Iraq council 'to ban Arab networks'

[IndianaGreen]

The US doesn't want independent observers to witness the brutal repression of the Iraqi people that will be unleashed in the name of Jesus and America!

Who's next, the Brits?

Paul Bremer has closed several newspapers because they were critical of the Occupation. American lies about Iraqi liberation are the biggest joke since Clinton swore on TV that he "did not have sex with that woman."

Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 September, 2003, 08:35 GMT 09:35 UK
Iraq council 'to ban Arab networks'

The US-appointed Governing Council in Iraq has decided to ban two leading Arabic news channels from the country for allegedly inciting violence, according to reports.

Member Samir al-Sumaidy said the council had discussed "abuses by certain Arabic media, particularly al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya" and "tough and dissuasive measures" would be taken against them", French news agency AFP reported.

The news channels have angered Iraqi officials in recent weeks by broadcasting pictures of masked men calling for attacks against US-led occupation forces.

The US civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, must approve such a move before any action can be taken, and both networks said they had received no official notification about a ban.

"We have not been advised officially of such a decision. Our office is still open, our people are still working. It's business as usual," said al-Jazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3131152.stm

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis...

...brought to you by the Land of the Free.

Oh, the hypocrisy...

[trogdor]

2. So, giving Osama bin Laden a mic should be OK, right?

I doubt this would be OK in the United States, either. Yes, you have the freedom of speech, but you
DO NOT
have the right to incite violence of any sort.

Those of you who know me know that I am no fan of neocons, but in this case, they have every right to tell Al-Jazeera to take a hike.

Edit: What I want to know is, who owns Al-Jazzera's sattelite? I seriously doubt they could afford their own, so who's giving them their bandwidth? Rupert Murdoch? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

3. Funny...

I believe I saw the same footage on CNN...

Of course when an ARAB network broadcasts it it is "incitement", when an American network broadcasts it, it is "news".

By the way, what do you call the 24/7 Iraq war cheerleading the US press did before the war? If that wasn't "incitement" nothing is...

[trogdor]

23. Did I excuse this behavior?

I think not. I was in the NCO Club at Fort Drum this past March. The people in there were watching the war on the big screen TV like it was the goddam Super Bowl. It about made me sick. NO, it doesn't excuse a damn thing.

[Merlin]

5. It's OK for US President to incite violence, but not conquered subjects.

The Neocons

DO INDEED

incite violence in this country. Of course, the violence is not supposed to take place here. Violence is OK if we perpetrate it elsewhere.

Through a deliberate program of lies and inuendo from the highest officials in our country, we have demonized an entire race and legitimized the conquering of an independent nation and all manner of subsequent oppression. In our own country, the neocons in charge continue to repress, through threats, implied and overt, the objective reportage of news from that occupation.

What we have here is Al-Jazeera, a legitimate news source, interviewing passionate anti-American Iraqi and Muslim guerrilla fighters who, naturally enough, express their views during the interview. This is considered way too much truth by American officials.

America's principals have been turned on their head!

[The Stranger]

6. Man, you have summed up everything I have wanted to say for some time

in one single post.

[paulk]

11. passionate anti- American Iraqi and Muslim guerilla fighters

who are encouraging people to kill Americans.

This is ok with you?

[Merlin]

12. As JFK said, America wants all nations boldly to seek their own freedom.

We are the oppressors, the occupiers, the jackboot thugs in this conflict. It's our kids over there shooting civilians and Iraqi police and reporters, then being absolved by "investigations" of the incidents without discipline. It's our tax dollars going to suppress free expression, free elections. It's our administrators who are incapable of restoring basic fundamental necessities like water and power to the citizens of Iraq who had it just a couple of months ago; incapable of supplying, still, adequate medicines and pain killers for the Iraqi hospitals, and adequate food for the population. It's our oil companies who have siezed control of the second largest oil reserves in the world and quietly, without notice by our media, divied up among Bush's friends these spoils.

Do I want our troops killed? No. Of course not. I want them

Out Of There!

[paulk]

14. at the risk of not being PC - (at least for DU)

I think the Iraqi governing council and even Paul Bremer has the right to punish in some way ANY news organization that is airing videotapes of ski-masked persons calling for the death of Americans. Which is my understanding of what went on.

