The Iraq thread 3

[Akira 0]

... for the most part I think reporters are true heroes in wars, risking their lives to get the real events out to us... shame the stories don't always reach the 10,000Km intact.

Interesting considering you still don't believe what they report.

Events nowadays are not like the opening days with embedded reporters. Reporters are freer to move about, and they can file their stories without going through military channels. If you talk about a reporter attending a coalition briefing thats one thing, but to refuse to believe any report that comes from Iraq is ridiculous. By your rationale no news source is crediable. Not US media, not European media, not Middle Eastern media. So I guess you better start subscribing to the Saipan Times.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Well there is a certain truth to it. A newspaper, or journalism in general is only objective if it has access to a full angle view. But during the iraq war now (for instance), journalists view-distance is limited by 2 factors:

-only move into areas that you feel secure, e.g. embedded

-only move into areas that the US military lets you access.

Journalists are not free to move around in iraq. The risk of being kidnapped is not quantifiable. They are only able to gather informations by A) american military official announcements, B) embedded or C) asking around in the "secure" neighbourhood D) Asking muslim humanitarian organisations.

xxx being invited by a representant of the muslim resistance must be rejected, it could be a trap of kidnappers xxx

Not ignoring the courage and professionalism of journalists, I still believe this heavily reduces the possibility of getting a 360° view.

Al Jazeera is definetly a bit biased. But still their journalists are free to move around in iraq without the risk of being attacked or kidnapped. This gives them a hell lot of a competitive edge over their western counterparts (CNN, BBC, Fox)

[raedor 8]

Al Jazeera is definetly a bit biased. But still their journalists are free to move around in iraq without the risk of being attacked or kidnapped. This gives them a hell lot of a competitive edge over their western counterparts (CNN, BBC, Fox)

not only a bit, it is very biased. but not more biased than bbc - only in the other direction. and i don't know if you can talk about "biased" when you're talking about fox/cnn

[Akira 0]

Well there is a certain truth to it. A newspaper, or journalism in general is only objective if it has access to a full angle view. But during the iraq war now (for instance), journalists view-distance is limited by 2 factors:

-only move into areas that you feel secure, e.g. embedded

-only move into areas that the US military lets you access.

Journalists are not free to move around in iraq. The risk of being kidnapped is not quantifiable. They are only able to gather informations by A) american military official announcements, B) embedded or C) asking around in the "secure" neighbourhood D) Asking muslim humanitarian organisations.

xxx being invited by a representant of the muslim resistance must be rejected, it could be a trap of kidnappers xxx

Not ignoring the courage and professionalism of journalists, I still believe this heavily reduces the possibility of getting a 360° view.

Al Jazeera is definetly a bit biased. But still their journalists are free to move around in iraq without the risk of being attacked or kidnapped. This gives them a hell lot of a competitive edge over their western counterparts (CNN, BBC, Fox)

Well of course. One should not go to one source for the "truth". But disbelieving a report because a media outlet is HQed in New York is ridiculous. The UN is in New York as well....

[MLF 0]

Al Jazeera is definetly a bit biased. But still their journalists are free to move around in iraq without the risk of being attacked or kidnapped. This gives them a hell lot of a competitive edge over their western counterparts (CNN, BBC, Fox)

not only a bit, it is very biased. but not more biased than bbc - only in the other direction. and i don't know if you can talk about "biased" when you're talking about fox/cnn    

you cannot even consider the BBC being as biased as Al Jazeera   i would say there slightly biased but they never go out of there way, even with the entire shitstorm over iraq that has gone of late.

[raedor 8]

Al Jazeera is definetly a bit biased. But still their journalists are free to move around in iraq without the risk of being attacked or kidnapped. This gives them a hell lot of a competitive edge over their western counterparts (CNN, BBC, Fox)

not only a bit, it is very biased. but not more biased than bbc - only in the other direction. and i don't know if you can talk about "biased" when you're talking about fox/cnn

you cannot even consider the BBC being as biased as Al Jazeera i would say there slightly biased but they never go out of there way, even with the entire shitstorm over iraq that has gone of late.

