Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera

[Yrkoon]

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. 

Happens all the time at the top. During the oil embargo of 1973, The Nixon administration drew up plans to take control of Saudi and Kuwaiti oilfields by force. Oh and these plans were detailed beyond the level of simple 'contingencies'. They were talked out of it. Why you (or anyone) would find such a thing "silly" is beyond me.

 

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?

In Iraq? No. How many? I can think of 3. One is Iraqi government run. One is US coalition run, and the third is Moqtada Sadr's newspaper --which the US tried to shut down. Go ahead and list us the other ones, kumquatq.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Calax]

I figure if he bombs Al Jezzera then the liberals should be able to bomb Fox News of the face of the earth...

[Judge Hades]

I can live with that.

[Volourn]

There are supposedly 100s of little ones. Most of them get no press (lol) because like many 'western' papaers they are too small to be noticed indiviually. There was some article awhile back that disucssed how a portion of Iraqis were taking their new found freedom 'too far'. In it detail some of the stuff (on all sides of the issue) were printing that would be completely viewed with disgust in places where newspapers have been around much longer. One specific example that was used was a communist based newspaper that heralded that point of view.

 

 

As for the actual topic, as Yrkoon mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised that Bush did say that. Whetehr he was joking or seriously contemptling it is an issue.

 

Afterall, how many times when one gets angered they contemplate soemthing they shouldn't do.

 

Afterall, I could see the following scenario taking palce:

 

Bush reads an AJ blasting him for whaetver reason. He gets mad, and goes," Damn it! I hate them *" He turns to his friend, and confidante Blair, and in passing suggests they are udnemrining the war effort and makes a comment about bombing them or doing *soemthing*. Blair says no, no, no. They move on. Game over.

 

Definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

 

On top of that, is it 'common knowledge' that the US as a matter of course, tends to keep battle plans for all sorts of things even things that will liekly never happen like war plans vs. Kanada or Britain.

 

As long as Bush doens't follow through.

[Darque]

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}>

 

Ayup.

[Yrkoon]

Just so we're all on the same page here, we do know that in 2004, the Iraqi governing council, headed by Paul Bremer, BANNED Al-Jazeera from Iraq, don't we? They literally stormed their existing offices in Iraq and shut them down.

 

So I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that the BA contemplated targetting them by force during the invasion. It would be in line with their absurd, elitist philosophy. After all, the TV news outlet they introduced in Iraq, "Al-Hurrah", is nice and peaceful in its reporting. For example, in April of last year, instead of reporting on the Abu-Ghraib Scandal when it was breaking news, Al-Hurrah decided to offer up a nice long 4 part documentary series on the history of India.

[Yrkoon]

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}>

 

Ayup.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Regarded by whom, exactly?

 

And I'm unfamiliar with anyone working for al-jazeera who's believed to be a member of Al-Qaida. Anyone have links to back this rather absurd propaganda belief??

[metadigital]

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....[1]

 

Al Jazeera is nothing but Fox News on the other side of the line. [2] They're anti american and they don't hide it [3], but they're not al Qaeda, because if they were they would be long gone [4]. 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. [5]

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 [6] which Bush can blame only on his warmongering cowbay policy [7] and the conduct of the US military in same cases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[metadigital]

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. 

Happens all the time at the top. During the oil embargo of 1973, The Nixon administration drew up plans to take control of Saudi and Kuwaiti oilfields by force. Oh and these plans were detailed beyond the level of simple 'contingencies'. They were talked out of it. Why you (or anyone) would find such a thing "silly" is beyond me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So now you are making value judgements on how the US should plan contingencies? So what if they have "Plan ZZB" which is to nuke the entire Western Hemisphere and emigrate to Australia? Does the existence of a plan mean that there is will to carry it out? During the Cold War, the US operated in a state of emergency and on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. If the President wanted to bomb al Jezeera, we wouldn't be hearing about a memo, we'd be seeing a smoking crater.

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?

In Iraq? No. How many? I can think of 3. One is Iraqi government run. One is US coalition run, and the third is Moqtada Sadr's newspaper --which the US tried to shut down. Go ahead and list us the other ones, kumquatq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the BBC reported there are hundreds. Certainly there are more than three. Perhaps you should check your figures before mouthing off opinions.

