D Notice

[Jon_in_london]

Did Bush want to bomb Al-Jazeera?

Guess we will never know, because the government has slapped a D-Notice on the story.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0015818.html

Thoughts?

[Manny]

I think it's at least a little stupid, with with the story running in half the countries in the world, at least some of which are not part of the Empire anymore. ;)

Where did they do this?

[Darat]

Well I know our press aren't the brightest but even I would hope they'd know there is no such thing as a D-Notice any longer.... ;)

[a_unique_person]

So according to the story, and news agencies have copies of the memo, Blair had to talk Dubya out of bombing Al Jazeera. Makes you wonder how many accidental deaths of journalists were deliberate.

[Gurdur]

I think it's at least a little stupid,
Understatement. The Brit govt seems to be acting very stupidly here indeed.
Where did they do this?
See this editorial:
Gagging for the truth (http://www.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,1649144,00.html)

...The British government is saying nothing either, but it has charged two men under the Official Secrets Act with leaking and receiving a document, and threatened to gag newspapers if they dare reveal its contents....

[Elind]

Did Bush want to bomb Al-Jazeera?

Guess we will never know, because the government has slapped a D-Notice on the story.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0015818.html

Thoughts?
Who cares? Who didn't want to bomb them? Did you, do you, support their tips of attacks so they could get exclusives, or their obvious function as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda and anyone else who has a gory video or threat to publish, not to mention their paychecks from Saddam earlier?

Point is, it didn't happen.

[geni]

Who cares? Who didn't want to bomb them? Did you, do you, support their tips of attacks so they could get exclusives, or their obvious function as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda and anyone else who has a gory video or threat to publish, not to mention their paychecks from Saddam earlier?

It's called freedom of speach. You are right though. At some time or another Al-Jazeera has pissed off everyone.


Point is, it didn't happen.


Err Al-Jazeera offices in afganistan and Iraq were both hit and yes the US did know where they were. I supose we could wait for the US to invade a third country but that strikes me as a rather poor way of finding out.

[Elind]

It's called freedom of speach. You are right though. At some time or another Al-Jazeera has pissed off everyone.




Err Al-Jazeera offices in afganistan and Iraq were both hit and yes the US did know where they were. I supose we could wait for the US to invade a third country but that strikes me as a rather poor way of finding out.

I believe it was pretty clear that Al Jazeera had advance knowledge of attacks that they used for enemy (mine anyway) propaganda, and I don't consider that freedom of speech.

As to being hit, I think that we all know there would have been nothing left if the targeting had been deliberate.

I don't understand your third country comment.

[DanishDynamite]

Who cares? Who didn't want to bomb them? Did you, do you, support their tips of attacks so they could get exclusives, or their obvious function as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda and anyone else who has a gory video or threat to publish, not to mention their paychecks from Saddam earlier?
Who cares?

The mighty fighter for democracy, free speech and human rights (currently engaged in an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation in order to implement their rightous idea of government, Abu Ghraibing along the way) doesn't care that it's leader was just barely talked out of bombing a free speech press center in a neutral country?

If most inhabitants of the might hunter is like you, I can understand why.
Point is, it didn't happen.
Point is, the option was seriously considered and apparently only checked by the intervention of someone with a brain.

[Elind]

Who cares?

The mighty fighter for democracy, free speech and human rights (currently engaged in an unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation in order to implement their rightous idea of government, Abu Ghraibing along the way) doesn't care that it's leader was just barely talked out of bombing a free speech press center in a neutral country?

If most inhabitants of the might hunter is like you, I can understand why.

Point is, the option was seriously considered and apparently only checked by the intervention of someone with a brain.
Tsk tsk. Got to watch that blood pressure you know.:boggled:

I've been reading these news reports too and I have seen some differing ones. The differences which I attribute to stupid and ignorant reporters, which would hardly be the first time.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will in any case) but, was not, is not, Qatar a key ally of the US in this issue, to the extent of having been the major operations center for the war against Saddam & CO.?

