Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Eagler on October 18, 2003, 03:33:23 PM
-
why are they allowed to operate?
two more laden tapes - giving instructions to kill americans & her allies
they are guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy - shut their camel smelling arses down
-
Eagler, do you need somebody to call the police? !!!
-
A free and open press is a good thing
A press that is free and open to lie and fabricate information to achieve a political goal is very bad.
How can they claim to be supporting the Iraq people yet go so out of their way to incite the violence that kills them?
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
A press that is free and open to lie and fabricate information to achieve a political goal is very bad.
Hear Hear! Down with Fox! :D
-
they are guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy
Aiding and abetting your enemy, not theirs. Doesn't really apply.
Funny thing about Al Jazeera, they are accused by both sides of being the lapdog of the other.
I don't agree with alot of what they do and show, but they are taking the line that they will show it all, good bad or ugly without choosing sides.
Its a free press, though personally I think they are tilting a little and could certainly show some restraint and judgement.
dago
-
There are few news organizations that are truely fair and balanced.
Al jazeera is way over the top in that the staff print articles in a very blatently biased way. I have been following their english version website for a while and it's pretty clear to me that they have trouble with fairness.
-
im fairly sure it has something to do with america not being in charge of other countries press...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why are they allowed to operate?
they are guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy - shut their camel smelling arses down
Well, the war of Propaganda would be very easy to win, if things like this was possible.
Fortunatly, it is not possible.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
...
A press that is free and open to lie and fabricate information to achieve a political goal is very bad.
.
Yes, let's all switch to CNN, much safer..and trustworthy
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
There are few news organizations that are truely fair and balanced.
Al jazeera is way over the top in that the staff print articles in a very blatently biased way. I have been following their english version website for a while and it's pretty clear to me that they have trouble with fairness.
Here's a thought: maybe if the Americans tried not bombing their offices and killing their staff, Aljazeera would be more inclined to be nicer and more sympathetic to the US side of the story. ;)
-
There are very very few news organizations that are fair and in my book niether CNN, fox, BBC nore any of the us networks folks qualify. Pity those folks died but that is a risk of covering combat operations.. for all sides.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Here's a thought: maybe if the Americans tried not bombing their offices and killing their staff, Aljazeera would be more inclined to be nicer and more sympathetic to the US side of the story. ;)
here's a thought
following the next terror attack timed after a recent telecast screaming for our heads, the broadcasting stations lose the ability to broadcast
sat dishes and 1000' towers make easy targets
don't need to kill the american hating, terrorist loving raghead broadcasters - just destroy their hardware ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
here's a thought
following the next terror attack timed after a recent telecast screaming for our heads, the broadcasting stations lose the ability to broadcast
sat dishes and 1000' towers make easy targets
don't need to kill the american hating, terrorist loving raghead broadcasters - just destroy their hardware ...
"Live with us now from the scene of the American bombing attack on the radio towers is al Jazeera reporter Ali Mustaffa, via satellite telephone...."
-
Originally posted by gofaster
"Live with us now from the scene of the American bombing attack on the radio towers is al Jazeera reporter Ali Mustaffa, via satellite telephone...."
"...yes... yes, ok. This just in; our report will be delayed and brought to you in 20 minutes while we bring out ten to fifteen coffins of child size and one or two old crying women for propaganda effect. We apologize for any inconvenience, back to you, Ted."
-
Originally posted by crabofix
Well, the war of Propaganda would be very easy to win, if things like this was possible.
Fortunatly, it is not possible.
Something reminds me about Belgrad TV centre bombed to ashes in 1999... :mad:
"Freedom of press" was long ago turned into a propaganda slogan. It have lost it original meaning along with many other terms used in modern "newspeak".
Propaganda warfare is won not by bombing enemy media stations, but by turning enemy media into your ally.
-
Trying to destroy the free press.
What a great american...
-
Originally posted by Animal
Trying to destroy the free press.
What a great american...
The funniest explaination for complete dummies is that they destroy the press that is not "free", because it is controlled by "evil dictators"...
Newspeak rulez.
-
Originally posted by Animal
Trying to destroy the free press.
What a great american...
nope, just shutting down one more means of communications of the enemy
they could edit out OBL's word for word and still get the message he is still kicking but they perefer to air it word for word in hopes it does contain messages/info the terrorists are waiting to hear
the Bali bombers have already stated an OBL message triggered their attack - but that is aok with some of you as it is "free press"
BS
-
>>why are they allowed to operate?
Because as long as they continue to be a source of OSL tapes...
Those tapes will be delivered to that institution... and someday...
We'll follow that delivery boy back to the sender of the tapes...
And if he is still alive... he will soon be dead.
As Martha would say - It's a good thing.
-
your chimp would be proud.
-
I've seen the bin laden tapes carried on Fox too. When are the bombs dropping?
-
>>I've seen the bin laden tapes carried on Fox too. When are the bombs dropping?
Now that just blows my right wing conservative conspiracy all to hell....
wait...i THINK I hear something...
al-quada... subliminananblble... al-quada... dubya...
subliminanbbable... dubya... al-quada... rush limbahable...
Osmenanable dubya bush... osaman dubya bush....
Ah yes Fox the network of FEAR and Liberal HATE....
There's a terrorist behind every Bush Presidency.
Too bad, shortly after 9/11, Orwen Hatch let the world know - including OBL - we were listening to him on his cell phone... lost that source of Intel that day. Can you say grave and severe damage to US National sercurity interests.
Would have been nice to send a cruise missle right to his inner ear....
OBL: "Can you hear me, N......... " [static]
USS Cole WCO: "The number you have dialed has been permenantly terminated. Please check your local terrorist directory service and dial again."
Odd that the Bush administration never pursued prosecution of that highly TOP SECRET compartmented security leak by Senator "Loose lips" Hatch.
I just hope Mr. Hatch can sleep the next time OSL kills 3,000 people.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I've seen the bin laden tapes carried on Fox too. When are the bombs dropping?
I do believe after the first one, the others were not aired word for word - on any US news org j in case they were a message to the extremists
strange how some of ya side with the enemy & its allies
-
Originally posted by Eagler
nope, just shutting down one more means of communications of the enemy
they could edit out OBL's word for word and still get the message he is still kicking but they perefer to air it word for word in hopes it does contain messages/info the terrorists are waiting to hear
the Bali bombers have already stated an OBL message triggered their attack - but that is aok with some of you as it is "free press"
BS
Is that actually true or did the US government merely imply that for the requisite three times for it to be true enough for use in The War On Terror (TWOT)?
The best - indeed the only - mention I could find was a piece in The Scotsman (http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=599&id=1136262002) where nameless "US security sources believe" or "the FBI suspects" ... ie no one's going to go on record saying it because there is no proof whatsoever, and the claim is therefore probably entirely specious propaganda. Or perhaps the journalist is just pulling a Jayson Blair. Do provide a link of anything better if you have it, though.
An interesting bit about the nameless "sources" of the Scotsman piece was that they were "suspecting" audio recordings of both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and whilst you're all for bombing or shutting down Aljazeera (who obtained & broadcast the bin Laden tape) - you make no mention of bombing or shutting down the Associated Press (who obtained & broadcast the Ayman al-Zawahiri tape). I presume this is because the New york-based AP aren't "raghead broadcasters" with "camel smelling arses" like the Qatar-based Aljazeera, which would seem to be the only difference - given that AP must surely be terrorist-loving and American-hating to obtain and broadcast such a message (if I'm reading your TWOT invective right).
Personally I'm fairly sure a multi-millionaire like bin Laden can splash out for a secure mobile or email with PGP or something more low tech like classified ads in newspapers to communicate any orders he might have efficiently and immediately, instead of having to rely on tapes given to various journalists. So excuse me while I put the "messages=bombing instructions" down to the kind of healthy, red-blooded, all-american, paranoid delusional behaviour which made the McCarthy era what it was.
Still we can add this to the list of things we definitely know about Aljazeera coverage: "it irritates Eagler". A definite plus in my book - although to be really worthy of praise it'd have to irritate Hortlund. ;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
here's a thought
following the next terror attack timed after a recent telecast screaming for our heads, the broadcasting stations lose the ability to broadcast
sat dishes and 1000' towers make easy targets
]
Or you could just fly an airplane into the building their offices are located.
