Arab TV banned in Iraq

bloggs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3131152.stm

Of course this has nothing to do with both Channels showing dead or injured American troops on TV or broadcasting Saddam or Bin Laden speeches.

It goes to show are "independent" the new Iraqi Governing Council is. :rolleyes:

The news channels have angered Iraqi officials in recent weeks by broadcasting pictures of masked men calling for attacks against US-led occupation forces.

Bloggs, I think your analysis is flawed as I'm pretty sure,UTV would be banned in NI if it started broadcasting unchallenged interviews with the Real IRA calling for attacks on the police.

mm

bloggs

Originally posted by Man
Bloggs, I think your analysis is flawed as I'm pretty sure,UTV would be banned in NI if it started broadcasting unchallenged interviews with the Real IRA calling for attacks on the police.

mm

But those aren't interviews they are statments which are send to the station to be read out. If the Real IRA sent a statement to the UTV office, it would be read out. In the past both UTV and BBC have shown pictures of IRA men posing with guns, i don't see the difference here.

What i do see, is US influence on the Iraqi Council, as it is well known the the Bush regime would like to see both Arabic channels off the air.

Originally posted by bloggs
But those aren't interviews they are statments which are send to the station to be read out.

If the Real IRA sent a statement to UTV calling on catholics to attack the security forces do you think it would be read out???

I doubt it.

mm

bloggs

Originally posted by Man
If the Real IRA sent a statement to UTV calling on catholics to attack the security forces do you think it would be read out???

I doubt it.

mm

Not sure about RIRA, but i have seen broadcasts and statements read out which were coming from the LVF calling on attacks on Catholics.

Oh yeah , I've seen them reported, I've seen I think pictures of that once or twice.

But putting your original statement in context, If UTV were to put out a weekly or nightly statement from the RIRA or any other NI terrorist organisation, what do you think would happen??

Do you think the relevant authorities would take action?

Yes they would.

mm

bloggs

Originally posted by Man
Oh yeah , I've seen them reported, I've seen I think pictures of that once or twice.

But putting your original statement in context, If UTV were to put out a weekly or nightly statement from the RIRA or any other NI terrorist organisation, what do you think would happen??

Do you think the relevant authorities would take action?

Yes they would.

mm

But the Arabic channels in question aren't broadcasting weekly reports from 'our troops in the front' they are broadcasting what they see fit as newsworthy. Just like UTV/BBC would broadcast what they would deem newsworthy if it was coming from the LVF/RIRA. I for one would like to see what those who are carrying out the attacks on US/UK troops have to say. The only way i have (apart from meeting them) is through the media.

I think a lot of people would like to hear what they have to say, and the US trying to censor them (no matter how twisted they are) won't stop them from their 'cause'.

bloggs

Originally posted by Man


Do you think the relevant authorities would take action?

Yes they would.

mm

I honestly don't see what the big problem is? I understand that the US/UK forces there want people to think that those attacking them are just a rag bang of extremists, and don't want them to be heard.

I don't think the revelvant authorities in regard to the RIRA/LVF have taken action (lately), they used to when they censored Gerry Adams and co, but we can see that this had no affect whats so ever. Acutally it made him more of a mysterious figure.

So you don't believe in any kind of censorship, then, I for one would disagree with that stance.

For your information, you can subscribe to most of those channels on Sky digital, they are not being taken off the air.

I'm pretty sure if the broadcasts of "the call to arms" by the likes of RIRA were as common on UTV as they are on the likes of the arabic channels, UTV would be brought to account before The ITC

Broadcasting calls to arms or giving comfort time to Terrorists is simply not allowed in Ireland or the U.K so why should it be in Iraq?


mm

bloggs

US media groups have read out statments by both Saddam and Bin Laden calling for attacks on US troops, so what is the difference?

I know in some cases they were first read out by the Arabic channels, but they were relayed by Fox/CNN etc.

Originally posted by bloggs
US media groups have read out statments by both Saddam and Bin Laden calling for attacks on US troops, so what is the difference?

