The Iraq thread 4

[Akira 0]

How is anyone gonna be against making a day of NOT work?

[billybob2002 0]

How is anyone gonna be against making a day of NOT work?  

It's the culture, baby...

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi government decided last week that in order to make up for the additional day off, the traditional six-hour Iraqi workday would be extended.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]The Iraqi government decided last week that in order to make up for the additional day off, the traditional six-hour Iraqi workday would be extended.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Sounds French...................................

[billybob2002 0]

Judge in charge of Saddam Hussein's trial named by the Independent and other media (Fisk said arab media) back in 2004 was assassinated today...

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3sj.htm

Quote[/b] ]

NBC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: NBC'S JIM MIKLASZEWSKI REPORTS TONIGHT THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE IN THE SADDAM HUSSEIN TRIAL HAS BEEN ASSASSINATED.

Tue Mar 01 2005 19:09:22 ET

BRIAN WILLIAMS INTRO:

Good evening. We're going to begin here with an NBC News

We've learned tonight the violence in Iraq has claimed another victim, and this time, it is a high-profile target: a man who knew he had a dangerous job. There is word from Baghdad this evening -- confirmed by NBC News -- that the presiding judge in the trial of Saddam Hussein has been assassinated. American television viewers at the time remember him as the brave man on the bench but at the time only the back of his head was visible on television because the risk to his life was that obvious. He lived amid heavy security. Tonight his death is a graphic reminder of the everyday danger still in Iraq. NBC's Jim Miklaszewski is with us from the Pentagon tonight. Jim good evening.

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI REPORTING:

Good evening Brian. NBC News has learned that the judge, 35 year old Raid Juhi was apparently gunned down today as he left his home in Baghdad. Now Juhi was seen on video but just barely last July during the initial court appearances of Saddam Hussein.

The young judge at the time gained widespread respect and admiration when he stood his ground against the belligerent former dictator who launched into a lecture during the proceedings.

Juhi had already been the target of several assassination attempts, and was forced to move into a walled compound with his wife and three small boys behind concrete walls that could withstand bombs.

He normally traveled with armed escorts, but the details around his assassination today remain unclear.

He was a former prosecutor under the former Saddam Hussein regime -- and as an investigative judge was handling 12 high profile cases, including Saddam Hussein and the infamous Chemical Ali.

U.S. officials see the assassination today as an attack not only on the judge, but the entire Iraqi judicial system. Nevertheless, they predict despite today's assassination, the legal proceedings against Saddam Hussein will remain on course. A date for Saddam's next court appearance has yet to be scheduled.

Developing...

Had balls and was young...  

[Balschoiw 0]

ACLU, Ex-Detainees to Sue Rumsfeld Over Abuse

Quote[/b] ] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Human rights lawyers will file a lawsuit in federal court on Tuesday against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of eight men who say they were tortured by U.S. forces in custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, sources familiar with the case said.

The lawsuit charges that officials at the highest levels of the U.S. government shoulder ultimate responsibility for the physical and psychological injuries sustained by the men while in American custody.

It was the latest development in a scandal over ill-treatment of U.S. war prisoners that has drawn criticism from around the world.

The case will be filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First in U.S. District Court. The two groups scheduled a news conference later on Tuesday to announce details.

The groups did not state who would be named in the lawsuit, but sources familiar with the case said it was Rumsfeld.

"The men represented in the lawsuit were incarcerated in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions," the two groups said in a statement.

None of the eight men was charged with a crime, the groups said.

Bill Lann Lee, an assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights during the Clinton administration, and retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, former judge advocate general of the U.S. Navy, were due to participate in the news conference.

This is not the first legal case over detainee abuse involving Rumsfeld.

U.S. human rights lawyers in November filed a criminal complaint with Germany's federal prosecutor charging that Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet and other senior officials bore responsibility for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

[Acecombat 0]

I thought iraq had a thursday/friday weekend like us? Or maybe not.

[Wilco 944]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">By David Lomax

Correspondent, BBC Newsnight

One of the ironies of the new Iraq is that the man who once controlled the media can't watch the television which his fellow countrymen - assuming that they have electricity - now enjoy.

Saddam Hussein, who exempted himself and his ministers from his own ban on satellite TV, has now been banned from having a set in his cell.

