The war on al-Jazeera - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
By GandalfTheGrey
#30290
Published in the Guardian. The wife of murdered al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub describes the deliberate targeting of al-Jazeera by the US military

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 79,00.html

When my husband decided to go to Baghdad, he knew that I would protest. He told me that I was exaggerating the risks; that there was nothing to be afraid of because he was a reporter, an objective witness, neither on this nor that side, and because of that was protected by world protocol. He bid us farewell, apologising for having been so busy. He promised to make it up to me and our daughter, Fatimah, when he returned.
Tareq left for al-Jazeera's Baghdad office on April 5. He called me when he arrived - the journey was hellish, he said. He sounded exhausted, because he was sleeping only three hours a day, between shifts. Back home in Jordan, our life wasn't any better; we could hardly sleep and sat mesmerised in front of the TV waiting for Tareq to appear in a live report so we'd know he was OK.

On the early morning of April 8, I was still awake at 6am and saw his last live report, in which he described the situation in Baghdad as being very calm and quiet. I was relieved and went to sleep, only to wake up one hour later to the sound of my mother crying and yelling.

At first, I didn't know what had happened. I brought a chair and sat trembling in front of the TV. The house was suddenly full of people. I couldn't see or hear anyone. I was waiting for the film to end. I was waiting for the hero to appear and end all evil. I was waiting for the story of my life to end with "and they lived happily ever after". I couldn't cry, I was just listening to the news, seeing again and again all through the day how the Americans bombed the al-Jazeera office and killed my husband.

I teach English translation. Once, when I was lecturing on the translation of political terminology, with reference to the UN charter and the declaration of human rights, one of the students said: "How can the US say that this war has a noble cause and a humane agenda? All the dictionary definitions of war involve bloodshed and overwhelming destruction." Another student joined in: "Don't tell us about charters and so-called noble missions, what we see is what we believe." The whole class cheered; I had nothing to say.

I used to tell my students that the American dream is best described as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now I am convinced my students were right and I wrong. I learned the hard way when the Americans ruined my life, confiscated my liberty and ended my happiness.

The US bombed al-Jazeera because it was angered by reports that did not confirm its one-sided picture of the war. For the past five years, al-Jazeera and other Arab stations have been gaining credibility and fame not only in the Arab countries but also in the west, competing with international networks such as the BBC and CNN. Al-Jazeera in particular became very popular during the American war on Afghanistan. The channel aired voice recordings of al-Qaida and Taliban leaders as well as the speeches of President Bush and allied leaders. This decision to broadcast both sides was in keeping with its motto - "The opinion and the counter-opinion" - but the Americans could not allow such freedom of expression to prevail.

The US sent its first warning to al-Jazeera in November 2001, bombing its Kabul office, destroying its equipment and forcing its journalists to flee. An al-Jazeera cameraman was sent to Guantanamo Bay as a war prisoner.

In Baghdad during the war, the coverage of al-Jazeera again focused mainly on the daily suffering and loss of ordinary people; and again the Americans wanted their crimes and atrocities to pass unnoticed. The two bombs they dropped on al-Jazeera's Baghdad office were the ones that killed my husband. Then the Americans opened fire on Abu Dhabi television, whose identity was spelled out in large blue letters on the roof. The next target was the Palestine hotel, the headquarters of world media representatives - an American tank fired a shell and two more journalists were killed. Thus the US tried to conceal evidence of its crimes from the world and kill the witnesses.

The US didn't take responsibility for the attacks, claiming that all three were mistakes and insisting that it did not know the whereabouts of journalists, apart from those "embedded" with its troops. Later, al-Jazeera's director confirmed that it had given the precise location of the station's Baghdad office to the Pentagon three months before the war. My husband and the others were killed in broad daylight, in locations known to the Pentagon as media sites.

The US was not content with the message it sent to al-Jazeera signed with the blood of my husband; it accused al-Jazeera and other Arab channels of anti-American bias in their coverage of the war. But how biased can a picture of dead people be? A picture of a destroyed house doesn't need a reporter to tell its story, and the tears of children and refugees need no interpreter.

Tell me, please, what should I do when my daughter, just 20 months old, starts calling her late father's name and looking for him all around the house? What should I do when the clock strikes five and I keep waiting for Tareq to open the door with his smiling face but he never comes in? When the only way to have some rest is to cry myself to sleep? When I see my mother-in-law vomiting four times in less than half an hour? When my daughter brings her toys to play with me, as she used to do with her father, and I can't even hold her? When my tears fall on my daughter's face when I give her milk, remembering how her father used to do it? When I feel ruined and desperate, with no hope in life?

How should I raise my daughter? Allow me to answer the last question. I will raise her never to forgive or forget. Never to forget her father and never to forgive those who killed him.