I'm no fan of Bush, believe me, but even I don't think he is dumb enough to suggest bombing a building within spitting distance of his own key HQ, in another country (do you actually know how big Qatar is?).

If he had this thought, and I will confess to having the same, it would have been in Iraq, or perhaps Denmark (sorry, Belgium or France)?

[demon]

This is presented as No. 10 fearing that further leaks will damage the (mythical) special relationionship without actually following through on the implication. That, for this to happen, it's likely that Bush and Blair have said things in private that the public would find (probably rightly) highly objectionable. Hence, really this could read 'Secrecy gag prompted by fear of public reaction'. If Blair and Bush's intentions are so honourable, what don't they want us to know?

If this is the case, going by the rules of war Bush feels are acceptable, surely he could have no problem if bin Laden decided to bomb the studios of fox news channel and then "shake and bake" any of the survivors.
_____________________

Secrecy gag prompted by fear of new Blair-Bush revelations

Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael White
Thursday November 24, 2005
The Guardian


Fears that fresh revelations about disputes between Tony Blair and George Bush on the Iraq conflict could damage Downing Street's intimate relationship with the White House prompted this week's unprecedented threat by the attorney general to use the Official Secrets Act against national newspapers.
Senior MPs, Whitehall officials and lawyers were agreed yesterday that Lord Goldsmith had "read the riot act" to the media because of political embarrassment caused by a sensitive leak of face-to-face exchanges between the prime minister and the US president in the White House in April 2004. He acted after the Daily Mirror said a memo recorded a threat by Mr Bush to take "military action" against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera. Mr Blair replied that that would cause a big problem, reported the Mirror. David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official, has been charged under the secrets act with sending the memo on the Blair-Bush conversation to Leo O 'Connor, researcher to the former Labour MP Tony Clarke. Mr Keogh and Mr O'Connor will appear before Bow Street magistrates next week.

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair took place at a time when Whitehall officials, intelligence officers, and British military commanders were expressing outrage at the scale of the US assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja, in which up to 1,000 civilians are feared to have died. Pictures of the attack shown on al-Jazeera had infuriated US generals. The government was also arguing with Washington about the number of extra British troops to be sent to Iraq at a time when it was feared they would be endangered by what a separately leaked Foreign Office memo called "heavy-handed" US military tactics.
There were UK anxieties that US bombing in civilian areas in Falluja would unite Sunnis and Shias against British forces. The criticism came not only from anti-war MPs, but from Mr Blair's most senior military, diplomatic, and intelligence advisers. When Mr Blair met Mr Bush in Washington, military advisers were urging the prime minister to send extra forces only on British terms. General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, said while British troops had to fight with the Americans, "that does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans".

Andrew Nicol QC, a media law expert, said he was unaware of any case going to trial where a newspaper or journalist had been prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. He said Lord Goldsmith appeared to be trying to "put down a marker" to prevent further leaks or publication of further disclosures from the document already allegedly leaked.

Last night the former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle tabled a Commons motion saying Mr Blair should publish the record of his discussion with Mr Bush.

Downing Street stressed that the decision to take action was "entirely up to the attorney general" and was intended to "draw a line in the sand" on further leaks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1649348,00.html

[demon]

Ongoing coverage of events, from the people in the crosshairs -

http://dontbomb.blogspot.com/

[DanishDynamite]

Tsk tsk. Got to watch that blood pressure you know.:boggled:
My blood pressure is fine. Perhaps you were refering to yourself? :)
I've been reading these news reports too and I have seen some differing ones. The differences which I attribute to stupid and ignorant reporters, which would hardly be the first time.
We agree on this point.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will in any case) but, was not, is not, Qatar a key ally of the US in this issue, to the extent of having been the major operations center for the war against Saddam & CO.?
I believe you are right. Qatar did indeed allow Americans on their soil. I don't see how the idea of bombing a news organization on "allied" territory is better than on neutral territory?
I'm no fan of Bush, believe me, but even I don't think he is dumb enough to suggest bombing a building within spitting distance of his own key HQ, in another country (do you actually know how big Qatar is?).
Sorry, but this seems to be an argument from incredulity. ´
If he had this thought, and I will confess to having the same, it would have been in Iraq, or perhaps Denmark (sorry, Belgium or France)?
If you confess to having the same thought, how can you possibly feel that Bush having the same thought is incredulous? Unless of course....