Al Jazeera looks very biased for us, that's true. when you're watching bbc you do not realise it in such a "hard" way. but bbc is very biased, too.

the german ARD for example is very biased, but in an other way: it is "anti-war"... so every country/culture has its own biased tv channels

[bn880 5]

raedor is explaining what I was actually trying to get to before. You can not trust most media, yet some reporters are doing heroic stuff, trying to report what's really going on, that is my understanding. Still some of those reporters unknowingly twist the news by poor choice of words, but if they can bring you back videos you can judge for yourself what the context is.

EDIT: Maybe another point is, reporters who really want to get out the truth are often in much greater danger than ones who can't say squat (embedded ones).

EDIT2: I learned the most about US tactics from video footage directly on the streets of the fighting, without interpretation, just fighting. Some things became apparent. One of which is that the reporters would not cause anyone to stop shooting if they were to be hit.

[bn880 5]

Well there is a certain truth to it. A newspaper, or journalism in general is only objective if it has access to a full angle view. But during the iraq war now (for instance), journalists view-distance is limited by 2 factors:

-only move into areas that you feel secure, e.g. embedded

-only move into areas that the US military lets you access.

Journalists are not free to move around in iraq. The risk of being kidnapped is not quantifiable. They are only able to gather informations by A) american military official announcements, B) embedded or C) asking around in the "secure" neighbourhood D) Asking muslim humanitarian organisations.

xxx being invited by a representant of the muslim resistance must be rejected, it could be a trap of kidnappers xxx

Not ignoring the courage and professionalism of journalists, I still believe this heavily reduces the possibility of getting a 360° view.

Al Jazeera is definetly a bit biased. But still their journalists are free to move around in iraq without the risk of being attacked or kidnapped. This gives them a hell lot of a competitive edge over their western counterparts (CNN, BBC, Fox)

Well of course. One should not go to one source for the "truth". But disbelieving a report because a media outlet is HQed in New York is ridiculous. The UN is in New York as well....

No it's not ridiculous, to you maybe, not to most of the world population. < China

The story goes like this:

Claim by Sun that 100 insurgents are slaughtered by the bayonets of the Brits. I don't believe it and would prefer an independent source. People start claiming AJ reported it, I can't find that. Then a report by AP is shown as proof, AP is still not quite the other side of the ball game, and the NY HQ is mostly nitpicking. Then AJ and other source is quoted, revealing 20-22 insurgents killed in fighting. So it's not like I'm going after AP all this time because it's HQ is in NY.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Oh, and I forgot to mention one thing. In order to move around in iraq you need the support of the US military. But in order to get this support you have to earn a reputation of being a "positive" journalist. Just like in the white house. The most friendly correspondants get to ask the most questions!

Dont get me wrong. On this issue I am not subjective at all, I wouldnt mind calling Al Jazeera biased and Fox objective. Great we start to dicuss the journalistic point of view as well.

[bn880 5]

Precisely, and journalists who "just go in" have this tendency to get identified as holding RPG's or being unknown dangerous targets.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Reporters from Arabic outlets tend to get plenty of access- I'm assuming that those aren't Western journalists following those guys with RPGs around...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

What went wrong today. Did you have problems to access this board too Tex?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/05/17/skorea.troops/index.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- The United States has notified South Korea and Japan it plans to move about 3,600 troops from South Korea to Iraq, senior Pentagon officials confirmed to CNN.

The troops will come from the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division and are expected to deploy around June, according to Pentagon officials.

The move to tap its forces in South Korea is an historic one by the Pentagon, as the Korean Peninsula is the Cold War's last remaining flashpoint.

Some in South Korea fear any cut in U.S. military presence might weaken its defense readiness against the million-man army of North Korea, the world's fifth largest military.

The troops of the 2nd Brigade would be deployed to Iraq for up to a year, but combined with their regularly assigned deployment to South Korea, some troops could be kept from their home bases from 18 months up to 24 months, Pentagon officials said.

The brigade was selected because it had not done a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, Pentagon officials said.

Pentagon officials said that there is no decision yet whether the 3,600 troops would return to South Korea after the deployment saying it would depend on the security situation on the peninsula.

That decision would be made while the troops are already in Iraq as part of the Pentagon's ongoing review of how to best place U.S. troops around the world

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What went wrong today. Did you have problems to access this board too Tex?

Yup, it's seems that the forums were down for a while.

[Akira 0]

Then perhaps I just misunderstood what you were saying. From here it looked like you were refusing to accept the story until an "independant" source had verified (still not sure what can be termed "independant").

