|
Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again... (pg. 31)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| St_Andrew |
Here we go again...
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/m...t.ap/index.html
| quote: | Rioters torch Italian consulate, Libyan officials say
11 reported dead or wounded
Friday, February 17, 2006 Posted: 2309 GMT (0709 HKT)
TRIPOLI, Libya (AP) -- Libyans protesting the Prophet Mohammed cartoons set fire to the Italian consulate in Benghazi on Friday in a riot that left 11 people dead or wounded, Libyan security officials said.
An Italian consular official, Antonio Simoes-Concalves, said nine protesters had been killed and several more had been wounded as armed police clashed with a crowd of more than 1,000 demonstrators.
Libyan state television showed a part of the consulate building on fire, and firefighters trying to extinguish it.
The Italian Foreign Ministry confirmed that the first floor of the building had been set on fire after the crowd charged into the grounds of the consulate late Friday. In a statement in Rome, the ministry said the consulate was being protected by Libyan security forces.
Libyan television also showed ambulances taking casualties away from the scene and five cars that were severely damaged in the riot.
Security officials said the demonstrators hurled stones and bottles at the consulate, and later entered the grounds and set fire to the building and a consular car.
Police fired shots to try to disperse the crowd, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the press.
Simoes-Goncalves told The Associated Press in Rome that the Libyan police were not able to control the crowd, even though they were firing bullets and tear gas.
"They are still continually firing," he said at 2100 GMT, speaking on the telephone from inside the consulate where he was holed up. "They haven't managed to block them."
He said the rioters had torched four cars in the consulate compound and also broke windows of the building.
No Italians inside the compound were injured, the Italian Foreign Ministry said.
Italy's ambassador to Libya in Tripoli met late Friday with the Libyan interior minister "who expressed the condemnation of his government for the acts of violence occurring in Benghazi," the Italian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Numerous riots and demonstrations have occurred across the Muslim world in recent weeks over 12 cartoons on the Prophet Mohammed that first appeared in a Danish newspaper in September. They were republished in many other European newspapers earlier this month. |
|
|
|
| InterMilan31 |
Im still quite in shock that its still just protests and the random KFC getting burned down and nothing bigger has occured.
Also Im quite pissed that the US is not taking it as severly as it should...
AND STOP ING WITH THE ITALIANS! Hey Libya sort some out...we pretty much brought your oil into europe |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally quoted by occrider
European Council for Fatwa and Research
|
Man, I laughed out load at this one. :haha:
| quote: | Originally quoted by occrider
We have free speech in this country, but you cannot abuse it
|
Great quote from Tony there. I wonder if he's aware what utter nonsense he's spewing. Also, I wonder if Braveheart get's banned in Britain after this.:conf: |
|
|
| trancaholic |
From The Sun - but might be correct anyway:
| quote: | BBC Spooked by al-Qaeda
BBC bosses are ready to AXE a £1million episode of hit drama Spooks in which an al-Qaeda terrorist is shot dead — in case it upsets Muslims.
Filming the assassination plot for the MI5 drama took four weeks.
But actor Shaun Dingwall who plays a renegade Christian gunman, fears he could become a target for fundamentalists if the scene is aired.
In the episode, due to be shown later this year, a religious nut played by Shaun, 35, guns down the fanatic on the steps of London’s High Court.
But production sources admitted it could be canned. One said: “In the climate of Muslim fury over cartoons, Shaun isn’t sure about it all.”
Shaun refused to comment last night.
But Sun security adviser Andy McNab urged the BBC to keep the scene. He said: “Self-censorship would be the thin end of the wedge.”
Labour MP Stephen Pound added: “Giving terrorists a veto over what is shown on TV is the road to madness.
“Al-Qaeda will be objecting to Gardener’s Question Time next. Where does it stop?”
A show spokesman said: “Spooks examines numerous threats facing the UK. Producers, along with Shaun, will track the storyline’s sensitivities in light of the ever-changing news agenda.”
|
Seems like the UK is a country firmly held by Islamists. A bit funny that no-one is scared to portray a Christian as a mad gun man.
And as I previously reported on (from The Brussels Journal:
| quote: | More and More Moderate Muslims Speak Out in Denmark
Dozens of Danish Muslims are joining the network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer (Democratic Muslims). About 700 Muslims have already become DM members and 2,500 Danes have expressed their will to support the network. The initiative has caused anger among the Danish imams and their leader, Ahmad Abu Laban, who have referred to the moderates as “rats.” The imams feel that they are beginning to lose their control over part of the Muslim population.
