Iraqis mad as hell at Al-Jazeera

by dolphman 14 Replies latest jw friends

  • Elsewhere
    Elsewhere

    Great article... here is another related...

    http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=25143

    Credibility of Arab Satellite Channels Among War’s Casualties Raid Qusti, Special to Arab News

    RIYADH, 13 April 2003 — The fall of Baghdad to American forces was met with feelings of betrayal, disbelief, and shock here in Saudi Arabia.

    Many Saudis are still trying to figure out how the capital could give in to the American forces without putting up any significant resistance. Unanswered questions loom in the minds of Saudis as to how it all happened. One theory is that Condoleezza Rice, in her meeting with Russian officials, was told that Saddam would be allowed to go into exile to Russia on condition that he ordered his officers not to resist and thus allow US forces an easy victory.

    This theory, along with many others, is all over Arab websites and Saudi gatherings. But everyone wants to know what really happened. This time, however, there is no Iraqi information minister on Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV to give people the answers they want to hear. Toward the Arab satellite channels, a sense of betrayal is already taking hold. Saudis did not see the 1991 Gulf War live on television because satellite dishes were forbidden. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” 13 years later was watched in every Saudi household live. Saudi citizens had the opportunity to view the coverage on every news channel on the planet. Many educated people watched the major American networks, such as MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN.

    But for the majority of Saudis, the choice was Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi TV. Al-Jazeera is known as the first Arabic satellite news channel and Abu Dhabi TV is known for its bold coverage. Both channels were given credit for transmitting images that many American networks refused to air, such as footage of buildings destroyed by US bombs and the innocents flooding Iraqi hospitals from the bombardments. But after the unexpectedly quick fall of the capital, questions are now being raised as to how objective and fair the reports of those two channels might really have been.

    All along, both channels in their analysis were telling their viewers in the Arab world that the south had not fallen to the American and British forces, even a couple days before the capital itself fell. Reports continued about how pockets of resistance were giving the invading forces a hard fight and that Iraqis had not given up their positions in the city.

    This claim was the opposite to what Western media channels were saying from the reports of their embedded journalists with American and British forces. Many Saudis are now thinking that they were following a mirage. The closer they thought they were getting to the truth, the further they were from reality.

    Now that Baghdad has fallen, Saudis are in a dilemma. They are feeling betrayed by their Arab satellite channels who had kept them believing that the Iraqi resistance did have a chance to whip the American forces, they are also confused. They wanted Saddam Hussein out, but did not want to see an American invasion of Iraq. They wanted — and still want — to see a better Iraq, but at the same time, do not trust America’s intentions in the region.

    One Arab commenting on the fall of Baghdad said on an Arab satellite television channel: It is wrong to say Baghdad fell. The Baath part is what fell, not Baghdad. The center of Islam and great civilizations of the past will never fall. His feelings are shared by many here.

    However, some people do believe that the American invasion of Iraq will bring some sort of democracy as it will have removed a tyrant that had his people living in fear for 30 years. But the majority will never look at America as a liberating force. The reason? Very simply put: Palestine. As long as Arabs in general continue to see the United States as blindly supporting Israel, nothing will change. As long as America turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to the incursions of Israeli forces to Palestinian-held territories and the Israeli bulldozers destroying Palestinian homes, Arabs will continue to distrust America.

    As long as America vetoes every single UN resolution punishing Israel for its crimes, as it has been doing in the past 50 years, it will always be looked at as the other face of the Israeli coin.

    Solving the Palestinian issue is close to the heart of every Arab and Muslim because Jerusalem is home to the third holiest Islamic shrine.

    It is the key to winning the hearts and minds of everyone in the Arab world. Only then will America be trusted by the majority of people in Saudi Arabia and the region. But until that happens, Saudis who are glad to see Saddam gone are bound to remain skeptical about the American presence in the region.

  • teejay
    teejay

    >>> Iraq is now a mess. Looting and lawlessness are widespread, water pipelines have been damaged and areas are in desperate need of water. Many Iraqis ... are now blaming the Americans for not doing anything to establish order. Where is the aid for these dear people we travelled thousands of miles to liberate?

    >>> But with all the looting and lawlessness, guess what? The oil fields are nice and secure. So... why are we there again? – jws

    It’s shameful that the Administration didn’t care more for Iraqi culture and people than they did/do. While the Bushites would like to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the lawlessness and lack of order, they knew full well what would happen when those in the position of maintaining order were removed.

    The world lost an irreplaceable art collection when “looters” stormed (were allowed to storm) Iraq’s National Museum and destroyed works of Persian art thousands of years old. For a long time I was resistant to the notion that this was, in part, a “crusade” (Bush’s word) against Islam. Now I’m not so sure.

  • rem
    rem
    The world lost an irreplaceable art collection when “looters” stormed (were allowed to storm) Iraq’s National Museum and destroyed works of Persian art thousands of years old. For a long time I was resistant to the notion that this was, in part, a “crusade” (Bush’s word) against Islam. Now I’m not so sure.

    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. Napoleon Bonaparte

    rem

  • teejay
    teejay
    Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

    Nice quote but I don’t think it fits. The war has been in the planning stages too long. Months. Years.

    Also, for too long has been the knowledge that Persia is in many ways at the genesis of ‘christian’ culture. The wolfowitzes and the rumsfelds and the bushes were all fully aware of Iraq’s National (World) Museum. I fully believe that it came up in more than one planning session. The last time he was there, rumsfeld was even given a tour, I’m sure. They just didn’t care about those ‘pagan’ artifacts. They didn't fit into the overall picture of the New World Order.

    Forget the fact that the Administration made a big deal of how terrible the Taliban were for blowing up those two ‘pagan’ statues in Afghanistan. That was different. Don’t ask me how.

    Oh well. I wouldn’t have seen the odd bits of pottery anyway, so what do I care? There’s a golf game on... ... and the news channel’s reports of the war on terror.

  • rem
    rem

    Nope, I don't see an anti-Islamic conspiracy at all. I do think that the coalition may not have expected Bagdhad to fall so quickly and were unprepared to provide security to every part of the city when it was needed. War is about logistics - it's not an easy thing. When there are hospitals and other utilities that need to be secured, the museums unfortunately become excluded from the triage operation.

    The loss of artifacts is sad. The Babylon area is the cradle of human civilization. This has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, which is relatively young.

    rem

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit