NationStates Jolt Archive

... has been suspended until further notice...

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/16/wirq16.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/08/16/ixportaltop.html
The Iraqi authorities ordered foreign journalists to leave Najaf yesterday, threatening to arrest or even shoot reporters as US marines and Iraqi government forces resumed the fight against Shia militants.

Iraqi police told the journalists to leave because of a supposed threat by insurgents to bomb their hotel. The intimidation - including shots apparently fired by police at the hotel - came as Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, hailed the birth of democracy in Iraq at the opening of a national conference in Baghdad.



Incdentally, have you noticed how the media seems to have really stopped commenting on deaths in IRaq?

So far this month it has averaged 2.2 coalition military deaths per day, the fourth most deadly month of the 16 since the fall of Baghdad, but it just doesn't seem to register anymore.

Do people not care anymore? Or are they just downplaying it in the leadup to the election?

I gotta ask ya Zeppy, does this surprise you?

what was the first thing that the new "democratic" government did?

Why, declare martial law, of course!

Next, it shut down AL-Jazeera, the major news channel.
(we just cant have anyone reporting just ANYTHING, now can we?)

Now, it threatens to shoot reporters who dont comply with thier orders...

Yep, that sure is some great democracy at work over there!

So, weve tortured them..

Lied to them....

Declared martial law...

Shut down thier media....

and threatened to shoot reporters.....

Meet the new boss.....same as the old boss.

Great Job Bush!

Some people no longer care. After so many months, US KIA figures lose their shock value (consider Vietnam). Same could imply for the figures on Iraqi dead (noncombatants and combatants alike). Lack of interest isn't the general view of the US populace (at least on would hope that the voting citizens of the United States don't bother to keep up with military actions), but such apathy is made easier when most news coverage moves on to more "current" or more likely, topics that have greater shock value or catch more interest of the viewer.

wasn't allawi a CIA asset before the invasion, that's never a good sign for a budding young democratic state.

Why of course it doesn't suprise me Sasq.

I just like pointing these things out for the people that it MIGHT suprise.

I gotta ask ya Zeppy, does this surprise you?

what was the first thing that the new "democratic" government did?

Why, declare martial law, of course!

Next, it shut down AL-Jazeera, the major news channel.
(we just cant have anyone reporting just ANYTHING, now can we?)

Now, it threatens to shoot reporters who dont comply with thier orders...

Yep, that sure is some great democracy at work over there!

So, weve tortured them..

Lied to them....

Declared martial law...

Shut down thier media....

and threatened to shoot reporters.....

Meet the new boss.....same as the old boss.

Great Job Bush!

I can understand criticizing Bush or the Iraqi government, but criticizing Bush because of the Iraqi government seems off. By law, they are an independent power able to make their own decisions. I'd also hardly consider the shutting down of Al-Jazeera an unexpected or bad choice. It is extremely set in its views (like some American media) and reports from a biased point of view (again, like some American media). It is important, however, to take note of all the other news agencies that have been banned from reporting.

wasn't allawi a CIA asset before the invasion, that's never a good sign for a budding young democratic state.

Yes, he was. HE was also an original Ba'athist member with Hussein who fell out of favour. It as also been rumoured that he personally executed prisoners shortly before taking office in Iraq.

In other words, he is just another strongman.

I can understand criticizing Bush or the Iraqi government, but criticizing Bush because of the Iraqi government seems off. By law, they are an independent power able to make their own decisions.
lol if ya believe that one i got a bridge in brooklyn i'd be interested in selling ya dirt cheap.

I can understand criticizing Bush or the Iraqi government, but criticizing Bush because of the Iraqi government seems off. By law, they are an independent power able to make their own decisions. I'd also hardly consider the shutting down of Al-Jazeera an unexpected or bad choice. It is extremely set in its views (like some American media) and reports from a biased point of view (again, like some American media). It is important, however, to take note of all the other news agencies that have been banned from reporting.

Well - the Iraqi government IS an appointed body rubber-stamped by Paul Bremmer. It's not like they were elected....

I can understand criticizing Bush or the Iraqi government, but criticizing Bush because of the Iraqi government seems off. By law, they are an independent power able to make their own decisions. I'd also hardly consider the shutting down of Al-Jazeera an unexpected or bad choice. It is extremely set in its views (like some American media) and reports from a biased point of view (again, like some American media). It is important, however, to take note of all the other news agencies that have been banned from reporting.

