The Enemy on Our Airwaves

[lucky wilbury]

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB111438848754715621-IBjfINmlaV4m52taX2IbaqHm5,00.html

The Enemy on Our Airwaves

By DORRANCE SMITH
April 25, 2005; Page A14

On April 11, Jeffrey Ake, an American, was taken hostage in Iraq. Video of him in captivity was shown on Al-Jazeera on April 13. A short time later six American networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC -- aired the same video, a vivid example of the ongoing relationship between terrorists, Al-Jazeera and the networks. Last week, Al-Jazeera showed video of a helicopter being shot, bursting into flames and trailing smoke as it fell to the ground. It also aired video of the lone survivor being forced to walk on a broken leg and then being shot by the terrorists, one of whom said, "We are applying God's law."

As the war continues, more hostages will be taken and acts of murderous violence committed -- leading to more videos for Al-Jazeera and the networks. Isn't it time to scrutinize the relationship among Al-Jazeera, American networks and the terrorists? What role should the U.S. government be playing?

Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and al Qaeda have a partner in Al-Jazeera and, by extension, most networks in the U.S. This partnership is a powerful tool for the terrorists in the war in Iraq. Figures show that 77% of Iraqis cite TV as their main source of information; 15% cite newspapers. Current estimates are that close to 100% of Iraqis have access to satellite TV, 18% to cell phones, and 8% to the Internet. The battle for Iraqi hearts and minds is being fought over satellite TV. It is a battle today that we are losing badly.

The collaboration between the terrorists and Al-Jazeera is stronger than ever. While the precise terms of that relationship are virtually unknown, we do know this: Al-Jazeera and the terrorists have a working arrangement that extends beyond a modus vivendi. When the terrorists want to broadcast something that helps their cause, they have immediate and reliable access to Al-Jazeera. This relationship -- in a time of war -- raises some important questions:

• What does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorist organizations in order to get consistent access to their video?

• Does it pay for material?

• Is it promised safety and protection if it continues to air unedited tapes? (No Al-Jazeera employee has been killed or taken hostage by the terrorists. When I ran the Iraqi Television Network, seven employees were killed by terrorists.)

• Does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorists that it won't reveal their whereabouts and techniques as a quid pro quo for doing business? Is this bargain in the guise of journalism a defensible practice?


While I was in Iraq in 2004, Al-Jazeera was expelled from the country by the Iraqi Governing Council for violating international law. Numerous times they had advance knowledge of military actions against coalition forces. Instead of reporting to the authorities that it had been tipped off, Al-Jazeera would pre-position a crew at the event site and wait for the attack, record it and rush it on air. This happened time after time, to the point where Al-Jazeera was expelled from Iraq. The airing of the Ake video, however, demonstrates that it can still operate on behalf of the terrorists even from outside the country.

Al-Jazeera continues to broadcast because it reportedly receives $100 million a year from the government of Qatar. Without this subsidy it would be off the air, off the Internet and out of business. So, does Qatar's funding of Al-Jazeera constitute state sponsorship of terrorism? As long as Al-Jazeera continues to practice in cahoots with terrorists while we are at war, should the U.S. government maintain normal relations with Qatar? As long as Al-Jazeera continues to aid and abet the enemy, as long as we are fighting a war on the ground and in the airwaves, why are we not fighting back against Al-Jazeera and Qatar, the nation that makes possible the network's existence? Should the U.S. not adopt a hard-line position about doing business with Qatar as long as Al-Jazeera is doing business with terrorists?

In addition to being subsidized by Qatar, Al-Jazeera has very strong partners in the U.S. -- ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC. Video aired by Al-Jazeera ends up on these networks, sometimes within minutes. The terrorists are aware of this access and use it -- as in the Ake case -- to further their aims. They want to reach the American audience and influence public opinion.

The arrangement between the U.S. networks and Al-Jazeera raises questions of journalistic ethics. Do the U.S. networks know the terms of the relationship that Al-Jazeera has with the terrorists? Do they want to know?

