The Myth of al-Jazeera as "Anti-American"

[Mr Manifesto]

Those like me went to one news source that was a little unusual from the rest during the Gulf War II. This was a news source that I, for one, had not heard of prior to GWII.

al-Jazeera was a news station that provided a genuinely alternative news view: It's journalists weren't 'embedded' with coalition forces, yet it still was able to provide 'front line' knowledge. During the war, many like myself noticed there were many days when al-Jazeera was not accessible. This is because it was al-Jazeera's web site was subject to hacker attacks. These hacker attacks were probably from ordinary American citizens, concerned that al-Jazeera was anti-American. After all, it interviewed Osama bin Laden, didn't it?

But is al-Jazeera simply, as seen by many Americans, an Islam mouthpiece for attacking the US? Let's take a look.
al-Jazeera was born in Qatar in 1996. When al-Jazeera first went to air, even über-Repulican Thomas Friedman remarked that the station was 'the birth of Arab freedom'.

It hit the ground running, garnering over five hundred complaints from Arab nations in its first year. Complaints included:

Libya withdrew her ambassador from Qatar after al-Jazeera broadcast an interview from a Libyan opposition leader.

Iraq complained after the station revealed the extravagence of Saddam's birthday celebrations.

Tunisia didn't like being accused of human rights violations.

Iran complained of 'slurs' against Ayatollah Khomeini.

Algeria cut off electricity in several cities in a bid to keep her people from watching an article that accused her army of complicity in several masacres.

Arafat objected to Hamas leaders being interviewed.

Hamas was angered by the appearance of Israeli politicians and leaders on the programme "The Opposite Direction".

An al-Jazeera correspondant was even arrested in 2003 in the Gaza strip by the Palestinian authority for 'speaking out of turn' (in the words of Taria Ali in his book, "The Clash of Fundamentalisms).

So what is clear is that al-Jazeera is not merely an anti-American station. It is criticial of many countries for a myriad of reasons. The reason it became subject to hacker attacks was for the same reason web sites like Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/) and others of its ilk were attacked: it was simply seen as anti-American because it attacked the ill-conceived international policies of the US.

It is a sad indictment on a country which supposedly stands for freedom, including freedom of speech, when its citizens start attacking one of the only news sources in the Middle East that actually dares to crticise the Arab nations.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It is a sad indictment on a country which supposedly stands for freedom, including freedom of speech, when its citizens start attacking one of the only news sources in the Middle East that actually dares to crticise the Arab nations.
Remember, this is the same country whose citizens tarred and feathered Tories around the time of the American Revolution. Lynch law is nothing new.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

During the war, many like myself noticed there were many days when al-Jazeera was not accessible. This is because it was al-Jazeera's web site was subject to hacker attacks. These hacker attacks were probably from ordinary American citizens, concerned that al-Jazeera was anti-American.


Do you have any actual evidence that it was primarily americans, or even that it was hacker attacks (rather than too much traffic over spotty networks)? I would hate to think you're merely speculating.


So what is clear is that al-Jazeera is not merely an anti-American station. It is criticial of many countries for a myriad of reasons.


The key word here is "merely". I think they are anti-American. But that isn't necessarily a problem, as long as they don't lie about us and as long as they remain critical of arab dictatorships.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Do you have any actual evidence that it was primarily americans, or even that it was hacker attacks (rather than too much traffic over spotty networks)? I would hate to think you're merely speculating.



Al-Jazeera hacker attack puts question mark on media during war (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s819257.htm)

Al-Jazeera hacker plead guilty (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2987342.stm)

An American web designer is to formally plead guilty to hacking the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera's website during the Iraq war.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

It is a sad indictment on a country which supposedly stands for freedom, including freedom of speech, when its citizens start attacking one of the only news sources in the Middle East that actually dares to crticise the Arab nations.

I think you're reading a little too much into this. I agree that it's completely unamerican to try to censor views you think are too critical of the US. But one person (and that's all there is solid evidence for) doesn't represent an entire nation. No surprise SOMEONE decided to act like a complete jerk. But he got caught, and the US government is punishing him, as it should.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


I think you're reading a little too much into this. I agree that it's completely unamerican to try to censor views you think are too critical of the US. But one person (and that's all there is solid evidence for) doesn't represent an entire nation. No surprise SOMEONE decided to act like a complete jerk. But he got caught, and the US government is punishing him, as it should.

al-Jazeera wasn't the only site attacked by cranky American hackers. What I'm saying is that it's indicitive of the ignorance Americans have of the world around them. A site was attacked for being anti-American, but it wasn't anti-American so much as critical of America.

