Many Americans can’t face reality because the media hides real faces (taken from american street blog)

The Times article is titled: Iraq Incident Was Fueled by Whiskey, G.I. Says
Now it’s common for a nation’s leader and its generals to demonize an enemy, and to use reptilian and other subhuman references, to propagandize the public into believing war is not mass murder, especially at the front end of a war. Media outlets typically carry such messages to the public early on, as well. That they abandon journalistic integrity at all is sad, but it’s completely predictable, in each and every war. And that’s why so many Americans still believe the WMD misinformation and outright lies.
Yet along the way, as long wars unfold, better reporting usually takes root. Our war on Iraq has every possible element necessary for any credible journalist or media publication to abandon propaganda campaigns and pursue the truth. Consider these facts:
Before the war began, UN inspectors and other analysts indicated the missing stocks of chemical weapons from the first Gulf War would have degraded to an unusable state.
The UN’s nuclear inspection arm indicated before the war that no evidence existed - based on fresh inspections - that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
The UN’s inspection team found no fresh evidence of any WMDs in Iraq and sought an extension of a few months to track every remaining lead to make their WMD determination absolute.
From the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame fiasco, the Downing Street memos and other sources, much evidence has emerged to indicate the Bush administration used distorted intelligence and outright lies to make a case for war, that they planned to attack Iraq from the first month after Bush took office no matter what Saddam did, and they’ve actively covered up their actions throughout.
The stated goal of the war - regime change - was achieved by May 2003 as Saddam’s government was completely dismantled and he was in hiding, and was solidified with his capture in December 2003. The subsequent goal of a democratically elected replacement government was completed late last year
Instead of withdrawal, however, we’re still sending more troops to try to disrupt an active civil war, while most of the Bush administration and its apologist generals evade calling it what it is.
The media has, at least, started asking more questions and reporting these facts, though US media has noticeably lagged the rest of the world in reporting these truths. Today’s article in the New York Times, however, has fallen back into its habit of acting as a propaganda disseminator instead of fulfilling any responsibility as a news publication.
In this hearing, several military troops stand accused of raping a 14 year old Iraqi girl, then murdering her, her younger sister and their parents. Then burning the corpses and residence to try and coverup their other crimes.
The media was subsequently taken to task for calling the 14 year old a woman. But today’s article is even worse, for now its title highlights a soldier’s defense without even noting that it’s not a defense at all. And it goes downhill from there.
The title refers to the multiple crimes as an ‘Incident’. A gangrape and multiple murders, followed by a coverup is much more than ‘an incident.’ These are capital offenses and war crimes.
Though the title carries the claim that alcohol inspired the crimes, it overlooks the initial reports, in which relatives of the murdered family indicated the family had noticed the daughter drawing unwanted attention from US troops prior to the day of these heinous crimes. The article notes that they went from playing cards to hitting golf balls after the drinlking concluded, so that suggests they weren’t wildly inebriated on a drunken tear when the crimes were committed.
It further reported that one private repeatedly egged on the others to go kill some Iraqis. Which suggests the others were sufficiently lucid to not agree initially.
But the Times’ worst offense in this article was to fall back to the propaganda tactic of dehumanizing the non-Americans. Note that there remains to this day no evidence that any Iraqi was an active threat to or enemy of the US. No evidence exists that the murdered family was active in the resistance to the US occupation of their country. So by any measure, there’s not even good cause to dehumanize this family, as none have even alleged they were enemies of the US or our troops in Iraq.
They didn’t even grant the victims the dignity of having names.
The girl who was raped and murdered was Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi. Submitting to the desire to rape her seems to have led to every subsequent crime.
These crimes were committed several months ago. Has any media outlet explored the questions that should arise in the minds of civilized, law-respecting people? Such as:
Is the desire to rape a 14 year old girl common in men? Or the desire to gangrape? Is the desire more likely to occur in wartime to men experienced in combat? Are the vast majority of men - in peacetime or wartime - not raping because they suppress those desires? Or do they simply not have those desires at all?
I think it’s important to know these answers. I don’t think I’m alone in wondering these things. The desire to rape is foreign to me, but I sometimes wonder if I’m the aberration or the norm. I think society becomes better equipped to dissuade, prevent and prosecute such crimes, by knowing these answers.
But, setting that point aside, I think it most vital that our media stop dehumanizing murder and rape victims who were innocent victims of what I’d characterize as monstrous crimes.
The perpetrators deserve punishment and to be forgotten. The story is not really about them, but about Abeer Qasim Hamza al-Janabi and her family and the awful things done to them by criminals.
And the New York Times continues to fail to report these important facts. Because it’s easier for us to remain non-commital, numb and unsympathetic, when the crimes are done to nameless, faceless people.