Six months have passed since the killing of Tareq, and those responsible for his death are still in control, claiming ethical supervision of the world, and basking in their military achievements. The attacks on al-Jazeera continue - Iraq's US-appointed governing council has just warned the station that if it continues to "misbehave", its licence in Iraq will be revoked. Meanwhile, an al-Jazeera correspondent, Tayssir Alouni - the only television journalist who had a live link from Taliban Kabul, and a survivor of both the Kabul and Baghdad bombings - has been accused of helping al-Qaida and the Taliban. When he went to Spain to obtain his PhD, he was arrested by the Spanish authorities, widely believed to have been at the behest of the Americans. He is now in a high-security prison awaiting trial, despite there being no concrete evidence against him.

As for me, six months have passed since my husband's death and I can't find anyone to help me to launch legal action against those who killed him. When I thought I had found an outlet under Belgian law, US threats and ultimatums got the law repealed and put an end to my hopes of gaining justice.

When the Muslim Association of Britain invited me to speak at last weekend's anti-war march in London, I hesitated because of the despair I have been in. But when I saw all these people marching against the war, condemning those responsible for it, my hope and belief in the solidarity of humankind, in humanity, justice and truth was rekindled.

My life and happiness came to an end on April 8, but I still have one last dream; that my Fatimah will have a better future full of love and security, that her heart and mind as well as mine will be relieved when those who committed the cold-blooded murder of her father and my husband are brought to justice.

· Dima Tareq Tahboub is a lecturer at the Arab Open University in Amman and the widow of Tareq Ayyoub, a correspondent for al-Jazeera

By GandalfTheGrey
#30319
Efrem Da King wrote:ROFL this is rediculous.


Thank you Efrem, as usual, you give an inciteful, well informed response. By the way, what is ROFL?
By GandalfTheGrey
#30325
Efrem Da King wrote:I'm hurt gandolf :*( .

Rolls of floor laughing.


Is it because al-Jazeera is arabic that you automatically associate it with terrorist-loving propaganda, or is it just that they report things you don't want to hear? Have you even looked at the site? Sure it uses phrases like 'resistance fighters' instead of "Saddam loyalists' and "Apartheid wall" instead of "security fence", but so what? I would say these are a statement of fact; guerillas in Iraq are resisting occupation, while the wall in Palestine is enforcing apartheid. Read the articles and you will find they are no less balanced than western publications.

Lets take one example: the article Islamic Jihad claims Haifa operation http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... AD7A63.htm
Part 1: bomb kills at least 19 and wounded 30, the bomb went off in a restaurant, Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
Part 2: Premier-designate Ahmed Quraya condemns the attack, calling all Palestinian factions to halt such tactics, while at the same time calling on Israel to stop land confiscation and aggression against the Palestinian people. Israel set to continue construction of 'apartheid wall'
Part 3: Further condemnation of the bombing by senior Palestinian official Saib Arakat, who also called on the quartet to intervene to stop an escallation of violence.
Part 4: Israeli side: Israeli official accused Palestinians of not dismantling terrorist organisations. Israel was reported to be threatening to take action against Arafat, PLO releases statement appealing to the international community to prevent Israel from taking action against Arafat.

And thats it in a nutshell. This is pretty formulaic reporting 1. an introduction stating the facts of the incident, 2. the Palestinian response 3. Another Palestinian response (note: they BOTH condemn the bombing) 4. The Israeli response. [/i]
By Efrem Da King
#30332
LOL unluckly for you I botherd to actually read it. :eek: . Al jeezirah is a horribly biased news network. Far more so than fox news, though not by much.

Your gonna have to recognise that some of your sources are biased before you get a real picture of what is happening.

Ok now let me brake down that aritcle

1. bomb kills at least 19 and wounded 30, the bomb went off in a restaurant, Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
2.About 3 paragraphs giving excuses for attack
3."We ask the Israeli government to stop coinfiscating land and to end its aggression against Palkestinan people," he added." As well as denoucnign it he adds the above attack on israel.
4. "Israel announced on Wednesday that it would push ahead with the next stage of an apartheid wall that at times cuts deep into Palestinian land in the West Bank.
On Thursday, it unveiled plans for hundreds more homes in West Bank settlements."
Two more blatantly biased attacks on israel.
5.Further condemnation of the bombing by senior Palestinian official Saib Arakat, who also called on the quartet to intervene to stop an escallation of violence.
6.Israeli side.
7. appeal for people to protect arafat.


DO YOU HONESTLY SAY THAT THAT HAS NO BIAS??
By GandalfTheGrey
#30336
Efrem Da King wrote:Two more blatantly biased attacks on israel


Referring to this:
Israel announced on Wednesday that it would push ahead with the next stage of an apartheid wall that at times cuts deep into Palestinian land in the West Bank.

