The View from the OTHER Side

[apoppin]

>View from the OTHER sideDateline: 30/03/2003 13:32:58

Iraq: My Station, a Threat to America - Aljazeera Editor
News Feature

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last month, when it became clear that the US-led drive to war was irreversible, I - like many other British journalists - relocated to Qatar for a ringside seat. But I am an Islamist journalist, so while the others bedded down at the ?1m media centre at US central command in As-Sayliyah, I found a more humble berth in the capital Doha, working for the internet arm of al-Jazeera.

And yet, only a week into the war, I find myself working for the most soughtafter news resource in the world. On March 23, the night the channel screened the first footage of captured US PoW's, al-Jazeera was the most searched item on the internet portal, Lycos, registering three times as many hits as the next item.

I do not mean to brag - people are turning to us simply because the western media coverage has been so poor. For although Doha is just a 15-minute drive from central command, the view of events from here could not be more different. Of all the major global networks, al-Jazeera has been alone in proceeding from the premise that this war should be viewed as an illegal enterprise. It has broadcast the horror of the bombing campaign, the blownout brains, the blood-spattered pavements, the screaming infants and the corpses. Its team of on-the-ground, unembedded correspondents has provided a corrective to the official line that the campaign is, barring occasional resistance, going to plan.

Last Tuesday, while western channels were celebrating a Basra "uprising" which none of them could have witnessed since they don't have reporters in the city, our correspondent in the Sheraton there returned a rather flat verdict of "uneventful" - a view confirmed shortly afterwards by a spokesman for the opposition Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. By reporting propaganda as fact, the mainstream media had simply mirrored the Blair/Bush fantasy that the people who have been starved by UN sanctions and deformed by depleted uranium since 1991 will greet them as saviours.

Only hours before the Basra non-event, one of Iraq's most esteemed Shia authorities, Ayatollah Sistani, had dented coalition hopes of a southern uprising by reiterating a fatwa calling on all Muslims to resist the US-led forces. This real, and highly significant, event went unreported in the west.

Earlier in the week Arab viewers had seen the gruesome aftermath of the coalition bombing of "Ansar al- Islam" positions in the north-east of the country. All but two of the 35 killed were civilians in an area controlled by a neutral Islamist group, a fact passed over with undue haste in western reports. And before that, on the second day of the war, most of the western media reported verbatim central command statements that Umm Qasr was under "coalition" control - it was not until Wednesday that al- Jazeera could confirm all resistance there had been pacified.

Throughout the past week, armed peoples in the west and south have been attacking the exposed rearguard of coalition positions, while all the time - despite debilitating sandstorms - western TV audiences have seen little except their steady advance towards Baghdad. This is not truthful reporting.

There is also a marked difference when reporting the anger the invasion has has unleashed on the Muslim street. The view from here is that any vestige of goodwill towards the US has evaporated with this latest aggresion, and that Britain has now joined the US and Isreal as a target of rage.

The British media has condemned al-Jazeera's decision to screen a 30-second video clip of two dead British soldiers. This is simple hypocrisy. From the outset of the war, the British media has not balked at showing images of Iraqi soliders either dead or captured and humiliated.

Amid the battle for hearts and minds in the most information-controlled war in history, one measure of the importance of those American PoW pictures and the images of the dead British soldiers is surely the sustained "shock and awe" hacking campaign directed at aljazeera.net since the start of the war. As I write, the al-Jazeera website has been down for three days and few here doubt that the provenance of the attack is the Pentagon. Meanwhile, our hosting company, the US-based DataPipe, has terminated our contract after lobbying by other clients whose websites have been brought down by the hacking.

It's too early for me to say when, or indeed if, I will return to my homeland. So far this war has progressed according to a near worst-case scenario. Iraqis have not turned against their tormentor. The southern Shia regard the invasion force as the greater Satan. Opposition in surrounding countries is shaking their regimes. I fear there remains much work to be done.

Faisal Bodi, Senior editor, aljazeera.net, wrote this piece for Guardian of London

These are NOT necessarily my views but there is PLENTY for discussion here . . .

 

[charrison]

Throughout the past week, armed peoples in the west and south have been attacking the exposed rearguard of coalition positions, while all the time - despite debilitating sandstorms - western TV audiences have seen little except their steady advance towards Baghdad. This is not truthful reporting.

Funny this has been plastered all over the news. I guess he has some problems with his own honesty in reporting.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: charrison

Throughout the past week, armed peoples in the west and south have been attacking the exposed rearguard of coalition positions, while all the time - despite debilitating sandstorms - western TV audiences have seen little except their steady advance towards Baghdad. This is not truthful reporting.

