- Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

Sarah — Fri, 02 May 2003 11:46:45 +0000

Evi Dentz @ Fake schrieb:

Die Schiiten wurden 1991 von den Amerikanern zum
Aufstand gegen Saddam ermutigt, danach jedoch
schmählich im Stich gelassen und von Saddam
niedergemetzelt. Sich jetzt über diese
Massengräber zu empören, ist schiere Heuchelei.

Solch eine Politik ist verantwortungslos, zeigt
aber das Wesen der Zivilisation und des
"Völkerrechts" auf. Die Schiiten sind darin halt
"Manövriermasse" und "Untermenschen". Die
Demokratie wird ihnen nun mittels Gewehrsalven in
Demonstrationen beigebracht. Im übrigen führt(e)
dieses Verhalten dazu, dass sie nun gegenüber den
Amerikanern äußerst misstrauisch sind. Aber der
US-Politrhetorikapparat wird die
Amerikafeindschaft der Schiiten auf den Einfluss
des Iran schieben und Bush junior wäscht Seniors
Hände in Unschuld ...
Im übrigen würde D-Land bwz. das "Old Europe"
genauso handeln, wenn nicht sogar noch schlimmer.

Finden Sie nicht, dass die deutschen Medien sich
plötzlich wieder stark bei "Uncle Sam"
einschleimen? Da berichtet ja sogar CNN noch
kritischer ...

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

Evi Dentz @ Fake — Fri, 02 May 2003 11:31:15 +0000

Fake schrieb:

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 01. Mai 2003, 16:00
Die Menschenrechtsgruppe aus Kerbela war
überzeugt, dass es sich bei den Toten um Schiiten
aus Nadschaf oder Kerbela handelt, die während des
Aufstandes nach dem Golfkrieg von 1991 an diesen
entlegenen Ort, rund 20 Kilometer südlich von
Kerbela gebracht wurden.
In dieser Zeit waren nach Informationen
internationaler Menschenrechtsgruppen Tausende von
Schiiten festgenommen worden und verschwunden.

Die Schiiten wurden 1991 von den Amerikanern zum
Aufstand gegen Saddam ermutigt, danach jedoch
schmählich im Stich gelassen und von Saddam
niedergemetzelt. Sich jetzt über diese
Massengräber zu empören, ist schiere Heuchelei.

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

erbarmen@Sarah — Thu, 01 May 2003 22:24:12 +0000

Sarah @ erbarmen schrieb:

Hallo erbarmen,

Erbarmen schrieb:

Keine Ahnung, jemand benutzt mich.....

Wie dem aber auch sei: es widerspricht den
Foren-Regeln und es wurde angedroht, den
Mißbraucher eines Nicks nicht nur auszuschließen,
sondern außerdem auch alle eigenen Beiträge von
ihm zu löschen.

Aber wahrscheinlich sind oder waren (1. Mai) die
beiden Admins Patfisch und Sub-Editor nicht im
Überwachungs-Einsatz.

Vielleicht können sie aber morgen mittels IP den
Versender dieser Postings ausfindig machen...

==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
==================================================
=======================
Davon gehe ich aus.....

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

Sarah @ erbarmen — Thu, 01 May 2003 22:16:42 +0000

Hallo erbarmen,

Erbarmen schrieb:

Keine Ahnung, jemand benutzt mich.....

Wenn diese Nutzung gemäß des Begriffes von
erbarmen oder rachmones wäre, würde ich mich
darüber freuen.

Wie dem aber auch sei: es widerspricht den
Foren-Regeln und es wurde angedroht, den
Mißbraucher eines Nicks nicht nur auszuschließen,
sondern außerdem auch alle eigenen Beiträge von
ihm zu löschen.

Aber wahrscheinlich sind oder waren (1. Mai) die
beiden Admins Patfisch und Sub-Editor nicht im
Überwachungs-Einsatz.

Vielleicht können sie aber morgen mittels IP den
Versender dieser Postings ausfindig machen...