On Thursday, it unveiled plans for hundreds more homes in West Bank settlements.


These my friend, are not blatant attacks, but statement of facts. Israel does intend to continue the wall, which does cut deep into Palestinian land in the West Bank, and they do intend to construct hundreds more homes hones in West Bank settlements. I know these facts are a little too hard for you to accept, and that you are offended whenever you are reminded of them, but they are facts nontheless.

It does not excuse the attacks, it went to the trouble of quoting two Palestinian leaders who condemned the attack. Rather, it is what is called putting the situation into context. Talking about attacks on Israel makes no sense without giving the context, which is the settlements, the wall, and the occupation.

DO YOU HONESTLY SAY THAT THAT HAS NO BIAS??

This is a completely subjective thing. Of course something that one person considers biased will be viewed differently by another. Who is the judge? Who decides the criteria regarding what will be deemed 'balanced'? So I cannot answer your question. I will however point out several aspects about the format that should be noted:
1. It reports the Israeli official response, as well as the official Palestinian response.
2. Both Palestinian responses condemn the attack
3. None of the facts stated in the article are in dispute

Anyway, you missed the point of my first post, which was the murder of the al-Jazeera reporter. Even if they are biased, does this justify the US murdering their reporters?
By Efrem Da King
#30338
Look, you can't even recognise that al jezeerah is biased. I don't know If I can even be bothered arguing with you any more. Israel isn't building any aparthied wall that I know of, and just because something may be true doesn't mean it isn't an attack. You really need to have a reality check, if you won't realise al jeezerahs bias.
By GandalfTheGrey
#30344
If you've got nothing to argue, then don't bother, by all means. There's not much point saying "al-Jazeera is biased because...er well... just because!" If you want to argue something, don't just keep repeating it until you go blue in the face, back it up with evidence.

Apartheid: from the Afrikaan word meaning apart-hood, hood denoting state, condition, character, nature, etc. So we can explain the meaning of apartheid as a state or condition of being apart. Since the wall seperates the Israelis from the Palestinians, I think this is a pretty logical word to use.
By Efrem Da King
#30351
I did back it up. I showed parts form their articles that are just pure bias. It isn't a logical use of the word, thats like saying that evil aparthied ocean, it could be right but it isn't, because it has other conotations, which are used unfairly against israel, in an attempt to brainwash people like... well you. I still find it hard to belive that you won't even consider the possibility that al jeezirah is biased.
By CasX
#30396
Efrem wrote:Far more so than fox news, though not by much.


Gee, don't you just win the 'quote of the week' award for that.

Thanks for the story Gandalf. The english version al-Jazeera website is pretty interesting, and usually lots more informative on Middle East issues than other news sites. Unfortunately I can't access it a lot of the time. Is it down?
By Nox
#30452
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Is it because al-Jazeera is arabic that you automatically associate it with terrorist-loving propaganda


No ... but they sure do a good job of it.

GandalfTheGrey wrote: or is it just that they report things you don't want to hear?


No ... I want to hear the other side ... but not when the pendulum is swung all the way, the other way.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:Have you even looked at the site?


Yes.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:Sure it uses phrases like 'resistance fighters' instead of "Saddam loyalists' and "Apartheid wall" instead of "security fence", but so what?


Good ... then a phrase like homicide bomber is equally good.

GandalfTheGrey wrote: I would say these are a statement of fact; guerillas in Iraq are resisting occupation, while the wall in Palestine is enforcing apartheid.


It is all a matter of perspective. If the guerillas were Iraqi, that would be one thing ... they are not. Now what you have is an International situation being apologized into a local event.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:Read the articles and you will find they are no less balanced than western publications.


I agree ... and hence my critcizm of al-Jazeera.

Nox
By Efrem Da King
#30469
What gandalf is far to naive to realise is that everything and everyone is biased. Every single newspaper has bias, al jeeziarah just a lot more than the average, its not thier fault its human nature.
By GandalfTheGrey
#30479
Thanks for the story Gandalf. The english version al-Jazeera website is pretty interesting, and usually lots more informative on Middle East issues than other news sites. Unfortunately I can't access it a lot of the time. Is it down?

I access it every day, and have no problem. They did have a lot of trouble with hackers earlier on, but its been ok for a while now.

It is all a matter of perspective. If the guerillas were Iraqi, that would be one thing ... they are not. Now what you have is an International situation being apologized into a local event.

It may surprise you, but there is no evidence that foreign fighters are flooding into Iraq. This is another convenient propaganda ploy: of course the Iraqi people wouldn't be resisting, so it must be nasty terrorists infiltrating the borders.

