Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Did the United States target Al-Jazeera?

By nebbish in News
Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:57:54 AM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

Yesterday's edition of British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror carried the claim that George Bush planned to bomb independent civilian TV station Al-Jazeera's Qatar headqurters during the Fallujah offensive last year, but was talked out of it by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The source for this information appears to be a leaked British government memo.


This morning the British government placed a legal gag on the media under the Official Secrets Act, preventing the leak of further information. Newspaper editors could face prosecution if they reveal the contents of the leaked document. It is the first time the Blair administration has threatened the media in this way.

Although the British Government's intentions are unclear, it appears that by invoking the Official Secrets Act a retrospective prosecution of the editor of the Daily Mirror is a possibility. Whether Tony Blair would want to follow such a potentially damaging course of action remains to be seen.

Such a rapid and aggressive response suggests that the leaked document contains very sensitive information, and lends credence to the allegation that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters.

The United States has claimed that the bombing of the Al-Jazeera's Kabul office in 2001 and a missile attack on its Baghdad office in 2003 were accidental. In the light of yesterday's allegations the likelihood that they were deliberately targeted is given more weight. Although the full truth has yet to come out, the possibility that the present US government targeted civilian media outlets is a worrying new development in the war on terror.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Did the US deliberately target Al-Jazeera?
o Yes 67%
o No 6%
o Don't know 26%

Votes: 99
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Daily Mirror
o claim
o Al-Jazeera
o the British government placed a legal gag on the media
o the bombing of the Al-Jazeera's Kabul office in 2001
o missile attack on its Baghdad office in 2003
o Also by nebbish


Display: Sort:
Did the United States target Al-Jazeera? | 206 comments (155 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden)
Well, President Bush believes in Cowboy (1.77 / 9) (#5)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:10:07 AM EST

justice, what with his long family history in Texas. Fortunately, he has level headed advisors like Cheney and Rummy around to head off his worst instincs, and remind him that in the end, the assets must be protected.

Your post could have been an object lesson... (none / 1) (#7)
by mirleid on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:14:36 AM EST

...in sarcasm, if only you had thought of writing "level headed advisors like Cheney, Rummy and Tony"...

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
Freedom of the press (1.57 / 7) (#11)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:31:14 AM EST

The US laws for protecting freedom of the press only protects US-based news organizations as far as I can see. So why would it be wrong to bomb Al-Jazeera, from a US point of view?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.

Al Jazerra in Qatar (none / 1) (#23)
by wiredog on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:20:58 AM EST

Which is a US ally.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Ok (1.50 / 2) (#25)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:38:18 AM EST

So from a US point of view, it doesn't matter that Al-Jazeera is a news organization. Freedom of the press is not an issue here, since it's not based in the US. The only thing that matters is that it's a company which is based in an allied country. It could just as well have been a candy factory. Am I right?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Well, there's the whole world image thing (none / 1) (#28)
by LilDebbie on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:49:47 AM EST

We do still kinda care about it, a little, and bombing foreing news services in countries we are not at war with kinda hurts that.

Of course, given that it's the Mirror I'm pretty sure they're full of shit. I mean, it's not like would could easily conceal such a bombing if we went ahead with it, and al-Jazeera is not so big a threat that we'd want to martyr them.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

What makes me err on the Mirror's side (none / 1) (#30)
by nebbish on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:07:35 PM EST

Is the fact that the leak is from a government memo (check the Guardian link in my submission for full sources), and legal action has been taken rather than a denial being made, which is the usual course.

It is too early to say for definite though.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Well (2.66 / 3) (#41)
by LilDebbie on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:58:40 PM EST

The problem is we have no idea what the memo actually says and have no other recourse than to take the Mirror at its word. The legal action could be for any number of things contained in said memo, not necessarily pertaining to the issue at hand but still demanding action for protection.

Thus far, hearsay and conjecture. Such is journalism.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]

Hearsay > embedded journos. Any day. /nt (none / 1) (#47)
by ksandstr on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:33:55 PM EST



[ Parent ]
such is democracy (nt) (none / 0) (#155)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:48:52 PM EST



It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Yeah, pretty much (none / 0) (#46)
by wiredog on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:33:06 PM EST

See Dresden and Tokyo for details.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Constitution is a universal declaration (2.80 / 5) (#75)
by pyro9 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:22:52 PM EST

So why would it be wrong to bomb Al-Jazeera, from a US point of view?

Because the Constitution is framed as a universal declaration and as a promise that the U.S. government will abide by it. The Constitution disallows the U.S. from engaging in a number of practices anywhere for any reason. The only reason it doesn't purport to restrict other governments is that the framers had no authority to do so.

The various recent instances of weaseling out of it through sophistry don't actually fly, they just take advantage of indirection, indifference, and cloudy Supreme Court jurisdictions to get away with it.

Personally, I believe our executive and legislative scofflaws need to be rounded up and jailed.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Can you support the idea... (none / 1) (#93)
by Sairon on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 07:00:12 PM EST

that the US Constitution is a universal declaration as you have purported?

Jared

[ Parent ]

Yeah. (2.75 / 4) (#99)
by Perpetual Newbie on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:39:22 PM EST

Read it. Does it say "only for US citizens"? Look at a major inspiring document, the Declaration of Independence. Does it say only Americans have rights?

[ Parent ]
Yes (2.80 / 5) (#141)
by pyro9 on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:09:32 PM EST

Note that the only rights restricted to citizens in the whole document pertain to holding elected office and voting. Historically, the SCOTUS has held that it applies equally to citizens, immigrants and even illegal aliens.

While the Declaration of Independance holds no particular legal standing, it is indicative of the mindset that ultimately lead to the framing of the Constitution. Think of the Declaration as the Revolutionary War's mission statement, and the Constitutoon as take two on it's fulfillment (The Articles of Confederation being the first take).

Taking the larger view, no such document can have any moral or ethical standing unless it IS considered to be universal.l Otherwise it is just yet another aristocracy claiming to be 'more equal' than the rest. Certainly that argument was presented as an argument for racial equality and ultimately accepted as true by our society.

Every political force in the U.S. that seeks to get past the Constitution by sophistry or technicality is little more than a wannabe king.


The future isn't what it used to be
[ Parent ]
Everything in the Constitution applies to.... (2.83 / 6) (#148)
by DavidTC on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:19:20 PM EST

...one of two entities in almost every circumstances. (Barring small groups like 'all Congressmen'.)

One of these is not 'citizens'. Sadly for what the government thinks, this is almost never a group. About the only things apply to 'citizens' is their right to hold public office. There is no talk about 'citizen' when it says people must have a trial, for an example of a common absurd constitutional assertation.

One of these is the United States Government. (And, via various methods, the different state governments.) It has no bearing on where this government is acting, it has no bearing on who this government is acting, or why, or even when. If someone invents a space/time machine and the US government travels back to Mars in 1423 to govern Martians, the government cannot pass a law abridging freedom of speech for them. No law can be passed abridging freedom of speech, no exceptions. (Nor can a law be passed recognizing some other country's restriction as valid.)

The other entity? People. Not citizens. Not even 'people in the US', or even 'people under the juridiction of the US'. That's right, under the US constitution, it is technically illegal for China to compell their own citizens to testify against themselves. Read the 5th amendment if you don't believe me. (This applies throughout time and space, but sadly Martians are not 'people'. Of course, this would mean they can't be charged with a crime in the first place.)

Of course, the US government does not assert juridiction over China, so the illegallity is a bit moot.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

because... (none / 1) (#154)
by Run4YourLives on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:47:11 PM EST

Having signed the Geneva convention, it applies.

Not that the US has cared in the past mind you.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

...or torture or bomb Vaticano or break any rule (none / 1) (#184)
by svampa on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 11:41:38 AM EST

I supose this is a troll, but I think it's a quite common feeling in USA: USA government is allowed to do anything as long as it does it out of USA soil.

The only moral rule is convenience for USA.

In fact, no country has to punish its own citizens for the crimes commited in the soil of a foreign country. It's the foreign country who to punish them... if it can.

If you push far enough this idea, you can encourage your citizen to commit crimes abroad in your own interest. The drawback of such behavior is that the other countries may do the same with you.

I believe that USA government and USA citizens feel strong enough to think that can go away with any crime abroad without any drawback.

The sad thing is that they are probably right, and so USA government often does its whim.



[ Parent ]
Sounds like The Shrub. (2.33 / 3) (#12)
by shm on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:43:49 AM EST

Strange that The Lapdog talked him out of it.


I thought that as well (none / 0) (#13)
by nebbish on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:45:19 AM EST

As much as he bangs on about it, I'd never have though he actually has any influence.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

not so "friendly" (2.00 / 2) (#14)
by khallow on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:50:50 AM EST

targeted civilian media outlets in friendly countries is a worrying new development in the war on terror.

You might recall that those countries weren't technically "friendly" when the US was bombing them. I'll have to see if Bush actually carried through on that or if he was just talking trash. But if the Bush administration targeted Al-Jazeera, even though they spew propaganda, that's an impeachable offense in my book.

It's amazing that I thought Bush had some grown-ups in his administration! Well both Powell and Snow are out now. It keeps getting worse.

Stating the obvious since 1969.

I was referring more (none / 0) (#15)
by nebbish on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:57:30 AM EST

to the Qatar headquarters. I'll have a look at rewording that paragraph.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Has USA friendly countries at all? (none / 0) (#185)
by svampa on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 11:59:13 AM EST

Does USA call any country "friend"?.. perhaps UK or Canada or Australia... but I'm not very sure.



[ Parent ]
my understanding (none / 0) (#188)
by khallow on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 02:02:45 PM EST

Diplomatically, the US like everyone else is rather loose with the term. But countries that the US is *actively at war* with aren't friendly.

Stating the obvious since 1969.
[ Parent ]

Not sure I believe this (2.80 / 5) (#24)
by wiredog on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:28:31 AM EST

How reliable is the Daily Mirror anyway? Oh, and they're qouting a source, not the memo. A source. Not multiple sources.

