NationStates Jolt Archive

BREAKING NEWS
Reporter Jailed for bin Laden Interview
27sep05

MEDIA groups condemned a Spanish court today for jailing an Arab journalist, known for interviewing Osama bin Laden shortly after the September 11 attacks, on terrorism charges.

A European media watchdog said sentencing Al Jazeera reporter Tayseer Alouni for seven years in jail would set alarm bells ringing among investigative journalists and might make them think twice before undertaking risky assignments.

"I think it sets a dangerous precedent, particularly for anyone who seeks to interview bin Laden in the future," said Jean-Francois Julliard, news editor of the Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RWF).

"Journalists have always investigated terrorist groups and their activities. It's part of our job," he said.

The New York-based media watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, said it intended to study the verdict.
--Reuters

If you read the verdict of the court, you'll find that he was convicted NOT for interviewing Bin Laden, but for bringing him thousands of dollars that he was asked to carry from one man he KNEW was a terrorist to another man he KNEW was a terrorist.

Please don't try to make this about interviewing. It's really about aiding and abetting terrorists by helping them move money.

If you read the verdict of the court, you'll find that he was convicted NOT for interviewing Bin Laden, but for bringing him thousands of dollars that he was asked to carry from one man he KNEW was a terrorist to another man he KNEW was a terrorist.

Please don't try to make this about interviewing. It's really about aiding and abetting terrorists by helping them move money.

I'm not questioning your assertion - you're most probably correct - but you don't happen to have a link to the verdict so that we may read it ourselves?

I'm not questioning your assertion - you're most probably correct - but you don't happen to have a link to the verdict so that we may read it ourselves?

I'm sorry. It's probably available online. I listened to the Spanish judge reading the verdict on National Public Radio.

It was made very clear. It was NOT about being a journalist.

The important question now is WHY he was imprisoned. I highly doubt it was for the interview alone, no country would imprison their journalists for doing their job. Most governments are very, very wary of the media today, knowing that they make and break the public opinion.

If the journalist carried money for the terrorists, the verdict is more than justified.

I'm not questioning your assertion - you're most probably correct - but you don't happen to have a link to the verdict so that we may read it ourselves?LOL.. :D

Don't wast your time asking sierraBTHP for a link...

Last time I asked him for a link...he said " :( But...but I heard them say so on the Telephone...just take my word for it.."

:D :D :rolleyes: :D

LOL.. :D

Don't wast your time asking sierraBTHP for a link...

Last time I asked him for a link...he said " :( But...but I heard them say so on the Telephone...just take my word for it.."

:D :D :rolleyes: :D


You had better eat crow now.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4283328.stm

From the BBC


Spain jails al-Jazeera reporter
Tayssir Alouni
Alouni insists he was merely doing his job as a journalist
A court in Madrid has jailed former al-Jazeera journalist Tayssir Alouni for collaborating with a terrorist organisation.

The Qatar-based pan-Arab news network said it would appeal against the conviction, which it called "unfair".

Alouni - who protests his innocence - interviewed Osama Bin Laden before the 11 September attacks.

He was sentenced to seven years for acting as financial courier to Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

A Syrian-born Spanish citizen, Alouni was one of 24 defendants in Europe's biggest trial of Islamic extremists which has ended in Spain.

I fully expect Ocean to now say that the BBC is a corrupt and biased news organization. Or, Ocean, are you going to blame this one on the Jews as well, like you always do?

I fully expect Ocean to now say that the BBC is a corrupt and biased news organization. Or, Ocean, are you going to blame this one on the Jews as well, like you always do?

Doh! beat me to it.

I'm sorry. It's probably available online. I listened to the Spanish judge reading the verdict on National Public Radio.

It was made very clear. It was NOT about being a journalist.

Is this the link you're talking about?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4864731

(edit for grammar... it's early)

I fully expect Ocean to now say that the BBC is a corrupt and biased news organization. Or, Ocean, are you going to blame this one on the Jews as well, like you always do?so...when are you going to show us that link about your 65% fact??

so...when are you going to show that linka about your 65% fact??