I don't understand your reference to Denmark, Belgium and France.

[Elind]

I believe you are right. Qatar did indeed allow Americans on their soil. I don't see how the idea of bombing a news organization on "allied" territory is better than on neutral territory?


Sorry to be so obtuse. Let me explain more simply. I suggest that he meant bombing their headquarters in Iraq, not Qatar (and not Belgium or France).

Clear enough for you?

Stupid idea nevertheless, however satisfying it may have seemed. It also seems he didn't do it. Did he?

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry to be so obtuse. Let me explain more simply. I suggest that he meant bombing their headquarters in Iraq, not Qatar (and not Belgium or France).

Clear enough for you?
Clear enough, but according to the original article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--bush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html):
PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar...
I don't get your point?
Stupid idea nevertheless, however satisfying it may have seemed. It also seems he didn't do it. Did he?No, because he was lucky enough to have a friend with a brain, as I explained.

Now, what happened to your carefree "who cares" attitude?

[Elind]

Clear enough, but according to the original article (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--bush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html):

I don't get your point?
No, because he was lucky enough to have a friend with a brain, as I explained.

Now, what happened to your carefree "who cares" attitude?

Lighten up and stay on focus, please. I care more about events, than alleged considerations, is all. As I said, I considered, in my fantasy moments, doing worse than just blowing up Al Jazeera. There isn't a more self serving and disingenious so called news organization on the planet; except maybe Larry King.

I care less about the "original" article. When I hear a tape of GWB saying "Let's bomb Al Jazeera in this place called Qatar. Is that near Bahgdad?", then I will call for impeachment on grounds of insanity, but I haven't.

Just recently I heard a news report on NPR about the US using phosphor "GAS" in Iraq. The emotive context is rather obvious don't you think? Particularly since there is no phosphor "gas" weapon. Deliberate leftist misinformation, or dumb ass reporters and editors? Both perhaps?

[CapelDodger]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will in any case) but, was not, is not, Qatar a key ally of the US in this issue, to the extent of having been the major operations center for the war against Saddam & CO.?

I'm no fan of Bush, believe me, but even I don't think he is dumb enough to suggest bombing a building within spitting distance of his own key HQ, in another country (do you actually know how big Qatar is?).

Do you realise how little chance Qatar would have of ejecting the US if that were their choice? What if the US denied responsibility? They could get some Cuban exiles to plant a bomb, launder the expenses through Thailand, and claim they had nothing to do with it. The Emir may not believe them, but there'll be a cousin who will, and that little red dot on the table, Emir, notice that? Now it'll move to your wrist ... here it goes ... now you can't see it at all because it's in the middle of your forehead, anyhoo do you really want to make waves, Emir - or Current Emir, should I call you?

The thing about little countries vis-a-vis superpowers is that a little country doesn't get to say what goes on or doesn't.

[Elind]

Do you realise how little chance Qatar would have of ejecting the US if that were their choice? What if the US denied responsibility? They could get some Cuban exiles to plant a bomb, launder the expenses through Thailand, and claim they had nothing to do with it. The Emir may not believe them, but there'll be a cousin who will, and that little red dot on the table, Emir, notice that? Now it'll move to your wrist ... here it goes ... now you can't see it at all because it's in the middle of your forehead, anyhoo do you really want to make waves, Emir - or Current Emir, should I call you?

The thing about little countries vis-a-vis superpowers is that a little country doesn't get to say what goes on or doesn't.

You are streching logic to the point of conspiracyism. Are you planning a movie?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda, didna.

