1
   

Iraq hostage died like hero, Italy says

 
 
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 08:08 am
The terrorists screwed up by killing this hero. Well, they screwed up in lots of other ways, but this is big. Now even the bleeding hearts will start seeing them for what they are - not patriots or freedom fighters, just thugs and criminals who deserve nothing more than extermination for their crimes.

Quote:
ROME, April 15 (Reuters) - An Italian hostage shot dead in Iraq tried to look his killers in the eye and died like a hero, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said on Thursday.

Frattini told reporters that Fabrizio Quattrocchi, one of four Italian security guards abducted outside Baghdad, was hooded when his kidnappers put a gun to his head.

"When the murderers were pointing a pistol at him, this man tried to take off his hood and shouted: 'Now I'm going to show you how an Italian dies'. And they killed him," Frattini said.

"He died a hero."

Quattrocchi's kidnappers handed over a tape of the killing to the Arab news channel al Jazeera which refused to broadcast the scene, saying it was too bloody. However, an Italian diplomat viewed the tape and relayed the details to Rome.

Quattrocchi left for Iraq in November to work as a security guard. The 36-year-old, who was specially trained to guard oil pipelines, was earning up to 10,000 euros ($12,500) a month and saving to buy a house with his fiancee, Italian media said.

But until his kidnapping, his mother thought the former baker was working in Kosovo.

His kidnappers, a previously unheard of group, threatened to kill the other three Italian hostages if Italy does not withdraw its troops from Iraq and its support from the United States.

Rome has rejected bowing to such pressure.

http://www.ansa.it/fdgimages03/1081982329_h_in_Anun_20040415.jpg
Fabrizio Quattrocchi

Quote:
Italy stands united in face of hostage drama

ROME, April 15 (Reuters) - Italian politicians closed ranks on Thursday following the shooting of a hostage in Iraq, saying Rome would never bow to demands to withdraw Italian troops from Iraq.

However, the murder on Wednesday of Sicilian security guard Fabrizio Quattrocchi fuelled cross-party calls for the United Nations to take charge of operations in Iraq amidst fears that violence there was spinning out of U.S. control.

Iraqi militants are holding a further three Italians hostage and have threatened to kill them too unless some 3,000 Italian troops are pulled from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

The majority of Italians opposed the U.S. war on Iraq and the decision by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to dispatch troops following the ousting of Saddam Hussein split the nation. However, the hostage crisis appeared to stiffen resolve.

"It wouldn't just be vile, it would also damage us if we pulled out (of Iraq) with the job half done. We cannot give in," Defence Minister Antonio Martino told reporters.

Foreign Minister Franco Frattini praised Quattrocchi as a "hero" and dismissed a purported audio tape by Osama bin Laden, aired on Arab television, that offered a truce to Europeans if they withdrew troops from Muslim nations.

"It is completely unthinkable that we could start negotiations with bin Laden," Frattini told reporters.

Opposition leaders, many of them deeply critical of Berlusconi's unwavering support for U.S. President George W. Bush, urged a united front over the hostages.

"The vile blackmail by a band of criminal kidnappers must not be given the dignity of a political response. Italy is and must remain unified and together," said Francesco Rutelli, leader of a centre-left opposition group, the Daisy party.

UN INVOLVEMENT

However, both opposition and government supporters said the United Nations had to play a more active role in Iraq to prevent the situation deteriorating further.

"Some say that this isn't yet Vietnam, but unfortunately facts show we aren't far off," said centre-left leader Clemente Mastella. "Before it is too late, the Italian government must do everything possible to internationalise the crisis."

A blurry image of Quattrocchi taken shortly before his death stared out from the front pages on Thursday as Italy faced up to its first full-blown hostage crisis in recent memory.

Rome's traditional pro-Arab stance shielded Italians from past bouts of Middle East violence. Berlusconi has changed the diplomatic equation by proving a firm ally of U.S. President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

While many Italians have criticised this shift in emphasis, few people except for the distraught families of the hostages called for talks with the Iraqi kidnappers.

