0
   

The US, UN & Iraq II

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 04:53 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I've just read that all these "chemical weapons" have been found on a "agricultural compound", they had not been weaponized and might simply be pesticides.

I'm only wondering, why everyone seems to know the facts before anything is tested.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=2&cid=578&u=/nm/20030407/ts_nm/iraq_usa_cache_dc
Walter, I believe the matter is being given very careful scrutiny. As the material was not discovered in weapons, there will be question. Even if the barrels prove inconclusive, should the missiles be what they seem, the barrels will make little difference. Insecticides are not applied via battlefield multiple-launch-rocket systems.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 05:28 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I note that even Al Jazeera is a bit less Pro-Regime than has been the case.


Asherman wrote:
Frolic seems to prefer getting his news from Al Jazeera.


So, how do you folks know about what Al-Jazeera reports? Can you watch & understand Al-Jazeera?

Last night I watched a program on the third public TV station here. The VPRO had devoted an episode (of an hour) of their current affairs program to excerpts from Arab TV news. No comments, no reportage, just a window on what the Arab countries get to watch: a collage of subtitled footage from Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and Al-Manar.

It was absolutely fascinating! Very interesting indeed. Both b/c of the actual news they broadcast, and b/c of the realisations it made you have about what arabs see.

The stations were hugely different. Al-Manar from Lebanon, nicknamed "Hezbollah TV" is simply - evil. One big, high-intensity, highly emotional, merciless barrage of rhetorical impact, that seemed to have one single objective: to make you angry, no - outraged, bitter, infuriated. It was truly goering-esque. The music always dramatic, underscoring an endless sequence of gory images of victims of - always - israeli violence, rhetorical questions emblazoned on the screen, creative collages of bush next to hitler, interviews with 11-year old girls from hebron swearing revenge and martyrdom against zionism - on and on and on. hell, after just ten minutes of that i felt like coffee-overdosed myself; imagine how someone personally involved in the images must get to feel watching night after night of that.

The other two stations were wholly different, though. Al-Arabiya (from Saudi-Arabia) made an in-between impression. Pretty regular, CNN-like fare, with the odd excursion into making a point (i.e., a collage of the voice of Bush warning about respecting the geneva convention on POWs with a sequence of images of Iraqi POWs filmed by TV). Al-Jazeera is pretty much BBC World on speed. The material seemed very objective - or very varied, at least - they had the US spokesmen, the Iraqi spokesmen, neither was praised nor ridiculed in comment or asides; they had footage from Iraq, from protests in Australia (but also about the protests turning violent); yet they had sketches on American soldiers as well, and analysts warning about Saddam's record of terror and the danger of his possible chemical weapons. Very wide range of sources and materials, it seemed.

The main difference between Al-Jazeera, judging on this material, and BBC World for example, is not one of bias or angle at all; it's more about style than anything else. Al-Jazeera seems more breathless, more intense. And Arab stations apparently have no problem in showing blood or shocking scenes - about whichever country. In the US, the fact that Al-Jazeera showed those dead Americans and the POWs was interpreted as anti-Americanism; in fact, such materials simply seem common fare there.

Anyway - more about Al-Jazeera in the news article I'll translate in a post below.

Btw, Asherman, I responded to a post of yours at length above - others did too, I believe - would you care to respond to the arguments?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 05:41 pm
frolic wrote:
Some strange developments.

Quote:
Firefight breaks out in the centre of Nasiriya - it is believed the fighting is between Iraqi groups, possibly between Fedayeen members faithful to Saddam Hussein and people opposed to him.


If the mini coalition doesn't stop this fighting this could become a second phase in the campaign=> A full scale civil war between Shia, Sunni and Kurds. And i dont think Iran, Syria or Turkey will stand on the sideline and watch how their people gets slaughtered or their enemy takes over strategic or important land and oilfields.


Has there been any sign of ethnic/religious strife at all yet?

