 |
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
Gnu: Lets turn to "indiscriminately". Thats was the case in 1972.
But surely there were more than 6 palestinians out there? Had the IDF wished to massacre loads of palestinians it would hardly be a challenge would it?
For years it has been claimed that with F15 Strike Eagles, Merkava battle tanks and multiple infantry and mechanized infantry divisions we are abusing a mostly civil population. Don't you think that all that technology and might would count for more than 6 dead at any given second if it were used indiscriminately?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan:
What is incorrect is the appearance that this is a finished story. As the reports in Reuters and NYT showed, this wasn't the case. The meetings continued after Mazen stormed out, and an agreement was eventually reached.
But by taking a snapshot of the story right at the summit of hostility, it paints a picture that doesn't represent reality - But one that follows the ideological goals of the JP.
[/qb] |
Absolute nonesense. At the time the article was witten and at the time this thread was made, it contained all current events and DID NOT contain anything false. The article, as I have already quoted several times, makes mentions of the attempts (that at that point were unsuccesful) to make compromises to resolve the issue.
And EVERY news source updates their articles when new information comes in, including Reuters and the NYT. 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. 
Last edited by Edan on 25-04-2003 at 04:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
They certainly covered up some of Saddams crimes. |
Are you still confusing "convering up" with "keeping silent"?
quote:
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. |
Sure, that would make ONE story - and then what?
quote:
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.
|
Ahh, another classic israeli argument. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present: The Strawman!
Why don't you read the article you linked to?
quote:
Indeed, pulling the reporters home would be a lot more safe than keeping them in Baghdad, even if they were lying for Saddam. |
What lies? Third time I ask.
quote:
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. |
Let's apply your logic to a different case, the embedded reporters. During their mission, they occaisonally get shot at, which endagers their lives. You are claiming that if they duck the bullets, they are compromizing their journalistic integrity, because they will obviously missing part of the story. The only alternative would be not to go with the trops at all, instead staying at home.
quote:
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[quote]
What lies? You keep making this accusations, but no backing for it.
[quote]with CNN prefering to get a little better access rather than to protect it's reporters and tell the complete truth?[/ |
"Little better" ?
Their presence inside Iraq was what made CNN a network to be reckoned with in the first place.
edited to make Ming happier
Last edited by CyberGnu on 25-04-2003 at 05:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Nope, my post was recorded as 19.00 ET
|
Try 20:00 ET.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
It did contain more. It reported that the negotiators met for a full hour after Mazen left, and it never mentioned any "pessimistic outlooks" by palestinian officials.
|
The article:
quote:
Sat April 19, 2003 06:43 PM ET
RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian premier-designate Mahmoud Abbas stormed out of cabinet talks on Saturday and threatened to quit after President Yasser Arafat blocked his choice for a key portfolio, political sources said.
Abbas's walkout brought a simmering dispute over the makeup of a Palestinian reform cabinet to a head and could hold up U.S. plans to unveil a "roadmap" plan for peace between Palestinians and Israel after two-and-a-half-years of fighting.
Washington has insisted that Abbas, a moderate also known as Abu Mazen who has denounced violence of Palestinian militants as counterproductive to Palestinian statehood goals, be able to govern without interference from Arafat whom it wants sidelined.
"Abu Mazen has threatened to resign," a senior Palestinian political source said, because of Arafat's insistence that Hani al-Hassan, an old loyalist of the president, continue to head the interior ministry which runs Palestinian security services.
Abbas -- as well as the United States -- is believed to want Mohammed Dahlan for the job. Dahlan was the Palestinian security chief in the Gaza Strip before having a falling-out with Arafat, but is seen as a member of the reform camp.
Abbas has until Wednesday to present a cabinet after the original deadline was extended on April 9.
|
Where does it say they were working for an hour more?
Do you bother to read these articles?
As to palestinian sources being pessimistic, I see no reason to not believe that the reporter of the first story had Palestinian sources who were pessimistic, especially as that story came out hours before the above story, where there was still a pessimistic palestinian mention. Or do you think that the reporter just made it all up?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ahh, another classic israeli argument. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present: The Strawman!
|
Excuse me? The article mentioned two reasons why CNN was faced with a moral dillema of publishing a story as truthfully and completely as they could and risking peoples lives, or telling half truths and propoganda while putting those people at less risk - the lives of the reporters and the lives of the Iraqis. I explained, clearly, why both could have been placed out of that risk while also giving a truthful story. I don't see any strawman...
quote:
Let's apply your logic to a different case, the embedded reporters. During their mission, they occaisonally get shot at, which endagers their lives. You are claiming that if they duck the bullets, they are compromizing their journalistic integrity, because they will obviously missing part of the story. The only alternative would be not to go with the trops at all, instead staying at home.
|
...well, untill now. That analogy is not similar, at all, to what CNN was doing.
quote:
Sure, that would make ONE story - and then what?
Their presence inside Iraq was what made CNN a network to be reckoned with in the first place.
|
And this is exactly the point I am making. CNN would rather present half truths and propoganda in order to recieve higher ratings than present a truthful and accurate story that doesn't give them those continually high ratings.
I would rather have one true, accurate story of events than a hundred half-truthful stories trying to cover up events.
And wasn't that what you were criticizing the Israeli newspaper for doing w/ regards to the "massacre" - that they were trying to cover things up? (and yes, they did report that, too).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ah, I had my apolyton settings set to Central Time...
Well, my guess is that the Reuters story didn't make it to my Yahoo news client in those 25 minutes. As for the others, I think you yourself pointed out that they were written 2.5 hours after my post. |
No, it was 2.5 hours after Eli's post, and an hour and a half before yours.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
That was not the last one I linked to - this was:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm...storyID=2592704
quote:
Which is exactly what I'm saying: by taking a snapshot in the middle of the argument, the JP gave a distorted picture. |
Well, then, all of them were giving a snapshot of the middle of the argument except for those stories written after Wednesday midnight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Excuse me? The article mentioned two reasons why CNN was faced with a moral dillema of publishing a story as truthfully and completely as they could and risking peoples lives, or telling half truths and propoganda while putting those people at less risk - the lives of the reporters and the lives of the Iraqis. I explained, clearly, why both could have been placed out of that risk while also giving a truthful story. I don't see any strawman...
|
The strawman is that the article doesn't talk about eye-witnesses, but Iraqi employes of CNN.
From your link:
[Eason Jordan] says he saw and heard awful things that he could not report because doing so would have jeopardized lives of Iraqis, particularly those on CNN's Baghdad staff;
quote:
...well, untill now. That analogy is not similar, at all, to what CNN was doing.
|
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?
quote:
And this is exactly the point I am making. CNN would rather present half truths and propoganda in order to recieve higher ratings than present a truthful and accurate story that doesn't give them those continually high ratings.
I would rather have one true, accurate story of events than a hundred half-truthful stories trying to cover up events.
|
No, CNN waited until the Gulf War started, and then, as far as we can tell, didn't pull any punches. They won several awards for their reporting of the war, IIRC.
In keeping with the analogy above, what CNN was doing was equivalent to the embedded reporter suffering through a series of skirmishes in order to be there for the really juicy bits.
quote:
And wasn't that what you were criticizing the Israeli newspaper for doing w/ regards to the "massacre" - that they were trying to cover things up? (and yes, they did report that, too). |
Third page, post number eight .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
That wasn't the article I was refering to (and it states the 20th, meaning it was at least 8 hours after Eli's article.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-04-2003 01:44
|