Comments on: Jordan resigns after controversial remarks

By: Haitham

Haitham — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:26:10 +0000

So if someone don’t belive in US propaganda, he is painted wrong. Well, I can live happly without it. So, no, I’m not wrong.

By: Bill Herbert

Bill Herbert — Tue, 22 Feb 2005 08:49:27 +0000

Nice try. The Nation piece offers no evidence that the U.S. military has deliberately killed journalists. None. It simply repeats the assertion. That doesn’t “affirm” anything.

And I suppose you don’t want to address the inconvenient fact that RSF — which you originally cited as supporting your claim of “deliberate” killings of reporters — does not even support your view. You clearly misrepresented their position.

You’re wrong. Admit it.

By: Haitham

Haitham — Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:25:34 +0000

And here comes another voice supporting what I said. The Nation article titled “Shooting the Messenger” (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050307&s=scahill) , affirms that killing of these journalists was deliberate.

By: Haitham

Haitham — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:06:23 +0000

Bill,
I have no reason to list or quote all what I wrote in my blog regarding terrorism and their acts. Simply I condemn (including, but not limited to Americans and Zionist) all threaten and terror acts on civilians anywhere and at anytime. Any act against occupations armed forces or their tools is not terror, it is resistance, no matter what it is called insurgents, zarqawi or even devil; I don’t care as far as they are targeting occupation ONLY. And that goes for Iraq and Palestine as well.

If you are so interested to read more on what I wrote, please help yourself and use the search tool.

By: Bill Herbert

Bill Herbert — Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:45:57 +0000

Hmm. If you had read it, I would have thought you could offer a reason as to why it was “not worth looking at” — apart from the fact that it comes from the mouths of Americans.

It’s good you can admit you have an agenda, but the only agenda you’re promoting with this post is disinformation. By the way, the RSF report you cite doesn’t even support your assertion that the incident was intentional.

The RSF report concludes that the attack “was not a deliberate attack on journalists and the media. It was the result of criminal negligence.” I think that judgement itself is unfair, but it doesn’t go as far as your own.

I do have one question for you, as I am a relatively new reader of your blog: have you written anything about the systematic terror campaign against journalists by the insurgents in Iraq — such as the kidnapping of at least 20 reporters, the bombing of the al Arabiya offices in Baghdad (murdering seven and injuring another 19), and the countless other assaults against such “traitor stations” as al Arabiya? Or does the Iraqi “resistance” get a pass because they are neither Americans nor Zionists?

Peace

By: Haitham

Haitham — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:25:50 +0000

“Not worth looking at” doesn’t mean I didn’t read it. It also means that I read it and found it “not worth looking at”.
why?
U.S. and Zionist propaganda does not confirm my ideology. Of course not! Therefore, I don’t fall in love with their reporters, nor waste much time around their blogs. They have their agenda, I have mine.

On the other hand, I haven’t accused you for anything. I was describing the site you referred to.

Peace!

By: Bill Herbert

Bill Herbert — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 11:05:21 +0000

This isn’t a question of taking one source’s word for it over another’s. Any reasonable person who read both accounts (and Mudville is not the source for mine — he simply linked to others, including a respected journalist who was there) can see how both sides arrived at their conclusions, and make up his mind who is correct.

The RSF version had to rely on denying and/or ignoring crucial facts, while Zucchino and Crittendon’s accounts take facts cited by RSF into account, and indeed provide more context that they do. And RSF were not, as you say, “the victims themselves.” They are self-appointed representatives for the victims, but have absolutely no firsthand knowledge.

I was hoping you would at least read their accounts and try to make a rational decision for yourself, but I guess you don’t think anything that doesn’t conform to your own ideology is, in your own words, “not worth looking at.” How sad. I truly feel sorry for you and others who prefer this type of denial to any form of introspection or examination of differing points of view.

And at the same time, I find if laughable that you would accuse me of having that kind of mindset, prefering my own “propaganda” to yours. If that were the case, I surely wouldn’t be reading your blog.

By: Haitham

Haitham — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 09:28:14 +0000

And why should I believe your source? Mudville is nothing more than an American propaganda. Not worth looking at from my side. It describe it mission as “…on-line voice of an American warrior, who prefers to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day he stands fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.”

- Voice of American warrior
- Prefer peace, strike for reason!

Get a life man. This is nothing more than another cheap CIA propaganda.

Those whom you don’t conceder as fair, are world wide respected reporters. I have no reason to believe your sources nor listen to your witnesses, if the victims them selves (RSF) are stating the facts of what really happened.

By: Bill Herbert

Bill Herbert — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:47:36 +0000

You are quite ignorant of the Palestine Hotel incident, but then I suppose I cannot blame you if your sole source of information about it is the propagandistic RSF report — a report which ignored many statements by eyewitnesses and distorted others.

The American tank commander fired on the hotel after receiving multiple reports of an enemy “spotter” in that vicinity. He was tragically wrong, but the notion that he intentionally fired at the building knowing it he was firing at journalists is absurd.

If you are interested in the truth, read this. It is far closer than the RSF report, and cites a number of sources who were there.