-
Eagler said
...american hating, terrorist loving raghead broadcasters...
Finally a voice of reason is among us. If there comes a time to negotiate a middle east peace process i know who i would send.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why are they allowed to operate?
two more laden tapes - giving instructions to kill americans & her allies
they are guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy - shut their camel smelling arses down
muhehehe
i do not see any diferences between Al Jazeera and CNN
when there are dead US soldiers in Al J. its crime
when there are dead Iraqi Civilian/Soldiers on CNN , its good bussines ( Sadam`s son is nice example)
-
Originally posted by threedays
muhehehe
i do not see any diferences between Al Jazeera and CNN
when there are dead US soldiers in Al J. its crime
when there are dead Iraqi Civilian/Soldiers on CNN , its good bussines ( Sadam`s son is nice example)
thanks for the insight Orel - my thread is now complete -
all the terrorist loving/US hating members of this bbs have once again shown their colors
-
just to make it clear, i vote for dark green
-
>>all the terrorist loving/US hating members of this bbs have once again shown their colors
Allowing the enemy's to continue to communicate doesn't mean people love the enemy.
It takes bait to catch fish.
I don't expect the majority of the flag waving "morons" on this board to understand strategy and deception... wars are not won by heroic machismo on the battlefield.
Heck if it weren't for the intervention of career officers in the military... Rumsfield would have screwed up Afghanistan and Iraq. That guys is a menance to our national security! Can't wait until the real story about that baffoon comes out in open source.
It's interesting how the Bush Administration takes credit for a war that was won by strategies, technology and battle field management techniques which were invented during the Clinton era.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not crediting Clinton with the successes in those two wars. Instead I give credit to the planners at the Pentagon who had the forsight to see what was needed in today's battles. Clinton choose to support the experts who know what they are doing...rather than run the show.
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
Clinton choose to support the experts who know what they are doing...rather than run the show.
:rofl
-
There are documented instances of Al-Jazeera showing up on-scene minutes BEFORE an attack occurs on US troops in Iraq...
This is beyond having a mere bias...
-
hehe yeah guys in Al jazira rock in predicting attacks.... thats called art of strategy :aok
-
Originally posted by DmdNexus
[B4It's interesting how the Bush Administration takes credit for a war that was won by strategies, technology and battle field management techniques which were invented during the Clinton era.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not crediting Clinton with the successes in those two wars. Instead I give credit to the planners at the Pentagon who had the forsight to see what was needed in today's battles. Clinton choose to support the experts who know what they are doing...rather than run the show. [/B]
LOL! Thats sig material! WOw, you really don't have a clue about the military and its stucture, do you?
However, now that I recognize the bait, I'll give it a 7.
-
hehe Rip he probadly dont have, so do i
so can you explain a bit for us ? :eek:
-
Originally posted by threedays
hehe Rip he probadly dont have, so do i
so can you explain a bit for us ? :eek:
The first thought that comes to me head is...why should *I* waste my time with *you*?
Show me links where Clinton supported Pentagon officials anymore or less than Bush...
And...wouldn't we still be shooting random cruise missiles at Aspirin factories if Clintons Pentagon advisors been in charge during GW2? ;)
The information is out there. The biggest build up of modern-day military hardware that we had was during the Reagan era. Clinton cut the military budget while in office.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
LOL! Thats sig material! WOw, you really don't have a clue about the military and its stucture, do you?
This is all the military I need to know.
(http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20031019/i/r1127300671.jpg)
-
Originally posted by gofaster
This is all the military I need to know.
Luckily there are those that feel that need to know more about the military, making it *possible* for you to think thats all you need to know. :)
God Bless our troops!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The first thought that comes to me head is...why should *I* waste my time with *you*?
yeah dont waste time with me or us ....
and dont expect us to be surprise next 11 october
-
Originally posted by threedays
yeah dont waste time with me or us ....
and dont expect us to be surprise next 11 october
...and continue to ignore all facts presented under your young nose as well....
-
Ripsnort...
Why don't you say something that proves you have a clue.
Bush and his lackies had nothing to do with today's military and the way it operates.
And that's a fact.
Do you deny this?
Fortunately General Tommy Franks has more clout than D. Rumsfield among the joint chiefs.
Otherwise Iraq would have been a disaster. Certainly it was heading that way as DR tried to micromanage the process. I'll give Dubya some credit here... he eventually told DR to back off and let the experts do their job. Although, not after a lot of havoc was caused.
Guess who got kicked off the Iraq team just recently....
D. Rumsfield.
Why was that do you suppose?
I suppose you know. Let's hear it, because DR isn't speaking publically about it.
-
Originally posted by threedays
yeah dont waste time with me or us ....
and dont expect us to be surprise next 11 october
Oral
dont you mean september ???
-
you mean facts ?
like " we gonna get Osama"
and afghanistan ended up in chaos
like " we gonna get Saddam and his WMD"
and you got nothing but his son
you found no WMD
you lead chaos in Iraq, pushing them into position they dont want to be
and north Korea ?? bla bla bla we gonna kick everybody with WMD ...... and NK guys are laughing at swimming pool
Fact that US signed documents that it will disarm nuke many many years ago and they didnt do it till now ...
or whitch fact did i miss tell me
edit:
fact that your president deny to lower emission causing climatic problems with words " Its not good for our ecenomy"
only for that last reason i will not cry in day when something happen to him or your economy
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Oral
dont you mean september ???
actualy yes :aok
-
Originally posted by threedays
you mean facts ?
like " we gonna get Osama"
and afghanistan ended up in chaos
like " we gonna get Saddam and his WMD"
and you got nothing but his son
you found no WMD
you lead chaos in Iraq, pushing them into position they dont want to be
and north Korea ?? bla bla bla we gonna kick everybody with WMD ...... and NK guys are laughing at swimming pool
Fact that US signed documents that it will disarm nuke many many years ago and they didnt do it till now ...
or whitch fact did i miss tell me
Can you provide me links showing me that Iraqis dislike the position that apparently "don't want to be in" ? I mean, sure, they're unhappy that the country hasn't rebuilt as fast as everyone had hoped, but Germany and japan were pissy too after WW2 when we rebuilt them. I garantee you I can show you much more evidence that Iraqi's are happy to have Saddam out of power.
We're not finished hunting for Osama, patience Grasshoppa, as for facts of Iraq, I posted a thread in you honor, but I doubt you'll be able to read it all the way through. ;) Too many facts for you to swallow.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
There are documented instances of Al-Jazeera showing up on-scene minutes BEFORE an attack occurs on US troops in Iraq...
This is beyond having a mere bias...
So give us links to these documented instances. Or is this another "what I tell you three times is true" TWOT truth?
The closest I've found is this (http://www.cpj.org/news/2003/Iraq11aug03na.html), but the hypothesis that they were in cahoots with the attackers is looking a bit anorexic as both Aljazeera journos were injured in the attack.
-
>>Can you provide me links showing me that Iraqis dislike the position
I guess not only are you clueless about the military.. you don't even watch the news...
Every day since the "end" of the war an American soldier has been killed in Iraq.....
I guess that's the Iraqi way of saying "WE LOVE YOU, THANK YOU FOR LIBERATING US, PLEASE KEEP OCCUPYING OUR COUNTRY."
Someone over there doesn't want the US occupying their country.
Who do you think that is? The French? Or could it be the Mexicans...
Oh... I know it's the UN weapons inspectors who stayed behind to help the secret Al-Quada cells habored by Iraq.
:lol
-
nice point from expert
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail/html-home/23-html/0439.html
here we go lets see peace of komunist party propaganda :rolleyes:
http://www.iacenter.org/iraq-life-hell.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/sanrep.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/
may be Ripsnort can name one coutnry whitch has been glad that somebody did occupy it .... ehhh ?
-
I am convinced that if Eagler had been a German during the 1930's, he would have been a hardcore Nazi.