The difference is terrorism is rife in Iraq and the situation is unstable and enflamed enough already.
The U.S Networks don't allow themselves to become a platform for a call to arms by terrorists .

Although the whole subject is debateable as TV series and Hollywood blockbusters could be seen as doing exactly that.
The U.S constitution does provide for freedom of speech, but they do have laws there which in a stable society are enforced.

In Ireland and the U.K there are laws and regulations which govern what is broadcast and these determine a reasonably (but not always) balanced news presentation.

If similar rules are applied in Iraq, I don't see what the fuss is, indeed I welcome it.
It's not as if, ordinary Iraqi's aren't allowed to be aware of the dis-like of their countries occupation.
It's more to do with regulating the extremists access to the airwaves.

mm

Victor

Just one more rung of the proaganda war, or is it propaganda about the propaganda?

http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/1542871?view=Eircomnet

Did CIA bankroll moderate Islam?
From:Reuters
Tuesday, 23rd September, 2003
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA paid Mullahs and created fake Islamic religious leaders to preach a moderate message and counter anti-American sentiment in the Arab world after the September 11 attacks, a new book says.

In "The CIA at War", Ronald Kessler, an investigative reporter and author of several books about the CIA and the FBI, also detailed espionage activity in Iraq that supported the March invasion that toppled President Saddam Hussein.

For the book, made available to Reuters in advance of its October publication, Kessler interviewed CIA Director George Tenet in May and other senior CIA officials. The agency supplied most of the photographs in the book.

"In Islam, as in many other religions, anyone can call himself a religious leader," he said in the book. "So, besides paying mullahs, the CIA created fake mullahs -- recruited agents who would proclaim themselves clerics and take a more moderate position about nonbelievers."

"We are taking over radio stations and supporting clerics," a CIA source was quoted as saying. "It's back to propaganda. We are creating moderate Muslims."

Kessler said the CIA also paid for mullahs to issue fatwas, or religious edicts, urging Iraqis not to resist American forces. He did not specify the countries this took place in.

He said the CIA planted tiny video cameras to track former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, his sons, and other officials, and monitor the position of Iraqi troops and suspected weapons of mass destruction facilities.

Electronic beacons were attached to the undersides of cars that Saddam might use and radar-imaging sensors were dragged across the ground to look for hidden underground bunkers and storage facilities, the book said.

He did not say exactly when such activities took place.

Shedding light on how a major pre-war threat was averted -- that Saddam would blow up his oil wells -- Kessler says the CIA and U.S. Special Forces paid Iraqi guards who protected the wells to snip wires to explosive devices after the war began.

To communicate with Iraqi agents the CIA gave them devices such as satellite phones hidden in rifles and laptop computers with programs hidden in innocuous games or graphics that could send and receive encrypted documents, he said.

The CIA also used a secret writing technique dating to biblical days, in which Iraqi agents wrote over innocuous letters to aunts or mothers through a second piece of paper treated with chemicals, and the hidden message would show up when placed under a special light, according to the book.

Tenet was quoted as saying it was up to him to accept responsibility for any mistakes related to the September 11, 2001, attacks and not blame specific employees as some in Congress had requested. Otherwise it could chill risk-taking essential to the CIA's mission.

"If you think this is about protecting your image or yourself, you're finished. Forget it," Tenet was quoted as saying.

"Nobody is perfect. But guys who have never run anything in their lives, who have never taken any risk in their lives, who have never managed a large work force, will tell you how to suck eggs and how to do your job on a daily basis. If you listen to them, you're listening to the wrong people," he said.

Kessler said the CIA used operatives from intelligence services in Arab countries including Jordan, Syria, and Egypt to infiltrate al Qaeda, develop intelligence, but also sow suspicion so members of the network would kill each other, the book said. Al Qaeda was blamed for the attacks.

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
The difference is terrorism is rife in Iraq and the situation is unstable and enflamed enough already.
The U.S Networks don't allow themselves to become a platform for a call to arms by terrorists .