[DanishDynamite]

Lighten up and stay on focus, please. I care more about events, than alleged considerations, is all. As I said, I considered, in my fantasy moments, doing worse than just blowing up Al Jazeera. There isn't a more self serving and disingenious so called news organization on the planet; except maybe Larry King.
Lighten up?

Here is what you said:
Who didn't want to bomb them? Did you, do you, support their tips of attacks so they could get exclusives, or their obvious function as a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda and anyone else who has a gory video or threat to publish, not to mention their paychecks from Saddam earlier?
You agreed with your imbecile president! You agreed that you had the same imbecile thought: To bomb an independent news organization (in an allied country no less) because you didn't like what they were reporting!

You thus agreed that free speech and a free press was not in accordance with your worldview.

And you ask me to lighten up?! Good grief!
I care less about the "original" article. When I hear a tape of GWB saying "Let's bomb Al Jazeera in this place called Qatar. Is that near Bahgdad?", then I will call for impeachment on grounds of insanity, but I haven't.
Don't read too well?
Just recently I heard a news report on NPR about the US using phosphor "GAS" in Iraq. The emotive context is rather obvious don't you think? Particularly since there is no phosphor "gas" weapon. Deliberate leftist misinformation, or dumb ass reporters and editors? Both perhaps?
Perhaps you should try and find a defense for your hypocritical views.

[geni]

Sorry to be so obtuse. Let me explain more simply. I suggest that he meant bombing their headquarters in Iraq, not Qatar (and not Belgium or France).

Clear enough for you?

Stupid idea nevertheless, however satisfying it may have seemed. It also seems he didn't do it. Did he?


Err the US has bombed the Al Jazeera headquarters in Iraq.

[Mark]

sigh...

Yet another example of Bush and his apologists making us look like the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the face of the Earth.

Freedom of the Press! Unless you say something we don't like...then we'll kill you.

All I can say is I hope the rest of the world realizes that the Shrub does not speak for all of us.

[demon]

Mark:
"Freedom of the Press! Unless you say something we don't like...then we'll kill you."


Well, famous veteran English reporter Kate Adie (hardly an anti-establishment figure), was onto all of this from the start and talked about US plans to specifically target media that was independent to curtail the free spread of information.

quote from "Pentagon Threatens to Kill Independent Reporters in Iraq" :

The Americans (and I've been talking to the Pentagon) take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information. I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks -- that is the television signals out of Bhagdad, for example -- were detected by any planes, electronic media, mediums of the military above Bhagdad, they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists, `Who cares!'
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PentBuryNews.html


As much as it pains me, I`m with Boris on this one:

"The Attorney General's ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act, and, as it happens, I would not object to the continued prosecution of those who are alleged to have broken it. But we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.

If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies."

[Skeptic]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the reason for the "D-notice" probably has nothing at all to do with Bush's tasteless joke. It is far more likely that in that conference Bush and Blair discussed secret intelligence reports (or something similar) and that the transcript of the meeting, etc., is being covered is due to this fact.

[Skeptic]

Double post-sorry.

[Skeptic]

Double post-sorry.

[Elind]

Err the US has bombed the Al Jazeera headquarters in Iraq.

We've had this comment before. I suggest that if they had wanted to do that deliberately there wouldn't have been anything left but a hole in the ground. I suppose you say all collateral damage is deliberate?

[Elind]

Lighten up?

Here is what you said:

You agreed with your imbecile president! You agreed that you had the same imbecile thought: To bomb an independent news organization (in an allied country no less) because you didn't like what they were reporting!

You thus agreed that free speech and a free press was not in accordance with your worldview.

And you ask me to lighten up?! Good grief!

Don't read too well?

Perhaps you should try and find a defense for your hypocritical views.

You are a rude little Dane aren't you?

I'll repeat the main points I made, since you have trouble understanding.

I have the opinion that Al Jazeera has no problem being a mouthpiece for terrorists, and that the evidence is that they have had advance information about attacks that they used to further their propaganda, and that they had staff in the pay of Saddam even before the war. You consider that freedom of expression. I don't.