The use of the Officila Secrets Act to suppress the memo is rather interesting. I wonder what's in it?

+1, fp.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

That's a good point (none / 1) (#26)
by nebbish on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:40:40 AM EST

Although the Daily Mirror has a good reputation for breaking new War on Terror stories, there was the unfortunate incident with the faked photographs last year.

But you're right, there's no real evidence as yet. Still, it's intriguing.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Latest (3.00 / 10) (#29)
by nebbish on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:04:39 PM EST

Aidan White, the general secretary of The International Federation of Journalists:

"The evidence is stacking up to suggest that the US decided to take out al-Jazeera in Baghdad, as a warning not only to them but to other media about their coverage. If true, it is an absolute scandal that the US administration can regard the staff of al-Jazeera as a bunch of terrorists and a legitimate target."

Click


---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee

That would, arguably, be legal. (none / 1) (#50)
by wiredog on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:38:20 PM EST

Remarkably stupid (and remarkably stupid is certainly not unattainable for the Bush Admin), but legal.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
That could be anyone though (2.40 / 5) (#58)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:08:09 PM EST

I can also be regarded as a suspected terrorist, and thus a legitimate target. You are basically saying the US government can kill me at will, and according to US law, this is legal.

I was seriously considering working in the USA, but as I realize how it really is in the US, I don't think I want to. As far as I can see, if I say something which is embarrasing to the US government, I can be arrested and sent away to be tortured and murdered. This is not really what I had planned with my life.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

You're not an arab are you? (2.00 / 2) (#67)
by Lemon Juice on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:57:46 PM EST

if not you should be fine in the US. It's just a normal old place.

[ Parent ]
This is actually not so funny (3.00 / 6) (#72)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:44:11 PM EST

A Swedish Arab (about my age, 25 something) was kidnapped and sent to Guantanamo. He now has a permanent limp due to the treatment there. He was never charged with a crime.

He was just a regular guy, could have been someone from my class at school.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

But... (3.00 / 3) (#68)
by danro on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:01:42 PM EST

This could still happen to you.
You live in Sweden, like me, right?
As I recall we have given up a few people to the US who immediately were flown to tourture-friendly states and tortured.

This was quite the scandal when the news broke, but nothing compared to what it should have been.
Unfortunately the person ultimately responsible for the extraditions had recently been horribly murdered, and subsequently almost sainted by the media.
It is hard to make this kind of allegations stick on a dead hero...

As noone has yet paid the price for giving people up to torture, this may (though somewhat unlikely after the recent brouhahah) happen again.

[ Parent ]
Trust me they will pay (none / 1) (#116)
by caridon20 on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:14:31 AM EST

We vill get them in the next election.
We who belive in the rule of law have not forgotten and not forgiven.

Personaly i will spend the last 3 months before the election on full time politics to get GP and his croonies out of office.

/C
Dissent is NOT Treason Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
[ Parent ]

Probably, but what good will it do? (none / 1) (#127)
by danro on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 06:01:44 AM EST

Yes, the current governing party definitly risk losing power in the elections next year.

But how would this change the current situation?
Their successors will bend over for the US with relish, happy just to get some attention.

You know as well as I do that the right-wing parties in Sweden idolizes the US, and I can't imagine them standing up to Bush over this.
If the US asks they will most deliver. And as their predecessors got away with it, it will not be seen as a career-ending move, although, learning from their predecessors mistakes, they will probably take steps to pin the responsibility on some lower level politicians and/or civil servants and not the top guys.

[ Parent ]
hypocrites (1.38 / 13) (#31)
by foon on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:11:33 PM EST

How can they seriously expect to spend the past 5 years producing propaganda for terrorists and dictators that are at war with the US, and then act surprised when they become a target in that war? The only real shame here is that they wimped out and didn't decide to take them out, because they were certainly asking for it. No one disputes that the German and Japanese propaganda machines weren't legitimate military targets in World War II, and if you look at their record, al-Jazeera is really no different.

Right. (2.50 / 6) (#33)
by acceleriter on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:17:27 PM EST

No one seems to remember that Julius Streicher, an owner of a "civilian" newspaper from Germany, swung from the end of a rope at Nuremburg.

[ Parent ]
What's your beef with rope swings? (2.00 / 5) (#55)
by durdee on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:01:12 PM EST


---
Fact: You have no insight whatsoever into my motivations, personality, or thought process.
[ Parent ]
None at all. (2.00 / 2) (#56)
by acceleriter on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:02:41 PM EST

Just a previous example from history that the enemy's propaganda machine is a legitimate target -- in this case after the fact in a war crimes trial.

[ Parent ]
Better not. (1.33 / 3) (#59)
by durdee on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:09:00 PM EST


---
Fact: You have no insight whatsoever into my motivations, personality, or thought process.
[ Parent ]
Accurate, apart from... (2.85 / 7) (#34)
by mirleid on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:19:32 PM EST

...the little inconvenient fact that the US was never at war with Qatar...But then again, details, right?...

Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
So if you want to fight a propaganda war, (1.33 / 3) (#35)
by acceleriter on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:25:14 PM EST

just locate in a non-combatant country. I would have said "neutral," but we're talking about another Islamic state here.

[ Parent ]
Quatar cannot be called 'neutral' in this case: (3.00 / 3) (#78)
by nietsch on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:47:17 PM EST

You cannot claim neutrality if you host military bases for one of the parties that they use to fly bomber from: "the US president last year planned to attack the Arabic television station al-Jazeera, which has its headquarters in Doha, the capital of Qatar, where US and British bombers were based" (quote from the guardian)

[ Parent ]
Propaganda war? (3.00 / 3) (#107)
by driptray on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:14:34 AM EST

Don't be silly. Al Jazeera were no more fighting a propaganda war than any other news organisation.

I mean, do you really think Al Jazeera, an organisation made up of educated, sophisticated, democracy-minded people, would have any sympathy for radically conservative religious freaks like Osama bin Laden? Al Jazeera were enemies of exactly the same people that the US pretended to be enemies of. One was fighting for democracy. Which one?

If there's a propaganda war here, I know which side I'd be on.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 1) (#113)
by mirleid on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:41:16 AM EST

...as somebody else said, Qatar is not a non-combatant country, it is actually an ally. Could you also please enligthen my as to why the Al-Jazeera propaganda is any worse than the Fox News' one?

Also, do you realise that you have just created a case for the targetting of reporters in war zones by belligerent forces?


Chickens don't give milk
[ Parent ]
So by the same token... (2.88 / 9) (#36)
by tthomas48 on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:31:44 PM EST

If Fox news were to be blown up that would not be an act of terrorism, but rather the justified elimination of one of the other side's targets in the War on Terror?

You're saying that if the US does it, it's legitimate because they're at war. If the insurgents, terrorists, other people who we're fighting at the moment in the war on terror do it, it's terrorism.

[ Parent ]

Right. (none / 1) (#38)
by acceleriter on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:36:03 PM EST

Because they're not an organized military fighting by long-standing conventions and rules of war, any combat they engage is in is, by definition, terrorism.

[ Parent ]
You, sir (2.20 / 10) (#42)
by daveybaby on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:01:55 PM EST

are a simplistic fucking retard. Just thought i'd clear that up for anyone who was unsure of the situation.

[ Parent ]
IAWTP, GP should put down the crackpipe % (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by creativedissonance on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:40:06 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
I bow at the strength of your rebuttal. (2.33 / 3) (#54)
by acceleriter on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:59:35 PM EST

Your resort to namecalling is noted.

[ Parent ]
Well, you know how it is, (none / 1) (#114)
by daveybaby on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:48:06 AM EST

its nice to make the extra effort once in a while.

[ Parent ]
On puerility (none / 1) (#140)
by debillitatus on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:08:37 PM EST

You know, when the only thing you can say is namecalling, but you feel it so strongly that you can put it in italics, take that as a clue that you have nothing substantive to add.

But don't get me wrong, we all admire your strong feelings on the matter. Add some logic and reasoning and you'd be a "triple threat".

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

You need to study the definition (2.85 / 7) (#48)
by wiredog on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:36:48 PM EST

of "irregular forces", which are covered by the Geneva Conventons, IIRC.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
You dumbass. (2.50 / 8) (#149)
by DavidTC on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:32:58 PM EST

Terrorism is when you attempt to scare a set of people into changing their position on something via making them fear random violence against themselves.

It has nothing to do with rules of war. In fact, it is barely possible to commit legal, under the rules of war, terrorism. You just assassinate a few leaders of the country you are at war with. Mysteriously, they will stop fighting you. (Assassination of the leader of the military, although frowned on by the US, is not illegal.)

And there a plenty of ways of following not the rules of war yet not committing terrorism. For example, you could unilaterally invade a country that wasn't threatening you, without the authorization of the UN, in violation of the UN charter...wait, probably a bad example.

Anyway, the 'rules of war' cover a large section of things. Terrorism involves the targeting of civilians, which is illegal under the rules of war, but pretending every thing is that is illegal is terrorism is like pretending every crime is murder.

For example, torturing enemy soldiers is illegal, but it's certainly not terrorism.

-David T. C.
Yes, my email address is real.
[ Parent ]

Assassination? (none / 0) (#191)
by chrestomanci on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 12:34:06 PM EST

Quote: Assassination of the leader of the military, although frowned on by the US, is not illegal.

Since when? The US assasinated Admaral Yammamoto in WW2, as a planned military action, and by most accounts it was quite effective in hindering Japan's War effort.


[ Parent ]

dude (2.83 / 6) (#130)
by eraserewind on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:22:45 AM EST

You all are supposed to be a liberal democracy. Try to act like it sometime, or drop the pretense.

[ Parent ]
This is why Bush needs to be impeached (2.38 / 13) (#40)
by karb on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 12:55:55 PM EST

Not for lousy things he has done, but for lousy things he has not done.

