NationStates Jolt Archive

Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.

Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that 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.

Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".

Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1648594,00.html

They should just leak it to a foreign paper. Screw the British government.

mod disclaimer...This thread is more about Freedom-of-speech for journalists...

The other one is more about Bombing journalists...So I do not think the threads should be merged.

Legal gag on Bush-Blair war row
Wednesday November 23, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general last night threatened newspapers with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed the contents of a document allegedly relating to a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush over the conduct of military operations in Iraq.

It is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way. Though it has obtained court injunctions against newspapers, the government has never prosecuted editors for publishing the contents of leaked documents, including highly sensitive ones about the run-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, last night referred editors to newspaper reports yesterday that described the contents of a memo purporting to be at the centre of charges against two men under the secrets act.

Under the front-page headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", the Daily Mirror reported that 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.

Richard Wallace, editor of the Daily Mirror, said last night: "We made No 10 fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]".

Under section 5 it is an offence to have come into the possession of government information, or a document from a crown servant, if that person discloses it without lawful authority. The prosecution has to prove the disclosure was damaging.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,11538,1648594,00.html


There are lots of things that I think should be published in the newspaper. I believe newspapers should be able to run anything they need to run to inform the public:

Without being a bunch of sensationalist idiots playing partisan politics. Not only is this playing partisan politics, but it could feed the enemy with new vigour. Good job you idiots at that newspaper. You just helped the enemy.

Draw and Quarter them for giving more fuel to the terrorists.

What a bunch of idiots.

There are lots of things that I think should be published in the newspaper. I believe newspapers should be able to run anything they need to run to inform the public:

Without being a bunch of sensationalist idiots playing partisan politics. Not only is this playing partisan politics, but it could feed the enemy with new vigour. Good job you idiots at that newspaper. You just helped the enemy.

Draw and Quarter them for giving more fuel to the terrorists.

What a bunch of idiots.

Oh, the irony of this little troll...

Imagine blair:
Hey! who took my toilet paper!
*later*
Mr. Blair, someone leaked some. . .touchy documents. Care to hold a conference?
Why not?Not's like they were that important
*more later*
Oh. . . those documents. Dont you write about those, Hey i said dont write, dont publish that, no dont DONT!
What was that law again? oh yeah
YOU CANT USE IT!
MUWHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Jazeera urges probe into Bush bomb plot report

Tue Nov 22, 3:39 PM ET
DOHA (AFP) - The Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera urged the White House and Downing Street to challenge a British newspaper report that US
President George W. Bush had planned to bomb the Qatar-based station.

"We sincerely urge both the White House and Downing Street to challenge the Daily Mirror report," the Qatar-based network said in a statement.

The British tabloid, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret," reported Tuesday that British Prime Minister
Tony Blair had talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station.

"Before making any conclusions, Al-Jazeera needs to be absolutely sure regarding the authenticity of the memo and would hope for a confirmation from Downing Street as soon as possible," it said.

"If the report is correct then this would be both shocking and worrisome not only to Al-Jazeera but to media organisations across the world.

"It would cast serious doubts in regard to the US administration's version of previous incidents involving Al-Jazeera's journalists and offices," the news channel said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051122/wl_mideast_afp/qatarusbritainmedia_051122203956

Oh, the irony of this little troll...

How is it a troll? I was talking about the journalists. I wasn't talking about you or any other member of this forum. And BTW, they are a bunch of idiots. It's like handing a guy who already has a gun pointed to your head another clip for his gun.

Anyone who does that is an idiot.

And btw, wouldn't what you did be considered flaming? I've never called you an idiot, yet you insist on calling me one circumspectly. There's no need for either of us to continue this. I'm sorry if you mistook my comment to mean that you or anyone else on this forum is an idiot, but I specifically meant those journalists are idiots.

There are lots of things that I think should be published in the newspaper. I believe newspapers should be able to run anything they need to run to inform the public:

Without being a bunch of sensationalist idiots playing partisan politics. Not only is this playing partisan politics, but it could feed the enemy with new vigour. Good job you idiots at that newspaper. You just helped the enemy.

