Hildegard Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera - guess free speach is good only when you talk 'god bless america' bullsh*t - way to go Bushy
Atreides Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Whatever. Spreading beauty with my katana.
Judge Hades Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I doubt that is even true. Bushie is many things and he might seem to be stupid, but not even he is that stupid. Now, if we had Dan Quayle as President...
Surreptishus Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 The Daily Mirror are lefty BS artists.
Janmanden Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I think he was joking - unfortunately. :D I am not surprised about the article, some of those flashy papparazi or reporters have no morals over quoting out of context for profit and ratings...it happens everywhere. " (Signatures: disabled)
11XHooah Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Hmm, sounds like a pile of bull to me <_< Just some more leftists making up stories. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. --John Stewart Mill-- "Victory was for those willing to fight and die. Intellectuals could theorize until they sucked their thumbs right off their hands, but in the real world, power still flowed from the barrel of a gun.....you could send in your bleeding-heart do-gooders, you could hold hands and pray and sing hootenanny songs and invoke the great gods CNN and BBC, but the only way to finally open the roads to the big-eyed babies was to show up with more guns." --Black Hawk Down-- MySpace: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=44500195
Kaftan Barlast Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 (edited) Uhm... he already has. TWICE even. Monday November 12, 2001 their headquarters in Kabul were bombed. No casualties as the building had been evacuated. April 8, 2003 their bulding was deliberatly attacked by an A10 warthog. Atleast one reporter killed, multiple injuries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3527570.stm Other arab news channels like Quatar News, were also bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And an american tank fired into a hotel killing several european journalists. Edited November 25, 2005 by Kaftan Barlast DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
kumquatq3 Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 (edited) Uhm... he already has. TWICE even. Monday November 12, 2001 their headquarters in Kabul were bombed. No casualties as the building had been evacuated. April 8, 2003 their bulding was deliberatly attacked by an A10 warthog. Atleast one reporter killed, multiple injuries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3527570.stm Other arab news channels like Quatar News, were also bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And an american tank fired into a hotel killing several european journalists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, you can make a case for other stuff, but hotel incident wasn't on "orders" to get rid of journalists. No war in HISTORY has had more media coverage and as close to the action as this one, and had the army not only allow it, but facilitated it. ................................................................................ ................................ About the actual article, wouldn't surprise me at all, but I think it's silly that an article that suggests someone wanted to do something but didn't. I want to try breaking into a bank vault, but I don't. Does that make me evil? As for the other bombings Kaf posted, not familar with them, so I can't really say. I can say that the freedom of the press in Iraq is the best it's ever been in modern history. Do you guys know how many new newspapers have started up since the invasion? Edited November 25, 2005 by kumquatq3
Kaftan Barlast Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 The thing during the war was that the majority of journalists were "embedded" into the coalition forces. This method is condemned by most serious journalists as severely detrimental to objectivity. The journalists in the hotel that was attacked were not embedded and it was widely known that the hotel hosted them. It could have been an accident, but its a good chance it wasnt and that thought is quite disturbing. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
kumquatq3 Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 (edited) The thing during the war was that the majority of journalists were "embedded" into the coalition forces. This method is condemned by most serious journalists as severely detrimental to objectivity. "Most serious journalists" "severe"? Link? While I agree it really makes the journalists more sympathetic to those around him, having reporters come in later only makes it another case of "the military says this, these people say that". That's the trade off. Besides, video doesn't lie. Unless you think the embedded reporters have sympathetic video cameras. edit; I should say video doesn't lie, but doesn't always tell the whole story. Regardless, the US government allowed reporters to basically be right next to the troops, which was the closest point to the news. Say what you will, but that's the government taking a big risk. A BIG one. For the sake of disclosure. The journalists in the hotel that was attacked were not embedded and it was widely known that the hotel hosted them. It could have been an accident, but its a good chance it was and that thought is quite disturbing. Widely known to whom? The grunts on the ground? I seriously doubt the gunner in the tank knew who was in that particular hotel. Especially not specifically "euro journalists" Edited November 25, 2005 by kumquatq3
DarkAngle Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Journalists kill war making ability. Look at what happened in 'Nam. Tv and journalist protested and kept up pressure to edn the war when all the president needed was a little encouragement and a spine enought to bomb Hanoi. (Marine Axiom) Sweat Dries Blood Clots Bones Heal SUCK IT UP!
metadigital Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera - guess free speach is good only when you talk 'god bless america' bullsh*t - way to go Bushy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Al Jezeera is regarded as the primary mouth piece of al Qaeda, as in there are many members suspected to be common to both. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Hildegard Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 About the actual article, wouldn't surprise me at all, but I think it's silly that an article that suggests someone wanted to do something but didn't. I want to try breaking into a bank vault, but I don't. Does that make me evil? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That paralel just doesn't stand...as a state leader you can't go around saying things like that and then expected to be respected and have credibility, because as a statesment your every word has a possible reprocussion. And as for your 'question' - Iniuriam qui facturus est, iam fecit. :D As for the other bombings Kaf posted, not familar with them, so I can't really say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read the article more carefully..... I can say that the freedom of the press in Iraq is the best it's ever been in modern history. Do you guys know how many new newspapers have started up since the invasion? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So? ......what does that have to do with the accusation....like we have such a freedom of press in Iraq and so many journalits in Iraq so lets go bomb some we don't like, well Bush keeps forgetting the rest of the world isn't excatly like Texas " ...although it's good to know that some in the Bush admin. still have brains, if not I wouldn't be suprised if they bombed them. If the coalition had nothing to hide on this matter then they would publish that pice of the memo and be done with it, not threaten to legally pursue if somebody does so.