For example, reliable sources tell me that Bush planned to bomb San Francisco. Only after a series of phone conversations with Arnold did Bush back down.

The evidence for Bush's misdeeds are right in front of you, people. Neither Al-Jezeera headquarters nor San Francisco have been bombed by the US. How many more innocent people does Bush have to not kill before we learn what a monster he really is?
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

Except that... (3.00 / 6) (#64)
by danro on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:48:32 PM EST

Except for the fact that Al-Yazeera offices have already been bombed by US military forces twice on his watch.
That makes it pretty plausable that Bush would consider targetting their headquarters.

[ Parent ]
-1: Angels and Golden Tablets and Secret Glasses (1.25 / 4) (#53)
by t1ber on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 01:57:55 PM EST

-1:  If no-one has the original, then it's impossible to verify the context.  This is a waste of space without a link to the original document.

Even more troubling, you don't touch on the idea that British newspapers don't have a libel law like press does elsewhere.  British libel law is pro-plaintiff, which is to say that if I publish something and someone bothers to sue me over it, I have to prove that it was not damaging.  In the case of governments, it's not likely that they will sue and it would be almost impossible to prove some type of economic damage.  When it comes to this type of press in England, anything goes.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

inability to verify didn't matter prior to war % (2.00 / 2) (#60)
by creativedissonance on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:30:45 PM EST




ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Yeah (2.00 / 5) (#62)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:43:02 PM EST

Remember the invisible "mobile biological weapons factories" in Iraq. If we can't find this document, then it must mean the British government is hiding it because it's true.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

you know... (none / 1) (#69)
by creativedissonance on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:02:39 PM EST

...I don't give you so much shit because I disagree with you. I give you shit cuz I don't really like your style. Within these parameters, I think we can peacefully coexist.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (none / 1) (#71)
by t1ber on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 03:18:39 PM EST

What are you specifically talking about?  The string of UN resolutions and sanctions leading up to the war or the chemical weapons that killed the Kurds and filled those mass graves?

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

I'm talking about the bullshit 'intelligence' (2.50 / 2) (#82)
by creativedissonance on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:57:31 PM EST

that was used to justify the war the was completely un-verifiable.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
So the UN is completely wrong? (1.25 / 4) (#83)
by t1ber on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:04:19 PM EST

So the UN timeline here is complete fabrication, right? There were no violations of UN resolutions and the entire world was wrong?

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

oh please... (2.66 / 3) (#84)
by creativedissonance on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:15:48 PM EST

...the rationale used for going to war was US-centric. Pointing to UN resolutions is disingenous at best. If we were to follow the UN in this case, we would still be pursuing inspections. Nice try.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
US centric because... (1.00 / 5) (#85)
by t1ber on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:21:09 PM EST

US centric because the US invaded, sure, that's a tautology.

But see now you've got a problem.  You admitted that Iraq failed the inspections, so they must have failed the weapons inspections for a reason...  Sanctions or War, who cares?  Iraq still failed, just like you.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

you fail to put words in my mouth (3.00 / 5) (#88)
by creativedissonance on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:45:37 PM EST

and your 'argument' fails too. May I suggest redstate?

"You admitted that Iraq failed the inspections..."

I did no such thing. You obviously cannot engage in rational conversation without putting words into your opponent's mouth, so I wash my hands of you. FOAD, OKTHX, HAND.


ay yo i run linux and word on the street
is that this is where i need to be to get my butt stuffed like a turkey - br14n
[ Parent ]
Aw, is someone crying in their beer? (1.20 / 5) (#138)
by t1ber on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 10:51:53 AM EST

Did K5 make you cry?  

So now you're marginalizing the role of the UN in all of this?  It's OK to have them around when you're accusing the US of things but then they're not a valid intel source when it's in Bushs favor.  Oh, do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do at it's finest!

Thanks for the link, I'll suggest disney.com for you.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

Inspectors (2.33 / 6) (#86)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 05:23:43 PM EST

we would still be pursuing inspections
Which were right all along. The image of UN inspectors as corrupt incompetents is very false in this case, in contrast to America.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

the elephant in the living room (none / 1) (#145)
by t1ber on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 01:31:54 PM EST

The elephant in the living room is that the UN inspectors gave the UN evidence that led to sanction after sanction after sanction...

If all these sanctions worked, why was Saddam able to violate them time and time again?  

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

Sanctions (2.66 / 3) (#151)
by marx on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 05:31:49 PM EST

During the sanctions, he didn't build any WMD and he didn't attack any other countries. Wasn't that the point of the sanctions? What criterion do you have for successful sanctions?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

If we take Iran as an example (none / 1) (#166)
by t1ber on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 05:43:37 PM EST

If we take Iran as an example, the sanctions were to bring them to the table for talks and for negotiations.  The point of sanctions is not to 'prevent' anything, it's to force the leader to deal with the sanctioning authority.  Sanctions for the sake of sanctions take a horrible toll on the local population.  I know you're going to reply with "Well so does war" but that's exactally the point.  The leader who doesn't care about his people suffering under sanctions won't care about his people getting shot to pieces.  If the purpose of the call to action is to effect a change in the government, when sanctions fail it's time to shoot.  In this case, I think it was reasonable to go to war given that Iraq has suffered under 10 odd some years of sanctions with no real change in Saddams government.  I think the real final straw here was when Saddam started pocketing the oil-for-food money.

And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

You sure the last straw (none / 1) (#172)
by The Diary Section on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 09:17:46 PM EST

wasn't when the oil for US dollars money became the oil for EU euros money?
But Marx is right, lets not use Iran as an example, lets stick to Iraq. As a result of sanctions Saddam was unable to produce any of the WMDs we are reliably informed by President Bush and many others that he was hellbent upon acquiring. Quite impressive really given Saddam's alleged overpowering desire to acquire such a capability, ten years of utter frustration despite his best efforts (allgedly) all over the world to acquire material. A pretty impressive outcome as regards the national security of other states in the world.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]
read it again, I talk about iraq (nt) (none / 1) (#174)
by t1ber on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 11:19:30 PM EST


And she said...
Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad
Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
Hadji girl I can't understand what you're saying.

[ Parent ]

bush should do us all a favour... (2.27 / 11) (#66)
by gromgull on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 02:56:42 PM EST

... and bomb the daily mirror.
--
If I had my way I'd have all of you shot

I like America. $ (2.00 / 5) (#74)
by Adolf the Clown on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:08:51 PM EST



Why do you hate America? [nt] (2.50 / 6) (#115)
by daveybaby on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:53:18 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Who knows. (2.20 / 5) (#79)
by V on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:48:35 PM EST

But USian for certain isn't above it.

See also: The bombing of the chinese embassy, the stealth plane dogfight, the sinking of the japanese "fishing" boat, etc, etc.

V.
---
What my fans are saying:
"That, and the fact that V is a total, utter scumbag." VZAMaZ.
"well look up little troll" cts.
"I think you're a worthless little cuntmonkey but you made me lol, so I sigged you." re
"goodness gracious you're an idiot" mariahkillschickens

Why is Al-Jazeera (2.80 / 5) (#80)
by stuaart on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 04:51:36 PM EST

seen as a propaganda arm of al-Qaeda when many US media outlets can be seen as propaganda organs for the US government's War on Terror?

Regardless of your view on what al-Jazeera does (and, let's face it, those videos are eventually going to be shown by any media organisation, Arabic or American. In fact I believe the interview with Bin Laden was actually performed by an American journalist...), why should any media outlet have to justify itself and its content in this way when it is assumed that being pro-Iraq-war is ``ok'' even if you disagree with it?

This is of course assuming that they wanted to bomb the al-Jazeera offices, which --- whilst I wouldn't put it past the current US administration --- I suspect is an untrue claim.

Linkwhore: [Hidden stories.] Baldrtainment: Corporate concubines and Baldrson: An Introspective


War of public relations (none / 1) (#186)
by svampa on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 12:29:41 PM EST

USA government doesn't believe in free speach and the wisdom of public to decide among several point of views. USA government does believe that it's all about propaganda, that people can't wisely about several points of view, but people pick the more heard option, that it's about advertising, that flooding propaganda is more effective than arguments.

If the are right or wrong is another topic. A quite interesting topic, by the way

But if they want to flood public opinion with its ideal, the best thing to do is to phisically remove the other side from the mass media.



[ Parent ]
I suspect (3.00 / 3) (#95)
by The Diary Section on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 07:59:25 PM EST

this is actually a No. 10 leak to combat the allegations in Sir Christopher Meyer's book.
The timing reeks to high heaven quite frankly.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
These are crimes under English Law (2.75 / 4) (#96)
by xmedar on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:14:22 PM EST

From www.globalissuesgroup.com

"civilian immunity

Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

...

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited."

"civilian objects

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)"

"civilian

A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)"

"civilian population

The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 2)

The civilian population is protected under the Geneva Conventions and these protections are not affected by the presence of combatants in the population. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 3)

These protections include the right to be free from attacks, reprisals, acts meant to instill terror, and indiscriminate attacks. Civilian populations must not be used as civilian shields. (Protocol I, Art. 51)"

"civilian property

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military property and attack only military property. (Protocol I, Art. 48)"

"journalists

According to the 1949 conventions, journalists who accompany the armed forces and are wounded or sick in an area of conflict are entitled to all the protections afforded to wounded or sick combatants and to prisoners of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 4; Convention II, Art. 13, Sec. 4 and Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 4)

In 1977, journalists were re-classified as civilians. As a result, reporters who wear civilian clothing and otherwise differentiate themselves from members of the armed forces are entitled to the broader protections offered to civilians. (Protocol I, Art. 79)"

The Geneva Conventions are part of English Law and therefore what has been outlined in the leaked document represents criminal offences under domestic English Law and a criminal conspiracy to commit those offences, the use of the Official Secrets Act to attempt to hide these crimes is an Attempt to Pervert The Course of Justice, itself a criminal offence and a conspiracy to commit it.

legality (2.80 / 5) (#112)
by oneicrying on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:34:24 AM EST

For us yes, in fact the actual fabrication of causis belli was also illegal and can call in to question Blairs legality of tenure. Having said that, since the so called opposition, was pro regime change from the start, its hardly surprising that we have had nothing greater than Howard saying the PM should resign, over losing the vote to incarcerate, without trial for 3 months, a prisoner, on SUSPICION!!! Hes recinded doubel jeapordy laws and I for one, really feel as though we are slowly decending into a neo facistic state. Tony was a lawyer, He should understand the difference. I can say my colleagues at Middle temple are not happy in the slightest with his legal reforms, much of which stabs at the heart of the seperation of powers, and the principles of fair trials and justice. There are many at the bar who consider such attacks as being particularly damaging to his integrity, Its hard ot see how a lawyer, turned politician can chip at such foundations of Law in the UK.
Peace salaam shalom, its all the same thing so stfu and play!
[ Parent ]
My point was (2.66 / 3) (#129)
by xmedar on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:11:43 AM EST

this is irrefutable proof of a criminal offence under English Law, whereas the war itself is a crime under International Law.