As soon as they finish collecting the data I paid for.

Meanwhile, you can publicly state that you were wrong - that the conviction was not about "interviewing" Bin Laden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4283328.stm

From the BBC
.
this BBC NEWS report does not negate the Reuters NEWS report I posted....
Both reports are accurate.

the Committee to Protect Journalists,shall still study the verdict.

this BBC NEWS report does not negate the Reuters NEWS report I posted....
Both reports are accurate.

the Committee to Protect Journalists,shall still study the verdict.

They won't have to study it long. As soon as they read that he was convicted for being a financial courier, and not a journalist, they'll condemn him as well.

In that respect, it most certainly does negate the Reuters report - they're only going to look into it to make sure that he wasn't convicted for being a reporter.

And you are so pwned.

As soon as they finish collecting the data I paid for.

Meanwhile, you can publicly state that you were wrong - that the conviction was not about "interviewing" Bin Laden.Reuters is not Wrong...neither is the BBC.

BTW dont forget next time you are "on the phone " with them...ask them for a Link :D

Reuters is not Wrong...neither is the BBC.

BTW dont forget next time you are "on the phone " with them...ask them for a Link :D

I need a link from you as well. Prove to me that Jews never give any money to charity - as you asserted, they all are selfish, money grubbing people who don't care about anyone else.

Please post your evidence - and no Nazi or Arab sites, please.

They won't have to study it long. As soon as they read that he was convicted for being a financial courier, and not a journalist, they'll condemn him as well.I think It should be criminal for money to change hands between Journalists and Interviewees...

But only when we make a law about it...only then we should start putting them in Jail.

FoxNEWS alone would fill the east coast federal prisons... :D

I think It should be criminal for money to change hands between Journalists and Interviewees...

But only when we make a law about it...only then we should start putting them in Jail.

FoxNEWS alone would fill the east coast federal prisons... :D

Being a financial courier for a known terrorist is a crime already. Or aren't you up on the laws?

There are already laws in nearly every country to that effect. Especially post-911.

Here in the US, if they can trace any flow of money at all from your accounts to theirs - you're going to jail for 20 years, no questions asked.

I need a link from you as well. Prove to me that Jews never give any money to charity - as you asserted...*snip

There you go with your false claims again...Ichalenge you to post a Link where I said "that Jews never give any money to charity"...

here is the Link with your false 65% "Fact"...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9704005#post9704005

Here's your false claim:

Not the Walmart owners...or The Bankers...or the Diamonds traders...or the past Alcohol traders...or Mafia Magnates...or slave traders...

Jewish have historically proved to be very good making money but most of their charities are for not for the good general population.


Prove it. You also said that the media was controlled by the Jews. Prove that.

Or just admit that you're a racist Jew hater.

Being a financial courier for a known terrorist is a crime already.both BBC and Reuters agree that he says he is innocent...

so what we need to see is what kind of evidence they have...

having seen the kind of null evidence is used in Patriot-act-kangaroo-courts..I assume the evidence is ridiculous.

both BBC and Reuters agree that he says he is innocent...

so what we need to see is what kind of evidence they have...

having seen the kind of null evidence is used in Patriot-act-kangaroo-courts..I assume the evidence is ridiculous.

Well, in your mind, no Muslim can do any wrong, no matter what.

Last I heard, the courts were the places of judgment, not the news organizations. Or do you have a link to where it says in the Spanish constitution that Reuters is the judge of last resort when Muslims are accidentally convicted of something?

The important question now is WHY he was imprisoned. I highly doubt it was for the interview alone, no country would imprison their journalists for doing their job. Most governments are very, very wary of the media today, knowing that they make and break the public opinion.

If the journalist carried money for the terrorists, the verdict is more than justified.
China and Iran have been known to imprison and torture journalists for doing their jobs, but Spain doesn't.