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

Erbarmen — Thu, 01 May 2003 18:23:25 +0000

Evi Dentz schrieb:

Und was hat das mit dem Krugmann-Artikel zu tun?

==================================================
==================================================
Keine Ahnung, jemand benutzt mich.....

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

Evi Dentz — Thu, 01 May 2003 15:47:20 +0000

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 01. Mai 2003, 16:00
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,
246916,00.html
Fund eines Massengrabs

Wo Saddam seine Gegner lebendig verscharren ließ

Nach dem Ende des Saddam-Regimes treten viele
Unmenschlichkeiten der Diktatur erst richtig zu
Tage. In der Wüste nahe der irakischen Kerbela
soll jetzt eine lokale Menschenrechtsorganisation
ein Massengrab entdeckt haben. Offenbar ließ
Saddam seine Opfer hier lebendig begraben -
darunter viele Frauen.

Kerbela - Die Hände der exhumierten Opfer waren
mit dicken Kabeln gefesselt. Um sie zu begraben,
waren damals offenbar Bagger eingesetzt worden.
Die Menschenrechtsgruppe aus Kerbela war
überzeugt, dass es sich bei den Toten um Schiiten
aus Nadschaf oder Kerbela handelt, die während des
Aufstandes nach dem Golfkrieg von 1991 an diesen
entlegenen Ort, rund 20 Kilometer südlich von
Kerbela gebracht wurden.

In dieser Zeit waren nach Informationen
internationaler Menschenrechtsgruppen Tausende von
Schiiten festgenommen worden und verschwunden. Wie
viele Leichen in dem Massengrab liegen, war noch
unklar. Eine Korrespondentin der Deutschen
Presse-Agentur beobachtete jedoch, wie ein Mann
innerhalb einer Viertelstunde mit einer Schaufel
die Knochen von etwa 20 Menschen aus dem Sand
holte. Wie an der Kleidung und den Haaren zu
erkennen war, die durch den Wüstensand gut
konserviert wurden, sind unter den Opfern auch
zahlreiche Frauen.

Die Gruppe aus Kerbela hatte das Grab nach eigenen
Angaben erst durch die Befragung von ehemaligen
Offizieren von Saddam Husseins Elite-Einheit
Republikanische Garde lokalisieren können. Die
Offiziere seien während der Befragung durch Iraker
in Bagdad nicht gefoltert worden, betonte ein
Mitglied der Gruppe. Der Besitzer einer Sandgrube
in der Nähe des Fundortes sagte, er selbst habe
vor zwei Jahren an der gleichen Stelle bereits
eine Leiche im Sand entdeckt und dies der Polizei
gemeldet. Die Polizei habe ihm daraufhin eine
Geldstrafe auferlegt und ihm streng verboten, über
seinen Fund zu sprechen.

Die Menschenrechtsgruppe will nun eine in der Nähe
stationierte Einheit von US-Soldaten über das
Massengrab unterrichten, in der Hoffnung, dass die
Amerikaner ihnen bei der Identifizierung der Opfer
helfen können. Denn bislang wurden bei den Leichen
keinerlei Ausweispapiere gefunden.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

Evi Dentz — Thu, 01 May 2003 14:16:55 +0000

Und was hat das mit dem Krugmann-Artikel zu tun?

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

erbarmen — Thu, 01 May 2003 12:58:34 +0000

==== OP-EDS AND EDITORIALS ====

(1) Some of the most damning evidence against CNN
comes from a Washington Times op-ed by Peter
Collins ("Corruption at CNN - April 15, 2003 - htt
p://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030415-91009640.htm)
. Collins briefly worked for the network in
Baghdad and sat in on talks involving executives
Eason Jordan and Tom Johnson, who were trying to
negotiate an exclusive interview with Saddam
Hussein:

"The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof
of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my
first ´live shot´ on CNN. A producer came up and
handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes.
´Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera,´ he
said. I glanced at the paper. It was an
item-by-item summary of points made by Information
Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning
with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

"The list was so long that there was no time
during the live shot to provide context. I read
the information minister´s points verbatim.
Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on
the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr.
Johnson approached, having seen my performance on
a TV monitor. ´You were a bit flat there, Peter,´
he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of
CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic
reading Saddam Hussein´s propaganda."