They do enough of that by killing alot of innocent civilians.
And I can't beleive I need to remind you that people fighting an occupational force ARE NOT TERRORISTS!
Anyway, US Networks can choose all they want to not air statements from different groups, but stopping another network from another country doing it is a proposition altogether different.

In Ireland and the U.K there are laws and regulations which govern what is broadcast and these determine a reasonably (but not always) balanced news presentation.

As pointed out before, it didn't do any good in the case of the IRA. It's also selective. It's one thing to come down on a network for breaking the rules. It's yet another to stop them from transmitting with no such rules in place.

If similar rules are applied in Iraq, I don't see what the fuss is, indeed I welcome it.
It's not as if, ordinary Iraqi's aren't allowed to be aware of the dis-like of their countries occupation.
It's more to do with regulating the extremists access to the airwaves.

If Fox News is any judge in regards to the likes of Hamas then that means they will then intentionally misquote the "extremists" and completely misrepresent their stance.
ie:

Hamas leader: "we will not stop fighting until Israeli forces leave the occupied territories"

becomes

Fox News talking head: "We will not stop killing until all Jews leave Palestine."

dathi1

Its just another twist in the post Sadam dictatorship heading in the same direction with a different gang in control.
They should hire Conor Cruse O'Brien he was brill at censorship and helped a conflict continue here for 30 years. Al Jazeera's interviews with resistance fighters make up a very small percentage of Iraqi coverage. But when the truth hurts.. as with Vietnam, Laos etc..

gandalf

Didn't Saddam and his coherts have to clear all reports from Iraq as well in the past. Didn't the US and UK harp on about how freedom was being repressed because of this during those times .

Now they want to do the same after the "liberation". This seems pretty hypocritical to me. As regards the people carrying out attacks on the Occupying forces: I would count that as a legitimate story and it is one that should be reported and not sweep under the carpet and labelled as "Saddam sympathisers" or "Islamic extremists" the situation is a more complex than this.

Gandalf.

Originally posted by sovtek

And I can't beleive I need to remind you that people fighting an occupational force ARE NOT TERRORISTS!

Oh really, the people that have twice deliberately bombed U.N buildings in Iraq and Shia clerics??

As pointed out before, it didn't do any good in the case of the IRA. It's also selective. It's one thing to come down on a network for breaking the rules. It's yet another to stop them from transmitting with no such rules in place.

Well all I did was point out that RIRA wouldn't be allowed as much airtime and they want to kick out an "occupying" force as well.

Originally psted by Gandalf
Didn't Saddam and his coherts have to clear all reports from Iraq as well in the past. Didn't the US and UK harp on about how freedom was being repressed because of this during those times .

Yes indeed they did, and controls on balanced reporting from Arab stations by the U.S and U.K or their sponsored government of Iraq would indeed be hypocrisy.
I'm not arguing that case, just merely pointing out the paralell between, our own networks not being a soap box for the RIRA and similarally those Arab stations shouldn't be a recruiting platform for Alq'ueda.
They show their home movies in full:rolleyes:
It's not unlike giving live coverage on RTE for the Ard fheis of RIRA's political wing.
mm

dathi1

I'm not arguing that case, just merely pointing out the paralell between, our own networks not being a soap box for the RIRA and similarally those Arab stations shouldn't be a recruiting platform for Alq'ueda.

The parallel is crap...An illegal occupying force is being thwarted in its efforts to control Oil and help Zionists achieve their goals. The Iraqi resistance no matter what their background, are fighting an illegal occupier much like the French resistance did during WW2. Al Jazeera is merely covering the story for its audience as does CNN and Fox. Getting all Kevin Myers-ish about the situation makes crap parallels.

bloggs

Originally posted by dathi1
The parallel is crap...An illegal occupying force is being thwarted in its efforts to control Oil and help Zionists achieve their goals. The Iraqi resistance no matter what their background, are fighting an illegal occupier much like the French resistance did during WW2. Al Jazeera is merely covering the story for its audience as does CNN and Fox. Getting all Kevin Myers-ish about the situation makes crap parallels.

