AP, Reuters bury Abu Ghraib attack in other story

[Frederik]

The attack yesterday by approximately two insurgency platoons against the Abu Ghraib prison, lasting an hour and involvng around 40 grenade and mortar rounds, two car/truck bombs as well as US tanks and helicopters, is being conspicuously downplayed in the media. AP and Reuters have buried it in the story of the Iraqi Parliament finally electing a speaker.

Reuters story in International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/04/03/news/iraq.html
"Iraqis elect Parliament Speaker"

AP story in USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-04-02-iraq_x.htm
"Sunni Arab elected Iraq parliament speaker

(...)

The 40-minute clash killed one insurgent and injured 44 U.S. forces and 13 prisoners, U.S. military officials said.

It was unclear if the clash was aimed at helping prisoners escape. The militants were unable to penetrate the prison's walls and no detainees were set free.

Some soldiers were evacuated with serious injuries, officials said, but many wounds were minor and treated at the scene."
(AP story also in LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wire/ats-ap_top13apr03,0,5888222.story)

BBC has a separate story on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4405337.stm

Wash Post does not appear to be reporting either story.

CNN covers the speaker election, but has nothing on the Abu Ghraib attack on cnn.com.

Fox has a separate AP story claiming Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152302,00.html

Fox TV briefly mentioned that "terr'sts" had attacked Abu Ghraib (which, they added, were where abuses had been "investigated". Not "took place" or "committed" or "revealed", just "investigated").

I find it unlikely that 44 US soldiers were wounded and none killed, but it is of course possible.

[neebob]

1. Insurgency platoons?

[Frederik]

4. About 60 insurgents

attacking for 40 min - 1 hour, and, according to the BBC, "The attack appears to have been well organised". 60 fighters is the equivalent of two (small) platoons. Some (later) reports have 40 insurgents, which would be about a larger platoon. But there's perhaps reason to believe that their numbers were downplayed a little. It's not unlikely that they were led by former Republican Guard soldiers, like much of the better-organised insurgents probably are, and if so, and even if not, they may well be organized that way. But however that may be, "two platoons" is just a way of indicating the approximate manpower involved in the attack, whether they call themselves "platoons" or not.

[Botany]

2. Move along nothing to see here.

BTW in LBN the Pope is still dead.

[gizmo1979]

3. The Pope dying is like a dream to Bush

He may slam through a years worth of his neo agenda before we know what hit us.

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Wall to Wall POPE-O-VISION. Makes great cover!

Forget that Bush Isn't Even Catholic!

[gizmo1979]

9. I hope Bush at least sends a card.

[solinvictus]

5. So it starts...

The Iraqis and foreigners are changing tactics from isolated attacks using improvised bombs, car bombers, and snipers to planned direct confrontations. Two platoons is a large unit of guerillas to work in concert and geez, look at the casualties: 40 of our wounded to 1 of their dead. It's pretty clear: we weren't expecting it. This may have been a sapping run on their part to test our reaction times re: air support, ground reinforcements, and coordinated defense. I'd look for the conflict to move into another phase if this happens again. Sadly enough, if the Iraqis can maintain strategic intitiative to the degree that our actions are defensive, we could be staring at another Viet Nam.

[Frederik]

13. That may very well be true

"This may have been a sapping run on their part to test our reaction times"

Since they kept it going for so long - according to the earliest reports, an hour - that's not unlikely.

[solinvictus]

28. That was what I thought as well..

If the insurgents kept the attack up, I reasoned they may well be testing our overall mobility. Now, can you imagine if they conduct several of these across the country at one coordinated time?

[DistressedAmerican]

6. That Is Just What I Predicted Yesterday When The News First Broke...

TRUST NO ONE!

My thread from yesterday (posted before CNN, Fox and Many Others):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3409644

Screw the MSM. Stay tuned to DU for the most timely breaking news!

We also keep you up to date on all conservative pie smackings!

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Even If We Hold On There For 10 More Years, They Will NEVER Stop Fighting!

Occupiers never last. They just forestall the eventual departure with more blood and money than they can usually afford! These folks have no place to "Bring The Troops Home" to. They live there and as long as they keep raising kids, they will be fighting us!

The more of them we kill and injure the more of them we create!

[GiovanniC]

10. Didn't the Media Say That Like 18 US Soldiers Were Killed?

I think I remember that from yesterday.

[Frederik]

12. It was 18 "casualties"

which can mean dead or wounded. Now it's 44 "injured", some "seriously". Some of the prisoners are also "seriously injured".

[GiovanniC]

14. Gotcha

My mistake.

[jmatthan]

21. Not your mistake

http://jmpolitics.blogspot.com

It was 18 KILLED.

