Preventing the other side of the story to be told

There is no actions taken by the so-called advocates of freedom of opinion to secure the release of many muslim journalists being held in jails just for reporting the news as they are. Aljazeera's Sami Al-Haj and Tayseer Allouni are examples. They are still in Guantanamo and Spanish jail with no criminal charge. Their only crime being reporting the other side of the story. The seemingly intentional killing of other journalists in Iraq by the American forces also add to the situation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who cares?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, they're Arabs, so they lie..

or something.

- N

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Their ONLY crime??? I can't answer for the Spanish but the U.S. does not imprision real journalists.

By what magical power of yours do you know that they were reporting the truth AND had commited no crimes?????:bugeye:

And exactly WHAT intentional (seemingly or otherwise) killing of journalists in Iraq by American forces? Do you have a single shred of evidence to support that claim?

Personally, I've begun to suspect YOU of being someone who's spreading lies. :bugeye:

 

I didn't get you! Do you mean that Sami Al Haj is not a journalist or is not in U.S. prison? By what magical power of yours do you know that they are not reporting the truth AND had committed crimes?????:bugeye:

If you take somebody, esp. a journalist to prison, you should have something to charge him with, not like many of those poor unlucky who were kept in Guantanamo only to be freed after a few years without a formal apology or any compensation.

I wouldn't need to give you any examples if you are a close follower of the news, but anyway some names are: Mazen Dana, Tareq Ayyoub, Ahmad Kareem, Dhia Najim, Maha Ibrahim, Ahmed Wael Bakri, Yasser Salihee, Namir Noor-Eldeen, Saeed Chmagh, Couso, Taras Protsyuk.This also may help:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course I'm not saying that all these killings were on purpose, but some seem to be.

Lie: A statement, writing, phrase, etc.which is said with an absoluteness that has the potential to dupe the others, but turns out no to be true; an sparkling example is the U.S. claim before the invasion on the sovereign state of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Peace

 

Aljazeera still exists, so I don't see how the "other side" is being prevented from expression.

 

The US has in fact imprisoned real journalists in this conflict, without charge or publically released evidence.

The US has also killed a very large number of journalists (as have other factions in Iraq), many more, proportionately, than in past wars. One of the head honchos of a major US TV network (can't recall - ABC?) got in PR trouble back in '04 by complaining about it - he all but accused the US command of having a policy of intimidation of the press by violence. He was forced to apologise.

If you recall, a couple of those " smart bombs" and precision guided ordnance, that the military PR alleged were so good at hitting only intended targets, hit not only Al Jazeera's TV station but the well-marked main hotel for foreign reporters in Baghdad, in the initial assault. And you may remember the Italian journalist miraculously surviving an attack near a US checkpoint as she was being escorted back from hostage, the Iraqi reporter shot by a US guard just outside Abu Ghraib after the story broke, etc etc. Most don't make the news, but a remarkable number of journalists have been killed in Iraq, many by US forces directly, many by US allied paramilitaries and militias.

How that fits in with US claims of minimization of civilian casualties, is hard to say.

 

Journalists are not civilians because they influence the war by their reporting which makes them legitimate strategic targets. Although I'm sure such a thought never publicly occurred to the terrorists or the US department of defense. Perish the very thought.

 

It sure exists, but for example it is not allowed in Iraq and its journalists do not have freedom of action as they should or as others do. You may also have heard that Bush wanted to bomb Aljazeera headquarters in Qatar in April 2004.

 

I'm with you there. We should never had invaded Iraq the second time around, nor should we be there to "nation build" a society and governmental body that the majority of Iraqis do not appreciate or respect. Middle Eastern countries, in my fair opinion, should be left alone to grow and develop in their own way, whether by internal revolution and civil war, coup, or otherwise. The only downside to many Mid East countries is that the news is censored by the government, and freedom of speech is not a right firmly held by the people. This, of course, takes away certain perspectives that would help such countries and their societies grow into a more prosperous and idealistic nation.

 

i believe there have been a few journalists that have went to jail for refusing to name their sources.

there is no internet in iraq?