I see now that you are basically talking about what I said. Not trusting one source. Whereas you wanted confirmation of the facts of the action, I thought you were questioning the truth of the article itself (the bayonet charge as opposed to "100" killed).

It is indeed difficult to find any unbiased source of news information, and this has been true from the very beginning of news as a part of our culture. In my media classes, much was spoken of the "truth" and the job of the reporter to be the instrument from which the "truth" can be shown. Where as that is all well in good in a land where the daisy's bloom year round, it's not realistic out "there". There is really no way for a reporter to supress his humanistic tendency to give his opinion, as much as they may try. As mentioned it could just come down to how the reporter chooses the wording of his story (or editing of the story for TV). Also at play is management's "newsworthy" decision making processes. Media is big business and like any business, it's job is to make money. Ideally, news organizations would be exempt from such considerations, but the truth is with no viewership/readership, the organization will fold. Every media outlet caters to a certain demographic. CNN used to be fairly reliable and "objective", but the proliferation of cable news channels like FOX and MSNBC, viewers have moved, basically, to an outlet that tells them what they like to hear. No one will watch (or read) news coverage that tells them that what they believe in is wrong, so news is always hamstrung by its viewership.

Basically what I just said in a long winded round about way is, those wanting to know the "truth" will cross-verify and read many different accounts of the same event, as many here do. Those comfortable in their self-contained box of rightousness, will get their information from one source....the source that tells them what they like to hear and that reinforces their own belief. FOX, Al Jazeera, the new liberal radio, etc etc.

I, for instance, read many sources, but generally only watch CBS. It seems, on my account, to be the best network news. It never "MTV-ifies" the news, as seems to be the growing trend.

Just my rant for the night. Carry on.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yes "Stick it to em" was a comment to my countries Armed forces, it was a comment related to the fact they had to fix bayonets to attack morter positions instead of calling down an arty strike on a densly populated civilian area after themselves beign ambushed twice

As others I am still waiting for confirmation on the whole bayonet story.

Quote[/b] ]how am i supposed to feel after they attack my countries troops (UK not US

Outraged that you`re country took part in a war based on LIES thanks to mister Blair that has cost tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and some of your countries and seems to have no end in sight one year after it begun?Even more outraged when Mr Blair goes in front of the television saying it was worth it when at the same time more innocent Iraqi lifes are lost because in their arrogance they imagined they will be greeted as elliberators and the Iraqis will kiss their feet thanking them for democracy express?

Quote[/b] ] when all they are doing is trying to rebuild there country and who have always been diplomatic when it comes to problems with the locals, they have always sat with the locals and dicussed there grievences, how can i be sure that the mortar position  did not cause this.

All they are doing?Well Amnesty sees the story a lill` bit different with some 8 years old girls shot here and there but bah can`t be true,can it?

http://www.voanews.com/article....D44B89C

Quote[/b] ]The human rights group Amnesty International says British troops have shot and killed dozens of civilians in Iraq who posed no apparent threat. The London-based group issued its findings in a report released Tuesday.

In the end even if they are doing a better job then US they are still helping occupying the country so resistance against them is absolutley legitimate.

Quote[/b] ]sorry its from AP and not the holy fair unbiased Al Jazeera

Watch it there with your sarcasm.I never said they are holy I`ve said they are as good of a source as CNN,AFP etc. and sustainable edvidence of it being biased hasn`t been provided by anyone.I don`t want to start another debate with you on that if you like look 10 pages back there is a looong discussion on that between me and Ralph.

Quote[/b] ] "Stick it to em" is slang for give it to em or your doing a good job keep it up.

So is "blow them up",so the next time someone says it when a British convoy is hit by a roadside bomb and soldiers die you will feel no anger towards the person,right?

Quote[/b] ]how can i be sure that the mortar position  did not cause this.

OMG!News shock,Resistance doesn`t have unmaned Predators,satallites and laser designated weapons instead they fire with imprecise mortars that doesn`t always hits it`s target.You probably disregarded that the target was a British HQ,right to favorably claim they wanted to kill 2 years old twins?In the end they died in the crossfire of the still not ended war,and guess who is responsable for that.

Quote[/b] ]They should of been standing up to (battling/protesting) the insurgents that are hindering this not the coalition.

ROFLMAO!Why should they do that if they hate the "coallition" and feel that resistance attacks represent their anger towards the occupation of their country?