And yes, everything you say about our occupation is true. And our troops ARE getting killed. And we are obligated by international law to stay there and fix what we've broken. And just getting our troops "out of there" is not an option - until something or someone is in place (the UN?) that can prevent the more radical elements extant in Iraq from taking over and returning Iraq to what it was under Hussien. Or worse.

Look, my dislike of the Bush administration and what's going on in Iraq is as great as yours - but the people killing our soldiers over there are NOT the good guys. And we here at DU need to remember that.

Bush's failure in Iraq may be good for us politically, but it's a disaster for our country.

[IndianaGreen]

17. We are NOT the guys in Iraq

Ask the Iraqis, they want our asses out of there. Even the puppet Chalabi wants our ass out of Iraq.

[paulk]

21. well, I never said we were the good guys.

but, I don't see just up and leaving as an option. If the United States hopes to maintain any credibility at all we need to fix what we broke. Granted, the Bush administration doesn't seem capable of that. Or even understanding what needs to be done - witness Bush's UN speech today.

[Merlin]

18. The people killing our soldiers... are NOT good guys ???

You missed the whole point. You buy into they're being evil and you buy into it all. These people are Iraqi patriots who are pissed as hell the US came in and conquered their country.

If the shoe were on the other foot--e.g. if Iraqis came in to the US, conquered our country, took over all our natural resources, ousted Bush and installed their own administrator of the US, I would be in the hills with my rifle and a ski mask. Wouldn't you?

These are not necessarily evil people. These are people who are rightly pissed off. I fought in Vietnam for 18 months and came away with the same view of the Viet Cong.

As for Bremmer's right to do this, if Jazeera did more than simply play an interview of these guys--if they endorsed their views in some way--then they should be warned, not banned. They should be asked always to use discretion when anyone advocates violence. If I were running the show, I think I'd put controversial programming on a 20 second delay and monitor it. To ban it completely feeds into the hands of those who are rightfully pissed off about our occupation. It provokes violence.

[The Magistrate]

19. Steady On, Sir

Bremer and his puppet show have no right to do anything, save perhaps the fact of firepower. Nor is the United States under any obligation to remain in Iraq under international law, though it is obligated to care for the civilain populace so long as it does stay.

Whether the people shooting at U.S. soldiers are good guys or bad guys is quite beside the point: they are people of an invaded country, seeking to repel the invader. They have every right to do that, whether in my view or yours they are Saladins or Shaitans.

It is a ludicrous thing, to prattle about bringing freedom and democracy to a place, claiming this will somehow serve as a catalyst to spread such enlightenment to the region, and proceed to censor the press and bar disagreeable journalists from the country, in the fine old Soviet style. The governments of the region already know how to do that, and their people will hardly find the spectacle insirational.

It is simply part and parcel of the whole fraud of this enterprise. It was sold to the public with lies, ranging from claims of direct threat to the United States from atomic weapons to the possibility of cheap gasoline. It was proclaimed as a war on "terror" and for "liberation", but was never aimed at anything but corrupting the political process in our own country.

Whatever makes these reptiles look foolish or hypocritical or incompetent should be played up for all the scorn and derision that can be managed: no one ever respects again anyone they have sniggered at.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[The Magistrate]

20. Steady On, Sir

Bremer and his puppet show have no right to do anything, save perhaps the fact of firepower. Nor is the United States under any obligation to remain in Iraq under international law, though it is obligated to care for the civilain populace so long as it does stay.

Whether the people shooting at U.S. soldiers are good guys or bad guys is quite beside the point: they are people of an invaded country, seeking to repel the invader. They have every right to do that, whether in my view or yours they are Saladins or Shaitans.

It is a ludicrous thing, to prattle about bringing freedom and democracy to a place, claiming this will somehow serve as a catalyst to spread such enlightenment to the region, and proceed to censor the press and bar disagreeable journalists from the country, in the fine old Soviet style. The governments of the region already know how to do that, and their people will hardly find the spectacle inspirational.

