Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Logic · Sep 23, 2003, 05:45 AM

Iraq council 'to ban Arab networks'

This will be interesting......

eklipse · Sep 23, 2003, 06:16 AM

Didn't Saddam censor the media and expel reporters?

lil'babykitten · Sep 23, 2003, 07:45 AM

But....but..... I thought the Iraqis had been 'liberated' and were 'free'.

Guess not huh?

Spliffdaddy · Sep 23, 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Didn't Saddam censor the media and expel reporters?

Sure. But the difference is that Saddam is your hero.

eklipse · Sep 23, 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Sure. But the difference is that Saddam is your hero.

Once again kids: Don't. Smoke. Crack.

Joshua · Sep 23, 2003, 08:43 AM

Dig around in some of the Iraqi blogs that surfaced before and after the war; there was a general sentiment that al Jazeera in particular was manipulating the Iraq situation for its own benefit.

This editorial from Iraq Today hints at how some Iraqi's view the rest of the Arab world post-Saddam.

eklipse · Sep 23, 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Dig around in some of the Iraqi blogs that surfaced before and after the war; there was a general sentiment that al Jazeera in particular was manipulating the Iraq situation for its own benefit.

What 'benefit' would that be?

macvillage.net · Sep 23, 2003, 09:50 AM

That's not a good idea.

That's going to come off as it is... US Policies being reflected in a occupied countries policies.

Not good.

If anything... let it be shown, and prove it to be bogus news. Just like we all know FoxNews is a about as accurate as the National Enquirer... some good news sources in the country, will show the people very quickly that these networks are just for fun.

Censorship isn't going to do anything but insight hatred towards Americans... now why America wants to do this is beyond me. I would think their goal would be the opposite.

Joshua · Sep 23, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
What 'benefit' would that be?

Solidifying opposition to the US occupation? Promoting a Ba'athist agenda? Increasing ratings? I don't know for certain. My point was that al Jazeera isn't some free press martyr; some Iraqi's feel that they're doing more harm than good.

Here's a quote taken from the blog of Salam Pax back in July:

And I would like to add that Jazeera is the worst ever. They should be banned under Mullah Bremer�s Fatwa banning all pro-saddam/pro-ba�ath propaganda. That political analyst they have, something al-ani, is a ****ing saddamite.

eklipse · Sep 23, 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Solidifying opposition to the US occupation? Promoting a Ba'athist agenda? Increasing ratings? I don't know for certain. My point was that al Jazeera isn't some free press martyr; some Iraqi's feel that they're doing more harm than good.

I don't think the first two are particularly likely - what would al-Jazeera stand to gain from encouraging opposition or harboring a pro-Ba'athist agenda?

Ratings boosting is more likely - but this is no different from Western media playing up 'success stories' and ignoring the tragic ones in order to achieve the same. Every media outlet is influenced by the need to appeal to it's audience.

Salam Pax lists al-Jazeera in his 'daily reads' column, although he is critical of some of their coverage and the views of their analysts, he still appears to use it as a news source. Which is, in my opinion, precisely the point, you don't have to agree with everything (or anything) a media outlet reports in order for it to be a valuable resource. They all offer differing opinions and a varied diet of broadcasting - the more variety, the better. Watch/read as much as one can and then make a balanced, informed decision on the issue.

Banning or censorship is counter-productive to that end.

Joshua · Sep 23, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Banning or censorship is counter-productive to that end.

Yeah, I certainly agree with you. I'm not saying I think it would be a good thing if al Jazeera et al get expelled, just that the decision is reflective of some genuine discontent with these network's reporting.

shmerek · Sep 23, 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Yeah, I certainly agree with you. I'm not saying I think it would be a good thing if al Jazeera et al get expelled, just that the decision is reflective of some genuine discontent with these network's reporting.

With a free press you have to take the good with the bad you can't pick and choose otherwise it isn't free. This is yet another dumb move by the US.

kvm_mkdb · Sep 23, 2003, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Here's a quote taken from the blog of Salam Pax back in July:
And I would like to add that Jazeera is the worst ever. They should be banned under Mullah Bremer�s Fatwa banning all pro-saddam/pro-ba�ath propaganda. That political analyst they have, something al-ani, is a ****ing saddamite.

Aren't you missing the slightly sarcastic tone in that sentence?

thunderous_funker · Sep 23, 2003, 01:03 PM

I think Fox New and MSNBC employ some "analysts" who do nothing but incite violence and will spout absolutely any lie that suits their personal agenda.