Moderates such as Kamran Tahmasebi say they have had enough of fanatic Islamism and its intimidation of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark. “It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago,” Mr Tahmasebi says. He came to Denmark as a refugee in 1989. Today he works as a social consultant and is very grateful for the life Denmark has made it possible for him to have. He says he no longer wants to keep a low profile to avoid attracting the attention of the imams. The cartoon affair was an incentive for him to stand up and warn against the Islamist imams in Denmark, whom he says are damaging the integration process with their misleading criticism of Danish values and norms.
Mr Tahmasebi is one of the people involved in the newly established network of moderate Muslims in Denmark led by Naser Khader, a member of the Danish Parliament. He says he is well aware of the risk he is taking by siding with Mr Khader, who has for a long time been living under police protection. But Mr Tahmasebi feels it is his duty to take part in this debate. “Naser Khader has carried this responsibility for too long. I share his beliefs and now I want to stand up and say so. Apart from that, as a parent I feel a responsibility to fight, so that my children will not have to live under Islamist dogmas. They shall be able to live free in this country.” Mr Tahmasebi adds that he believes the imams are one of the biggest problems Denmark is facing today.
The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, will be meeting the leaders of the moderate Muslims today (February 13) to discuss the cartoon affair. The Danish government has suspended all dialogue and cooperation with the Danish imams on the integration process. Some of the strongest protests against the twelve Muhammad cartoons [see them here, halfway down the page] came from imams who are members of the government’s official integration think tank.
“We want the newspaper [Jyllands-Posten, which published the cartoons last September] to promise that this will never happen again, or this will never stop,” says imam Ahmad Akkari, the spokesman for the radical Muslim organizations in Denmark which led the protest against the cartoons. However, the deliberate lies which imams, such as Abu Laban and Akkari, used to incite worldwide hatred against Denmark have served as a wake-up call for the Danish government.
“I believe it has become obvious that the imams are not the people we should be listening to if we want integration in Denmark to work,” Rikke Hvilshøj, the Danish Integration Minister, has said. The BBC reports that fifteen Muslim countries, from Algeria to Pakistan, are now boycotting Danish products. So far, nearly 200 jobs have been lost in Denmark and more jobs could be endangered if the boycotts continue.
In neighbouring Norway, Vebjørn Selbekk, the editor of the Christian weekly Magazinet which first published the twelve Muhammad cartoons in his country, apologized for offending Muslims by publishing the cartoons. Mr Selbekk and his family received numerous death threats. He said he regretted publishing the cartoons because of all the strain this has put on himself and others and because the consequences were much more than he had expected. He stressed, however, that he could not apologize for using his freedom of expression by publishing the cartoons. Carsten Juste, the editor of Jyllands-Posten, made the same remark when he apologized for offending Muslims.
Last Friday the government of Sweden, another Scandinavian neighbour of Denmark, shut down the website of the newspaper SD-Kuriren because it had posted Muhammad cartoons. Richard Jomshof, the editor of the paper, which is published by the Swedish far-right party the Swedish Democrats, told the BBC: “This is illegal. They can’t do this just because we are a small magazine.” However, the Swedish Foreign Minister, Laila Freivalds, described the publication as a provocation by “a small group of extremists.” A similar view was taken earlier by the Norwegian government when it criticized Magazinet and Mr Selbekk. The question is what the Swedish government would do if the cartoons are published in one or more Swedish newspapers, as has already happened in other European countries.
Fanatic imams are not only a problem in Denmark. In Britain Hamid Ali, a leading imam of a mosque in West Yorkshire, hailed last summer’s bombing of the London subway as a “good” action. The imam was secretly taped when he was talking to an undercover reporter from The Sunday Times. His words contrast with the public statements of condemnation by Muslim community leaders – including Mr Ali – after the attacks, which killed 56 people. In other words, the Danish imams are not the only imams in Europe who are speaking with two tongues. Indeed, there are indications that the main culprits for the integration problems are the imams, who tend to be much more extremist than many of the ordinary Muslims. |
That “it has become obvious that the imams are not the people we should be listening to if we want integration in Denmark to work” might just be the best thing that has happened to integration in Denmark in years. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
^^ Good news, however, the article didn't get it quite right with the part about Sweden :p It wasn't the goverment that shut it down, it was the web host! If the goverment did indeed shut it down then that would have been illegal, also the statement from our foreign minister were quite put out of context. Two sentences before that she was actually defending the freedom of press and said that the goverment should do nothing about such things. Just fyi :)
(Btw, I don't like our foreign minister or goverment at all :)) |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
...and going, and going, and going...
| quote: | 16 die in cartoon protests in Nigeria
Italian minister resigns; his T-shirt blamed for inciting riot
Saturday, February 18, 2006; Posted: 5:03 p.m. EST (22:03 GMT)
LAGOS, Nigeria (CNN) -- Sixteen people were killed and 11 churches were burned Saturday in Nigeria as part of the continuing violence over cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed.
