Al-Jazeera 'Out of Iraq'
- Thread starter Dave Baumann
- Start date
And that is the death nell for the Iraqi regime. Never bite the hand that feeds you.
(But the link I go to doesn't show that information that you've quoted)
(But the link I go to doesn't show that information that you've quoted)
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Actually, it makes complete sense.
Showing propaganda after bombing raids (real or staged) while you still "control" Baghdad is one thing. Trying to stage / show propaganda while Baghdad is being infiltrated by the coalition is another thing entirely.
Showing propaganda after bombing raids (real or staged) while you still "control" Baghdad is one thing. Trying to stage / show propaganda while Baghdad is being infiltrated by the coalition is another thing entirely.
Joe DeFuria said:
You might consider that the regime does not want to show any sort of elation on behalf of the Iraqi people as well. That wouldn't usher in a Jihad to quickly. When they show the people of Iraq shaking hands with the Americans, smiling at the troops, waving at the US and UK troops and the like it really is hard to demonize the coalition effort.
While Al Jeezera is Arab centric they would not try to fake the positive reaction of the people of Iraq as something other then that particularly while they know that Saddams days are numbered. There will be things uncovered in Iraq that the regime does not want the rest of the Arab nation to know about possibly.
Also lets hope that instead of Islam freaking out and declaring Jihad they take this with a little more ... rationality that their culture used to be known for. The fall of Saddams regime is a massive boon for the people of Iraq, the countries of the coalition and quite possibly the rest of the world.
EDIT: Iraq may be on the verg of using chemical weapons...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.aljazeera/index.html
Al-Jazeera suspends correspondents' work in Iraq
Wednesday, April 2, 2003 Posted: 6:22 PM EST (2322 GMT)
DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- The Arab-language news agency Al-Jazeera reported Wednesday it has suspended the work of all its correspondents in Iraq, after Iraqi officials banned at least one of its employees from reporting.
It said it will continue to broadcast video from some areas of the country.
A statement read by an Al-Jazeera news anchor said: "The Iraqi Information Ministry told Al-Jazeera office in Baghdad its decision to ban Diar al-Omari, Al-Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, from practicing his journalistic duties."
"The decision also included that Tayseer Allouni should leave Iraq as soon as possible. The ministry did not provide any reasons for that decision. Al-Jazeera network is sorry for this unpredictable and unreasonable decision by the ministry," the statement continued.
"Therefore, the network decided to freeze, until further notice, the work of all of its correspondents in Iraq. However, it will continue to air live and recorded images provided by its offices from Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul."
Al-Jazeera suspends correspondents' work in Iraq
Wednesday, April 2, 2003 Posted: 6:22 PM EST (2322 GMT)
DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- The Arab-language news agency Al-Jazeera reported Wednesday it has suspended the work of all its correspondents in Iraq, after Iraqi officials banned at least one of its employees from reporting.
It said it will continue to broadcast video from some areas of the country.
A statement read by an Al-Jazeera news anchor said: "The Iraqi Information Ministry told Al-Jazeera office in Baghdad its decision to ban Diar al-Omari, Al-Jazeera's Baghdad correspondent, from practicing his journalistic duties."
"The decision also included that Tayseer Allouni should leave Iraq as soon as possible. The ministry did not provide any reasons for that decision. Al-Jazeera network is sorry for this unpredictable and unreasonable decision by the ministry," the statement continued.
"Therefore, the network decided to freeze, until further notice, the work of all of its correspondents in Iraq. However, it will continue to air live and recorded images provided by its offices from Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul."
This was a smart move on Iraq's part as Al Jazeera has been more damaging than good and it can only get worse as troops encircle Baghdad.
They obtained those videos of Iraqi military parading around coalition soldier corpses, even picking up one with obvious point-blank, execution-style head shot wounds and smiling.. all while Iraqi's information ministry has been trying to fight the facts by stating they are treating POWs humanely by the terms of the Geneva convention... not to mention our recovery of a POW 19 year old girl who has two broken legs and a broken arm...
They have been on the spot of Iraq's media blitz of "civilian casualties" and have mistakenly swung the camera around off the dead women and children to point at the buildings destroyed.. without any sign of a missile impact crater or missile debris. The only damages they have shown on Live TV are impacts symptomatic of SAM/shoulder RPG blasts with small shrapnel to match. This was followed up by the removal of key Iraq air defense generals.
Now there are coalition forces instigating attacks on Baghdad in the days that follow. How can Iraq possibly plan to create a misinformation campaign when Al Jazeera has been there to foil their best efforts every single time to date? It's obviously not their intention but it's obvious the planning between Al Jazeera and Iraq has been very poor and some extremely telling video and photos have been publicized so far.