[~Di]

Eh, there's little on this earth I wouldn't believe Bush capable of, but even I am not buying this particular piece of tabloid rumor-mongering. I mean, even Bush could not be that stupid.

 

Because I am evil, however, part of me hopes it is true, 'cause then we might... might ... have a legal reason to impeach his ass. Lying about a sex act was obviously an impeachable offense, but lying about WMD whilst pre-emptively invading a country for the first time in our history so far has not been. Maybe planning to blow up a newspaper would do it!

 

Not that Cheney would be any better, but if we can prove he was involved... I mean, show of hands from those who believe Cheney hasn't been up to his eyeballs in every warmongering thing this administration has done... then we could impeach two for the price of one! Fingers crossed.

 

(No, I'm not a democrat. I am just a very disgruntled and disappointed moderate who dislikes the current administration immensely.)

[Yrkoon]

[*]That's just propaganda bs brought to you by the militant Arabic combatants.

That's why The Sudanese Arab Government banned Al-jazeera. That's why Al-jazeera is banned in Iran, and Saudi Arabia too.

 

[*]That is what they appear to be, but I certainly have no evidence they are (or not) batting for al Qaeda, what makes you such an authority? Have you been briefed by Dr Condoleeza Rice?

Dr. Condoleeza Rice certainly WOULDN'T be any authority on the subject. Regular viewers of Al-Jazeera here in the west would probably be better authorities on the subject though. And from watching their programming, I've come to the conclusion that if there are members "batting for al-qaeda" at any level within Al-Jazeera, they have absolutely no notable influence on what gets aired. Their reporting of the hotel bombings in Jordan a couple of weeks ago absolutely made that clear in my eyes. In any case, I don't see al-jazeera as Anti-American. A fairly good case can be made that they tend to be anti-US foreign policy in the middle east. But that's not unusual. Much of the world's media is.

 

[*]Anti-American (I think you mean US)?  I thought they were meant to be impartial press, like the BBC.

The BBC is not impartial. It is, by its very name, British. Its main focus is on British things. This rules out impartiality. Incidently, Al-jazeera tends to be populist. Since the majority of its coverage takes place in the middle east where dictatorships are common and most of the media is government controlled, being populist is a damn good idea for any media source that wishes to be taken seriously by the world.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

[so now you are making value judgements on how the US should plan contingencies? So what if they have "Plan ZZB" which is to nuke the entire Western Hemisphere and emigrate to Australia? Does the existence of a plan mean that there is will to carry it out? During the Cold War, the US operated in a state of emergency and on the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. If the President wanted to bomb al Jezeera, we wouldn't be hearing about a memo, we'd be seeing a smoking crater.

Oh no NO, mon Ami. I wouldn't dare make such a value judgement. The British Government would, though.. They took the threat of US force so seriously, that they drew up a detailed assessment of what the Americans might do.

 

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?

In Iraq? No. How many? I can think of 3. One is Iraqi government run. One is US coalition run, and the third is Moqtada Sadr's newspaper --which the US tried to shut down. Go ahead and list us the other ones, kumquatq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually the BBC reported there are hundreds. Certainly there are more than three. Perhaps you should check your figures before mouthing off opinions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While NEITHER of your links say that there are hundreds of newspapers in iraq, even your BBC link only cites 2.

 

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Hildegard]

[*]That is what they appear to be, but I certainly have no evidence they are (or not) batting for al Qaeda, what makes you such an authority? Have you been briefed by Dr Condoleeza Rice?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No I have not been briefed by that bitch. What makes me such an authority? Well I didn't notice I was so rude and obtrusive to make you think I'm being so authoritive, if so I can't really say I'm sorry....

 

[*]Anti-American (I think you mean US)?  I thought they were meant to be impartial press, like the BBC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As much as they try to be, it's obvious when you read their posts for a while that it's painted with a clear disapprovement of evergrowing influence of the west on the ME, especially the US....

 

[*]Long gone? Where? Where is better than a global satellite news organ for someone to spread propaganda?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh please if AJ or anybody else spread clear propaganda glorifing AQ and other islamic terrorist they would have been shut down long ago by the Qatar authorities and the US...