It isn't a logical use of the word, thats like saying that evil aparthied ocean, it could be right but it isn't, because it has other conotations, which are used unfairly against israel, in an attempt to brainwash people like... well you

Of course the word is used in reference to the apartheid system in South Africa. But why is this not valid? The wall is creating racial segregation. Rather than assimilating the two races, they are being seperated. The Israelis will be on one side, the Palestinians on the other. Whether you believe it is right or wrong, this is what is happening, so 'apartheid wall' is an appropriate term. Its not a matter of being unfair, it is just simply a statement of fact. Whether it is a good thing or a bad thing is another matter, but simply calling it an 'apartheid wall' is neither a criticism or an endorsement of the wall. Israeli apologists would prefer to call it a "security fence", thats fine, they see the wall in terms of security. On the Palestinian side, they see it in terms of racial segregation, which is what it is creating. If you want to try and argue that the wall is not creating racial segregation, by all means campaign against it being called an 'apartheid wall', otherwise you cannot argue that it is an invalid or unfair term.

What gandalf is far to naive to realise is that everything and everyone is biased.

I said that bias is a subjective thing, read my responses again. What may be balanced to one person will be biased to another.

Every single newspaper has bias, al jeeziarah just a lot more than the average, its not thier fault its human nature.

This is your opinion, but you cannot say it is a fact, because, again it is a completely subjective thing. You cannot be the sole guage for determining the degree of bias, and neither can anyone else, its all a matter of perspective, as Nox said.
User avatar
By naked_turk
#30480
Efrem Da King wrote:What gandalf is far to naive to realise is that everything and everyone is biased. Every single newspaper has bias, al jeeziarah just a lot more than the average, its not thier fault its human nature.


Well, yes, everyone is biased to some degree, but gandalf hasn't said anything implying he doesnt know that. But all Al-Jazeera seems to have done is attached all relevant information in relation to the subject to the article so the reader can decide. This isn't bias or an attack on Israel.

After finally being able to read al-jazeera, I'd say its one of the least biased news sources. Just because they are Arab they are being critisized for being biased. For the record I have no problem with words like "Apartheid wall", just like I have no problem with words like "homocide bomber," they are both true. What I DO have a problem is words like "war of liberation" and practices such as stating only one side of the conflict/playing down an incidenet (ie the practices of the western media). In my opinion, Al-jazeera is a perfectly fine source of information, so far I have seen no outright LIES, and no unobjective or over-biased reporting. What I have seen though is a well balanced plethora of informative truths.

P.S. The story of Mrs. Tahbuob is quite sad indeed. Just goes to show what lengths the US military would go to just to prevent true freedom of the press.
By Efrem Da King
#30500
After finally being able to read al-jazeera, I'd say its one of the least biased news sources. Just because they are Arab they are being critisized for being biased. For the record I have no problem with words like "Apartheid wall", just like I have no problem with words like "homocide bomber," they are both true.




THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH UNTRUE AND UNFAIR LABELS DOESN'T MAKE THEM ANYLESS BIASED!!
By Nox
#30534
GandalfTheGrey wrote:It may surprise you, but there is no evidence that foreign fighters are flooding into Iraq. This is another convenient propaganda ploy: of course the Iraqi people wouldn't be resisting, so it must be nasty terrorists infiltrating the borders.


*sigh*

Nox
User avatar
By ISM
#30537
I love Al-Jazeera, its website is a welcome relief from the Americo-centric news sources. It is also good in that it does not censor news stories and photographs. CNN didn't show the dead US soldiers (not for long, anyway, at least), however Al-Jazeera broadcasted them. This freedom of the press is not evident in most other places. You can truly get the feel (of dread) for what is happening. Sure, they are not entirely free from bias, like anyone, but they are one of the very best.
By GandalfTheGrey
#30539
sigh all you want Nox and Efrem, but can you give me any evidence that foreign fighters are flooding into Iraq. I heard it said that Blair claimed there were Chechen fighters in Iraq, which is absolutely rediculous; Chechens are not even Arab. So you can't take these guys seriously anymore. Robert Fisk, who is in Iraq reporting on the ground, continuouly claims that there is no evidence to suggest that there are foreign fighters flooding into Iraq. Sure there maybe a few, after all, there were definitely foreign fighters coming in before the war, and there are probably still some left.

I know this seems rediculous to you because we are constantly fed the story that foreigners are streaming into Iraq to fight a holy war. But this doesn't mean that it is so.

What do the tweets say? Read them? They have ex[…]

Dude, YouTube is your source? You are not a serio[…]

World War II Day by Day

They are words that will always ring true. So lo[…]

“Whenever the government provides opportunities […]