Arafat Had Done it Again. Abu Mazen Quits.

[CyberGnu]

I still want know why there were no elections in January as Arafat promised. Liar.

Eh, Ned, do you realize that you've fallen for an old old trick? AFAIK, Israel only does what all occupying powers do: try tolegitimize their presence through calling for "democratic elections". Of course, they wouldn't DREAM of influencing the election... Oh no, not at all. There would never be "unfortunate" closings of more hardline areas such as Jenin... No chance of particularly stringent checkpoints between voting stations and more extreme population centers... And definetly no attempts of influencing the voters themselves with empty promises of peace as long as they vote for a more docile leader?

Yeah... Right...

If you REALLY want to see elections, call for Israels withdrawal.

[CyberGnu]

Oerdin:

Arafat has always been and will always be a dictator of the worst sort. He won't give in to Democracy and should be removed.

Question: what do you base this on? His negotiations that led to the end of the first intidafa? His Nobel peace price?

It couldn't be Sharons and Bush's propaganda, by any chance?

[Al'Kimiya]

Ränderna går aldrig ur tigern

[CyberGnu]

Zevico:

Did you read the JPost article in question? I believe it said he -threatened- to resign. Not that he actually resigned.

Actually, no. I don't waste my time on unsourced material from the pro-israelis on this board... It usually comes from israeli "news"agencies or editorials. I read Elis title and the first paragraph, then the end (where I looked for a source), and then the replies in case it had been posted or requested.

Since the responses on the first page was basically a bunch of people accepting the story as-is, I checked the front page of NYT, LAT, BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo News (Reuters) and a swedish paper, Dagens Nyheter. No mention of the story on any of their pages. I consequencly question the veracity of the statement, together with a suggestion as to the motivations of the original poster.

When was the last time they covered a massacre up? They certainly had information about that so called 'massacre' of yours, and I can almost assure you they had it before anyone else, too.

Read the third page, eight post.

Also, Gnu, as the articles above tend to show, your 'massacre' is an incorrect term. Massacre would be when they went in trying to kill people wherever they went, regardless of who they are.

So the cameraman and the passing 15 year old were targeted for particular crimes they had performed?

No, zevico, I think the indiscriminate slaughter of six innocent people constitutes a massacre... Even if it is done for a political purpose.

[CyberGnu]

Ränderna går aldrig ur tigern

Naeh, klarar inte av att laata loegner vara oimotsagda...

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Naeh, klarar inte av att laata loegner vara oimotsagda...

Det är bra du har en hobby!

[CyberGnu]

Sant, sant

[Alvaro]

No, zevico, I think the indiscriminate slaughter of six innocent people constitutes a massacre... Even if it is done for a political purpose.

"The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."

Large number. Can you compare the Red Army's invasion of Eastern Prussia to what happened there?

The latter is a certified massacre. The former is what pompous leftists call a "massacre" when even CNN don't dare doing so.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


And that's what happens when a paper prints stuff without checking facts first. Duh.

The article was completely factual at the time it was written because at that point, Abu Mazen had not agreed to meet Arafat again, and indeed, what was written in the article was:

Palestinian officials tried to convince Abu Mazen, who returned home after leaving the meeting, to attend a central committee meeting at a later date. It is not clear if Abu Mazen has agreed.

Exactly what fact was not accurate about that at the time the article was written?

You're the one who writes stuff without checking what was written first, like that the article claimed that Abu Mazen quit, when it did not, or that no other news agency reported what that article reported.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan:

Cover up Saddams crimes? I think I missed that part in the story. Where did it say that CNN lied to help Saddam? Oh, wait, are you confusing "covering up" with "acting in accordance to ethical guidelines"?

They certainly covered up some of Saddams crimes. The motives for that may be in question, however. They claimed to be "protecting" their reporters by not reporting murders, tortures, dissapearances and other crimes. It seems to me, however, that they could have protected reporters by pulling them out of Iraq and then reporting the stories. Then also claimed that they were doing so to protect Iraqis - which is a copout. They could easily report the stories while not identifyying Iraqis and using technology to make faces and voices unrecognizable - it's been done before and will be done in the future.