 

[*]Deliberately? How do you know that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tell me please how many news offices were bombed in Iraq by the US? Which news agency had their offices bombed in both Iraq and Afghanistan? When that didn't drive them off then they banned AJ completly from Iraq......why? Well let's just say they didn't post a lot of coverages how US soldiers give teddy bears to Iraqi children like FOX News did 24/7 and it didn't quite fit in the whole picture how Bush wanted the US miltary to be seen in the ME...

Here's just one more example of the tragic fait of a AJ newsreporter being harassed by the US: link

 

 

Uncover the dirt?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

AJ provided the footage of the US using WP weapons in Falluja, it posted numerous times images of civilian casulties caused by the US forces all the time(but hey the USAF provided the material all the time), many more then any other news agency did....during the Abu Ghraib scandal they aired the images of tortured prisoners 24/7 so the muslims from all around the ME can see the 'real' face of Mr.Bush and his policy.....

 

I think you pretend to know a lot more about what's going on than you really have a possiblity of knowing. You speak as if you have a wiretap on the Pentagon and the White House.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't have a wiretape on the WH nor do I speak like I have one.....my knowladge about this issue is somewhat considerable because of my interest on this subject....and I'm only pointing out things as I see it as almost everybody on this planet do, there are no 'wikipedia links' here when it comes to these issues as everybody has to draw their own conclusion based on the news and facts given to us by the media - meaning we'll never know the whole picture as some on the west say: ignorance for the good of the people, yeah right <_<

 

 

Perhaps you might just be guessing, and in that case I think you're reaching beyond your grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As it's beyond the grasp of everybody outside the oval office.

 

[*]Even if we start from the premise that Bush is allegedly angry at what al Jezeera are reporting: so? I get frustrated listening to loud mouth supporters for the team that my team is playing; doesn't mean I'm going to go on a homocidal rampage through the bleachers. Expressing an opinion is actually a pretty good indication that no action would be taken, as it would give an indication of motive. So, counter-intuitively, this presents a compelling case for the opposite of what you say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you for the last sentence, haven't had such a good laugh lately.

No offence, but it really doesn't matter if you get frustrated/angry and say something to someone as you're a common citizen, now if you were the British prime minister tell me would you go around telling everybody you're hoest opinion about them, if so you would have 50% of your embassies closed in no-time....a statesment can't afford to broadcast his opinion on everybody and everything because it would have repercussions on an enormas scale, far bigger then the good review on their honesty - that just isn't how politics works nowdays

 

 

 

[*]Again, you seem to have a hotline to the Pentagon. How would you have any idea what the US foreign policies are, apart from supposition on their statements and actions? Your interpretation is just one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes my comments are based only on my view how I see global events unfold based on statements and actions as 99.99% of everyone else. I don't see where I wrote -this is how it is people and all of you else are damn wrong- or anything like that. My inerpretation is one as is yours.

 

PS What is "Iniuriam qui facturus est, iam fecit" meant to mean?

Injuries that are not a word, done now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well I knew nobody would understand because it's somewhat archaic latin and I can only translate it as: He who intents to commit harm/injustice, has already commited it.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Hildegard

[Darque]

I love it when Meta goes to work on someone

[Yrkoon]

^There's no need for you to have to defend your original comments, Hildegard. metadigital is putting up the familiar response of: "you ain't no authority, thus you can't say what you're saying."

 

And he's doing so in the hopes that we forget that *HE* was the first person on this thread to make a claim which would require access to confidential Pentagon intelligence in order to quantify.