The incident you quote seems to refer specifically to the kind of political violence you would expect now: conflict between those with a stake in the old regime, fighting for their survival, and those taking the opportunity to get rid of them.

ethnoreligious conflict between kurds, sunnis and shi'ites, which unlike the above could lead to civil war, is quite a different matter. something that's been much feared and discussed, but hasnt actually happened yet, has it?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 05:56 pm
Don't forget the Shia's - they are the ones that rebelled 12 years ago and Bush's the Elder left to die. Got the following; but, the link didn't work at the time:

Times of India wrote:
Iraqi Shia leader returns after 23 yrs
Times of India, India - 12 hours ago
TEHRAN: The leader of the largest Iraqi opposition group has decided to return home
as the regime of President Saddam Hussein is caving in to US-led military ...
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:01 pm
Considerng what has been promised the Iraqi people this post is germane
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM
A PROMISE WAS MADE IN AMERICA'S NAME
AND BROKEN


Apr. 07, 2003
ALSO FOR THE RECORD: AFGHANISTAN

Following up on the longer-term concerns I reiterated in the preceding post, I offer the following from the New York Times for your consideration:

The manner of his death suggests the Taliban is not only determined to remain a force in this country, but is reorganizing and reviving its command structure.

There is little to stop them. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away.

At a time when the United States is promising a reconstructed democratic postwar Iraq, many Afghans are remembering hearing similar promises not long ago.

Instead, what they see is thieving warlords, murder on the roads, and a resurgence of Taliban vigilantism.

"It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem,'' said Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president and his representative in southern Kandahar. "What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. Everyone is back in business.''

Karzai said reconstruction has been painfully slow -- a canal repaired, a piece of city road paved, a small school rebuilt.

"There have been no significant changes for people,'' he said. "People are tired of seeing small, small projects. I don't know what to say to people anymore.''

From safe havens in neighboring Pakistan, aided by militant Muslim groups there, the Taliban launched their revival to coincide with the war in Iraq and capitalize on Muslim anger over the U.S. invasion, say Afghan officials.

Karzai said the Taliban are allied with rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, supported by Pakistan and financed by militant Arabs.

The attacks have targeted foreigners and the threats have been directed toward Afghans working for international organizations.

In the latest killing in southern Afghanistan, gunmen on Thursday shot to death Haji Gilani, a close Karzai ally, in southern Uruzgan province. Gilani was one of the first people to shelter Karzai when he secretly entered Afghanistan to foment a rebellion against the Taliban in late 2001.

International workers in Kandahar don't feel safe anymore and some have been moved from the Kandahar region to safer areas, said John Oerum, southwest security officer for the United Nations. But Oerum is trying to find a way to stay in southern Afghanistan. To abandon it would be to let the rebel forces win, he says.

The Red Cross, with 150 foreign workers in Afghanistan, have suspended operations indefinitely.

Today most Afghans say their National Army seems a distant dream while the U.S.-led coalition continues to feed and finance warlords for their help in hunting for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.
And, at the end of the article:

"There is no real administration all over Afghanistan, no army, no police,'' said Mohammed. "The people do not want the Taliban, but we have to unite and build, but we are not.''
Posted by: Arthur Silber on Apr. 07, 2003 | 4:41 pm
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:03 pm
Typical Bush promises, a lot of air - no meat! Smile
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:06 pm
NRC Handelsblad, April 7, from Reuters press agency (my (re-)translation) wrote:

Hospitals in Baghdad can hardly deal with the numbers of civilian victims

[..] Hospitals in Baghdad can hardly deal with the numbers of civilian victims of the bombings. "During fierce bombardments the hospitals sometimes get in a hundred victims an hour", a spokesperson of the International Red Cross says. The aid organisation tours the hospitals to supply them with medical provisions for first aid and operations. At the Kindi-hospital the new patients arrive in so high a tempo that there isnt even time to wipe the blood of the stretchers. Ambulances drive on and off with new victims. The wounded are carried inside in sheets when the stretchers run out. From the rooms resound laments and screams of pain.

The deputy director of the hospital, Osama Saleh al-Duleimi, says that the inflow of wounded has caused a shortage of anaesthetics and painkillers. There are also too few beds, and too few medical personnel. The doctors work at the operation tables 24 hours a day.