Quote[/b] ]They (AJ) scew the facts, those people where not tortured, they where most probally gunned down or bayoneted, but they report it as being tortured, they only report it as torture because of what the US troops have done.

This is the funniest thing I`ve read all day.MLF from the article you posted from Al-Jazeera:

Quote[/b] ]Reuters reported today (read below) that Aides to the Shi'i cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in Najaf accused British Troops in Amara of murdering prisoners from Sadr's Mehdi Army and mutilating their bodies, yesterday. Members of the Mehdi Army in Najaf buried 22 comrades, who they said died as a result of a battle with the British near the southern town of Amara Friday.

Al-Manar T reported on May 15, 2004 that British troops captured 22 members of the Mahdi Army during a battle in Amara. Later in the day, they were brought to the hospital dead but with clear signs of torture and mutilation in their bodies. The eyewitness, Adel Al-Maliki, said some of them had poked eyes. Others had their hands cut off but most with signs of torture on their bodies.

....

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's

Talk about scewing up the facts..

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]ROFLMAO!Why should they do that if they hate the "coallition" and feel that resistance attacks represent their anger towards the occupation of their country?

Your post:

Quote[/b] ]

Stick it into Shia Iraqis that had nothing to do with Saddam gouverment and have not opposed the invading forces in the war. Men with famillies that waited patiantly for an YEAR for you to keep your promises and to respect them as human beings and now are fighting to eliberate their country.stick it to em..

My post:

Quote[/b] ]

They should of been standing up to (battling/protesting) the insurgents that are hindering this not the coalition.

The insurgents ARE hindering major/fast progress in the rebuilding of Iraq.  No attacks=fast progress=coalition troops leave; attacks=slow progress=coalition troops stay a long time=more death.  Common sense, Mr. Spock.

[denoir 0]

It isn't quite that simple billybob. It isn't just rebuilding period. It is the question of the type of rebuilding and the American influence on the outcome. As it is now America is writing the future of Iraq both politically and economically. There are people that don't approve of that and don't feel that they should give up their liberty for a little temporary freedom.

The resistance is fighting for a cause. The US is in the way of their idea of how the future of Iraq should be shaped.

In the 1790's you could have said the same thing about the American resistance to the British. The easiest way for peace and normality would have been not to fight the British but to cooperate with them. You however did not like the terms of such a peace. The same thing goes for the Iraqi resistance. They don't like the terms spelled out by the coalition for a peace.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]The insurgents ARE hindering major/fast progress in the rebuilding of Iraq.

How so,mission was accomplished on May 1  

US forces were greated as elliberators with flowers and candy.

Saddam`s capture was the final blow to the resistance and now they are on their knees.

Insurgents are a bunch of Saddam loyallists/terrorists/Fedayeen that have no support from

Iraqis because they love US soldiers.

Iraqis were kept hostages by foreign fighters in Fallujah.

Who`s fault is for this self evident propaganda?They want to stop the resistance,first stop trying to stuff this lies into public minds.It`s crystal clear that the resistance is strongly connected with the Iraqi population feelings so how about Bush let`s his "bring it on" attitude down and goes in front of the television and fully appologies for the illegal war started because of his administration total recklessness,appolgies for the tens of thousands of civillians killed and promises full compensation,admits most of the resistance was due to the grief brought by the occupation and promises an immidiate independent poll if US soldiers should stay in the country and for how long.

I gurantee you 99% of the resistance will cease after that.

It might be wishful thinking but so is imagining Iraqis who lost famillies,jobs,homes,security,freedom because of this war are going to protest against the resistance.

[Pathy 0]

The story goes like this:

Claim by Sun that 100 insurgents are slaughtered by the bayonets of the Brits.  I don't believe it and would prefer an independent source.  People start claiming AJ reported it, I can't find that.  Then a report by AP is shown as proof, AP is still not quite the other side of the ball game, and the NY HQ is mostly nitpicking.  Then AJ and other source is quoted, revealing 20-22 insurgents killed in fighting.  So it's not like I'm going after AP all this time because it's HQ is in NY.

The Sun wasn't the only British newspaper that reported it, and maintain what you will, i trust the Times.....we are not in a dictatorship where everything in the press is controlled for propaganda, otherwise how the hell would the mirror have printed those fake photo's? And British newspapers tend to be more critical of the war than thier US counterparts.

