Traitor in Baghdad (Peter Arnett)

Discussion in 'Archive' started by DmitriA, Mar 30, 2003.

  1. DmitriA

    DmitriA Legend

    230
    0
    Aug 5, 2002
    He wasn't voicing his opinion. If that was his intention, he could've done it in one of his reports to NBC or an interview to some other media organization (even French). That would've been perfectly fine. However, he didn't do that. Instad, he gave an interview to a state-run television station that I believe is owned by Saddam's son. In that interview, he LIED by saying that the US is now rewriting the whole war plan because of the brave Iraqi resistance (even if that were true, he is certainly in no position to know that sitting there in Baghdad - so he just made that up). If that's not giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I don't know what is
     
  2. DmitriA

    DmitriA Legend

    230
    0
    Aug 5, 2002
    Just saw Geraldo giving a live report from some place in Iraq interviewing US soldiers. The anchor asked him about the report of him being kicked out and he said that he first heard about it when he phoned back to New York with his report. He said that no one has tried to kick him out so far and that his former network is just spreading lies about him
    Incidentally, if he didn't have explicit permission from the commanders to do what he did, he should absolutely be kicked out and never be allowed to come close to a military installation ever again. It was a really stupid thing to do and could put the lives of those troops in danger
     
  3. Nick

    Nick Charter Gold Club Member DBSTalk Club

    22,050
    268
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    ...aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war?
     
  4. Ken_F

    Ken_F Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    551
    0
    Jan 13, 2003
    First off, does anyone seriously believe that Peter Arnett did that interview for fun? The Iraqis allowed Peter Arnett, one of the few non-Arab reporters in Baghdad, to remain while others were kicked out. Iraqi television obviously approached him to do the interview. And if you are going to go before Iraqi television, obviously you have to give them a little of what they want to hear. Peter Arnett should have refused the Iraqi government, and left the country instead, but there were probably other things on his mind as well. Arnett is among those seeking to locate missing American and British reporters in Iraq; obviously, he can't do that if he is kicked out of the country.

    As far as supporting Iraqi propaganda, reporters on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC support and perpetuate American military propaganda every single day. American news has become an outlet for U.S. military propaganda; in that regard, it is of little more value than Iraqi TV. If you want to see both sides of the picture, tune into the BBC or another foreign channel where reporters do not merely repeat word-for-word (as gospel) the words of the U.S. military.
     
  5. Ken_F

    Ken_F Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    551
    0
    Jan 13, 2003
    maindish,

    That's BS. Peter Arnett, as CNN later admitted, was simply reading from the script that had been prepared for him. CNN producers had specifically requested and paid Arnett do to the voice overtures for the program; he had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of that material.
     
  6. mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003
     
  7. DmitriA

    DmitriA Legend

    230
    0
    Aug 5, 2002
    What BBC? Oh, you mean this BBC?

    BBC man criticises 'war bias' :
     
  8. Ken_F

    Ken_F Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    551
    0
    Jan 13, 2003
    Dmitri,

    Other reporters have said just the opposite. When people on both sides criticize you, you know you are doing a good job.
     
  9. DmitriA

    DmitriA Legend

    230
    0
    Aug 5, 2002
    Heh. You can say the same about Fox or any other news channel that as you say "perpetuates American military propoganda"
     
  10. Ken_F

    Ken_F Godfather/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    551
    0
    Jan 13, 2003
    Dmitri,

    I don't think you'll find many people criticizing FOX in the same way. FOX has publicly described itself as the "pro-war" channel that "wants to see an American victory as soon as possible." You don't see FOX giving any air time to anti-war advocates.
     
  11. DmitriA

    DmitriA Legend

    230
    0
    Aug 5, 2002
    Actually, you do. Or at least did - when that debate was relevant, there were quite a few anti-war advocates on almost all the shows.
    BTW, I have a real problem watching an american journalist that does NOT want a victory as soon as possible. That shouldn't impede their ability to report the truth no matter how bad it is, but I want them to root for their country and want their troops to suffer as few casualties as possible. Maybe I'm just crazy that way
     
  12. mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003
    You don't have to give the Anti-War crowd any air time on Fox. Thats what the other 3 networks do. So I would say thats about even .
     