The great dictator can't savour, for instance, Modern Day Pashas, a soap opera that goes out on the Al-Sharqiya channel for an hour every afternoon in Baghdad. It's a satire with heavy pantomime overtones in which corruption is pilloried with exuberant knockabout.

Or perhaps Saddam might have preferred to watch the astrologer taking calls from Iraqis who are seeking advice about important decisions or events in their lives. "No, I'm afraid that the planets will not help. You must work hard for your examination."

Like much of this channel's output the programme is generated from the safety of media City in Dubai. The distance leaves a strange gap and echo on telephone calls but this is obviously something to which viewers have adjusted.

The channel, which uses sophisticated graphics and pop videos, has built an enthusiastic following. There are new lifestyle programmes like Labour and Materials, a format which has clearly been imported from the West and has a strong Iraqi flavour.

The channel interviews families who have suffered during the war and lost their houses. It chooses one case, pays for the rebuilding of the home and makes a series about it. In a country where there are so many dangers and difficulties there is an understandable appetite for any kind of escapism.

Satire

Another popular show is the Caricatura programme. Its satires about police trying to bribe drivers or of children kidnapping adults and demanding ransoms, are widely enjoyed.

They certainly make a change from endless military parades.

No longer are there sequences of the great man letting off his shotgun into the air, reviewing military parades or kissing babies. "We might as well have stuck a picture of him on the outside of the screen and not bothered to switch the set on," was a popular jibe.

When Saddam fell there was a sudden mushrooming of demand for television sets, decoders and satellite dishes. Banned under Saddam's rule, or at least only available to senior Baathists, these were bought as fast as they could be imported at $350 a time.

Entrepreneurs made millions as new dishes sprang up on apartment blocks. 7 million were sold in less than a year. "I thought this country was hungry for food," one Iraqi sociologist told me, "but they were hungry for television."

The biggest change in what viewers could watch during the war was the growth of Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, both fiercely critical of the Americans and the channels chosen by the insurgents for their uncompromising messages.

Iraqi conservatives alarmed

President Bush in his State of the Union address promised to try to correct what the US saw as the excesses of the media hostile to the coalition. Millions of dollars were poured into various new channels in an attempt to counterbalance the sort of coverage viewers were exposed to.

But many Iraqis seem to have ignored the new output from Virginia. They have turned off because Al Iraqiya is seen as either too American or containing too many bought-in shows from Cairo and Beirut instead of the all Iraqi offerings of the new Al-Sharqiya channel.

It was also somewhat tactless of the US funded channel to show pictures of mosques to the accompaniment of western music. The opposition to the new media is more than mere academic criticism. Last month an Iraqi working for the US-funded Al Hurra channel was murdered in Basra.

The explosion of new satellite channels may soon revive debates about whether there should be limits on Iraq's new media. From Ayatollah Sistani's sophisticated new web site it is evident that there are conservative religious elements which might be alarmed.

The non-stop waves of pop videos and men and women being portrayed together don't easily co-exist with Iraqis who want to ban chess and are worried about temptation.

Sistani's supporters won most of the votes in the recent elections and the Shia influence will obviously dominate the new government.

But trying to control TV may not be at the top of their agenda. In any case, as one Iraqi TV observer puts it "there's nothing they can do; the genie is out of the bottle now."

David Lomax's film was broadcast by Newsnight on Friday, 25 February, 2005.

From

Quote[/b] ]Soap operas and comedies are popular with Iraqi viewers

Quote[/b] ]An Iraqi television satire features child kidnappers holding adults to ransom

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]But trying to control TV may not be at the top of their agenda. In any case, as one Iraqi TV observer puts it "there's nothing they can do; the genie is out of the bottle now."

A bit of wishful thinking - remember what happend in Iran. And the new boss, Sistani is an old buddy of Khomeini.

It will be interesting to see what the Iraqi media will evlove to though. Complete freedom of speech doesn't necessarily equal reveleant democratic openness.

I think one of the more interesting examples are the former communist countries in Europe. Prior to their entry to the EU, they were required to to guarantee extreme press freedom in their constitutions. There are no countries in the world that have such open laws. Basically you can print, or say on TV whatever you want without having to take any responsibiltiy. You can slander, straight out lie, using any form of for instance racist material etc

The result? A huge array of media outlets that are pure nonsense. There's lots of attacks on politicians and how the country is run etc - but more than not the media makes up outrageous claims that arn't substantiated in any way. The way they try to attact viewers/readers is by reporting sensational stories, and they arn't very particular about if the stories are true or pure fiction. And you can't sue them.