And it never said they killed 100 insurgents, all the sources claim between 20 and 30, but said they were fighting 100 insurgents.....

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

The british forces are doing a better job than the americans? Well you cant quite compare the two can you? Not size-wise and not engagement-wise!

[Bernadotte 0]

...

The insurgents ARE hindering major/fast progress in the rebuilding of Iraq.  No attacks=fast progress=coalition troops leave; attacks=slow progress=coalition troops stay a long time=more death.  Common sense, Mr. Spock.

Why is there an insurgency?

Why does it have increasing popular support?

What do the Iraqi people want most that the coalition are refusing to allow?

[bn880 5]

The story goes like this:

Claim by Sun that 100 insurgents are slaughtered by the bayonets of the Brits. I don't believe it and would prefer an independent source. People start claiming AJ reported it, I can't find that. Then a report by AP is shown as proof, AP is still not quite the other side of the ball game, and the NY HQ is mostly nitpicking. Then AJ and other source is quoted, revealing 20-22 insurgents killed in fighting. So it's not like I'm going after AP all this time because it's HQ is in NY.

The Sun wasn't the only British newspaper that reported it, and maintain what you will, i trust the Times.....we are not in a dictatorship where everything in the press is controlled for propaganda, otherwise how the hell would the mirror have printed those fake photo's? And British newspapers tend to be more critical of the war than thier US counterparts.

And it never said they killed 100 insurgents, all the sources claim between 20 and 30, but said they were fighting 100 insurgents.....

It doesn't have to be controlled by the Govt. Look at Akira's post, however a lot of people high up in the media food chain are happy to please some Governments themselves, or at least it seems. Disney is a direct example.

You can not jsut go to one source you think is reliable, you have to go to several sources, (ok sometimes 2) which are on completely different sides of the fence. AJ is on the opposite side of the fence compared to TImes.

[MLF 0]

Quote[/b] ]All they are doing?Well Amnesty sees the story a lill` bit different with some 8 years old girls shot here and there but bah can`t be true,can it?

Never disputed the fact that civlians are killed, i still believe we were right to go to iraq, but not for the reasons that Blair gave me.

Quote[/b] ]Just after midnight, British tanks and armoured personnel carriers rumble into action.

They are hunting down their enemy here, Shia rebels loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr.

Around Amara, it is not so much a question of peacekeeping as war fighting.

The British troops fire flares to light up the landscape. Infantry then fan out and pursue four suspected insurgents who have been spotted through night sights. The flares set fire to vegetation.

Just the night before, the British were ambushed down the road from here. In the end, they killed more than 20 of their attackers in close combat.

The British troops even fixed their bayonets. They say they can't afford to take any chances.

"The Mehdi Army are a very ruthless and determined enemy," said Major James Coote of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment.

"They will use any tactics available including using children to attack us, or to hide behind children, as they have done within the city in the last week or so. Unfortunately they are also very well armed.

"We have certainly won a few battles but we haven't yet won the war."

'Waterloo'

For the British, the idea of this operation tonight is to show that they, not the Sadr rebels, own this road and to ram home the message that anyone thinking of carrying out more ambushes here had better think again.

The British have seized from the Sadr rebels in the last few days everything from heavy machine guns to mortars - antiquated perhaps but still dangerous, as we found out.

Sirens wailed as the British base where we were staying came under attack. We took cover inside.

This is a regular occurrence in and around Amara. Sometimes the British have felt under siege here. Indeed, it's only recently they have dared patrol these streets on foot.

Before, Sadr rebels ruled the roost in downtown Amara. Then a few days ago the British drove them out in a battle they call "Waterloo". Even so, the troops steer clear of a mosque that is still a Sadr stronghold.

With frequent ambushes on the road out of Amara, the safest way for us to leave was by helicopter.

This province has always been unruly, full of criminal gangs and warring tribes.

Even Saddam Hussein struggled to control it - now the British are struggling too.

Article

[Bernadotte 0]

Never disputed the fact that civlians are killed, i still believe we were right to go to iraq, but not for the reasons that Blair gave me.

For what reasons, then, do you feel it was right to invade Iraq?

And if your answer has nothing to do with oil and everything to do with saving people from despotic regimes then what's keeping you out of Burma and Sudan and North Korea and Zimbabwe and... and... and... ?