| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Draconian, eh? The Western media doesn't seem to think so. They've already taken on most of these voluntarily.
From Reporters sans Frontières, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
A list of 13 rules of conduct for the privately-owned media which the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) gave to journalists in Mogadishu on 8 October 2006 has been condemned as completely unacceptable by Reporters Without Borders."The result of this draconian charter which Mogadishu's new masters want to impose on Somalia's journalists would be a gagged, obedient press, one constrained by threats to sing the praises of the Islamic courts and their vision of the world and Somalia," the press freedom organisation said....
A gagged, obedient press? You mean like the American one?
The 13 rules are:1. The media must not publish or disseminate information contrary to the Muslim religion, the public interest or the interest of the nation.
2. The media must not disseminate information likely to create conflicts between the population and the Council of Islamic Courts.
3. The media may reproduce information obtained from credible sources, but must reveal the identity of the sources.
4. The media must cooperate with the information bureau of the Council of Islamic Courts.
5. Media directors are responsible for the news and programmes they disseminate.
6. Each media must have a physical address and contact details.
7. The media must not serve foreign interests.
8. Media employees must have good professional training and must respect professional ethics and conduct.
9. The media must not participate in seminars or programmes supported by foreign organisations without express permission from the information bureau of the Council of Islamic Courts.
10. The media must not publish or disseminate elements of a foreign culture contrary to Islamic culture or promoting bad behaviour, such as nudity on film.
11. A media cannot work in areas controlled by the Islamic courts without previously registering with the information and propaganda bureau of the Islamic courts.
12. If media are guilty of misconduct, they must make amends.
13. The media must not employ the terms which infidels use to refer to Muslims such as 'terrorists,' 'extremists' etc.
Fine on that last one. How about "mujahedin," or its English equivalent "jihadists"?
Posted by Robert at October 13, 2006 8:22 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
12. If media are guilty of misconduct, they must make amends.......
Does this mean by donating the reporters heads?
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 13, 2006 8:44 AM
"5. Media directors are responsible for the news and programmes they disseminate."
"responsible" in fogspeak means: We'll get you if you don't do what we want.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at October 13, 2006 8:54 AM
Re: 1. The media must not publish or disseminate information contrary to the Muslim religion, the public interest or the interest of the nation.
Good bye to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in Somalia.
It will be replaced with tyranny and theocracy, the catalyst for a repressive society.
Posted by: Johnathan at October 13, 2006 9:30 AM
7. The media must not serve foreign interests.
Perhaps we should adopt this one in the U.S!!!!
Side note:why is there no civil defense plan?
Posted by: David at October 13, 2006 10:09 AM
A gagged, obedient press? You mean like the American one?
The 13 rules are:
1. The media must not publish or disseminate information contrary to the Muslim religion...
The American press is not "gagged and obedient" if this implies an external force gagging and making them obedient; the American press is for the most part voluntarily PC. Once again, we see, in Robert Spencer's editorial remark, a fundamental misconception of the amorphousness and breadth of the power of PC, and a consequent underestimation of it.
at October 13, 2006 10:33 AM
David,
To be frank, no one has been more itching to advocate such a measure than have I and my brothers in Israel, following the scandalous treatment of Israel by the media in the last Lebanon War. However, upon giving it additional thought, I came to the conclusion that we'd be better served by a new mode of intellectual warfare:
From Anti-Defamation to Intellectual Meritocracy
Granted, those ideas may not be applicable in the future when it comes to the dire straits of World War III, but for now I think a free marketplace of ideas is a must.
Posted by: ZionistYoungster at October 13, 2006 10:51 AM
Another stellar Clinton foriegn policy legacy. Somalia is lost. The Islamists took over the port a few weeks ago, thousands are fleeing. If you want a picture of what happens when we bail out on countries we were trying to help, just look at Somalia.
Maybe Pelosi and the gang could go on a speaking tours in Mogadishu, or Baghdad, or Tehran, or Pyongyang. Call Jane Fonda, she should be able to hook you up.
Posted by: billyoblog at October 13, 2006 11:01 AM
13. The media must not employ the terms which infidels use to refer to Muslims such as 'terrorists,' 'extremists' etc.
I don't have a problem referring to Muslims as Muslims, instead of polite euphemisms like "terrorists", "extremists" etc. It is Islam that is waging Jihad against the West, not "terrorism", "extremism" etc.
