14 June 2007

Gonzo gone crazy: FOX News & AP on the 'attack'

I know reporters sometimes become part of the story, but this is Foxdiculous.  Go here and scroll to the bottom to see a very amusing mistake.  I hope it's a mistake, anyway... if not, then it really answers some burning questions.  Screen cap below.


Omnipotent Poobah said...

Well, you know what they say, "They report you decide".

serena1313 said...

Fox evidently changed the word "attack," but speaking of which, an article found in pressTV claims Negroponte instigated the attack:

"According to an informed source John Negroponte plotted the attack during an unannounced trip to Iraq on June 12 in order to fuel insecurity and sectarian violence in the country.

"Negroponte's motive was to overthrow Iraq's legitimate government, the same source added.

"Negroponte, ..., held several informal meetings with Iraqi officials prior to the June 13 terrorist attack on the revered Shia shrines in Samarra, the source said.

"During his meetings, Negroponte reportedly strongly cautioned that the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki must change.

"Negroponte also asked several Iraqi officials, including Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, to resign- a move the source said was aimed at paving the way for al-Maliki's government to eventually 'topple'.

"The source said Negroponte made “empty promises” to the Iraqi officials, saying they would be appointed to key governmental posts.

"But the US still wants to return the Baathists, the loyalists of the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, to power.

"The blast in Samarra which destroyed the minarets of the sacred shrines of the Shia Imams was performed with the assistance of the former Saddam regime's security agents, the source added.



also see:

Over the years independent and foreign news sources reported many times US troops were responsible for the attacks on Iraq's mosques and bridges, etc. The "who" has never been questioned because Americans pretty much accepted the official line that insurgents [and more recently "al Qaeda"] were the culprits to blame. Someone had to be blamed for perpetuating the violence. The mounting evidence suggests US deniability may no longer be an option in the near future.

First before discounting that as a conspiracy and tossing it in the conspiracy bin, ask yourselves, who profits?

Why would Iraqis blow up their sacred mosques? Shiites and Sunnis have lived in the same neighbourhoods together for centuries, they intermarried. The divide that exists today did not exist before -- except between fundamental extremists. Certainly neither the Iraqis nor the so-called "legitimate" Iraqi government benefit when chaos and violence are the rule and not the exception. The strategy is to divide and conquer. The US occupation would have no chance whatsoever of continuing if Sunnis and Shiites were united.

Bush argues violence necessitates keeping the troops in Iraq and purports al Qaeda is to blame for the violence. Up until those pesky democrats started making noise about ending the occupation coupled with the public's dwindled support -- hovering around 19% -- references to fighting "terrorism" and "al Qaeda" in Iraq had been comparatively infrequent. Immediately thereafter al Qaeda became the term du jour -- "insurgency" is no longer scary enough.

So theretofore taking the aforesaid into consideration, in that context allegations of Negroponte having a hand in the attacks do not seem so far-fetched. Iam not saying positively that is the case, however, it makes sense out of the nonsense.

Meanwhile the violence continues.

The administration willingness to play with fire may not have taken into consideration the unintended consequences: When you play with fire you get burned. The risk is not only will it backfire it is bound to reverberate through out the Middle-East -- the entire world could be in peril.

The overall implications are difficult to accept, I agree. The Bush administration's penchant for consistently misleading and misinforming the public, fabricating stories and presenting rose-coloured even false information cost them their credibility. Remember healthy skepticism is not only appropriate, it is a necessity for survival.

Last but not least perhaps Fox may not have been that far off the mark after all; maybe it was a freudian slip; maybe a coincidence? We will probably never really know.

Guzmán said...

"We will probably never really know"

Well, hopefully Michael Kinsley is put in charge of Fox News somedya.