Osama Saleh al-Duleimi has already experienced two wars. First the war with Iran, in between 1980 and 1988, and in 1991 the first Gulf War. "I've been a doctor for 25 years, and never have I seen so many victims and such serious injuries", the 48-year old deputy director says.

A doctor confirms this. "This war is much more destructive than all the previous ones", says Sadek al-Mukhtar. "It almost seems as if at the time there were mostly weapons that made people invalids. Now there are many more deaths."

Outside Baghdad there are also civilian victims. In Nassiriya, 375 kilometres southeast of the capital, the American forces have opened an open-air clinic. Iraqis who were the victim of missile attacks or shootings are treated there. Like Hafid Katham (39) and his cousin Talal Ali Katham, who both sustained burns at an air raid, two weeks ago. Eleven other family members were killed.

[..] According to Hafid the air attack was the work of the Americans. He says that his own mother and father are now dead. Still he doesnt hate the Americans, he says. "He doesnt take it personally. He knows we are trying to liberate the country", an American interpretor translates.

An elderly man waiting in line to get water at [..] the clinic has his doubts about that. "The Iraqi population waits to see how things will be when Saddam is beaten. Only then will we see whether the Americans have come here for the oil or to liberate the country."
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:17 pm
Nimn,

I don't know what you are referring to. I scanned back fifteen or so pages without seeing whatever it is you were talking about.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:26 pm
nimh, Do you think the Iraqi's will fare better, the same, or worse than the Afghan's? c.i.
0 Replies
 
fbaezer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:33 pm
nimh,
good post about Al-Jezeera.
The thing that strikes us most about this network is based on cultural differences. Music over corpses means gore to us, but not to Arabs.
A similar thing struck me last night on CNN. "The Human side" of the war showed an Iraqi family, with their hands up, as they left their tiny house, held at gunpoint by US soldiers who were about to search it. Two small boys stared at the soldiers. Their mother was covering her face, full of shame, and then held her hands up and then covered her face again. The camera focused at a little girl's terrified face. She was about 9, my daughter's age, breathing fast, trying to be brave and not to brake in tears, not understanding why these men, armed to their teeth, were yelling at her parents, her little brothers and herself, ordering them to kneel down. The camera froze. And smack-right-dab after the freezing, the CNN commentator passed into another scene, of US soldiers attending their Sunday religious services.
I understand that CNN is trying not to seem too "patriotic", and the combination was meant to provide "balance". But the shift was so rapid, I said to myself: "These Americans digest tragedies as if they were potato chips", and changed channel. The sudden change was extremely distasteful to me, but -I suppose- not to most American viewers.

BTW, I think Al-Jezzera is not objective, but slightly Anti-American. It's not pro-Saddam either. They also have had journalist expelled by the regime. To me, it is as reliable a source, as Fox or NBC, which IMO are not objective, either.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 06:35 pm
nimh, I don't read or understand Arabic, and I watch none of the stations tou mention. I do subscribe to a press service which does ... anf I read their articles. I gotta agree about Hezbollah TV (All-Jihad-All-The-Time is a stretch, but not that far fetched sometimes). Al-Arabiya does get better objectivity marks than does Al-Jazeera, though both are more "News Accepting" outlets than "News Gathering" outfits, and given more to both agenda and sensationalism than are say Reuters or The BBC, for instance (which is not to say those two examples don't editorialize a bit). A survey of sources is likely to yield a truer picture than is a reliance upon just a source or two. Much of The Arab Street has little access to a broad survey of news. VOA and the BBC are about the only alternative they have to their own relatively immature and under-resourced contemporary media.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:02 pm
de Volkskrant (my translation) wrote:

AL-Jazeera is like a sponge


Decided to post the promised translation of another article on Al-Jazeera on this thread, instead.

