48 Hours left till Bombs over Baghdad

^ Are you following me in all these threads?

Irem, that is just how i feel. At last i feel like i am not alone in feeling this way. Sirf hamaray paas ab eik hi cheez rah gai hai - duas, and protesting! Even in times like these, i try to believe kai duas ka bhi kaafi faida ho sakta hai. :( Nahin, aap ka kia khyaal hai?

Seminole, i am surprised that you are quoting Blix's statements. When he published his report stating that Iraq was showing substantial - although not complete and full - disarmament, did you believe in the validity of that claim?

Chaltahai ji - I’m against bombing of civilians, any civilians, whether they are Muslims or non Muslims. I really abhor violence, it should never be an option.

But Chaltahai ji, it IS true, that right now in the world, Muslims [NOT NON MUSLIMS] are the ones being oppressed militarily everywhere. From Kashmir to Gujrat, to Iraq to Palestine.

Nadia - yes sis :hug: we must pray :frowning: dua mein bohot taakat hoti hae

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**Seminole
*, i am surprised that you are quoting Blix's statements. When he published his report stating that Iraq was showing substantial - although not complete and full - disarmament, did you believe in the validity of that claim?
[/QUOTE]

hehe ya why quote Blix now. If you remember Nadia, Blix also said ""Plausible ... verifiable ... progress" with regards to the inspectoins. He also said that they need a few months to complete the job. The UN was urged to go to Iraq by Bush himself last year. Bush thought, Saddam wont let em in, but he did. That didnt help US war plans, now they had to discredit the inspectors and make the inspectors look like a failure. Someone once said "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

Why quote Blix now? UN has become irrelevant and wont give Bush the multilateral support and its time for preemptive strike.

I was only quoting from Blix for your benefit, Nadia. :flower1:
I would have quoted Fisk, but then I would have had to take a shower afterwards. Which Blix report was that by the way? The one after the FINAL and COMPLETE declaration by Iraq or the subsequent amendendment or the one after that or the one after that or…?

That Iraq gave Blix “some” cooperation after 12 years of deceit just isn’t enough. 1441 (and previous unfulfilled demands) called for FULL disarmament. No one says that he has (except maybe Fisk).

Nice article Nadia. I am sure you also came across the following article on Independent as well. Ill post it in its entirety :wink:

**Robert Fisk: How the news will be censored in this war **

A new CNN system of ‘script approval’ suggests the Pentagon will have nothing to worry about
25 February 2003

Already, the American press is expressing its approval of the coverage of American forces which the US military intends to allow its reporters in the next Gulf war. The boys from CNN, CBS, ABC and The New York Times will be “embedded” among the US marines and infantry. The degree of censorship hasn’t quite been worked out. But it doesn’t matter how much the Pentagon cuts from the reporters’ dispatches. A new CNN system of “script approval” – the iniquitous instruction to reporters that they have to send all their copy to anonymous officials in Atlanta to ensure it is suitably sanitised – suggests that the Pentagon and the Department of State have nothing to worry about. Nor do the Israelis.

Indeed, reading a new CNN document, “Reminder of Script Approval Policy”, fairly takes the breath away. “All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the scripts for approval,” it says. “Packages may not be edited until the scripts are approved… All packages originating outside Washington, LA (Los Angeles) or NY (New York), including all international bureaus, must come to the ROW in Atlanta for approval.”

The date of this extraordinary message is 27 January. The “ROW” is the row of script editors in Atlanta who can insist on changes or “balances” in the reporter’s dispatch. “A script is not approved for air unless it is properly marked approved by an authorised manager and duped (duplicated) to burcopy (bureau copy)… When a script is updated it must be re-approved, preferably by the originating approving authority.”

Note the key words here: “approved” and “authorised”. CNN’s man or woman in Kuwait or Baghdad – or Jerusalem or Ramallah – may know the background to his or her story; indeed, they will know far more about it than the “authorities” in Atlanta. But CNN’s chiefs will decide the spin of the story.

