Thursday, March 30, 2006
If It Quacks Like A Death Squad . . .
Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry which reads as follows:
"Iraqi gunmen attacked a Bagdhad business, some dressed in police uniforms, lining up and shooting 14 employees, killing eight. It was the third such attack in as many days made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad. Elsewhere, attacks killed 26 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers."
No more information on this story is provided.
What does "made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad" mean? Does it mean it looked like a government death squad because it was a government death squad, or does it mean it looked like a government death squad but it wasn't a government death squad? Or is it just unclear whether or not it was a government death squad?
If it was a government death squad, then just write "An Iraqi government death squad attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."
If it wasn't a government death squad, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, posing as an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."
If it's not clear, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, possibly an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."
Perhaps I should have started this article by saying "Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry, made to read like deliberate government disinformation, . . ."
Because it would seem that someone wants us to believe what looks like an Iraqi government death squad may very well be someone trying to frame the Iraqi government. Now, who would go to all that trouble other than the US government? Really, who has a more extensive track record of telling the US public to ignore the obvious?
So I guess my only real question is, did the Wall Street Journal simply not realize that they were writing a confusing entry, or did it simply parrot a press release from the US military in Iraq without question? Is this incompetence or complicity?
"Iraqi gunmen attacked a Bagdhad business, some dressed in police uniforms, lining up and shooting 14 employees, killing eight. It was the third such attack in as many days made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad. Elsewhere, attacks killed 26 Iraqis and two U.S. soldiers."
No more information on this story is provided.
What does "made to look like the handiwork of a government death squad" mean? Does it mean it looked like a government death squad because it was a government death squad, or does it mean it looked like a government death squad but it wasn't a government death squad? Or is it just unclear whether or not it was a government death squad?
If it was a government death squad, then just write "An Iraqi government death squad attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."
If it wasn't a government death squad, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, posing as an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."
If it's not clear, then just write "Iraqi gunmen, possibly an Iraqi government death squad, attacked a Bagdhad business . . ."
Perhaps I should have started this article by saying "Today's Wall Street Journal has a brief front page entry, made to read like deliberate government disinformation, . . ."
Because it would seem that someone wants us to believe what looks like an Iraqi government death squad may very well be someone trying to frame the Iraqi government. Now, who would go to all that trouble other than the US government? Really, who has a more extensive track record of telling the US public to ignore the obvious?
So I guess my only real question is, did the Wall Street Journal simply not realize that they were writing a confusing entry, or did it simply parrot a press release from the US military in Iraq without question? Is this incompetence or complicity?