  13. psycaz

    psycaz AllStar

    75
    0
    Oct 4, 2002
    I wonder if Arnett had much of a choice. I saw some blurbs on the Fox scrawl that several journalists that were still in Baghdad are now missing. Wonder if they refused to do the interview that Arnett did?
    I don't agree with what Arnett did, but after hearing it, I'm hard placed to call it treason.
     
  14. mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003
    Not Pro-War but Pro-American is what I would call Fox News. :)
     
  15. jcrash

    jcrash Legend

    184
    0
    Jul 21, 2002
    Mr Hussein, I presume?
     
  16. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    Britain's Mirror Hires Fired Veteran Arnett

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61888-2003Mar31.html

    An hour after vigorously apologizing on the NBC Television Network, Arnett stated:

     
  17. waydwolf

    waydwolf Icon

    847
    1
    Feb 2, 2003
    Giving aid and comfort to any nation engaged in hostilities with their home nation can and has been regarded as fitting the charge of treason, which carries a sentence up to death.

    What Arnett did was definitely aid and comfort. His report was no less than the sort of thing carried out by Lord Haw-Haw and at the very least he should see prison time for the actions.

    Our rights of speech and press are absolute, however, they are also actions and people in a lawful society are held responsible for their actions. Say "fire" in a crowded theater and if people are in any way harmed by your hoax, you are responsible. Words are just thoughts until voiced and when voicing is action and actions have consequences.

    In this case, Arnett gave the Iraqis a boost to their morale that may well cause many more of them to fight longer than otherwise might have and increase the statistical likelihood of coalition soldiers or innocent Iraqis being killed in the futile defense of Saddam Hussein.

    Arnett should be tried in a court of law for his actions.
     
  18. waydwolf

    waydwolf Icon

    847
    1
    Feb 2, 2003
    I agree with the other guy. The rest of the world can kiss our rear ends.

    Consider the rest of the world and world history. The United States is the first nation in human history to enjoy the sort of freedom, democracy, stability, and plenty that we have today.

    The rest of the world? Former colonial empires, their former colonies, and backwater sh*tholes where man's better natures are rarely if ever seen and the ancient law of the jungle is supreme.

    Only here in the USA will you see Jews, Muslims, and Christians set up houses of worship within a few hundred yards of each other and no one ever thinks once that a battle could break out. You can't even conceive of there not being violence between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland and they're both Christians and Northern Ireland is supposedly a first world nation.

    Only here in the USA can women be anything from nuns to porno startlets or anywhere in between and change tack 180 degrees whenever they want and get a movie of the week on Lifetime if anyone so much as peeps a disagreement. You don't seem them having their genitals mutilated as part of every day life and anyone who attempts it is looking to end up dead in prison when another red-blooded inmate finds out what a sick b*stard they are.

    Neo-Nazis march and chant slogans and wave flags as they march past a synagogue and then... they go home. There's no gun battles, no mass murders, no city-wide rioting.

    We have more public violence over a football or basketball game than we ever have over the more basic hatreds that consume the rest of the planet.

    The rest of the world could do far far worse than see this planet go quietly into a Pax Americana. And it does far far worse. Every single day. There are web sites chock full of the bloody images. The kind you don't see every day here.

    And if you want to engage in moral equivocation, then you're out of it entirely. There's a big difference between the occasional serial killer, dishonest politician, or inequity here in the USA and systematic brutality, inhumanity, and degredation foisted on other humans around this planet by despots, tyrants, and monsters.

    We have a right to judge the belief systems and governments around the world, especially insofar as people are treated based on those things, because these are fellow humans we're talking about, not fictional aliens protected from human meddling by a fictional non-interference directive. Homo Sapiens Sapiens across the world are treated as less than dog cr*p on the boot of the rulers and Hussein should only be the first to go down.
     
  19. jcrash

    jcrash Legend

    184
    0
    Jul 21, 2002
    How is what he said any different than what the guy said at the Oscars? I'm sure they got the Oscars via Satellite in Iraq, should he be summarily tried and hanged, too?
     
  20. jcrash

    jcrash Legend

    184
    0
    Jul 21, 2002
    But, the problem is if you really believe all that, then you should also believe you cannot force democracy on anyone. I'm not saying a dictactorship is better, it isn't. But, just because democracy is "better," does that mean if someone doesn't want it we get to go kill them? Please don't throw me the line about Weapons of Mass Destruction - as that argument is wrong in so many ways.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall