Al-Jazeerah and Abu Dhabi TV bombed

[Earthborn]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768502.html

Targetting the independent press is sure going to convince the Arabic world that America is going to establish a democracy in Iraq... :mad:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Earthborn
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768502.html

Targetting the independent press is sure going to convince the Arabic world that America is going to establish a democracy in Iraq... :mad:

Al Jazeera represents democracy? :eek:

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Al Jazeera represents democracy? :eek:

JK

NO!

Al-Jazeera does not represent democracy!

Earthborn was discussing how the efforts of the USA to build democracy in Iraq.

Is that clear? Do you understand now?

No one ever said that the Al-Jazeera News Service represents a democracy.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Let's just hope that it was an accident.

JK, would you say that having an active press is important for a democracy? Most people probably would.

[Supercharts]

"Nabil Khoury, a U.S. State Department spokesman in Doha, said the strike on the Arab satellite TV network's office was a mistake, and he called upon al-Jazeera not to jump to conclusions.

"My personal view is that it is a mistake, a grave mistake. It is something we all regret," Khoury said. "I personally cannot imagine that a country which respects general freedoms can target media establishments."



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=535&e=5&cid=535&u=/ap/20030408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_al_jazeera_journalist

[Barkhorn1x]

...really - things like this do happen in a war zone.

I caught the morning briefing today and heard a reporter ask (w/ a straight face) "Why don't you instruct the coalition forces to avoid areas in Baghdad where reporters are operating?"

Now I would have replied;

"Because there's are war on you moron!!"

I don't know if this has been stated by anyone - because it's pointing out the bleeding obvious - but I will state it anyway.

"In a war people die. Sometimes innocent people die. Sometimes reporters die - because they want to be where the action is. To instruct the troops to minimize civilian casualties is right and just. To freak out every time an Al Jazerra satellite dish gets hit or a civilian is killed (reporter or otherwise) is assinine."

Barkhorn.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


NO!

Al-Jazeera does not represent democracy!

Earthborn was discussing how the efforts of the USA to build democracy in Iraq.

Is that clear? Do you understand now?

No one ever said that the Al-Jazeera News Service represents a democracy.

The Iraqis have used civilians as shields on various battlefields. They've used hospitals as command and control sites....they've used schools as ammo dumps, and they use Red Crescent ambulances as troop transports.

Why are you guys so surprised that they now snipe at soldiers from hotel rooms? Using reporters as shields is one of their lesser crimes. Why do you fall for it every time? Are you stupid, or just an apologist for Saddam Hussein? :mad:

-z

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Why are you guys so surprised that they now snipe at soldiers from hotel rooms?
-z

I think you are confusing two different incidents - it was reporters from Reuters that were killed and wounded when an American tank fired on a hotel after having been fired upon(*). One reporter from Al-Jazeera was killed, and one wounded when American forces bombed their Baghdad office by mistake(*)



(*) I wasn't there, and I don't know what happened; this is merely what I've seen reported.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot
Let's just hope that it was an accident.

JK, would you say that having an active press is important for a democracy? Most people probably would.

Well, active media controls fueled Nazism, Stalinism and other perverse agendas.

Are you saying that Al Jazeera operates for democratic ideals? :eek:

JK

[LTC8K6]

Yes, and it was Iraqis using the hotels as OP's and sniper platforms that caused us to fire at them.

Don't deliberately insert yourself into the midst of a pitched battle (on the obvious losing side yet) so you can get good video, and then expect much sympathy when the rounds start coming your way.

Don't start broadcasting the positions of US Military units live and expect any sympathy when you are fired upon.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The Iraqis have used civilians as shields on various battlefields. They've used hospitals as command and control sites....they've used schools as ammo dumps, and they use Red Crescent ambulances as troop transports.

Why are you guys so surprised that they now snipe at soldiers from hotel rooms? Using reporters as shields is one of their lesser crimes. Why do you fall for it every time? Are you stupid, or just an apologist for Saddam Hussein? :mad:

-z

Sorry rikzilla, I see that some clarification is in order so please allow me to do so.

I am not surprised when military people die in combat zones,
I am not surprised when civilians die in combat zones,
I am not surprised when reporters die in combat zones, and
I am not surprised when military units take cover in civilian areas.

This sort of thing has happened many times in the past and I expect that I will happen in the future as well.

OK? I hope that is clear.

Now then as to my comments you quoted, I was simply trying to point out the error JK was making when he somehow thought that Earthborn was saying that Al-Jazerra was representing a democratic government.