CNN, of course, is not alone in this paranoid form of reporting. Other US networks operate equally anti-journalistic systems. And it’s not the fault of the reporters. CNN’s teams may use clichés and don military costumes – you will see them do this in the next war – but they try to get something of the truth out. Next time, though, they’re going to have even less chance.

Just where this awful system leads is evident from an intriguing exchange last year between CNN’s reporter in the occupied West Bank town of Ramallah, and Eason Jordan, one of CNN’s top honchos in Atlanta.

The journalist’s first complaint was about a story by the reporter Michael Holmes on the Red Crescent ambulance drivers who are repeatedly shot at by Israeli troops. “We risked our lives and went out with ambulance drivers… for a whole day. We have also witnessed ambulances from our window being shot at by Israeli soldiers… The story received approval from Mike Shoulder. The story ran twice and then Rick Davis (a CNN executive) killed it. The reason was we did not have an Israeli army response, even though we stated in our story that Israel believes that Palestinians are smuggling weapons and wanted people in the ambulances.”

The Israelis refused to give CNN an interview, only a written statement. This statement was then written into the CNN script. But again it was rejected by Davis in Atlanta. Only when, after three days, the Israeli army gave CNN an interview did Holmes’s story run – but then with the dishonest inclusion of a line that said the ambulances were shot in “crossfire” (ie that Palestinians also shot at their own ambulances).

The reporter’s complaint was all too obvious. “Since when do we hold a story hostage to the whims of governments and armies?We were told by Rick that if we do not get an Israeli on-camera we would not air the package. This means that governments and armies are indirectly censoring us and we are playing directly into their own hands.”

The relevance of this is all too obvious in the next Gulf War. We are going to have to see a US army officer denying everything the Iraqis say if any report from Iraq is to get on air. Take another of the Ramallah correspondent’s complaints last year. In a package on the damage to Ramallah after Israel’s massive incursion last April, “we had already mentioned right at the top of our piece that Israel says it is doing all these incursions because it wants to crack down on the infrastructure of terror. However, obviously that was not enough. We were made by the ROW (in Atlanta) to repeat this same idea three times in one piece, just to make sure that we keep justifying the Israeli actions…”

But the system of “script approval” that has so marred CNN’s coverage has got worse. In a further and even more sinister message dated 31 January this year, CNN staff are told that a new computerised system of script approval will allow “authorised script approvers to mark scripts (ie reports) in a clear and standard manner. Script EPs (executive producers) will click on the coloured APPROVED button to turn it from red (unapproved) to green (approved). When someone makes a change in the script after approval, the button will turn yellow.” Someone? Who is this someone? CNN’s reporters aren’t told.

But when we recall that CNN revealed after the 1991 Gulf War that it had allowed Pentagon “trainees” into the CNN newsroom in Atlanta, I have my suspicions

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by 5Abi: *The UN was urged to go to Iraq by Bush himself last year. Bush thought, Saddam wont let em in, but he did. That didnt help US war plans, now they had to discredit the inspectors and make the inspectors look like a failure.*
[/QUOTE]

IMO, that is precisely it, 5Abi. A wrench was thrown into US invasion plans when it transpired that - whoops, Hussein would allow inspectors in after all and not only that, but private palaces were opened, unannounced and unhindered inspection processes were permitted, and then most annoyingly of all, compliance with the destruction of al Samoud missiles. The icing on the cake may have been when, Powell failed PR-wise during his Security Council presentation - no plausible link was established between Iraq and alQaeda.

Regarding CNN's "script approval" - sadly, i fear the coverage of this war will be no different than the 1991 'Gulf War'. i just hope that this time around, more 'ordinary' people are aware of how biased and subjective media coverage (in all countries) can sometimes be, and the necessity for turning to other sources (such as Fisk, Pilger, et al). Let's not make the same mistakes twice.