It is simply part and parcel of the whole fraud of this enterprise. It was sold to the public with lies, ranging from claims of direct threat to the United States from atomic weapons to the possibility of cheap gasoline. It was proclaimed as a war on "terror" and for "liberation", but was never aimed at anything but corrupting the political process in our own country.

Whatever makes these reptiles look foolish or hypocritical or incompetent should be played up for all the scorn and derision that can be managed: no one ever respects again anyone they have sniggered at.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[paulk]

22. I was under the impression that the US, as an occupying power

was under a legal obligation, via the Geneva Convention, to maintain order in Iraq. Correct me if I'm wrong. We are, I believe, certainly under a moral obligation to repair what we have destroyed.

And I agree with everything you say - up to a point. It's ok to play up for all the scorn and derision that can be managed, but, if, in fact, al jazeera is encouraging sedition, and you support that - you are treading on very thin ice.

We should take no pleasure in the demise of Bush if it involves the loss of American (and Iraqi) lives. In fact, we should hope and pray that that dumbass can somehow see his way clear to doing the right thing.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Have a taste of truth: US wipes out family in missile attack

This is the sort of truth that colonial administrator Paul Bremer doesn't want the world to see or hear:

US wipes out family in missile attack
Tuesday 23 September 2003, 9:48 Makka Time, 6:48 GMT


Villagers believe the US
had meant to target an
entirely different house

Three Iraqis were killed and four others seriously wounded in a US air strike on homes north of Fallujah, hospital officials and witnesses said.

All six victims were members of the same family from the village of al-Jisr, according to Falljuah Hospital’s Dr Ayman al-Ani on Tuesday.

Al-Ani identified the dead as Ali, Saadi and Salim al-Jumaili.

Relatives in al-Jisr said US occupation forces encircled the village about 1:30am (2130 GMT) and began using machine guns before the helicopter missile attack.

Missed target

One correspondent at the scene said the attack was apparently aimed at two other houses, which only suffered damage, but were not destroyed.

Al-Jazeera

[paulk]

31. more truth....

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A hand grenade blast ripped through a cinema in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Wednesday, killing two people and wounding 20, police said.

Police said a witness had told them the movie theater was showing a pornographic film when the grenade exploded. Islamic militants have attacked some cinemas in postwar Iraq (news - web sites) for showing movies they regard as immoral.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030924/wl_nm/iraq_cinema_dc&cid=574&ncid=1473




CBS/AP) A homemade bomb exploded Wednesday along a road in the Iraqi capital, missing a U.S. military patrol but killing at least one Iraqi and injuring 23 others as it destroyed two civilian buses, police said.

The attack took place in the Kazimiyah district, a commercial and residential neighborhood in north-central Baghdad. The American vehicles escaped damage but two buses were caught by the blast, according to Iraqi police Lt. Awas Ibrahim.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/24/iraq/main541815.shtml

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. The "Geneva Convention"??? Point out where the Bushies even acknowledge..

...that such a thing even exists. What's happening at Gitmo is clearly against the Geneva Convention. If we do this to Afghans, 90% of whom are not guilty of any crime but being in the wrong place at the wrong time, what do you think we're doing in Iraq to "maintain order"?

Here's a simple rule of thumb...one man's Freedom Fighter is another man's Terrorist. If a foreign country occupied the U. S., they would call any act to free our country an act of terrorism, would they not? We would call such people Patriots or Freedom Fighters. In fact, the British didn't much care for the tactics the American colonists used to defend themselves during the American Revolution, but we insisted on calling them Patriots.

The same principle applies in Iraq. We are the aggressors that attacked another country for no proven reason, and then proceeded to kill thousands of that country's people with weapons outlawed by the Geneva Convention under the guise of "freeing" the people of Iraq from Saddam.

By the way, Al Jazeera is the Middle Eastern world's equivalent of CNN or MSNBC...that's the way they get the bulk of their regional news. Only about 5% of what they report deals with showing so-called terrorists on the air. Even CNN shows terrorists from time to time...should they be shut down too?

[paulk]

34. Al-jazeera is hardly a middle eastern equivalent of CNN or MSNBC

The better analogy would be FOX. They have an agenda, which is pretty clearly anti-American. I will not judge whether this bias is justified or not, but we all, as readers, should be aware it exists.