How can I not critisize Bush for whats going on in Iraq?

Is it not his fault were there?

Did he not trant endlessly about how we went there to look for WMD's.....I mean....to free the people of Iraq from Tryanny?

..only to turn around and do the very same things that Saddam was doing?

If we want them to have our sense of democracy, isnt it just as important to give them the same freedom of the press as we enjoy?


But then, that might be asking too much of the current administation wouldnt it?

By the way....I missed the election in Iraq, where the people chose thier new leader.

Oh , thats right.......there WASNT one.

Yes, he was. HE was also an original Ba'athist member with Hussein who fell out of power. It as also been rumoured that he personally executed prisoners shortly before taking office in Iraq.

In other words, he is just another strongman.


i also heard a thing on npr about how he was known before he took power as the most corrupt man in bagdad. the guy you had to pay to get anything done(though granted the right person to pay, who actually could get stuff done for you.)

i also heard a thing on npr about how he was known before he took power as the most corrupt man in bagdad. the guy you had to pay to get anything done(though granted the right person to pay, who actually could get stuff done for you.)

Yeah, he and Chalabi were supposedly quite a pair...

Ah, democracy at work... Just like Bush & co. said it would be like.. uhh, oh wait! :headbang:

there was also a report about 25 foriegners in the ali shrine who were threatening to blow it up from the interum government, a rather thin cover story for its possible destruction by their or the american forces.

Well, with NO reporters allowed to see what is going on... we won't be able to believe a god damn thing that they say after the fact. There won't be a reliable source any where to find out what really happened. How convenient!

Well, with NO reporters allowed to see what is going on... we won't be able to believe a god damn thing that they say after the fact. There won't be a reliable source any where to find out what really happened. How convenient!

Well, we can always read Sadr's newspaper.... lol

Well - the Iraqi government IS an appointed body rubber-stamped by Paul Bremmer. It's not like they were elected....

Actually they were. I know, cause we were supposed to go do site security for the election, but they sent a different unit.

Well, with NO reporters allowed to see what is going on... we won't be able to believe a god damn thing that they say after the fact. There won't be a reliable source any where to find out what really happened. How convenient!


yeah, they only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that allawi has decided to send the troops in. this all wouldn't make sense unless there was an immenent assault on the shrine complex planned.

Actually they were. I know, cause we were supposed to go do site security for the election, but they sent a different unit.


Uhhh, being "elected" by the equally US appointed body that the CPA was, is not really a mandate of the people is it?

They are still a product of US appoointments and personally approved by Paul Bremmer.

Until such time as there is a body elected by Iraqis without input or influence by US appointees, it is still a de-facto government of people directly tied to the current administration in Washington.

Actually they were. I know, cause we were supposed to go do site security for the election, but they sent a different unit.
they were appointed by the former governing council, which was appointed by the us. they are one step removed from direct us appointment but really no nearer popular election. even this group meeting today to appoint yet another group to oversee something to do with the government is of very dubious pedigree.

Well, with NO reporters allowed to see what is going on... we won't be able to believe a god damn thing that they say after the fact. There won't be a reliable source any where to find out what really happened. How convenient!

Well, being the insurgents tried to kill a BBC reporter, its probably a good idea to protect them. IF a large number of reporters were wasted, you'd blame it on the Coalition wouldn't you...because you like to have it both ways. I bet you'd rather see the shrine destroyed instead of being declared off limits by US Marines who could mob up Al-Sadr, were he not befouling that sacred place, much like that cemetary where battles are raging. Anything to get more American boys in bags coming home so Bush is not reelected eh? You know what, you go to Hell, alright, I'm sick of this leftist bull anymore...I really am, all you have is contempt for centrist or reasonable right leaning government, what is far enough left for you? Damn it to hell...

Well, being the insurgents tried to kill a BBC reporter, its probably a good idea to protect them. IF a large number of reporters were wasted, you'd blame it on the Coalition wouldn't you...because you like to have it both ways. I bet you'd rather see the shrine destroyed instead of being declared off limits by US Marines who could mob up Al-Sadr, were he not befouling that sacred place, much like that cemetary where battles are raging. Anything to get more American boys in bags coming home so Bush is not reelected eh? You know what, you go to Hell, alright, I'm sick of this leftist bull anymore...I really am, all you have is contempt for centrist or reasonable right leaning government, what is far enough left for you? Damn it to hell...
someones having an attack of the inarticulate crankies, and a little bit of potty mouth as well

Well, being the insurgents tried to kill a BBC reporter, its probably a good idea to protect them.

