chicot

Whether you approve of what they choose to cover or not to cover, the fact is that Al-Jazeera's coverage of events in Iraq is far more detailed than most other news networks. They often have coverage of minor incidents in Iraq that other news channels simply don't bother to cover. For day-to-day coverage of what's going on in Iraq, there are few news sources that are better. From that point of view, Al-Jazeera is excellent for Iraq news.

The problem is that, whatever the average Iraqi thinks of the insurgents, flattening Fallujah will kill thousands of civilians and I can't see many Iraqis going along with that. Whatever the method used, I expect the second siege of Fallujah to proceed in a pretty similar way to the first, which means an upsurge in violence elsewhere in Iraq, demonstrations against the US assault and quite possibly resignations from the Iraqi government. In any event, we'll probably know the answers to all this in a couple of months.

Well, they are starting up an English language channel ....

It is.

You honestly believe that the Iraqi public would welcome the reduction of Fallujah to rubble and the thousands of civilian deaths that would result (and make no mistake, if you are talking about taking Fallujah without losing a single American life that is what it would entail)? And what of my point about the "sovereignty" of the so-called Iraqi government?

I saw that article when it was posted. In general I find Juan Cole's site very interesting and informative, though I know his views would outrage some of the right-wingers on this board.

That may be so but what happens in the rest of Iraq if that happens? What happens when the rest of the Iraq sees images of the thousands of civilian casualties that will result from such a tactic? Last time there was an attack on Fallujah, attacks on US troops rose sharply and the road from Baghdad to Fallujah became virtually impassible as fighters attempted to cut off convoys resupplying the besieging US forces. Something else that people seem to be forgetting is that Iraq is supposed (use your imagination here) to have a sovereign government - actions like these are supposed to be taken only in consultation with them. What happens to their legitimacy if they allow an Iraqi city to be pounded into rubble by the US?

I remember reading an article a week or two ago that suggested a major offensive against Fallujah is on the cards for the week after the US election so that the inevitable US casualties incurred will have no effect on the US election but Fallujah can be dealt with before the planned Iraqi election in January. Sounds plausible enough to me.

What? Do you honestly believe that if Bush knew where Bin-Laden or Zarqawi was, he wouldn't drop a bomb on their heads?

I think you may be getting Iraq somewhat confused with afghanistan. Women are certainly far more than property in Iraq. While they may not quite be on an equal basis with their western counterparts they have far more equality than many women in Islamic countries. Women in Iraq are doctors, teachers etc ... The two women currently in US custody held high positions in Saddam's government. Divorce is legal and most women in Iraq dress in the western style.

No, I didn't make any excuses for the beheading. I said that what happened was an act of barbarism for which there can be no justification. I think that's pretty clear. What I took issue with was you attempting to belittle what happened at Abu Ghraib. I fail to see why some people seem unable to express outrage over this sort of atrocity without, at the same time, attempting to pass off what happened at Abu Ghraib as no more than a harmless college prank.

Read the thread in it's entirety. It was not me that started making the comparisons, rather it was those who were using the example of the beheading to attempt to belittle what happened at Abu Ghraib or imply that media coverage of it has been excessive. Clearly the coverage has been insufficient since there are still people who believe that nothing more serious went on than "forcing someone to wear undies on their head". I'm sorry that the meaning of my post went over your head. Maybe next time I'll start by calling you a homo if that will aid your understanding.

Long but very interesting article about how blind adherence to neocon principles has helped fuel the insurgency. The problem was not that there was no plan for Iraq, but rather that the plan was a load of stevestojan. Neocon dreams

Actually, while everyone who left Abu Ghraib had heads, some of them were dead when they left. There are several cases of mysterious deaths in US and British custody currently under investigation. Seymour Hersh has also alleged that Iraqi boys were sodomized in Abu Ghraib. Still, all that's hunky-dory so long as you can say "well, at least we're not as bad as (fill in name of murderous terrorist group here)". What happed to the US hostage was an act of barbarism for which there can be no justification, but neither does what happened yesterday retrospectively justify what went on at Abu Ghraib nor mean that it should be erased from public consciousness forever.

What? You mean like the satellite images Colin Powell used in his presentation to the UN on the subject of Iraqi wmds?

Very easy to talk about sacrificing your life when you don't have to put it into practice. There were numerous attempts to overthrow Saddam - all failed. The hold of the secret police was so tight that any attempt at a coup would have been strangled at birth. This whole Sunni/Shia hostility thing has been overplayed - there have been very few incidents of Sunni/Shia violence.On the contrary, there have been displays of solidarity - while Fallujah (mainly Sunni) was under siege, convoys went from Sadr City (Shia) to deliver food to the Fallujans. Refugees from Fallujah were also taken in by the people of Sadr City. When Najaf was under siege, the favour was returned and food convoys went from Fallujah to Najaf. I don't believe there is a great likelihood of a Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq. To me, the main danger is of a conflict between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq.

I suppose you're implying that they are doing so out of some great sense of duty. While that may be the case for a few, I think a far likelier reason is massive unemployment and poverty in Iraq.

Fair comment and hopefully they'll keep well away in future.

All well and good so long as you accept the US version (well, one of them anyway) of events without question. Given your background, I can understand that this may be the case for you. However, I am more inclined to believe the version of events given by several different international news agencies which has a far longer time period being the battle and the helicopter attack (hours not minutes). According to this version of events, the crowd was not "cannibalising" the Bradley. Yes, some were celebrating, others were just "milling around" and the Palestinian reporter was some 50 metres from the Bradley when he was killed. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, this sort of thing - a US vehicle being destroyed and a crowd gathering afterwards - has happened umpteen times before without this sort of response. If it is US policy to destroy the vehicle, whether or not there are civilians in the vicinity, then it certainly has not been adhered to too rigidly in the past.

Sorry, my bad. That's what I meant, I just worded it wrongly.

You did? I didn't. The images I saw were of Palestinians celebrating (although they seem to have morphed into anyone of Arab descent). I do recall DC Tom saying there was some sort of orchestrated celebration in Iraq, but that means very little as the secret police could easily force people into that. How do you know how ordinary Iraqis reacted? You don't. As for what Saddam said, who cares? He's a maniac. Anyway, this is quite a strange sort of justification - I thought the reason for the US still being in Iraq was to actually help the Iraqis, you seem to be implying it's somehow ok to kill Iraqi civilians in revenge for 9/11. You see the contradiction?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course, I didn't cheer. As I recall, I wasn't registered at the time, but I do remember posting a thread under the title "one Arab's view". Probably doesn't exist after all the changes, but there certainly wasn't any sort of a celebratory tone in it. And for the hundredth time, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

And no doubt you would have said the same about accusations of torture at Abu Ghraib. While I'm sure most US servicemen are perfectly decent people, unless the US army makes sainthood a prior requirement, there are bound to be as many bad apples as in society as a whole. And that's without reckoning on what war does to people.

No, I don't choose to omit it. I have condemned the killing of civilians, no matter who is carrying it out. The difference is the insurgents answer to no one, have signed no treaties governing their behaviour, etc.. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold "the leader of the free world" to a somewhat higher standard.

No, I don't believe the US deliberately targets civilian crowds, but I don't believe it's beyond the bounds of possibility that the crew of the helicopter got pissed off with some of the crowd celebrating the destruction of the Bradley and decided to teach them a lesson.