I fully agree with you, except for 'much like the French resistance did during WW2'. Technically the French resistance was illegal as the French Army had surrendered, so you can't really compare them to the Iraqi ones (Iraq didn't surrender to the yanks so in real terms the war is still ongoing).

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
An illegal occupying force is being thwarted in its efforts to control Oil and help Zionists achieve their goals.

fair enough, except that its difficult to see how - for example - an attack on teh Jordanian Embassy can be considered a strike against "an illegal occupying force", or indeed how multiple attacks against the UN could be construed as legitimate "resistance".

Personally, I think that there is a typical attempt by most of the media to classify all the unrest under one banner.

Some may insist its terrorism, some may insist its freedom-fighting or valid resistance to occupation, but to be quite honest, I think that there's a healthy mix of the two in there, probably mixed up with some good ol' "normal" criminal activity and who-knows what else.

jc

Originally posted by dathi1
The parallel is crap...An illegal occupying force is being thwarted in its efforts to control Oil and help Zionists achieve their goals. The Iraqi resistance no matter what their background, are fighting an illegal occupier much like the French resistance did during WW2. Al Jazeera is merely covering the story for its audience as does CNN and Fox. Getting all Kevin Myers-ish about the situation makes crap parallels.

I disagree, the parallell is valid.
Those that are involved in attacking U.S forces would be doing so anyway.
Clearly it is easier for them to do it in Iraq that it is in New York.
Indeed, they would or should be able to kill at least 30 or 40 or more a day, if these individuals had the support of a majority there for their killings.
The fact that this is not happening is very telling.
Why aren't there many attacks on the UK forces by the way, they are a sitting Duck also?

The parallel is that RIRA are not allowed to call us all to arms to fight the British in the same way as AlQu'eda is on some Arab channels.

mm

bloggs

Originally posted by Man
I disagree, the parallell is valid.
Those that are involved in attacking U.S forces would be doing so anyway.
Clearly it is easier for them to do it in Iraq that it is in New York.
Indeed, they would or should be able to kill at least 30 or 40 or more a day, if these individuals had the support of a majority there for their killings.
The fact that this is not happening is very telling.
Why aren't there many attacks on the UK forces by the way, they are a sitting Duck also?

The parallel is that RIRA are not allowed to call us all to arms to fight the British in the same way as AlQu'eda is on some Arab channels.

mm

There are millions of muslims around the world, who turn in to the Arab channels above. But not all of these people are carrying out suicide attacks. To say that just because people will hear/see these guys mean that everyone will jump up and start fighting is just stupid im afraid to say.

Im not saying it doesn't happen, im just saying it doesn't happen to the extend you are implying.

Originally posted by bloggs
To say that just because people will hear/see these guys mean that everyone will jump up and start fighting is just stupid im afraid to say.

But I didn't say that, I suggested that it enflames an already unstable situation.
If it only got 5% of the population of Iraq enflamed , thats 50 or 60,000 or more involved, that wouldn't otherwise be.

Im not saying it doesn't happen, im just saying it doesn't happen to the extend you are implying.

No extent of that happening or being allowed to happen is or should be acceptable.
It isn't where RIRA are concerned, and it shouldn't be where AlQu'eda are concerned either.

mm

bloggs

Then using your logic, Bush shouldn't be allowed to broadcast, as he infames US opinion against the muslim world?

"you are either with us or with the terrorists"

Or many of his speeches to his troops to seek out and destroy Al Quida, or his "wanted dead or alive" for Bin Laden.

Do you think he should be taken off the air?

Originally posted by bloggs
Then using your logic, Bush shouldn't be allowed to broadcast, as he infames US opinion against the muslim world?

Do you think he should be taken off the air?

Bush can and probably will be voted out of office.
This would happen because, a majority of the voters disagreed with his record in office.
Most already there now think the Iraq war was not worth it.
Bush when he loses will then disappear off the screens mostly like his Daddy did.