Seminole,
I was only quoting from Blix for your benefit, Nadia. :flower1:
:frowning: In that case, then, i am sorry. Honestly.

i am not certain i understand what else Iraq has to do. i honestly, for the life of me, just do not get it. Isn’t it enough that we have inflicted a genocide on them?

Let’s just agree to disagree. i am afraid my emotions right now are not very objective, and who knows - perhaps you will be proven right. i actually really want you to be right, because then all my nightmares of Iraqi children being buried in their thousands will not come true. Let’s hope your ‘imaan’ (faith) and beliefs in your government are proven true, and one day it is i who will have to come on this Forum and state i was in the wrong. (i bet you would enjoy that :smiley: ). Take care and Sorry about the above misunderstanding,
nadia

Nadia, do you trust Saddam? If not then what good are inspections since he can hide his weapons? Remember back in 1995 when inspectors got to a site and notice trucks sneaking out the back, the UN inspectors went after them and tried to pull them over, they wouldn't pull over but the inspectors they took photos of what turned out to be part a nuclear lab. There is no doubt Saddam has gotten better and more sneaky, you can't trust him! Inspections were proven a waste when Iraq submitted the Weapons dossier some months back with nothing new in it. If you trust Saddam then well…do you?

That is bull****, WE have not inflicted genocide on them, Saddam has. Did America or the allies inflict genocide on the Jews during world war one? The Government has spent billions on themselves yet you blame the U.S.

If I were thrown in jail for crimes I did not commit I would blame the US. Justice system, not Iraq’s. Do you understand how the Iraqi government works??

UTD, please take a deep breath. i think i should change my signature to reflect this statement: I do not believe/love/respect/admire/idolize/have a secret crush on or otherwise have any feelings for Saddam Hussein. Did i miss anything? :smiley:

We are not discussing the issue of how the Jews were treated during WWI, but specifically about the trade embargo. And yes, that is genocide in my definition as well as genocide according to a former UN official. You and i will disagree and we are both entitled to our personal opinions; who is to say who is “right” and who is “wrong”.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

You and i will disagree and we are both entitled to our personal opinions; who is to say who is "right" and who is "wrong".
[/QUOTE]

I turn to logic and facts. I understand blaming another government for how it's government treats its people is a longstanding tradition in the mid-east, but that doesn’t make it right. I brought up the Jews and Germany to point that logic out.

You state that you turn to "logic" and "facts". i am sorry, but what do you think i turn to?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
You state that you turn to "logic" and "facts". i am sorry, but what do you think i turn to?
[/QUOTE]

Your an idealist, no?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: * Your an idealist, no?
[/QUOTE]

One can be an idealist, but that does not always necessarily mean that i don't turn to "facts" and "logic" when reaching my decisions. Yes i tend to get emotional and am probably overly attached to this issue - does that mean i am always biased in my approach ? Perhaps, but perhaps not. i think, since most individuals on this Forum don't know me personally, it's not perhaps a wise idea to judge me based upon how they think i reason.

Just my two cents.

I'm apologizing if I insulted you (if you were). If I were to judge you I would say your one of the best posters and can be very compelling as well as one of the most sincere. I'm sure we will see eye to eye on many upcoming issues. Keep fighting the good fight.

Thank you, UTD. Very thoughtful words and certainly much appreciated. A flaw - i need a reminder now and then not to get overly involved in this issue; otherwise all my biases and subjective opinions tend to become quite uncontrollable. i get out of line and i am sorry. Thank you for your words, they are certainly much appreciated. i hope we find more that we agree, rather than disagree, upon in the future.

Releasing on a TV set near you today. :D

[thumb=B]48.JPG[/thumb]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome:
Nadia, do you trust Saddam?
[/QUOTE]

I don't. But Donald Rumsfeld and the US administration did throughout the 1980's even when he was gassing his people.

But the question is did you trust the reports and claims made by the US-UK even though it was later found that they were forged and plaigirised?