BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 01:16 PM

The Stock Exchange has justed kicked Al Jazeera off the floor saying they only have enough media slots for "responsible" media organizations. Additionally, the DoD is claiming that showing the images of POWs on media, as well as those of corpses, I suppose, is a violation of the Geneva Convention which is supposed to protect POPWs (among other things) from being made objects of "public curiousity".

The Australian public media has rejected a blanket request from the US not to show images depicting the violence of war, on the grounds that it would be a complete compromise of their basic mission as reporters.

The US Media has generally refused to show anything but the most bland imagery of the war, and I can only susp[ect that the Bush administration is nervous as hell about undermining public support for the campaign, which would diminisyh if people were shown the reality with its horrors and degradations.

How insulated should Americans be from the ground truth in which they are directly involved as a nation engaging in a foreign war? Why the hell should they be protected from understanding the meaning of their votes when they argue in support of the war? IS there genuine rationale behind the notion of sanitizing war reportage? Or is it just part of the Newspeak campaign pitching the notion that war is peace? Didn't someone famous once say "The truth shall set them free?" Oy, tempora, oy, mores!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 02:31 PM

A letter in today's Guardian says what a lot of people are thinking:

"Mr Blair tells us the filming of US prisoners is the sort of thing that makes it necessary to get rid of Saddam. Presumably he would have had no objection if the Iraqis had dressed them in orange suits, hooded and shackled them, and wheeled them between interrogation centres on hospital trolleys."

And here is an article by George Monbiot in the same edition, making the same point at greater length: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html -"Suddenly, the government of the United States has discovered the virtues of international law."

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Ireland
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 06:02 PM

On a day time show in the UK, Richard and Judy,they were interviewing two politicians and a new journalist, kate?.

A caller to the show asked why Bush Sr did not go on and take Saddam out in the first Gulf war.Kate? said that one of the reasons was that Bush Sr was worried about the images and public opinion of him.

Looks like the daddy was more worried about his presidency and thought the images would harm him, Amos has pointed out the same concern is shared by Bush Jr.

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 07:19 PM

Kate Adie, I imagine - a news journalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: NicoleC
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 08:09 PM

Bush Sr. didn't take out Saddam for two reasons:
1) He didn't have the mandate to do so either from the US public or in world opinion
2) He didn't try to get such a mandate. The rebel (extreme fundamentalist) factions in Iraq had ties to powerful similar factions in Iran, and were seen as a greater threat than Saddam, since they would have easily gained control if Saddam were ousted.

While we may wish Saddam weren't around now and there's a lot of talk about how we "should" have taken him out... in light of the close ties many of those extreme fundamentalist government to terrorist organizations -- like Al Qaeda -- things could have been much worse without Saddam around. Iraq might really be supporting terrorist acts like 9/11 instead of being an unsubstantiated political ploy.

No way to know for sure now what might have happened, but the decision to leave him in power was made for specific reasons, not out of any weakness or ineptness on the part of the US or the UN coalition then. What we definately SHOULDN'T have done in GWI was tell the rebel factions we were going to support them, and then let them get slaughtered by Saddam instead. I suspect certain members of the intelligence community made promises they weren't authorized to, and it turned out to be a nasty bit of work. Bush the Elder just doesn't seem like the sort to have approved that kind of double-dealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Sorcha
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 01:25 AM

Sort of like why George Patton didn't "take" Moscow..........but now,we are defying U.N. rules...........and Shrub Jr. doesn't seem to care, as long as the Iraqis follow Geneva Rules. Looks to me like Jr. doesn't have a mandate either. Seems a bit weird to me.......Jr. seems a tad less concerned about his Public Image than dear old dad. Oh well.

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 03:21 AM

Cut the crap. The States knowingly began an ilegal war for it's own interests. Bush made him self and Americans untouchable for war crimes committed.
Of course the States will find weapons of mass destruction just like cops plant drugs on people before they arrest them.
The States is the only country to have so far used weapons of mass destruction. Your heads of govt who were not actually democratically elected have conflicts of interest in relaton to companies that are contracted to complete the reconstruction and the supply of materials.
Your leaders used false documents stolen from the internet to try to convince the world about how bad Iraq is. (Feeble lies)
There is a huge imballance of military might. Many Iraq people are now dead as a result of your ilegal invasion. Soldiers or civilians
they are still someones very much loved sons and daughters and parents. Don't dehumanise the situation they are people just like you.
The only weapons of mass destruction that I can see in the area are aimed at Iraq. they are your's and you sure have a huge arsenal of them. The states has delberately ignored noncompliance of united nations instruction in regards to Isreal's occupation of Palestine.
The States and it's CIA have manipulated almost every world conflict that has existedover te last 40 odd years. The States has chosen to Veto any UN resolution tht does not suit it's purposes and has done so more than any other nation. Yes and there is pretty good evidence that the states had a hand in the murder of it's own people on Sept 11th. Sadam is obviously a really nasty guy but probably an angel when compared with Bush and his Mates. At least he's not going for world domination. Get real and see with your own eyes what is happening. this is all about right verses left. Look at the big picture and forget you selfish personal interest.
Frankly if you can't see this your dishonest or a fuckwit.
Yes I amm pissed off.

