New Freedoms Lost Already in Iraq

[G. Adams]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...sp?story=549077

Al-Jazeera was a tiny ray of light when it came to distributing real (though admittedly one-sided) information about what was happening in Iraq. And look what happens to it. Even if you believe it produced nothing but lies, surely you must see how this is the first step on the road to a new tyranny. The end of the free press, which is what this is, is a disaster for democracy, and a disaster for the Iraqi people. Free speech should never be infringed upon, irrespective of what is being said or published. I hope Baghdad breaks down totally in protest to this, as these actions must be stopped in their tracks.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Al-Jeezera got shut down becaue it is the mouthpeice for terrorist. It promoted terror attacks on Iraqis, aired thier messages.

They shut it down because it was helping, actively in the killing of Iraqis. Perhaps life means nothing to you, it does to the Iraqi people.

[G. Adams]

Tell me, how many hours of Al-Jazeera have you watched?

Al-Jazeera is not the mouth piece of terrorists. It shows what other networks arn't prepared to, like people being killed by Coalition troops, and the dead bodies of children killed by the US. They also show what the terrorists have done, and show the bodies left by them too. Somebody needs to show this material, otherwise the people of Iraq will only get the censored bullshit tolerated by the US. What kind of free society is that?

Mein Kamp promotes killing. I hate National Socialism and it's adherants. I'm prepared to fight in the streets with them if they push me hard enough. But I would not promote a ban on their material.

The Fox Network is complicit in misleding much of it's audience to false conclusions, but I don't want it banning either.

I do support the resistance to the occupation, though I do not support any group conducting attacks currently. If my country was invaded, it's industries taken over for foreign benefit, democracy not introduced, promises broken, freedom of press taken away, freedom of speach taken away, freedom of assembly virtually taken away etc I would be in a resistance movement, and if you cared about freedom you'd be doing so to.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Al-Jeezera got shut down becaue it is the mouthpeice for terrorist. It promoted terror attacks on Iraqis, aired thier messages. They shut it down because it was helping, actively in the killing of Iraqis. Perhaps life means nothing to you, it does to the Iraqi people.

If it was "helping, actively in the killing of Iraqis" then it would have to be directly doing so, like passing the knives to them. At worst the material it shows become frenzied enough about the situation to join the resistance. But that's not a reason to ban. People might get fired up about homosexuals after reading the bible and go kill a group of gay guys. I don't like the act, but I'm not going to promote the ban of the bible. What are you, some statist liberal?

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Al-Jeezera got shut down becaue it is the mouthpeice for terrorist. It promoted terror attacks on Iraqis, aired thier messages. They shut it down because it was helping, actively in the killing of Iraqis. Perhaps life means nothing to you, it does to the Iraqi people.

(Bolding mine) You can't resist a little dig, can you?

Everything reported in the press about Al-Jazeera has compared it to CNN and the like. If they report what they see, it is news, that's all. If they report an anti-American rally or a suicide bomber in Baghdad, isn't it only because it happened and nothing else? Where has anyone on that channel supported terrorism?

As a milder comparison, if Fox News runs a story on a Kerry rally does that mean they support HIM over Bush? All the news networks devoted huge blocks of time to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Peterson and Hacking cases. Does that mean they all support domestic terrorism and spouse killing? Unless you have specifics to cite I think we can assume this to be an attempt by the Iraqi government to reign in their own domestic terrorism in any way possible. Wrong, but certainly understandable.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Al-Jeezera got shut down becaue it is the mouthpeice for terrorist. It promoted terror attacks on Iraqis, aired thier messages.

that is an ignorant comment. al-jazeera airs terrorist comments as do western media outlets.

al jazeera is what the west needs in the mid-east: an independent voice.

'independent' doesn't mean they'll always say what you want them to.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, well. Tyranny seems to re-establish itself quickly when a country is "democratic" huh? Press freedom...coalition blood for this...

They can say anything they want as long as it is what the puppetmaster says. Gee, that sounds cynical, badPH, badPH...

