Tens of Thousands March in Baghdad

Great Debates
101

NONSENSE. I don’t know where you learned your estimation skills, but you need to work on them.

Here, let me help. Look at This Link. Look at the third picture down. In the foreground is about 500 people. But the crowd continues off into the distance. See those white banners showing near the top of the frame? Here’s a close-in picture of that area: Close-up view of crowd. There are about 100 people in that picture, and you can see three of those white banners. Now look at that first picture again, and you can see that there are dozens of those banners in the distance.

There are several thousand people in that frame alone, and it’s fairly narrow angle. It covers maybe 30% of the road that rings around the square in the center, and it’s only a single snapshot in time. That demonstration went on for hours. People started at one area and marched to that square. So that picture only represents a smaller percentage of the total number of people that passed through just that section of road, which was only one portion of the area that the demonstration occured in.

Plus, there were simultaneous marches in every major Iraq city other than Mosul and Tikrit.

A few hundred people, my ass.

102

And for proof that the demonstration was far larger than that one picture indicates, have a look at this photo: Part of the crowd.

Notice that those three buildings are not visible in the first picture I linked to in the last message. So this is a different crowd altogether.

It’s hard to estimate the size of that crowd because the photo is at ground level so you can’t see how deep it is. But it is clearly several hundred people, and if it’s even three or four levels deep (it sure looks like it, since they’re all facing the buildings as if to hear someone speaking), then there’s well over a thousand people just in this photo alone.

103

With december gone, somebody has to take up the chant of “Why do liberals hate America?” Looks like we have a volunteer.

104

Ok, so the ruling government managed to get a few thousand to demonstrate “against terrorism” which is not even directly in support of the government or the US. I still believe that is not representative of the country. When you see the aftermath of an attack you see Iraqis cheering in spite of the danger. That is a more accurate random sampling as the bystanders are not chosen. The fact is that Iraq is unsafe, that the roads are unsafe and that the US forces cannot do anything about it. The report concerning the death of the Spanish guys said that road was unsafe and any vehicle occupied by foreigners would and could have been targeted. When they were attacked the shootout lasted for almost an hour and gave one of them the chance to get away. For an hour they were in a firefight and could get no help. Once they were killed the Iraqi bystanders came out to kick the bodies and drag them around. That is how the majority of Iraqis feel. And when they demonstrate against the USA they do it with full knowledge that they can be jailed or shot and yet they do it anyway.

I know I am not going to convince you but time will show who is right.

105

Oh, look: Another completely content-free post from Elvis. What a surprise.

Do me a favor please, and provide a freaking CITE for anywhere in this thread that I mentioned Liberals hating America. Or any other active thread, for that matter.

And next time you want to post another of your tedious little content-free cheap shots, have the grace to do it in the pit.

106

Well allow me to fish into the archives and take a comment by Sam Stone talking about anti-war marches:

Old Thread

Its seems to be like the Freedom Fighters vs Terrorists "differentiation.... US protestors are "left that has always been big on public protests" and the Iraqi Protestors are "independent individual like us".  

The list you presented seemed a bit skewed to the left actually... but suddenly its a "good" left... :rolleyes:
107

… maybe you should have given more credit to those US protestors against the War ?

108

To be fair, US media is charting unknown waters in Iraq and doesn’t capture anything that differs from stereotypes familiar to them. May be that’s why the most informative coverage in this case was provided by Al-Jazeera, which must understand the local dynamic much better.

As to US media looking for stereotypes and missing large chunk of the picture in Iraq, well, apparently journalism is just another business. Every business is based on doing things the standard way, without retooling or innovating as long as possible, all to generate larger profits. No business executive bursts into office every morning, shouting, “Let’s change everything!” Businesses change their ways only when their profits are threatened.

109

This is nothing but brazen bluffing on your part. I am arguing on the basis of recent example. Fact, the demonstration took place. Fact, it was mostly ignored by major media. Can you provide an example of similar size demonstration with clear anti-US message, that was mostly ignored by major media? If you can, we will be on an equal ground. If you can’t, you are faking it.

110

I guess I’ll be one of the few liberals to agree with Sam that this is a wonderful thing, regardless of exactly how many people marched, who did or didn’t report it, etc. There may well be perfectly legitimate reasons for not reporting it right off the bat, or there may be some vast liberal conspiracy (personally I think the bias is towards shitty reporting), but I can’t speak to that.

