Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya cooperating in attacks?

[alchemize]

It's only on the Right Wing press for now, be interesting to see where this story goes.

Prior knowledge of an attack, then arriving to film and display those images to the arab world. Sounds a bit criminal to me.

/me waits for the "but the US did X!" moral equivalence argument

 

[Witling]

The article mentions Rumsfeld. It says he is alleging that certain things are happening. Is this the same Rumsfeld who said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Is this the same guy who either said or encouraged the belief that Sadaam was associated with Al Queda, that Iraq was a danger to us, that Iraqis would welcome us. Have I got this right? Is this the same guy who said we've done the job in Afghanistan?

Then there's the aspect of U.S. news coverage. I don't have an example that's completely analogous to the allegations about the Arab news services, but, I know for a fact, that there was a guy in the U.S. who threatened to burn himself to death and called the news services in advance. They came, he set himself on fire. They filmed for a while then put the fire out. He sued them for not putting it out earlier. I honestly believe that if the terrorists told the U.S. news industry that something was going to happen, they'd report it, but they'd be there to film. Perhaps Al Queda (or whomever) structured the event so that the news agencies could only film, but not report the event in advance. Hint: If you can't figure out how to structure that kind of event, post. I'll explain it to you, but I think we all agree that it isn't too complicated to say, "Show up here. We'll search you and take you somewhere. You'll get some great film." I know our news media would probably take that offer. And I don't mean that critically, their job is to cover the news. Help if they can, but cover the news.

 

[alchemize]

Whitling,

thanks for meeting my expectations with a different moral equivalance argument than I had in mind.

 

[Witling]

No problem. I had to choose from several. Having gray in your world is such a problem. Black and White is so much easier.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
No problem. I had to choose from several. Having gray in your world is such a problem. Black and White is so much easier.

Indeed it does make it more difficult. Why in my silly black and white world, I would find it immoral and criminal to go and purposefully and knowingly film an attack against US troops. In your grey world, it's just "doing their job". No sense in taking a stance, it's only human lives. But you support our troops, of course.

 

[Witling]

Al, I've got a DD 214 (hope you know what that is). I don't need to establish my "support the troops" credentials. But, as a veteran, I will say that it pisses me off to the base note when troops are used for something other than defense. My personal belief is that Iraq is "something other than defense."

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Al, I've got a DD 214 (hope you know what that is). I don't need to establish my "support the troops" credentials. But, as a veteran, I will say that it pisses me off to the base note when troops are used for something other than defense. My personal belief is that Iraq is "something other than defense."

Your history has nothing to do with if you support our troops or not. It has to do with your current stance.

Supporting your troops means you would choose their lives over the lives of the people they are fighting. Supporting an organization's actions that doesn't report/try to prevent attacks but instead capitalizes on them means you indirectly support the end results, death and injury of our troops.

Even you might follow that logic. Or is it still all "grey" to you?

 

[Witling]

Al, it was news service pressure that got us out of Viet Nam. It will be news service pressure, among other things, that gets us out of Iraq. Filming reality doesn't seem to me to be a moral sellout.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Al, it was news service pressure that got us out of Viet Nam. It will be news service pressure, among other things, that gets us out of Iraq. Filming reality doesn't seem to me to be a moral sellout.

Supporting a news organization that is pre-aware of an attack against our troops that will result in the deaths of our servicemen and not notifying the authorities is morally wrong. I don't have a problem with them reporting the news, but if they are aware in advance of something that is going to take lives and choose not to report it to the authorities then they are no longer just journalists, they are co-conspirators. Your support of them isn't in the grey zone in the least.

Let me preface that and say "if it's true". I'm skeptical but it wouldn't supprise me.

 

[Witling]

Rahvin. No need to read the earlier posts. In fact, I've been guilty of that myself. Let me put it to you this way. Suppose you're someone who can survive in the Arabic culture. You get a phone call and the guy says. "Have I got a hot story for you. You've dealt with us before so you know I'm speaking the truth. What you need to do is to have one camera man and the two of you be standing all alone in BugaBuga Square at noon. We'll pick you up. The story will be worth while."

OK, Rahv. You do that, they pick you up. The hood is pulled off your head and you're obviously near the airport. The guy says, "Film that plane."

Ok, Mr. Morality. What do you do hear. Hopefully by the time you've read this far, you've started to think, "How would I warn people." I am strongly against stupid and sensless acts that result in human death. But, I think I've just postulated a situation in which a professional news person is presented with a dilema. If it's not enough of a dilema for you, add "Film, or I'll shoot you." OK, you film. Are you so rigid that you don't use that film that you were forced to take.

My experience on this board is that I often pose questions that are not answered, e.g., like, "How is bashing working for Israel?" There's a question for you in the previous paragraphs. Hit it Rahv.

 

[sandorski]

 

[XMan]

And this surprises you why?

Our own reporters are no better.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: X-Man
And this surprises you why?

Our own reporters are no better.

Nice quote from that:

I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans."

"But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists."

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Rahvin. No need to read the earlier posts. In fact, I've been guilty of that myself. Let me put it to you this way. Suppose you're someone who can survive in the Arabic culture. You get a phone call and the guy says. "Have I got a hot story for you. You've dealt with us before so you know I'm speaking the truth. What you need to do is to have one camera man and the two of you be standing all alone in BugaBuga Square at noon. We'll pick you up. The story will be worth while."

OK, Rahv. You do that, they pick you up. The hood is pulled off your head and you're obviously near the airport. The guy says, "Film that plane."

Ok, Mr. Morality. What do you do hear. Hopefully by the time you've read this far, you've started to think, "How would I warn people." I am strongly against stupid and sensless acts that result in human death. But, I think I've just postulated a situation in which a professional news person is presented with a dilema. If it's not enough of a dilema for you, add "Film, or I'll shoot you." OK, you film. Are you so rigid that you don't use that film that you were forced to take.

My experience on this board is that I often pose questions that are not answered, e.g., like, "How is bashing working for Israel?" There's a question for you in the previous paragraphs. Hit it Rahv.

Whitless,

I enjoyed reading your fanciful tale of a situation that has no bearing on the thread. The exact quote from the article is this:

"They've called Al-Jazeera to come and watch them do it [attack American troops], and Al-Arabiya," he told a Pentagon news conference. "'Come and see us, watch us; here is what we're going to do.'"

This if true proposes that unlike the fanciful situation you propose that the terrorists are calling the journalists up and telling them what they are going to do and when. Not reporting this information to the authorities is morally wrong if it's occuring. It is in direct support of and an aid to the enemy. So when you would care to discuss the actual item posted on the thread instead of attempting to re-write the topic to suit your own pursuits let me know.

 

[sandorski]

It is not the job of the Press to act as informer and as Whit has pointed out, we don't even know the circumstances related to how the Press was informed. I'm sure that if the Press was being told details of what, where, and how things were going to happen, US Military Intelligence would have tapped the phones of the reporters and would know before hand what was going down.

This smacks of damage control for being embarrassed.