There has been no in-depth reporting about Al-Jazeera in the U.S. and virtually no scrutiny of Qatar and its relationship with the network. Why not? Is it that the American networks don't want to give up their tainted video? And since they all get the same material and all air it at the same time, do they feel a certain safety being in bed together? The cable networks have become addicted to the latest B-roll video. If that video was obtained by means that violated their own standards and practices, would they air it? Would they even know?

What if one of the networks had taken a stand and refused to air the Ake video on the grounds that it was aiding and abetting the enemy, and that from this point forward it would not be a tool of terrorist propaganda? The terrorists know that the airing of such video creates pressure on the government to negotiate a release. It also sends a signal to Americans about the perils of being an American working in Iraq. If the Ake video had never aired in the U.S., the position of the hostage-takers would have been severely impaired. Had it never aired, terrorists would have had no incentive to continue making the tapes.

Is it fanciful to think that network news executives would have the fortitude not to air any video shot by terrorists? They already stop short of airing everything, so why not refuse to touch the stuff altogether? At the very least, is it not reasonable to raise questions about the sources and methods used to obtain this material? The war in Iraq will likely drag on for some time. More lives will be lost and more hostages will be taken and more videos will be made. Now we should engage the terrorists on the airwaves as we do on the ground.

[lucky wilbury]

in case anyone didn't know one of al jazeeras reporters,Tayseer Allouni, is currently on trial in spain for aiding al qaeda

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/22/madrid.trial/

Perhaps the best known defendant is Tayseer Allouni, 50, a correspondent for the Arabic-language Al Jazeera television network who had an exclusive interview with Osama bin Laden less than two months after the September 11 attacks.

The indictment charges that he secretly aided al Qaeda as well, by carrying funds for terrorist elements and providing other logistical aid, mainly before he became associated with al Jazeera. He faces nine years in prison if convicted, and has been backed by his TV network in proclaiming his innocence.

[Seshmeister]

Yup hear evil see no evil.

Lets get rid of all of the news networks in the world except Fox and then we won't get any news that big brother doesn't want us to see.

Lock them up somewhere without a trial and torture them, it's the American way.

[lucky wilbury]

did you read the article sesh?

[Seshmeister]

I think it's biased.

The core of Al-Jazeera was initially made up of foreign desk staff from networks like the BBC and while often coming from a different angle politically from the West have maintained some of the standards of independance and accurate reporting they learned in their previous jobs.

Some of the stuff Al-Jazeera puts out may be distateful but it is also true. I think they have pretty good veracity in their reports. Making insurgents or terrorists or whatever into faceless motiveless bogeymen doesn't help our understanding at all. I would rather find out what's actually happening and then make my own decisions on the 'bad guys' rather than have the western media edit and present whatever our governments want us to see. Information is not a bad thing. It goes back to the usual censorship debate. Even the showing of the execution of Western hostages will have made the vast majority of people in the area reallise what bastards these people are. Let truth win. If we are right and act well then it will be patently obvious. Hearts and minds I think it was called before the evil of Guantanamo.

If you can't keep the high ground when dealing with terrorists then you must be doing something pretty badly wrong.

I believe they have decided to stop showing videos of executions but in any case in the world of the internet does it make that much difference?

The fact that one reporter did or did not have Al Queda(whatever that is?) links doesn't indict the whole station in my opinion. OJ was in Naked Gun so should we ban that from our video libraries?

The article also doesn't mention the good that Al-Jazeera does as a free broadcaster. Most of the totalitarian Muslim governments in the region fucking hate it because they can't control it and it often runs pieces attacking the Saudi or Syrian regimes.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Nickdfresh]

Didn't al-Jazeera just get banned from Iran?

[Seshmeister]

I dunno but it wouldn't surprise me and backs up my point.