There you have it, a way to report the news while at the same time, not attempting to hide any relevent information that they have that the public should know. Indeed, pulling the reporters home would be a lot more safe than keeping them in Baghdad, even if they were lying for Saddam. Of course, it means that CNN would have less access to Iraq, but what CNN would have is integrity and a clear record, and not have to worry - at all - about it's reporters.

How are we to trust CNN in the future, if all it takes is some threats and CNN will lie or cover up for someone in power capable of carrying out those threats - with CNN prefering to get a little better access rather than to protect it's reporters and tell the complete truth?

[Panag]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Siro - The IDF never pulled completely out of PA administered areas and still enters towns whenever it wants. I hardly think Arafat would have had honest elections, which is why he demanded the IDF withdraw when he knew it wouldn't.

I doubt Arafat is very popular in Palestine right now but the most popular alternative would probably be Hamas.

hi ,

wake up , ....

we did do it , ....

but then again , people seem to forget that , ....

neither hames nor yasses is popular , ... all the people want is peace , .....

have a nice day

[Drake Tungsten]

I read Elis title and the first paragraph, then the end (where I looked for a source), and then the replies in case it had been posted or requested.

No wonder you didn't know what the article said.

Since the responses on the first page was basically a bunch of people accepting the story as-is

How would you know? You just said that you didn't read the article in the first place, so how would you know that people were accepting it as-is?

Stupid and anti-Semitic is no way to go through life, son...

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan:

Cover up Saddams crimes? I think I missed that part in the story. Where did it say that CNN lied to help Saddam? Oh, wait, are you confusing "covering up" with "acting in accordance to ethical guidelines"?

From NPR's ethical guidelines:
Journalists at all times will show respect for the dignity, privacy, rights, and well-being of people encountered in the course of gathering and presenting the news.

CyberGnu, I think Edan meant the duty of a free press to its readers. It has an ethical duty to its readers to not become a propaganda mouthpiece for any government.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Eh, Ned, do you realize that you've fallen for an old old trick? AFAIK, Israel only does what all occupying powers do: try tolegitimize their presence through calling for "democratic elections". Of course, they wouldn't DREAM of influencing the election... Oh no, not at all. There would never be "unfortunate" closings of more hardline areas such as Jenin... No chance of particularly stringent checkpoints between voting stations and more extreme population centers... And definetly no attempts of influencing the voters themselves with empty promises of peace as long as they vote for a more docile leader?

Yeah... Right...

If you REALLY want to see elections, call for Israels withdrawal.

Actually, CyberGnu, you raise a very good point here. There can be no free elections so long as Arafat is in power. With Arafat in charge, I wouldn't be surprised if Arafat would receive 99.9% of the vote, just like Saddam did in the last election in Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Edan


They certainly covered up some of Saddams crimes. The motives for that may be in question, however. They claimed to be "protecting" their reporters by not reporting murders, tortures, dissapearances and other crimes. It seems to me, however, that they could have protected reporters by pulling them out of Iraq and then reporting the stories. Then also claimed that they were doing so to protect Iraqis - which is a copout. They could easily report the stories while not identifyying Iraqis and using technology to make faces and voices unrecognizable - it's been done before and will be done in the future.

There you have it, a way to report the news while at the same time, not attempting to hide any relevent information that they have that the public should know. Indeed, pulling the reporters home would be a lot more safe than keeping them in Baghdad, even if they were lying for Saddam. Of course, it means that CNN would have less access to Iraq, but what CNN would have is integrity and a clear record, and not have to worry - at all - about it's reporters.

How are we to trust CNN in the future, if all it takes is some threats and CNN will lie or cover up for someone in power capable of carrying out those threats - with CNN prefering to get a little better access rather than to protect it's reporters and tell the complete truth?

Edan, this represents the concensus view of every news network in the US - except, of course, CNN. I still do not understand how anyone can defend CNN - but they obviously do here on Apolyton.

I wonder, at times, whether the tradition outside the US of having the major networks owned and operated by the government hasn't lead to a blaise attitude concerning this issue. After all, they have been receiving government propaganda as news their entire lives.