Riiiiight, so to protect the reporters from being shot, they threaten to shoot them.. now that's freaking logic if I ever heard it. :rolleyes:

Riiiiight, so to protect the reporters from being shot, they threaten to shoot them.. now that's freaking logic if I ever heard it. :rolleyes:

It got them out of there didn't it? And we're not hearing that any were shot, so it apparently worked...

someones having an attack of the inarticulate crankies, and a little bit of potty mouth as well

And you seem to rather patronizing and such... I'd hardly consider damn it to Hell and Hell as excessive, considering what else usually comes up on this board. Yes, I'm slightly exhasperated, but not inarticulate by any means.

It got them out of there didn't it? And we're not hearing that any were shot, so it apparently worked...

Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "Freedom of the press" yeah, it's the central tenet to any democracy. If you don't have a free press, you don't have a democracy. So, I'm so happy to see how much "freedom" has been brought to the "liberated" Iraqi's :rolleyes:

If the reporters want to risk their lives for the story, that's their right and their job. Or maybe we should just call all the troops out of Iraq too.. I hear they are getting shot at as well.

Your argument doesn't hold water!

And you seem to rather patronizing and such... I'd hardly consider damn it to Hell and Hell as excessive, considering what else usually comes up on this board. Yes, I'm slightly exhasperated, but not inarticulate by any means.
its okay little fella, you'll talk pretty one day

Alright, thats borderline on flaming Ernst...please refrain from that...


Oh and mind you I'd rather not stoop to using phrases that would be...just unbecoming of polite society.

Perhaps you've heard of this thing called "Freedom of the press" yeah, it's the central tenet to any democracy. If you don't have a free press, you don't have a democracy. So, I'm so happy to see how much "freedom" has been brought to the "liberated" Iraqi's :rolleyes:

If the reporters want to risk their lives for the story, that's their right and their job. Or maybe we should just call all the troops out of Iraq too.. I hear they are getting shot at as well.

Your argument doesn't hold water!

Is that account accurate? I've heard nothing on it from the Beeb..or are they too far to the right to tell the "truth" ?

Is that account accurate? I've heard nothing on it from the Beeb..or are they too far to the right to tell the "truth" ?

I sourced it from the Telegraph. The Australian Broadcasting Service also has the story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1177041.htm

Or if you haven;t heard it on the Beeb is it not true?

Alright, thats borderline on flaming Ernst...please refrain from that...


Oh and mind you I'd rather not stoop to using phrases that would be...just unbecoming of polite society.
yeah you're right, sorry

And there IS a short note on it on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3566396.stm

"Najaf's police chief, Ghaleb al-Jazaeri, orders journalists to leave the city."

I sourced it from the Telegraph. The Australian Broadcasting Service also has the story:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200408/s1177041.htm

Or if you haven;t heard it on the Beeb is it not true?

Usually I use CNN and BBC, both I trust usually as CNN is very much center in the US and the Beeb is very much centrist for Britain (which is somewhat to the left in the United States) and since both are omnipresent usually...they'll report things and still have time to gather the facts. So I trust them, they're responsible.

Guys, they are shutting out the media because Al-Sadr or whatever his name is is using the holy sites against us. They hide out and shoot at Iraqi and coalition forces from them as well, and then it gets reported, and Iraqis get mad at us. Well they are gonna block out the media, and then storm those holy sites and kill or capture as many of those guys as they can, and they'd like it not to be a big news story that gets more people killed. Some details in war shouldn't be news, because it limits the ability and safety of men on the ground.

And there IS a short note on it on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3566396.stm

"Najaf's police chief, Ghaleb al-Jazaeri, orders journalists to leave the city."

Thats hardly threatening to shoot them...

If you want to discuss that, then yes, I think ordering them to leave the city is a bad idea (ie bad press). However it also may not be a good idea to have them right up near the mosque lest they get caught in the crossfire and we and the Iraqis get blamed for it by all you fine people. I would personally imbed them with the Marines...they could get an accurate picture of things and keep watch for any misconduct.

Thats hardly threatening to shoot them...

If you want to discuss that, then yes, I think ordering them to leave the city is a bad idea (ie bad press). However it also may not be a good idea to have them right up near the mosque lest they get caught in the crossfire and we and the Iraqis get blamed for it by all you fine people. I would personally imbed them with the Marines...they could get an accurate picture of things and keep watch for any misconduct.