-
Originally posted by Animal
I am convinced that if Eagler had been a German during the 1930's, he would have been a hardcore Nazi.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Eagler, you prove Göring right.
Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
- Hermann Göring
so those that side with Al Jazeera are now considered "pacifists" :rolleyes:
Oral & the like
as you lose the Iraq argument, the world becomes a safer place as the middle east joins the rest of the world in the 21st century - this changes' birthplace being Iraq - Bush action is justified and praised for the foresight it was - watch and see
-
Originally posted by Animal
he would have been a hardcore Nazi.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Animal
I am convinced that if Eagler had been a German during the 1930's, he would have been a hardcore Nazi.
I am convinced, you sir do not know ur arse from a hole in the ground - just another confused youth - just stick it out, you'll grow up one day boy
-
Hahaha the age card.
Yes sir, I'll go suck on my pacifier.
-
- Dead -
I haven't found the original documentation - I thought I had read it somewhere, but maybe not ...
http://www.foxmarketwire.com/story/0,2933,98621,00.html
Excerpt:
Al Jazeera has also been observed arriving at the scene of a roadside bombing or other attack before it occurs. While the network has claimed that this was because it had been misinformed that the attack had already taken place and innocently wound up getting to the scene first, this strains credulity. At the very least, the attackers are waiting for the sympathetic Arab TV to show up before causing their carnage, knowing that it will feature prominently on subsequent broadcasts and be picked up by other networks around the world.
It seems unlikely to be any coincidence, either, that crowds are often on hand as well. Increasingly, some on hand for the attacks erupt -- as if on command -- when the cameras are on, offering fervid denunciations of the United States, President Bush, so-called Iraqi collaborators in the occupation of an Arab country and similar, highly charged visuals.
More to the point, elected Iraqi officials and U.S. commanders advised our delegation of retired senior military officers and civilian defense experts that there is evidence that Al Jazeera is actually paying for such attacks. If confirmed, this would make the network and its associates enemy combatants and subject to appropriate responses.
Related links:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/49871/1/.html
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=259368&lang=e&dir=news
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
- Dead -
I haven't found the original documentation - I thought I had read it somewhere, but maybe not ...
http://www.foxmarketwire.com/story/0,2933,98621,00.html
Related links:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/middleeast/view/49871/1/.html
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=259368&lang=e&dir=news
So no actual documented instances.
Glad to see that Fox News assures us it happens [surprise, surprise ;)] - although they don't provide any actual instances either. And the US occupation government implies it in the second link - although again they fail to note actual instances and couch it all in " for God's sake, don't quote us" terms : "There are also suspicions the broadcasters could have had advance knowledge of these attacks."
The third link at least has some punch on the surface - although I note Spain is merely holding the Aljazeera journo under arrest indefinitely and hasn't actually had a trial yet. So what happened to the old tenet of innocent until proven guilty, eh?
It's interesting to note that evidence from the US government points to him holding a key position in Al Qaeda. I imagine you can guess how believable I think US government evidence will prove to be pertaining to this case. However - this is all speculation: we shall see what happens at the trial.
It's also nice to see that finally Aljazeera have something in common with the US Army: employees who've been arrested for links with Al Qaeda. Although I note the US Army has more... ;)
-
Arab TV networks accused of fueling violence in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040412/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_arab_media_040412180400
-
Aren't you guys pumping propoganda into Iran, instigating violence?
What gives?
-
"What gives?"
Might makes right.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"What gives?"
Might makes right.
Yep Westy. Some here don't understand that you can't kill two or three generations of terrorists without creating another generation or two of them.
This war on terrorism will have to be won politcaly, the military option will only create more terrorists, you can't kill them all but in trying to you'll create more than you kill.
This isn't appeasement, it's just the way it is in the world right now. We can't change it therefore we must adapt to it.
-
http://www.Fauxnews.com
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Eagler, do you need somebody to call the police? !!!
2004 Cruisader :rofl
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Yep Westy. Some here don't understand that you can't kill two or three generations of terrorists without creating another generation or two of them.
This war on terrorism will have to be won politcaly, the military option will only create more terrorists, you can't kill them all but in trying to you'll create more than you kill.
This isn't appeasement, it's just the way it is in the world right now. We can't change it therefore we must adapt to it.
You're more than welcome to begin "negotiating" with terrorists. Incidently, you'll be a man alone on an island because most civilized societies do not negotiate with terrorists. but your welcome to try! I highly encourage it, as a matter of fact! :p
-
Kissenger?
-
Originally posted by -dead-
The War On Terror (TWOT)?
Ok, sprite up the nostrils on that one.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im fairly sure it has something to do with america not being in charge of other countries press...
Putting a few laser guided weapons on them will go a long way
to allow our view to be heard...they can then complain about it in the press.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're more than welcome to begin "negotiating" with terrorists. Incidently, you'll be a man alone on an island because most civilized societies do not negotiate with terrorists. but your welcome to try! I highly encourage it, as a matter of fact! :p
Politcal responses don't always come from negotiations, but you know that don't you Rip
So, rhetoric asside, make your case that strictly military responses will break the cycle I described.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Yep Westy. Some here don't understand that you can't kill two or three generations of terrorists without creating another generation or two of them.
It takes 18 years or so to produce a terrorist......we can eliminate one in a few seconds. That way we always stay ahead.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
It takes 18 years or so to produce a terrorist......we can eliminate one in a few seconds. That way we always stay ahead.
So, you're saying that that by eleminating one terrorist you are in effect stoping his entire family and friends from hating us?
Think again about that 18 year statement and come back with something a bit more intelligent and we'll continue.
BTW, kids as young as 9 years old have done terrorist deeds lately.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Arab TV networks accused of fueling violence in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040412/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_us_arab_media_040412180400
Yup it has nothing to do with the "coalition" invading the place and using strongarm tactics straight from the Israeli army's "how to really rile up arabs" handbook - it's all because of arab TV channels' reporting and the occupation forces getting a bad press.
It'll be interesting to see if the CPA trys to shut down more media outlets. Certainly the last time Bremer et al closed down a newspaper for "inciting violence" it didn't work out too well - the current *ahem* (how would they spin it?) "not completely positive local feedback situation" is partly a result of that shut down.
Indeed the more cynical might go so far as to accuse Bremer's action of - well... inciting violence. Perhaps he should shut down the CPA for 60 days.
Still - looking at the big picture, if you really want to know who's been fueling violence in Iraq with the help of the media, look no further than your avatar, Rip. ;)
-
Originally posted by Westy
"What gives?"
Might makes right.
Are you a Massachusetts liberal I hear so much about on conservative radio?
-
Originally posted by MrLars
So, rhetoric asside, make your case that strictly military responses will break the cycle I described.
Its a lose-lose situation. We have 3 choices the way I see it.
Hide under our beds and pretend it didn't happen:
No can do, our constitution as well as our character cannot, and will not allow most in the U.S. to take this course of action. It would actually encourage more attacks.
Negotiations:
Nope. Terrorists only see Allah as the supreme being. Basically what we have is a handful doing mind control enmasse via the "Ted Kryzinski" thought of mind, that being "technology bad, if you don't bow to Allah, you're better off dead". Even moderate extremist muslims don't believe that bodies should be dragged and mutilated, only that they should be killed. That says alot.
Might makes right:
It may not make it "right" in the sense of restoring peace, but fewer of them makes it less likely that the leaders will survive. Eventually, even war-bound leaders get tired of fights that they know they cannot win.
Altogether, its a lose-lose situation for the US, regardless who is in the white house. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
I'm all ears for any suggestions you have.
-
Eventually, even war-bound leaders get tired of fights that they know they cannot win.
Not quite, they have been at it for 4000 years in Israel, they're not bound to stop tomorrow, or on June 30th.
I do, however have no solution to offer.
-
Originally posted by Rude
Are you a Massachusetts liberal I hear so much about on conservative radio?
You would be surprised to see our homocide rate compared to that of some conservative states over the last 20 years.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Not quite, they have been at it for 4000 years in Israel, they're not bound to stop tomorrow, or on June 30th.