So in the end you have a great hum of white noise that means nothing. You simply can't filter out the real stories, the good reporting in a giant sea of bullshit.

The moral of the story is I suppose that just introducing a bunch of freedoms and rights in a state that has no experience of dealing with it does not necessarily produce a relevant democracy. Democracy must mature over time, and people must realize that abusing the system just because you are allowed to doesn't produce good results in the end.

[Wilco 944]

Quote[/b] ]But trying to control TV may not be at the top of their agenda. In any case, as one Iraqi TV observer puts it "there's nothing they can do; the genie is out of the bottle now."

A bit of wishful thinking - remember what happend in Iran. And the new boss, Sistani is an old buddy of Khomeini.

It will be interesting to see what the Iraqi media will evlove to though. Complete freedom of speech doesn't necessarily equal reveleant democratic openness.

I think one of the more interesting examples are the former communist countries in Europe. Prior to their entry to the EU, they were required to to guarantee extreme press freedom in their constitutions. There are no countries in the world that have such open laws. Basically you can print, or say on TV whatever you want without having to take any responsibiltiy. You can slander, straight out lie, using any form of for instance racist material etc

The result? A huge array of media outlets that are pure nonsense. There's lots of attacks on politicians and how the country is run etc - but more than not the media makes up outrageous claims that arn't substantiated in any way. The way they try to attact viewers/readers is by reporting sensational stories, and they arn't very particular about if the stories are true or pure fiction. And you can't sue them.

So in the end you have a great hum of white noise that means nothing. You simply can't filter out the real stories, the good reporting in a giant sea of bullshit.

The moral of the story is I suppose that just introducing a bunch of freedoms and rights in a state that has no experience of dealing with it does not necessarily produce a relevant democracy. Democracy must mature over time, and people must realize that abusing the system just because you are allowed to doesn't produce good results in the end.

Well said Denoir, in your opinion, when do you think the troops will be able to leave and Iraq hopefully becoming economically and ultimately democratically stable?

[quicksand 0]

Saddam's son Uday was poised to topple dad : controversial US journalist

Quote[/b] ]LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The eldest son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was plotting to overthrow his father just as US troops advanced on Baghdad in March 2003, journalist Peter Arnett claimed in Playboy Magazine.

Uday Hussein, known for his ruthlessness and flashy lifestyle, had won the support of the leadership of his father's Fedayeen militia to overthrow Saddam's 35-year rule, according to an advance copy of the April edition of Playboy obtained by AFP.

The controversial reporter, who was fired by the US NBC television network in 2003 after suggesting that the US war plan in Iraq (news - web sites) had failed, made the claim following an 18-month investigation in which he says he gained access to Uday Hussein's inner circle.

The article cited a letter from Saddam Fedayeen commander General Maki Humudat, dated March 26, 2003, in which he swore allegiance to a new Iraqi government under the control of Fedayeen chief Uday Hussein.

"According to your direction and command to form a new government under the leadership of your Excellency (Uday), we have informed all the senior officers of the Saddam Fedayeen of your desire to appoint them as your candidates for office in your government," the letter said.

Uday had planned to announce his seizure of the crumbling reins of power later the same day, but was thwarted when US jets bombed his Youth TV studios in Baghdad, according to Arnett.

The ambitious heir had even formed a shadow government on the outskirts of Iraq's capital, Baghdad that was disguised under the cover of his powerful Olympic committee and funded by murky oil deals, he said.

According to Arnett, the oldest son of the Iraqi dictator had long been chafing under his father's iron fisted rule and blamed his father for the punishing international sanctions on the country.

"Though it has not been reported until now, Uday Hussein was the biggest proponent of regime change inside Iraq," Arnett wrote.

"During the previous 10 years, he had slowly assembled the elements of power -- military, military and political management -- designed to overthrow his tyrannical father," said the reporter who was in Baghdad as US troops approached following the launch of the March 19, 2003 US-led attack.

But, according to the journalist, Uday's coup plan came too late as US-led forces were just days away from the Iraqi capital.

He and his younger brother, Qusay, were forced to flee Baghdad along with their father as the Baath party military machine collapsed ahead of the US seizure of the city in early April.