Here's your false claimyou should post the full post is not that long..or post a link.
Which one has been giving more money to charity? Bill gates....

Not the Walmart owners...or The Bankers...or the Diamonds traders...or the past Alcohol traders...or Mafia Magnates...or slave traders...

Jewish have historically proved to be very good making money but most of their charities are for not for the good general population.

Saudi Family? hahaha...they can burn in hell...all their money is stolen from the poor of their country.I stand by everything I said.
I am ready to show link for every one of the points I made...
One by one...
Lets start with Wall mart...You want me to show you link on:

#1 5/10 richest people on the planet are From the Walmart Family?
#2 they are not as generous as the average American. on % of fortune?
#3 they are very-very far from being as generous as Bill Gates on % of fortune?

which one are you contesting?

you should post the full post is not that long..or post a link.I stand by everything I said.
I am ready to show link for every one of the points I made...
One by one...
Lets start with Wall mart...You want me to show you link on:

#1 5/10 richest people on the planet are From the Walmart Family?
#2 they are not as generous as the average American. on % of fortune?
#3 they are very-very far from being as generous as Bill Gates on % of fortune?

which on are you contesting?


Let's see you prove that as a whole, Jews are not charitable, and when they are, it's of no good.

Prove also that Jews control the banks, diamond trade, news organizations.

I'd like to see those links right now.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/search.fourstar.htm

Gosh, seem to be a lot of highly rated Jewish charities on this list.

Far, far more than the number of Islamic charities, that's for sure.

Well, in your mind, no Muslim can do any wrong, no matter what.I am on the record on the Forum as having stated that Palestineans use terrorism...

Hmm - another Jewish charity looking out for non-Jews...

http://www.ujafedny.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr011=bgu4phnx32.app25a&page=NewsArticle&id=9048&news_iv_ctrl=1443

I am on the record on the Forum as having stated that Palestineans use terrorism...
Yeah, like the French resistance did. You've mostly excused their terrorism.

Here's a good Islamic charity.

Steve Sosebee also heads another “charity” called the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund (PCRF). Sosebee’s “charity” used to run a website out of Texas that glorified suicide bombers.

Let's see you prove that as a whole...we have to do this in an organized way...Order is the key...otherwise this debate is going to become an unreadable mess...Unless thats what you want.

Like I said..I am willing to show the link for One-point-at-a-time

We are at Walmart... I have separated 3 points on that issue...I have asked which one do you contest...

I am still waiting for your answer.

we have to do this in an organized way...Order is the key...otherwise this debate is going to become an unreadable mess...Unless thats what you want.

Like I said..I am willing to show the link for One-point-at-a-time

We are at Walmart... I have separated 3 points on that issue...I have asked which one do you contest...

I am still waiting for your answer.

No, we're at your generalized comment about bankers, diamond merchants, news organizations.

We're also at your general comment that Jewish charities are generally no good for anyone else.

Start with your general comments. Not Wal Mart. We'll get to Wal Mart eventually.

Not Wal Mart. We'll get to Wal Mart eventually.fine...my second group was "Bankers"...

#1 Jewish Bankers are not as generous as the average American(% of fortune)

#2 Jewish Traders are not as generous as the average American (on %)

#3 Jewish Financial Conglomerates are not as generous as the average American (on %)


wich one do you contest?

fine...my second group was "Bankers"...

#1 Jewish Bankers are not as generous as the average American(% of fortune)

#2 Jewish Traders are not as generous as the average American (on %)

wich one do you contest?
Are you fucking kidding me? You have statistics on how much the average Jewish Banker and Trader gives to charity? I'd like to see that. BTW, what's a trader? Like a stock market trader or what?

fine...my second group was "Bankers"...

#1 Jewish Bankers are not as generous as the average American(% of fortune)

#2 Jewish Traders are not as generous as the average American (on %)

wich one do you contest?