They obtained those videos of Iraqi military parading around coalition soldier corpses, even picking up one with obvious point-blank, execution-style head shot wounds and smiling.. all while Iraqi's information ministry has been trying to fight the facts by stating they are treating POWs humanely by the terms of the Geneva convention... not to mention our recovery of a POW 19 year old girl who has two broken legs and a broken arm...
They have been on the spot of Iraq's media blitz of "civilian casualties" and have mistakenly swung the camera around off the dead women and children to point at the buildings destroyed.. without any sign of a missile impact crater or missile debris. The only damages they have shown on Live TV are impacts symptomatic of SAM/shoulder RPG blasts with small shrapnel to match. This was followed up by the removal of key Iraq air defense generals.
Now there are coalition forces instigating attacks on Baghdad in the days that follow. How can Iraq possibly plan to create a misinformation campaign when Al Jazeera has been there to foil their best efforts every single time to date? It's obviously not their intention but it's obvious the planning between Al Jazeera and Iraq has been very poor and some extremely telling video and photos have been publicized so far.
One more link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2911935.stm
I hope it doesnt mean Bagdhad will be bloody.
I hope it doesnt mean Bagdhad will be bloody.
If they thought Baghdad was going to be bloody, they would definately keep Al Jazeera broadcasting for their media hype machine.
If anything, this just suggests more cowardly antics that would enrage the Arab world, much like their militarization of important sacred locations much like the Iraqi forces that have hauled up in mosques elsewhere, as well as "human shield" operations of using schools and hospitals to conduct assaults from.
If anything, this just suggests more cowardly antics that would enrage the Arab world, much like their militarization of important sacred locations much like the Iraqi forces that have hauled up in mosques elsewhere, as well as "human shield" operations of using schools and hospitals to conduct assaults from.
Its pretty obvious if you guys ever read al jazeera when its english web site was online. They were as much critical of saddams regime as of the US. Al jazeera has more balls than anyone in the industry right now in refusing to kow tow to anyone on this issue. I respect them a lot for it even though they like the sensational picts as much as the next news outfit.
Indeed... They've pretty much pissed off every government in the Middle East and vicinity for the past 6 years... I thought it was pretty funny with Hosni Mubarak's comment about the US outrage of Al-Jazeera rebroadcasting Iraqi footage was "Heh, get in line..."
Including their sponsers. Which is interesting since they're not longer under the sponsorship of the Emir of Qatar, they barely get by because they lose commercial sponsors left and right because even they aren't safe from Al-Jazeera's scrutiny...
Including their sponsers. Which is interesting since they're not longer under the sponsorship of the Emir of Qatar, they barely get by because they lose commercial sponsors left and right because even they aren't safe from Al-Jazeera's scrutiny...
I hate the US? Ah the cowards way out of an argument. Not that we were having one really. You should have waiterd for serious arguments. I dont hate the US. One of my best friends is a corporal in the marine corps. I have family and friends in ohia and california...
I think they should be as critical of the only superpower in the world as a small tin pot dictator. For different reasons but the US needs scrutiny and a lot of it. Both need a lot of scrutiny and Iraq hasnt been left out by al jazeera.
I think they should be as critical of the only superpower in the world as a small tin pot dictator. For different reasons but the US needs scrutiny and a lot of it. Both need a lot of scrutiny and Iraq hasnt been left out by al jazeera.
horvendile
Regular
With the risk of repeating what others have stated, most regimes in middle east can't stand Al Jazeera. For a long time, they have debated questions of political freedom in a way that most non-democracies disapprove of, and I gather that they are very popular. I'm not at all surprised that Iraq has thrown them out; they definitely can't be relied on to just broadcast the regime's propaganda.
pax said:
You're ignoring, of course, the benefit of the U.S. being the only superpower in the world: we don't have more decades of living in fear of mutual world destruction through WMD warfare. I don't have a problem with saying "knock that shit off or we'll smack you" to other countries who might want to become superpowers themselves to challenge the U.S. and plunge the world into another cold war, or worse, use the weapons through terrorist attacks. Nor do I have a problem with actually smacking them when they don't heed the warning.
What alternative do you propose, allow every country to become a super power? Or make the U.S. disarm to the point that we're not a super power anymore, opening the door for someone like Saddam to become the strongest force in the world?