If Bush expressed the opinion that he'd like to bomb them, whether in Qatar or Iraq, he is doing nothing that many on the other side of apologists for terrorists have thought, but of course being President he needs to watch his mouth more than most. Unfortunately he is not very good at that.

Clearly, however, it would not have been a good idea to bomb an ally, and he didn't. It would also not have been a good idea to bomb their offices in Iraq, deliberately, when they had the option of expelling them, as the Iraqis have done in the past for periods of time, because they also think Al Jazeera is an unprincipled supporter of terrorists.

You keep your company, I'll keep mine.:mad:

[Elind]

I hate to point out the obvious, but the reason for the "D-notice" probably has nothing at all to do with Bush's tasteless joke. It is far more likely that in that conference Bush and Blair discussed secret intelligence reports (or something similar) and that the transcript of the meeting, etc., is being covered is due to this fact.

Good point. One would hope that they had discussions about other things.:boggled:

[geni]

We've had this comment before. I suggest that if they had wanted to do that deliberately there wouldn't have been anything left but a hole in the ground. I suppose you say all collateral damage is deliberate?

2 hits out of 2 is a reasonable sucess rate.

[geni]

I have the opinion that Al Jazeera has no problem being a mouthpiece for terrorists, and that the evidence is that they have had advance information about attacks that they used to further their propaganda, and that they had staff in the pay of Saddam even before the war. You consider that freedom of expression. I don't.


Al Jazeera are not a mouthpiece for anyone. Over the years their reports have pissed off everyone.

[Elind]

Al Jazeera are not a mouthpiece for anyone. Over the years their reports have pissed off everyone.

True, which doesn't absolve them in this issue which is that they help our enemies when they have the opportunity, and they foment hatred when they can, not only against us, because that is the only pornography legal in the Middle East.

[Elind]

2 hits out of 2 is a reasonable sucess rate.

As I said, to you any collateral damage is a success.

[geni]

True, which doesn't absolve them in this issue which is that they help our enemies when they have the opportunity, and they foment hatred when they can, not only against us, because that is the only pornography legal in the Middle East.

Ok supose Al Jazeera didn't broadcast the stuff sent to it. I seem to recall that the nick berg beheading video manged quite a wide level of circliation without Al Jazeera

[geni]

As I said, to you any collateral damage is a success.

Except you are missuseing the term collateral damage. Collateral damage is where your weapon hits the target but damages things beside the target.

[Elind]

Except you are missuseing the term collateral damage. Collateral damage is where your weapon hits the target but damages things beside the target.

Right. Didn't you see the guy with a bazooka (was it a camera perhaps?) right next to the Al Jazeera offices? Let's drop the conspiracy angle shall we, or we'll never have time to sleep.

How about the earlier direct hit on the Chinese embassy? Obviously not collateral. You say a conspiracy perhaps, I say doodoo happens.

[Elind]

Ok supose Al Jazeera didn't broadcast the stuff sent to it. I seem to recall that the nick berg beheading video manged quite a wide level of circliation without Al Jazeera

Jeez, let's not get into justifications of one issue based on the fact that the world in not perfect everywhere else.

I don't say repress all disagreeable information, but if you insist on calling obvious fomenting of hatred and blind repetition of such information from terrorists not worthy of condemnation, then I guess we can only agree to disagree.

[geni]

Right. Didn't you see the guy with a bazooka (was it a camera perhaps?) right next to the Al Jazeera offices? Let's drop the conspiracy angle shall we, or we'll never have time to sleep.


Considering when it was hit I rather doubt that the US was aiming a single troops at that point.

BTW since when did the the Iraqis use bazookas? The RPG-7 was their anti amour weapon of choice. Sadam even had a lisence to make the things.


How about the earlier direct hit on the Chinese embassy? Obviously not collateral. You say a conspiracy perhaps, I say doodoo happens.