The violence comes a day after at least 10 people were killed in Libya and another in Pakistan, where five deaths have been reported this week.
Demonstrations and skirmishes broke out Saturday in the Muslim-dominated northern Nigerian cities of Maiduguri and Katsina. The cities also have significant Christian populations.
Maiduguri bore the brunt of Saturday's violence. Fifteen people were killed, 11 churches were burned and 115 people were arrested there, a national police spokesman said. There also were reports of attacks on businesses owned by Christians.
In Katsina, one person was killed, two police officers were injured and 25 were arrested, a police spokesman said.
The Nigerian army was en route to the region late Saturday to assist police in keeping the peace, and the northern Nigerian state of Borno was considering imposing a curfew.
A Danish newspaper first published the cartoons in September, but protests over the caricatures -- one of which depicts the prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb -- have escalated in recent weeks after several other publications, mostly European, reprinted the drawings. Muslims consider depictions of Mohammed blasphemous. |
These people can't take a joke.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/afric...ndup/index.html |
|
|
| InterMilan31 |
yea what did the Swiss do |
|
|
| InterMilan31 |
few other interesting pictures as I cant read all that much lol
 |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by InterMilan31
|
Lol, what the is Annan doing there?! |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
^^ Good news, however, the article didn't get it quite right with the part about Sweden |
Yeah, I know. It didn't fit well with what you told me - but the part about Denmark was correct, and it was the only international mention of the developments that I could find...
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
...and going, and going, and going...
These people can't take a joke.
|
Apparently, the protestors threw a tire around a man, poured gasoline on him, and set him ablaze. My gut reaction would be to label these people animals, but then again, animals don't kill just for the heck of it.:rolleyes:
A really interesting piece written by Flemming Rose (the editor who commisioned the drawings in the first place) over at Washington Post about the motivations behind and fallout of the publication act:
| quote: | Why I Published Those Cartoons
Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.
I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.
But the cartoon story is different.
Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.
At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.
Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)
Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.
So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.
We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.
One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.
On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.
Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.
I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.
I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.
As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.
Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.
In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.
This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.
Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons. |
After reading this, anyone ought to have a harder time describing the publication of the cartoons as "a stupid provocation", I think. However, I think that Rose is wrong when he describes the fallout as two main narratives. The public debates sparked in the UK and in the US are quite different than those in the predominantly Muslim world and the rest of Europe: In Britain there seems to be a new focus on politicians and their inability to deal with obviously radical elements in the UK, and in the US the cartoons seems to have taken on a new life as a convenient metaphor in a debate about the MSM and it's responsibilities:
| quote: | When fear cows the media
THE PHOENIX is Boston's leading ''alternative" newspaper, the kind of brash, pull-no-punches weekly that might have been expected to print without hesitation the Mohammed cartoons that Islamists have been using to incite rage and riots across the Muslim world. Its willingness to push the envelope was memorably demonstrated in 2002, when it broke with most media to publish a grisly photograph of Daniel Pearl's severed head, and supplied a link on its website to the sickening video of the Wall Street Journal reporter's beheading.
But the Phoenix isn't publishing the Mohammed drawings, and in a brutally candid editorial it explained why.
''Our primary reason," the editors confessed, is ''fear of retaliation from . . . bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do . . . Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and . . . could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year-publishing history."
The vast majority of US media outlets have shied away from reproducing the drawings, but to my knowledge only the Phoenix has been honest enough to admit that it is capitulating to fear. Many of the others have published high-minded editorials and columns about the importance of ''restraint" and ''sensitivity" and not giving ''offense" to Muslims. Several have claimed they wouldn't print the Danish cartoons for the same reason they wouldn't print overtly racist or anti-Semitic material. The managing editor for news of The Oregonian, for example, told her paper's ombudsman that not running the images is like avoiding the N-word -- readers don't need to see a racial slur spelled out to understand its impact. Yet a Nexis search turns up at least 14 occasions since 1999 when The Oregonian has published the N-word unfiltered. So there are times when it is appropriate to run material that some may find offensive.