"I absolutely oppose what is happening in Iraq, but I don't think that the kidnap and murder of one person should be what shapes policy," said Clara Biondo, a 26-year-old student in Milan. "That would be effectively paying them ransom." (Additional reporting by Clara Ferreira-Marques in Milan)
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,524 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 08:10 am
I posted a link to this story in another thread. What amazed me was that even Al-Jazeera refused to air the video, because it was too brutal.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 08:13 am
Maybe the Italians can send the Mob over to take care of some of the more problematic leaders in Iraq. They can be constrained by the same laws as those that killed Quattrocchi.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 08:27 am
Al-Jazeera probably didn't show it because it depicted a heroic victim, one who wasn't afraid of the terrorists. They don't want people to know about heroism. Here's what they say on their website:

Quote:
Aljazeera TV Channel said it will not air the tape showing the killing of the hostage "in order not to upset viewers sensitivities".

But didn't they show the terrorists cutting the throat of Daniel Pearl? And they didn't shrink back from showing the security contractors killed and their bodies descrated by the mob in Fallujah. So, as usual, I doubt their motives.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 08:48 am
Quote:

The terrorists screwed up by killing this hero. Well, they screwed up in lots of other ways, but this is big. Now even the bleeding hearts will start seeing them for what they are - not patriots or freedom fighters, just thugs and criminals who deserve nothing more than extermination for their crimes.


Who are "they"?

The people who did this are rightly called terrorists and brutal murderers. But it is an error to lump all Iraqis who are resisting the American occupation with them.

You are suggesting we "exterminate" some group of people. How do you propose we decide which people to exterminate?

People who oppose the US?
People who use weapons to resist the US?
People who support Sadr politically?
People who are Arab?
People who are seen at protests?
Shiites?
Sunnis?


Whom do we kill?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 09:46 am
Man Al-Jazeera can't catch a break from some Americans, they see the Arab name and read their prejudices into each and every of their broadcast decisions. It's pathetic.

Without seeing the tape and without sufficient knowledge of their broadcast criteria Tarantulas determines that it's because they don't want to broadcast heroism.

That's one of the lamest things I've read this week.

Tarantulas wrote:

But didn't they show the terrorists cutting the throat of Daniel Pearl?


Tarantulas, I don't think so. But you should probably find out so that your feckless accusation is rooted upon at least one fact, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction entirely devoid of it.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 10:02 am
I recall the tape of Danny Pearl was available, but not shown, at least in the U.S. Need we dig for sources on this?
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 10:15 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Man Al-Jazeera can't catch a break from some Americans, they see the Arab name and read their prejudices into each and every of their broadcast decisions. It's pathetic.

Without seeing the tape and without sufficient knowledge of their broadcast criteria Tarantulas determines that it's because they don't want to broadcast heroism.

That's one of the lamest things I've read this week.

Tarantulas wrote:

But didn't they show the terrorists cutting the throat of Daniel Pearl?


Tarantulas, I don't think so. But you should probably find out so that your feckless accusation is rooted upon at least one fact, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction entirely devoid of it.

Al-Jazeera doesn't hesitate to show all sorts of gruesome "exclusive" pictures of Arab civilian injuries. Why then would they self-censor the pictures of Arabs murdering a Western civilian? What motives do you think they used to justify this?

FYI, I don't have a discriminatory bone in my body. I'm not prejudiced against Al-Jazeera because of their name. I'm prejudiced because of their past actions.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 11:06 am
Tarantulas wrote:

Al-Jazeera doesn't hesitate to show all sorts of gruesome "exclusive" pictures of Arab civilian injuries. Why then would they self-censor the pictures of Arabs murdering a Western civilian?


Well, we've established that you have a superficial impression of Al-Jazeera's tendency to publish more gore than western media. Thus far you are correct.

But do you not see a difference between simple gore and live execution? And have you seen the execution to know whether or not there is a qualitative difference between this tape and what they'd normally publish?

Do you have any basis whatsoever to assert that you know that this tape is within their standards?

No, you do not.

Quote:
What motives do you think they used to justify this?


Until I see a reason to believe otherwise I'd take their word for it. It could be a particularly harsh scene. And from the description it may well be. How to qualify what should and should not be published is already difficult and for you to decide with total ignorance as to the content and tone of the tape that it was done to avoid showing heroes is baseless absurdity.

Quote:
FYI, I don't have a discriminatory bone in my body. I'm not prejudiced against Al-Jazeera because of their name. I'm prejudiced because of their past actions.


We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The reason being that your perspective of their past actions would be coloured by the same lens were my position rue, thereby rendering your comment the same as it could be were it true.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 11:10 am
roger wrote:
I recall the tape of Danny Pearl was available, but not shown, at least in the U.S. Need we dig for sources on this?