No, you were implying that Jews control banking, diamond trading, news organizations.

Prove it - do you really believe that Jews control these things? That Jews control the media (as you previously asserted)?

Your second point is separate - you said that "Jews" (not individuals or just bankers) are uncharitable and don't give to any useful charities.

Well, I suppose that not giving to an Islamic charity that funds suicide bombers would be bad in your eyes.

BTW, what's a trader? Like a stock market trader or what?its trading conglomerates...

fine...my second group was "Bankers"...

#1 Jewish Bankers are not as generous as the average American(% of fortune)

#2 Jewish Traders are not as generous as the average American (on %)

#3 Jewish Financial Conglomerates are not as generous as the average American (on %)


wich one do you contest?
Sorry, I have to comment on this. How does that, so far unproven, statistic become such the broad, sweeping statement that all Jewish charities are no good?

Thats just idiotic.

Right. In an effort to bring this back on track, what I've heard of the verdict in my morning shows that I watch was that the guy got sentenced not for interviewing bin Laden, but for how he got that interview.

Right. In an effort to bring this back on track, what I've heard of the verdict in my morning shows that I watch was that the guy got sentenced not for interviewing bin Laden, but for how he got that interview.

Really? Yes, that sounds legally better. How did he obtain it, Laerod?

Right. In an effort to bring this back on track, what I've heard of the verdict in my morning shows that I watch was that the guy got sentenced not for interviewing bin Laden, but for how he got that interview.

Ocean is going to say you're wrong, because your news is completely controlled by the Jewish media.

Really? Yes, that sounds legally better. How did he obtain it, Laerod?

He carried money as a financial courier for al-Qaeda. That's how. See the BBC story.

No, you were implying that Jews control banking, diamond trading, news organizations.

Prove it - do you really believe that Jews control these things? That Jews control the media (as you previously asserted)?

Your second point is separate - you said that "Jews" (not individuals or just bankers) are uncharitable and don't give to any useful charities.

Well, I suppose that not giving to an Islamic charity that funds suicide bombers would be bad in your eyes.you are making 4 separate points...

I supposedly stated that Jews control these 3 industries...

I would like you to post the Link that show my supposed statement...

you are making 4 separate points...

I supposedly stated that Jews control these 3 industries...

I would like you to post the Link that show my supposed statement...

Already did. We could go back to your statements about The Jewish Media and the Jew Lover Murdoch, if you like.

I thought that was a particularly telling racist statement of yours.

statement that all Jewish charities are no good?

Thats just idiotic.Thats what sierra says...

...I am still waiting for his links...

Thats what sierra says...

...I am still waiting for his links...
http://aafrc.org/gusa/index.cfm?pg=giving.htm

It's in the book.

fine...my second group was "Bankers"...

#1 Jewish Bankers are not as generous as the average American(% of fortune)

#2 Jewish Traders are not as generous as the average American (on %)

#3 Jewish Financial Conglomerates are not as generous as the average American (on %)


wich one do you contest?

you guys need to take this back to your charity/jews debate thread. This is about a journalist who was arrested for aiding a known terrorist.

BREAKING NEWS
Reporter Jailed for bin Laden Interview
27sep05

MEDIA groups condemned a Spanish court today for jailing an Arab journalist, known for interviewing Osama bin Laden shortly after the September 11 attacks, on terrorism charges.

A European media watchdog said sentencing Al Jazeera reporter Tayseer Alouni for seven years in jail would set alarm bells ringing among investigative journalists and might make them think twice before undertaking risky assignments.

"I think it sets a dangerous precedent, particularly for anyone who seeks to interview bin Laden in the future," said Jean-Francois Julliard, news editor of the Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RWF).

"Journalists have always investigated terrorist groups and their activities. It's part of our job," he said.

The New York-based media watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, said it intended to study the verdict.
--Reuters

So?