[Richard G]

Al-Jazeera is anti Jew, not anti American.

[aerocontrols]

Link (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=399391&highlight=jazeera#post399391) to previous post.

MattJ

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

al-Jazeera wasn't the only site attacked by cranky American hackers. What I'm saying is that it's indicitive of the ignorance Americans have of the world around them. A site was attacked for being anti-American, but it wasn't anti-American so much as critical of America.

You aren't under the impression that ignorance of the world or knee-jerk reaction to criticism is unique to Americans, are you? The kind of stupidity and narrow-mindedness that these hackers displayed can be found the world over.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Richard G
Al-Jazeera is anti Jew, not anti American.

That must be why their interview with Israeli generals and politicians got Hamas all hot and bothered.

Before you shoot your mouth off again, Richard, you should go to that building down the road from you that has all those funny bundles of paper on shelves. That's called a library. It has books which you read. Maybe when you've learned a bit more about the world around you, you can make some legitimate comments on JREF instead of merely wasting server space.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You aren't under the impression that ignorance of the world or knee-jerk reaction to criticism is unique to Americans, are you? The kind of stupidity and narrow-mindedness that these hackers displayed can be found the world over.

The argument is that in this instance, it was because there are Americans who believe al-Jazeera is anti-American. There was a big uproar against al-Jazeera when they dared to show pictures of dead Americans. My point is that al-Jazeera isn't anything of the sort.

[espritch]

The argument is that in this instance, it was because there are Americans who believe al-Jazeera is anti-American. There was a big uproar against al-Jazeera when they dared to show pictures of dead Americans. My point is that al-Jazeera isn't anything of the sort.

Showing that Al-Jazeera is critical of Islamic states doesn't necessarily demonstrate that it isn't Anti-american (not that I'm saying it is given that I haven't actually watched it).

It is a sad indictment on a country which supposedly stands for freedom, including freedom of speech, when its citizens start attacking one of the only news sources in the Middle East that actually dares to crticise the Arab nations.

No. It's a sad indictment on the person or persons who hacked the sites, not of the country as a whole. And come to think of it,
your own link indicates that at least one of these persons was in fact indicted for this action by this country. I'd say that speaks well for America's commitment to freedom of speech.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

It is a sad indictment on a country which supposedly stands for freedom, including freedom of speech, when its citizens start attacking one of the only news sources in the Middle East that actually dares to crticise the Arab nations.

It is also a sad argument to compare a few hackers whose sole purpose in life is to cause damage to other people's equipment to the general populace, who barely knows how to turn the damn computer on.

Could one of the causes be that al-Jazeera has crappy security and falls down on applying patches? I guarantee that if you put up a web server anywhere in the world, within a month (probably even less time), your web logs will start showing attacks aimed at mostly NT based servers.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
This is because it was al-Jazeera's web site was subject to hacker attacks. These hacker attacks were probably from ordinary American citizens

Someone who cracks into systems is called a cracker. If the web site was made inaccessible this way then that is what you call the person who did it.

If the web site was just flooded with traffic it may have been the work of a "script kiddie" using tools a code hacker wrote.

Just because CNN doesn't know what a hacker is or what one does doesnt mean that you have to sound equally retarded as them.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


Someone who cracks into systems is called a cracker. If the web site was made inaccessible this way then that is what you call the person who did it.

If the web site was just flooded with traffic it may have been the work of a "script kiddie" using tools a code hacker wrote.

Just because CNN doesn't know what a hacker is or what one does doesnt mean that you have to sound equally retarded as them.

Ooh, you got me there. I guess I'd better shut my mouth.

Anyway, I'll concede that I jumped the gun a bit saying that a whole country was responsible for the actions of a hacker, given that the hacker was subsequently taken to trial. However I do believe that the reason hackers have taken to attacking al-Jazeera is because those hackers believe al-Jazeera is anti-American. This thread was supposed to let hackers know that al-Jazeera isn't merely a mouthpiece for anti-Americanism, it's a legitimate news agency with criticisms of countries all over the world.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


It is also a sad argument to compare a few hackers whose sole purpose in life is to cause damage to other people's equipment to the general populace, who barely knows how to turn the damn computer on.