Education is an extremists worse nightmare. (Unless the content is the Koran, with alittle distortion thrown in for good effect)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
You would be surprised to see our homocide rate compared to that of some conservative states over the last 20 years.
Could that be because of the higher-than-normal population rate of Catholics?
FYI: Better to compare cities than states, since thats where the majority of voters live, predominently democrats too.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
-
"Conservative radio"
Jokes on me. I used to think you were one of the more intelligent folk but now realise I've been fooled by an online persona and his spell checker.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Could that be because of the higher-than-normal population rate of Catholics?
FYI: Better to compare cities than states, since thats where the majority of voters live, predominently democrats too.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
Well, you picked one year, we have done pretty well.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm
"Relatively low rates exist in the New England, Mountain, and West North Central regions "
"Rates of murder, and especially those involving guns, are higher in southern regions of the United States--in the East South Central and the West South Central regions
For over 20 years, the rates in the Pacific region were above average; in 1998 they fell below the national norm "
-
Originally posted by Westy
"Conservative radio"
Jokes on me. I used to think you were one of the more intelligent folk but now realise I've been fooled by an online persona and his spell checker.
Are you talking to me?
Personally, I'd recommend never to judge someones intelligence by their political affiliation, or you'll find yourself looking pretty silly. I know some democrats as well as republicans at work that are off their rockers in politics, but are highly intelligent humans. Politics usually involve passion from the heart, not the head (when discussing them)
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, you picked one year, we have done pretty well.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/region.htm
"Relatively low rates exist in the New England, Mountain, and West North Central regions "
"Rates of murder, and especially those involving guns, are higher in southern regions of the United States--in the East South Central and the West South Central regions
For over 20 years, the rates in the Pacific region were above average; in 1998 they fell below the national norm "
Take a look at the teen firearm related homocide, how's that for scary?
-
too bzy goose stepping to respond to this resurrected thread
(http://snakpak.info/homeimages/featurette/geese.jpg)
but if anyone thinks az is anything but a tool for the terrorists and their allies, a dark media, negative force, their brains have the consistency of what we are bzy stepping over
-
Originally posted by Eagler
too bzy goose stepping to respond to this resurrected thread
(http://snakpak.info/homeimages/featurette/geese.jpg)
but if anyone thinks az is anything but a tool for the terrorists and their allies, a dark media, negative force, their brains have the consistency of what we are bzy stepping over
Speaking of which, i'm all for wildlife preservation and all, but our ballfields are full of goose turds!!
-
I personally dont understand the Iraqis, ive been reading on the Al Jazeera web site and other sites etc.
So many of them dead and they are all crying about it when only they have the power to stop it. Under Saddam their life was overall crap, they all lived for the most part lived in fear. US comes in takes out saddam and from what ive seen we dont wana die either, we wana set up a free iraq with an all iraqi democracy so they can be free and live happily.
They want us to leave? We leave and the whole entire country will go into a civil war for power. If they want us out so bad, why cant they assist and help set up the government instead of kidnapping innocent people and killing people of the US.
Honestly are we really that bad? because we live free for the most part and dont have to worry about getting a good dinner etc every night? They could all have the same thing if theyd just see we are really trying to help them and we really dont wana be there anymore then they want us there.
IMHO the iraqi people should either suck it up and stop whining about getting killed or learn that not everyone has to live the exact same way. I feel sorry for the people in the cross fire because of these few piss ants causing all the trouble.
They act like we're going from town to town purposely shooting anyone in the street. *sigh* what abunch of crap:rolleyes:.
sorry for half hijacking the thread, but im about sick of this whole thing over there, and im sorry for the average iraqi just trying to survive, im not really mad at anyone just disappointed in all this crap over there.
-
If it were my decision to make, I'd shut it down.
Free press in Iraq? It's not a free country.
-
Originally posted by Nash
It's not a free country.
No arguing that
-
Originally posted by Nash
If it were my decision to make, I'd shut it down.
Free press in Iraq? It's not a free country.
When the "free press" you speak of reports to the masses to basically kill US soldiers in so many words, you're right, they are no longer "free press"...they are enemy.
-
If I were say, someone trying to accomplish a certain thing in Iraq, and were going to the extent of killing people to get that goal accomplished... I wouldn't give a second thought to merely shutting down an "antagonist" news agency if that would help.
-
Besides... when the news showed the soldiers up on a ladder ripping down posters of whatever that 31 yr old leader of the rebels is called, we didn't see anyone here alarmed by the supression of the Iraqi's freedom of expression. Aint it the same thing?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Bad, biased, lying media is an essential part of a free press. By knowing that they are allowed to publish their stories without censure or control no matter how bad, you also know that your favourite media is not censured or controlled.
FWIW, Germanys press was "censored" as well as Japans initially after the war, anyone want to take a guess why?
-
I agree GScholz.
But it has to evolve, imho, at the same pace as their democracy evolves.
At present, with one and not the other, it's just... incendiary.
A shame, but realistic?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The day we start shutting down media outlets for political reasons is the day we all start wondering whether our own media is holding back out of fear of being shut down themselves. You can't have free press for some, you have to have free press for all. If it's not free for all it's not free at all.
Why are radio stations one of the first buildings to get hit in a war?
-
Of what? (duh)
-
Okay this is where it starts to go beyond my realm of technical knowledge (doesn't take long :) )
But the stations would be broadcasting tactical military information?
-
They can? Sure they can... I suppose.
What would I do?
I'm not sure I would use the public air waves to tell my troops to attack the hill at 8pm sharp.
-
Huh?
That is not to say I don't agree with you, just that I don't understand what yer saying.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There is NO DIFFERENCE between a military radio and a civilian one. It's just that on one they talk about the weather and play music, while on the other one they talk in code ... or if they are a bit more sophisticated they have a neat little box they talk into that scrambles their voice (obviously the receiver must have a similar box to unscramble the message). A military radio is just painted green ... that's all.
How about one that talks about the weather, plays music, and "oh, hey, by the way, kill the infidels!"
:eek:
Its not as simple as you portray it G, its a bit more complicated than that. Yes, democracy is about free radio, but if Rush Limbaugh started telling republicans to kill democrats, you can bet his "freedom" of the airwaves would be shut down and he jailed. Same goes for the Iraqi radio stations that were shut down.
-
Ahhh okay, understood.
A radio station can be turned into a viable means of military communication no different than if it were built for that purpose.
So that answers my question.
I thought it was more along the lines of communication of so-called propaganda to the public. "We will resist them at all costs!" That sort of thing.
Sorry for sidetracking this.
But I think my point still stands. Iraq is as much about hearts and minds at this point as it is about military tactics. For victory, you must have both. If Al Jazeera is hurting the goal of victory in Iraq, why should it be treated differently than a station broadcasting military info?
-
"Are you talking to me?"
No. I was replying to Rude's remark much further above.
As for your advice though it's sound. I try not to pigeon hole or label people as many tend to do so easily. I gauge people by thier actions and words, not by a party affiliation or political leaning. For instance I've "known" Lars for a few years and always thought highly of him. He doesn't call people names nor lowers himself to berating a persons character because of a posted opinion. Over this past year I've built up quite a bit of respect for him. He's gotten involved with the process, expresses his convictions clearly, doesn't resor to regurgitating some catchy, transparant party line and over all just does more than the average "talker" in here - myself included.
My reply to Rude was based on past admiration for Rude's wit and prior displays of astonishingly sound common sense regardng online communities, group dynamics and gameplay. But the political debate over the past year or so has served to peel back many personnas to reveal the people behind them ...... Quite a few surprises and not always good ones imo.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If these people are doing crimes, then arrest them and put them on trial.
Crime defined by what law? They were "tried" by military justice, except no sentence was issued in their case, just the station shut down. You gonna push death propaganda? Well, heres some news, you won't operate very long in ANY country, including your own G.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Ahhh okay, understood.
A radio station can be turned into a viable means of military communication no different than if it were built for that purpose.
So that answers my question.
I thought it was more along the lines of communication of so-called propaganda to the public. "We will resist them at all costs!" That sort of thing.
Sorry for sidetracking this.