Unfortunately, the Australian government continues to persist with the PC euphemisms, and to flood the country with Muslims.
Posted by: Xaragma at October 13, 2006 11:11 AM
3. The media may reproduce information obtained from credible sources, but must reveal the identity of the sources.
We must know who to "blow up" when we deem this information as “unIslamic”, or it just makes us look bad.
6. Each media must have a physical address and contact details.
We need directions and a phone number, we don’t want to waste a good suicide bomber.
10. The media must not publish or disseminate elements of a foreign culture contrary to Islamic culture or promoting bad behaviour, such as nudity on film.
You love “bad behavior” such as PEPSI and nudity on film, while we still love death and rape and murder and ice-cream jihad and cartoon jihad and Pope jihad.
Posted by: Bar at October 13, 2006 11:25 AM
Once again, let us thank the muslim community for another fine example of FACISM!!!
Plain ans Simple.
Posted by: angryeagle at October 13, 2006 12:11 PM
The establishment of "media rules" clearly marks a demarcation of belief systems. At this point the religious beliefs become a governmental dictum. (I know that the last sentence contained several words of which our modern media are not well acquainted.)
It will be interesting to see if the MSM will pick up on the requirements of reporting in Somalia. If they do, I'm sure other Islamic countries will adopt similar rules. This helps bring about the "Iron Curtin"/cold war type situations and will make the Islamic efforts to change our ways of life much more identifiable. In short, it will tend to make them easier to target.
God willing, of course.
at October 13, 2006 12:11 PM
remote_control
Ever see what happens to conservative journalists in MSM? Sidelined is the least of the problems. So sorry for me, voluntary self editing out of negative comments re: the grand pubbah and his cult of murder and fear as opposed to Christian and other religions is the proof in the pudding. The media is biased and practicing the 13 rules.
How many conservatives are in the senior management positions at the new duranty times, the Washington Piss post or the LA Slimes?
Posted by: lonewolf at October 13, 2006 2:36 PM
1. The media must not publish or disseminate information contrary to the Muslim religion, the public interest or the interest of the nation.
-------------------
Seems like there will not be much publishing or news reporting by the Mogadishu press
at October 13, 2006 2:40 PM
remote_control
Ever see what happens to conservative journalists in MSM? Sidelined is the least of the problems. So sorry for me, voluntary self editing out of negative comments re: the grand pubbah and his cult of murder and fear as opposed to Christian and other religions is the proof in the pudding. The media is biased and practicing the 13 rules.
How many conservatives are in the senior management positions at the new duranty times, the Washington Piss post or the LA Slimes?
Posted by: lonewolf at October 13, 2006 2:41 PM
remote_control
Ever see what happens to conservative journalists in MSM? Sidelined is the least of the problems. So sorry for me, voluntary self editing out of negative comments re: the grand pubbah and his cult of murder and fear as opposed to Christian and other religions is the proof in the pudding. The media is biased and practicing the 13 rules.
How many conservatives are in the senior management positions at the new duranty times, the Washington Piss post or the LA Slimes?
Posted by: lonewolf at October 13, 2006 2:41 PM
billyoblog said
Another stellar Clinton foriegn policy legacy
Clinton is no more responsible for how Somalis act towards each other than Bush is responsible for how Iraqis treat each other. Their behavior is not a result of partisan U.S. politics, it goes back before the existence of the Republican or Democratic parties, before the existence of the U.S.
The only thing the U.S. President is responsible for is how we respond. Do we bomb then leave, or stay indefinitely while our soldiers are killed day after day, year after year, and the aid runs into the tens of billions of our dollars? Which do you think has been better from the infidels' point of view?
If you want a picture of what happens when we bail out on countries we were trying to help, just look at Somalia.
Oh, horror of horrors, the Somalis have chosen sharia for themselves. Looks no worse to me than what they've got in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any other Islamic nation. Reporters sans Frontières doesn't like living under sharia? Boo f'in hoo, then leave Somalia go home to France and start warning people in France why they need to stop sharia from coming to France. Somalia doesn't want our help (of course they want our money, but they don't want our freedom of the press, democracy, pluralism, etc.), so why would we insist on giving it? You think we should start another war to bring freedom of the press to Somalia? Because they've been such good friends to us so more of our soldiers need to go there and die "helping" them? Why?