Really? Yes, that sounds legally better. How did he obtain it, Laerod?They didn't elaborate. The morning show the public channels put on has a news program every half hour, which lasts about 5 minutes. They barely scratched on the issue, since they adressed the fact that the verdicts fell way short of what the prosecuter asked for. The journalist was mentioned with regards to him being sentenced for supporting al Qaeda in order to get an interview. Here's a little elaboration:
Das Gericht verurteilte ihn zu sieben Jahren Haft und sah es als erwiesen an, dass Alony im südspanischen Granada Kämpfer rekrutiert und mehrmals größere Geldsummen für Al Kaida nach Afghanistan brachte.En anglais:
The court sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment and recognized that it had been proven that Alony had recruited combatants in south-Spanish Grenada and brought large amounts of money for al Qaeda to Afghanistan.
(Source (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID4794536,00.html))

The German public channels tend to be very reliable.
Ocean is going to say you're wrong, because your news is completely controlled by the Jewish media.Nah, the Jewish central council of Germany doesn't have a majority of the seats on the board. They have to share it with a lot of other groups.

Already did..no you did not...You keep whining "OD says this..OD said that" you are twisting and deforming my statements.
I keep asking you to QUOTE ME to prove I said that...or link it

but so far You only quoted me once (post 20)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9708560#post9708560

and even that one proved that i did NOT say "the Jewish never give charity"...

In another words I am calling you a Liar.

They didn't elaborate. The morning show the public channels put on has a news program every half hour, which lasts about 5 minutes. They barely scratched on the issue, since they adressed the fact that the verdicts fell way short of what the prosecuter asked for. The journalist was mentioned with regards to him being sentenced for supporting al Qaeda in order to get an interview. Here's a little elaboration:
En anglais:
The court sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment and recognized that it had been proven that Alony had recruited combatants in south-Spanish Grenada and brought large amounts of money for al Qaeda to Afghanistan.
(Source (http://www.tagesschau.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID4794536,00.html))

The German public channels tend to be very reliable.
Nah, the Jewish central council of Germany doesn't have a majority of the seats on the board. They have to share it with a lot of other groups.

Danke. No wonder he went to prison. Not only did he provide money, he also recruited for him as well. Maybe he wasn't even a real journalist; it might have just been a cover to gain money and recruits. Thanks for that Laerod.

Kinda puts your source and view out of joint, doesn't it, Ocean? He wasn't arrested for the interview itself, so that independant organisation will probably condemn him within the hour.

no you did not...You keep whining "OD says this..OD said that" you are twisting and deforming my statements.
I keep asking you to QUOTE ME to prove I said that...or link it

but so far You only quoted me once (post 20)
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9708560#post9708560

and even that one proved that i did NOT say "the Jewish never give charity"...

In another words I am calling you a Liar.

Your original post:


a Fact???

haha...and that "Fact" comes from the Jewish owned media? or from that Jewish Lover Murdoch?

Im sure is does not come from unbiased Media like the BBC or AFP or EFE or Reuters...

Does it?

No sense in linking to your previous posts, because you're editing them in self-defense to keep me from quoting them.

I fully expect Ocean to now say that the BBC is a corrupt and biased news organization. BBC is the best NEWS org in the english speaking word...cos it has almost NO bias.

Your original post:.finally you are using the Quote button ...thanks God.

BTW I stand by my post

finally you are using the Quote button ...thanks God.

BTW I stand by my post

If you stand by it, why did you edit out the Jewish comments? And the racist statement "Jewish lover"?

Ah, you're really a racist, but you don't want someone to call you on it.

It's ok with me. Go ahead and admit that you're a Jew-hating racist.

Kinda puts your source and view out of joint, doesn't it, Ocean? He wasn't arrested for the interview itself, so that independant organisation will probably condemn him within the hour.(the first post's) My source is Reuters...

Reuters is not an Independent org...but its a pretty good one...almost as good as BBC(which is not Independent org either).

(the first post's) My source is Reuters...

Reuters is not an Independent org...but its a pretty good one...almost as good as BBC(which is not Independent org either).