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yeah, they should allow a TV Station that promotes the killing of any Iraqi that helps America or the new Iraq govenment to stay open. They should allow any station that works as the mouth peice for such illustrious person as Zarqawi, bin-Laden... ya know, those people slaughtering innocent people in Iraq? They should not shut down the station that calls for the overthrow of the new Iraq Government.

Nah that might save lives and give a select few something else to spin foolish webs of idiocy around.

I mean, come on? What were they thinking? I know the new Iraqi Government is still trying to establish itself, and every car bombing and terror attack makes thier job harder, but how could they shut down Terror TV?? And for a whole MONTH! Insane.

[giuliano]

should we shut down liberal media during times of war too? i mean that could save lives... it's important to get behind the govt and military while at war.

the bill of rights is nice and good, but sometimes you need to be practical about these things right?

[Comrade]

This is the funniest threat I've ever read.
Fox news is biased and is lying to you, JihadTV speaks the Truth.

Guiliano, is it really a freedom of speech to promote violence and terrorism, especially against the government, especially a democratic one? No, it isn't. It isn't here, or anywhere else.

[G. Adams]

They don't promote terrorism, they show news of people who do. It is not the same.

UK TV History shows programmes of Hitler, and shows how he advocated killing Jews. Therefore we must close down this station, for promoting racial violence.

You understand how ridiculous you sound? Al-Jazeera has never stated that IT wants a violent civil war in Iraq. It has shown articles on it's news of people who do support such action. But then so has any news network worth watching, because it's NEWS. What do you want on your news, filtered crap were everyone in Iraq is dancing happily, were soldiers toss thousands of candy out of their tanks instead of propaganda and grenades, and where Michael Jackson is still black and sane? Grow up.

[Comrade]

Really? It is rediculous to point out double-standards? Or is it just rediculous to disagree with you? I have a hunch that it's the latter, the same way that Republicans are all nazis and people who oppose racial quotas for colleges are racists and all that other hateful crap. Give me a break.

Grow up?
Where is this "filtered crap" where soldiers are throwing candy all over the place? All I see is a daily count of suicide bombings and a body count. Grow up, yeah. Who sounds rediculous? Certainly not the guy who says FOX News is the devil and Al Jazira has no bias?

[G. Adams]

Yes it's ridiculous for you to hold double standards. I'm sure you hold your Bill of Rights in high regard, so why do you think the Iraqi people don't deserve such rights? No, I have no problem with people opposing me. I have in fact had my views quite substantially changed over time from arguing with people on Volconvo, and have admitted so at the time.

If I see people comparing Republicans to Nazi's I will always highlight that mistake unless someone else got there first. If you take a look through this website you will see that I am very picky about political terms and their misuse. Being an anarcho-communist means that I have to remind every idiot multiple times that not all left wingers are either pinko liberals or cookie-cutter Stalinists. Such a position gives me an appreciation of what others must feel everytime someone who knows too little mislabels them.

I oppose mandated quotas for colleges based on race or sex. Universities are private institutions and therefore should look after their own entrance qualifications as they see fit.

I told you to grow up because your opposed to Al-Jazeera's existence because it shows you images you don't want to see. They don't reinforce your world view, so your happy to see it shut down. Yeah you see terrorists every day blowing up Iraqi's and Coalition soldiers. And those who watch Al-Jazeera see the Coalition soldiers blowing up Iraqi's and resistance fighters. You can't see how your news networks and Al-Jazeera are doing the same thing but from different perspectives? If you can't, grow up.

I never said Fox News is the devil, I avoid anything with religious connotations unless I'm really in the full swing of a rant. And, if you read my first post, you'd see I recognised Al-Jazeera's bias.

[Comrade]

Al Jazira is not an Iraqi news service, firstly. Secondly, this thread isn't about Iraq at all, it is about attacking Bush through proxy.

Well, I'm really glad you know me so well, and aren't putting words in my mouth or anything.