Uday and Qusay were killed in a blistering battle in the northern city of Mosul on July 22, 2003, while Saddam Hussein was captured alive in his home town of Tikrit in December of that year.

Arnett, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his Vietnam War reporting and covered the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites) for CNN from Baghdad, was fired from NBC at the end of March 2003 after granting a disputed interview to Iraqi state television.

In that interview just days before Baghdad fell, he said the US war plan was failing. "Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces," he said.

A prety insightful read.Had the air strike on the TV station been one day later Iraq could have had a new leader.

All though it's obvious that even if Uday seized power and demanded negotiotions proposing full cooperation with US forces in their goal to disarm Iraq of WMD,extradition of Saddam to Hague and a halt in resistance attacks having won Iraq's military forces support he would have surely been ignored as first of all victory was to close,the Iraqis didn't have the capability to inflict heavy casualties on US forces and without the pretext of complete military victory and the prospect of a "fully democratic Iraq and ally in the Middle East" Bush wouldn't have had the pretext he needed to evade the subsequent WMD sharade.

[Akira 0]

I find it kind of fishy that for 10 years he planned to overthrow his father, but was thwarted when the US happened to bomb his TV station on the day he was going to take action.

And as you said, even if he had seized power I doubt it would have stopped the assualt, though it might have given Bush and Co. a bit of a pickle. With Saddam gone, if Uday had said "we give you free access to the country to look for WMDs if you withdraw or stop the attack" or something to that effect, I think it would have bruised TBA even mroe in the international arena...

[ralphwiggum 6]

yup. although he was Hussein's oldest son, it would have been dificult to work something out to overthrow his father.

when Uday was almost killed in a botched assasination a few years ago, there were some speculation that it could have been somewhat neglected by Saddam to properly warn him, since Uday has been quite brutal on Iraqis.

on that note, if that story is true and if it happened, it would have meant that TBA would have to go in anyways, since they wouldn't trust him anyways.

[quicksand 0]

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq’s health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli was assigned by the ministry to assess the health conditions in Fallujah following the November assault there.

He said that researches, prepared by his medical team, prove that U.S. occupation forces used internationally prohibited substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city.  

The health official announced his findings at a news conference in the health ministry building in Baghdad.

The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Dr. ash-Shaykhli started the conference by reporting the current health conditions of the Fallujah residents. He said that the city is still suffering from the effects of chemical substances and other types of weapons that cause serious diseases over the long term.

Asked whether limited nuclear weapons were also used by U.S. forces in Fallujah, Dr. ash-Shaykhli said; “What I saw during our research in Fallujah leads me to me believe everything that has been said about that battle.

“I absolutely do not exclude their use of nuclear and chemical substances, since all forms of nature were wiped out in that city. I can even say that we found dozens, if not hundreds, of stray dogs, cats, and birds that had perished as a result of those gasses.â€

Dr. ash-Shaykhli promised to send the findings of the researches to responsible bodies inside Iraq and abroad.

Fallujah residents said napalm gas was used

During the U.S. offensive, Fallujah residents reported that they saw “melted†bodies in the city, which suggests that U.S. forces used napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt.

In November, Labour MPs in the UK demanded Prime Minister Tony Blair to confront the Commons over the use of napalm gas in Fallujah.

Furious critics have also demanded that Blair threatens the U.S. to pullout British forces from Iraq unless the U.S. stops using the world’s deadliest weapon.

The United Nations banned the use of the napalm gas against civilians in 1980 after pictures of a naked wounded girl in Vietnam shocked the world.

The United States, which didn't endorse the convention, is the only nation in the world still using the deadly weapon.

Curiously enough this is not Iraqi resistance groups propaganda but a Health Ministry official who answers to the US appointed interim government.

In the best worst case scenario the Health official was so shocked about the onslought,the destroyed city and the streets littered with bodies that he concluded that such weapons were used,which is still quite saddening to think that the carnage in Fallujah was of such intensity that someone could only explain it by the usage of napalm and other banned weapons  

[theavonlady 2]

Curiously enough this is not Iraqi resistance groups propaganda but a Health Ministry official who answers to the US appointed interim government.

That doesn't mean anything. Plenty of Iraqi government officials have gone on the record saying they look forward to the US's departure ASAP.