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 26 Mar 03 - 09:10 AM

Now my "POW-MIA" flag has a more urgent look to it. Faded as it is, I am keeping it up. It's age testifies to the concern I have about POWs and MIAs and KIAs. I am going down to my local Dollar General and buying enough yellow ribbon to tie seven bows onto the flag's pole.

And enough more for what the future will bring.

I hope and pray that those young folks are well treated and that they come home to the safety and love of their families.

CB

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: DougR
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 02:39 AM

Kiwi Guest: you're pissed off? Wow!

Nicole: thanks for writing your last post. Coming from you, the lefties here might finally put that argument to rest. If I, troll, Teribus, or any others of our ilk had posted it, it would have just been treated as propaganda.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 03:02 AM

Bush the Elder just doesn't seem like the sort to have approved that kind of double-dealing. ??? Former head of the CIA??? Doesn't likely that he would have that much of a conscience!

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 07:42 AM

Double-Dealing? From George the First? I'm shocked and awed you'd even suggest such a thing. The co-sponsor and willing participant in Iran Contra? Not him! No way.

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 27 Mar 03 - 08:00 AM

On the front page of the Mpls. Star Tribune the other day, there was a photo of a wounded "Iraqi soldier," nude but for his headwear and being forced to sit up on a blood-stained stretcher, being strip-searched for the cameras. At least the Iraqis let their POWs remain clothed while being photographed. I've seen plenty of photos of dead Iraqi soldiers, Iraqi soldiers being publicly humiliated, etc., but there's been almost no public outrage about that (in the US).

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: GUEST,Beffudled
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 07:03 AM

Hasnt this war become a media circus...since when in time of war has government allowed the media to undermine the war effort with constant negative reporting.if this thing needs to be done ????? then why have they allowed the western media to be Saddams greatest weapon...Surely there are far too many reporters being allowed to tag along with the military making it impossible to control a part of any war thats at least as important as the military side the public information side which must surely have a very negative effect on the morale of the coalition soldiers engaged in this conflict..

Another extra-ordinary happening is the campaigning on TV here in the UK to raise money for the Iraqi people...surely until they make the decision to stand up to the thug who has ruined their lives for the last 35 years (they seem qiute willing to risk all to snipe at the coalition soldiers)why should we be asked to bail out this vastly oil rich country which if only they had been able to organise a decent government of would have made handouts from us the reviled infidel west unneccessary

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Bagpuss
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 07:08 AM

befuddled - re raising money.

Because there are a lot of compassionate people who don't like to see people starve to death when we can help prevent that?

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: Wolfgang
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 07:24 AM

Looked at from over here, i is hard to see any difference in treatment except for the uncorroborated (so far) claims of executions.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 08:55 AM

"Bush the Elder just doesn't seem like the sort to have approved that kind of double-dealing."

I read that as heavy irony. Was I wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: GUEST,Mars
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM

Possible Link to Al-Qaeda?

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: stevetheORC
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 10:01 AM

Dear'GUEST,Beffudled'
Im not having a go but I would just like to let you know that a number of Iraqies did rise up against Saddam 12 years ago only to be slaughterd by Republican Guard troops, as we in the west stood back and allowed it to happen, so please dont be so quick as to judge them. they quite proberly dont want another taste of Saddams Justice.

Steve the Orc

Subject: RE: BS: Reports from Al Jazeera. P.O.W.s
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 28 Mar 03 - 11:13 AM

Beffudled (sic)-The government allows the media to report negatively because doing otherwise would violate the First Amendment in a manner that would be utterly unacceptable to the majority of the nation. Remember, the media in fact controls most broadcast and paper information distributers. That's why we call them the media. It would be almost impossible to censor them all without tremendous backlash. Instead, the government has set up a system, the "embedded" reporters, which nearly guarantees favorable reporting without the appearance of censorship. Further, I think the free flow of information is more important than the morale of soldiers who should know full well that the war is not fully supported or moral. As to why we should bail out the Iraqi people, consider that because of our earlier support of Saddam, and our bombing of Iraqi infrastructure over the last twelve years, we are responsible for much of their poverty.