Posted by: special_guest at October 13, 2006 3:00 PM
lonewolf,
As Robert Spencer has noted a few times, even the majority of so-called conservative journalists on cable, TV, and radio will not interview him and let him explain his position and his books -- and among the few that do, there are a couple who feel it necessary to counterbalance him.
The fact of our sociopolitical culture today is that most conservatives, most people on the Right, are also infected by PC -- particularly when it comes to the issue of the Problem of Islam. In our late 20th-century and early 21st-century West, PC is that powerful, it is that amorphous, and it is that broadly pervasive.
While the phenomenon of PC has its origins in the Leftist nebula, it is now no longer exclusively a problem emanating from the Left, but has pervaded most nooks and crannies of our socipolitical existence (with the major exception, at least, of the interstices of the Internet).
at October 13, 2006 3:17 PM
lonewolf,
As Robert Spencer has noted a few times, even the majority of so-called conservative journalists on cable, TV, and radio will not interview him and let him explain his position and his books -- and among the few that do, there are a couple who feel it necessary to counterbalance him.
The fact of our sociopolitical culture today is that most conservatives, most people on the Right, are also infected by PC -- particularly when it comes to the issue of the Problem of Islam. In our late 20th-century and early 21st-century West, PC is that powerful, it is that amorphous, and it is that broadly pervasive.
While the phenomenon of PC has its origins in the Leftist nebula, it is now no longer exclusively a problem emanating from the Left, but has pervaded most nooks and crannies of our socipolitical existence (with the major exception, at least, of the interstices of the Internet).
at October 13, 2006 3:18 PM
billyoblog said
Another stellar Clinton foriegn policy legacy
Clinton is no more responsible for how Somalis act towards each other than Bush is responsible for how Iraqis treat each other. Their behavior is not a result of partisan U.S. politics, it goes back before the existence of the Republican or Democratic parties, before the existence of the U.S.
The only thing the U.S. President is responsible for is how we respond. Do we bomb then leave, or stay indefinitely while our soldiers are killed day after day, year after year, and the aid runs into the tens of billions of our dollars? Which do you think has been better from the infidels' point of view?
If you want a picture of what happens when we bail out on countries we were trying to help, just look at Somalia.
Oh dear, horror of horrors, the Somalis have chosen sharia for themselves. Looks no worse to me than what they've got in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, or any other Islamic nation. Reporters sans Frontières doesn't like living under sharia? Boo f'in hoo, then leave Somalia, go home to France and start warning people in France why they need to stop sharia from coming to France. Somalia doesn't want our help (of course they want our money, but they don't want our freedom of the press, democracy, pluralism, etc.), so why would we insist on giving it? You think we should start another war to bring freedom of the press to Somalia? Because they've been such good friends to us so more of our soldiers need to go there and die "helping" them?
If you think that our troops need to fly all over the world and bring freedom and democracy and prosperity to every Islamic nation, and you won't let them come home until every Islamic nation looks and acts like ours, then our troops won't be home for a very long time.
Posted by: special_guest at October 13, 2006 3:18 PM
D*mn, The Button is acting up again today, so I pressed it twice. Sorry.
Posted by: special_guest at October 13, 2006 3:22 PM
special-guest,
As I said in the second sentence of my post, Somalia is lost. But it needn't have been. We went into Somalia under the banner of a humanitarian mission. Then, the "warlords" bloodied our nose and we ran out of there with our tail between our legs and left the people that we went over there to help, to die.
The struggle there is all but over. There are few christians left, alive. It is just a small front in the relentless Islamic attack on Christianity and far removed from the minds of most Americans. Comparing Somalia to Iraq may be unfair, and your right, we caqn't save everyone from themselves. But where we do decide to make a stand, we should.
I'd like you to tell me what Iraq would look like if we leave before we give those that want freedom there the chance to attain it. If we left, as some are proposing, the way we left Somalia. What happens to the Iraqi's that want peace and normalcy. Will there "Normalcy" be returned to a state where a "Saddam" will again recieve 100% of the vote?
Is your question , "Why should we care"? What, special_guest, is your solution to the advance of radical Islam. Scrape the bodies off the streets of Manhattan ?
We are at war. A war that started long before Iraq went into Kuwait, ( when we began calling it a war). Death to America was a familiar chant in 79 when our diplomats were kidnapped and held for 444 days.