Quote[/b] ]In the best worst case scenario the Health official was so shocked about the onslought,the destroyed city and the streets littered with bodies that he concluded that such weapons were used,which is still quite saddening to think that the carnage in Fallujah was of such intensity that someone could only explain it by the usage of napalm and other banned weapons

Other possibilities:

1) Faulty technical analysis.

2) Enemy weapons that went off - not the US.

3) Intentional smear by anti-US Iraqi clerks.

I don't for one second believe that the US used mustard gas and this is the point that makes the report seem so suspicious.

While the US never endorsed the convention banning napalm, I doubt the credibility and/or reliability of the report as a whole. So maybe napalm was or wasn't used but I don't think this report is the one to rely on to know it for a fact.

[Acecombat 0]

How ironic , the weapons on whose retrieval the war was raged to stop them from being used WERE used by the accuser himself

I guess everyone will look the other way on this issue once again? No big media coverage whatsoever , except for a faint complaint which will end up deep inside US armys investigation comittee whose conclusion will never probably reach us?

[theavonlady 2]

Just noticed the story is from Al Jazeera. Pass me a grain of salt, please.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]That doesn't mean anything. Plenty of Iraqi government officials have gone on the record saying they look forward to the US's departure ASAP.

Come on AvonLady I doubt you are so gulible.Even Allawi mentioned a plan would be worked out just before the ellections to get the US forces out of Iraq soon while you may think otherwise I consider it nothing more then a desperate ploy to clinch on votes from the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want US forces out of the country.

Just look at the al-Iraqia tv it reeks with propaganda and tries as hard as possible to paint a favorable picture to the US occupiers.The same pressure is on the other institutes that respond to the interim government.

There have also been attacks on Health ministry officials from the insurgents regarding them as cooperators,what reason did they have to confirm what resistance fighters and civillians from inside the rebel city complained of?

Quote[/b] ]1) Faulty technical analysis

Read my post again I've already taken into account an amount of subjectivity due to the massive carnage and seeing the city in ruins and mosques destroyed.

Quote[/b] ]2) Enemy weapons that went off - not the US

That makes sense,the frikin terrorists fired WMD on themselves,poisoning their black hearts with muster gas and in their final breaths they napalmed their suicidal selfs.

Quote[/b] ]While the US never endorsed the convention banning napalm, I doubt the credibility and/or reliability of the report as a whole. So maybe napalm was or wasn't used but I don't think this report is the one to rely on to know it for a fact.

Unfortunatly you see he was the only one who finally took the responsability to try and find out the truth after countless civillians from the city complained of such weapons being used.As in the case when an Iraqi scholars group travelled the country to tally the civillian deaths during the war,revealing a number of 100,000 civillians deaths,until your bias free institution of scientists have a go at such a research and conclude the opposite it is the most reliable source we curently have and if time passes without a response to this revealings I will be extremly inclined to belive it.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just noticed the story is from Al Jazeera. Pass me a grain of salt, please.

Simply pathetic.Is it Aljazeera views or are they reporting from a press conference that dozens of agency attended,my guess is the second.

Quote[/b] ]The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Talk about reeking with bias,I seriously recomand you to largen your perspective right now you are closing the same league with Wahabi extremists that no mather what you tell them and edvidence you sustain they will brush off any of your sources as being from apostates and infidel affliated organisations.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]That doesn't mean anything. Plenty of Iraqi government officials have gone on the record saying they look forward to the US's departure ASAP.

Come on AvonLady I doubt you are so gulible.Even Allawi mentioned a plan would be worked out just before the ellections to get the US forces out of Iraq soon while you may think otherwise I consider it nothing more then a desperate ploy to clinch on votes from the overwhelming majority of Iraqis who want US forces out of the country.

Just look at the al-Iraqia tv it reeks with propaganda and tries as hard as possible to paint a favorable picture to the US occupiers.The same pressure is on the other institutes that respond to the interim government.

Just how much al-Iraqia TV do you watch and understand? Or do you just assume this because it sounds right and you've read it on so many left blogs?

Quote[/b] ]There have also been attacks on Health ministry officials from the insurgents regarding them as cooperators,what reason did they have to confirm what resistance fighters and civillians from inside the rebel city complained of?