Funny this has been plastered all over the news. I guess he has some problems with his own honesty in reporting.

It has been RECENTLY plastered all over the news. Until the field commander spoke up - and Rumsfeld was PO'd - not one of the embedded reporters told of the problems the troops were facing with amBush, supplies and rations.

Even the NEXT day the US "intellegence" was telling the media there was no "pause".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: charrison

Throughout the past week, armed peoples in the west and south have been attacking the exposed rearguard of coalition positions, while all the time - despite debilitating sandstorms - western TV audiences have seen little except their steady advance towards Baghdad. This is not truthful reporting.

Funny this has been plastered all over the news. I guess he has some problems with his own honesty in reporting.

It has been RECENTLY plastered all over the news. Until the field commander spoke up - and Rumsfeld was PO'd - not one of the embedded reporters told of the problems the troops were facing with amBush, supplies and rations.

Considering this has only been going on for about 10 days, it is all recent. This problem has been talked about for 5 or 6 days. And is it a real surprise that the enemy is attacking supply lines? I mean is this a real surprise?

 

[apoppin]

Can you see where we are going with this?


NOwhere.

However, you are attacking his "honesty" on THIS point. I am saying there are TWO PERSPECTIVES on the way the fighting is going that allows for his viewpoint without his being dishonest.

And if you listen to Official British Reports they are disgustingly sugar-coated. :disgust:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Can you see where we are going with this?


NOwhere.

However, you are attacking his "honesty" on THIS point. I am saying there are TWO PERSPECTIVES on the way the fighting is going that allows for his viewpoint without his being dishonest.

And if you listen to Official British Reports they are disgustingly sugar-coated. :disgust:

Yes there are 2 perspectives and I can clearly see both are true. We have supply lines being attacked and we are still advancing. Both are being reported in the news here. If this guy was honestly reporting, he would say the same.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: apoppin

The British media has condemned al-Jazeera's decision to screen a 30-second video clip of two dead British soldiers. This is simple hypocrisy. From the outset of the war, the British media has not balked at showing images of Iraqi soliders either dead or captured and humiliated.

This made me think. I have seen countless images, both on TV and on Internet news sites, of dead Iraqi soldiers laying on the ground. How is this different from the footage that Al Jazeera showed and was so lambasted for? I'm asking a sincere question here.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: apoppin

The British media has condemned al-Jazeera's decision to screen a 30-second video clip of two dead British soldiers. This is simple hypocrisy. From the outset of the war, the British media has not balked at showing images of Iraqi soliders either dead or captured and humiliated.

This made me think. I have seen countless images, both on TV and on Internet news sites, of dead Iraqi soldiers laying on the ground. How is this different from the footage that Al Jazeera showed and was so lambasted for? I'm asking a sincere question here.

According to the Pentagon, it was more "humilating" the WAY they showed the POWs . . . ("paraded" and questioned live on camera)

Sure . . . to US.

EDIT: I think they were more angry with the POW treatment. And especially livid that some POWs appeared to be executed.

Britain is especially hypocritical. Listen to the Official reports on the BBC - they are sickening in their sugar coating of everything Britain does. Remember this journalist is Islamic-British and he is reacting mostly to THEM.

 

[da loser]

" Of all the major global networks, al-Jazeera has been alone in proceeding from the premise that this war should be viewed as an illegal enterprise" no surprise, everything they say tries to create a negative image. unlike US sources, what positive accomplishments has al-jazeera shown? You can't deny that US sources show negative things. The US sources are just reporting on what they're able to view, and a lot of speculation. Being wrong because you're an idiot doesn't make you biased, just ignorant. The reason why they have exclusive is very easy to explain, the regime wants to win the propaganda war. The reason why western people turn into al-jazeera is because they want to gauge how badly they're televising the event. not because it's some beacon of truth. As far as the gruesome images, if any us source were to show these, they would quickly lose all viewers. While you want to see all these gruesome pictures of the war, I don't. Not because if i were to see these images I would lose all faith, and start chanting no war-peace everywhere, but because they're gruesome. It's one thing to realize these things are happening, but not deny that they exist. It's a whole separate case to show these images purely to incite propaganda. Although, now the US media is not showing epws anymore.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: apoppin

The British media has condemned al-Jazeera's decision to screen a 30-second video clip of two dead British soldiers. This is simple hypocrisy. From the outset of the war, the British media has not balked at showing images of Iraqi soliders either dead or captured and humiliated.