However, I don't think they should be banned. Just exposed.

Joshua · Sep 23, 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by shmerek:
With a free press you have to take the good with the bad you can't pick and choose otherwise it isn't free. This is yet another dumb move by the US.

How is this "yet another dumb move by the US"? The article is about the Governing Council. And nothing has actually happened; this is an unconfirmed report about what the Governing Council might be thinking about doing.

And you'll note about halfway through the article: "The US civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, must approve any action agains the two networks." We've had ample opportunity to forcibly eject these reporters and we haven't so far, so I rather doubt Bremer would approve a decision to do so now.

Zimphire · Sep 23, 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Joshua:
Dig around in some of the Iraqi blogs that surfaced before and after the war; there was a general sentiment that al Jazeera in particular was manipulating the Iraq situation for its own benefit.

This editorial from Iraq Today hints at how some Iraqi's view the rest of the Arab world post-Saddam.

Al-Jezeera is just a terrorist group posing as a news network.

shmerek · Sep 23, 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Joshua:
How is this "yet another dumb move by the US"? The article is about the Governing Council. And nothing has actually happened; this is an unconfirmed report about what the Governing Council might be thinking about doing.

And you'll note about halfway through the article: "The US civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, must approve any action agains the two networks." We've had ample opportunity to forcibly eject these reporters and we haven't so far, so I rather doubt Bremer would approve a decision to do so now.

You're right I am sorry. It is a dumb move by the puppet council appointed by the US.

dencamp · Sep 23, 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Al-Jezeera is just a terrorist group posing as a news network.

In this context, could you define terrorism?

Zimphire · Sep 23, 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by dencamp:
In this context, could you define terrorism?

I believe one reporter was just arrested for being involved with terrorists not to long ago.

They are also worse than Fox when it comes to reporting.

eklipse · Sep 23, 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I believe one reporter was just arrested for being involved with terrorists not to long ago.

A US Army chaplain and a US Air Force translator have just been arrested for spying, espionage and aiding the (terrorist) enemy.

The US military is a terrorist group posing as the armed forces!!

Zimphire · Sep 23, 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
A US Army chaplain and a US Air Force translator have just been arrested for spying, espionage and aiding the (terrorist) enemy.

The US military is a terrorist group posing as the armed forces!!

Guess what nationality they were.

Uday's Carcass · Sep 23, 2003, 08:42 PM

banning the arab networks is good. they're nothing but disgusting cesspools of propaganda, antisemetic and anti-American filth.

shmerek · Sep 23, 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
banning the arab networks is good. they're nothing but disgusting cesspools of propaganda, antisemetic and anti-American filth.

Zimphire · Sep 23, 2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
banning the arab networks is good. they're nothing but disgusting cesspools of propaganda, antisemetic and anti-American filth.

Yes, and the people who support them see them as middle of the road.

Uday's Carcass · Sep 23, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by shmerek:

Spliffdaddy · Sep 23, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
banning the arab networks is good. they're nothing but disgusting cesspools of propaganda, antisemetic and anti-American filth.

word up!

macvillage.net · Sep 23, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
banning the arab networks is good. they're nothing but disgusting cesspools of propaganda, antisemetic and anti-American filth.

And spreading it with our propeganda... which appears to these people as Americas attempt to overtake them...

Is really helping our troops.

Sometimes it's nicer to put people out of their missery. If you really want to kill our troops so bad, take a gun and shoot them so they don't suffer.

Fueling the fire doesn't put it out. Ask a firefighter, and they will tell you that. Put fuel in it's path, and that does nothing to your cause. That's why you don't bathe in gasoline before a bonfire.

Making bad choices on purpose is pissing me off. Politicians make these decisions, just for the sake of causing harm, and making a political point... with no regard to the consequences of their decisions, other than the direct impact burocracy.

The last thing the US needs to do is backup these networks claims that the US is there to invade, and assimilate.... the US swears it isn't... but keeps moving towards.

It's an indirect attack on the UN, and ultimately, the soldiers on the ground, who have to deal with it.

That's what pisses me off. Undermining people trying to do their job... Just for sh!ts and giggles.

eklipse · Sep 24, 2003, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Guess what nationality they were.

Chinese-American and Syrian - what's your point?

Logic · Sep 24, 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Chinese-American and Syrian - what's your point?