I don’t expect Rashak Mani’s ilk to ever agree with me, but I for one find encouraging that despite their differences, of which they have no shortage, they’re coming together to demand an end to terrorism, and to support a pluralistic democracy. As a liberal, this thrills me, and the reaction of many people to the demonstrations leads me to think that they’ll either never recognize positive change, or that they’re hoping for a different end altogether. In any case, I think this flies in the face of anyone who says Iraqis are incapable of participating in the democratic process.

Iraqis don’t have to love the US or throw flowers on our soldiers in order for democracy to flourish, which ultimately is in everyone’s best interest. Ours included.

111

You’re right. This crowd is more representative of Baghdad, which is in the *worst part of the country. Out in North and South there is even more support for the U.S.

Go listen to non-reporters who have actually been in Iraq, and they ALL say that the situation on the ground is far bettter than what we’re hearing from the media. That includes a number of Democratic congressmen.

Here’s one problem the press always seems to have: It congregates in one spot where all its support gear is, and/or where it’s most secure. This happens to be the al-Rashid hotel in Baghdad, which is ‘press central’. This then acts as a magnet for malcontents and becomes an area of active subversion as the enemy intentionally stages phony rallies or sets up for photo-ops. Saddam’s regime was pretty good at propaganda - they’re not amateurs. They know how to work the media. They did it before the war where Saddam walked through the streets amid his cheering throngs - all staged.

So the media gets spoonfed a lot of bullshit, and it’s not always easy to see beyond that, or to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Over time, they develop their ‘viewpoint’ - the ‘story’ around which they must fit their observations. If they come to believe tha the ‘story’ is that Iraq is falling apart, then their reports are going to report the facts that reinforce that belief, and ignore the ones that don’t.

The same happens with all media coverage. For instance, if the media decides that the ‘story’ on a president is that he’s dumb, or a womanizer, or a liar, or whatever, they’ll report every single incident that reinforces that, and ignore the ones that don’t. So, if Dan Quayle made a gaffe, it was front page news. If he did something that showed a lot of intelligence, well, who cares?

The same thing happened to Clinton, Carter, Reagan… It’s the way the business works. (for the record, Carter was a ‘wimp’. That was the label pegged to him. Ford was Clumsy. Clinton was a womanizer and ‘slick’. Reagan was senile). All of those characterizations were grossly simplistic, and in some cases dead wrong.

Same with Iraq. And don’t forget - the major media outlets also had a long presense in Iraq before the war, where they were constantly spun by Saddam’s Intelligence. So their objectivity is in question.

112

As I noted at the start: is there really ANYONE here who doesn’t think that it’s a wonderful thing that people would stand up against terrorism and for the U.S.'s liberation and rebuilding effort? Is that really the alternative subject for debate?

I can agree with those who think that the case for the war itself, from an American security perspective, was not especially compelling in the sense of immediate urgency that it was presented, and was not in our best interests. But I don’t see how anyone can seriously maintain that it was not in the best interests of the Iraqi people (which is not to get into the argument about whether there were even better ways to do it: all I’m saying is that this was better than Saddam’s regime staying in power).

113

Now do be careful… its one easy thing for people to “unify” AGAINST things… especially bloody affairs like bombings. Its another thing for people to sit down and negotiate and AGREE on things. So yes its a good first step for democracy… but hardly a major one. My experience is that public demonstrations of discontent are way much easier and fun than really participating in democracy constructively.

The protestors also didn’t seem in favor of the US presence… nice try Apos.

I still find how "conservatives" view protests in the US vs Iraq differently very curious.
114 
My specific problem is that it was worse for the creation of an international community and order... "saving" the Iraqi people is too high a price to pay for the increased terrorism and world divide. These might cost us in the long term way more than petty dictators like Saddam.
115

That does not match my perception. I have not seen news of any “phony rallies” in front of the al-Rashid hotel. Do you have any links we can see? And how exactly is a rally “fake” and another one “real”? Suppose a few thousand people actually did demonstrate in front of the al-Rashid hotel, what exactly makes it a fake?

I have seen plenty of news of what’s going on in Iraq. I have seen footage of Iraqis cheering after attacks. Those were random places and random Iraqis. I have seen footage of raids by US forces. Nowhere do I see random Iraqis cheering. My impression is that most Iraqis hate the US occupation and the fact that a few thousand of them demonstrated “against terrorism” (not for the US) does not change that.