I don't think you often see people complaining about newsmen who enter a war zone getting killed. It is a risky profession, and it is their choice to be there.

As to the threat - the Telegraph IS a reputable newspaper. If you only view as valid the news from two TV sources, then I think that you are putting unreasonable constraints on your sources.

I said mainly, I read newspapers and such...so the New York Times is another source.

However the AP or Reuters are where most news services get their information; its basically an agreement between newspapers and wire services and such to share information; so basically all the services find things out at roughly the same time. I do not get BBC on television, in that medium I use CNN...on the net I use BBC. I do not have the time to check every worldwide news outlet crisscrossing all ideologies...but I see BBC as pretty much a standard and as accurate. I'm not limiting my viewpoint, but I use sensible outlets.

I said mainly, I read newspapers and such...so the New York Times is another source.

However the AP or Reuters are where most news services get their information; its basically an agreement between newspapers and wire services and such to share information; so basically all the services find things out at roughly the same time. I do not get BBC on television, in that medium I use CNN...on the net I use BBC. I do not have the time to check every worldwide news outlet crisscrossing all ideologies...but I see BBC as pretty much a standard and as accurate. I'm not limiting my viewpoint, but I use sensible outlets.

As my husband stated, Telegraph IS a reputable newspaper. I have never seen any one accuse it of being right or left. I've been on this site for over a year. So, I see no reason to doubt it's credibility.

Regardless, the press has a right to be there. I however wouldn't be against imbeds, that would also work and has worked in the past.

Well Steph then I guess we just disagree, you like the Telegraph, I like the BBC...to each their own...

And yes, imbeds like we used at the beginning of the war would be a good idea I think; it keeps us all updated on what goes on at the Front...

Well Steph then I guess we just disagree, you like the Telegraph, I like the BBC...to each their own...

And yes, imbeds like we used at the beginning of the war would be a good idea I think; it keeps us all updated on what goes on at the Front...

I have no problem with the BBC either. I'm just not sure exactly what we are disagreeing on..

bump for the free press!

Just a brief comment on the Telegraph (aka the Torygraph in the UK) as a newspaper: it's solidly right-wing, but not normally given to the rabid excesses of gutter rags like the Daily Mail. Perhaps because of that, though, it's reputedly MI5 and MI6's favourite paper for the leaking of information and/or disinformation. One recent example was a Telegraph journalist's "discovery" in Iraq of documents showing sums of money being paid by Saddam's government to George Galloway, a Labour MP stridently opposed to the war (and my MP, and a total wanker, but that's beside the point). However -- and this is consistent with much of what MI5 and 6 do -- the documents were easily shown to be amateurish forgeries.

Just a brief comment on the Telegraph (aka the Torygraph in the UK) as a newspaper: it's solidly right-wing, but not normally given to the rabid excesses of gutter rags like the Daily Mail. Perhaps because of that, though, it's reputedly MI5 and MI6's favourite paper for the leaking of information and/or disinformation. One recent example was a Telegraph journalist's "discovery" in Iraq of documents showing sums of money being paid by Saddam's government to George Galloway, a Labour MP stridently opposed to the war (and my MP, and a total wanker, but that's beside the point). However -- and this is consistent with much of what MI5 and 6 do -- the documents were easily shown to be amateurish forgeries.

Fair enough, but Zep was also able to find other sources on the story. Also, since I have not really seen any real reporting coming out of there except file video in days, I'm inclined to believe it. I guess we will know soon enough. Like if they try to come out and say Al-Sadr blew up the Mosque and every one is dead, but no reporter to confirm it, I will have to put my tin-foil hat on, because it will be hard to believe.

Fair enough, but Zep was also able to find other sources on the story. Also, since I have not really seen any real reporting coming out of there except file video in days, I'm inclined to believe it. I guess we will know soon enough. Like if they try to come out and say Al-Sadr blew up the Mosque and every one is dead, but no reporter to confirm it, I will have to put my tin-foil hat on, because it will be hard to believe.

No, fine, I believe it too. Most of the time the Telegraph is pretty reliable, if slanted somewhat to the right. I should point out that most MI5 and 6 machinations revolve around catty in-fighting within the UK, usually between themselves and/or Special Branch, with the occasional attempt to fit up a Trades Unionist or the like. James Bonds they're not.