But I think my point still stands. Iraq is as much about hearts and minds at this point as it is about military tactics. For victory, you must have both. If Al Jazeera is hurting the goal of victory in Iraq, why should it be treated differently than a station broadcasting military info?
Just to throw another angle in your analysis, look at what the Voice of America contributed to the downfall of the Soviet Union, maybe more than we think (Hearts and mind)...food for thought... ;)
-
I don't know what that means..... :confused:
-
I re-wrote it so it sounded better. My meaning is...the Soviets could have "shut down" the Voice of America by means of force (and potentially starting WW3, so its highly unlikely) for the same reasons that the US shut down the rogue Iraqi radio stations.
-
My meaning is...the Soviets could have "shut down" the Voice of America by means of force (and potentially starting WW3, so its highly unlikely) for the same reasons that the US shut down the rogue Iraqi radio stations.
Yeah, they would have liked to, for sure.
So what's the big issue with doing this in regards to Al Jazeera I wonder.
Freedom of the press? That's a luxury. It's a different beast altogether over there.
Either you want the US to succeeed or ya don't.
If you do, you can't afford such niceties.
-
Missing the point.
It doesn't matter. If Al Jazeera is reporting nothing but the whole entire truth, unbiasedly, yet its effect is to cause an uprising against the US and hampers its goal, then it should be shut down as quickly as if it were delivering military tactical information.
-
Originally posted by Nash
My meaning is...the Soviets could have "shut down" the Voice of America by means of force (and potentially starting WW3, so its highly unlikely) for the same reasons that the US shut down the rogue Iraqi radio stations.
Yeah, they would have liked to, for sure.
So what's the big issue with doing this in regards to Al Jazeera I wonder.
Freedom of the press? That's a luxury. It's a different beast altogether over there.
Either you want the US to succeeed or ya don't.
If you do, you can't afford such niceties.
Oh my, sorry, we seem to be discussing two different subjects... my recent posts were regarding the Iraqi radio station shut down a few weeks ago. I have not yet commented on the Al Jazeera article, only posted it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Would this include domestic media that are "hurting the war effort"?
Not so much.
-
Rip - Why did that Iraqi radio station get shut down?
-
No GScholz...
So-called free press in our countries has nothing to do with free press in an occupied country.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
There you go cutting yourself on the other edge of the sword again.
It's a bad habit of mine.
I think it doesn't actually matter if they disbelieve "our" side of the story, as long as they aren't getting bombarded with thier own particular side of the story.
In a different light...
Do people NOT buy Nike because they don't also see Puma ads on TV?
Word of mouth - yes, of course.
But much less effective, immediate, and less authoratative a means... no?
-
lol... Nice. :)
So you made a point, for sure, that it'd be difficult to stop.
I may be mistaken easily, but I thought this was about the freedom of press in an occupied country. As in, whether it should or should not exist. NOT if it were merely possible.
Why did ya have me doing the freedom of the press vs anti-freedom of the press dance if all you were going to say at the end was "you cannot stop it anyway"?
-
Al Jazeera is based out of one of the most western friendly countries in the middle east, Qatar. Do you want to make enemies of them as well?
-
After making enemies out of practically almost everyone else... why consider a place like Qatar all of a sudden?
-
Why don't they just follow the Al Jizz news-crews around?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
im fairly sure it has something to do with america not being in charge of other countries press...
people are probably working on that problem even as we type....
-
Originally posted by Nash
If it were my decision to make, I'd shut it down.
Free press in Iraq? It's not a free country.
The problem there is the Pentagon insisting calling the whole fiasco "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - you're going to be hoisted on the petard of your own advertising.
If it's not meant to be a free country perhaps your army should have called it "Operation Iraqi Occupation", or "Operation Keep Mohammed Down*".
*But only for a while until we install democracy, honest.
-
As if it would make a different to shut down Al Jazeera. There are other channels for terrorists to get their needed information.
If the allies would take out Al Jazeera they only would raise another martyr.
Eagler ur initial statement is just wrong and (just for prophylaxis) mine doesnt makes me to a US hating terrorist supporter.
-
For a moment you stopped my breath Duedel since I confused you (because of your new avatar) with Martlet - god I thought hell was freezing over...
Phew, I see - everything still in order... ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Education is an extremists worse nightmare. (Unless the content is the Koran, with alittle distortion thrown in for good effect)
Where do you tink you got those numbers (1,2,3...) you're using everyday?
Did you ever read the Koran? if yes, what dissociates it from religious education (such as the Christian Bible)? If not ... how would you know?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Rip - Why did that Iraqi radio station get shut down?
Sorry, misquoted, it was an Iraqi newspaper. Theres a history of it too, as seen in these links.
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_reports/iraq/story/1243864p-8295362c.html
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/03/1675441.php
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-12.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/04/sprj.irq.media/
-
Al Jazeera is intresting for me.
I love the fact that they are independant Arab news station and not a mouthpiece of any regional government.
However I am distrurbed by their extreme bias, not only because it's so anti-us, but because I fear it will set a poor example for the beggings of mid-eastern free press. But I suppose when and if the region liberalizes there will be creation of more balanced alternatives.
So despite their dangerous bias I'm gonna say al Jazeeera is a generally positive development for the long term.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Where do you tink you got those numbers (1,2,3...) you're using everyday?
Did you ever read the Koran? if yes, what dissociates it from religious education (such as the Christian Bible)? If not ... how would you know?
Perhaps you misread what he said, which was that extrimst islamic groups distort the Koran to suit their ends, not that all muslims are extremists or opposed to education...
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Is that actually true or did the US government merely imply that for the requisite three times for it to be true enough for use in The War On Terror (TWOT)?
The best - indeed the only - mention I could find was a piece in The Scotsman (http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=599&id=1136262002) where nameless "US security sources believe" or "the FBI suspects" ... ie no one's going to go on record saying it because there is no proof whatsoever, and the claim is therefore probably entirely specious propaganda. Or perhaps the journalist is just pulling a Jayson Blair. Do provide a link of anything better if you have it, though.
An interesting bit about the nameless "sources" of the Scotsman piece was that they were "suspecting" audio recordings of both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and whilst you're all for bombing or shutting down Aljazeera (who obtained & broadcast the bin Laden tape) - you make no mention of bombing or shutting down the Associated Press (who obtained & broadcast the Ayman al-Zawahiri tape). I presume this is because the New york-based AP aren't "raghead broadcasters" with "camel smelling arses" like the Qatar-based Aljazeera, which would seem to be the only difference - given that AP must surely be terrorist-loving and American-hating to obtain and broadcast such a message (if I'm reading your TWOT invective right).
Personally I'm fairly sure a multi-millionaire like bin Laden can splash out for a secure mobile or email with PGP or something more low tech like classified ads in newspapers to communicate any orders he might have efficiently and immediately, instead of having to rely on tapes given to various journalists. So excuse me while I put the "messages=bombing instructions" down to the kind of healthy, red-blooded, all-american, paranoid delusional behaviour which made the McCarthy era what it was.
Still we can add this to the list of things we definitely know about Aljazeera coverage: "it irritates Eagler". A definite plus in my book - although to be really worthy of praise it'd have to irritate Hortlund. ;)
Poetry
:D
-
Dead said:
"Personally I'm fairly sure a multi-millionaire like bin Laden can splash out for a secure mobile or email with PGP or something more low tech like classified ads in newspapers to communicate any orders he might have efficiently and immediately, instead of having to rely on tapes given to various journalists. So excuse me while I put the "messages=bombing instructions" down to the kind of healthy, red-blooded, all-american, paranoid delusional behaviour which made the McCarthy era what it was."
I think you're missing the point, though I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. Broadcasting or publicising bin Laden's speech is much more than simply passing on his orders to subordinates. You're right in that I'm pretty sure he could that without the help of Al Jazera. However, broadcasting him on television allows him to incite violence and rally a heavily brainwashed people into action which will most surely mean the death of many.
Free speech is essential for a free society but anyone that thinks that an Islamic state qualifies as a free society either hasn't really taken a close look at one or comes from one themself. Most of these people are indoctrinated from birth to think along very rigid paths with deviation often beaten out of them.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm all ears for any suggestions you have.
