Overval mislukt: Amerikanen doden 46, vangen 8 in Irak

[McCaine]

Gauloises schreef op 03-12-2003 @ 01:33:
Natuurlijk wel, alleen hebben die lang niet zo'n connecties als Al-Jazeera in het midden oosten.

Dat maakt ze juist zoveel objectiever.

US officials zijn geen neutrale bron, meestal is dat het hoofdkwatier in Irak, absoluut ongeloofwaardig in mijn ogen, die doen alles voor propaganda.

Oh, dat ben ik met je eens. Maar rapporteren "persoon X heeft Y gezegd" is verder niet hetzelfde als rapporteren "Y is waar".

Trouwens lijkt het me sterk dat als je met een tank gaat schieten in een woonwijk dat je dan toevallig alleen 45 terroristen dood en verder niemand. Ik vind het verhaal van Al-Jazeera veel geloofwaardiger dat er ook flink burger slachtoffers onder zaten

Al-Jazeera zanikt dusdanig over Joden en kruisvaarders en God weet wat nog meer dat ik geen zin heb het serieus te nemen. Kom nou, laten ze eerst eens een cursusje sociale verhoudingen doen.

[Irakees]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec3.html



Why Al-Arabiya Was Restricted

By Jalal Talabani

Thursday, December 4, 2003; Page A35

BAGHDAD -- On Nov. 23, I took an important step in protecting the fledgling democracy we are nurturing in Iraq. On behalf of Iraq's Governing Council, I temporarily banned the Arab satellite channel al-Arabiya from using satellite uplink facilities to transmit news reports from its Baghdad bureau.

Since then I have heard a hundred variants on this question: "How can you claim to be promoting democracy while stifling a free press?"

The answer is quite simple.

We are not acting against legitimate and objective journalistic activities. We are taking steps to prevent psychological warfare and, more serious, incitement to murder. No country would do less.

Further, while we have banned the station from broadcasting footage from Baghdad, we have not stopped it from continuing to gather news in Iraq.

What sparked this action?

Al-Arabiya's conscious decision to break Iraqi law and the breaking of its own solemn promise not to promote violence in our country.

On Nov. 16 al-Arabiya broadcast what it claimed was an audio tape by Saddam Hussein. Hussein's horrible legacy, including responsibility for the needless deaths of millions of my countrymen, torture, executions and the virtual destruction of Iraq's economy, is well known.

And what did he say?

He called for the extermination of the Governing Council and of the coalition forces that liberated us and are now helping us reconstruct our country.

Hussein is a fugitive from justice, wanted for crimes of genocide. Yet al-Arabiya sees fit to allow him an open microphone to broadcast his calls for terrorism. Some may ask: Didn't other media report on the same tape? Yes, other media -- including Arab satellite channels -- did report on the tape. But al-Arabiya aired the tape in its entirety, a full 17 minutes, while others broadcast only excerpts. And it was al-Arabiya that made the initial choice to air the tape; the rest of the media only followed.

Hussein is seeking to stoke fear among Iraqis who embrace a democratic future. He calls for the murder of my colleagues in the Governing Council, people who are committed to a future democratic Iraq respectful of human rights. He wants coalition forces slaughtered because they dared depose him. More ominously, he attempts to incite violence in the name of religion, calling for "jihad" and thus encouraging al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to carry out suicide attacks against our friends in the Red Cross, the United Nations and among our coalition allies.

That is not journalism; that is aiding, abetting and encouraging criminal terrorist activity.

We, in turn, are exercising one of the few prerogatives we have: denying al-Arabiya use of our airwaves to broadcast reports from Baghdad. It is a measured, modest step -- one that can be reversed if al-Arabiya assures us it will no longer engage in actions that incite violence and terrorism.

We have repeatedly warned al-Arabiya that in our judgment the station was engaging in provocative, irresponsible journalism.

We heard promises of better behavior. I have even seen a letter from Waleed bin Ibrahim al-Ibrahim, chairman of al-Arabiya, claiming: "We do not broadcast any material that gives platform to any group or party, or that we consider pure propaganda for one certain party, or that we are not sure about its authenticity, or material which the viewer will consider pure propaganda for one certain party of any issue."

How does broadcasting vitriol and threats from the head of the Baath Party, Hussein, qualify as anything but "pure propaganda for one certain party?" If his utterances are not propaganda, what are they?

Al-Ibrahim goes on to claim that all editorial staff of al-Arabiya have been instructed "not to broadcast any material that incite[s] violence in any form . . . or propagates . . . what we think [are] terrorist organizations."

Clearly, this tape incites violence. Furthermore, does al-Arabiya wish to argue that Hussein's regime and his loyalists do not constitute a "terrorist organization"?

Al-Arabiya says its policy is not to broadcast material if "we are not sure about its authenticity." Even the CIA says it cannot verify whether the tape is genuine. Does al-Arabiya know something that these experts, with the world's most sophisticated electronic equipment, don't?

By any measure, al-Arabiya has violated its own precepts. It has unquestionably violated Iraqi law, which has strict sanctions against broadcasting calls for violent actions against civil authorities.

How would those who champion al-Arabiya's press freedom react if, say, an American TV network broadcast a 17-minute diatribe from a psychopathic mass murderer calling for the death of President Bush?

Would they applaud this as a sterling example of the First Amendment in practice? Or would they consider it a reckless, irresponsible act? Would U.S. authorities stand passively aside and take no action?

What if the BBC broadcast a similar tape calling for the death of Prime Minister Tony Blair?

The answer is simple: That wouldn't happen, because Britain has clear laws, policies, traditions and standards regulating such threats.

Why, then, is the Iraqi Governing Council censured for taking steps that amount to clear self-defense?

Jalal Talabani is a member of the Iraqi Governing Council and secretary general of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

[Yousra]

Ik kwam een soldaten-filmpje van CNN tegen op internet, mag dat hier?

Bron 1

Bron 2