Hildegard Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera - guess free speach is good only when you talk 'god bless america' bullsh*t - way to go Bushy <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Al Jezeera is regarded as the primary mouth piece of al Qaeda, as in there are many members suspected to be common to both. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is utterly western propaganda bullsh*t brought to you by the all mighty coalition of the willing.... Al Jazeera is nothing but Fox News on the other side of the line. They're anti american and they don't hide it, but they're not al Qaeda, because if they were they would be long gone. The US deliberately destroyed their offices and killed their journalits in Afghanistan and Iraq just because they want to uncover america's dirt in the ME. And this thing that Bush wanted to destroy their HQ in Qatar just shows how irritated he is with the image of the US they show which Bush can blame only on his warmongering cowbay policy and the conduct of the US military in same cases.
Reveilled Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Te hotel shelling very likely was an accident. When the town near Colditz was liberated during WWII, american tanks fired on the castle, their crews having forgotten in the heat of battle that it was a POW camp. When you're under fire in a warzone, it's not always easy to remember what not to shoot at. As to bombing Al Jazeera, it's a really, really silly idea. Prior to the invasions, Al Jazeera was one of the most pro-western (not so much in terms of countries as in terms of secular democratic ideology) news stations in the area. They've been banned or their journalists persecuted in many so-called "islamofascist" states in the region for denouncing their restrictions on the freedom of the press and anti-democratic practices, and while you can't expect impartiality in a place like the middle east, they're really not some sounding board for terrorists as many seem to believe (ask yourself whether Osama Bin Laden would like his opinions to be broadcast by a female Al Jazeera newsreader in western-style clothing). Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!
Craigboy2 Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 The Christian Science Monitor? "Your total disregard for the law and human decency both disgusts me and touches my heart. Bless you, sir." "Soilent Green is people. This guy's just a homeless heroin junkie who got in a internet caf
Judge Hades Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I have to agree with the assessment that AJ is the Islamic version of Fox. The take the Arab point of view while Fox takes the white conservative Christian point of view.
SteveThaiBinh Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I have to agree with the assessment that AJ is the Islamic version of Fox. The take the Arab point of view while Fox takes the white conservative Christian point of view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think so, too. However, while FoxNews is a step down for the US, which used to have, and may still have, serious intelligent journalism, it's a massive step up for the Arab world accustomed to state-controlled TV that tells obvious lies. Didn't NATO bomb a TV station in Belgrade during the action over Kosovo? That was around the same time they bombed the Chinese embassy 'by accident'. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Judge Hades Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 One man's lies is another man's truth. Its all a matter of point of view.
Dark Moth Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 One man's lies is another man's truth. Its all a matter of point of view. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah right.
Lucius Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 So American Fox News can do it, but an Arab news station can't. Is that it Mothie? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting.
Commissar Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 About the actual article, wouldn't surprise me at all, but I think it's silly that an article that suggests someone wanted to do something but didn't. I want to try breaking into a bank vault, but I don't. Does that make me evil? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That paralel just doesn't stand...as a state leader you can't go around saying things like that and then expected to be respected and have credibility, because as a statesment your every word has a possible reprocussion. And as for your 'question' - Iniuriam qui facturus est, iam fecit. :D As for the other bombings Kaf posted, not familar with them, so I can't really say. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Read the article more carefully..... I can say that the freedom of the press in Iraq is the best it's ever been in modern history. Do you guys know how many new newspapers have started up since the invasion? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So? ......what does that have to do with the accusation....like we have such a freedom of press in Iraq and so many journalits in Iraq so lets go bomb some we don't like, well Bush keeps forgetting the rest of the world isn't excatly like Texas " ...although it's good to know that some in the Bush admin. still have brains, if not I wouldn't be suprised if they bombed them. If the coalition had nothing to hide on this matter then they would publish that pice of the memo and be done with it, not threaten to legally pursue if somebody does so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We have an airbase literally right next to the building in question. What are you suggesting, that the pilots actually walk to do their battle damage assessment? Take off, turn around, weapons release, land next to the crater? Come on.
Hildegard Posted November 26, 2005 Author Posted November 26, 2005 We have an airbase literally right next to the building in question. What are you suggesting, that the pilots actually walk to do their battle damage assessment? Take off, turn around, weapons release, land next to the crater? Come on. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not saying it was some serious intention of the US adminstration/military, just one of Bush's neverending ideas of pure stupidity that fortunatly didn't pass.... P.S. Al Adid airbase used by the USAF is 60 miles from Doha....so it's not excatly right across the street....but it would be ludocrious to bomb a country where you have your own military installations
Kaftan Barlast Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 Wikipedia summary of the April 8th attacks Very informative and with plenty of links to 'respectable' news media. The journalists in the hotel that was attacked were not embedded and it was widely known that the hotel hosted them. It could have been an accident, but its a good chance it was and that thought is quite disturbing. Widely known to whom? The grunts on the ground? I seriously doubt the gunner in the tank knew who was in that particular hotel. Especially not specifically "euro journalists" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was known to just about anyone who watched CNN or any other news channel. As an example, in Sweden we had the freelance correspondant DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
Darkside Posted November 26, 2005 Posted November 26, 2005 I would like to think the other attacks were mistakes in the heat of battle as Revielled said, but I can't know for sure. However, this talk about bombing Al Jezeera is ridiculous. I have no doubt that Bush said it, and I have no doubt he feels contempt for the station, but that doesn't mean he would seriously consider bombing it. I don't like Jack Thompson, and I sort of wish he would die, but that doesn't mean I'm going to grab a gun and follow him home. I don't think any idiot should have written down and reported this obvious joke, but I also think our governments should publish it and get it over with. The more you try to hide something, the worse it looks.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now