[ Parent ]
Who cares laws? (none / 1) (#187)
by svampa on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 12:43:52 PM EST

Laws are laws as long as someone can enforce them. That's why international laws are little more than wishfull thinking. You can bring to a court the losers (Iraq, Serbia) not the winners (China vs Tibet, Iran-Contra etc).

British policians are not going to put in a trial another British policians because of a wrong political decision or for looking with the blind eye.



[ Parent ]
You've missed the point too (none / 0) (#190)
by xmedar on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 11:39:31 AM EST

The Geneva Conventions are part of domestic English Law, all that is required is a complaint to the Police and they can be investigated, and if the Police don't then they are Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, all we been now is a little seed money to retain a Barrister should the Police fail in their duty and private criminal prosecutions need to be persued, this is the best hope for taking out the government and their co-conspirators, the whole house of cards can fall. The only thing that could stop it would be if the Police refused, or deliberately botched the investigation, and the CPS took over the private criminal prosecution and presented no evidence, thus themselves Perverting the Course of Justice, at that point nothing short of an armed coup would crush these criminals, then again it would save us tax payers from housing 500,000 MPs and civil servants in jail for the rest of their natural lives.

[ Parent ]
Laws and laws (none / 0) (#193)
by svampa on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 05:21:34 AM EST

The existence of a law doesn't guarantees it will be applied. No matter whether the Geneve convention is part of domestic laws or not, they are about foreing people, moreover, about what happens with our hated enemies. There is not too much pressure from public.

There is a difference between "How the world is" and "How the world should be". There is a sentence in Spain:

You can't be judge and part.

I'm sure English culture has a similar one, but I don't konw it. Sorry

If military are breaking the rules with the consent of high level commanders (or at least they look with the blind eye), it's unlikely they investigate themselves. And it's unlikely that government persues them, policians don't want scandals, they are not going to remove all the generals.

the policians have lied... so?.. will they investigate themselves?.

Do you expect a judge or a policeman investigate a polician, his superior, with no support of another polician?. Sometimes it happens, and they are heroes.

This heroes pay a high price for their crusade for justice. Their superiors will make their life really hard during the investigation, they will be investigated as well, and all the resources of system will be put against them to crush them professionally and personally. And finally, if they win the case, they will be left aside to irrelevant functions, even by the policians that supported them. None wants near an incontrolable person.

It could happen, but that's the exception. Punishment of high policians or military (or corporation CEOs) that have broken rules is not the natural end.



[ Parent ]
I do expect an investigation (none / 0) (#194)
by xmedar on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 10:46:59 AM EST

Because it is a crime in England not to do so, it is called "Perverting the Course of Justice" and if the Police fail to investigate when they should they can be privately prosecuted, and prosecuting a Policeman for not investigating is much less expensive that the investigation and prosecution of the government, in the order of a few hundred thousand pounds, which when you consider a few million people protested the Iraq war in this country and lets say it cost an average of £10 per person for travel/food etc then the people of Britain spend ~£20M of their own money just to try and stop the government so raising a few hundred thousand to take down some co-conspiring Policeman is peanuts, we've got them now, it's just a matter of time.

[ Parent ]
In the name of the father (none / 0) (#195)
by svampa on Tue Nov 29, 2005 at 11:34:20 AM EST

The case shown in the film "In the name of the father", it's about a son and a father that were are sentenced to life in prison. Police knew they were innocent and hid evidences because they wanted a quick escape-goat.

As far as know hidding evidences is a crime, none of the policemen involved in that case has ever been put in a court not even investigated. Have all, or at least any attorney, been accused of "Perverting the Course of Justice" because of failing in investigating such crime?

I don't think so.

Perhaps all this Iraq matter will be investigated and a government will fall. But from a criminal point of view it will linger, perhaps some poor boys at the end of the chain will go to jail, like in the case of Abu-Graib. That's all.



[ Parent ]
Consistency (3.00 / 5) (#100)
by marx on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 09:55:33 PM EST

Papers have published many leaks before, and no legal action has been taken:
Mr Blair's Government has never threatened newspapers with prosecution under the Act, lawyers say. This is despite numerous leaks of documents relating to the war in Iraq, including the Attorney-General's own legal advice on the war.
So these are the possibilities: A. the policy on leaks has changed dramatically since the last leak, B. the memo contains the Bush-Blair exchange as described, or C. the memo contains something else which the British government really, really doesn't want people to know.

If A is true, then that would be used as an excuse, simply point to the police change. If C. is true, then the Mirror would probably know about that too, so why didn't they also publish that? This leaves B. as the by far most probable possibility.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.

Lol, marx (none / 1) (#102)
by nuntius on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:14:08 PM EST

You missed a few possibilities.  Let me expand on your list:

D) Its a tabloid, they got ahold of false documents that were fabricated to earn an informant $$, and the tabloid was spewing junk (hey, it even happens to US officials).  Blair (being a witness to the situation) knows it didn't happen, and asks people to clamp down on this libel.

E) It was a tasteless joke between politicians.  Bush took heat for the unintentional bombings.  He jokes with Blair.  A conversation with the words, but not the inflection, of the memo ensues.  Someone not in the joke overhears/documents this.  Even as a joke, it would be politically damaging to both Bush and Blair.  Action is taken to extinguish the flames.

F) It is a malicious rumor, intentionally started cause harm to certain politicians.

Ahh, that's enough for now.  I'm gonna go eat dinner.  Have fun sorting out the Bush+Blair=Evil conspiracy for world oppression.  You seem to be missing some of the real big (and somewhat valid) conspiracy theories of our age.  History is rarely shaped by above-board politics.

[ Parent ]

Is it not clearly (3.00 / 2) (#103)
by The Diary Section on Wed Nov 23, 2005 at 11:36:08 PM EST

the case that this story would directly reposition Blair given Sir Christopher Meyer's revelations in "DC Confidential" which alleged he not only failed but actually refused to exert any influence whatsoever upon Bush?

Domestically this is not damaging to Blair, quite the opposite.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

E) Tasteless joke (2.83 / 6) (#119)
by A Bore on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:40:05 AM EST

Why would a tasteless joke be documented in all seriousness? Why would Blair misinterpret this tasteless joke as a real possibility? Why would Bush not backtrack when it became clear both Blair and whoever was taking the minutes thought he was talking about a real, potential action?

Blair is not a stupid man, and if it were a joke, that section of the memo would be published and explained. At the moment, the governments actions would tend to suggest the joke theory is the unlikeliest of all options, even bearing in mind your president's fondness for making totalitarian and humourless "jokes".

Ho ho ho. Let's kill some journalists.

[ Parent ]
but... (3.00 / 3) (#123)
by benna on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 05:31:01 AM EST

If it is D or F then the Official Secrets Act does not apply. If it is E that falls under B, since the Mirror article says that one of their sources says it was serious and the other says it was a joke.
-
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
[ Parent ]
I wish he had. (1.11 / 9) (#104)
by dxh on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:51:18 AM EST

There are certain things Al Jazeera has become famous for. It is the willing mouthpiece of Islamic terrorists like Osama bin Laden, Zawahri and Zarqawi, it peddles anti-Western and antisemitic trash, and shows videotapes featuring the beheadings of several hostages, all to fuel the fiendish minds of its depraved viewers. It is time to spell out the whole truth and nothing less about this wicked satellite channel, just as it is time to remove the PC blinkers and spell out the whole truth about Islam, and what the world will be like if it sinks into the Islamic abyss, and six millennia of learning disappears without trace. This truth offensive needs to start immediately for the sakes of future generations, otherwise they will never get to enjoy the freedoms we have taken for granted since WWII.