I didn't say Reuters was independent. I was referring to the Independant Journalist organisation your original post referred to, and which I fully expect to condemn the journalist very soon.

If you stand by it, why did you edit out the Jewish comments? And the racist statement "Jewish lover"?Like I said...I stand by my statement. Period.

(the first post's) My source is Reuters...

Reuters is not an Independent org...but its a pretty good one...almost as good as BBC(which is not Independent org either).And nowhere does it say why he was sentenced...

Like I said...I stand by my statement. Period.

If you stand by it...why edit it?

I didn't say Reuters was independent. I was referring to the Independant Journalist organisation your original post referred to, and which I fully expect to condemn the journalist very soon.I dont know about the ind org...

I am not ready to condemn him till they say what kind of evidence was used.

that kind of detail shall be leaked if RWF pushes this issue.

I dont know about the ind org...

I am not ready to condemn him till they say what kind of evidence was used.

that kind of detail shall be leaked if RWF pushes this issue.Considering that the court stayed well below the desired sentences the prosecution demanded and set 6 of the 24 accused free on account of a lack of evidence, I heartily doubt they were on a terrorist witch hunt.

If you stand by it...why edit it?because if was redundant.

was not necessary or called for to make my point.

BREAKING NEWS
Reporter Jailed for bin Laden Interview
27sep05

MEDIA groups condemned a Spanish court today for jailing an Arab journalist, known for interviewing Osama bin Laden shortly after the September 11 attacks, on terrorism charges.

A European media watchdog said sentencing Al Jazeera reporter Tayseer Alouni for seven years in jail would set alarm bells ringing among investigative journalists and might make them think twice before undertaking risky assignments.

"I think it sets a dangerous precedent, particularly for anyone who seeks to interview bin Laden in the future," said Jean-Francois Julliard, news editor of the Paris-based watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RWF).

"Journalists have always investigated terrorist groups and their activities. It's part of our job," he said.

The New York-based media watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, said it intended to study the verdict.
--Reuters

can we have the link please?

because if was redundant.

was not necessary or called for to make my point.

It certainly makes my point that you're a racist who hates Jews.

Considering that the court stayed well below the desired sentences the prosecution demanded and set 6 of the 24 accused free on account of a lack of evidence, I heartily doubt they were on a terrorist witch hunt.If he was guilty as charged...they should give him the death sentence.

giving them half the sentence...only because the evidence is half as good...is NOT what the doctor ordered.

If we are not sure about it..if don't have real evidence...we should release him and spy on him...If he is an criminal...sooner or later he will do the crime again.

If they were guilty as charged...they should give them death sentence.

giving them half the sentence...only because the evidence is half as good...is NOT what the doctor ordered.

If we dont have enough evedence...we should release him and spy on him...If he is an criminal...sooner or later he will do the crime again.

I think the court was rather fair.

...If we dont have enough evedence...we should release him and spy on him...If he is an criminal...sooner or later he will do the crime again.

That really wouldn't work. The guy won't do something like that again, the terrorists wouldn't touch someone who's bound to be tagged and monitored for months afterwards. The guy's a spent force in that regard.

If he was guilty as charged...they should give him the death sentence.
You forget that Spain has no death penalty.

You forget that Spain has no death penalty.

Fancy that. Convicted in a European court. The judges decide that the prosecution has only proven some points, and not others, so they make a fair decision to convict on some points and not on others. Some of the accused are even released. The guilty get sentenced, but not as harsh as the prosecution demanded. Sounds fair to me.

I have the sneaking suspicion that after all is reviewed, everyone except Ocean will find that the convictions and sentences were quite fair.

can we have the link please?
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16735053%255E1702,00.html

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16735053%255E1702,00.html


Wow. Talk about selective editing. You didn't even post the whole friggin' article. Omitting the facts about which he was charged. Obvious bias.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,16735053%255E1702,00.html

thks