One interesting excerpt:

Quote:
The station functions as a window to the world and refrains from any explicit commentary. [..] The station approaches the western guests in the same way as its Arabic guests. That, plus the reports on the progress of the American and British forces have led many Arabs to reproach Al Jazeera for choosing the side of the Americans. But Al Jazeera shows the propaganda from both parties, like a sponge that absorbs everything, and lets it all drain again - onto the airwaves.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
nimh, Do you think the Iraqi's will fare better, the same, or worse than the Afghan's? c.i.


hell, i dont know, i aint no expert ... Razz

but my two cents is that i think the iraqis will not be anything as neglected as the afghans are now - the US will be much more "hands on" this time. Whether thats good or bad news for them is all up to your opinion ... :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:24 pm
nimh, None of us are experts. Just opnionated A2Kers. Smile Your .02c is worth the same as mine - maybe more. c.i.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:25 pm
Instant Major Rumor: US may have "Gotten" Saddam and Sons, other Senior Officials, w/Bombstrike this afternoon. Allegedly, 4 "BunkerBusters , B2 delivered, were used on a Target of Opportunity developed by "Strong Intelligence". There is "A hell of a hole in the ground" at the purported target site, according to "An Officer".

Of course, we've heard similar stuff before.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:25 pm
Asherman wrote:
Nimn,

I don't know what you are referring to. I scanned back fifteen or so pages without seeing whatever it is you were talking about.


I looked it up - you're right, it's been a while since you last posted, and this thread sure moves fast, so our reactions to your post are already buried deep inside ... six days ago, means 57 pages ago!! I had no idea. So sorry for having you browsing around ...

Anyway, my response to your posting at the time was at page 263. The others' must be around that page as well.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:26 pm
Nimb wrote (as a quote)

The station approaches the western guests in the same way as its Arabic guests. That, plus the reports on the progress of the American and British forces have led many Arabs to reproach Al Jazeera for choosing the side of the Americans. But Al Jazeera shows the propaganda from both parties, like a sponge that absorbs everything, and lets it all drain again - onto the airwaves.

I read this with great interest but with skepticism that it is true. I can't read Arabic so I don't know if it's true ---can you confirm it for me.
I really worry that the US is losing the information war because the Muslim world is largely a captive audience for Al Jazeera. Do they now show the Iraqi minister of information denying that US forces are in Baghdad when if he looks out the window his building is surrounded by US forces?

If Al Jazeera is reporting even somewhat balanced views then there is nothing to worry about ----what say you?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:31 pm
FOX, CNN, NWI, and MSNBC giving significant play to Saddam Bombstrike story. This will occupy the prognosticians for a while, I imagine.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:32 pm
C.I.
If Bush's word to the Iraqi is as good as it's turning out to be to the Afghani...... Iraq will end up paying us....hey wait a minute .... hmmmm
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Apr, 2003 07:40 pm
I want to repost this exchange from another thread here:

au1929 wrote:
John Webb, [you wrote:]
"As a guide, yesterday in one incident, what was initially reported in America as two deaths from possible friendly fire, was reported by European T.V. as 15 deaths of American Servicemen from definite friendly fire. Quite a difference"

And of course I would suppose that you believe that the European press always tells the truth????


John Webb wrote:
Unfortunately for the manipulators, amongst the many injured American survivors, was a respected B.B.C. reporter (also injured) complete with camera who was able to broadcast almost immediately the whole story, numbers killed and show the subsequent devastation on European TV.


nimh wrote:
Those were among the most troubling images of the war I've seen so far, and I had been wondering straight away whether they'd ever reached the US.

There was BBC's John Simpson, who had been the first Western reporter into Kabul, telling how they were trying to save the life of their translator - they didnt succeed ...

Most shocking of all, the images the cameraman had shot while the attack was under way: the bombs fell, he fell to the ground, a blot of blood splattered onto the camera lense, he wiped it off - it was his own blood, had a head wound - but he filmed on, images of running, of his wounded colleagues, and time and again he hurriedly tried to smear the blood off of the lense, unsuccesfully, while more booms echoed and screams were, "they're starting again!".

It turned out the marines that accompanied the convoy made up of themselves, Kurdish fighters and British journalists, had called up air support because they suspected enemy tanks further down the road - the airplanes came, and bombed them, instead ...

Did you know that, until early yesterday at least, according to the BBC more British troops had been killed by American "friendly fire" than by Iraqi attacks?
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. » The US, UN & Iraq II
  3. » Page 160
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 04:06:43