Arafat Had Done it Again. Abu Mazen Quits.

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


The strawman is that the article doesn't talk about eye-witnesses, but Iraqi employes of CNN.

Actually, the article does talk quite a lot about Iraqi eyewitnesses. However, with regards to those working for CNN - they were already being tortured, disappeared or killed. "Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways". CNNs covering up Saddams crimes didn't help them, did they? And CNN could have easily pulled out of Iraq - giving those workers fair warning - instead of hiring new cameramen and crew.

They were staying there for the ratings, as you yourself acknowledged.

I think it is. Your claim is that they should either put personal safety above anythig else, or not care about personal safety at all, is it not?

No. It's that they shouldn't be knowingly telling half truths when they don't have to.

[Edan]

I was refering to the Reuters article that I've linked to twice.

[CyberGnu]

I got the impression that that only happened if they reported unfavorably on the regime.

[CyberGnu]

I was refering to the Reuters article that I've linked to twice

I'm confused now... In what context?

[Edan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


I'm confused now... In what context?

From the 7th page:

"Thats why this Reuters article (written 2 and a half hours after the start of this thread.) makes no mention of any compromises being worked on or the eventual resolution either - because they hadn't happened yet"

From the current page:
"No, it was 2.5 hours after Eli's post, and an hour and a half before yours."

[CyberGnu]

Ah, OK. Well, as I said, my guess is that the story hadn't made it to the Yahoo News client when I checked. Well, could also be that Yahoo didn't think it was newsworthy enough to put among the headlines.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ned:

Well, as long as it doesn't actually tried to portray Saddam as nice and benevolent guy, I don't think they have compromised their ethical duty.

Well, OK, maybe a little, but I think it is outweighed by the benefits of learning first hand about the political currents in the country.

CyberGnu, Some of the other networks noted CNN stories that praised Saddam for having the loyalty of his people ....etc., while saying that America was wrong about Saddam. Actually, some of these stories ran right after the start of the war. We got the impression from CNN that the Iraqi people would fight to the death for Saddam.

But CNN knew the truth, didn't it?

There is another question here. How much harm harm did CNN cause the people of Iraq by not reporting the facts of Saddam's brutality. I would like to cite for analogy O.J. Simpson. He was attacking women even while he was in college.

Rather than address the issue of OJ and his assaults on women, USC convered up the assaults and actually paid the assaulted women a substantial sum of money to keep silent. Well, O.J. went on to have a fantastic career at USC. He had a fantastic career in the NFL. He also ended up killing Nicole Simpson. I think that this murder could have been prevented had USC not covered up OJ's criminal behavior.

[Zevico]

Cyber--
JP posted the 'making up' of Arafat and Mazen afterwards as well. What is so biased about reporting a possible crisis before it is resolved anyway?

In addition--who are you to judge the Israeli soldiers who killed these Palestinians?
Do you realise yet that when soldiers enter the territories they do not do so to kill people wherever they go? That these are normal people given a gun and some training and told to destroy a smuggling tunnel that gives the next suicide bomber his weapon? That it could be difficult to tell the difference between a person with grenade or suicide belt on him and an innocent? That to a soldier in a combat zone such as one in civilain areas in West Bank or Gaza, every civilian is a potential threat because the terrorists wear civilian clothing?
Have you ever stopped to think that these deaths were unintentional? That these soldiers could have thought that the 15 year old had weapons on him-large rocks, a pistol maybe, or a grenade-? What was this child doing near a Hamas smuggling tunnel in the first place?

I have taken the devil's advocate (I think that's the phrase?) in the case of the 15 year old, Gnu, to point out that you do not know what happened on the ground. While the 15 year old may not have had a weapon, the soldier may have thought he did; etc. etc.

[Zevico]

Arafat sought to establish himself as the only leader who could unite and speak for the Palestinians, and in mid-1988 he took the diplomatic initiative. At the 19th session of the PNC, held near Algiers, Algeria, on Nov. 12–15, 1988, he succeeded in having the council issue a declaration of independence for a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ‘Arafat proclaimed the state (without defining its borders) on November 15. Within days more than 25 nations (including the Soviet Union and Egypt but excluding the United States and Israel) had extended recognition to the government-in-exile.
The final weeks of 1988 opened a new chapter in Palestinian-Israeli relations. In December ‘Arafat announced that the PNC recognized Israel as a state in the region and condemned and rejected terrorism in all its forms—including state terrorism, the PLO's term for Israel's actions. He addressed a special meeting of the UN General Assembly convened at Geneva and proposed an international peace conference under UN auspices. He publicly accepted UN resolutions 242 and 338, thereby recognizing, at least implicitly, the State of Israel. Despite their ambiguities, UN resolution 242 (1967), which encapsulated the principle of land for peace, and resolution 338 (1973), which called for direct negotiations, were regarded by both parties as the starting points for negotiations. Although Israeli Prime Minister Shamir stated that he was still not prepared to negotiate with the PLO, the U.S. government announced that it would open dialogue with the PLO.

I would find this funny if it weren't for the fact that it was serious.

Which is strange, considering that Arafat began the intifada; called for "a million martyrs to Jerusalem"; his PA owned media call suicide bombers martyrs and glorify them; the PA education system does so as well; He condemns and rejects terrorism-and yet he cooperates with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and his own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade continues to perpetrate suicide attacks; released all of the terrorists in his prisons on the first day of the intifada; and had that strange map on his shoulder showing Palestine as without Israel. Weird actions for a guy who recgnises Israel and renounces terror, isn't it?

[Edan]

Speaking of Abu Mazen, this doesn't sound terribly encouraging:

IDF removes Abu Mazen's terror endorsement from its Internet site

Sure, whitewash his statements - that's a great step.

[Zevico]

Yeah, Abu Mazen, the eager politician hoping for peace.
Never mind his comparison of Nazism to Zionism; his ridiculous statements that portrayed Zionists as assisting Nazis; his calls for ends to the attacks for 'strategic' purposes (but he still stands for 'armed struggle'). What a peacenik.

[Ned]

Abu Mazen probably is probably like a cudly puppy dog compared to the bloodsoaked Nazi he works for.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zevico
his ridiculous statements that portrayed Zionists as assisting Nazis;

Well the Stern Gang and the like were co-beligerents with the Nazis.

[Zevico]

Dino-true, they were against the British. But if they wanted to, they could have acted much more belligerent. Anyway they do not represent Zionism [hardly any one supported them in Israel; neither then or today].

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
Abu Mazen probably is probably like a cudly puppy dog compared to the bloodsoaked Nazi he works for.

hi ,

, he is more refined , ......

have a nice day