« The French Said "NON" | Main | Statler & Waldorf: German-Language Blog of the Week »


I think Mr.Gedmin incorrectly links two things.
One: the Sun-coverage of Saddam in his (under)pants.
Two : Al Jazeera's BS journalism.

Then he goes: Look who's talking...
That Al Jazeera is despicable scum has little to do with the outrageous articles by the Sun, the photos shouldn't have happened, it's a good idea that the US administration is checking out the source.

And to find other sources who support the "insurgents" you don't have to go far: Tariq Ali does this for German publishers Rowohlt.

Actually, Al-Jazeera is helping the middle east reform movement. For instance, the coverage of the Iraqi elections was excellent.

"Some lament what they see as the radicalizing influence of Arab channels such as al Jazeera and al Arabiya, and certainly their one-sided reporting on the most recent Palestinian intifada and the U.S. invasion of Iraq were not models of moderation. However, these channels also provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Iraqi election, giving millions their first look at Arab democracy in action. And, as The Economist said recently, the most popular programs on Arab satellite TV are "those whose interest in posing questions, and stimulating appetites for change, is pretty frank." Talk shows on these channels have given many Arabs their first exposure to Israeli views about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

(Tech Central Station: Why now?)

The burning question on the lips of so many has been answered!

The question was: Boxers or briefs?

If it is against international law to publish these photos, then how does the beheaqding oor the intentional bombing of civilians fit in the rubric of international law?

As for me, I am moving to Steiermark and run for governor!

Something to keep in mind here: The russian woman was making a joke, it was about the americans digging right through the earth and coming back up in russia, under the lake.

Just as some people talk about digging to China.

"If it is against international law to publish these photos, then how does the beheaqding oor the intentional bombing of civilians fit in the rubric of international law?"

It's Ok under the Geneva Convention. Well.... actually the Geneva Convention has nothing to say about it, being written to regulate treatment of POW's in wars between nation-states. It has nothing to say about bandits.

Saddams rights were violated under the Geneva Convention. It should be investigated and hands should be slapped.

The funny thing is that the people who will foam off about this seem relatively unconcerned about all the bodies being unearthed. Many of them were equally unconcerned about the various similar sites unearthed in Poland, so at least they can't be accused of inconsistency.

Al-Jazeera was not the only news operation that Saddam left without minders. That hnour was shared by Lara Marlowe the ace foreign reporter of the Irish Times.
See www.blog-irish.com/marlowe.3

November 17, 2003

Not Our Lara!: Saddam Didn't Need to Check Lara Marlowe's Dispatches from Baghdad

Instapundit and PORPHYROGENITUS are nattering on about how correspondents in Iraq may be getting a skewed picture from their former Saddamista minders, whom they have now hired on as "factorums".

We don't suffer such problems in Ireland. The Irish Times reporter doing much of the on-site Iraq coverage, Lara Marlowe (Is she still Mrs Robert Fisk?) was such a good reporter that the Saddamistas knew that they didn't need to monitor her dispatches!

Tech Central Station,
I agree that Al-Jezeera isn't universally anti-american, they're a prickly beast. I think the reason they covered the elections so well is that they're independent and a news event that size trumps all biases.

Great post. I was rolling on the floor laughing.

Also to Herald,
Thanks for the heads up. How did you find out that she was joking though? Is there a source for this?

The publishing of the photos of Saddam Hussein may or may not be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There is precedence for mass murder of one's own citizens. Of course, some believe the Nurembeg Trials were in and of themselves, illegal!

Of course, there are mass graves in Poland. Which criminals shall we punish? The NAZIs or the Soviets?

I suppose I should elucidate on my comment about Saddam Hussein photos possibly not being a violation of the Geneva Convention. The source of the photos is unknown.

Saddam has had visitors who are unrlated to the US military. Just for one, the International Red Cross.


I was merely pointing out that many of the more strident US critics have been utterly silent about the crimes of the USSR. Noam Chomsky being only the most notorious. Crimes against mankind aren't universally abhorrent to people subscribing to this school of thought - the context is all. Massive crimes of communists and Baathists go completely unremarked while much smaller transgressions by US troops are vituperously condemned.....

The point is not who to punish for the Polish mass graves (surely the criminals are beyond punishment by now). But their apologists and the successors of those apologists need to be shown for what they are. Partisans and opportunists rather than humanitarians.

The Left are to blame for everything.

Well, at the very least, almost everything. :)

Frank: She was interviewed on TV, it was pretty obvious that it was meant as a joke.
I don't have a newspaper source for it, though.

The comments to this entry are closed.


The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

April 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29