CBS aired portions of it, leaving out the execution. The need to dig for sources is for Tarantula's implication that Al-Jazeera aired the slitting of his throat. He is basing criticism of a decision not to air a tape he's never seen on the guess that Al-Jazeera did publish that scene.

I don't think they did. If anyone wants to dig let them dig.
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 12:24 pm
Here are a couple of articles about why Al-Jazeera should always be questioned as a source of news.

Quote:
Apr. 12, 2004 18:56 | Updated Apr. 13, 2004 0:13

Iraqi Council, US slam al-Jazeera, al-Arabiyeh

By MATTHEW GUTMAN
Baghdad

The US-led coalition in Iraq and the Iraqi Governing Council threatened Monday to ban the Arab world's leading satellite news channels al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyeh reporters from Iraq for ratcheting up sectarian strife in this war-torn country, according to a leading government official.

For almost a week, until the Marines began to take on embedded reporters, the two channels were among the handful transmitting news from the battleground town of Falluja.

Their frequent use of the term "massacre" and their ongoing use of images of bloodied women and children has led US officials in Iraq to question the balance of their reporting.

"There is no doubt that if al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyeh continue to incite violence and sectarian rifts in this country... they will be closed down here," said Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr. Muafak Rube'i. In a press conference with Western and Arab journalists, he slammed the Arab world's leading satellite news channels for stirring up both the Shi'ite rebels in the center and south of the country and insurgents in the so-called Sunni Triangle.

The campaign against the two stations has gained momentum in recent days as thousands of Iraqis heeded the calls of mosques to send aid to Falluja and "resist American occupation."

Several Arab journalists walked out of the press conference as Rube'i answered questions. Some Arab journalists commented that the new Iraqi Governing Council's limits on freedom of speech were too fast approaching those of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Still, Rube'i battled back, adding in both English and Arabic, that "false reporting will not be permitted in this country." Al Jazeera editor-in-chief Ahmed al-Sheikh denied claims of bias and incitement. "Those [Iraqi] people were killed. How were they killed? Who killed them? We were showing scenes on the ground, from hospitals and so forth. We are a news organization and we must follow news wherever it is," Al-Sheikh said on CNN. "We are not biased, people trust us," he added.

US Deputy Operations Commander in Iraq Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt also accused Arab media of biased reporting, going as far as accusing Al-Jazeera and others of "spreading lies." When asked Sunday how Iraqis should respond to the disturbing images on TV, Kimmitt snapped: "change the channel. Change it to a legitimate honest news station. Showing American soldiers killing only women and children is lies."

The proliferation of satellite dishes in Iraq has lent powerhouses Al Jazeera and Arabiyeh greater influence among Iraqis in the past year. The coalition allotted a $96 million grant to the indigenous Al Iraqiyeh which airs only 40 minutes of news a day. Most of its programming consists of home-improvement shows for housewives, Iraqi national team football games, and local features.

Increasing numbers of Iraqi leaders and even some viewers doubt the veracity of the two stations' version of events. "Al Jazeera broadcasts lies," said Dr. Mahmud Othman, a Kurdish Governing Council member over the weekend. "Their reporting is simply not accurate."

Some feel that Al Jazeera has overstepped its role. According to Yasou Ohnuki of the Japanese Broadcasting Company, the Qatar-based station has been acting as an intermediary between the kidnappers of three Japanese and Japanese officials.

Link

Quote:
Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar reporters aided terrorists

Margot Dudkevitch Apr. 8, 2004

The Samaria Military Court on Thursday indicted Daib Abu Zeid, a reporter for Hizbullah's al-Manar television for transferring funds on behalf of the Hizbullah to Palestinian terror cells in the West Bank and recruiting Israeli Arabs to Hizbullah's ranks.

Also on Thursday, security services arrested a correspondent of the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite television network suspected of aiding Palestinian terrorists.

Dib Abu Zayad, 38, from Jenin, was arrested three months ago in Nablus. According to the Shin Bet, Zayad supplied terrorists with weapons, money, clothes and modes of transportation.

Zayad served as a liaison between a Fatah leader in Lebanon and Fatah cells in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, passing money and information between the two countries.

Dib Abu Zayad was among 8 Palestinians arrested by the Shin Bet under suspicion of aiding and abetting terrorists. The security services were unable to divulge further details regarding Zayad's arrest.

In the last few days the security establishment received 60 terror alerts on average every day. At least three major attacks were thwarted.

Also Thursday, soldiers from an elite IDF unit arrested Muhammad Fukayat, a senior Hamas fugitive, in Ramallah.

According to Palestinian reports, troops entered a Palestinian government ministry in the city and arrested Fukayet, an executive in the Palestinian Prisoners Office, which deals with aiding released prisoners.

Palestinians added that during the operation, IDF troops conducted a search in the chambers of Fatah official Kadura Fares, a Palestinian parliamentary deputy.

A short time earlier, Palestinians opened fire on Israeli troops near the West Bank settlement of Kadim. No one was injured and no damage was caused in the incident.

Across the West Bank, the army arrested 27 wanted Palestinians overnight Wednesday. Palestinian officials said two of those arrested were female students from the Al Quds university in Nablus, a known hotbed of militant activity.

Link

As for my "feckless accusation," please note my use of the word "probably." It's only my opinion, not an accusation.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 12:39 pm
Tarantulas wrote:
Here are a couple of articles about why Al-Jazeera should always be questioned as a source of news.


Article one cited several of what may well be legitimate complainst. But it's also a far cry from the "in-bed-with-terror" accusations several people here level at them.

That their content is objectionable for military media management is one thing. The US military has frequently complained about them not broadcasting things as palatable to the military as the other embedded media outlets. But that does not override the fact that they are a group of journalists diametrically opposed to the many elements of Arab extremism. They are a shining light of free press in a region that has a dearth of it.

By all means criticize the tone and content of their reports and criticize the bias you feel they have.

But to equate them to a propaganda wing for said extremists is false. They are often sensationalist in nature and their reporting has a tabloid quality but they are not in bed with extremists.

They are not avoiding stories because of issues of heroism and such like you argued.


The second article references an arrested correspondent. Do you know what a correspondent is? In many cases it's simply someone who speaks the language of the network and who is willing to provide them information. I tried to become a CNN corresspondent in São Paulo Brasil and came closer than I could dream. And São Paulo is one of the largest cities in the world.

I posit that the correspondent in Jenin was selected out of convenience and does not indicate any alligiance with his associates.

Furthermore I posit that the case of a correspondent in the middle of a refugee camp does nothing to indict the media outlet a few countries away.

Correspondents are not much else than mules in the media.

Quote:

As for my "feckless accusation," please note my use of the word "probably." It's only my opinion, not an accusation.


Opinions and accusations are not mutually exclusive. Your accusation was a feckless one and was not contingient on the word "probably".

You said that "They don't want people to know about heroism".

You base this on a total ignorance of the content of the tape (do you know if the Italian was humilated and degraded?) and compare it to what you think they did with the Pearl tape (how is the Italian a hero and Pearl not?).

You wished to make a case about which you ahve not a shred of evidence.

1) You do not know whether the Italian man's death was not as gruesome as Al-Jazeera broadcast standards.

2) You do not know whether Al-Jazeera aired the slitting of Daniel Pearl's throat.

3) You do not know whether "They don't want people to know about heroism."

But you have no qualm with making the feckless accusation.

Quote:
And they didn't shrink back from showing the security contractors killed and their bodies descrated by the mob in Fallujah. So, as usual, I doubt their motives.


Will you doubt the US media outlet's motives as well? They too published Fallujah mutilation. Will you indict them as not wanting people to know about heroism if they do not broadcast the execution of the Italian?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 01:05 pm
Craven, tell us about the CNN experience? Very curious!
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 01:09 pm
There are many articles in our media and discussions right in this forum about trusting American news sources. My hasn't this war made so many selectively outraged?
0 Replies
 
Centroles
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 01:30 pm
al____ does spread lies. you're not in any position to judge them since you've never seen them.

The iraqis have, and they admit that al____ is notorisous for biased reportign and spreading lies.

Don't believe me, go here... http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/


It's an iraqi blog, linked to blogs posted by various people living in Iraq. Read up on their sentiments of what's going on there. Read up on their views of the terrorists (it's not sympathetic), on the American troops (they are for the most part favorable of us), and on al__________ (not very postive either)
0 Replies
 
Tarantulas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 01:36 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Tarantulas wrote:
Here are a couple of articles about why Al-Jazeera should always be questioned as a source of news.
By all means criticize the tone and content of their reports and criticize the bias you feel they have.

But to equate them to a propaganda wing for said extremists is false.

Not false. Unproven. Unless you know for a fact exactly what goes on in every Al Jazeera office everywhere, you can't know whether they're a propaganda wing or not.

Craven de Kere wrote:
They are often sensationalist in nature and their reporting has a tabloid quality but they are not in bed with extremists.

