Nationality saved captured Aussie

Apparently, there is no hatred against Australians in Iraq according to this article. A kidnapped Aussie was released just because he was an Australian.

From Nationality saved captured Aussie

A JOURNALIST kidnapped in Baghdad was probably released because he was Australian and there was no hatred of Australians in the country, Iraq's national security adviser said today.

John Martinkus, who was working for SBS television, was held for about 24 hours before being released unharmed yesterday.

Iraqi national security adviser Muaffaq al-Rubai said the kidnapping phenomena in Iraq was complex.

"Some of the motives are financial ones. Some of them are politically motivated and, with this particular one, I don't have a lot of details of it," he said on ABC radio.

"The Australians in Iraq are not considered to be enemies and there's no anti-Australian sentiment in Iraq. The people in Iraq like Australians."

Click flag for full article...

I guess this doesn�t count for ALL Iraqies.
But in general, the Aussies seem to be more popular than the British and US nationals in Iraq.

Although the journalist probably denies it, he was captured after going to an area against the advice of the authorities.

He also supposedly told his captors he wasnt embedded, was independent and sympathetic to thier greivances.

I accept some people have taken up arms because there are genuine greivances that have driven them to it. I also think there are those (mainly thier recruiters and bosses) who are just plain bastards.

But back to the reporter. I'm glad he's on his way home alive. I'm just sorry one of these groups got positive PR out of it.

He is fortunate that whatever profile our troops in Iraq have adopted it is apparently one that doesnt attract too much direct hostility. We do only have a couple of hundred on the ground in Iraq involved in training and logistics and personal security. About another 750 are in region aboard ship or in the gulf states.

Ah John Martinkus.

This guy is one reporter I do not trust. I'm seriously wondering if he actually WAS kidnapped. I mean come on, his hotel (the one where ALL journalists in Baghdad are staying - according to Martinkus) is right across the road from the Australian Embassy.

With all the security in the vacinity - I'm sure someone noticed. Add to that the possible number of cameras from all the journalists in the area that just seemed to not capture the event.

IF he was captured, he was probably released not because of his nationality, but for his stance on the Iraq was and what TV station he works for; SBS - a multicultural station which reports a lot of stuff from the middle east.

These kidnappers followed him for 3 days he says? If they were half decent kidnappers they would have figured out in the first day that he wasn't a US reporter and if they really followed him they should have at least tried to figure out what style of reporting and his stance on the war.

Maybe it's a stunt, he seemed completely normal (ie not traumatised), and it took the terrorists, what 20 hours to figure out his accent?

I ain't buying this.
(lucky I don't have to, SBS is a FTA channel )

Originally posted by Ezekial
Ah John Martinkus.

This guy is one reporter I do not trust. I'm seriously wondering if he actually WAS kidnapped.

This was valuable information. Very interesting indeed. I�m a norwegian with no australian ties what-so-ever. I just came across that article by accident. Nice to have Aussies here on this board who can bring "inside" info like this. After reading your post I actually start to doubt if it really happened the way it was described.

As I watch at least 4 hours of Television news per day plus two different newspapers, I tend to be able to read through bull**** reports and reporters (I also know lead photographers and editors of magazines and Newspapers).

I will keep looking into this journalist's claims and report back when I can.

He wasnt released because he was an Australian, he said he was released because he was a Journalist who had no ties with the cccupational forces.

He also said he was kidnapped outside of one of the main hotels used by reporters in Iraq (across the street from the Australian embassy).

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
He wasnt released because he was an Australian, he said he was released because he was a Journalist who had no ties with the cccupational forces.

He also said he was kidnapped outside of one of the main hotels used by reporters in Iraq (across the street from the Australian embassy).

I already mentioned this.

Beat ya to it

I don't mind SBS actually. If I spoke Arabic I'd listen to thier middle east news broadcasts. Even when theyre being pleasant it sometimes sounds like they are getting angry. Its hard to gauge.

The journalist looked in shock to me. Very subdued. But then I have to admit I havent seen his reports before so I don't know what his normal temperment is.

