I missed this story over the Thanksgiving break, but I did hear something about the alleged burning of six Iraqis at a mosque during that time. I remember thinking about what utter evil must be inside someone to burn another living being alive and wondering why Iraqis don’t rise up en masse to rid their nation of these types of killers. Now it doesn’t really matter as the story appears to have been a fabrication trumped up and sold (figuratively) to the Associated Press for mass distribution.

The story evolves around the story-telling of one Jamil Hussein. Who is Jamil Hussein you ask? He’s not, according to the Multinational Forces Iraq, a Baghdad police officer as the AP claims or a member of the MOI. Hussein claimed to be an eye witness to such a horrific event, an event the MNF-I cannot confirm every happend. In fact, the MNf-I asked people within the area and no one else said this event happened. Maybe Stephen Glass knows who Jamil Hussein is?

While this is troubling, so too is the Associated Press’ reaction to a Pentagon request at a complete retraction of the story (via Gateway Pundit).

The Associated Press denounces unfounded attacks on its story about six Sunni worshipers burned to death outside their mosque on Friday, November 24. The attempt to question the existence of the known police officer who spoke to the AP is frankly ludicrous and hints at a certain level of desperation to dispute or suppress the facts of the incident in question.

But Jamil Hussein is not a police officer. He’s not a member of the MOI. Who, frankly, is he?

The attacks upon the AP story are because people doubt the reported event ever took place, confirmed by no witnesses coming forth to back up the AP’s assertion. If an event like this took place, would not even one Iraqi newspaper of the hundreds that sprung up following the fall of Saddam report upon the event? You would think so, but apparently that hasn’t happened either.

The AP feels there is a “desperation to dispute or suppress the facts of the incident,” but they reiterate a falsehood in their complaint. It is the AP that sounds desperate and doesn’t seem to have all their eggs in one basket. If the event had occured but Jamil Hussein was a member of whichever terrorist group carried out the attack, thus tricking the AP reporter which would be understandable, why wouldn’t the AP respond Jamil Hussein was most likely a terrorist plant but they had confirmed the story elsewhere?

It is odd that the easiest part of the story to prove false is the one the AP is sticking behind most. It sounds like some company needs a better PR team, but I’m not applying as I wouldn’t want to explain why my employer passes of the enemies message as truth. Of course they also wouldn’t hire me because I consider Islamism the wrong side of the conflict.

Flopping Aces linked with Getting The News From The Enemy, Update IV...
A Blog For All linked with Blind Mice...