I agree with you that Gitmo is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter of the Geneva Convention. Our occupation of Iraq, the use of depleted uranium, etc., I would certainly classify a violation of international law. But are these things relevant to the discussion at hand? I mean, we're on the ground in Iraq with a developing clusterfuck that threatens to blow up the entire region. We have to deal with the situation as it is. And it is in our national interest that that situation be resolved in a way that hopefully brings peace and stability. And yes, our own troops are likely the biggest part of the problem. BUT - Civil war in Iraq benefits who? Certainly not the average Iraqi. And if Al Jazeera is trying to foment civil unrest, I believe they should be at the very least controlled - prevented from broadcasting articles deemed sedetious, at least in Iraq itself.

These are desperate times in Iraq, and desperate measures are called for.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. So, who got us into Iraq in the first place? Let them pay...

...to get "us" out of the "cluster" they got us into.

What is "our" national interest? Is it the Bushie plan of aggression in the Middle East PNAC planned for the last several years? Is it the Bushie policy of preemptive strike against anyone they wish to attack?

Based on your "rules", the U. S. mainstream media should also be shut down because they have been advocating the violent overthrow of several foreign governments to include Iraq.

[paulk]

42. your analogy is inaccurate

you said:

"Based on your "rules", the U. S. mainstream media should also be shut down because they have been advocating the violent overthrow of several foreign governments to include Iraq."


A better analogy would be to say that the US mass media is advocating the violent overthrow of the US gov't. Which, I believe, IS against the law.

Make "them" pay? Who? George Bush? I do think he will pay - by being voted out of office in 2004. In the meantime, George Bush isn't stuck in Iraq - the United States of America is. We are. "They" are "Us". So instead of the PNAC and policies of pre-emptive war I'd rather deal with the realities on the ground. And the realities are our soldiers getting shot and blown up.

And to get back to the original point of this thread - if Al-jezeera is aiding this in any way they should be stopped.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. And my point is that Al Jazeera isn't aiding anyone...

...any more than CNN. Why should any media organization be punished for reporting the news as they see fit? We're in their part of the world, and with our typical arrogance we're going to tell them what to do and how to think. Kick that around a few times.

By the way, I don't like people telling me that my personal opinions are incorrect. I tend to disregard posters like that in all future discussions.

One more point...do you really think we'll have elections in 2004?

[saigon68]

28. Who the Fuck elected Paul Bremer and the " Iraqi governing council"???

No Body That's WHO

A criminal named Chalabi is really the President.

He takes his orders from a man euphemistically referred to as the CHIMPANZEE.

The CHIMPANZEE takes his orders from a small coterie of right wing fanatics and fascists. We all know who they are.

There is no freedom in Iraq and there never will be.

[paulk]

35. Yes, it is good to vent

especially when assaulted daily by the depredations of the Bush junta.

But what's to be done in Iraq? How do we get out of this mess?

[The Magistrate]

38. To Answer Your Question Above, Sir

So long as the United States remains as an occupying power in Iraq, it is obligated to maintain order, and prevent such things as starvation and epidemic disease from afflicting the populace there. It is not, however, under any obligation to remain one single day after having defeated the government it assailed: tommorrow, if the decision were made to do so, an Iraqi government could be created and vested with nominal power, and retirement of U.S. forces commenced. Any obligation would cease from that moment.

Whatever works against the continuation in power of the criminals of the '00 Coup will be hailed by me: those are a nest of reactionary vipers who must be scotched, and at any cost. Preservation of the Republic, Sir, and the people's rule in it, is a serious business, to which Queensbury rules do not apply. Politics, as it has been famously said, ain't bean-bag.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[paulk]

40. is unilaterally pulling out an option?

Could any iraqi government, under the current conditions, prevent the descent of Iraq into chaos? Of course, you can make the argument that it's happening anyway... I had hope, (albeit naive), that Bush would make SOME concessions to the UN - at least something to move the process along. Still, I can't escape the conviction that just pulling out would create a situation even worse than the current one.