But then again, you are 100% right, having an inflammatory, anti-democratic news service banned from a country for ONLY thirty days is just awful we should all shoot ourselves.

[G. Adams]

Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar, but it's offices have been closed down in Iraq. Are you suggesting because it is a foreign news service is does not share the same rights as other news networks? Al-Jazeera is a well respected news network (outside of the US), as it was formed by ex-BBC'ers when it's middle east office was closed down, and is prepared to show news from a middle eastern perspective. Cutting it out from Iraq means that the Iraqi's have lost a news source, and are left only with news stations who will show what the government will let them show. It is an end to the free press. Arn't you similtaneously debating a 'slippery slope' argument on international monitoring of your elections? The you should be able to appreciate how the slippery slope argument applies here.

Read my first post. I did not mention Bush. I did not mention the Republican Party. I didn't mention the election. I brought this thread up because I have seen my countries army dragged into an unpopular war, and am worried that the one good thing that came out of this war, the end of tyranny in Iraq, will have been in vain. I think you must be paranoid, seeing anti-Bush messages everywhere you look.

Al-Jazeera is not anti-democratic. The closing down of a news service is.

The ban is for 30 days, but is renewable. The message being given out, which seems clear to me, is that if Al-Jazeera keep showing news unfavourable to the interim government it's offices will be closed down permanently and it's reporters ejected from Iraq. By extension, this message also goes out to all other news networks, if you show news which we don't like, we will shut you down.

[kharmajunkie]

Originally posted by Comrade, Secondly, this thread isn't about Iraq at all, it is about attacking Bush through proxy.

No, it was about freedom of press Com. Hell, he even said in the original post that Al Jezeera was biased; still freedom of press applies even when you don't like what's being written. And Bush's name wasn't even mentioned. What is your obsession? Just because a few drama queens like to yell nazi every time Bush's name comes up doesn't mean everyone that disagrees with the administration is like that.
And Fox isn't any more biased than CNN, but they are sensationalist in nature
and they've shown that they're willing to toss journalistic standard out the window.

[ruiner]

This is to all of those against the shutting down of Al-Jazeera in Iraq on principle of freedom of press:

What if a news station was set up in Britain that was biased in favour of a group even more extreme than the BNP.

Lets say 6 hours of coverage a day was regular normal news but 4 hours was concerned with "The War on Terror" which was actually anti-muslim propaganda disguised as news.

Lets say during "The War on Terror" section, this news station analyses the threat to Britain from al-qaeda. It interviews people who have a deep hatred of Muslims, people who claim on live tv that Islam is evil and any muslims are the enemy and they should be killed. That anyone doing so would be doing the country a favour. In effect interviewing people who are inciting an uprising against an ethnic group.

Lets say that just to appear unbiased they regually invite pro-muslim spokespeople onto a program, but they select the worst possible person they can (ie one that cannot debate properly or has a lack of knowledge of islam or is unlikable).

Now, they can intersperse enough *real* news and useless or unlikable other-side spokespersons that they can claim they are "fair and balanced" (hehehe).

Now lets say since the station airs 5 British extremists, on seperate occasions have gone on a rampage killing muslims and its quite clear this is in response to the arrival of this station.

If it were your decision as prime minister of britain would you allow this station to continue broadcasting?

the only way a public broadcast station should be chastized is for airing something that is not the truth. has al jazeera lied to us? if it's true i want to hear it, even if it's not pretty. if an american soldier shot six iraqi kids, let the masses know. it is truth and it is WRONG to censor it, it is WRONG to conceal it.

fuck your censorship. 1st ammendment rock.

[Suburbanite]

If we expect any peace and compliance in the Middle East, I think it is a damn fine idea to brainwash them a bit.

[Zeebadee]

Hey, we can't have any reality come creeping into rosy pictures of all our successes in Iraq. This ban is similar to manipulating public opinion in this country by not allowing any news coverage of the hundreds of caskets that have come back to the U.S. from Iraq. It's not really bad news if nobody sees it.