Iraq is unsafe. The streets and roads are unsafe. US forces are not capable of keeping law and order in the country. They are holed up in a compound which itself has come under attack and every time a vehicle or two go out on their own they are risking being attacked. That’s my impression.

116

**Now do be careful… its one easy thing for people to “unify” AGAINST things… especially bloody affairs like bombings. Its another thing for people to sit down and negotiate and AGREE on things. So yes its a good first step for democracy… but hardly a major one. My experience is that public demonstrations of discontent are way much easier and fun than really participating in democracy constructively.
**

No, it’s not necessarily support for the US.

But it does show that Iraqis have no love for the resistance.

My specific problem is that it was worse for the creation of an international community and order… “saving” the Iraqi people is too high a price to pay for the increased terrorism and world divide. These might cost us in the long term way more than petty dictators like Saddam.

Henry Kissinger, is that you?

117

Here’s the other part of the OP that I believe was cited multiple times to demonstrate that Sam clearly intended to convey a liberal conspiracy/bias:

**I just want to get this straight. Sam is obviously implying a liberal bias, since we all know that liberals support terrorism and the insurgents, and liberals are opposed to a successful reconstruction and the U.S. in general. Is that really your position? Do you really mean that Sam’s comments can only imply a liberal bias, since to the casual reader that’s what liberals oppose and support? “What other conclusion are we to draw,” indeed. You must have a very high opinion of your political beliefs.

Let’s see if what follows is more, “But we all know what he really believes” fluff.

118

I offer a counter-conjecture, formerly Bob. A scene at the Vatican recently has thousands upon thousands of demonstrators. Sam’s headline reads “Tens of thousands of Italians rally in support of the Pope and US policy in Iraq.”

The demonstrators concern with “anti-terror” is supportable and clear. But to then insist that this is precisely the same as supporting US policy in Iraq is not. Hence my previous question: where are the gigantic portraits of GeeDubya garlanded with flowers? Where are the thousands chanting “Boy, do we love the Americans!”

Sam’s quotes, offered above and cited by you, as much as states that the “reason” the demonstration was not widely covered by “the media” was “Maybe because it was a march against Terrorism and in support of Reconstruction and the United States.” Perhaps there is another interpretation of that remark, one that does not imply that the lack of coverage was politically motivated. What the might be eludes me.

119

If what you said was true, that, “Everybody knows that if instead of “No to terrorism” signs there were “No to US occupation” signs carried around, all the major networks would pick it up right away,” then this thread would be so much shorter. Since there’s this level and quantity of debate it’s patently false. If we all knew it, there would be no debate.
Are you positing that one side of the debate is enagaged in disingenuos posting practices?

120

Gee, sounds fantastic. Can’t wait for the tourist industry to get started. Oh, wait, here’s a couple of Republican congressmen who just came back from Iraq after not seeing the sights that the military wanted them to see, and they criticized Bush for not having a post-war plan.

What the dickens are you talking about? The most interesting reporting going on right now involves jouralists interviewing those people who claim to be behind all those roadside bombings. These “killers” aren’t exactly waltzing into the Green Zone, putting on their headscarves, and sitting around the hotel lobby giving interviews about how they intend to kill our boys.

And before you pass any more judgments on the integrity of the journalists working in Iraq, read an account of a member of the lazy, liberal print media who saved the lives of four soldiers and lost a hand in the process. If that guy had stripes on his shoulder, he’d be getting a medal.

You make a good point, but you overplay your hand. There are lousy members of the media who just aren’t worth listening to – and I’m not just talking about Geraldo-type folks. But, amazingly enough, one can find a general correlation between reputable news sources and good journalism. Shocking, isn’t it!

In a little bit of irony, I post a link to a World Net Daily article about NY Times reporter John Burns about same subject. Link.

Bottom line: if you really want the media to share more feel-good stories, you’re generally going to wind up with complete dreck. Note that trend with “family friendly” evening newscasts in some parts of the USA where reporters get sent out to cover important events like the Fluffy Duck and Cute Bunny Expo down at the convention center because the stations want to share happy news with their viewers. I, for one, have no interest in reading about the Flower Convention being planned for Basra while fellow Americans are getting shot at.

This story about the demonstrations has had its day in the sun. Build a bridge and get over it.