[Frederik]

23. They said that on the radio?

Interesting, but they may have just misunderstood the earliest reports? If, of 44 "injured", 18 are actually dead and 26 wounded, that's a high death-to-wounded ratio, but not too unlikely I suppose considering the truck bombs and mortars. The "wounded" or "injured" figure can also be higher than they're admitting of course... What sounds very unlikely, though, is zero dead, which is the impression the news reports are giving now.

[onager]

24. Wow! So they've upgraded from "hurt" to "injured!"

That really pisses me off. Soldiers in battle traditionally got "wounded."

Yet for months after we went into Iraq, the media never uttered the word "wounded." They always used the word "hurt," which conjures up visions of a skinned knee or cut finger.

I just know the Bu$h crew was behind that. It's another deliberate attempt to dodge the truth about our casualties.

We used to have a saying in the Marines about getting "hurt:"

A sucking chest wound is Nature's way of saying you fucked up.

[Frederik]

27. Yeah

"Injured" is the strongest word they're allowed to use, apparently...

[bush_is_wacko]

11. Is anyone estimating how many prisoners escaped during this insurgency?

I think the real story is that there were MANY escapees and likely more US deaths than reported. These attacks are usually far more effective than anyone admits they are. This may have turned the tide on this whole mess in the favor of the insurgents and I don't know exactly how to feel about that. On the one hand, it's seems like maybe some of these "prisoners" needed out of this prison before they were eventually found dead from the torture they had endured, but on the other hand, there were some "prisoners" that needed to be held indefinitely there for the sake of our troops safety!

The implications are kind of scary if you ask me!

[Frederik]

15. According to the Army

none escaped, and the attackers didn't get into the prison. But, curiously, 13 prisoners were "injured", some of them "seriously". How?

[bush_is_wacko]

16. Isn't it ironic how often "the facts" just don't add up?!

it is clear to me prisoners did indeed escape. Chimpy is so freaking delusional about this situation I almost can't bear to watch! Two car bombs and mortar fire along with 13 "injured" prisoners is pretty dam clear to me. I wonder if ANY pictures of the prison in it's current condition will ever see the light of day!

[DistressedAmerican]

17. I Just Hope It Was Badly Enough Damaged That They Finally TEAR IT DOWN!

There was a brief time when that was the plan. No more though.

[bush_is_wacko]

19. Any guess on who's baby Lindy is carrying?

I have a funny feeling that baby is part of the reason she isn't among those that are getting of scott free!

[Yupster]

46. Why do you think many prisoners escaped?

Has that been reported anywhere?

[Yupster]

44. Mortars

wouldn't you think?

[Frederik]

18. Correction

The WashPost does report it - it's one very small link to the story on their front page (www.washingtonpost.com) somewhere beneath all the pope stuff. No text other than "insurgents attack Abu Ghraib prison" on the front page. Link to the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21200-2005Apr2.html

"Insurgents kept up sporadic attacks for about four hours, firing rocket-propelled grenades onto the prison grounds, said Lt. Col. Guy Rudisill, the military spokesman for detention operations. Americans fired back with heavy weapons.

There was no word on any casualties among the attackers. It was unclear late Saturday whether any detainees had escaped.

The attack was larger in scale than the shoot-and-run ambushes, car bombings and suicide bombings that have characterized the guerrilla campaign against the two-year-old U.S.-led military occupation."
________

So... this appears to have been the largest attack by the insurgents so far since the invasion two years ago, in scale if not in casualties, and it appears to have been professionally executed and quite successful. And it receives almost no media attention, and is downplayed when it does.

[Frederik]

22. By the way...

"The Association of Muslim Scholars, the most prominent of dozens of groups speaking for disaffected Sunnis, distanced itself Saturday from an edict by 64 Sunni clerics and scholars the previous day that had encouraged Sunnis to join Iraq's new security forces."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21200-2005Apr2.html

[Frederik]

30. A couple of new details

Not much, but France's Libération writes that the attack commenced with the detonation of a truck bomb at the north-eastern corner of the prison complex. It was followed by mortar, RPG and small arms fire, some of it from nearby buildings. A new truck bomb then exploded and a similar attack began from the south-east. Sounds like a classic two-platoon attack. "At least" one insurgent was killed.

For the francophone:
http://www.liberation.com/page.php?Article=286957

[Yupster]

45. Didn't the insurgent's statement

they released yesterday say here were seven suicide bombers? Now just one was killed?

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Kicking So You Can Hear What The MSM Is Not Reporting!

[Blue_In_AK]

25. I noticed that, too

The story in our local paper was buried four or five pages in, and was combined with a story about the new Iraqi government. Obviously, somebody doesn't want people to know about this.

[DistressedAmerican]

26. Another Kick For Newsworthiness!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. AP and Reuters

BOTH have stories dealing specifically with the attack, headlined as such.