Since I'm not privy to the info nor the resources to reaserch the possible solutions, I'll pass on giving any serious attempt at a solution, but one thing I do know is that what must happpen is to stop the Saudi's support of the muslim schools around the world that teach the hate that fuels terrorism and to punish them for doing so.
Stopping the cycle at one of it's primary roots seems to be a good start to me.
-
Recently heard that the Iraqi's may be shutting down/out Eljizzo soon. Something about how they reported an Iraqi official in the new governement resigned to protest attrocities the americans are commiting in his country...when in fact he resigned to take a higher position, a cabinet job. The quotes I read, this guy is pist. Says Eljizzo will pay for inciting and inflaming etc. etc....
searching for a link.....
-
ok..3days ..that must be how much you went to school...
you are trying to Drive by puke mouth doesnt woork here..
.edit:
fact that your president deny to lower emission causing climatic problems with words " Its not good for our ecenomy"
You are so cluless...why dont you look up those countries that did sign the Kyoto..and see the economic impact they will do..Then...See if ANY of those countries have been able to actually abide by the pact they signed..
Executive Summary
Last December the United States agreed at a United Nations meeting in Kyoto, Japan, to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 7 percent below 1990 levels. That reduction, to be achieved mainly by cutting the combustion of fossil fuels, will lower emission levels 41 percent below where they will likely be in the year 2010 if the trend observed since 1990 continues.
The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year. However, according to a climate model of the National Center for Atmospheric Research recently featured in Science, the Kyoto emission-control commitments would reduce mean planetary warming by a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years. If the costs of preventing additional warming were to remain constant, the Kyoto Protocol would cost a remarkable 12 percent of GDP per degree of warming prevented annually over a 50-year period.
The Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible effect on global climate--in fact, it is doubtful that the current network of surface thermometers could distinguish a change on the order of .19 degree from normal year-to-year variations. The Kyoto Protocol will result in no demonstrable climate change but easily demonstrable economic damage.
Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 307 (HTML)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307es.html
learn boy...learn
Love
BiGB
xoxo
btw..Fuq Al J..Kill them all
-
Slam (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/04/12/1801171)
"There is no doubt that if al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyeh continue to incite violence and sectarian rifts in this country... they will be closed down here," said Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr. Muafak Rube'i. In a press conference with Western and Arab journalists, he slammed the Arab world's leading satellite news channels for stirring up both the Shi'ite rebels in the center and south of the country and insurgents in the so-called Sunni Triangle. ...
Still, Rube'i battled back, adding in both English and Arabic, that "false reporting will not be permitted in this country."
(There were better quotes from this news conference, but not reported in this link...)
Same link:
Increasing numbers of Iraqi leaders and even some viewers doubt the veracity of the two stations' version of events. "Al Jazeera broadcasts lies," said Dr. Mahmud Othman, a Kurdish Governing Council member over the weekend. "Their reporting is simply not accurate."
Dunk (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1081748012305)
For almost a week, until the Marines began to take on embedded reporters, the two channels were among the handful transmitting news from the battleground town of Falluja.
Their frequent use of the term "massacre" and their ongoing use of images of bloodied women and children has led US officials in Iraq to question the balance of their reporting.
"There is no doubt that if al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyeh continue to incite violence and sectarian rifts in this country... they will be closed down here," said Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr. Muafak Rube'i. In a press conference with Western and Arab journalists, he slammed the Arab world's leading satellite news channels for stirring up both the Shi'ite rebels in the center and south of the country and insurgents in the so-called Sunni Triangle.
The campaign against the two stations has gained momentum in recent days as thousands of Iraqis heeded the calls of mosques to send aid to Falluja and "resist American occupation."
US Deputy Operations Commander in Iraq Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt also accused Arab media of biased reporting, going as far as accusing Al-Jazeera and others of "spreading lies." When asked Sunday how Iraqis should respond to the disturbing images on TV, Kimmitt snapped: "change the channel. Change it to a legitimate honest news station. Showing American soldiers killing only women and children is lies."
Firing back at slanted journalism...? (http://slate.msn.com/id/2098668/#ContinueArticle)
Is this what we need to do?
As Slate's Michael Young explained in Lebanon's Daily Star, the station serves the various political interests, pursuits, and whims of its owner, Qatar's emir, Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. Among other things, serving those interests means criticizing Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and to a lesser extent Egypt. Another satellite news network, Al Arabiya, the self-styled moderate alternative to Al Jazeera, is a majority Saudi-owned enterprise meant to counterbalance Al Jazeera's criticism of the kingdom. The point of owning an Arab satellite station is not to make money—Al Jazeera does not—but rather to get your own message out. Hence, the U.S.-financed Al Hurra station, with a lot of kinks still to be worked out, makes some sense in the region.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think you're missing the point, though I'm not sure if it's intentional or not. Broadcasting or publicising bin Laden's speech is much more than simply passing on his orders to subordinates. You're right in that I'm pretty sure he could that without the help of Al Jazera. However, broadcasting him on television allows him to incite violence and rally a heavily brainwashed people into action which will most surely mean the death of many.
Free speech is essential for a free society but anyone that thinks that an Islamic state qualifies as a free society either hasn't really taken a close look at one or comes from one themself. Most of these people are indoctrinated from birth to think along very rigid paths with deviation often beaten out of them.
The accusation "broadcasting him on television allows him to incite violence and rally a heavily brainwashed people into action which will most surely mean the death of many" could be levelled just as easily at Bush or Blair.
All people get heavily brainwashed and indoctrinated from birth to think along very rigid paths with deviation often beaten out of them. Anthropologists call this process "culture" - and it seems all primate social groups work this way. Most people get so well indoctrinated that they don't even suspect that they might be being indoctrinated. Curiously, indoctrination - like propaganda - only seems to be easy to spot if it belongs to another group with a different culture, your own culture's indoctrination seems transparent - because "that's the way it should be done".
Think back to your childhood - did you have to pledge allegiance to a flag a lot? Why did you have to do that? Would you have got into trouble if you refused? And is brainwashing children such a bad thing? Or is it just the content of the brainwashing that you don't agree with?
An Islamic state may not qualify for your definition of a free state, it certainly doesn't qualify for my idea of a free state. But so what?
Surely denying Iraq a free press is not going to help "Operation Iraqi Freedom" make Iraq free - because, as you so rightly point out "Free speech is essential for a free society". Or are you suggesting that Operation Iraqi Freedom is doomed from the outset - a total waste of time and lives - and that a free society based on democracy is impossible in Iraq, amongst all these brainwashed and indoctrinated people?
-
Iraq should have a free press. One that won't condemn to death views opposing religious leaders as in so many other middle eastern countries. However, the US is at war with OBL and one of the goals of war is to deny your enemy freedom of everything except surrender. Most folks hold that those who give aid to your enemy are also your enemy. Won't you agree?
-
..go so out of their way to incite the violence that kills them?..
And the CNN isn't doing the same?
-
This was posted on AGW.
Here's an article that provides some interesting background. It was written in October 2002 before the war, for an audience of US journalists.
----
Al-Jazeera. For most Westerners, the name conjures up images of an Arabic CNN-style satellite network that gained notoriety by airing post-9/11 rants from Osama bin Laden.
But talk to al-Jazeera’s news director—editor-in-chief Ibrahim Helal—and you get a much different picture of this Qatar-based news channel. To Helal, al-Jazeera is a responsible news voice that adheres to strict editorial principles: a rare objective news voice in the Arab world, which includes Israeli and U.S. points of view in its coverage.
“Our news philosophy is very simple; we don’t have any agenda,” Helal told Communicator in an exclusive telephone interview from Qatar. “Like every other news organization, we base our editorial decisions on what’s newsworthy and what’s important to our audience. It’s as simple as that.”
“Our editorial policy mirrors that of the BBC’s,” Helal adds. “In fact, when we started, we adopted BBC’s same editorial and presentation standards. Over the years, it has evolved to better suit the needs of our Arabic-speaking viewers, but journalistically we remain very, very close to the BBC.”