 

I, by chance, happened to meet a French businessman here who had long experience in the middle east and had the experience of working with the Iranians for sales of Airbuses to them (quite funny, he said together with every engineer he had to talk to, he had also to convince a mulla

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
Anyway.. we discussed on the systems of ruling and the societies in the middle eastern countries, and what he said was quite reasonable. He argued that democracy was not established overnight in countris like France and Britain. To the contrary the people had a long lasting struggle of hundreds of years till they got this system established which best reflects theyir wishes and their ideal way of life. Now, trying to force democracy on a people who don't even know what it exactly means is an absurd action; and a superpower who has all those think-tanks and research institutes and again claims they went in for establishing democracy is to be questioned for its honesty.
On the other hand, democracy in its western meaning will not necessarily work for the middle east which has a much longer history of civilization and much different traditions.

 

I'm sure it exists, but I guess it is that old dial-up system which kills you before gives you the chance of any surfing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I fully agree with the French businessman. Just because democracy (in a representative fashion) has worked for the US for over 200 years, does not mean that it is "the best" system of government for all people worldwide. Civilization evolves, and is not constructed overnight. Would we US citizens like another to invade our country, topple the government, and assert a new governance on the coattails that "it is a better government than what you had." Of course not. Likewise, nation building in the Mid East meets with the same resolve. Factions develop who are opposed to the idea -- they don't want a representative democacy. Governments always rise or fall by the will of the people -- consider the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc.

I think many Mid East countries could benefit from a separation of church and state as well. Oftentimes the Islamic nation wraps itself in a blanket of illusion -- censored speech, press, etc., all under the guise of Islam. To me, this is the biggest shortcoming for the Mid Eastern people, and perhaps gives too much power and mind control to the governmental religious leaders. An open mind is necessary for revolt -- whether peaceful or otherwise -- and a government bound to religious ideals should not chastize that which God has given all people: freedom of thought and an ability to change into a better person, city, or nation state.

 

I'm afraid I have to partly counter you there! Though having the religion and the state separated is something to be discussed (and more importantly I do not believe it is what exactly happens even in Europe or The U.S. given examples such as the fact that fundamental evangelists have taken the White House hostage or some of the setbacks created against Turkey's bid for EU accession by some EU member states like France has no clear justification other than religious) It will be a grave mistake to believe that in most Islamic countries the religion is part of the state. The instances are quite rare, when I think over it only Iran comes to my mind as a state which has a system of ruling based on religion and takes most of their steps with that consideration, while again their first priority most of times is not ıslamic.

Other countries have more a ruling family, a nationalist or racist (pan-language, etc.) system rather than a religious one and that actually forms the problem. I do not think a really religious Saudi Arabian state would be worse than the existing regime. They use Islam only as a guise to legitimize their reign (like in Saudi Arabia) or whenever they feel threatened by the non-muslims (like Saddam did); but they easily exclude themselves from religious laws (or what is imposed on others as religious laws) and rarely follow islamic rules in their policies. For example, you know that in Saudi Arabia women should cover their heads and faces and they can not drive vehicles, but do you know that the the girls in the Saudi royal family wear and act just like higher-class european and American women when they are on holiday abroad, they also drive cars...

 

Ergo, the system is corrupt. From bottom to top.

 

leopold99: "there is no internet in iraq?"

chuuush: "I'm sure it exists, but I guess it is that old dial-up system which kills you before gives you the chance of any surfing"

There are internet cafes with spotty access. Iraqi bloggers do manage, and have often been the only glimpse behind embedding and intimidation of professional journalists. Because bloggers in Iraq also face the same dangers, many have fled, and some have been killed . They continue to be a valuable resource for those of us on the outside wishing to see more than just what has organizationally prepared for us to see.

Voices From Iraq

Iraq Blog Count ​

 

Just because you people don't know sh*t about the Middle East...

Tayseer Allouni is Syrian from the city of Dair el-zor. He was a member of the movement of "Muslims Brotherhood". In 1982, he along with the rest of his comrades launched an armed insurgency in Syria. They went out in the streets and began shooting every person who wasn't Sunni Muslim, because the ruling dictator wasn't Sunni so that was their way of protesting that.

After that, this man fled Syria where he would have been executed. He worked for al-jazeera in Afghanistan. Afghanistan didn't allow journalist whether they were Muslims or not, but he was allowed. He provided exclusive interviews with al-qaida and Taliban leaders.

Spain trialed him for transferring money between some of his friends; who happened to be members of al-qaida in Spain; and this what he was trialed for; it had nothing to do with his job.

 

Interesting point about Allouni - thanks for the info. "Journalist", indeed.

 

Of course they want to stop the other side's story!


It's simple propaganda, nothing more. And, worst thing is, the Americans believe it.