Unreformed Terrorists on the other hand are not subject to a vote and where they are they usually get very little votes.
They'll carry on regardless of public opinion, as RIRA do.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Why aren't there many attacks on the UK forces by the way, they are a sitting Duck also?

Numbers? Location?

Its not necessarily because "they're not US" (although I admit that it might be).

jc

bloggs

Originally posted by Man
Bush can and probably will be voted out of office.
This would happen because, a majority of the voters disagreed with his record in office.
Most already there now think the Iraq war was not worth it.
Bush when he loses will then disappear off the screens mostly like his Daddy did.

Unreformed Terrorists on the other hand are not subject to a vote and where they are they usually get very little votes.
They'll carry on regardless of public opinion, as RIRA do.

mm

So because Bush is democratically elected (i use that in the loosest terms possible), it means he can infame who he likes when he likes? What has been voted in or out of office got to do with what people say on TV.

People like Rumsfeld aren't elected, but they go around using the same old BS as Bush.

Originally posted by bonkey
Numbers? Location?

Its not necessarily because "they're not US" (although I admit that it might be).

jc

I'll admit I don't have figures to hand on that Bonkey, except to say, I hear about U.S soldiers being attacked/killed more often than UK soldiers.

Now that could be just a statistical situation given that , there are far more U.S soldiers involved.
But given how easy, widely supported guerilla warfare would be to carry out
Indeed as I watch BBC news 24 every day it has been quite some time, maybe weeks since their main headline ( and it would be a main headline for them ) has been the death of a UK soldier.

mm

Originally posted by bloggs
So because Bush is democratically elected (i use that in the loosest terms possible), it means he can infame who he likes when he likes?

Yes, I'm afraid it does within the law.
Of course in doing so, he may eventually have to reap the harvest, he sows via the electorate.
Regarding , how he got elected,if it wasn't so tight in the first place, he wouldn't have got away with the "messing" that went on in Florida.
Add to that the fact that, once such activity is in the public domain, if it is not prevented from happening in the future, American opposition politicians only have themselves to blame.
It's not as if, they haven't had enough time between elections to check for abnormalities.
You are also forgetting that since the 2000 presidential election, the Republicans got control of both houses of Congress via the ballot box.
They have to answer for their decisions to the people also, they are'nt guaranteed their seats.

People like Rumsfeld aren't elected, but they go around using the same old BS as Bush.

Well he's there because Bush is in power, if General Clarke is the next President, you can be assured,that Rummie will be replaced.

I don't agree with the politics of Sinn Féin, but I wouldn't deny them, whatever public platform, their electoral numbers entitle them to.

Unreformed terrorists or indeed crooks don't have to conform to such conditions though

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I'll admit I don't have figures to hand on that Bonkey

No no....my bad. What I meant was perhaps the numbers and locations were the reasons?

The British are mostly based (IIRC) in one area which I believe has been relatively secure. They are also somewhere around 30 times fewer in numbers than the US presence (again, from memory).

Hence, you could expect a significant difference for either of these reasons...

jc

sovtek

Originally posted by Man
Oh really, the people that have twice deliberately bombed U.N buildings in Iraq and Shia clerics??

While it's debatable who did the UN bombing and Jordanian embassy, that isn't what the articles states as the reason Al-Jazeera was kicked out.

The news channels have angered Iraqi officials in recent weeks by broadcasting pictures of masked men calling for attacks against US-led occupation forces in the country.

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Some may insist its terrorism, some may insist its freedom-fighting or valid resistance to occupation, but to be quite honest, I think that there's a healthy mix of the two in there, probably mixed up with some good ol' "normal" criminal activity and who-knows what else.

I'm uncomfortable with the word "healthy" there.

Originally posted by Man
Why aren't there many attacks on the UK forces by the way, they are a sitting Duck also?

Largely because Basra isn't a Saddmite stronghold and because the British tend to respect the local people - simple things like saying "hello" in Arabic (instead of just pointing a gun at them), removing sunglasses when talking to someone (reduces intimidation), foot patrols, not tank patrols (doesn't rip roads to pieces), etc.