Journalism & war

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

Hi

Please click on the link and sign the petition to save the life of Afghan journalist Perwez Kambakhsh.

http://www.petitiononline.com/af8f6912/petition.html

Thanks

The history of Rome was a society like no other. We are all part of the Roman conflict. Some how during the fall of Rome, every one of us in the great world of our survived the fall of Rome, the 700 years of complete destruction of society, infrastructures, library's from 2000 years of history and we all were either part of the rise of Christianity, survived Paganism in some parts of the world or became part of the last religion that followed in fear of Christianity, Islam. Although many great people have been part of the Islamic history, the greatest portion of Islam that still survives today is the reason it was established, to counter the fear of Christianity during the fall of the Roman empire in the East. Islam took 2000 years of history and destroyed it and has yet to advance its own people out of the dark ages and uses this as a motivation for destruction of Christianity. As Christianity moved forward in the West, Islam slowly declined until all it had left was to fight for land and take over Christianity and its money, power and strong following of Christians world wide. The history of Rome ended at the beginning of the rise of Islam and Christianity. Both religions believe in God therefore every soul believing in God has the possibility of being saved. The error in judgement is not on the people but on the false prophet. I have read about how a false prophet will rise and millions will follow this great leader. They will truly believe he is the leader or prophet of his people. Because Islam use's Sex to gain young mens souls to die for God, Because Islam use's fighting to convert instead of love and because Islam has a leader without a face because of the fear of looking into the eye's of a false prophet or that the man was just a man who used the poor people of the day to motivate them to steal the riches of Christianity and the fall of Rome. The false prophet is Islam and the leader of Islam. The Billions that follow the war, the 72 women that will be at the end of young men's suicide deaths is so easy to see it is false. Everyone I have ever talked to has admitted it can not be. So if it can't be that millions will die for a lie then how can the religion that believes illiteracy and only knowledge of the Koran is a good thing. How can Women be bound to home and hide be a blessing of God. Because of his own inability to control him self, covering women helped him succeed to be a better person. I have met many good Muslims yet never have I met a Muslim that truly has seen the light of day or the blessings of God.

In the last few days there have been debates about the 15 sailors who were captured by Iranians and released after 13 days. Should they sell their stories or not? Some were to have been offered a million pounds for their stories, and I think what stories? They were even not free to talk when they arrived in the

Want some video demonstration of the futility of the surge? Check out this amazing sequence from the UK

It does seem as though the news these days is more like watching varying views of doom-mongering. Few news media organisations seem to be immune to spreading alarmist ideas about impending calamities. The news is now a competition about what, and who we should fear. If the aftermath of the flooding of New Orleans was not a big enough disaster – disaster in the shape of CNN, Fox News, BBC News, ABC News and others rushed to New Orleans almost quicker than the flood water. All the effluent running in the streets of New Orleans was reflected in the news reports that came out of the city at the time - with their message, abandon all hope.

I find Jean Setton’s article of interest and comprehensive. I think, perhaps out of kindness, not being published would be a consideration were she writing for the commercial press, but not here, she has been to easy on our current mad involvement with economic correctness, profit and shareholders. We seem to have forgotten the esteem once accorded reporters who strove for accuracy and balance reporting fact, fact in a way that allowed the readers own emotions to supply the ‘thrill’. Now with profit the aim, how else would the paper survive, the accolade is for the readers who buy and then buy again perhaps as the story they just read failed to supply believable data. Hype and dissembling become the scale of measurement.

Question: How far should journalists go to cover a war? How close to harm's way should these brave men and women get before they become ill prepared (due to lack of military training) and a liability to those they are there to report on? And how much of what they see do they have a duty to report? Many embedded journalists have the moral fence to walk when they know troops position and plans. Answer:

I strongly believe the article posted on February 16, 2005 in WSJ titled "Sickman of Europe Again" by Robert Pollack deteriorated the Turkish - Neo Con relationships further. Not only the article was engineered precisely to be provacative, but it also worked right in the opposite way to the common sense intention. Mr. Feith's even worsening speech to the press (We can not maintain relationships that are not supported by Citizens) also hinted that the administration engineered the article to the details. It is no secret that Neo Con governed Pentagon is still feeling the grief prior to the Iraq war, however no one seems to consider already hurt relationships.

Stop arming Children -Kamala Sarup This week, Nepal's Maoist rebels announced plans to raise a militia of 50,000 children. On February 22, the leader of the Maoists student wing, Kamal Shahi, said the decision to raise child militia was taken by the rebel leadership on January 10-11. In the past couple of weeks, the Maoists have resorted to mass abductions, particularly of young students of grades six-ten from schools in western Nepal. In this period, around 950 children were abducted. Though most abducted students are allowed to return after a couple of weeks. 12-year-old Samjhana is one of the many children who have been wounded in the Maoists war in Nepal. She was caught in the cross fire between the militia and has lost both her arms. Samjhana was hit when her house was bombed and she went out to search for her mother who was missing. Samjhana is an internal refugee. She said "I was so afraid of dying. I would like to live normal, in peace. Please stop the fighting". Almost every family in Nepal has been affected by the conflict.