Rationalizations notwithstanding, the refusal of the US media to show the images at the heart of one of the most urgent stories of the day is not about restraint and good taste. It's about fear. Editors and publishers are afraid the thugs will target them as they targeted Danny Pearl and Theo van Gogh; afraid the mob will firebomb their newsrooms as it has firebombed Danish embassies. ''We will not accept less than severing the heads of those responsible," an imam in Gaza preaches. ''Whoever insults a prophet, kill him," reads the sign carried by a demonstrator in London. Those are not figures of speech but deadly threats, and American newspapers and networks are intimidated.
Not everyone has succumbed. The Weekly Standard reproduced the 12 cartoons, and some have appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, the New York Sun, and even Spare Change News, a Boston biweekly sold by homeless people. But there has been nothing like the defiance shown in Europe, where some two dozen publications in 13 countries have run the cartoons, insisting that they will not allow thugs to decide what a free press can publish.
Journalists can be incredibly brave, but when it comes to covering the Arab and Muslim world, too many news organizations have knuckled under to threats. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, a veteran foreign correspondent, admitted long ago that ''physical intimidation" by the PLO led reporters to skew their coverage of important stories or to ignore them ''out of fear." Similarly, CNN's former news executive, Jordan Eason, acknowledged after the fall of Saddam Hussein that his network had long sanitized its news from Iraq, since reporting the unvarnished truth ''would have jeopardized the lives of . . . our Baghdad staff."
Like the Nazis in the 1930s and the Soviet communists in the Cold War, the Islamofascists are emboldened by appeasement and submissiveness. Give the rampagers and book-burners a veto over artistic and editorial decisions, and you end up not with heightened sensitivity and cultural respect, but with more rampages and more books burned. You betray ideals that generations of Americans have died to defend.
And worse than that: You betray as well the dissidents and reformers within the Islamic world, the Muslim Sakharovs and Sharanskys and Havels who yearn for the free, tolerant, and democratic culture that we in the West take for granted. What they want to see from America is not appeasement and apologies and a dread of giving offense. They want to see us face down the fanatics, be unintimidated by bullies. They want to know that in the global struggle against Islamist extremism, we won't let them down. |
From the Boston Globe. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
The million dollar question is for the MSM is, why the Abu Ghraib photos, but not the Mohammed Cartoons?
(several links within the article below)
| quote: |
Judith Apter Klinghoffer
MSM RUSHES TO SHOW MORE ABU GHRAIB PICTURES/ update
If you thought that maybe, just maybe, the MSM (mainstream media) is reluctant to publish the Muhammad Cartoons because it does not wish to put American soldiers in harm's way, think again. They just laid their hands on some old (but, yet, unpublished) photos of the infamous prison scandal and, lo and behold, they are rushing to show them.
No, the MS has not just surrendered to the Islamists, they have emerged as their best allies.
Please, please, phone, email, send letters, cancel subscriptions. Do something (non violent, of course) to show your displeasure.
BBC news this evening tried to have its cake and eat it too. It began the broadcast with the newly released pictures AND some of the old. Then, the anchor interviewed the Austalian Olivia Rousset, who got it from her "contacts" in Iraq. He asked her what was the news value of showing these photos given the fact that they are years old and that the guilty have been punished. Wasn't it just pouring oil on fire? She said something about insufficient accounting of higher ups. All the while, the picures remained on the screen. They were rebroadcast at the end. The entire treatment was reminiscent of the Janet Jackson episode when the TV was showing over and over the "wardrob malfunction."
Please, click here and let them have a piece of your mind.
To complain to CNN, email: [email protected][/email]
ACLU also released new photos it attained throught the freedom of information act today. They want another investigation but claimed they are not behind the ones released in Australia. Just a coincidence. Defense complains it will cause additional violence.
ACLU Contact information: John Heffernan, 202-728-5335, ext 304, [email protected]
They are also suing Rumsfeld.
The New York Times was not bad this morning. It merely printed one picture in the inside page.
The Financial Times, on the other hand, put a disgusting photo up on the front page. (email: [email][email protected] London fax: 44 (0)20 7873 5938 NY fax: 1 212 641 6504
Again, unlike the cartoons these photos lack news value and serve merely to inflame.
Michelle Malkin raises questions but LGF concludes The Media are the Enemy
Kudos to FDD for posting the Saddam torture tapes. Perhaps we should send them to the MSM to suggest they can post them?
To read a public letter send by a jounalist to Australian SBS TV challenging their publicizing Abu Ghraib pictures but failing to show the cartoons, click here
|
>>Source<< |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
(several links within the article below)
|
Those are some absolutely horrible videos. |
|
|
|
|