Where do we fight this war. Our enemy hasn't stopped their advance or tempered their demands. In a free society, their demands cannot be met. It is not our fault the press has been resticted in Somalia and France and Germany and Holland. It is not OUR fault the different Islamic sects murder one another. But it will be our fault if we do nothing to stem the tide of intolerance.
How many of our "Free Press" newspapers in the US ran the Muhammad cartoons? It is already happening here in the US.
There was an article posted the other day which detailed muslkim cab drivers refusing to carry passengers who were carrying alcohol because it was against their religion.
When do we say stop? And Where?
Our struggle today goes far beyond being "The policemen of the world". It is a struggle for the survival of our way of life.
Posted by: billyoblog at October 13, 2006 5:56 PM
I am surprised that the Islamic Courts Union still allows television and film. Like the Taliban, they will probably outlaw these along with the Internet.
Posted by: Christian at October 13, 2006 6:24 PM
billyoblog said
The struggle there is all but over. There are few christians left, alive. It is just a small front in the relentless Islamic attack on Christianity and far removed from the minds of most Americans.
Those words were written about Somalia, but the same words apply to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Malaysia, and any other countries where Muslims have reached a critical level. Are we going to go into each one of these and make sure that they support freedom of the press and whatever other freedoms we feel like they should have?
The image of Don Quixote keeps coming to mind.
When do we say stop? And Where?
When? How about now? How about no more ownership of U.S. port operations by emirates on the Arabian Peninsula? How about no more Saudi ownership of media? How about no more foreign funding of mosques in the U.S.? How about no more open immigration policies? I could go on.
Where? I vote for the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada. Somalia is almost 100% Sunni Muslim. It's not the best place for us to make a stand against sharia. Should we forcibly impose the values of the 10-20 remaining Christians on the 9 million Muslims there? How many soldiers would be required to force 9 million Muslims (and that's not counting the jihadists who would come to join the battle) to accept corrupt Judeo-Christian values like "freedom", "liberty", and "democracy"? Think how many thousands of U.S. soldiers' lives have been saved, how many billions (or trillions) of dollars we have saved, because we got the h*ll out of Somalia.
Why not let them choose sharia if they want it in Somalia, and instead focus our energies on making sure we don't allow sharia to come to the U.S.?
Sorry, I just get upset when I hear anyone talking about "saving" or "helping" another Islamic nation. No thanks. Let's save ourselves, let's help ourselves.
Posted by: special_guest at October 14, 2006 1:23 AM
special_guest,
Ok, for the third time, SOMALIA IS LOST. I don't advocate us going back to Somalia.!!!!!! Nor do I recall when they VOTED for("chose") Sharia law.
(By the way, Lebanon is 40% Christian.)
Stop them in the US, the UK, Australia, and Canada????? Oh brother!!!!!!!! Ya think????
How about Iraq special_guest? The center of the battle between radical Islam and the west. What do you propose to do there? Bail out?
Oh, and yes, I am all for going into Pakistan and Iran and Syria. This war needs to be fought they way we fought the Nazis, where free nations unite and stand up against the murdering Islamists.
Isn't that what we fought WWII for in the first place? For freedom? To help those who coudn't help themselves? Or am I missing something. If I am, please let me know, so I may tell my father, because at 92, he still thinks that's why he took a bullet in Germany.
Your problem special_guest is one of denial. You refuse to believe we are at war. You apologize for nations who "CHOOSE?" sharia law. You, and many Americans are "inconvenienced" by the reports of the war in Iraq, it puts such a damper on your dinner party.
I am afraid special_guest that we may be doomed to battling on our streets in the US, UK Australia, and Canada. Fortunately, in the US, the citizens are allowed to be armed, or would you deny us that defense too.
Posted by: billyoblog
at October 14, 2006 11:50 AM
billyoblog said
Ok, for the third time, SOMALIA IS LOST. I don't advocate us going back to Somalia.!!!!!!
Okay, if you want to shout, for the third time, SOMALIA WAS LOST HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO BEFORE BILL CLINTON WAS BORN OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXISTED OR THE UNITED STATES EXISTED. That was your point, remember, that Bill Clinton made Somalia become Muslim.