Just to reiterate, Al-Jazerra does not represent any democratic governments. I did not say this and Earthborn did not say this.

All right now? Please re-read the post in question and let me know if something is still not clear.

Thanks much!

[EvilYeti]

Considering Al-Jazeerah's role in aiding Iraq war crimes and acting as a mouthpiece for the Iraqi Ministry of Information; they should consider themselves lucky this is all they got. Aint nothing independent about Al-Jazeerah...

I would not be surprised if this "accident" was a little payback from the armed forces for humiliating our POW's.

[Earthborn]

Don't deliberately insert yourself into the midst of a pitched battle (on the obvious losing side yet) so you can get good video, and then expect much sympathy when the rounds start coming your way.I think there is a difference between a reporter dying on an active battlefield, during an actual battle and a reporter being killed in his office or in the hotel he chose because it was far away from any military targets.The Iraqis have used civilians as shields on various battlefields. They've used hospitals as command and control sites....they've used schools as ammo dumps, and they use Red Crescent ambulances as troop transports.I wouldn't say that it is unlikely but still: evidence please!Why are you guys so surprised that they now snipe at soldiers from hotel rooms? Using reporters as shields is one of their lesser crimes. And why exactly were these soldiers there? Why aren't they at a military target?

And what if nobody actually was firing at them? From here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2115&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258
"But BBC correspondent Rageh Omar cast doubt on the US line saying he heard no gunfire from the hotel prior to it being hit. "Sometimes reporters die - because they want to be where the action is. But in this case they were quite some distance from where the action is.Let's just hope that it was an accident.Yes, let's hope so. Let's at least hope there will be am independent investigation, because two journalistic offices and one hotel full of journalists hit looks too much like a pattern to me. :(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think there is a difference between a reporter dying on an active battlefield, during an actual battle and a reporter being killed in his office or in the hotel he chose because it was far away from any military targets.I wouldn't say that it is unlikely but still: evidence please!And why exactly were these soldiers there? Why aren't they at a military target?

Well Gosh, if people are inside a city that is a war zone it doesn't matter where they are, they can be killed. There is tons of ordinance flying around, and millions of rounds of ammunition that has armor piercing qualities.

Those rounds go right through buildings easily. You have to question the judgement of anyone that sticks around in an environment like that that isn't a soldier.

JK

[Cleopatra]

Americans are not stupid to hit AlJazeera on purpose!

I have access to AlJazeera, not even them claim that!!!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think there is a difference between a reporter dying on an active battlefield, during an actual battle and a reporter being killed in his office or in the hotel he chose because it was far away from any military targets.I wouldn't say that it is unlikely but still: evidence please!And why exactly were these soldiers there? Why aren't they at a military target?

Iraqi soldiers were defending that area...when an army is defending an area of a battlefield then it is a military target.


And what if nobody actually was firing at them? From here:
http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2115&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258
"But BBC correspondent Rageh Omar cast doubt on the US line saying he heard no gunfire from the hotel prior to it being hit. "But in this case they were quite some distance from where the action is.Yes, let's hope so. Let's at least hope there will be am independent investigation, because two journalistic offices and one hotel full of journalists hit looks too much like a pattern to me. :(

And what if somebody was?? Perhaps it was a mistake, more likely these soldiers were fired upon and returned fire. Killing a hotel full of journalists would not be in the coalition's best interests...but would indeed serve the interests of the regime.

Does the pattern of the regime's use of hospitals, civilians, schools, etc...look like a pattern to you too? I demand evidence of the pattern you see! Lets start another thread so I can put evidence of my observed pattern of Iraqi attrocities up against your observed pattern of coalition deliberate targeting of journalists.... ;)

-z

[Earthborn]

I have access to AlJazeera, not even them claim that!!!I'm pretty sure they do. From here:http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2115&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258“It seems that we have become a target,” said Allouni.

(snip)

"I will not be objective about this because we have been dragged into this conflict," he said, visibly upset. "We were targeted because the Americans don't want the world to see the crimes they are committing against the Iraqi people."

(snip)

“I knew Tariq for 10 years ,” said Yasser Abu Hilalah, Al-Jazeera correspondent in Amman. “He was very brave, professional and a hard worker,” he added. “Al-Jazeera office is located in a residential area and there is no way that the attack was a mistake.”

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm pretty sure they do. From here:http://english.aljazeera.net/topics/article.asp?cu_no=1&item_no=2115&version=1&template_id=263&parent_id=258

One amazing fact that keeps popping into my mind is that the US wouldn't even be in Iraq right now if Saddam disarmed. Does Al Jazeera ever mention that? (well, what is left of Al Jazeera).