[lucky wilbury]

so you have no problem with al jazeera knowing in advance of a bombing or attack and them setting up their news cameras to film it? you have no problem of them airing hostage videos which serve no purpose other then intimadate the public? you have no problem with them either paying off or protecting terrorists locations? all of these things i belive in both the us and britain are illegal. it is illegal for a reporter to know of a crime in advance and not report it. what is happening in iraq is a propaganda war. the only reason these bombings happen is to weaken the moral of the public and they do so by getting their free air time on al jazeera. if al jazeera didn't give the terrorist what they want which is air time these acts wouldn't happen and the us media is helping them right out by giving them free air time. again i point back to the article and its main points:

• What does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorist organizations in order to get consistent access to their video?

• Does it pay for material?

• Is it promised safety and protection if it continues to air unedited tapes? (No Al-Jazeera employee has been killed or taken hostage by the terrorists. When I ran the Iraqi Television Network, seven employees were killed by terrorists.)

• Does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorists that it won't reveal their whereabouts and techniques as a quid pro quo for doing business? Is this bargain in the guise of journalism a defensible practice?


if any of those are true al jazeera is acting like nothing more then a propaganda arm for terrorists

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I dunno but it wouldn't surprise me and backs up my point.

Apparently so!

Iran urged to lift Aljazeera curb
Tuesday 19 April 2005, 21:40 Makka Time, 18:40 GMT

Aljazeera has reiterated its adherence to professional ethics

The Arab Committee for the Defence of Journalists has expressed deep regret at Iran's move to temporarily suspend Aljazeera's operations in the country.

Tehran suspended nationwide operations of Aljazeera on Monday, accusing it of inflaming violent protests by Iran's Arab minority in southwestern Iran, state-run TV reported.

Reacting to the move, Aljazeera spokesman Jihad Ballout said the broadcaster's Tehran bureau "was advised verbally that its professional activities are temporarily suspended".

Ballout said in a statement on Monday: "While Aljazeera Channel regrets this unexpected and unwarranted decision, it reiterates its intention to continue to be guided in its editorial policy by its ever present professional ethos 'the opinion and the other opinion' enshrined in its Code of Professional Ethics."

First with news.

"Aljazeera further assures its audience that it will continue to cover Iranian affairs objectively, comprehensively and in a balanced way, and calls on the relevant Iranian authorities to reconsider the decision to suspend its bureau’s activities," Ballout added.

"Aljazeera further assures its audience that it will continue to cover Iranian affairs objectively, comprehensively and in a balanced way"

Jihad Ballout,
Aljazeera spokesman

For its part, the Arab Committee for the Defence of Journalists called on the Iranian authorities to reverse their decision, saying that closing press and media offices will harm Iran's image and make the country vulnerable to accusations of repression.

Aljazeera is believed to have been the first news outfit to broadcast news of the ethnic unrest in Iran's southwest Khuzestan province. The clashes also featured in the station's talk shows.

Tehran ordered the station to cease operations in Iran until the network explained the motives behind its coverage, which Tehran believes exacerbated the violence.

Violent protests

"If it is proved that Aljazeera committed a crime, it will be prosecuted," Muhammad Hossein Khoshvaght, an official at Iran's Culture and Islamic Guidance Ministry, told state-run TV on Monday.

"We suspended its activity in Iran to investigate the network's role in unrest in Ahvaz," Khoshvaght said. "We expect the network to respect Iran's national integrity and security."

Also on Monday, the Iranian government said, two more protesters died, bringing the three-day toll to three dead and at least eight injured.

Violent demonstrations erupted in Arab-dominated Khuzestan province on Friday and Saturday after rumours spread of an alleged government plan to move non-Arabs into the region.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EEFB68E6-6C71-477B-AC76-B7D912201EF4.htm

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
[url]1) What does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorist organizations in order to get consistent access to their video?

2) Does it pay for material?

3) Is it promised safety and protection if it continues to air unedited tapes? (No Al-Jazeera employee has been killed or taken hostage by the terrorists. When I ran the Iraqi Television Network, seven employees were killed by terrorists.)

4) Does Al-Jazeera promise the terrorists that it won't reveal their whereabouts and techniques as a quid pro quo for doing business? Is this bargain in the guise of journalism a defensible practice?


I'd like to have a go at answering these questions actually because a few times I heard Al-Jazeera getting grilled about these issues.

1) Who else are they going to give them to?
2) No
3) No. The fact that Iraqi TV journalists from a State run network were previously murdered yet again proves the point that every fucking expert on the region has been screaming at the US/UK governments for years now. IRAQ UNDER SADDAM WAS A SECULAR STATE! Al Queda and fucking Osama hated them. Convincing ill educated GI's in Iraq that they are somehow avenging 9-11 is sick.

4) Defensible? I dunno it's debatable. As regards the methods it takes Al-Jazeera claim that there are lots of blindfolds, drop points etc etc which mean that they don't know where the stuff comes from. Given the pressure that the US government could bring to bear on one of their journalists operating in Iraq I'm inclined to believe them.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[lucky wilbury]

how do you know al jazeera doesn't pay for its material? that material is then sold to other media outlets here in the us and in britian. you missing the point ont the thrid one. media from around the world including places like france have had their reporters kidknapped in iraq yet no al jazeera reporter has been kidknapped or killed by terrorists. odd isn't it? if al jazeera refused to take and air hostage tapes and the media in general didn't show anything from them stills etc i could almost guarentee there would be no more hostage taking because there would be no point.

[Seshmeister]

Let's talk about propoganda then.

Let's take two examples.

After 9-11 I remember seeing big fucking funerals for the firefighters, coffins with US flags draped all over them. We were allowed to see that because it was going to make us get angry about the the terrorists.

How many funerals have you seen for US casualties in Iraq?

None because they are worried that people won't think "Fuck those bastards that killed them". They're worried people will think "What the fuck are we doing there?"

It's like Vietnam.

Ever since then our government's have realised that if you lose public opinion you lose the war. My point is that in Vietnam it should have been lost.

Domino theory?

Fucking bullshit.

The man in the street knew that before fucking Henry Kissenger.

We are involved in an illegal pointless war and that means public opinion would be swayed against our government's so they can't allow that.

If it were a just war then every time they showed a coffin on TV we would say God bless that guy, lets keep going.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
how do you know al jazeera doesn't pay for its material? that material is then sold to other media outlets here in the us and in britian. you missing the point ont the thrid one. media from around the world including places like france have had their reporters kidknapped in iraq yet no al jazeera reporter has been kidknapped or killed by terrorists. odd isn't it? if al jazeera refused to take and air hostage tapes and the media in general didn't show anything from them stills etc i could almost guarentee there would be no more hostage taking because there would be no point.

The US and Britain have never shown those videos unless you count rotten.com and I don't think they pay for anything.

You have to believe in people otherwise what's the point in going on. I made the mistake of watching one of those videos on the internet and it made me sick.

What are you saying?

a) People that saw that stuff on Al-Jazeera in the Middle East thought "That's fucking Brilliant! Good on those brave guys cutting off their heads."

b) "Those sick cunts. Maybe the US and Britain have a point."

If it's (b) then it should be compulsory viewing.

If it's (a) then they are animals so without the WMD argument what in the name of fuck are we doing there?

I've met a few Iraqi's and because of the secular nature of their country they are actually a lot more like you than you would think.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[lucky wilbury]

you can see funerals for us service people if you live in the area that the funeral is taking place. happens all the time. vietnam was a winable war. all major battles were won but we lost the pr war. even the vietnamesse propaganda minister went on us tv after the war and said the us media was the best weapon the they had. thats the only battle they won they convinced everyone it was unwinable and the us media played along. what is a pointless war? koera? world war 2? world war 1? they were all pointless to us since we weren't threated except for japan in wwii yet we still fought and died. us in europe in wwii would be illegal since hitler never attacked us. same with musolini. same with korea and same with ww1 and if the public were shown what happen at normandy they would have wanted to know why we were there after all japan attacked us not germany.

