Well, many interesting developments have taken place following the publishing of an inflammatory article in al-Ghad. First, Iraqi Shia protested the involvement of the Jordanian bomber in the blast.
Hundreds of Iraqi Shias have staged protests in Baghdad and Karbala against the alleged involvement of a Jordanian in a devastating bombing in al-Hilla two weeks ago. Crowds gathered outside the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad on Sunday shouting: "No, no to Jordan, close your embassy, we do not want to see you here."
They urged the government to file charges against the family of Raed al-Banna. They also demanded compensation for victims from Amman, which rejected the accusations against it and insisted it condemned the al-Hilla bombing, the worst single attack in Iraq since the US-led invasion in
March 2003.
Also, AFP is reporting that the father of the bomber is denying his son might have been involved in the attack:
"He [the father] said he received a phone call on 3 March from someone speaking with an Iraqi accent telling him his son had become "a martyr." Al-Banna’s family says it had not heard from him since mid-February when he went to Saudi Arabia and called them to say he had found work in the oil-rich kingdom.
His relatives say he was a devout Muslim who became more religious about six months ago, but denied that he had links to Jordanian born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, blamed for attacks in the violence-torn
country.
Meanwhile, the Jordanian government is denying claims that Jordanian-Iraqi relations are "threatened under Iraqi bloodshed." Shia religious leaders in Iraq issued a statement saying they were surprised by the Iraqi interim government’s "silence over Jordan’s interference in Iraq’s internal affairs by instigating violence and hatred among Iraqis … and sending their terrorists to Iraq."
Al-Ghad, on the other hand, published a statement (in Arabic) from the Iraqi embassy in Jordan saying there were no Americans killed in the attack as the paper previously reported. In addition, King Abdallah visited the paper yesterday, urging the press (Arabic) to "denounce violence."
I have also noticed that over the last two days al-Ghad has been running a series of editorials from different writers denouncing the attacks on civilians in Iraq. Very interesting no? It seems that the paper is learning from this huge mistake.
I’m still hoping, however, that the paper publishes a formal apology. What is interesting here is that in this day and age, media — primarily Arab media — cannot get away with publishing half-truths. Now, in this world connected by the Internet, satellites and blogging, everything reported is being scrutinized and analyzed. The media can no longer get away with publishing inflammatory articles. People are always watching!
This wasn’t an ideological pamphlet, unless people are pre-exposed to some sort of extremist agenda and actually sympathize with it they wouldn’t be incited to go out on a killing spree. Besides, this isn’t the only information channel available to people. So if someone filters out the contradictory reports and sticks to the martyrdom story, I’d say they were bent on going postal to begin with.
” d) every muslim has the right to be there if they have been called upon (which they have) and this irregardless of whatever protest takes place. ” !!!!!!
I’d rather retreat from this kind of “discussion” and go eat ” 7oset Bandoora” than wasting my time arguing this kind of mentality.
This is how they encourage murder:
Arash, don’t you think that some youngster out there might read this article and become fired up to follow in the footsteps of this “Martyr” who will go to heaven for the good deed he committed by killing Iraqis?
As for the sword, Arash, unfortunately, sometimes it is what is needed in this part of the world to stop the state of backwardness and retardedness that engulfs this region! And no, I don’t see the king’s interference as a sword, but a call for a more balanced media coverage which is very much needed in Jordan and the whole Arab world in general.
The article didn’t encourage anyone to kill Iraqis, it inaccurately implied that the bombing targeted American forces. And as for “fighting the imperialists” go, there isn’t a lack of literature on the subject. Only they’re published in obscured newspapers the world over. So now that a mainstream newspaper has published such a piece it only serves to harm its reputation. If Jordan had a true free press, other newspapers would come to the rescue and take Al-Ghad’s share of the market. Making it perhaps an other obscure paper. As for identity of the bomber, the father can sue for libel if what is reported is not true. The king should seat in his palace and stop acting as a hanging sword over the media.
Arash,
The concept of free press dissolves when the media becomes a tool for inciting hatred and encouraging young people to kill other unarmed Iraqis so that they become “martyrs”.
It is no longer free press when you publish lies, sell them as fact and tarnish the reputation of a country and its people .
By publishing this article, this paper becomes a tool for destruction. It had to be stopped. The king’s interference was very significant and it will help shape the role of the media in Jordan to become more balanced!!
What’s wrong with publishing crap? It’s called free press. Really, don’t like it, don’t buy it. Write an angry letter. Take a cold shower. Start your own newspaper. It’s not Abdallah’s business to interfere.
Iyas,
I have to say that I’m very glad that His Majesty interfered! This will teach al-Ghad a lesson they will never forget. This will teach them that they can never publish crap and get away with it!!
I think some people from Al-Ghad should step down after this scandal!! Fada7ouna!!
Unfortunately, the Head of the State has to interfere because our esteemed journalism hasn’t yet reached a point of responsibility and self-governing. As I said on my blog (in Arabic) this is a reminder that we still need a baton to guide us in the correct path. I am becoming a firm believer in the baton for many out there.
Bandoora, you can call me Nas or Naseem, “that guy” or addressing me if i wern’t here is a little harsh dont u think?
Well i suppose you want my take on this?
Like I’ve said over and over and over and over again in that blog entry, the details are never clear during a war. I cannot trust the biases of a media in whichever direction they swing. I was merely pointing out the obvious: a) there are limited arms for the resistance fighters hence the use of martyr operations (b) it is an occupation and a war (c) we cannot pass judgement on anyone without knowing crucial details otherwise we are deciphering shadows on the wall (d) every muslim has the right to be there if they have been called upon (which they have) and this irregardless of whatever protest takes place.
like i said to hubby in my second post, i leave the judgement up to God. perhaps he was wrong, perhaps he did not know, as i said allahu a3lam. im merely approaching the fundementals of this war and occupation
Where is that guy “Nas” ? So, what was he defending ?