Let us advance a hypothetical - A newly elected Democrat in office and a situation in Iraq the same or worse than now. I know of no Dem. candidate calling for a pullout. What to do?

[The Magistrate]

45. This Situation, Sir

Might well serve for a dictionary definition of no good options. Certainly the last thing anyone here should want is for the current administration to retire quickly from the place, though it is safe enough to call for it to do so, as it is certain these bull-headed fellows will never do any such thing. The proper line to follow is to complain that every dollar spent on the enterprise is a dollar not spent on real needs of our own country, and is instead going to purchase the death of some young soldier en route to final destination in Halliburton's coffers, if not in a school or power line for the children of the fellow who killed the soldier.

Certainly no Democratic candidate is calling for immediate withdrawl, nor can any be expected to, nor ought that to play any part in choice of candidates. The great majority of the people of our country, asked today, would answer that the U.S. should stay in the place, because it has to, but two in three who answered thus would know that, in their hearts, they do not want to pay the costs of staying, and do not give a rap about the fate of the Iraqi people. Therefore, when a new administration takes office, there will be no great objection should it decide to retire from the place, behind a screen of U.N. flags and a phalanx of Arabs in suits, spiced with the odd woman in a head-scarf and a few of the less hirsute clerics, clapping loudly for a parcel of European dignitaries. There will actually be a dimunition of violence in the wake of that, and the only concern of the people with the thing will be that the U.S. not get stuck footing the U.N. bill for it. The reconstruction contracts will go to German construction and power companies, and the oil concessions to French and Russian consortiums, but that is who has always been carrying on business there for decades. Not even shareholders of Exxon will notice any pinch.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IndianaGreen]

16. US troops are occupying a sovereign nation

pretty much with the same brutality the Germans used in Occupied Europe, and Imperial Japan used in Occupied China and Southeast Asia. The American occupation of Iraq has been bloodier and more brutal than Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Iraqis are fighting for their freedom, and for their right to defend their land and resources from a foreign colonial power. They are fighting a war of natural liberation, as they fought the British in the 1920s, and as the Algerians fought the French in the 1950s.

The only course of action is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US forces and personnel from Iraq.

[kayell]

32. So you've never seen a US network interview with

a white supremicist group, or the Fred Phelps clan or some other radical group?

[paulk]

44. I fail to understand how this references my post.

Since the situation in Iraq and the situation here in America are hardly the same vis a vis armed insurrection.

[The Stranger]

7. You need to learn to think critically about the media lies

you are being fed.

[DCDemo]

9. The point of freedom of speech and media coverage of both/all parties

That disagree is that all sides are given airing so that people can make up their OWN minds about what the proper course of actions was.

Our Revolutionary founders were printing up leaflets, etc. that were not accepted by the British standards because they preached rebellion. The end result is that we enshrined the supreme importance of freedom to communicate via the press in our Constitution.

Of course, Iraq doesn't have one yet, but blocking networks because they happen to broadcast some unacceptbale content isn't really practical - satellite dishes will see to that.

Much as I would love to have Fox blocked and not poison the minds of my fellow Americans, I would rather show them to be the lying, propagandistic trash that they really are so that people wake up and begin to critically evaluate the media around them.

[peterh]

13. I feel you’re a tad off track here…

Currently, we complain when the media gives scant notice to our protests against those that are currently in power, because it might it just might “incite” more to sympathize or go beyond that.

I don’t feel the two networks in Iraq are doing anything more than what many of us wouldn’t like our domestic networks to do and that’s to show the other side of the coin.

With any protest there’s a chance of violence and when the protest is about occupation, yes, I do believe there is a greater chance of something escalating. It’s almost a catch-22 where suppressing the dissenting voice could increase the matter in which that voice wishes to be heard

If there’s any chance of democracy in that country (which I have serious doubts), suppression of the media is definitely the wrong way to go about it.

[trogdor]

24. You mean like Fox News...fair and balanced...

I don’t feel the two networks in Iraq are doing anything more than what many of us wouldn’t like our domestic networks to do and that’s to show the other side of the coin.

So, just playing OBL on a tape telling people to kill Americans is OK, because it's Fair and Balanced (TM). I don't think so.