The biggest issue I can see is the rest of the world asking "who gave the U.S. the right to decide which countries should be smacked or not". Well, so far the U.S. hasn't decided who; the U.N. decided it years ago when they told Saddam to get rid of his WMDs and he played opossum. Everyone knows Saddam deserves to be smacked, they're just afraid the U.S. is going to smack someone who doesn't deserve it, and I don't particularly see any reason for that kind of paranoid line of reasoning. Does the U.S. need to be watched to make sure it doesn't run rampant? Of course. Does that justify all the crap being flung at us for this war? Not even close.
Oh for gods sake im not ignoring the good the US has done... Is it absolutely necessary to kiss the us or its govs ass every time we in the left so much as offer a hint of criticism in order to 'balance things out' for people who are insecure about their own nations moral standing? Am I saying there should be an alternative to the US?... Im just asking for some scrutiny for gods sake is that too much to ask?
Am I saying Saddam and 50 OTHER TIN POT DICTATORS like the brutal one in Myanmar shouldnt be removed of power? NO I only posted that THOSE dictators who have WMDS are too dangerous to be taken on militarily. It is simply criminaly negligent of Bush and his advisors to have pushed for this war knowing the risks it entailed. This war wont be over for a long time after Saddam is 'gone'. We'll possibly never know for sure what he actually deved in his bio program over the last 20 years. Im hoping interviews with all of Iraq's scientists will lead to a full accounting and soon... but then imagine this: we talk to all his scientists. They admit to having genetically modifed and created a terrible strain of small pox. Hundreds of pounds of the stuff weaponized and its nowhere to be found. Only a few had the knowledge and control over it. Now its either buried in a secret bunker or Saddam gave it to terrorists before he went underground with his boys...
I wonder if he'll dissapear like Bin Laden now. And I bet we take Baghdad with only some modest street to street fighting... a taste of whats to come after the Iraqis get tired of the occupation in a few years time.
So ya I think the US should take some crap for this war. If the risks were only for the US id say your right. But who knows where that bio\chem attack will happen... if it happens... If Europe is attacked with bio\chems by pro al quaeda forces to get them onboard the US military campaign, as Bin Laden so dreamed of, the US will be hated a lot more than you are now trust me.
Al Quaeda wants more than anything as many attacks on the muslim world by western forces as possible. Its the only way a muslim world war might be galvanized and could bring al quaedas twisted wahabi dream of a united muslim world bent on world conquest to life.
Am I saying Saddam and 50 OTHER TIN POT DICTATORS like the brutal one in Myanmar shouldnt be removed of power? NO I only posted that THOSE dictators who have WMDS are too dangerous to be taken on militarily. It is simply criminaly negligent of Bush and his advisors to have pushed for this war knowing the risks it entailed. This war wont be over for a long time after Saddam is 'gone'. We'll possibly never know for sure what he actually deved in his bio program over the last 20 years. Im hoping interviews with all of Iraq's scientists will lead to a full accounting and soon... but then imagine this: we talk to all his scientists. They admit to having genetically modifed and created a terrible strain of small pox. Hundreds of pounds of the stuff weaponized and its nowhere to be found. Only a few had the knowledge and control over it. Now its either buried in a secret bunker or Saddam gave it to terrorists before he went underground with his boys...
I wonder if he'll dissapear like Bin Laden now. And I bet we take Baghdad with only some modest street to street fighting... a taste of whats to come after the Iraqis get tired of the occupation in a few years time.
So ya I think the US should take some crap for this war. If the risks were only for the US id say your right. But who knows where that bio\chem attack will happen... if it happens... If Europe is attacked with bio\chems by pro al quaeda forces to get them onboard the US military campaign, as Bin Laden so dreamed of, the US will be hated a lot more than you are now trust me.
Al Quaeda wants more than anything as many attacks on the muslim world by western forces as possible. Its the only way a muslim world war might be galvanized and could bring al quaedas twisted wahabi dream of a united muslim world bent on world conquest to life.
Lezmaka said:
No one knows is the problem. No one could guarantee this wouldnt happen. We know saddam had a long lived bio\chems program. We know Al Quaeda's program is to ultimately see some form of islam rule the world. We know Bin Laden wanted attacks of the west on Mulsim countries to help galvanize its unity against the west. Its the reason 9\11 happened.
We know so much yet we go head with war in Iraq. And now possibly with war in Syria and Iran (tho Jack Straw went to the BBC to say brits would not be involved in that and they dont believe the US will do that in the end, but still some serious declarations were made...)
The risks were known by State dept and CIA last fall in their assessments to congress about possible repercussions of war in Iraq. Bush decided to forge ahead anyway... now we have to live with whatever may happen. Tho at this a clash of civilisations is far from the picture... it may not be if war expands to Syria and Iran...