(2) In the Wall Street Journal ("CNN´s Access of
Evil" - http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=11
0003336), Franklin Foer writes:

"For a long time, CNN denied that its coverage
skimped on truth. While I researched a story on
CNN´s Iraq coverage for the New Republic last
October, Mr. Jordan told me flatly that his
network gave ´a full picture of the regime.´ In
our conversation, he challenged me to find
instances of CNN neglecting stories about Saddam´s
horrors. If only I´d had his Times op-ed!...

"For nearly a decade, the [CNN] network gave
credulous treatment to orchestrated anti-U.S.
protests. When Saddam won his most recent
´election,´ CNN´s Baghdad reporter Jane Arraf
treated the event as meaningful: ´The point is
that this really is a huge show of support´ and ´a
vote of defiance against the United States.´ After
Saddam granted amnesty to prisoners in October,
she reported, this ´really does diffuse one of the
strongest criticisms over the past decades of
Iraq´s human-rights records´."

(3) Commentator Marc J. Rauch writes:

"Like all the other similarities that exist
between the despotic Arab regimes, Yasser Arafat
and the PLO employ the exact same fear tactics [as
Saddam]. They kill and torture anyone they can get
their hands on that disseminates a dissenting
opinion. It´s impossible to think that CNN hasn´t
received additional threats from Arafat, and that
CNN isn´t also caving into this pressure to
protect their precious network, by covering up
more truths."

(4) HonestReporting member Arnold Roth, whose
teenage daughter was killed in the Palestinian
terrorist attack at Jerusalem´s Sbarro restaurant,
writes:

"Over the past 18 months, since the Sbarro
massacre, my wife Frimet and I have grown
increasingly appalled at the display of poor
journalistic and ethical values of a procession of
reporters, photographers, journalists and media
analysts. Some of them have misreported on events
about which we had personal knowledge. Others have
come to our home or invited us to their studios
and directly interviewed us -- and then did
disgraceful things with the material they
collected. CNN and the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation are at the top of a depressingly long
list.

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman (Antwort)

erbarmen — Thu, 01 May 2003 12:58:13 +0000

CNN´s Iraqi Cover-Up
CNN admits that knowledge of murder, torture, and
planned assassinations were suppressed in order to
maintain CNN´s Baghdad bureau.

In a shocking New York Times opinion piece, CNN´s
chief news executive Eason Jordan has admitted
that for the past decade the network has
systematically covered up stories of Iraqi
atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and
planned assassinations were suppressed in order to
maintain CNN´s Baghdad bureau.

Read Jordan´s op-ed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.h
tml

Jordan has not always been so candid -- nor
honest. Just six months ago on public radio, when
challenged regarding the veracity of CNN´s Baghdad
reports, Jordan stated:

"CNN has demonstrated again and again that it has
a spine; that it´s prepared to be forthright... we
work very hard to report forthrightly, to report
fairly and to report accurately and if we ever
determine we cannot do that, then we would not
want to be there [in Iraq]."
http://wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts_102502_jord
an.html

Below, HonestReporting presents a series of op-ed
columns and editorials condemning CNN´s policy. At
the end of this communique is a response that
CNN´s Eason Jordan sent to HonestReporting.

Now that this senior CNN executive has come clean,
it leaves us wondering: In what other regions
ruled by terrorist dictators do the media toe the
party line so as to remain in good stead? It is
known that the Palestinian Authority, since its
very establishment, has employed brutal methods of
intimidation against journalists.

For specific examples, see HonestReporting´s
expose, "Palestinian Intimidation of the Press":
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/Pa
lestinian_Intimidation_of_the_Press.asp

Have the major international news agencies also
withheld information on the PA in order to stay on
good terms with Arafat´s henchmen? As
HonestReporting chronicled on another occasion,
CNN has at the very least lent credence to patent
lies stated by the Palestinian Authority:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/
Broadcasting_the_Big_Lie.asp

Now that CNN has turned sincere, admitting it
buried stories that would smear Mideast dictators,
perhaps the time has come for more comprehensive,
honest reporting in the region.