Draw and Quarter them for giving more fuel to the terrorists.

What a bunch of idiots.

When a document talks about a possibly idiotic course of action by the Bush Adminstration having been averted, it's giving more fuel to the terrorists and those responsible should be drawn and quartered.

But when a document talks about an undercover operative who was until then an active part of a global intelligence gathering network- which also exposes the fictional company that is used by other operatives who happened to be spying on other countries...

Let me guess your answer: "Those responsible should be given a medal," right?

:rolleyes:

When a document talks about a possibly idiotic course of action by the Bush Adminstration having been averted, it's giving more fuel to the terrorists and those responsible should be drawn and quartered.

But when a document talks about an undercover operative who was until then an active part of a global intelligence gathering network- which also exposes the fictional company that is used by other operatives who happened to be spying on other countries...

Let me guess your answer: "Those responsible should be given a medal," right?

:rolleyes:

What? I'm kind of confused by what you said. By omitting everything intellectually tangible from the sentences except for sarcasm at the end, I can't find a real way to reply.

Besides leaking the name of a CIA agent, I think he did a fine job. Leaking a flimsy memo is just shoddy and shaddy journalism.

What? I'm kind of confused by what you said. By omitting everything intellectually tangible from the sentences except for sarcasm at the end, I can't find a real way to reply.

Besides leaking the name of a CIA agent, I think he did a fine job. Leaking a flimsy memo is just shoddy and shaddy journalism.

The point is that you're calling for the execution of the ones who leaked the British memo which is insignificant in terms of national security damage as opposed to the Plame exposure which demolished a years-crafted CIA cover in minutes. Yet nobody's calling for the hanging or drawing and quartering of whoever provided Novak with that classified information.

In other words, the call for death is a hypocritical double-standard.

The point is that you're calling for the execution of the ones who leaked the British memo which is insignificant in terms of national security damage as opposed to the Plame exposure which demolished a years-crafted CIA cover in minutes. Yet nobody's calling for the hanging or drawing and quartering of whoever provided Novak with that classified information.

In other words, the call for death is a hypocritical double-standard.

I didn't know this thread was about the Plame Affair... But, since you brought it up, I'd have to say jail him, not kill him. I'm not too sure he meant to just divulge info for its own sake. If he did, then kill the son of a bitch.

The little shit journalist at that newspaper did. News for ratings is worthless.

When a document talks about ..those responsible should be drawn and quartered.

But when...
Let me guess your answer: "Those responsible should be given a medal," right?

:rolleyes:Thats what they are saying...When a Bushite leaks... he deserves a medal...

But when the Leak is Anti-bush..it deserves Jail.

I do agree with the idea of gag orders - obviously, there are things a Government needs to keep safe from its people until long after they're relevant. The thing is that things more sensitive than this have hit the papers here before and the Government's done less about it. Besides which, the content of the document, if that's really what's in it, is out here: look, we're discussing it.

The devil must be in the details. The Government might have ordered it closed because it contained operational details of how America carries out airstrikes, but it's much more likely that there's something in there that has nothing to do with a row between the two countries or operational tactics. Something genuinely juicy.

I can't wait till the story breaks. Some pissed-off civil servant leaking it... rare, maybe, but worth hoping for.

And Empryia, trying to only get the papers to publish things which are "good for the state" and don't "lend support to its enemies" is a frighteningly familiar tactic to me; I see a lot of it every time I go to China or read news from Xinhua. Two things are confused by many fanatic followers of the US's Party Line here: supporting terrorism and being against your State. The two are not isometric. Get used to it. There may be more than two options in any given situation. Stop oversimplifying. If you're against your Government, they need to understand that you're not doing it because you're evil, you're doing it because you think they're wrong. *sigh* Or, yes, because it will further your career or something, but you know what I mean. To declare as some far-right pundits have that to be against the American Government means you don't love the American State, the American people, and are therefore morally obliged to sod off to go live somewhere else because you can't be trusted... to say or imply such things and yet call yourself democratic should be a flogging offence. You're damn lucky democracy allows its detractors.