[lucky wilbury]

the beheading and killing video seem to get al jazeera their highest ratings. anything with blood and gore their right there. it not the point of showing the videos in the west its their existance that helps the terrorists

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
you can see funerals for us service people if you live in the area that the funeral is taking place. happens all the time. vietnam was a winable war. all major battles were won but we lost the pr war. even the vietnamesse propaganda minister went on us tv after the war and said the us media was the best weapon the they had. thats the only battle they won they convinced everyone it was unwinable and the us media played along.

Vietnam was unwinnable becuase we kept lying to the American people. Have you ever heard the term "Siagon Press Conference?" When you tell people that you have been eradicating the enemy and that the end is in sight, then they launch a major offensive "on national TV," are people just supposed to ignore that?


what is a pointless war? koera? world war 2? world war 1? they were all pointless to us since we weren't threated except for japan in wwii yet we still fought and died. us in europe in wwii would be illegal since hitler never attacked us.

Wrong!! Germany declared war on the US on December 15th 1941! How would fighting them be illegal?


same with musolini. same with korea and same with ww1 and if the public were shown what happen at normandy they would have wanted to know why we were there after all japan attacked us not germany.

The United States faced possible invasion if the UK or the USSR fell. The Wehrmacht was a far cry from the mighty juggernaut that was the Iraqi Army!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
what is a pointless war? koera? world war 2? world war 1? they were all pointless to us since we weren't threated except for japan in wwii yet we still fought and died. us in europe in wwii would be illegal since hitler never attacked us. same with musolini. same with korea and same with ww1 and if the public were shown what happen at normandy they would have wanted to know why we were there after all japan attacked us not germany.

But I thought we had rewritten all that history now?

I thought the US got involved to save the Jews and stop the gas chambers?

Ahh wouldn't it be great to all live in Spielbergs world?:)

95% of wars are about economics and money. The problem is that the rich folk that run the countries can never admit that, In olden times they could because they would give their armies some of the spoils but not nowadays.

The whole of Europe apart from Britain as part of the USSR? Not good for the US economy I think.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
the beheading and killing video seem to get al jazeera their highest ratings. anything with blood and gore their right there. it not the point of showing the videos in the west its their existance that helps the terrorists

This is a 24 hour news station and you are talking about 20 minutes worth in the last 2 years.

Sure it's propoganda but I can't believe how few pictures of dead kids with arms and legs missing were not shown on TV here after the inital bombing of Iraq.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Vietnam was unwinnable becuase we kept lying to the American people. Have you ever heard the term "Siagon Press Conference?" When you tell people that you have been eradicating the enemy and that the end is in sight, then they launch a major offensive "on national TV," are people just supposed to ignore that?

that is a lame excuse. then by that definition ww2 was un winnable becuase after all the government told lies during that war as well. we're taking over this island and that island and pay no mind to the fact that air craft carrier or two were sunk were still going strong!




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wrong!! Germany declared war on the US on December 15th 1941! How would fighting them be illegal?

your missing the point. unless were attacked to most people were not at war. saddam did declare war on us in 91 and then he went on to violate a cease fire there for the resumption of a state of war exists.




Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The United States faced possible invasion if the UK or the USSR fell. The Wehrmacht was a far cry from the mighty juggernaut that was the Iraqi Army!

ah yes that mighty germany navy needed to cross the atlantic lead by the mighty aircraft carrier???? the germans didn't have the navy nor the manpower to launch and invaision of the us. the japanese even with their navy never dared to invade the us main land and the distance between the us and japan and the us and germany was to great for anyone to mount and invasion of the us.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
This is a 24 hour news station and you are talking about 20 minutes worth in the last 2 years.

Sure it's propoganda but I can't believe how few pictures of dead kids with arms and legs missing were not shown on TV here after the inital bombing of Iraq.

and some of those kids were killed by saddams own doing. anyone still have the copy of the bbc article from that talked about saddams own rockets misfiring and blowing up in market places?

[Seshmeister]

You're reaching now.