JK

[Checkmite]

I firmly believe that any such attack would undoubtedly be a grave mistake, and that the military is doing all it can to avoid it...

...but who else here besides me is really, really hoping that a Mosque doesn't get accidentally bombed?

[repairman]

The NPR reporter in the Hotel is also reporting that she did not hear anyone shooting from the hotel befor it was shelled. The milatary is reporting that there were people on the roof with binoculars. The NPR reporter said that yes there were reporters on the roof with binoculars watching the action.

[Checkmite]

To be honest, it wasn't a hotel "full of journalists". There happened to be a few journalists there; there are probably as many journalists in nearly every hotel in Baghdad. There may have been relatively few other people there compared to the journalists, but that's because only the journalists, in pursuit of their pulitzer shot, were brave (or foolhardly) enough to stay in the building.

Last night, I actually watched the hotel being fired upon, as it was transmitted live. Tanks that looked like M1A1s were doing the shooting from a bridge nearby. They seemed to have fired a dozen or so shots total - lots of smoke and some fire, but not an exorbitant amount of damage - the building is still very much standing. It seems clear to me that had they intended to take the building out and make sure "all the journalists" inside were dead, they could've (and would've) laid down a lot more hurt on that hotel.

As for Al Jazeera being located in a "residential area", that may be true; but an office belonging to the Information Ministry, where good reporters go to be told what to report, was in the immediate vicinity, and is a legitimate military target, as it has a potential backup C&C function. Any building around such targets is in a potentially dangerous zone, as the smoke from battle and oil fires begins to affect laser- and GPS-guided weaponry. And the Abu Dhabi cameraman, as I've heard it, was killed by a stray bullet as he perched atop a building catching the action. Two British reporters were killed by a suicide bomber at a checkpoint in western Iraq, another couple were killed during fighting in the north, and a couple of US reporters have died as well. There are casualties all the way around; there is no "trend" or unique aspect to the ones in Baghdad.

(Edited to add) Research has just told me that it was an Al Jazeera cameraman that was killed, and no Abu Dhabi journalists were injured - silly me.

[renata]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
To be honest, it wasn't a hotel "full of journalists". There happened to be a few journalists there; there are probably as many journalists in nearly every hotel in Baghdad. There may have been relatively few other people there compared to the journalists, but that's because only the journalists, in pursuit of their pulitzer shot, were brave (or foolhardly) enough to stay in the building.

Actually, from everything I heard ( I have no links on this, sorry as it is all from NPR stories over the past few weeks), the Palestine Hotel was the "designated" journalist hotel, after Al Rashid. In the beginning of the war, most Baghdad based journalists were staying at Al Rashid, keeping Palestine as a second option, in case things got heated in the neighborhood of Al Rashid, as it was more of a target. They moved to Palestine sometime last week, I believe. There may be other occupants of the hotel, as well.

The NPR reporter in the Hotel is also reporting that she did not hear anyone shooting from the hotel befor it was shelled. The milatary is reporting that there were people on the roof with binoculars. The NPR reporter said that yes there were reporters on the roof with binoculars watching the action.

Anne Garrels (sp?) also said nobody was surprised Al Jazeera journalists were hit. Apparently, while all were staying at the Palestine, the "designated" hotel for journalists, Al Jazeera and Abu Dhabi (sp?) journalists chose to go to an outpost near information ministry, and a palace. That area had a heavy Republican Guard presence all around them. They were warned by their colleagues that they are going straight into the heaviest fighting region in Baghdad, but they went anyway. Abu Dhabi, the surviving people have now appealed to Red Cross to get them out of their position. One can consider them brave, but if someone knowingly goes to a heavy fighting area, it is difficult to argue they were knowingly targeted. I do not know how the US would have where known Al Jazeera was located, as it might have though all journalists were at the Palestine. Not that it helped the two dead and three wounded journalists at the Palestine any, since they got hit anyway. However, since pretty much the stupidest thing the US army could do is knowingly target a hotel full of Western journalists without provocation, I believe the army's explanation on this- they probably thought someone as firing from the hotel. My understanding is that all this damage was done by a single tank shell.

[svero]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, active media controls fueled Nazism, Stalinism and other perverse agendas.

Are you saying that Al Jazeera operates for democratic ideals? :eek:

JK

Does the US want true democracy in the middle east? I don't see that it's in the interests of their nation. If the people of the middle east had their say the first thing they would do is send the US packing. Saudi Arabia is a US friend and supported dictatorship. What is the feeling on the street? What if it were run by a govt representative of how the average Saudi feels? Would it still be a friend of the US? Would they still have troops stationed there? I doubt it. How about a free democratic Egypt? I guess they'd be pretty PRO west eh? Yeah democracy would be *just great* for the US. I'm sorry.. I just can't see it.