Stop Killing Journalists -Kamala Sarup ‘Don’t kill journalists’ Nepali Journalists and people of all walks of life across the country continue to condemn the killing of journalist Dekendra Raj Thapa. Maoists admitted that they had ‘executed’ Thapa on August 11 after detaining him for nearly six weeks. Thapa is the second journalist to be killed in the country this year. A Paris-based press freedom watchdog, Reporters Without Borders said it was shocked and revolted by this barbaric murder. Gyanendra Khadka, a journalist with the government news agency Rastriya Samachar Samiti , was also killed by Maoists on September 7, in Jyamire, in Nepal’s eastern Sindhupalchowk District. Padma Raj Devkota, editor of the fortnightly Bhurichula, was killed by army troops in the western district of Jumla in February.

This is one of the most underreported cases within the media. Katherine Gun, a GCHQ staff member and 'whistleblower' exposed the fact that the US and UK governments were spying on the offices and homes of the UN member states who held the balance just prior to the Iraq war. she is due to go to court this month but according to the Guardian the charges will probably be dropped because if the case goes ahead it would require disclosure of classified information the government wouldn't be happy for people to know about. I fyou want to know more you can just Google her name or go to www.accurac

Re: http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-8-92-1723.jsp Bentley’s article is thematically in line with the current BBC Magazine series on cynicism (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3491925.stm), and gets a little bit deeper into the issue, but does not mention or address two underlying factors that I think influence the pugilistic, exploitative and cynical behaviour he is concerned about. These factors are the disenfranchised constituent and the refusal to participate. For me, these two things are much more fundamental and much more indicative than the symptoms Bentley focuses upon. They also reinforce each other. Furthermore, both revolve around 'modernisation', or the apparently unstoppable pressure to conform across an increasingly diverse set of behaviours in order to deliver ever greater efficiencies and address an ever-widening range of demands for attention and resources.

'There is conern about bureaucratic power because of the threate it poses to democratic accountability.'

As a victim of communism from early childhood, I spent 30 years of my life burrowing and infiltrating it to know it so well as to become free and secure from it. In the process I learned that it was not the smartest people who were the professional anti-communists in politics, military and cultural opposition to it and that too often they did not share my passion to know it and control it rather than have it control me. In fact, while many dedicated people gave their lives far more heroically and daringly than me to fight communism, those who led them often were opportunists and selected on the basis of almost every reason but

Having watched the program "Surviving Hunger" as portrayed by Sorious Samura I see no hope for these people of ethiopia. Plenty of organisations are begging for donations but does it get through. In the program the food aid the government said it distributed was not reflected in the meagre rations handed out to the villagers. Remember Band Aid. What did it achieve. It kept alive millions who would have otherwise have perished. Now they are no better off just millions more now starving. Giving donations that go to providing food aid is inefficient and does nothing but make a worse problem which is deferred until sometime in the future.

The most compelling question facing the world today is what to do with Kofi Annan. Since the inception of the United Nations the Secretary-General has been a representative from a member nation. Today we have a bureaucrat, a petty one, seeking to mis-appropriate resources belonging to the people of Iraq. There can be no mistake, either Annan is REMOVED or the world is in for a disastrous journey. If you think Bush and Blair leave something to be desired, "wait a little longer" and you will see real destruction. You had better orchestrate a campaign to remove this cancer as soon as possible. Or, GOD, will reward you with pain.

THE ARTICLES WRITTEN ABOUT BUSH AND BLAIR REGARDING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION(WMD) OR THE LACK THEREOF IN IRAQ, ARE ATTACKS BY THOSE WHO SIT IN THE BACKGROUND AND MAKE THEIR SO-CALLED EDUCATED VIEWS PUBLIC AND IN REALITY DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT WAR, INTELLIGENCE OR TACTICS. SADDAM HUSSEIN BY HIS ACTIONS,PUBLIC STATEMENTS AND PAST HISTORY IS NOT A LEADER TO BE TRUSTED. NOT TO MENTION THAT HISTORY HAS WRITTEN CHAPTERS ABOUT MEN LIKE HIM, AND THE FREE WORLD HAS STATED THAT LEADERS LIKE HIM WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. THERE IS NO DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF ANY REASONABLE SOLDIER THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAS BEEN IN THE BUSINESS OF ACQUIRING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

WMD was the only way that the UN obligation for a "Threat to Peace and Security" could be fulfilled. Just wanting to change the regime (in itself very legitimate) is not allowed under the non-intervention rules of the international legal system. So therefore they went on the UN/WMD-tour to war. It would have been better if the UK and USA had really prepared the country for democracy. They chose however to ignore things like the formed government in exile (by all the opposition groups) and wait till the 'Iraqi street' talked.... well it has rather violently.

David Marquand's excellent article asks why, if there were good reasons for going to war, did he not trust the British public and his party to back him instead of picking a risky justification? I believe it was because he knew his party (which is mostly "old labour") is ideologically opposed to solutions involving force, and would never have supported him. Therein lies the rub, even if Tony Blair and new labour are "right" for the country, they are not the party in power... I am surprised that David did not emphasize what I thought would have been the best justification - to enforce UN resolutions ensuring that the UN could be taken seriously in future.