You don't advocate going back to Somalia, you advocate never having left Somalia in the first place (and now Iraq and Afghanistan). You want us to be bogged down in Somalia (and Iraq and Afghanistan) "helping" the Muslims to learn to enjoy freedom and democracy.
Isn't that what we fought WWII for in the first place? For freedom? To help those who coudn't help themselves?
We did not fight WWII to "help" the Germans and Japanese to get freedom and democracy. Ask your father, billyobob, we fought against the Germans and Japanese, we didn't try to "save" them. We bombed them, billyobob, we didn't build schools for them and roads and powerplants. We bombed them, billyobob, because they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Somalia is not attacking us, billyobob. If someday they somehow start putting an offensive force together, we can go destroy it. But we don't need to be stationed there for decades "helping" them and building up their infrastructure for them at our expense. They are Muslims, billyobob, and have been for a long time, and they like it that way billyobob, and it's going to take alot of persuasion to get them to give up their Allah. I think we've got better things to do with our time, like maybe patrolling our borders.
You, and many Americans are "inconvenienced" by the reports of the war in Iraq, it puts such a damper on your dinner party.
I don't have dinner parties, billoyblog. It's just me and the S.O. and kids sitting down to supper, and Iraq doesn't really factor into our dinnertime. I, and many Americans, we are disgusted and frustrated by our Administration's waste of money and lives in building up Iraq and Afghanistan for people who hate us and who want to kill us.
Posted by: special_guest at October 14, 2006 5:19 PM
special_guest,
I don't ever recall saying that we fought WWII to liberate the Germans or Japanese. Now, what I do remember saying was that my father was shot in Germany. I think he was there, with the 82nd Airborne's 508th to liberate the French, and the Poles, and the Dutch, and pretty much most of Europe, oh, and for some weird reason, help the Russians. But maybe I mispoke (again) or maybe again you ignored my point.
In your world, you believe my point was that I believe Bill Clinton made Somalia become Muslim. Another misrepresentation of what I said.
What I said was that Somalia is a perfect example of what happens to countries that we bail out on ,that we were trying to help. Bill Clinton did not MAKE Somalia Muslim. The Islamists did. He was just an enabler. (and a coward, although I didn't say that in my first post)
The enemy today is far more insideous than the enemies of WWII. The media would make you believe they are not affiliated with any particular country per say. They're just a radical "fringe". Sorry special_guest, this "fringe" word being thrown around doesn't cut it with me. Not when I see hundreds of thousands of 'death to America" fanatics dancing in the streets throughout these "impovershed " countries while Joe Smith jumps from the 86th floor of the world trade center.
This "fringe" is every bit as Nazi as the nazis were, and just a dangerous. Did we fight the Nazis in Manhattan or Washington, or Shanksville Pwnnsylvania? Why do you propose then that we do that today?
And your right, Iraq doesn't factor in to your dinnertime when you sit down with your S.O. and the kids. (That's obvious, and proves my point. "Party" can be such a subjective word.) Maybe it should. Because if the enemy we are fighting today would have their way, your menu would be somewhat restricted.
Next suppertime, try thinking of the men and women who are serving in Iraq today for your freedom to eat what you want, dress how you want, live how you want. Maybe, just maybe special_guest, it should be part of the way you say grace.
Posted by: billyoblog at October 14, 2006 7:41 PM
"I am afraid special_guest that we may be doomed to battling on our streets in the US, UK Australia, and Canada. "
"Doomed"??! On the contrary, a genuine 'shooting war' would be a blessing.
The modern-day Muslim conquest of the West is fuelled by perceptions of Western decadence and weakness. To some extent that perception is accurate. Muslims and their allies are taking a gamble that the West WON'T defend ourselves. So far, they have been correct. The Western response, especially in our homelands in Europe and North America, has been pitiful. Muslims are not afraid of us or our freedoms; they despise us. They are laughing at us.
Once Westerners start fighting back, however, the shock is certain to knock Muslims and other anti-Western, non-white communities, off balance. A Western reply-in-kind is not something they are expecting. It would do wonders for our side.
Look at history. The West has defeated Islamic tyranny not by dialogue or claiming the moral high ground, but by fighting pitched battles.
at October 14, 2006 7:50 PM
OK, maybe "doomed" was over the top. I just moved and can't find my thesaurus.
Posted by: billyoblog at October 14, 2006 8:08 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)