Ignorance is no defense. (1.33 / 3) (#106)
by oneicrying on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:13:35 AM EST

You comments on Islam display levels of islamaphobia, I really never thought existed in t he intelligent world. Are you suggesting that Islam Is barbaric and a non thinking civilisation? They had discovered science, astronomy, algebra and Medicine whilst some Brits, were painting themselves blue, and living in caves, before America was even a twinkle in a greedy non conformist immigrants eye. In fact the majrity of your 6 millenia of learning ( ROFL WANker) has been created by the Muslim world and discoveries of China, would never have made it to Europe had it not been for Muslim traders. If people like you continue to view it in a them or us situation, then eventually the world situation will distill out to that. I hate to burst your bubble but theres a hell of a lot more of us than you. Since we dont value life on the earth over life in the hererafter, you are pretty fucked. Theres no Compulsion in Islam, thers no Evangelism, Muslims do not hand out panphlets saying the End of the World is NIgh, Repent YE Sinners or any of hte other fundamentalist Christian Mumbo jumbo that often gets spouted. The VASt Majority of Muslims, get on with their lives, and "recruitment" in to the everyday life of islam is done by example. I lead my life in a good way, I earn a Good wage, and I am valuable to the British Society which I live within. As a result of this, People who wonder at my peace and tranquility say where does your peace come from. I would reply my Faith, or Imaan. This is how the seeds of Islam are planted. This is how peace and submission to the will of God are demonstrated. In many ways Islam IS a social Democracy, there are very strict rules on Taxation, Welfare and so on. Perhaps its in "Jahillia" or babylon, the sinful of sinful countries America, that thge fear of people actually gaining a social consiounce, over the greed drive and capitalism of the debauched society of America. Let us remember that The recent attacks on Madrid and Britain are acts of desperate, people, Young IMpressionable people, stupid enough to get stoked by a few, and I mean a tiny few Extremists. Whilst we share a faith, Less than 1% of Muslims, would be terrorirst, of the near 2 billion Muslims in the world theres merely a few thousand activists, which the mighty armies of the west cant find and crush. Its because they are small insignificant, and every time you crush one, 3 more will return for the manner which you crush them in. I cannot belive that the great democracies of the west, are eroding the cornerstones of free speech and civil liberties, not only IN our own country with Gagging orders, but of the OTHER nations to get thei rpoint of view across. Paxman on last night, was speaking with a US state official last night, who still refused to say that Al Jazeera WAS a military target because even the American State department knows that it should be seen to respect anothr states media. The actuality of it is somewhat darker. Neocon conspiracies aside, If the money spent on securing IRaqi Oil reserves, (yes thats right, I see no democracy, no WMDS,) was spent on investment in freeing up IP law, or Fusion energy, or Solar alternative means of energy production or meeting and Exceeding Kyoto targets, compulsorily, creating carbon payback for western first world residents. ( we create more CO2 waste than the thirdworld lets sort that out) If we basically did all teh shit to make the world a nicer place. Any asshole who wants to kill someone over a different point of view, should be slowly phased out of society. Its the 21st century, and it seems many of humankind, arent above club wielding trogladites, How sad.
Peace salaam shalom, its all the same thing so stfu and play!
[ Parent ]
Misleading or Ignorant ? (none / 1) (#122)
by Dirk van den Broek on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 05:25:22 AM EST

To say that there is no compulsion in Islam is either misleading or ignorant. You seem to know a little about Islam, so tell us what happens to a Muslim that wants to convert to Judaism, Christianity or any other religion ? I'll tell you if you don't know ... the punishment is beheading ... don't know about you but that sounds pretty compulsory. What does Islam mean in arabic ? ... submission ... how is there no compulsion with that word? Why don't you tell us what the Mutawas' purpose is in Saudi Arabia ? ... They are the religious police ... They come knocking at your door and force people to go pray, they carry around sticks and smack people across the knees to this end ... I can go on ... there's no compulsion in Isalm, what bullshit.

Don't misunderstand my point of view, I have no particular love for any religion. If you were a Catholic espousing what I know to be BS, I would call you on that as well. I believe all the major religions to be corrupt, social control mechanisms.

Your historically correct ... Cordoba was a great city when London was a village, the focus on Arts and Science was perhaps unrivaled at that time which directly influenced the European cultures eventually helping to lead to the Renaissance, but how long ago was that ? ... 1300 years you say ... to that I would say to Islam, What have you done lately ?

[ Parent ]
I wish he had too (3.00 / 8) (#118)
by A Bore on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:34:04 AM EST

There are certain things Fox News has become famous for. It is the willing mouthpiece of terrorists and human rights abusers like Henry Kissinger, John Negroponte and Alberto Gonzales, it peddles pro-USA and Islamophobic trash, and shows videotapes featuring the beheadings of several hostages, all to fuel the bloodlust of its depraved viewers. It is time to spell out the whole truth and nothing less about this wicked satellite channel, just as it is time to remove the PC blinkers and spell out the whole truth about Islam, and what the world will be like if it sinks into a propaganda fueled abyss, and six millennia of learning disappears without trace. This truth offensive needs to start immediately for the sakes of future generations, otherwise they will never get to enjoy the freedoms we have taken for granted since WWII.

[ Parent ]
there is no god but ALLAH muhammad is his prophet (3.00 / 2) (#126)
by Muslim on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 05:38:39 AM EST

think about it first before jumping to conclusions.

next, Islam is a religion of peace it does not condone attacks on civilians or women or children even with whom we are at war with. it does, however, say protect our religion and ourselves.
regarding al-jazeera's "helping" the terrorists, a news source is *_SUPPOSED_* to be impartial, unbiased, tell both sides of the story. i dont like the fact that it shows beheadings by misguided "terrorists". these as mentioned by oneicrying are misguided coz they are killing innocent civilians.
the truth of islam is that it is for peace, islam means peace,surrender. and the surrender is to the will of Allah.
next, regarding the bombings of al-jazeera i would not put it pass them. politics is an evil game of power for whoever has the money. i believe, sincerely, that the current game is a long term game and it came into play after the war to control the oil fields of the world by the US and Europe. and to do so, the enemy needs to keep the muslims and sympathists uninformed. an active voice that informs the world is al-jazeera. ergo, they must either silence al-jazeera or cripple them in the current battlefied.
to oneicrying, pls. do not swear. u r less credible when u swear even tho ur arguments may be valid.

assalamu alaikom - the peace be upon you all


muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]

Then why do the Muslims want to kill everybody??? (1.16 / 6) (#132)
by bobbuck on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:30:12 AM EST

"... Islam is a religion of peace it does not condone attacks on civilians or women or children even with whom we are at war with."

Is that why you all celebrate every time Hamas blows up a bus full of women and children in Israel??? Is that why you all beat your wives?

"war to control the oil fields of the world by the US and Europe."

So why didn't we invade Venezuela?? It's a lot closer, better weather, cuter girls, less freight...

If we are the ones trying to keep Muslims uninformed, why is it that the only countries in the Muslim world that have a free press are the ones we have a presence in?

[ Parent ]

why do christians want a crusade? (none / 1) (#183)
by Muslim on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 08:52:58 AM EST

hamas is protecting their land .. hwo they are doing it in palesting may be wrong. how they did it in lebanon was better
i am married. i dont beat your wife. do u?
venezuela apparently doesnt have that big an old field compared to the ones in the middle east.
btw. did u notice that article recently that went along the lines of "the bush administration is appaled that the muslim brotherhood is taking the lead in the (egyptian) elections and are now reconsidering the speed of implementing democracy in the middle east
muslim, arab, egyptian, male in that order
[ Parent ]
Somehow I doubt it (none / 1) (#105)
by godix on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:00:54 AM EST

A) I've yet to see anything that indicated Blair had any real influence. If he managed to talk Bush out of bombing Al Jazeera then that was the first time he was able to change Bush's mind on anything.

B) Like Bush or hate him you gotta admit, he doesn't half ass his way once he decides on a course of action. If America decided to actively target journalist we'd have a lot more corpses in Iraq than we currently do. Hell, most of the current problems (militarily speaking) in Iraq are because the US isn't willing to say 'Fuck it, just level that damned town'. We're still trying to win the their hearts and minds (granted, we suck at it) and blowing away journalists doesn't go well with that.


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.

Just a news agency like others. (2.33 / 6) (#111)
by oneicrying on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:28:07 AM EST

Clearly you have no idea of he civillian casualties massacred at Fallujah? Some f that so called propaganda, couyld be levelled at CNN, the worst biased piece of shit television I have ever seen. Although its tailored ofr hte inferior less objective American Mind.

Just watch the BBC compared ot it, then watch Al Jazeera. Instead of watching edited reports of what they might be saying, read it for your self.

Then understand its just a NEWS Agency like any other.

They were offered to be embedded in Afghanistan WITH a US Agency, which refused, to do so.
US television Inteviewed Al Zakarwi and Bin Laden Years before they ever appeared on Al JAzeeera.

If you were a US reporter wouldnt you want the hottest Information form the Hottest source? Is not Bin Laden HOt???

Peace salaam shalom, its all the same thing so stfu and play!
[ Parent ]

Spelling is optional for you, isn't it? (2.00 / 2) (#128)
by godix on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 06:44:20 AM EST

Clearly you have no idea of he civilian casualties massacred at Fallujah?

Clearly you have no idea what type of damage the US military could do if they so wished. Look up Dresden sometime when you're bored. Or My Lai. Or the Tokyo bombing. And then of course there's always Nagasaki and Hiroshima if the US decided to get extreme about things.

Fallujah and a majority of it's citizens are still around which is a sure sign that the US military isn't running wild in Iraq. If the military was targeting civilians all that would be left of Fallujah would be a crater with a bunch of guys miles away in white suits saying 'Boy, have you ever seen that many rads before?'


- An egotist is someone who thinks they're almost as good as I am.
[ Parent ]

So, the war in iraq (3.00 / 4) (#136)
by daveybaby on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:42:15 AM EST

is a total success because, "hey at least we didnt nuke em"?

[ Parent ]
No, shithead, (none / 1) (#139)
by debillitatus on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:01:23 PM EST

Bush is not targetting journalists because if he was they'd all be dead.

Bush is not targetting civilians because, again, if he was, they'd be mostly dead.

They're not.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

In the same way that, say, (3.00 / 10) (#143)
by daveybaby on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:54:32 PM EST

he is targetting insurgents? And terrorists? And osama?

Rofflepops, sir. Rofflepops.

[ Parent ]

lemme do this right boys (3.00 / 6) (#147)
by tkatchevzombie on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:50:25 PM EST

hitler didn't target teh joos because if he did they'd be mostly dead.

[ Parent ]
To paraphrase Nigel Tufnell (none / 0) (#198)
by debillitatus on Sun Dec 04, 2005 at 10:46:38 AM EST

There is a really fine line between cutely ironic and just plain fuckin dumb.

BTW, you crossed it.

Damn you and your daily doubles, you brigand!
[ Parent ]

ALL (3.00 / 3) (#167)
by driptray on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 06:14:51 PM EST

When people say that Bush targeted journalists they are not saying that he targeted ALL journalists. Just the ones he doesn't like.