I think they have only hit a Chinese embassy once

[geni]

I don't say repress all disagreeable information, but if you insist on calling obvious fomenting of hatred and blind repetition of such information from terrorists not worthy of condemnation, then I guess we can only agree to disagree.

I kinda of object to condeming the internet.

[Elind]

Considering when it was hit I rather doubt that the US was aiming a single troops at that point.

BTW since when did the the Iraqis use bazookas? The RPG-7 was their anti amour weapon of choice. Sadam even had a lisence to make the things.



I think they have only hit a Chinese embassy once

Your doubts are noted, as is your technical correction.

Once. Right. That was one doodoo of doodoos. Surely you will grant that if they can make one major one, they are quite capable of many lesser ones?

I think you have a tendency to read conspiracy into too many situations, not that it couldn't happen of course, but the sources I hear for most of these are not ones I consider unbiased.

[sophia8]

Has anybody on this thread actually watched Al-jazeera? I mean the station itself, not the tiny, highly-edited bits of its news programming broadcast by other stations.
If anybody has, could they please tell the rest of us what it actually broadcasts?

[DanishDynamite]

You are a rude little Dane aren't you?
I prefer the term frank.
I'll repeat the main points I made, since you have trouble understanding.

I have the opinion that Al Jazeera has no problem being a mouthpiece for terrorists,...
In what sense are they a mouthpeice? They are a news organization. They receive footage which is very newsworthy. Why should they not air this?
... and that the evidence is that they have had advance information about attacks that they used to further their propaganda,...
What evidence? And what propaganda?
...and that they had staff in the pay of Saddam even before the war.
Never heard of this and I don't see the relevance. Should CNN be bombed if it turned out they had some journalists who were in the pay of Saddam? Should the CIA be bombed if it turned out that they had some double-agents?
You consider that freedom of expression. I don't.
Scary.
If Bush expressed the opinion that he'd like to bomb them, whether in Qatar or Iraq, he is doing nothing that many on the other side of apologists for terrorists have thought, but of course being President he needs to watch his mouth more than most. Unfortunately he is not very good at that.
The difference between a President wanting an imbecile action performed and others, is that the President can actually make it happen.
Clearly, however, it would not have been a good idea to bomb an ally, and he didn't. It would also not have been a good idea to bomb their offices in Iraq, deliberately, when they had the option of expelling them, as the Iraqis have done in the past for periods of time, because they also think Al Jazeera is an unprincipled supporter of terrorists.
He didn't only because he was talked out of it by someone without a blood-clot to the brain. Had he followed your advice...
You keep your company, I'll keep mine.:mad:
Whatever.

[geni]

Your doubts are noted, as is your technical correction.

Once. Right. That was one doodoo of doodoos. Surely you will grant that if they can make one major one, they are quite capable of many lesser ones?

Statisticaly the hitting an embasy in bagdad is more likely than hitting the same TV station twice in two diffenern conflicts


I think you have a tendency to read conspiracy into too many situations,


Please back this up with evidence of withdraw it.


not that it couldn't happen of course, but the sources I hear for most of these are not ones I consider unbiased.

It is an objective fact that Al Jazeera offices in both Kabul and Bagdad have been hit.

[Elind]

I prefer the term frank.

No. It was definitely rude by our standards, but of course I understand you have different ones, being a foreigner and all...

In what sense are they a mouthpeice? They are a news organization. They receive footage which is very newsworthy. Why should they not air this?

I can't educate you here, if you are unaware of the difference between news reporting and partisan propaganda. Presumably your parents were too young to educate you much about that aspect of WWII (please, this is not WWII, but the propaganda issue is always relevant).


What evidence? And what propaganda?
I guess I receive my news from partisan sources :eek:, but you don't. Keep in touch better, please.

Never heard of this and I don't see the relevance. Should CNN be bombed if it turned out they had some journalists who were in the pay of Saddam? Should the CIA be bombed if it turned out that they had some double-agents?