Could one of the causes be that al-Jazeera has crappy security and falls down on applying patches? I guarantee that if you put up a web server anywhere in the world, within a month (probably even less time), your web logs will start showing attacks aimed at mostly NT based servers.

While nothing is impossible, al-Jazeera isn't a backyard operation. Its funding is in the hundreds of millions, especially keeping in mind that it has contracts with CNN and other news agencies. My personal belief is that its security is as good as anyone elses, but it is just that: a belief.

[karl]

Originally posted by corplinx
Someone who cracks into systems is called a cracker. If the web site was made inaccessible this way then that is what you call the person who did it.


Industry professionals might do that, but in everyday language no distinction is made between "hacker" and "cracker". The same word describes them both. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: hack·er
Pronunciation: 'ha-k&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : one that hacks
2 : a person who is inexperienced or unskilled at a particular activity <a tennis hacker>
3 : an expert at programming and solving problems with a computer
4 : a person who illegally gains access to and sometimes tampers with information in a computer system

[Baker]

This should answer your question just look at al-Jazeera Iraq war coverage.
Notice the bold letters!

Arabs responded Thursday to the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein's government with anger, shock and even disbelief. One newspaper refused to acknowledge that Baghdad had fallen.
Across the Middle East, people struggled to reconcile images of celebrating Iraqis with widely held suspicions about the United States' motives.

''We discovered that all that the (Iraqi) information minister was saying was all lies,'' said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo, Egypt.

"Now no one believes al-Jazeera anymore," he said, referring to the Arabic-language television news channel.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-10-arab-reaction_x.htm

[Number Six]

Al-Jazeera is an Islamic mouthpiece. You can't survive as a huge media outlet in that part of the world without being an Islamic mouthpiece. But I think that the positive response some have to al-Jazeera is that it won't spout the Islamic party line 100% of the time, which is a big change from anything that came before.

It's all relative and relatively speaking al-Jazeera is a big step forward.

[Elind]

"But is al-Jazeera simply, as seen by many Americans, an Islam mouthpiece for attacking the US? Let's take a look. ...."

You think anti-authority means something admirable in this case. Most Arabs like the establishment knocked, as long as it's by their own; just like kids want to see sleaze on MTV as long as it seems to be presented by kids.

However the boogy man remains the same, namely the USA, or the West when they want to seem fair.

The fact is that Al Jazeera is the Arab equivalent of Hannity (or is it Colmes? I can never remember which one is the straight man) and they appeal to the gut reaction of the Arab street/gutter, as evidenced by the respect they get from terrorists world wide.

I think your admiration is misplaced.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Elind
"But is al-Jazeera simply, as seen by many Americans, an Islam mouthpiece for attacking the US? Let's take a look. ...."

You think anti-authority means something admirable in this case. Most Arabs like the establishment knocked, as long as it's by their own; just like kids want to see sleaze on MTV as long as it seems to be presented by kids.

However the boogy man remains the same, namely the USA, or the West when they want to seem fair.

The fact is that Al Jazeera is the Arab equivalent of Hannity (or is it Colmes? I can never remember which one is the straight man) and they appeal to the gut reaction of the Arab street/gutter, as evidenced by the respect they get from terrorists world wide.

I think your admiration is misplaced.

What admiration? I was saying that al-Jazeera isn't simply a mouthpiece for anti-American sentiment. I admire it about as much as I admire the BBC or CNN.

[Tormac]

Mr. Manifesto wrote

al-Jazeera wasn't the only site attacked by cranky American hackers. What I'm saying is that it's indicitive of the ignorance Americans have of the world around them. A site was attacked for being anti-American, but it wasn't anti-American so much as critical of America.

Unfortunately, there are some in this country (USA that is) that equate being "critical of America" with being "anti-American".

Not that it is a reasonable excuse, but emotions ran really high over the 9-11 suicide crash. In some quarters they still are smoldering embers waiting to be fanned into flames.

In general America is not as cosmopolitan as the rest of the world. It may be a natural tendency for a country as large, powerful, and heterogeneous as we are. Our own internal debates are sometimes hard to follow. It is difficult to get differing views in the American press beyond the classical democrat vs. republican or liberal vs. conservative debate of American politics. If one has views that are not easily encapsulated in the arguments that Americans instantly recognize, if one needs more than ten minutes to explain a complex issue to the American public (let alone something that can not be summed up in a 30 second sound bite or commercial) good luck getting it on the American press.