I can't believe you people today. All I said was that allowing people to use your medium to incite violence was wrong, and you think I condone CNN or the other US media doing the same thing. Get real.

[Zero Gravitas]

4. FOX News only

We didn't spend billions of dollars to liberate the iraqis so they could be exposed to a diverse range of opinions, especially anti-American ones. Therefore, to be safe, only Fox News will be broadcast in Iraq so that Iraqis will not be exposed "dangerous" ideas. Oh myabe they should allow in some Christian Evangilism too.

[Ashcroft Kutcher]

43. HAHAHAHA

In the US it is different, You have Brit Hume telling us that things in Iraq aren't as bad as the liberal biased media would make it seem. Imagine having the same thing in Iraq. "Things aren't as bad as they seem." Mean while giant clouds of black smoke fill your neighborhood from one of the many bombs that explode daily or the pipe lines being set on fire.

[JCMach1]

8. I suppose they will ban the dishes and internet

Can't be done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trust me, I live here in the ME.

[Sideways]

37. Glad To Have You Here JC If You Want To Visit Oman

Send me a PM. I'll get you a sweet deal at the Al Bustan. It is a farking great hotel. Cocktails at Casa Mary T as well. Serious!

[fknobbit]

10. E.I.B.

Can it be that the genus of the administrations idea of democratizing of Iraq is in the installation of a Limbaugh clone? How about a Mohammed been shut the f*** up O'reily next.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Update 9/24/03: Aljazeera barred from covering Iraqi council (reaction)

Aljazeera barred from covering Iraqi council
Wednesday 24 September 2003, 2:31 Makka Time, 23:31 GMT

International reaction

British MP and Iraq expert George Galloway said the decision was an indictment of the way the American-led forces were running the country.

"This puts a nail in the coffin of the big lie that the West was going into Iraq to liberate the country in the name of freedom and democracy and to rid it of the yoke of dictatorship," he said.

"Aljazeera and al-Arabiya have the right to report news. They cater to their audience and will obviously favouritise stories their audience is interested in.

"Other media organisations should protest vociferously against this decision because today it is Aljazeera and al-Arabiya but tomorrow it could be them."

He predicted the censorship would ultimately backfire on the occupation forces.

http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/ArabWorld/Aljazeera+banned+again.htm

[paulk]

36. That Al-Jazeera chooses to quote "Iraq expert" George Galloway

is a good indication of their bias. Mr. Galloway is considered by most Brits as kind of over the top. Extremely to the left.

I have nothing against Al - jazeera presenting such a "fair and balanced" take on this, however. It's their right.

;-)

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. So then why would Rummie

say just two weeks ago in his 10 September press briefing that "there are now 100 newspapers representing the free press in Iraq -- in the free Iraq -- where people are able to say whatever they wish. People are debating, people are discussing, something they had not done for decades.

I guess we can't have any of that anymore, now can we.

[Sticky]

30. I can see both sides of this issue

On one hand you don't want to see the troops any more compromised than they are. But on the other hand having AlJajeera there is keeping things real.

I keep going back to the news story last week when it was reported by Arab networks that 8 soldiers died. Centcom denied it all day but when the reports wouldn't go away they finally issued a statement that 2 + 1 died.

Would they have even admitted the three deaths if not for the Arab reporting of 8?

How much you wanna bet that the next 2 weeks (while the ban is on) there will be fewer attacks and deaths reported.....in my opinion this is just an attempt to dilute the facts and not be challenged by an opposing news source.

Unchallenged propoganda?

[realFedUp]

33. Chalabi needs to see the inside of a courtroom

Of course hiring felons seems to be normal for
this administration...

[Supply Side Jesus]

39. Iraq has truely been liberated!!

Good to see that Freedom of the Press, one of the basic princepals of democracy, doesn't apply those brown skinned people in Iraq. Thats really going to endear the people to the puppet council.

[Jack Rabbit]

46. What would the Iraqis learn watching al Jazeera?

What would the Iraqis learn watching al Jazeera that the colonial viceroy doesn't want them to know?

Perhaps the Iraqis would learn that electric power is still sporadic.