Tens of thousands of US munitions v. 1 antiaircraft missile that landed in a marketplace...

[lucky wilbury]

not reaching. i'd also like to point out that when saddams aa went up it had to come down someplace. plus i'd also like to point out that we we mostly hiting armour and military instalations.

[Seshmeister]

Mostly indeed.

Look I know I'm not going to convert you here but hopefully I've given you something to think about.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
95% of wars are about economics and money.


And 67% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Mostly indeed.

Look I know I'm not going to convert you here but hopefully I've given you something to think about.

Cheers!

:gulp:


i know what happens in war i also know what happens when you don't act and i also know we do our damnest for better or worse to avoid civilian casualties including putting our guys at greater risk.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
that is a lame excuse. then by that definition ww2 was un winnable becuase after all the government told lies during that war as well. we're taking over this island and that island and pay no mind to the fact that air craft carrier or two were sunk were still going strong!


No, that's lame logic! The US was facing an actual adversary that could destroy us during Vietnam, the USSR and we had a host of other problems we ignored (like modernizing our military which we instead ground down during the war). We were pumping resources into a country that we could ill afford to support. Our main ally, the South Vietnamese were corrupt cowards unable to defend themselves without massive US fire support. We killed 100,000's of Vietnamese, many civilians, and for what? Yes! Vietnam was unwinable, it was not worth ONE AMERICAN LIFE! It's all about pride for you guys, like the big fucking game we lost isn't it!

We betrayed the Vietnamese by letting the people you so hate reclaim their country, FRANCE! Ho Che Minh was the one fighting the Japanese while the French helped them police their occupied territory! Stop selectively quoting your history!



your missing the point. unless were attacked to most people were not at war. saddam did declare war on us in 91 and then he went on to violate a cease fire there for the resumption of a state of war exists.

No! You're revising history to serve your arguments! Saddam invaded another sovereign state and we had the UN and most of the Middle East behind us (except for our friends in Jordan). What exactly did he do this time other than fuck himself over?



ah yes that mighty germany navy needed to cross the atlantic lead by the mighty aircraft carrier???? the germans didn't have the navy nor the manpower to launch and invaision of the us. the japanese even with their navy never dared to invade the us main land and the distance between the us and japan and the us and germany was to great for anyone to mount and invasion of the us.

If they had conquered England, then they may have had a nice Navy!

And they didn't have an Air Force in 1936! Give a couple of years, they were actually working on an aircraft carrier before things were turning bad.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No, that's lame logic! The US was facing an actual adversary that could destroy us during Vietnam, the USSR and we had a host of other problems we ignored (like modernizing our military which we instead ground down during the war). We were pumping resources into a country that we could ill afford to support. Our main ally, the South Vietnamese were corrupt cowards unable to defend themselves without massive US fire support. We killed 100,000's of Vietnamese, many civilians, and for what? Yes! Vietnam was unwinable, it was not worth ONE AMERICAN LIFE! It's all about pride for you guys, like the big fucking game we lost isn't it!

We betrayed the Vietnamese by letting the people you so hate reclaim their country, FRANCE! Ho Che Minh was the one fighting the Japanese while the French helped them police their occupied territory! Stop selectively quoting your history!

vietnam was winable and it was more about land and more about the veitnamese. it was about showing the soviets we would "go anywhere and pay any price" to defend freedom and democracy. it showed the soviets that we would take the loses nesseary to stand up for pricipales. its the same thing we did in korea. we went there unprovoked and stood up for our beliefs and lost as many men there in a shorter amount of time then we did in vietnam



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
No! You're revising history to serve your arguments! Saddam invaded another sovereign state and we had the UN and most of the Middle East behind us (except for our friends in Jordan). What exactly did he do this time other than fuck himself over?

the un just stood by in 91. we ran the show and called the shots. what did saddam do? he let his time run out thats what. and we had the middle east with us this time. can't keep centcom in qatar if their not with us. can't use kuwait if their not with us. can't use navy base in the uae if their not with us. same with saudi arabia and on and on. the only countries that weren't with us this time that were with us last time were france, and germany. the russians stood on the sideline in 91 and the same this time



Originally posted by Nickdfresh
If they had conquered England, then they may have had a nice Navy!

i doubt it. the brits unlike the french weren't about to run out and support the germans once the invaded like the french did.


Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And they didn't have an Air Force in 1936! Give a couple of years, they were actually working on an aircraft carrier before things were turning bad.

it wouldn't matter if the had an aircraft carrier or not. its to big of a distance for them to have to resupply.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Let's talk about propoganda then.


How many funerals have you seen for US casualties in Iraq?



I've seen partial coverage of two in the last week. On the TV news (including FOX) and in the newspaper.

:gulp:

[FORD]

So Al Jazeera is based in Qatar? But isn't Qatar essentially a BCE/oil corporation client state? Isn't PNAC invasion CentCom there, for fucks sake? So how is that possible?

If anti-Americanism was the purpose of the network, wouldn't it make more sense to be based in an Arab country where Americans were NOT in charge?

Unless Al Jazeera has been a joint CIA/Mossad project all along. And that's certainly a possibility that has been raised before.

[lucky wilbury]

lets bring this all back to the point: if al jazeera is a terrorist propaganda tool should us networks be involved in buisness deals with them?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD

Unless Al Jazeera has been a joint CIA/Mossad project all along. And that's certainly a possibility that has been raised before.

You truly are a damned nut.

:gulp:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You truly are a damned nut.

:gulp: Look it up yourself (http://www.google.com/search?q=Al+Jazeera+Mossad+CIA)

[FORD]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
lets bring this all back to the point: if FAUX News is a BCE terrorist propaganda tool should us networks be involved in buisness deals with them?

[Nickdfresh]

Am I the only one here that thinks al-Jazeera has done more damage to the al-Qaida in Iraq cause by airing those videos? FORD has a point here, al-Jiz may well be infiltrated with Western agents. "Keep they enemies close!"

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
At the very least, is it not reasonable to raise questions about the sources and methods used to obtain this material?

hell yeah. It'a obvious that Al Jazeera's in cahoots with the bad guys.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
.if al jazeera refused to take and air hostage tapes and the media in general didn't show anything from them stills etc i could almost guarentee there would be no more hostage taking because there would be no point.

that's pretty much the bottom line. But it's been going on for almost two fucking years now!

[lucky wilbury]

heres something to think about: between 20-30 americans have been kidnapped in mexico since last summer number of kidnappe videos aired :zero number of americans kidnapped in iraq since the summer? under 5. number of videos aired? all of them. where? on al jazeera. the only reason the iraq ones are being shown is to intimadate us and to try to portray us as losing iraq yet there is a higher kidknapping rate in mexico yet you don't see the media proclaiming how violent and out of control mexico is now do you?

[FORD]

So does that mean that Mossad and the BCE are behind the kidnappings as well?

Certainly would explain all the 6 ft white guys in the Nick Berg video, I guess.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
heres something to think about: between 20-30 americans have been kidnapped in mexico since last summer number of kidnappe videos aired :zero number of americans kidnapped in iraq since the summer? under 5. number of videos aired? all of them. where? on al jazeera. the only reason the iraq ones are being shown is to intimadate us and to try to portray us as losing iraq yet there is a higher kidknapping rate in mexico yet you don't see the media proclaiming how violent and out of control mexico is now do you?

Actually the media does talk about how violent and out of control Mexico is. I here you are risking your life if you even get pulled over in a routine traffic stop (have a stash of $20's handy).

Mexico doesn't have a lot of suicide bombers killing US troops and their fellow hombres to be fair though, to both Mexico and the US media.

[lucky wilbury]

mexico has the little problem of having its politicans assinated and its citizens kidnapped and shot.

[Satan]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
mexico has the little problem of having its politicans assinated and its citizens kidnapped and shot.

Probably because the CIA pays them off to look the other way at drug smugglers on the BCE payroll.