Edit:

Here is the AP story:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/04/03/clash_at_iraq_jail_injures_44/

Here is the Reuters story:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=636775

BOTH of these were on the wires and indexed by Google before you posted your topic.

[Frederik]

32. Sure

I'm aware of that, I followed this topic yesterday when it was dicussed in LBN and GD, and AP and Reuters provided the little information that was available at that time. The point is, today they've merged it with the story of the parliament electing its speaker, and those stories are the ones that most news sites have posted.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. So your point is...

...that they're using a combined headline for two iraq stories which means...? I guess I don't get it.

[Frederik]

36. Then let me explain

They're not exactly using a combined headline. Here are the headlines:

Reuters: "Iraqis elect Parliament Speaker"
AP: "Sunni Arab elected Iraq parliament speaker"

Then the Abu Ghraib attack is mentioned briefly at the bottom of the article.

Now, the thing is that for several major news outlets, on their websites, this is the only mention the attack gets. Others have a small link on their front page or nothing at all. The Abu Ghraib prison has apparently been attacked frequently, and that has almost not been reported. This attack receives very little attention. The increasingly numerous and deadly daily bombing raids in Iraq are never mentioned. That the situation in Iraq is in almost every way worse than it was before the invasion is never mentioned. The many reports of the use of chemical weapons and napalm in Falluja, alleged by Iraqi govt officials, refugees and others, are not mentioned. See the pattern?

Edit: spelling

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

37. sheesh...

>Now, the thing is that for several major news outlets, on their
> websites, this is the only mention the attack gets.

That point is not disputed. But you can't blame AP and Reuters because those other outlets failed to include the full, comprehensive AP and Reuters reports on the subject, which *were* available, and have been for some time. Furthermore, the fact that it *is* mentioned not only in the original stoires, but also in an AP and Reuters piece having NOTHING TO DO with the attack leads me to believe that AP and Reuters have done nothing wrong, vs. your assertion that "AP, Reuters bury Abu Ghraib attack in other story." On the contrary, they've reported it more than once, and in several different forms.

You have also cherry-picked mainstream media outlets to support your point. The full-length stories on the attack which I linked are from the Boston Globe and ABC News - hardly founts of liberal journalism.

> The many reports of the use of chemical weapons and napalm in
> Falluja, alleged by Iraqi govt officials, refugees and others, are
> not mentioned.

Again, as has been said many times, if evidence for such attacks exists, let's see it. There are plenty of (mostly foreign) journalists reprinting these accusations, but do date nobody has produced a single shred of evidence to back up these assertions.

[Frederik]

40. Shees...

"the fact that it *is* mentioned not only in the original stoires, but also in an AP and Reuters piece having NOTHING TO DO with the attack leads me to believe that AP and Reuters have done nothing wrong"

(sigh) I'm not pointing my finger at AP and Reuters saying "J'accuse!". I guess I should thank them, even, for being so kind as to mention the attack not only once but twice. What generosity. I am, however, pointing to a general tendency which to my mind is very real, Yibbehooba, and if you can't see it, then either I'm hallucinating or you simply don't want to see it - God knows for what reason. In fact, I would prefer that it were the former, but I suspect it's the latter.

"There are plenty of (mostly foreign) journalists reprinting these accusations"

My point exactly! Why don't they receive any attention in the US? As for your "shred of evidence" - how on earth would you know that "nobody has produced a single shred of evidence"? Let me guess, "if they had, the liberal media woulda been all over it". I guess you know better than Iraqi govt officials Dr Hafidh al-Dulaimi and Dr Khalid ash-Shaykhli, who have both reached the opposite conclusion to yours.

Perhaps you missed this thread:
"Dr. Hafidh al-Dulaimi, the head of “the Commission for the Compensation of Fallujah citizens” has reported the following destruction that has been inflicted on Fallujah as a result of the American attack on it:
(...)
- The death of 100,000 domestic and wild animals due to chemical and/or gaseous munitions."
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )

As for Dr. ash-Shaykhli, he was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there. He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.

You could, for instance, read the following if you'd bother:

"They also tell of whole quadrants of the city in which nothing was left alive, not even dogs or goats -- quadrants that were sealed off by the victorious Americans for mysterious scouring operations after the battle. Others told of widespread use of cluster bombs in civilian areas -- a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, but a standard practice throughout the war."
(http://www.galileolibrary.com/mikes/2005/03/000758.html )

But I'm sure the US military would never think of using chemical weapons, right? Think again.