If Helal were alone in his opinion, then his assertion could be easily dismissed. But al-Jazeera’s standards have also won respect from numerous Western journalists as well. Take Mike Moran, a veteran foreign correspondent who is now MSNBC's senior producer for special reports and international news. According to Moran, al-Jazeera’s reporters are “very respectable hard-working journalists who have been trained in the West.”
Moran speaks from personal knowledge: He knows many of al-Jazeera’s staff, because back in the mid-’90s, he worked at BBC World Service in London, alongside the newsroom of BBC Arabic Television (BBCATV).
Launched by the BBC and bankrolled by Saudi Arabia, BBCATV was summarily shut down after airing “Death of a Princess.” It was a no-holds-barred documentary about the execution of a Saudi princess and her lover: not a topic the Saudis wanted aired in their country, or indeed anywhere in the world. That’s why they pulled funding for “BBC Arabic,” as it was known, and the service’s 250 journalists were thrown onto the street.
It was the death of BBCATV that led to al-Jazeera’s birth in 1996. Founded by many ex-BBCATV staff—including Helal—al-Jazeera was launched by “the Emir of Qatar and other Arab moderates who had recognized during BBC Arabic’s short life that the long-term interests of Islam would be served best by truth rather than censorship,” said Moran in his MSNBC piece, “In Defense of al-Jazeera”. The network, which is financed by commercial revenues, subscriptions and some government funding, is now available via satellite throughout the Middle East, Europe and North America. Estimated viewership: 35 million.
Max Rodenbeck, The Economist’s Middle East correspondent, echoes Moran’s endorsement of al-Jazeera. “Considering the pressures of trying to be independent in the Arab world—and al-Jazeera has been attacked by everyone from Israelis to Saddam Hussein to the Saudis—they steer a pretty straight course,” Rodenbeck says via e-mail. “I watch it for Middle Eastern news in preference to any other network.”
Does this mean that al-Jazeera’s reports should be taken at face value? No, Rodenbeck replies. “[When it comes to] content, it is certainly mildly biased toward an Arab worldview,” he says, “Exactly as should be expected, and exactly as, for example, the BBC is mildly slanted toward Britain, or CNN toward America.”
“Their credibility is sometimes suspect,” Rodenbeck adds. “They don't go through all the hoops of fact-checking, partly because they don't live in fear of libel suits.”
So why did al-Jazeera air such controversial items as messages from Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda tapes? Because, Helal says, like or it not, they’re news. “We received these messages from bin Laden, and we aired them as we received them,” explains Helal. “We did this in order to provide balanced coverage, just as we also air views from the West, and from Israel. Our goal is to provide accurate, objective coverage of all sides.”
A just argument? Well, it’s the same reason CNN and other U.S. news organizations also aired these tapes, and why American journalists also resisted White House attempts to suppress them.
However, there’s another reason why al-Jazeera is giving such play to al-Qaeda, and that’s ratings! “What you’ve got to realize is that al-Jazeera is ultimately managed by businesspeople, not journalists,” says Moran. “As a result, their newsroom is under pressure to produce numbers, since the network’s survival is really dependent on advertising. It’s a situation most U.S. news directors would understand. The result is that, since 9/11, al-Jazeera’s style has become more populist.”
Does this mean that al-Jazeera has sold out? If so, it’s no more than any U.S. news operation with one eye on journalism, and the other on ad revenues. However, it does explain al-Jazeera’s willingness to air bin Laden.
Finally, the real reason why al-Jazeera’s coverage often seems hostile to Western interests is simply that al-Jazeera is not a Western news agency. Instead, it’s a news service whose 35 million viewers are not only Arabic-speaking, but Arab in culture, values and geopolitical interests. “We are an international news agency, but that doesn’t mean that we should be working from a Western viewpoint,” Helal says. “Our goal is to report the news as accurately and comprehensively as we can, for the Arabic-speaking audience we serve.”
The bottom line: What makes al-Jazeera’s news different from CNN is not al-Jazeera’s journalistic standards, but its editorial viewpoint and audience. For North American news directors, this suggest that al-Jazeera’s reports shouldn’t be dismissed, but nor should they be accepted at face value. Rather, they should be viewed bearing in mind the perspective of al-Jazeera’s reporters and viewers and ratings-focused managers and judged accordingly.
-
“Our news philosophy is very simple; we don’t have any agenda,” Helal told Communicator in an exclusive telephone interview from Qatar. “Like every other news organization, we base our editorial decisions on what’s newsworthy and what’s important to our audience. It’s as simple as that.”
"what's important to our audience" That could mean many things. In their case I think it means what their audience wants to hear. Eveyone has an agenda. No one is unbiased. The more unbiased you believe yourself to be the more biased it likely is you are.
My $.02
-
Or the more fair and balanced you are? ;)
I think you are right though, all news outles are biases, some more than others. I don't think Al Jazeera is any more biased than Fox though.
-
Can't argue that Fox would probably be more accurate to say they are fair and right. Right in both senses of the word. And I'd agree with them, but since I recognize my bias that means I'm not so biased, right? :confused:
;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
This was posted on AGW.
Here's an article that provides some interesting background. It was written in October 2002 before the war, for an audience of US journalists.
----
Al-Jazeera. For most Westerners, the name conjures up images of an Arabic CNN-style satellite network that gained notoriety by airing post-9/11 rants from Osama bin Laden.
But talk to al-Jazeera’s news director—editor-in-chief Ibrahim Helal—and you get a much different picture of this Qatar-based news channel. To Helal, al-Jazeera is a responsible news voice that adheres to strict editorial principles: a rare objective news voice in the Arab world, which includes Israeli and U.S. points of view in its coverage.
“Our news philosophy is very simple; we don’t have any agenda,” Helal told Communicator in an exclusive telephone interview from Qatar. “Like every other news organization, we base our editorial decisions on what’s newsworthy and what’s important to our audience. It’s as simple as that.”
“Our editorial policy mirrors that of the BBC’s,” Helal adds. “In fact, when we started, we adopted BBC’s same editorial and presentation standards. Over the years, it has evolved to better suit the needs of our Arabic-speaking viewers, but journalistically we remain very, very close to the BBC.”
If Helal were alone in his opinion, then his assertion could be easily dismissed. But al-Jazeera’s standards have also won respect from numerous Western journalists as well. Take Mike Moran, a veteran foreign correspondent who is now MSNBC's senior producer for special reports and international news. According to Moran, al-Jazeera’s reporters are “very respectable hard-working journalists who have been trained in the West.”
Moran speaks from personal knowledge: He knows many of al-Jazeera’s staff, because back in the mid-’90s, he worked at BBC World Service in London, alongside the newsroom of BBC Arabic Television (BBCATV).
Launched by the BBC and bankrolled by Saudi Arabia, BBCATV was summarily shut down after airing “Death of a Princess.” It was a no-holds-barred documentary about the execution of a Saudi princess and her lover: not a topic the Saudis wanted aired in their country, or indeed anywhere in the world. That’s why they pulled funding for “BBC Arabic,” as it was known, and the service’s 250 journalists were thrown onto the street.
It was the death of BBCATV that led to al-Jazeera’s birth in 1996. Founded by many ex-BBCATV staff—including Helal—al-Jazeera was launched by “the Emir of Qatar and other Arab moderates who had recognized during BBC Arabic’s short life that the long-term interests of Islam would be served best by truth rather than censorship,” said Moran in his MSNBC piece, “In Defense of al-Jazeera”. The network, which is financed by commercial revenues, subscriptions and some government funding, is now available via satellite throughout the Middle East, Europe and North America. Estimated viewership: 35 million.
Max Rodenbeck, The Economist’s Middle East correspondent, echoes Moran’s endorsement of al-Jazeera. “Considering the pressures of trying to be independent in the Arab world—and al-Jazeera has been attacked by everyone from Israelis to Saddam Hussein to the Saudis—they steer a pretty straight course,” Rodenbeck says via e-mail. “I watch it for Middle Eastern news in preference to any other network.”