 

From Page 1, metadigital's very first post on this thread:

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}>

 

Of course, several pages later, he ADMITS that he has no evidence to support this. So one wonders why he even bothered to spout such BS in the first place. Perhaps he actually thought there wouldn't be anyone here to dispute such shameless propaganda BS. But the fact that he dares criticize others for doing the exact same thing that he did before anyone else is what stands out for me.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Yrkoon]

I love it when Meta goes to work on someone

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Could you point me to the thread where this is happening? Because all I'm seeing here is someone hiding behind the "you have no authority!" defense. He's actually not proving, disproving, denying or agreeing with anyone. And personally, his attempts to prove there are "hundreds of newspapers in iraq, according to the bbc" literally failed, as he linked us to a BBC article which cites exactly 2 newspapers in iraq, not "hundreds". LOL

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Dark Moth]

Personally I admire the way Hilde is so blatantly biased and damn proud of it. He's so quick to crucify the U.S. for any action, even a little mention of them bombing al-Jazeera. To him, it's the true face of the U.S. And yet, when insurgents literally blow up children outside a hospital, it's pro-America propaganda b.s. to him. What a hypocrite. ^_^

Edited November 26, 2005 by Mothman

[SteveThaiBinh]

...part of me hopes it is true, 'cause then we might... might ... have a legal reason to impeach his ass.  Lying about a sex act was obviously an impeachable offense, but lying about WMD whilst pre-emptively invading a country for the first time in our history so far has not been.  Maybe planning to blow up a newspaper would do it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt that merely discussing it could be considered grounds for impeachment, though I know little of US law in this regard, having avoided the whole Monica Lewinsky thing like the plague.

 

If Bush had actually bombed al-Jazeera, it might well have been grounds for legal action. However, relatives of those killed when NATO bombed a TV station in Belgrade tried to bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights. It was declared inadmissible because Yugoslavia had not signed the European Human Rights Convention. Alas, international law is sadly lacking in many regards, and allows many governments literally to get away with murder.

[Hildegard]

Personally I admire the way Hilde is so blatantly biased and damn proud of it.  He's so quick to crucify the U.S. for any action, even a little mention of them bombing al-Jazeera.  To him, it's the true face of the U.S.  And yet, when insurgents literally blow up children outside a hospital, it's pro-America propaganda b.s. to him.  What a hypocrite.  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The act itself isn't 'american propaganda' nor did I mean so. I was refering to your article that described the event like: The US forces were giving out teddy bears to Iraqi children and because of that the insurgents came and blew everybody up - what a fairy tale. As Steve put it, humanitarians ought to do that, not US soldiers because they will draw enemy fire. And those conducting the bombing are either foreign fighters, former Saddam loyalists or Sunni extremists as they make like around 80% of the insurgency, so for them seeing bunch of Shi'ts getting killed in order to destabilize the country ain't much of a bad. As for you calling me a hypocrite, you have right to an opinion and that's fine, it doesn't bother me....but don't worry Moth soon you won't hear about my constant anti - US sentiment for a long time.

[Yrkoon]

...part of me hopes it is true, 'cause then we might... might ... have a legal reason to impeach his ass.  Lying about a sex act was obviously an impeachable offense, but lying about WMD whilst pre-emptively invading a country for the first time in our history so far has not been.  Maybe planning to blow up a newspaper would do it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I doubt that merely discussing it could be considered grounds for impeachment, u

True, however, if he were to lie about it under oath, that WOULD be grounds for impeachment. For example, he could be asked, in court, whether he pushed for the bombing of Al-Jazeera's headquarters with Mr. Blair. If his response to that question is: "No, absolutely not! Outlandish!" when the memo happened to clearly show that he was, then THAT would get him impeached. Clinton was impeached for much less.

 

If Bush had actually bombed al-Jazeera, it might well have been grounds for legal action.  However, relatives of those killed when NATO bombed a TV station in Belgrade tried to bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights.  It was declared inadmissible because Yugoslavia had not signed the European Human Rights Convention.  Alas, international law is sadly lacking in many regards, and allows many governments literally to get away with murder.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There you go, then. Had he actually ordered the bombing, he'd get off scott-free. There's dozens of ways to defend such a thing. We've seen several such defenses already stated on this thread:

 

"It was an accident",

 

"Al-jazeera is in bed with Al-qaeda terrorists"

 

"It's not illegal to bomb the enemy's communications sources"

 

etc.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon

[Dark Moth]