Has every Health Ministry official been threatened? And if this one was, is he under pressure to say what he said? We can speculate all day.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]1) Faulty technical analysis

Read my post again I've already taken into account an amount of subjectivity due to the massive carnage and seeing the city in ruins and mosques destroyed.

OK.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]2) Enemy weapons that went off - not the US

That makes sense,the frikin terrorists fired WMD on themselves,poisoning their black hearts with muster gas and in their final breaths they napalmed their suicidal selfs.

No. They didn't have to fire them. They could have been ignited by an explosion, no?

Think hard: have you ever heard of a case before where the US has used mustard gas in modern times?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]While the US never endorsed the convention banning napalm, I doubt the credibility and/or reliability of the report as a whole. So maybe napalm was or wasn't used but I don't think this report is the one to rely on to know it for a fact.

Unfortunatly you see he was the only one who finally took the responsability to try and find out the truth after countless civillians from the city complained of such weapons being used.As in the case when an Iraqi scholars group travelled the country to tally the civillian deaths during the war,revealing a number of 100,000 civillians deaths,

This is false. Discussed much before.

Quote[/b] ]until your bias free institution of scientists have a go at such a research and conclude the opposite it is the most reliable source we curently have and if time passes without a response to this revealings I will be extremly inclined to belive it.

As you like/desire.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Just noticed the story is from Al Jazeera. Pass me a grain of salt, please.

Simply pathetic.Is it Aljazeera views or are they reporting from a press conference that dozens of agency attended,my guess is the second.

Quote[/b] ]The press conference was attended by more than 20 Iraqi and foreign media networks, including the Iraqi ash-Sharqiyah TV network, the Iraqi as-Sabah newspaper, the U.S. Washington Post and the Knight-Ridder service.

Talk about reeking with bias,I seriously recomand you to largen your perspective right now you are closing the same league with Wahabi extremists that no mather what you tell them and edvidence you sustain they will  brush off any of your sources as being from apostates and infidel affliated organisations.

LOL. Sure, me and the Wahabbis.

I'll let an Iraqi sum up my opinion of Al Jazeera. Sorry to BRGNorway for a stupid off-topic forum quote from a blog:

Quote[/b] ]Al Jazeera has a good effect on the Arab street.

This might look strange especially that it comes from someone who repeatedly had criticized Al Jazeera harshly and even accused it of being the terrorists' mouthpiece but it's still true as I believe, despite I would never withdraw my accusations that are more than well founded and that so many people share. Al Jazeera is still a pillar for terrorists and fanatics and it still serve the agenda of dictatorships in the region but they do have some good effect too.

To understand that one must have some background on the official Arab media. They and Al Jazeera have very close agendas but they differ in the way they present it and they differ in where they get their finance from. While official Arab media is usually totally dependent on the state, Al Jazeera and its likes are actually profit institutions which makes them depend on pleasing as many audience as possible. Al Jazeera of course gets finance from Arab dictators and this was exposed after the liberation of Iraq through several documents that prove they received "gifts" and rearwards plus a regular payment that was said to be 50 000 US$/month. It's not a large amount of money but it seems it was a considerable regular payment and when put in mind what they might be receiving from Syria, KSA...Etc would make it clearer why Al Jazeera was and still is a mouthpiece for tyranny.

But Al Jazeera and Al Arabyia served another role whether they wanted or not. Of course Al Arabyia has changed its attitude and now it's considered a pro-west channel by some Arab regimes and lately their crew in Lebanon even received threats from the Syrian intelligence as the channel officials stated. However, even before that both channels offered a great service to democracy and freedom in the ME even when they wanted exactly the opposite! For example, Al Jazzera focused, as part of its coverage for the "deteriorated situations in Iraq" on every single demonstration against the interim government or the American presence in Iraq even if it was 10 people that are demonstrating! But this coverage, that was missed in the official Arab media most of the times, showed the Arab street an unusual scene. 'Arab' citizens demonstrating freely against their government and the supposed brutal occupiers under the eyes of police!

These days we hear every now and then about demonstrations almost everywhere in the Arab world. Excuse me, but this is far from usual! I haven't seen *any* demonstration against Saddam all my life and similarly I haven't heard of any in Syria or Saudi Arabia prior to the 9th of April. Most of us think it's what happened in Iraq that encouraged Arabs to demand more rights, but how could Arab citizens know the details of what's happening in Iraq if it wasn't for Al Jazeera and Al Arabyia? They don't watch western media, and the official TVs and newspapers give you only one point of view, that of the government, while Al Jazeera with all its bias host Iraqi officials and receive phone calls from Iraqi citizens on their talk shows. They twist facts, favor conspiracy theorists but in the end the audience gets more than one point of view and that's a crucial difference.