Does this mean that al-Jazeera’s reports should be taken at face value? No, Rodenbeck replies. “[When it comes to] content, it is certainly mildly biased toward an Arab worldview,” he says, “Exactly as should be expected, and exactly as, for example, the BBC is mildly slanted toward Britain, or CNN toward America.”
“Their credibility is sometimes suspect,” Rodenbeck adds. “They don't go through all the hoops of fact-checking, partly because they don't live in fear of libel suits.”
So why did al-Jazeera air such controversial items as messages from Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda tapes? Because, Helal says, like or it not, they’re news. “We received these messages from bin Laden, and we aired them as we received them,” explains Helal. “We did this in order to provide balanced coverage, just as we also air views from the West, and from Israel. Our goal is to provide accurate, objective coverage of all sides.”
A just argument? Well, it’s the same reason CNN and other U.S. news organizations also aired these tapes, and why American journalists also resisted White House attempts to suppress them.
However, there’s another reason why al-Jazeera is giving such play to al-Qaeda, and that’s ratings! “What you’ve got to realize is that al-Jazeera is ultimately managed by businesspeople, not journalists,” says Moran. “As a result, their newsroom is under pressure to produce numbers, since the network’s survival is really dependent on advertising. It’s a situation most U.S. news directors would understand. The result is that, since 9/11, al-Jazeera’s style has become more populist.”
Does this mean that al-Jazeera has sold out? If so, it’s no more than any U.S. news operation with one eye on journalism, and the other on ad revenues. However, it does explain al-Jazeera’s willingness to air bin Laden.
Finally, the real reason why al-Jazeera’s coverage often seems hostile to Western interests is simply that al-Jazeera is not a Western news agency. Instead, it’s a news service whose 35 million viewers are not only Arabic-speaking, but Arab in culture, values and geopolitical interests. “We are an international news agency, but that doesn’t mean that we should be working from a Western viewpoint,” Helal says. “Our goal is to report the news as accurately and comprehensively as we can, for the Arabic-speaking audience we serve.”
The bottom line: What makes al-Jazeera’s news different from CNN is not al-Jazeera’s journalistic standards, but its editorial viewpoint and audience. For North American news directors, this suggest that al-Jazeera’s reports shouldn’t be dismissed, but nor should they be accepted at face value. Rather, they should be viewed bearing in mind the perspective of al-Jazeera’s reporters and viewers and ratings-focused managers and judged accordingly.
Notice how the article slowy and gently eases you into accepting that that AlJazeera's blatant bias and falsehoods are actually just fine and acceptable...
-
Originally posted by AKIron
And I'd agree with them, but since I recognize my bias that means I'm not so biased, right? :confused:
;)
Sounds like a good start. My biggest hurdle after trying to find the biases in news sources is recognising the biases in myself. ;)
"Notice how the article slowy and gently eases you into accepting that that AlJazeera's blatant bias and falsehoods are actually just fine and acceptable..."
Falsehoods like claiming that WMD have been found in Iraq, like Fox did over and over again? :D
I read Fox News and Al Jazeera on a regular basis Grun, do you?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Iraq should have a free press. One that won't condemn to death views opposing religious leaders as in so many other middle eastern countries. However, the US is at war with OBL and one of the goals of war is to deny your enemy freedom of everything except surrender. Most folks hold that those who give aid to your enemy are also your enemy. Won't you agree?
Well then to avoid that and the charge of hypocrisy you'd have to shut down AP, AFP, Reuters, CNN, Fox, the BBC and so on as well - all of whom have featured bin Laden's tapes/speeches.
You should also bear in mind when arguing the "aiding the enemy" point, that while the US may be at war (albeit an undeclared one) with bin Laden, neither Iraq nor Qatar is. And IIRC, both Qatar and Iraq are - supposedly - not part of the US either. So unless you're declaring Iraq as a part of the US - a colony or a state, it would seem (legally speaking, at least) that Qatar's broadcasting bin Laden messages in Iraq can't constitute aiding "the enemy". The "aiding the enemy" argument is further weakened by the fact that not even the US has formally declared war on Al Qaeda.
This seems a bit of a digression from the premise with which Ripsnort resurrected this thread - that Aljazeera incites violence in Iraq, too. I don't think there was a bin Laden message just before the current uprising. There was an Al-Zawahri tape broadcast on the 25th of March which called for "Muslims in Pakistan to get rid of their government which is working for Americans" - but that hardly seems to be evidence of Aljazeera inciting violence in Iraq.
So again I'll posit that the people who are really guilty of inciting violence in Iraq are Bush and Blair.
-
if one cant see a difference btwn az and cnn/bbc/fox
well, they must be blind - physically, spiritually and morally
-
"they must be blind - physically, spiritually and morally"
and so sayeth Herr Archie Bunker.
p.s. I found the perfect accompaniment to your posts is "Deutschland Uber Alles"
-
thank you "MEatHead"
(http://www.christiannortheast.com/stock%20thumbs/meathead.jpg)
LOL
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if one cant see a difference btwn az and cnn/bbc/fox
well, they must be blind - physically, spiritually and morally
I can see a difference. For one, it's all in arabic. It's also pro-Arab as opposed to CNN/BBC/Fox who are pro-US/UK. The bias is at pretty much the same level IMHO - just the sides they're biased to are different. This is to be expected - all news media are naturally biased towards their main revenue-producing audience. They have to be.
However I can't see the difference between the CNN/BBC/Fox playing a bin Laden tape and Aljazeera playing it. Except that CNN/BBC/Fox likely reach more people than Aljazeera. So if anything you should go after them before Aljazeera.
Also I don't see what problem the US government has with people seeing a different side to the story. Actually I do - it makes them look bad - but ideologically speaking, it's hard to support without being obviously hypocritical. Hard to justify curtailing press freedom and still run "Operation Iraqi Freedom" with a straight face. Bad enough doing it with a big uprising going on after a year of "Iraqi Freedom", god forbid anyone should get to hear what the insurgent Iraqis have to say...
In the long run though, I'd imagine it's easier just to let Aljazeera run. Shutting them down in Iraq will just tell the Arab world that the US has something to hide, and Aljazeera was not only telling the truth, they weren't going far enough. And more people will be inclined to resist the occupation. Certainly shutting down Muqtada Sadr's weekly paper hasn't really worked out too well for the occupation forces so far.
-
We restrict our own freedom of speech Dead. No one has the right in the US to incite to riot. Why should we allow the Iraqi's this?
-
yes
someone start printing a mainstream rag calling for the overthrow of our gov, death to gov officials or open a radio/tv station airing the same "freedom of speech" and see how long it stays up and its operators out of jail
-
and that is cool? :confused:
-
Iraq Kidnappers Kill Italian Hostage -Jazeera TV (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040414/ts_nm/iraq_italy_jazeera_dc)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
We restrict our own freedom of speech Dead. No one has the right in the US to incite to riot. Why should we allow the Iraqi's this?
Practically: Because it appears to be extremely counterproductive not to. As has just been proved by the recent uprising sparked off by the closure of Muqtada Sadr's weekly rag. Currently, as a result of ensuring that Muqtada Sadr's followers can no longer read how Paul Bremer is taking Iraq down "Saddam's path", the "coalition" forces have lost control of two cities; look a lot more like Saddam to many more Iraqis than the newspaper reached, and especially to the Shia; and they are facing a worryingly popular uprising, and the hint of a unification between Sunni and Shia rebels.
Cosmetically: It upsets less people and you look like nice guys. Nothing looks more like an occupation/dictatorship than armed uprisings, losing cities and shutting down the media. It certainly doesn't look like a liberation.
Ideologically: The "freedom" in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" doesn't imply automatically following the US version of freedom. It implies (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick entirely and it really means Iraq should be French) the Iraqis should decide for themselves what constitutes freedom of speech rather than have the US impose US standards on them. Of course, the problem there is that no one in the government knows what the Iraqi people actually want, because nobody's asked the Iraqis yet. So until they have been asked, I'd stray on the side of caution and go with a "free for all" rather than risk annoying people - after all, it's their country. So ideologically speaking, it's not the US's place to allow or deny the Iraqis any rights, unless you make Iraq an American colony or state.