The free press is the single best check on any given government. This isn't about ratings. This is about publishing relevant information about the planning of a terrifyingly unjust military action. I can't think of a better reason to publish something doing down the State than that they had plans to bomb an ally's civilian television station just because it was their news network and wasn't as supportive as FOX.

The free press is the single best check on any given government. This isn't about ratings. This is about publishing relevant information about the planning of a terrifyingly unjust military action. I can't think of a better reason to publish something doing down the State than that they had plans to bomb an ally's civilian television station just because it was their news network and wasn't as supportive as FOX."the free press"...
It used to mean something...for US

a little off topic (but connected to the freedom of speech)

this is how Polish newspapers protest against breaking the freedom of speech at Belarus:

http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/duza_strona.jpg

the sign says: "this is how the freedom of speech looks like in Belarus. Want to post your protest ? visit amnesty.org . Amnesty International."

There are lots of things that I think should be published in the newspaper. I believe newspapers should be able to run anything they need to run to inform the public:

Without being a bunch of sensationalist idiots playing partisan politics. Not only is this playing partisan politics, but it could feed the enemy with new vigour. Good job you idiots at that newspaper. You just helped the enemy.

Draw and Quarter them for giving more fuel to the terrorists.

What a bunch of idiots.

This really comes down to the question "is it in the public interest?".

Well, as a UK citizen, I think it does. Many people here have felt that Blair has acted as (an albeit faulty) break on some of Bush's more knee jerk responses. This would effectively prove that. If you can't see how this is relative in the context of the Iraq muddle, I'm more than a little surprised.
Interestingly, the Mirror is also a Labour supporter. Or at least it was until the Iraq war.

The Tanks shelling the Al-Jazeera TV offices in Baghdad in 2003, look even less of an accident in view of this document.

People need to wake up to what Bush is. He is off his rocker, off his trolley, the lights are on but no-one's at home, the cards are not the full deck, he's not the full ticket, he's not the brightest bulb or the brightest candle, he's out to lunch, not all there, thicker than two planks of wood, the village's lost idiot...bombing TV Stations as well as countries come as easy to him as the notion that he can choke on a pretzel, crash his bike into a British Policeman, and declare that 'our enemies are always looking for ways to harm us, and so are we.'

Think about this. Bush, the US President, seriously wanted to bomb a TV news station because he did not like what they said.

And before you say they show Bin Laden Video tapes, it's called reporting, even reporting on the things that can be repulsive, and CNN interviewed Bin Laden before Al-Jazeera existed.

Watch out CNN, BBC News, and all the rest, you bloody agitators! You've been warned! Don't you dare have an analytical look on Current Affairs!

Fox News need not worry.

So, what is the difference between Saddam stifling free press, and Bush stifling free press?

Both are for control...

Bush is the only US president in recent times, if at all to never to welcome the bodies of the dead US Soldiers from a war.

Even Reagan did that.

Think about that.

I watched a documentary last night, showing US Soldiers with their arms and legs blown off, parts of their skulls and brains missing.

In this documentary, which had access to the US Military medical base in Germany it said:

80% of returning US Soldiers from Iraq suffer psychological problems, a higher rate than in the Vietnam War.

90% of US Soldier Casualities in Iraq happened after Bush declared 'Mission Accomplished'.

US Marines in Columbus, Ohio had suffered the heaviest casualties in a war since WW2.


What a waste of lives, of America's youth.

And that is just the statistics for Americans in Iraq.

People need to wake up to what Bush is. He is off his rocker, off his trolley, the lights are on but no-one's at home, the cards are not the full deck, he's not the full ticket, he's not the brightest bulb or the brightest candle, he's out to lunch, not all there, thicker than two planks of wood, the village's lost idiot...bombing TV Stations as well as countries come as easy to him as the notion that he can choke on a pretzel, crash his bike into a British Policeman, and declare that 'our enemies are always looking for ways to harm us, and so are we.'