Same with civilians.

He targeted Al Jazeera. Killed a few of them to send them a warning to back off.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]

So, what youre saying is (none / 1) (#189)
by daveybaby on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 08:56:17 AM EST

that Bush is a terrorist.

[ Parent ]
Not the first time (3.00 / 8) (#109)
by smallstepforman on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 03:19:48 AM EST

During the NATO air campaign on Yugoslavia in 1999, NATO deliberately targetted the largest TV station in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, killing 13 civilians and maming dozens of others. So the US wanting to target Media outlets isn't something new or unheard of.

Also (none / 1) (#124)
by Des Beelzebubs Rechtsbeistand on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 05:34:10 AM EST

they bombed the Chinese embassy.

Very stupid thing to do.

Rate comments: [no |v]
[ Parent ]

They also (none / 1) (#131)
by tiamat on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:25:15 AM EST

gave notice before hand that they were going to hit that target, which was not passed on to the people who worked there.

[ Parent ]
You know ... (3.00 / 4) (#152)
by gdanjo on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 07:10:30 PM EST

... the IRA gave warnings too. So I don't quite see your point.

Dan ..
"Death - oh! fair and `guiling copesmate Death!
Be not a malais'd beggar; claim this bloody jester!"
-ToT
[ Parent ]

Government vs civilian (none / 1) (#137)
by PhilHibbs on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 10:03:46 AM EST

I think that's why the article says "the possibility that the present US government targeted civilian media outlets".

[ Parent ]
poll (3.00 / 2) (#144)
by Nyarlathotep on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 01:20:02 PM EST

Survey says.. they planned to bomb al-Jazeera!

It'd be nice to know for sure that they did it, but people in the know see such activities as normal.  Israel sank a U.S. spy ship.  U.S. bombing of Chinese embassy was intentional.  Most such "accedental" bombings are very much intentional.  

All nations have various intrigues going on all over the world; give em' an excuse to shoot without fear of escalation, and they usually do.. its just human nature.

Campus Crusade for Cthulhu -- it found me!
[ Parent ]

Come back when usofa targets bbc. (none / 1) (#117)
by dimaq on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:22:12 AM EST

Oh wait they might have already done just that. then...

Come back when you catch usofa president red-handed with goatse. oh wait...

Didn't they do that already? (3.00 / 3) (#134)
by walwyn on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 08:58:43 AM EST

I remember that they bombed the Al-Jazeera offices in Baghdad at the start of the war.

----
Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
Did the US deliberately target Al-Jazeera? (2.00 / 2) (#135)
by goldenballs on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 09:01:57 AM EST

No. It was a joke. Can't you picture President Bush saying in a slow southern drawl, "Well, durnit, let's just bomb the heck ot of that daggoned Al-Jazeera then!" And the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, replies, "No, no, no, George, we can't do that!" To which Mr. Bush retorts, "Aw, shucks! Wish it was that easy!"
()()...)))))))\
Very (none / 0) (#142)
by ribo on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 12:51:25 PM EST

Bad Logic. "Such a rapid and aggressive response suggests that the leaked document contains very sensitive information, and lends credence to the allegation that Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters."

Remember Hotel Palestine? (2.80 / 5) (#146)
by SlashDread on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 02:34:16 PM EST

It was shot by an American Tank, after journalist critiques from that place. Of course that was not the "Reason", they claimed a sniper was up there... witnessed by noone else..
Hell yes, they could have targeted Al Jaz.

Yeah I remember (1.60 / 5) (#157)
by lordDogma on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 03:06:43 AM EST

Q: Did a US tank deliberately target journalists at the Palestine Hotel in 2003?

A: Um, no. The tank was several hundred yards away when it fired. With machineguns blaring, tank engines roaring, jets booming, helicopters chopping, communications nets squawking, mortars, RPG's, and artillery rounds zipping, bullets pinging, and bombs exploding, its perfectly reasonably that one might mis-judge the origin of incoming sniper fire. Have you ever been next to a .50 caliber machinegun while it was firing? Try turning your stereo up to full blast and then stand next to it. Then try to pick out the location of nearby birds chirping in the woods.

Q: Yeah but the tank crew said they saw a sniper there. So didn't they lie then?

A: The tank crew said there was a sniper there because that is what they observed. Turns out the observation was fallacious, but that doesn't mean it was a deliberate lie. What they really observed was a guy with a camera, who they mistook as a sniper team spotter holding a spotting scope.

Q: But, but, but... a photographer's camera looks nothing like a sniper's spotting scope! What about that discrepancy?

From 300 yards it does. Hell, at 300 yards a Granny Smith apple looks like a hand grenade - even with binoculars. Especially when you're in the middle of a war zone and people are shooting at you.

Q: But surely they had maps and knew that the building they shot at was in fact the Palestine Hotel?

A: In Spielberg's latest Hollywood flick they would have had real-time digial charts with a giant red X marked at the exact location of the Palestine Hotel. They could have then accessed a database full of information on it by pressing three buttons on a keyboard. But... In the real world, they are driving a tank through a city of six million people that they've never been to before, while being shot at. Their maps are probably of the paper fold-up variety, and I doubt that the Palestine Hotel was marked more prominently than their actual military objectives. Plus, in a warzone, the first priority is to kill whoever is trying to kill you before they manage to do it. Figuring out where you are and what buildings you are looking at is almost as important, but not quite.

Q: Don't you think the tank crew was incompetent and should be court martialed?

Mistakes like that happen in a war zone. The Palestine Hotel incident is one of thousands of incidents where an innocent person was killed by mistake. Sorry, but I just don't see why a bunch of whiney reporters are any more important than children who are killed by mistake - especially because the children don't have a choice to leave. The journalists do.

When you get on the highway there is a distinct chance that you will be killed in an auto accident each day. Yet you continue to take the risk despite the fact that there are 40,000 people killed on the highways every year in auto accidents. In short, life can be risky. My message to reporters is: If you choose to make it riskier by flying off to a warzone so you can line your pockets with cash as a war correspondent *cough* profiteer *cough*, well then don't bitch to me when you get your ass shot off by mistake.

[ Parent ]

Obviously... (2.50 / 4) (#160)
by Znork on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 05:27:29 AM EST

Obviously it's entirely possible the tank crew didnt deliberately and under orders target the Al Jazeera crew.

And you're right, under the circumstances you mention, anyone would be hard pressed to identify any target; at 300 yards away in a building window there must be hundreds of things that could sortof look like a sniper.

It would be far easier to decide what to fire on if you had specific orders on where and what to select as target.

"court martialed?"

Court martialed? There is hardly sufficient evidence either way.

The only natural conclusion we can make is that following the high standards of justice set by the US government, the tank crew should, for the purpose of ascertaining the truth, be rendered to Egypt or Uzbekistan and 'questioned' until such a time as they see fit to be more forthcoming.

After the powertools of inquiry have had their day, that's when you can decide to court martial or not.

[ Parent ]

Good analysis (2.75 / 4) (#162)
by bml on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 05:55:28 AM EST

Too bad it doesn't bear much resemblance to the actual events.

With machineguns blaring, tank engines roaring, jets booming, helicopters chopping, communications nets squawking, mortars, RPG's, and artillery rounds zipping, bullets pinging, and bombs exploding...

No, I think you're referring to Black Hawk Down, the movie. None of that was happening that day. It so happens that a French cameraman filmed the whole sequence. The tanks approach a bridge, then they stop; there is no antitank fire anywhere. No choppers or other signs of battle around. Then the first tank rises the cannon and aims directly to the hotel. The cannon points to the hotel for two whole minutes. Still no fire during all this time. Then the tank shoots.

The US army version is that they were under heavy fire from the hotel area, and they responded inmediately. This is glaringly contradicted by the video images.

Also, the video shows very clear images of the tanks, from that distance you could very clearly tell a camera scope from a sniper rifle or an RGP. Also, the sargeant who ordered the shooting said all they saw was "a man with binoculars".

There are a lot more contradictions. I'm sure you'll be able to find more information via Google.


The Internet is vast, and contains many people. This is the way of things. -- Russell Dovey
[ Parent ]

AST (3.00 / 5) (#163)
by Stylusepix on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 06:03:47 AM EST

Q: What is the name of the popular trolling tactic that lordDogma is using today?

A: AST-style bait and switch. lordDogma starts off with a perfectly reasonable argument. In fact, he uses the first four Q&As to repeatedly state a single irrelevant truism: "War is chaos. Death happens." For extra points, he uses colourful imagery and metaphors to make his single point look better.

Q: Isn't that pure sophistry?

A: Oll Korreckt.

Q: So, the first four questions and answers are the bait: true, reasonable, meaningless. What's the switch? What's the whole post all about?

A: The only message in his post is a ridiculous attack on journalism. He calls reporters "whiney .. war profiteers" that are doing it to "line [their own] pockets with cash". He says to them: "don't bitch .. when you get .. shot".

Q: But what about the children!?

A: lordDogma uses a cheap rhetorical tactic. He appeals to "the children", sprinkling syntactic sugar and truisms all over his whole post. For the record, I will summarize lordDogma's post in a single sentence:

lordDogma says: "Reporters are greedy, bitchy war profiteers who deserve to get shot by President Bush. All Hail President Bush! All Hail!"

Q: OMG. This lordDogma guy isn't for real, now is he?

A: Good Lard, did you think for a second that lordDogma had infused a single thread of moral fiber into his post? He is a troll, he embodies hyprocrisy in what he writes. And he does it willfully.