[Baggle]

You're right, svero. If pretty much any given Arab nation were to spontaneously become democratic, the nation would probably hate the USA. The thing I wonder about, though, is how much of that hate is caused or fanned by gov't controlled media telling the people over and over how terrible the USA is? Or is it a factor at all? It seems to me like those regimes are friendly to the USA on the face of things, but their plan is long term....get the people to hate the USA and many years down the road maybe we can defeat them.

So how much of the hate really is due to gov't controlled/appointed media telling the population how much to hate the USA?

-Baggle

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Baggle
Or is it a factor at all? It seems to me like those regimes are friendly to the USA on the face of things, but their plan is long term....get the people to hate the USA and many years down the road maybe we can defeat them.

It's a huge factor, and anti-americanism isn't a 'plan', it's a survival strategy. When you are a tyrant in charge of an inept government, you cannot exactly blame the non-existent opposition for what is wrong. You must point outside your borders. The tyrannies of the Middle East point at the US and Israel.

The transition from tyranny to democracy will be tough and may be brutal, but there truly is no other way to fix what is wrong with the Middle East.

MattJ

[Baggle]

Very interesting. Thanks for the new perspective that you inspiried, aero.

Crazy that every nutso Islamic fundie screams about wanting to destroy the western world, when in fact maybe the people that inspired him to that just did so to get him off their backs for the poor economy, poor personal/political freedoms, etc. Makes me want to re-read 1984.

It really is crazy to think that maybe the regimes themselves don't hate the USA as much as they lead on, and what we see on the surface is actully true. All the while, they just use the USA as a scapegoat "behind the scenes" to make their lives a little easier. Never thought of it that way before.

Another thing I'd like to bring up is the USSR's fall and the emergence of personal freedoms and voting rights. Was the situation similar in the USSR? Was the USA demonized to the extint that it is in these Arabic countries? Maybe we can look to Russia and the rest of the former USSR for answers. Anybody with knowledge on this topic is encouraged to reply.

-Baggle

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by svero
Does the US want true democracy in the middle east?

Well gosh, I don't know. We are at war with Iraq right now to free the Iraqi people. That seems to be a plan to democratize Iraq, but listening to you, maybe we are just there to kill them all.

JK

[DavidJames]

"Does the US want true democracy in the middle east?"

Let's see the hands of those that think we wouldn't be in Baghdad right now if Saddam was freely elected.

[renata]

Originally posted by Baggle
Another thing I'd like to bring up is the USSR's fall and the emergence of personal freedoms and voting rights. Was the situation similar in the USSR? Was the USA demonized to the extint that it is in these Arabic countries? Maybe we can look to Russia and the rest of the former USSR for answers. Anybody with knowledge on this topic is encouraged to reply.



I left USSR before the disintegration, so I can not comment on the growing pains. However, when I was there, America was greatly vilified in the main stream press, in the education- everywhere. Bloodsucking capitalists was the common term. I remember looking at a postcard of NY when I was about 7, and asking my parents where all the demonstrations are- I was taught that there are daily demonstrations in America by people who wanted to be just like USSR. I grew up being taught that USSR is the best system ever conceived, that it is the post prosperous, peace loving, progressive nation, and that America is greedy, aggressive nation where majority starves, gets thrown in jail, is homeless, etc. Every virtue posessed by USSR had an equal and opposite vice in America- absurdly so. The food in America tasted badly- for the chosen few who could afford food anyway, the pools were overchlorinated, USA supported Neo-Nazis in USSR, etc. I am not kidding, these are all the claims made by the press or through the teachers.

Luckily, my family unbrainwashed me on a daily basis. Some people listened to the Voice of America, and got a different side to the story. However, it was very difficult being a kid, and knowing when your teachers lie to you, and being unable to respond. Once my History(!) teacher told the class USSR never initiated a single war- they always responded. This was after Afghanistan. I raised my hand and asked about the war with Finland- the teacher had a fit and told the class Finland attacked the USSR.

I think the transition for USSR would be easier, because it was a secular country, with suppressed skepticism of the regime among its people. The Arabic countries rely much more on a religion to stir up hate of infidels and Jews.

By the way, I want to link to headscratcher's excellent post (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=380081&#post380081) on anti-American backlash. It seems relevant to the direction this thread is going.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Does the US want true democracy in the middle east?"