They are not avoiding stories because of issues of heroism and such like you argued.

Again, this is your personal opinion, not an established and documented fact. For all we know they could be funded and led by Al Qaeda.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
As for my "feckless accusation," please note my use of the word "probably." It's only my opinion, not an accusation.

Opinions and accusations are not mutually exclusive. Your accusation was a feckless one and was not contingient on the word "probably".

You said that "They don't want people to know about heroism".

That, too, is my opinion. Let's be crystal clear about this. Unless I say "I know the following statement is an established and undeniable fact because I have seen it and touched it and smelled and tasted and heard it," every statement I make on this board is my personal opinion. When I accuse someone of something, I back it up with facts. Until then, it's nothing more than a personal opinion.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Quote:
And they didn't shrink back from showing the security contractors killed and their bodies descrated by the mob in Fallujah. So, as usual, I doubt their motives.

Will you doubt the US media outlet's motives as well? They too published Fallujah mutilation. Will you indict them as not wanting people to know about heroism if they do not broadcast the execution of the Italian?

Oh yes, I doubt ALL media outlets. They all have an axe to grind and masters to serve and a spin to impart. The US media, however, are notorious for being over-sensitive and not showing extremely gory photos. Al Jazeera, it seems, has had no such qualms about showing blood and gore in the past. And that's the difference. In my opinion, that is. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
sparky
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 02:24 pm
Sheesh guys. Take a break.

I frequent the Aljazeera English website. Yes, they certainly have an Arab bias. Probably no more than Fox's right-leaning bias. Can you trust any media outlet? They all seem to lean one way or the other, no? So..... read them all. The truth generally lies somewhere in between.

Here's what I see. CNN will tell you how many US soldiers died in Iraq today. Al Jazeera will tell you how many civilians died in Iraq today. They are both biased AND they are both telling the truth.

Let us all remember the sage words of Obi-Wan - 'what I have said is true, from a certain point of view.'

I've said it before - try to put yourself in someone else's shoes, whether you agree with them or not.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 02:31 pm
hobitbob wrote:
Craven, tell us about the CNN experience? Very curious!


Not much to the story, I acheived no CNN experience. I taught a CNN correspondent for a weekend in an immersion course and realized that it doesn't take much to become one (her English was horrid and I could have done better).

Lacking a degree in Journalism and a position killed my efforts but it doesn't take much. Especially in remote areas like Jenin.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 02:39 pm
Tarantulas wrote:

Not false. Unproven. Unless you know for a fact exactly what goes on in every Al Jazeera office everywhere, you can't know whether they're a propaganda wing or not.


Fair enough, but consider the ramifications if we allow such a standard in debate.

One can argue or imply that the US is in bed with Al Quaeda and you'd be forced to concede forever that this is not false, merely unproven.

The standard you set is such that it can't be disproven.

Quote:
Again, this is your personal opinion, not an established and documented fact. For all we know they could be funded and led by Al Qaeda.


Tarantulas, this is getting a bit absurd. The funding and leadership of the network is well known. You can rely on the ambiguity of not being omniscient only so far.

Quote:
That, too, is my opinion. Let's be crystal clear about this. Unless I say "I know the following statement is an established and undeniable fact because I have seen it and touched it and smelled and tasted and heard it," every statement I make on this board is my personal opinion. When I accuse someone of something, I back it up with facts. Until then, it's nothing more than a personal opinion.


Opinions and accusations are not mutually exclusive. You claimed that Al-Jazeera doesn't "want people to know about heroism".

This is both an accusation and a personal opinion. There is not mutual exclusivity with the two.

Quote:

Oh yes, I doubt ALL media outlets. They all have an axe to grind and masters to serve and a spin to impart.


If your qualm is with the perceived spin then it's not a qualm I can take serious issue with.

If it's the ole "in bed with Al-Quaeda" position it is different. There's a heck of a difference between al-Manar and Al-Jazeera.

Quote:
The US media, however, are notorious for being over-sensitive and not showing extremely gory photos. Al Jazeera, it seems, has had no such qualms about showing blood and gore in the past. And that's the difference. In my opinion, that is. Very Happy


Al-Jazeera and many other media do, indeed, show more gore than our media. But that does not mean they do not have limits, and this tape may have simply reached said limits as opposed to being about an adversion to heroism.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Apr, 2004 04:03 pm
Bookmark.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq hostage died like hero, Italy says
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 07:59:08