In reality, lordDogma is a moderate Democrat with poorly defined beliefs. He cannot defend his own beliefs because they are so weakly supported. He finds it entertaining to listen to "the enemy" and parrot back the party line, wrapping it around what he thinks is "funny political satire". But in the end, lordDogma is a spineless third-rate troll who will not speak for his own convinctions.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

What a dope! (none / 0) (#197)
by DDS3 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 12:28:41 PM EST

How dare you assume that the masses here can understand reason and logic!  How dare you assume that people here will accept that a conspiracy is not behind every door.  How dare you assume that the masses here, for even a 1/10 of a second, can imagine the chaos, fear, uncertaintly, confusion, the smells, the noises, the tastes, and the terror to be in a warzone, while people are trying to kill them.  How dare you assume the masses here are capable of understanding the average guy in a tank or on the ground is his neighbor, his brother, or his father, who has no agenda, other than coming home in one peice without doing anything they can't live with when they get back home.

For this, you will be moderated into obscurity!  What a dope!  :P

Seriously, I completely agree with you.  Fact is, you're 100% correct.  Fact is, there are far too many absolute idiots here which insist the world turns as they imagine it...with zero real world experience to even be able to have basis to form an opinion of their own.


[ Parent ]

A case of curious timing (3.00 / 3) (#202)
by bittercurmudgeon on Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 05:01:44 PM EST

I have been next to a .50 caliber machine gun while it was firing.  My eyes still worked...

Anyhow, the fact that the Palestine Hotel incident took place the same day that Al Jazeera's studio was hit by a US missile - an event that was crowded out of the headlines by the Big Story at the Palestine Hotel - was quite a fortunate bit of fortuitous timing.  The two incidents could have been entirely unrelated.

Back in 1999, the Belgrade studio of the Serbian national television network was hit by a GPS-guided bomb, coincidently (or not) at the precise time that Serbia's information minister was to have been there to be interviewed by Larry King.  The minister was 20 minutes late, and the JDAM (flown all the way from Kansas in a B2) missed him, killing several technicians and a makeup girl who had arrived on time (it was around 3 AM local time).  President Clinton justified the bombing by insisting that Serb TV broadcast nothing but propaganda; President Bush didn't have to justify the missile attack, because the US press ignored it infavor of the Palestine Hotel story, where *western* journalists were involved...  

Coincidences, coincidences.  

[ Parent ]

You're not thinking fourth-dimensionally! (2.33 / 6) (#150)
by kingmanor on Thu Nov 24, 2005 at 04:53:03 PM EST

There is no reason for the US to bomb Al-Jazeera because everyone knows Al-Jazeera is just a CIA front. Come on, people!

shouldn't it be (none / 0) (#168)
by klem on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 06:31:41 PM EST

four-dimensionally?

[ Parent ]
No. Pay attention goddamnit! (none / 0) (#177)
by gabban on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 11:06:15 AM EST

It should be 7.25694630506-dimensionally.

[ Parent ]
Answer (1.33 / 12) (#156)
by lordDogma on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 02:13:00 AM EST

Q: Did the United States target Al-Jazeera?

A: No, retard.

Q: Is the leaked transcript true?

A: Probably.

Q: Was Bush serious or just joking?

A: He was joking, you brainless twit. Granted, joking around about bombing a news organization while his words were being recorded proves once again what a buffoon GWB is, but the fact that you actually think he was being serious just goes to show that you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer either.

You are a very ill-mannered person (2.00 / 5) (#159)
by nebbish on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 05:06:53 AM EST

If you disagree, at least have the decency to do it politely.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Answer (1.83 / 6) (#161)
by Stylusepix on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 05:46:35 AM EST

Q: Did President Bush target innocent reporters with missiles capable of delivering chemical weapons?

A: Yes, mustard.

Q: Is the leaked transcript true?

A: ~100% certainly.

Q: Is President Bush a fundie who believes in a fictitious America?

A: Indeed, you tart-crusty bromp. GWB is a a fundie buffoon; his beliefs come from the radical corporate-neocon interpretation of a poor translation of a holy book known as the bible. He does not care about America, but rather about his superstitions about a fantastic christian afterlife.

Q: Is lordDogma a troll?

A: Oll Korrekt, mein friendski. lordDogma has got no morals of his own, and he finds it funny to parrot the dogma of an idealised republican fundamentalist conservative right-winger. However, if you analyze lordDogma's writings with advanced language deconstructionism techniques invented by the french, then you know the lordDogma is nothing but a milquetoast liberal Democrat who is afraid to stand for his beliefs. He would rather joke about being a conservative, On the count of three, let's all feel great pity for our poor, poor lordDogma.
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

Speaking of radical fundies... (1.00 / 2) (#171)
by lordDogma on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 09:09:01 PM EST

As soon as you sober up from your 'shroom trip try re-reading your post and tell me you aren't a brainwashed hippy moron.

[ Parent ]
Speaking of unreasonable fallacies... (none / 1) (#173)
by Stylusepix on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 11:12:13 PM EST

Q: What does a cornered third-rate troll do?

A: He starts insulting people at random, often in the form of loaded rhetorical questions.

Q: We've already established that lordDogma is a troll. But how do we know that he's a third-rate troll?

A: Because he resorts to verbal violence so quickly. A better troll would make a valiant effort to defend his point of view. However, lordDogma does not have the ability to do so, partly because he is well aware that his argument is utterly defective, but mostly because he lacks the creative insight to present an effective rhetorical counterargument.

Q: I have trouble decyphering the obscure pseudo-english babbling that lordDogma tries to pass as an insult. Can you rephrase his insult?

I can.

Q: Please do.

You are a moronic, brainwashed hippie, and you are high on magical mushrooms! Furthermore, you are a radical fundie who lacks the ability to re-read his own writings!
Go; you're an it-getter, but No; it's all in good fun (and games). Laugh, in stock?
[ Parent ]

My shroom trip is on the march. (none / 0) (#181)
by fenix down on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 01:16:22 AM EST

And it says you're all fags.

Narf.

[ Parent ]

If all you have is a hammer.. (3.00 / 3) (#158)
by slaida1 on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 04:58:56 AM EST

..the every problem looks like a nail.

If Al'Jazeera or journalists in general are a problem to the army then they'll hammer the problem away. What's the big surprise? It's the same with all armies and US army is no different; all armies kill, rape, loot, cover up, silence their critics=enemies and try to 'win'.

..and some patriot sez: "yeah but OUR army is better/nicer/bigger/something, support our boys blahblahblah"

Why? (2.75 / 4) (#165)
by endeavor on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 01:37:23 PM EST

From the article:

Al-Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.

The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.

That's the explanation for why Bush bombed the local AJ bureau and considered bombing their headquarters. This sounds very weak. I know there is a large set of people that will believe any story of a malicious act attributed to GWB, just because it's GWB. I, on the other hand, am not at that point; I either need credible corroborating sources or a stronger motive. If AJ had obtained a document that would have been politically damning for the Bush administration -- maybe an American version of the Down Street Memo -- I could, at least, comprehend the alleged response.

There's another thing I find bizarre: people hate Bush because he cares nothing about what the rest of the world thinks; then here they argue that Bush cares so much about what the rest of the world thinks that he blows up their TV stations. And over what?-- Showing pictures of dead bodies and replaying tapes of Al Qaeda propaganda?

I am not arguing for GWB here -- I don't like him, I don't think he's particularly smart, and I voted against him, but I don't think he's evil. Definitively agreeing with the plot that this article asserts is premature.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." -- Napoleon Bonaparte

It's not that bizarre (2.42 / 7) (#169)
by JetJaguar on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 07:12:01 PM EST

Really. Think about it. Bush and his cronies may or may not care what the rest of the world thinks of their policies, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be interested in suppressing dissent against their policies.

A very big part of the Bush administration's campaign has been the control of PR. I've read of a number of instances where reporters have been black listed and denied access to administration officials if they wrote something that put the administration's policies in a bad light.

Let's also consider what happened during the run up to the Iraq invasion. The press in the US really soft peddled their questions about this move, and I think they really dropped the ball by not forcing the administration to answer some tough questions about the policy they were persuing.

[ Parent ]

Here's why. (2.90 / 10) (#179)
by bobzibub on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 05:06:31 PM EST

To understand the importance of the media in the US, one has to watch non-US media.  In general, non-US media shows dead people.  US media does not.  (Unless it's on CSI. Quell Horror!)  It is very difficult to promote war to people who understand the nature of war.  US media even avoids showing coffins.  (Remember the coffin photo scandal?)  

Al-Jazeera shows dead people, because this is war.  They would not be credible to their audience, much of whom have seen wars first hand.  They do cover what Al Qaeda releases, but they also broadcast speeches from US figures too.

The administration's policy objectives of the Iraq war and the war on terror are being undermined by reporting that recognizes that death is indeed part and parcel of war.  Death and killing are unpopular.  So should this war.

People do not like Bush because while he has so little empathy or time for any people but his own his actions affect people accross the world.  No leader whose illegal actions and policies cause the death of over 100 thousand people should be liked.  If there is such a thing as evil, he fits the bill.  If you or I drove up to a gas station, filled our truck, and shot the attendant, we would be accused of being callous killers.  But to do the same on a grand scale does not excuse the same act.  (No, I don't buy his weekly goody-goody excuses he puts forward.  Oil and geo-military strategy are the sole reasons behind this.)

Caring, sharing Bush cares what the world thinks only in so far as it advances policy objectives.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Not many people make terrorists look ineffectual at killing.  Bush ought to be tried and punished; as far as I care, he can share a cell with bin Ladin.  


[ Parent ]

Reasons (none / 1) (#200)
by jmv on Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 08:03:26 AM EST

Oil and geo-military strategy are the sole reasons behind this.

I tend to think that helping his friends in the defense industry is as important as the two reasons you stated.

[ Parent ]

Everything America does is wrong! (1.00 / 7) (#175)
by nlscb on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 04:33:26 AM EST

It's all about blood for oil! Everything American, from McDonalds to the Red Cross is EVIL! Death to America!

Everything every american president says is in the context of EVIL. Therefore, any joke, from black to the chicken crossing the road is EVIL(Why did the chicken cross the road? So the evil imperialist America could stamp its foot down on the necks of the worlds oppressed!).

DEATH TO AMERICA, THE GREAT IMPERIALIST SATAN!