This made me think. I have seen countless images, both on TV and on Internet news sites, of dead Iraqi soldiers laying on the ground. How is this different from the footage that Al Jazeera showed and was so lambasted for? I'm asking a sincere question here.

I wondered the same thing when I read it in another thread..
I'm beginning to think that one way to live is to have a set firm general belief and in turn accept as true that which fits and accept as untrue that which does not. I always believed the chips should fall where they may and I'd try to find what was the truth. I guess that is my attitude but, what I read as "it's only propaganda" has plauable reality attached and what I read as "fair and balanced" is somewhat dubious...

The only way to win this game is not to play.... seems true to me.

 

[mastertech01]

It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

What exactly are you saying?

:Q

 

[Wheezer]

This made me think. I have seen countless images, both on TV and on Internet news sites, of dead Iraqi soldiers laying on the ground. How is this different from the footage that Al Jazeera showed and was so lambasted for? I'm asking a sincere question here.

The diffence it they are not POW's. We did not capture those dead Iraqis then shoot them when they are unarmed, or wounded or both.

The Iraqis you see died in combat. How many pictures, or how much footage have you seen of captured Iraqis recieving medical help, food, water?

Now compare those images to the ones Al Jazeera put out. If you cannot tell the difference then that in itself is sad.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

What exactly are you saying?

:Q

Dead men don't shoot back!

 

[Phuz]

US Media = Cheerleaders.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Phuz
US Media = Cheerleaders.

Canadian= Beneficiary of another country that defends your freedom!

 

[Kadarin]

al-Jazeera is simply the Arab version of FOX News, playing to their constituency, telling them what they want to hear.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

What exactly are you saying?

:Q

Dead men don't shoot back!

I guess they will have to make that decision now. I saw on the BBC last night where the Coalition forces shot civilians when their pickup engine backfired . . . bad "timing" .

I see that the coalition is TRYING to be honorable and fight according to the "rules of warefare". The Iraqis see the war as an illegal invasion where the rules don't apply to them.

 

[Phuz]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Phuz
US Media = Cheerleaders.

Canadian= Beneficiary of another country that defends your freedom!

Yeah... hell, just yesterday I had an Iraqi try to break into my house!
Red, you've called the US media the same thing. (flag wavers)

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

What exactly are you saying?

:Q

Dead men don't shoot back!

I guess they will have to make that decision now. I saw on the BBC last night where the Coalition forces shot civilians when their pickup engine backfired . . . bad "timing" .

I see that the coalition is TRYING to be honorable and fight according to the "rules of warefare". The Iraqis see the war as an illegal invasion where the rules don't apply to them.

If I were them I would be as ruthless but then I wouldn't expect to survive if my side loss.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: mastertech01
It appears most of the POW that they have captured from the coalition have been executed. I see a vast difference in that alone.

If I were a Serviceman and I was led to believe that my attitude towards the enemy would be influenced to the point were taken Iraqi Prisoners Of War would become a moral issue and in war morals take a back seat to survival!

What exactly are you saying?

:Q

Dead men don't shoot back!

I guess they will have to make that decision now. I saw on the BBC last night where the Coalition forces shot civilians when their pickup engine backfired . . . bad "timing" .

I see that the coalition is TRYING to be honorable and fight according to the "rules of warefare". The Iraqis see the war as an illegal invasion where the rules don't apply to them.

If I were them I would be as ruthless but then I wouldn't expect to survive if my side loss.

Damn . . . we're agreed!

It's logical and I bet the Iraqi militia doesN'T expect to survice if their side loses. People with "nothing to lose" are extraordinarily dangerous and it shows in Iraq.

 

[Ornery]

...the most information-controlled war in history...

WTF? That's just plain ludicrous!


US Media = Cheerleaders

You have GOT to be fvcking kidding! Seems like 90% of the media I've seen is so damn pessimistic, it's disgusting. Where the hell do you come up with this BS?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ornery
...the most information-controlled war in history...

WTF? That's just plain ludicrous!


US Media = Cheerleaders

You have GOT to be fvcking kidding! Seems like 90% of the media I've seen is so damn pessimistic, it's disgusting. Where the hell do you come up with this BS?

I think he is referring to the uniformity of reporting. When it is positive - ALL the coalition embeded reporters are positive; when it's negqative they all are. They all see what the Coalition allows them to see.

The freelance reporters - at real risk - go where they are able and their stories do differ from the "official" view.

If you watch - all the American channels seem the same (except FOX - ) - there is a difference with the BBC, even "more narrow" of a view.

 

[Phuz]

Ornery. Watch something other than American media and you'll understand.