Are you sure? Weren't they both Americans? Or is being a US citizen not required for joining the US military

eklipse · Sep 24, 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you sure? Weren't they both Americans? Or is being a US citizen not required for joining the US military

Capt. James J. Yee had American citizenship, apparently the Syrian guy had applied for American citizenship.

According to the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...184855,00.html:

Al-Halabi, who joined the Air Force in January 2000, is Syrian. He also is accused of lying to the Air Force by falsely claiming to have become a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2001.

Logic · Sep 24, 2003, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
Capt. James J. Yee had American citizenship, apparently the Syrian guy had applied for American citizenship.

According to the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...184855,00.html:

Thanks

I see the background checks are as good as the pre-war intelligence

Zimphire · Sep 24, 2003, 08:17 AM

Yeah typical, lets not blame the people at fault, blame the US for hiring them!!

ROFL!!

eklipse · Sep 24, 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah typical, lets not blame the people at fault, blame the US for hiring them!!

ROFL!!

Or their nations of citizenship, right?

Zimphire · Sep 24, 2003, 08:26 AM

No the fault is all on the people who committed such actions. No one else.

eklipse · Sep 24, 2003, 08:30 AM

So why does their nationality matter?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Guess what nationality they were.

Zimphire · Sep 24, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
So why does their nationality matter?

Well when the people that are doing this, come from the same nationality, one is going to be "gunshy" in the future when it comes to hiring such nationality. Call it racial profiling or whatever. But the truth is the truth.

eklipse · Sep 24, 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well when the people that are doing this, come from the same nationality, one is going to be "gunshy" in the future when it comes to hiring such nationality. Call it racial profiling or whatever. But the truth is the truth.

So it's okay to blame any country except America? (don't forget the chaplain was a naturalized American)

Zimphire · Sep 24, 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
So it's okay to blame any country except America? (don't forget the chaplain was a naturalized American)

I am not blaming any country eklipse. Where are you getting this? I am blaming the people who do it. Pay attention.

eklipse · Sep 24, 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I am not blaming any country eklipse. Where are you getting this? I am blaming the people who do it. Pay attention.

So why did you feel it important to note their countries of origin?

lil'babykitten · Sep 24, 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
So why did you feel it important to note their countries of origin?

Because he was hoping someone would say they were Arabs, and then he would have labeled them 'pig-dogs'.

Troll · Sep 24, 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by eklipse:
So why did you feel it important to note their countries of origin?

Because when it comes to geography Zimphire is even more retarded than his president.

Uday's Carcass · Sep 25, 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Are you sure? Weren't they both Americans? Or is being a US citizen not required for joining the US military

To be enlisted one does not need citizenship. Indeed, it is possible for a non-citizen to earn US citizenship in only 3 years through serving in the US military.

commissioned officers, however, must have citizenship.

Logic · Sep 25, 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
To be enlisted one does not need citizenship. Indeed, it is possible for a non-citizen to earn US citizenship in only 3 years through serving in the US military.

commissioned officers, however, must have citizenship.

Thanks, didn't know that.

But I find that very odd to say the least. In Sweden you must be a Swedish citizen to be in the military and the same applies in most nations I can think of. Very strange but thanks for the info.

Uday's Carcass · Sep 25, 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
But I find that very odd to say the least. In Sweden you must be a Swedish citizen to be in the military and the same applies in most nations I can think of. Very strange but thanks for the info.

It is in keeping with the very liberal immigration and citizenship laws (when compared to other countries) of the Great Satan.

macvillage.net · Sep 25, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
Because when it comes to geography Zimphire is even more retarded than his president.

It's not retardation. The problem with retards is they can't help it.

Zimphire choose to have his head up his rectal cavity.

There's a difference.

Zimphire · Sep 26, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by eklipse:
So why did you feel it important to note their countries of origin?

Because these people that are at fault usually come from the same area.

That isn't blaming the country. That is blaming the the people doing this in the country.

Zimphire · Sep 26, 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Because he was hoping someone would say they were Arabs, and then he would have labeled them 'pig-dogs'.

No, just the terrorists are pig dogs. Stop putting words in my mouth silly.

Zimphire · Sep 26, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
Because when it comes to geography Zimphire is even more retarded than his president.

Gee let me come up with something as equally "witty"

Takes one to know one....

If you are going to personally attack someone Troll, at least be a bit original, and make it funny.

Zimphire · Sep 26, 2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's not retardation. The problem with retards is they can't help it.

Zimphire choose to have his head up his rectal cavity.

There's a difference.

Read the post I just made to Troll. It applies to you too.