The following is written by the the "sunshine project", an international non-profit organization with offices in Hamburg, Germany and Austin, Texas, USA. They "work against the hostile use of biotechnology in the post-Cold War era" and "research and publish to strengthen the global consensus against biological warfare and to ensure that international treaties effectively prevent development and use of biological weapons." Here's what they wrote in february 2003:

"Top US military planners are preparing for the US to use incapacitating biochemical weapons in an invasion of Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the plans in February 5th testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee. This is the first official US acknowledgement that it may use (bio)chemical weapons in its crusade to rid other countries of such weapons. The Sunshine Project and other nonprofits have warned since late 2001 that the "War on Terrorism" may result in the United States using prohibited biological and chemical armaments, thereby violating the same treaties it purports to defend. The US announcement creates grave concerns for the future of arms control agreements, particularly the Chemical Weapons Convention."
(http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr/pr07020... )

and...

"Rumsfeld acknowledged US ratification of the CWC* but expressed "regret" about its restrictions, stating that the US has "tangled ourselves up so badly" on policy for use of incapacitating biochemical weapons. Rumsfeld indicated that - in his opinion - if President Bush signs a waiver of long-standing restrictions on US use of incapacitating chemicals, that the US will be able to legally field them in Iraq and elsewhere"

*Chemical Weapons Convention

So, what does "incapacitating biochemical weapons" mean? I suspect they're not talking abot CS gas. There is perhaps reason to think that what they have in mind is more akin to the gas that killed many of the hostages in the Moscow theater hostage rescue operation. The sunshine project site has a link to an "online clearing house" which contains information on US research into such weapons. Here's an example:

"Despite JNLWD's oft-reiterated denials that it is developing incapacitating chemical weapons, this brief item appeared on JNLWD's website in early 2003 (and was quickly removed). It describes the Directorate's program to categorize and assess drug weapons, in part by "identifying advances in the pharmaceutical industry."
(http://www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf /)

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Ok, fine.

Look, I don't want to get into it over the napalm and chemical weapons thing again. There are a lot of threads on this already.

With respect to your original post, the subject line very reasonably lead me to concur that you were pointing the finger at Reuters and the AP, which I thought was wrong, and I said so.

I have no qualms with the assertion that the US media sucks. It does. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily make everything they ignore or fail to report true.

[Laurab]

43. I don't want to interrupt your argument or anything

although it's beyond me why anyone would defend the "mainstream" news. But do you REALLY think that we would see evidence of "such attacks"? There is so much that we don't see, and we're not going to see. I read about this attack on DU - it seemed like a major story to me. Then I saw it buried at the bottom of the other story.

There is no longer a "mainstream" news. We see what we're supposed to see, and nothing more than that, unless we turn to alternate news sources.

I just cannot understand why anyone would defend the media - they are a huge reason that this country is becoming what we're becoming. Maybe that story slipped out before it could be stopped, and after that, they HAD to print it somewhere, so it was at the bottom of a tiny article that had nothing to do with it.

I'm here, two days later, still waiting to find out what happened, and exactly what the "casualties" were. Where is the media?

[drummer55]

31. write a letter, call and other wise bug the hell out of your local media.

force them to report on it because you want to know.

[Blue_In_AK]

34. You're exactly right.

I've been composing my LTTE in my head all morning. This kind of thing just really pisses me off. The fact is most Americans scanning their Sunday morning newspaper are not likely to read more than the headline "Iraqi lawmakers choose Sunni to lead parliament" before their eyes glaze over and they move on to the comics, especially if it's buried on page 10 as it was here in Anchorage. How much more attention-grabbing would be a headline that said "Insurgents mount well-organized attack against Abu Ghraib prison; 44 American soldiers wounded." This is really, really, really shameful media censorship.

[DistressedAmerican]

33. Nomination and Kick.

Anyone else? One more for Greatest Page placement?

This is an important story.

:kick:

[Binka]

38. Nominated

:kick:

[Junkdrawer]

39. "Al-Qaida group claims attack on Abu Ghraib"...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Al-Qaida’s wing in Iraq on Sunday claimed responsibility for a brazen overnight raid on Abu Ghraib prison that wounded 44 U.S. soldiers, according to an Internet statement, and said more attacks would follow.

The U.S. military said dozens of insurgents carried out Saturday’s attack on the notorious prison outside Baghdad, detonating two suicide car bombs and firing rocket-propelled grenades at U.S. forces before the assault was repelled.

“Your brothers in the al-Qaida Organization (for Holy War) in Iraq launched a well-planned attack on Abu Ghraib prison, where Muslim women and men are held,” said the statement posted on a Web site used by Islamists.

...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7364844/

Well, I think the disinfo guys have finally settled on a story - now it can be told to the masses...

[Frederik]

41. Yeah

Like Sy Hersh said, Zarqawi is a composite figure they're using as a bogeyman. I can't see why I should believe these "internet statements" originate anywhere but in the Pentagon.