Drives my wife and me nuts. She hates news, and I want to watch a mix...local commercial, ABC, SBS and if I can get it, the Beeb. That and I used to read a lot of papers (costs to much).

I get around this surfing the net looking at news sites and forums such as this trying to glean the wheat from the chaff as I see it.

It keeps the peace. We listen to the classics or the rain on the roof as the case may be. Helps stress levels.

Originally posted by craigandrew
If I spoke Arabic I'd listen to thier middle east news broadcasts. Even when theyre being pleasant it sometimes sounds like they are getting angry.

You�re right.
I always knew it somehow, but I never really thought about it until you mentioned it.

No hatred of Australians in Iraq: adviser

"The Australians in Iraq are not considered to be enemies and there's no anti-Australian sentiment in Iraq. The people in Iraq like Australians.

"But, obviously, the anti-Iraqi forces would like to spoil the good relationship between Iraq and Australia."

Mr al-Rubai said it was likely Martinkus was released because he was Australian.

"There is no anti-Australian sentiment in Iraq."

And don't forget Lee Lin Chin of SBS. They'd definitely let her go when they realise what she lookos like.

Lucky guy though that SBS reporter. But I'm guessing the people who kidnapped him were just part of a criminal gang not a terrorists group.

I don't think it was because this guy was specificly Australian, it was more to do with the fact he told his captors

a) He didn't support the war in Iraq and
b) He turned out not to be American (the main agressors, who were disliked
even before the war began).

A hostage is a hostage............ Even if he's an aussie , I have to wonder WHY he was released when he could have been a good barganing tool for any captors...........

sounds suss to me.

Just watching the late news (channel 10) and John Martinkus stated to a CH10 reporter,
"There was a reason to kill Bigley, there was a reason to kill the Americans
but there was no reason to kill me."
What the hell kind of attitude is that for an 'independent reporter', or anybody for that matter.

I'm looking for a link or transcript.

Sanc'.

Perhaps he meant there were motives for killing the others. Still, as a journalist you'd think he could pick his words more appropriately.

"(From their perspective) there was a reason to kill (British hostage Ken) Bigley, there was a reason to kill the Americans; there was not a reason to kill me (and) luckily I managed to convince them of that."

www.news.com.au...

I wish i could find an audio link, because the bracketed words were not in his statement
when he was interviewed at the airport after he landed back in Oz.

Sanc'.

I think he used most of the appropriately chosen words up when he talked his captors into releasing him intact. I'm not gonna blame him for that.

Now lets see him get elected parliament! Given peoples attitudes to politicians, that'd be a real test of his talents!

Originally posted by Ezekial
As I watch at least 4 hours of Television news per day plus two different newspapers, I tend to be able to read through bull**** reports and reporters

Thinking that you tend to be able to read through bull**** may not help your objectivity here.
Without any real facts you already doubt the guys story. We need to be led by the facts not our own suspicions that we can "read through bull***"

(I also know lead photographers and editors of magazines and Newspapers).

I will keep looking into this journalist's claims and report back when I can.

Please do. I would be interested to see any further reasons you have and any pertinent facts. You don't seem to have any yet.

[edit on 19-10-2004 by judge]

Originally posted by craigandrew
Although the journalist probably denies it, he was captured after going to an area against the advice of the authorities.

.

Well, yes he does deny it. Do you have any further facts or reasons to doubt him?
In view of the fact he has directly contradicted Alexander Downer it will be interesting to see if Downer has any more to say.

Originally posted by judge
Please do. I would be interested to see any further reasons you have and any pertinent facts. You don't seem to have any yet.
[edit on 19-10-2004 by judge]

All I have are the same facts and vision everyone else has, nothing more, nothing less. Though from what I can SEE and interpret from his body language and speech, something isn't right.

He may have been taken hostage, but the full story hasn't been told - I stick by my idea that if he was captured outside the hotel across the road from the embassy someone would have seen it, whether it be troops outside the embassy or journalists milling about at the hotel.

(I tried to find a map of baghdad that showed the Australian embassy so show an example of the distance, but I couldn't, sorry.