missed it, too. It also makes me wonder how many others don't realize how large of a role al Qaeda is playing in Iraq. If you want a better picture, check out Engram's weblog for a proper presentation of the facts, because we're sure not getting it from the Los Angeles Times.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Life Is Better With A Veto Pen Around — Comments (0) »
One suicide bombing, two divergent storylines 3 Comments (0 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Show me one example of a Shiite in Iraq who blew himself up in a suicide terrorist attack.
Clicking on the links helps.
When hundreds upon hundreds of suicide bombings are done by al Qaeda or one of its franchisees, and none have been done by suicidal Shiites, then it's a matter of simple deduction.
Oh, and I accidentally deleted someone else's comment because I put my response in the wrong place. Sorry. The person wrote that since there was no proof that al Qaeda was involved at al Kufa, then it was OK not to make the simple deduction that al Qaeda did it. I disagree, particularly since al Qaeda or a franchisee is responsible for virtually every suicide attack in that country. The article could simply say, "Although there is no definitive proof and although no group has claimed responsibility, suicide bombings in Iraq are the trademark of Sunni extremists (mostly non-Iraqi) aligned with al Qaeda."
come from? They come straight from Al-Qaeda. One does not have to be on the scene to be able to point out Al-Qaeda propaganda any more than one had to be standing beside Jane Fonda on the enemy AAA weapon to point out the North Vietnamese propaganda involved in an American betraying her fellow Americans.
Where in the second article was any involvement by Al-Queda mentioned?
I'm certainly no fan of some of the portrayals of Iraq that we hear from our politicians, especially on the left, but I'm afraid all you've done here is take two articles and pick the one that helped to prove your point more and criticize the other for interpreting events you know nothing about in a different way.
The fact is that media organizations get their news from various sources and you have no proof that, in fact, there wasn't an anti-American protest right after the bombing.
"And the truth shall set you free"? Try "Consider alternative accounts before you side on what story is the truth; then you shall be set free" instead.