Comment Search has returned - Like a beaten wife, I am pathetically grateful. - mr strange

No, not verything (2.00 / 2) (#176)
by andr0meda on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 04:38:47 AM EST


You can say a lot of bad things about the US and it's political choices, but there are some good things too:

* Liberated Europe from the Nazi's

* Blues / Jazz

* Lots of scientific and medical inventions that make human life more comfortable

So I mean.. give credit where it`s due, and attack where it's needed. Thanks.

Cheers,
Leftie from Belgium


Do not be afraid of the void my friend, is it not merely the logical next step?
[ Parent ]

thats no better is it (none / 0) (#182)
by The Diary Section on Sun Nov 27, 2005 at 01:18:53 AM EST

any criticism of America is false because its predicated on a "America bashing" or "Bush hatred"?

Its interesting that many commentators seem to have a patience threshold with regard to news stories that criticise the actions of the present administration, as if the truth should somehow adjust itself to fit their attention span. I noticed this a lot after Abu Graib, you're allowed one scandal but two is obviously just being silly.
Spend 10 minutes in the company of an American and you end up feeling like a Keats or a Shelley: Thin, brilliant, suave, and desperate for industrial-scale quantities of opium.
[ Parent ]

This seems simple enough. (3.00 / 12) (#178)
by jd on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 12:23:00 PM EST

The last time the British Government was quite to riled up was over the Spycatcher saga, when a former British spy published his memoirs of an organization that (at that time) didn't even officially exist.

On that basis, do I believe this story likely? Yes. Do I believe this to be the whole story? No. The gagging order covers not only the story leaked, but anything and everything else in the memo, implying that there were other, far more damaging, elements in there.

Do I believe this was a joke? No. Ronald Regan's infamous snafu on radio, where he said that he was going to bomb Russia - that was a joke. Caused a bit of a stink, too. But nobody was arrested for the broadcast, no secrecy order was placed, it was business as usual and the incident largely forgotten.

Do I believe Al-Jazeera are a "legitimate target"? When people start talking in those terms, they sound like the IRA at the height of their bombing campaign. You can't just go around labelling things "legitimate targets" because you happen to feel like bombing them. Well, I guess if you're the world's only superpower, you can do what the hell you like, but it doesn't make it lawful and it doesn't make it right.

But what of all the propoganda? What of it? It'll exist, whether Al-Jazeera exists or not. To abuse a quote beloved of gun nuts, if you criminalize information, then only criminals will have information. You don't change anything, except negatively.

There is another factor to consider, and that is truth in the media. The Pentagon has, in the past, openly considered making false statements through the media and fabricating news. All Western journalists are embedded in the US military, see what the US military want them to see, and report only what the US military want them to say. Those who have reported anything different have been subject to retribution. (And, yes, that has happened.)

There are no Western media outlets willing to risk getting their reporters killed, by operating outside of those restrictions. (At least one reporter, from ITN, who was embedded with the Iraqi army during the initial invasion was killed by US forces, despite being clearly marked - or, possibly for that reason. It's doubtful anything will be acknowledged by the Pentagon for another 50-75 years, if that was the case.)

This leaves the middle-eastern journalists to do any investigative reporting. No, I don't advise trusting them to be impartial or even honest, but the fact of the matter is that there is nobody else who is willing to risk saying anything that might conflict with American official statements.

It is highly significant that the ONLY disciplinary proceedings that have taken place have done so after proof of corruption and abuse within the armed services has been published. Not before. From the bodies burned in Afghanistan to the Abu Gharib fiasco, the dominant response has been to pacify American sentiment. The military knew of many of the cases of abuse years before they were reported in the press, and did nothing.

Hate them or loath them, Al-Jazeera are vital in keeping the pressure on the military, to prevent far worse attrocities. If no media were present, Iraq would be no different from Darfur. In some ways, that might be a pity - societies change very reluctantly and only in extreme situations. At the relatively low levels of reported corruption, there won't be anything like the backlash needed to root out the degenerates who support and encourage war crimes.

The real tragedy is that, no matter what GWB said to Blair, it simply isn't going to be bad enough to force people to face up to their ethical responsibilities. Nothing in this war has. All the sides involved have seriously sick, twisted, evil minds but few - if any - will ever be called on it, and those who are will do so as fall-guys in evidence-tree trials of the kind we've been seeing.

There is nothing anyone can do - or should do - other than press on for the defence and the freedom of journalists of all nations and all sides. Truth - whatever scraps we can salvage - is the only safeguard. That is the only weapon that this kind of evil cannot endure. Anything else will just feed it.

Problem with Al-Jazeera (2.00 / 2) (#196)
by DDS3 on Wed Nov 30, 2005 at 12:13:32 PM EST

The problem with Al-Jazeera is that they are a poor excuse for a news agency.  People love to bash networks like FOX, but Al-Jazeera is a bunch of nut jobs, with a subvertive agenda, which just happens to have a channel.  Many, many items "reported" on Al-Jazeera are nothing but propaganda, anti-west, pro-terrorist segments.  Al-Jazeera has been caught many, many, many times knowingly reporting stories they know to be 100% false but do so anyways because the story is anti-west.

Keep in mind, most of the world's legitimate news organizations do not accept Al-Jazeera as a legitimte news organization.  Rather, they think of them strictly as a propaganda machine...but *mostly* stay silent because they have to work with Al-Jazeera in various parts of the world for access to people, places, and tape provided by terrorists organizations.

It's not exactly hard to understand why a western government might consider an anti-west, pro-terrorist, propaganda machine to be a legitimate target.


[ Parent ]

The difference to Fox News being what exactly?[nt] (2.33 / 3) (#201)
by werner on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 09:53:08 AM EST



[ Parent ]
if you can't see the difference... (none / 1) (#204)
by DDS3 on Mon Jan 16, 2006 at 01:51:31 PM EST

...you're pretty dumb.

With Fox, it's obvious and they make no effort to hide they are biased.  If fact, that's the basis for many of their shows!  It's well understood they have an opinion and they're trying to push it in your face, that what they are selling is their in-your-face-spin.  With Al-Jazeera, they make every effort to appear crediable and unbiased; and because of their audience, which is largely ignorant, uneduacted, brainwashed, or zealots, this goes largely unquestioned, taken at face value.

One is called opinion news...the other is called disinformation and propaganda.  They are worlds apart.  Like I said, if you truly can not tell the different, you're dumb.  Having said that, I'm assuming you were trying to make a poor joke.  Sure, there are some poor,ignorant, uneducated American's that actually think Fox is unbiased, but they are few and far between...on the other hand, those that accept Al-Jazeera is the common man in the Middle East and other parts of the world; poor, ignorant, and often uneducated, or if they are educataed, brainwashed by their corrupt and preverted religion...which after all, makes them ignorant and uneducated.  There is, after all, more to education than knowing 1+1.

[ Parent ]

How long before.. (none / 1) (#180)
by Sabit A Sayeed on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 06:29:01 PM EST

cryptome.org has the docs ;) ?

Is it war or not? (1.50 / 2) (#192)
by teschio100 on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 05:22:53 PM EST

It seems to me that, if we're talking war, then anything can and has been done before. The way I see it, trying to fight a war without entirely admitting it generates this kind of problems. How far can you go? How much can you be bad? There's nothing like a civilized and honest war. War is dirty, always. The point is: do we agree with this particular war? If the answer is yes, then let's forget about what's clean and what's not.

Interesting that So Many Don't Believe It (2.50 / 4) (#199)
by czolgosz on Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 01:53:06 AM EST

Starting a war against a state that hasn't attacked you, has no intention to, and no capability even if they wanted to. Lying to get it started. Committing acts of torture (or offshoring it). Killing several thousand civilians as "collateral damage." Phosphorus weapons. Fuel-air weapons. On the home front, building the surveillance society and turning religious fanatics loose on us to distract us from the real crimes that are happening.

And after all that, you think they wouldn't attack some Arab journalists? Yeah.

Let's hope it all comes out in the war crimes tribunals, and that Rumsfeld and Cheney's health holds out long enough for justice to catch up with them before natural causes do.

Quit wringing your hands, hippies, and visualize Nuremberg II. I can't wait to see Bush gesticulating in the Plexiglas booth.


Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
um, its a tabloid he said (none / 1) (#206)
by noOo on Mon Sep 25, 2006 at 01:58:14 PM EST

how did the us start the war?  Last time i checked they were publicizing the executions of many americans and others from western society and they were supporting the terrorist attacks on the wtc, and in spain and such.

Seems fair enough to me.  

stop the conspiracy theories until you have real proof.  

[ Parent ]

truth? (2.50 / 2) (#203)
by user 956 on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 07:02:12 AM EST

Although the full truth has yet to come out, the possibility that the present US government targeted civilian media outlets is a worrying new development in the war on terror

It's tough to say who to believe. given that the US gov't has been paying iraqi reporters for favorable articles, i'd say the "truth" is up for grabs.
---

Top Chuck Norris Facts.

(lazy sunday)
Al-Jezeera GOOD Bush BAD!!! Frankenstein sleep. (none / 1) (#205)
by PeacyKing on Mon Feb 06, 2006 at 12:51:32 AM EST

Imagine the late Phil hartman doing that. -sigh, such a commical genius, and gone forever. Anyway, Al-Jazeera is guilty of inciting and defending terrorist activities; the best example is how they show every single western behedding, until it is a woman then they have journalistic integrity all of a sudden and they Refuse to air it.
The reason being, of course, the muslim world will not tolerate a woman being treated with such disrespect.
Now, that being said, Al-Jazeera is, in essense, a propoganda machine for the terrorists and Saddam *who financed terrorists against Israel on numerous occassions, so you have a head of state who finances terror* and in war, you must take out the enemy's propaganda/moral boosting mechanisms.
The only problem is, in the war on terror, the boundaries seem to blur.

Did the United States target Al-Jazeera? | 206 comments (155 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!