The act itself isn't 'american propaganda' nor did I mean so. I was refering to your article that described the event like: The US forces were giving out teddy bears to Iraqi children and because of that the insurgents came and blew everybody up - what a fairy tale. As Steve put it, humanitarians ought to do that, not US soldiers because they will draw enemy fire. And those conducting the bombing are either foreign fighters, former Saddam loyalists or Sunni extremists as they make like around 80% of the insurgency, so for them seeing bunch of Shi'ts getting killed in order to destabilize the country ain't much of a bad. As for you calling me a  hypocrite, you have right to an opinion and that's fine, it doesn't bother me....but don't worry Moth soon you won't hear about my constant anti - US sentiment for a long time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well geez, Hilde. The very first thing you posted in response to the article I linked wasn't outrage over the act or sympathy for those who died. It was just one of your dismissals of us handing out teddy bears being propaganda. How callous do you think that looked? Regardless if it's propaganda or not, we still do it, among other things to help the Iraqis, and you don't seem to want to hear any of it. It's all proganda to you. You may think of it as just a big sugarcoating of the war, but I don't think that's the case. Rather, I see us helping the Iraqis and the innocents killed in our operations as two sides of the same war. Neither of them are the "true face" of our soldiers, but both deserve to be shown. You just don't seem to want to hear the positive. As for your comment about the foreign fighters, I fail to see how that changes the situation in any way. It's an atrocity, no matter how you view it.

 

And I don't think the article even meant to make it sound like the insurgents attacked us because we were handing out teddy bears. In an article, you have to to describe the events, and that is what they did. I think the fact that they chose to do it while we were handing out teddy bears makes the attack a little more poignant, though.

 

And about your last part, why so, if you don't mind me asking?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Mothman

[Hildegard]

As for your comment about the foreign fighters, I fail to see how that changes the situation in any way.  It's an atrocity, no matter how you view it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes it is, and I didn't say it wasn't. I just wanted to tell that with the ethnic disputes and rows they don't have that 'they're are own' feeling as one would think and those that do and kill inocent civilians on purpous, well they're brainwashed that they will all be marters in the great jihad and that's excatly how they justify those killings which is insane in my opinion.

 

And about your last part, why so, if you don't mind me asking?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sorry for posting that, I shouldn't have .....let's just say nobody can on this forum (except for one person ) or anywhere else. But don't worry one day I'll be back - I hope

[metadigital]

Hilde, most of your responses indicate I may not have been totally fair in condemning you for your attack on Bush (although I don't see ANY evidence for your wild conspiracy theory). However, there are a couple of points I'd like to pick up on, such as:

Oh please if AJ or anybody else spread clear propaganda glorifing AQ and other islamic terrorist they would have been shut down long ago by the Qatar authorities and the US...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know why you think propaganda has to be blatant; Philby spied for the Soviet Union and reached the top of British Intelligence at the height of the cold war, after all, and did far more damage than a single West German border guard.

Tell me please how many news offices were bombed in Iraq by the US? Which news agency had their offices bombed in both Iraq and Afghanistan? When that didn't drive them off then they banned AJ completly from Iraq......why? Well let's just say they didn't post a lot of coverages how US soldiers give teddy bears to Iraqi children like FOX News did 24/7 and it didn't quite fit in the whole picture how Bush wanted the US miltary to be seen in the ME...

Here's just one more example of the tragic fait of a AJ newsreporter being harassed by the US: link

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They bombed the Chinese Embassy in the Balkans, too: was that some sort of pay-back?

 

I've got news for you, nearly EVERYONE in the US doesn't give a tinker's cuss for what some arabic news network says, let alone hears what that happens to be.

 

The only people who need to worry about al Jazeera (if it is just a journalist institution trying to bring truth to the Middel East) are the undemocratic governments of the Middle East.

 

The US interest begins and ends with commerce, and the non-OPEC nations produce almost as much as OPEC, now.

AJ provided the footage of the US using WP weapons in Falluja, it posted numerous times images of civilian casulties caused by the US forces all the time(but hey the USAF provided the material all the time), many more then any other news agency did....during the Abu Ghraib scandal they aired the images of tortured prisoners 24/7 so the muslims from all around the ME can see the 'real' face of Mr.Bush and his policy.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a quick note here: Bush may be a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. To suggest that he personally sanctioned torture is ludicrous.

Perhaps you might just be guessing, and in that case I think you're reaching beyond your grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As it's beyond the grasp of everybody outside the oval office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely.