Let's see the hands of those that think we wouldn't be in Baghdad right now if Saddam was freely elected.

We would not be in Baghdad right now if Saddam was freely elected.

MattJ

[Baggle]

Fascinating post, Renata. Thank you very much for replying. You also made some excellent points.

I've got a question, though(which may be off topic, but I'd like to ask anyway). Was "unbrainwashing" feared at all? If your neighbors, for instance, knew that your parents were telling their children these things, would it be grounds for imprisonment for "crimes against the revolution," or whatever the USSR equiv. was?

I'd love to sit down and pick your brain on the matter some time. Really very, very interesting stuff. Even more so since I was not alive during most of the cold war, and by the time it was over I was still very young. Couple that with never having talked with an immigrant from the former USSR, my great enjoyment of the book 1984, and you can consider me a bit curious:)

-Baggle

[renata]

Originally posted by Baggle
Fascinating post, Renata. Thank you very much for replying. You also made some excellent points.

I've got a question, though(which may be off topic, but I'd like to ask anyway). Was "unbrainwashing" feared at all? If your neighbors, for instance, knew that your parents were telling their children these things, would it be grounds for imprisonment for "crimes against the revolution," or whatever the USSR equiv. was?

I'd love to sit down and pick your brain on the matter some time. Really very, very interesting stuff. Even more so since I was not alive during most of the cold war, and by the time it was over I was still very young. Couple that with never having talked with an immigrant from the former USSR, my great enjoyment of the book 1984, and you can consider me a bit curious:)

-Baggle

Feel free to ask questions. There are other immigrants from USSR on board, and it may be interesting to compare our impressions. However, you may wish to start a separate thread, as this topic is now going waaaay of course. :)

As for the punishment for "unbrainwashing"- at the time (80's) it was not really feared- I do not think my parents would go to jail for listening to the Voice of America. However there could be other adverse consequences. Certainly I was told to keep my mouth shut about everything I was told at home. Few ever dared to question the party line in public, or even with people one did not know well. We also always knew that the winds of liberalism in Russia could rapidly change, so even during Gorbatchev, many people were afraid to speak out.

[DavidJames]

"We would not be in Baghdad right now if Saddam was freely elected"

Interesting, so the charges of WMD, gassing their own people, sponsoring terrorism against us is becomes go away if it's done by a freely elected govt?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"We would not be in Baghdad right now if Saddam was freely elected"

Interesting, so the charges of WMD, gassing their own people, sponsoring terrorism against us is becomes go away if it's done by a freely elected govt?

No, those things just don't happen when the people can vote out their leaders.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768502.html

Targetting the independent press is sure going to convince the Arabic world that America is going to establish a democracy in Iraq... :mad:

Are you trying to implement that the US purposely targeted Al-Jazeerah and Abu Dhabi?

[DavidJames]

"No, those things just don't happen when the people can vote out their leaders."

Don't is a strong word. We're in Iraq now and I wasn't given a vote. I will get to vote on how I feel about it next year, but by then it's kinda late isn't it?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Don't is a strong word. We're in Iraq now and I wasn't given a vote. I will get to vote on how I feel about it next year, but by then it's kinda late isn't it?

You were given a vote. You didn't vote for a man like Saddam. Neither did anyone else who voted in the USA.

[svero]

To decide if the govt. controlled media in middle eastern countries is the primary factor related to anti-western feelings one thing we can ask ourselves is if there are any counter-examples. Are there places in the world where people who have a freely elected govt and free press hold the same opinions or similar as Syria and Egypt? What about Malaysia? Indonesia?

I agree that dictators may point at other countries to redirect public anger just as a bad politician will blame "the immigrants" as the source of all social ills (so easy to play on racism), but I don't personally think that it's really that significant a factor.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"No, those things just don't happen when the people can vote out their leaders."

Don't is a strong word. We're in Iraq now and I wasn't given a vote. I will get to vote on how I feel about it next year, but by then it's kinda late isn't it?

We won't be living in a direct democracy next year, either.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Earthborn
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_768502.html

Targetting the independent press is sure going to convince the Arabic world that America is going to establish a democracy in Iraq... :mad:

Oops.. ;)


("targetting" my ass...) :rolleyes:

[Mel]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, active media controls fueled Nazism, Stalinism and other perverse agendas.

JK

By the same token, active media fuels agendas in democratic countries all over the world, the USA also.

It is NOT that the media exists.... it is the amount of FREEDOM that this media possesses that makes it a tool &/or a weapon.