Never heard of it. Actually I recall they were momentarily embarrased enough to dismiss a few people. No relevance? Wanna bet everyone in AJ didn't know about it? It describes a culture. Is that irrelevant? You harp about it enough when it suits your particular agenda.

Scary.

Scary? Expecting news orgaizations to abide by the same standards of ethics that everyone else is supposed to do is scary to you? That's scary to me. Next time you know of killing to be done, will you take your camera to record it for profit or will you call the cops? Of course, silly me, if you work for a news organization apply the principles of free press, then you'll do the former; otherwise the latter?

The difference between a President wanting an imbecile action performed and others, is that the President can actually make it happen.

But you can't get it through your Danish skull that he didn't, nor have I seen the words spoken, which you claim to know so well, nor have I seen the heated argument to disuade against, that you claim to know so well. How about
"I'd like to bomb those bastards in AJ".
"In Qatar?".
"Of course not, when they come to Iraq".
"Probably not a ngood idea".
"I suppose you are right".
"Let's get back to business"

He didn't only because he was talked out of it by someone without a blood-clot to the brain. Had he followed your advice...
My advice? That was that it was not a good idea. Why are you attempting to change my position in a moving thread, by pretending to revise my position? Is that Danish journalism?


Whatever.

Agreement at last. I knew you'd come around. Kyss.:kiss:

[Skeptic]

Al Jazeera needs to be considered in perspective. Sure, it is deeply biased by anti-American (let alone antisemitic, I mean, ahem, anti-israeli, er, anti-zionist-entity) bias. In particular, it has a strong streak of conspiracy-theory thinking. So, no, I don't believe what they say, of course.

That said, in the Arab world, the very possibility of a TV station--as paranoid and biased as it is--which is a). popular, b). not government (i.e., junta-in-power) controlled, c). not restricted to publishing official propaganda, is an improvement.

Yes, one sometimes wonders if "Our unnamed sources uncovered a zionist conspiracy..." is much improvement over "Our glorious leader uncovered a zionist conspiracy...", but it is, and a big one at that.

[Elind]

Al Jazeera needs to be considered in perspective. Sure, it is deeply biased by anti-American (let alone antisemitic, I mean, ahem, anti-israeli, er, anti-zionist-entity) bias. In particular, it has a strong streak of conspiracy-theory thinking. So, no, I don't believe what they say, of course.

That said, in the Arab world, the very possibility of a TV station--as paranoid and biased as it is--which is a). popular, b). not government (i.e., junta-in-power) controlled, c). not restricted to publishing official propaganda, is an improvement.

Yes, one sometimes wonders if "Our unnamed sources uncovered a zionist conspiracy..." is much improvement over "Our glorious leader uncovered a zionist conspiracy...", but it is, and a big one at that.

OK. So you describe a "News" channel (and Al Arabia I believe) that is not government managed (other than perhaps by bribery).

Perhaps you are right to the extent that this does set a precedent and example that could actually result in broadcasting that is "fair and balanced" (just to dig at some), which is far from assured given that so far this "independent" aspect still manages to parrot the hate messages of the controlled ones even while they throw lesser barbs at the power that be.

None of this, however, changes the fact that today they cheer the terrorists more than they condemn them while chastising petty local politics in order to pretend to be unbiased.

For that they still deserve contempt.

[Elind]

Statisticaly the hitting an embasy in bagdad is more likely than hitting the same TV station twice in two diffenern conflicts

How many other buildings in the same area were damaged, not necessarily at the same time? Statistics and coincidences are the fodder of conspiracyism, if that all that is presented.



Please back this up with evidence of withdraw it.

I'll choose to back it up; with this: " I think you have a tendency to read conspiracy into too many situations,"

(perhaps I shouldn't generalize so. I'll modify that to mean this situation. We'll leave future ones to speak for themselves.)


It is an objective fact that Al Jazeera offices in both Kabul and Bagdad have been hit.

Suffered damage in a war zone, true. This proves what? A conspiracy? You like to present evidence when it suits you. Feel free now.