HonestReporting encourages members to respond to
the Jordan admission by demanding that media
agencies report the facts, including efforts to
intimidate Mideast journalists. If news agencies
must buy access to dictators´ regions through the
omission of telling violence, we must insist that
they either report the truth, or leave.

Matters of Emphasis - Paul Krugman

Evi Dentz — Thu, 01 May 2003 10:56:33 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/29/opinion/29KRUG.h
tml

"We were not lying," a Bush administration
official told ABC News. "But it was just a matter
of emphasis." The official was referring to the
way the administration hyped the threat that
Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.
According to the ABC report, the real reason for
the war was that the administration "wanted to
make a statement." And why Iraq? "Officials
acknowledge that Saddam had all the requirements
to make him, from their standpoint, the perfect
target."

A British newspaper, The Independent, reports that
"intelligence agencies on both sides of the
Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave
political leaders were distorted in the rush to
war." One "high-level source" told the paper that
"they ignored intelligence assessments which said
Iraq was not a threat."

Sure enough, we have yet to find any weapons of
mass destruction. It´s hard to believe that we
won´t eventually find some poison gas or crude
biological weapons. But those aren´t true
W.M.D.´s, the sort of weapons that can make a
small, poor country a threat to the greatest power
the world has ever known. Remember that President
Bush made his case for war by warning of a
"mushroom cloud." Clearly, Iraq didn´t have
anything like that — and Mr. Bush must have
known that it didn´t.
Does it matter that we were misled into war? Some
people say that it doesn´t: we won, and the Iraqi
people have been freed. But we ought to ask some
hard questions — not just about Iraq, but
about ourselves.

First, why is our compassion so selective? In 2001
the World Health Organization — the same
organization we now count on to protect us from
SARS — called for a program to fight
infectious diseases in poor countries, arguing
that it would save the lives of millions of people
every year. The U.S. share of the expenses would
have been about $10 billion per year — a
small fraction of what we will spend on war and
occupation. Yet the Bush administration
contemptuously dismissed the proposal.

Or consider one of America´s first major postwar
acts of diplomacy: blocking a plan to send U.N.
peacekeepers to Ivory Coast (a former French
colony) to enforce a truce in a vicious civil war.
The U.S. complains that it will cost too much. And
that must be true — we wouldn´t let innocent
people die just to spite the French, would we?

So it seems that our deep concern for the Iraqi
people doesn´t extend to suffering people
elsewhere. I guess it´s just a matter of emphasis.
A cynic might point out, however, that saving
lives peacefully doesn´t offer any occasion to
stage a victory parade.

Meanwhile, aren´t the leaders of a democratic
nation supposed to tell their citizens the truth?

One wonders whether most of the public will ever
learn that the original case for war has turned
out to be false. In fact, my guess is that most
Americans believe that we have found W.M.D.´s.
Each potential find gets blaring coverage on TV;
how many people catch the later announcement
— if it is ever announced — that it
was a false alarm? It´s a pattern of
misinformation that recapitulates the way the war
was sold in the first place. Each administration
charge against Iraq received prominent coverage;
the subsequent debunking did not.

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to
question the administration´s credibility? Some
strange things certainly happened. For example, in
September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic
Energy Agency report that he said showed that
Saddam was only months from having nuclear
weapons. "I don´t know what more evidence we
need," he said. In fact, the report said no such
thing — and for a few hours the lead story
on MSNBC´s Web site bore the headline "White
House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the
story vanished — not just from the top of
the page, but from the site.

Thanks to this pattern of loud assertions and
muted or suppressed retractions, the American
public probably believes that we went to war to
avert an immediate threat — just as it
believes that Saddam had something to do with
Sept. 11.
Now it´s true that the war removed an evil tyrant.
But a democracy´s decisions, right or wrong, are
supposed to take place with the informed consent
of its citizens. That didn´t happen this time. And
we are a democracy — aren´t we?

April 29, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN