Now that we know that the Associated Press’ initial wire report on the Sunni mosques did in fact run in some publications, I think they shoud issue the following correction:
“In an initial wire story, we reported that Sunni residents claimed that four mosques in their neighborhood had been destroyed. A more accurate description of what happened is that the mosques were attacked, shot at and firebombed. Our initial reporting on this matter was based on conversations with Sunni residents. When we discussed the matter with Jamil Hussein (who does exist), he clarified that the mosques had been attacked, shot at and firebombed, but not destroyed.”
Does that work, guys? Would that make you happy?
Gavin adds: I just came in the door two seconds ago thinking I’d ask you to do a classic ‘Sadly, No!’ with all the trimmings on the no-publications thing. And then I’d do a ‘Gavin adds’ and be like, “Jeez, thanks a lot, dick. …Say, is this how we’ve been making those wingnuts feel all this time? We’re bad people.�
Thankfully, I don’t have to do that or engage in any self-reflection.
PS, To answer your question: Ha ha! No. Nothing short of teh total subjugation of the AP and all other mainstream news organizations would make them happy. It’s an old-school rustic mob with pitchforks, dude. The Jews media have been poisoning teh wells.
[Gav out]
UPDATE: Patterico writes:
P.S. The defense advanced by some of their commenters is that the story was accurate, and needs no correction, because Sunni residents did claim that Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques.
I agree that’s not a valid argument. Hiding behind “reisdents say” to report events is very sloppy. The AP should have done more reporting on the ground before putting out this initial piece
Now, let’s recap where we are in this story: it turns out that the mosques were actually attacked or firebombed, but not destroyed, and the AP should not have put out this initial wire saying they were destroyed. Additionally, they should have clarified why the initial wire report changed the word “destroyed” to the much more common “burned and blew up” that they later reported.
Recently, the A.P. reported that they revisited the four mosques and found that two had received fire damage. They could not confirm that the other two had received fire damage, and that they were under the control of Iraqi forces. Let’s take a look at those:
_ The third, the al-Muhaimin mosque, had shattered windows and holes in the roof, but a closer examination was impossible because the gate of the wall surrounding the structure was locked, the AP reporter found. It is closed, guarded by the Iraqi army and adorned by a picture of the late Shiite cleric father of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric who heads the Mahdi Army.
_ The fourth mosque named in the AP’s original report, the al-Qaqaqa mosque, also known as the al-Meshaheda mosque, has a broken window and is closed, guarded by Iraqi army troops outside and adorned with a picture of al-Sadr’s father. It also has Mahdi Army graffiti scrawled on its side, partially whitewashed over but still readable.
Now unless you think the A.P. is just flat-out lying about its firsthand accounts (and I’m sure you do, so this is kind of a moot point to make), you have to wonder why the picture of Sadr’s father is adorning these Sunni mosques. Even though the mosques are “still standing,” clearly Something Happened here; I tend to doubt that the Sunnis would hang up a picture of Sadr’s poppy on their own.
So the question becomes, What Exactly Happened here. Did Jamil Hussein and/or the Sunni neighbors exaggerate some of the details of their account to the A.P.? It’s certainly possible. But clearly these mosques were attacked by ethnic militias of some kind. I’d like to find out precisely what happened, and why pictures of Sadr’s dad are now adorning Sunni mosques that are under the control of the supposedly “non-sectarian” Iraqi security forces.
Gavin adds: Don’t let ’em suck you in, Brad. This is how they get you; it’s like Scientology.
Bradrocket adds: Too late!
Here’s a quote from the recent National Intelligence Estimate:
The Intelligence Community judges that the term “civil war� does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term “civil war� accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements.
Based on what I know, the story about the Sunni mosques seems to fall squarely in the “ethno-sectarian mobilization” and “population displacements” category. Again, Something Happened at these mosques. The details aren’t fully known, but you can bet they aren’t pretty.