Al Jazeera was the first Arab channel that host Israeli officials. Before that it seemed like you would go to hell if you talk to an Israeli citizen, not official! We heard all kind of sh*t about Israel before that but non from an Israeli source and Al Jazeera opened a door that most people thought you can't knock on.

The Iraqi elections were covered fully by these two channels while official media gave it little attention and in some countries they were even ignored!

I'm NOT defending Al Jazeera but I'm stating what I think a fact. That Arabs need Al Jazeera and Al Arabyia and any independent source of news even if its independency was very partial. Having such media have, and will open many eyes and minds to see reality in a different light, and those who are smart and honest enough in seeking the truth will recognize it when they see it.

Before the liberation we had to dig so deep to find other sources for the news. The official Arab TVs are horrible to the degree that made Al Jazeera when it started broadcasting mean for us what probably Fox News means for Republicans! All we could hear on official media was "The historical leader" said this and the "genius" leader did that. Al Jazeera is still disgusting yes, but it offered other points of view and that was all we wanted and all what some of us needed to start looking further behind established facts.

Let us not blame Arabs if the majority of them can't see other than what their dictators think, as this was all what the majority got for such a long time. You hear the same talk on TV, radio, newspapers, the school, the mosque and in the streets simply because they're all run by the tyrants or strictly watched by his intelligence.

I have criticized the media a lot before but that does not mean I wish it to stop functioning. I just wish them to be more honest. We need the CNN, the BBC and even Al Jazeera but we should push them to do their job in a better way if and when we can. I don't know what changed Al Arabyia'a attitude but I'm sure Al Jazeera is not totally immune to such a change, but even without that change, they've done a great service most likely without wishing to.

[ralphwiggum 6]

U.S. used banned weapons in Fallujah – Health ministry

i'd give more credibility to Faux news than AJ.

[Akira 0]

Well it appears that the US almost finished what the terrorists didn't. Link To go through all that and then to almost be killed by "the good guys." Well she was lucky but if I was her I'd be super pissed.

EDIT: Not to mention this was at a checkpoint during her being handed over to the US. An Italian intelligence officer killed to? Sounds like an 18 year old itchy trigger finger to me.

[billybob2002 0]

Well it appears that the US almost finished what the terrorists didn't. Link To go through all that and then to almost be killed by "the good guys." Well she was lucky but if I was her I'd be super pissed.

EDIT: Not to mention this was at a checkpoint during her being handed over to the US. An Italian intelligence officer killed to? Sounds like an 18 year old itchy trigger finger to me.

I don't think the terrorists would kill somebody from the Il Manifesto given previous trends (if it wasn't al-Zarqawi's group/Ansar al-Sunnah Army).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....4195046

Quote[/b] ]

"At approximately 8:55 p.m. tonight, coalition forces assigned to the multinational force Iraq fired on a vehicle that was approaching a coalition checkpoint in Baghdad at a high rate of speed," the U.S. announcement said. "The recently freed Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was an occupant in the vehicle and was apparently injured."

[Akira 0]

Oh well in that case. Fire away *rolls eyes*

"High rate of speed"? I doubt anyone would approach a US checkpoint at a "high rate of speed" anymore. Most likely it SEEMED like a high rate of speed, especially given they were in no danger....until they got near the checkpoint that is...

[billybob2002 0]

Oh well in that case. Fire away *rolls eyes*

"High rate of speed"? I doubt anyone would approach a US checkpoint at a "high rate of speed" anymore. Most likely it SEEMED like a high rate of speed, especially given they were in no danger....until they got near the checkpoint that is...

Unmarked car heading to you at a "high rate of speed", what will do? Also, http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/03/04/iraq.main/

Quote[/b] ]

U.S. troops "attempted to warn the driver to stop by hand and arm signals, flashing white lights, and firing warning shots in front of the car," the statement said. "When the driver didn't stop, the soldiers shot into the engine block, which stopped the vehicle, killing one and wounding two others."

Now I know not all soldiers are marksmen or snipers.

Edit: RIP, Nicola Calipari