Thank you for the last sentence, haven't had such a good laugh lately.

No offence, but it really doesn't matter if you get frustrated/angry and say something to someone as you're a common citizen, now if you were the British prime minister tell me would you go around telling everybody you're hoest opinion about them, if so you would have 50% of your embassies closed in no-time....a statesment can't afford to broadcast his opinion on everybody and everything because it would have repercussions on an enormas scale, far bigger then the good review on their honesty - that just isn't how politics works nowdays

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I noticed you cut my comment about if Bush wanted al Jazeera removed, it wouldn't be around anymore. Even if he did say it; heck, even if he asked for a contingency plan to be drawn up, if he didn't execute the command than all he's doing is daydreaming, not making war.

Well I knew nobody would understand because it's somewhat archaic latin and I can only translate it as: He who intents to commit harm/injustice, has already commited it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah. Well, I did try: several tranlators on the internet and my two latin dictionaries had no idea what "facturus" was. Why are you quoting archaic latin, if you KNEW nobody would get it?

^There's no need for you to have to defend your original comments, Hildegard.  metadigital is putting up the familiar response of: "you ain't no authority, thus you can't say what you're saying."

 

And he's doing so in the hopes that we forget that  *HE* was the first person  on  this thread  to make a claim which would require  access to confidential Pentagon intelligence in order to quantify.

 

From Page 1, metadigital's very first post on this thread:

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}>

Of course, several pages later, he ADMITS that he has no evidence to support this. So one wonders why he even bothered to spout such BS in the first place. Perhaps he actually thought there wouldn't be anyone here to dispute such shameless propaganda BS. But the fact that he dares criticize others for doing the exact same thing that he did before anyone else is what stands out for me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was repeating a comment I heard on one of the many current affairs programmes I catch regularly (from that biased BBC ). No great Pentagon leak, there.

 

The clue was that I refrained from stating facts, but rather framed my comment as editorial remark, for debate. You seem to be very keen to dismiss it, yet I have seen no evidence from you to disprove it (and some pretty shaky statistics, to boot, like the "3 newspapers").

[metadigital]

That's why The Sudanese Arab Government

[Yrkoon]

I've got news for you, nearly EVERYONE in the US doesn't give a tinker's cuss for what some arabic news network says, let alone hears what that happens to be.

'Cept for the Bush administration, who have repeatedly condemned Al-Jazeera's broadcasts. I call that caring. Worrying, even.

 

The only people who need to worry about al Jazeera (if it is just a journalist institution trying to bring truth to the Middel East) are the undemocratic governments of the Middle East.

And the democratic government of the USA. Or do you DISPUTE the fact that Donald Rumsfeld worries that Al-Jazeera's broadcasts promote terrorism, thus pose a threat to US interests?

 

The US interest begins and ends with commerce, and the non-OPEC nations produce almost as much as OPEC, now.

If you're talking about oil, you would be wrong.

 

Just a quick note here: Bush may be a lot of things, but first and foremost he is a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. To suggest that he personally sanctioned torture is ludicrous.

Oh PUHLEASE. Torture is consistant with Christian doctrine. Especially if you're a Christian who interprets the bible in a literal fashion, which the Christian right, and (Bush by extention) do.

 

I was repeating a comment I heard on one of the many current affairs programmes I catch regularly (from that biased BBC ). No great Pentagon leak, there.

This does not rule out the notion that such claims are propaganda rubbish, does it, metadigital. And it doesn't change the fact that you were the FIRST on this thread to spout such BULL.

 

The clue was that I refrained from stating facts, but rather framed my comment as editorial remark, for debate. You seem to be very keen to dismiss it, yet I have seen no evidence from you to disprove it (and some pretty shaky statistics, to boot, like the "3 newspapers").

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I know an editorial remark when I see one. What I fail to understand is how your entire rebuttal to hildegard's post (and mine) on this thread centered around the fact that both of us dared to post editorial remarks without having inside connections to the pentagon/government leaders.

 

Are you suggesting that your asinine claims on this thread are ANY different than ours? Or that they somehow carry more weight?

Edited November 27, 2005 by Yrkoon