Think about this. Bush, the US President, seriously wanted to bomb a TV news station because he did not like what they said.


Nice ad hominem. And if bombing a TV station is a crime, and an attempt to silence your critics, then why did Canada bomb the main TV station in Serbia and kill dozens of journalists at their desks? Bush wasn't even President then.

Maybe you could ask ex-PM Chretien about that target selection, eh?

As for the idea of Bush being behind censorship, we don't have the same laws they have in Britain - and Bush is not Blair. And if this is censorship, then how did the story get out? Looks like the censorship didn't work at all, on the face of it.

Nice ad hominem. And if bombing a TV station is a crime, and an attempt to silence your critics, then why did Canada bomb the main TV station in Serbia and kill dozens of journalists at their desks? Bush wasn't even President then.

Perhaps that's something you should ask more often of Canada, along with why did the US bomb the Chinese embassy in Serbia when China was against NATO intervention in Kosovo, and why the French Embassy in Tripoli was bombed when France voiced it's opposition to the US bombing of Libya.


Maybe you could ask ex-PM Chretien about that target selection, eh?


Yes, and maybe you could ask Bush about his target selection of a TV station with premeditation without any denial of it being an accident, as it was discussed in premeditation, eh?


As for the idea of Bush being behind censorship, we don't have the same laws they have in Britain - and Bush is not Blair. And if this is censorship, then how did the story get out? Looks like the censorship didn't work at all, on the face of it.

Because our media is not under the influence of Bush's administration-yet, and there is currently an internal conflict within the Labour Party that wants to see Blair fall. Leaks become more common if it harms Blair.

Perhaps that's something you should ask more often of Canada, along with why did the US bomb the Chinese embassy in Serbia when China was against NATO intervention in Kosovo, and why the French Embassy in Tripoli was bombed when France voiced it's opposition to the US bombing of Libya.

What I want to know is why only the Serbs seemed to be upset about Canada bombing a TV station during the Kosovo conflict. Not one mainstream news org seemed upset in the slightest - even though 16 civilians were killed and the TV station put off the air.

I've noticed that if someone else does it, it's a great idea. If Bush does the same thing, people are quick to throw dirt. Nice partisan double standard.

What I want to know is why only the Serbs seemed to be upset about Canada bombing a TV station during the Kosovo conflict. Not one mainstream news org seemed upset in the slightest - even though 16 civilians were killed and the TV station put off the air.

I've noticed that if someone else does it, it's a great idea. If Bush does the same thing, people are quick to throw dirt. Nice partisan double standard.not only the Serbs...I was upset about it...I am still upset about it...as much as I was upset about the Chinese embassy bombing and the Iranian Airliner Bombing...

I don't buy the "accident" excuses...

I think Chretien head should roll (voted out)...i think everyone Involved should be made accountable.

not only the Serbs...I was upset about it...I am still upset about it...as much as I was upset about the Chinese embassy bombing and the Iranian Airliner Bombing...

I don't buy the "accident" excuses...

I think Chretien head should roll (voted out)...i think everyone Involved should be made accountable.

That doesn't explain why Chretien got away with it - and why no one was upset if Canada bombs a TV station (except the Serbs).

Like I said, if the US does it, it's news and it's ugly. Even if the US does a good thing, it's not enough, and therefore the US is still bad.

If anyone else does it, it's a great idea. If they do just a little good, that's greater than what the US does. If they do nothing, the excuse that they don't have the ability to help is trotted out. Maybe not your opinion, but that's the way the world plays it.

That doesn't explain why Chretien got away with it - and why no one was upset if Canada bombs a TV station (except the Serbs).

Like I said, if the US does it, it's news and it's ugly. Even if the US does a good thing, it's not enough, and therefore the US is still bad.

If anyone else does it, it's a great idea. If they do just a little good, that's greater than what the US does. If they do nothing, the excuse that they don't have the ability to help is trotted out. Maybe not your opinion, but that's the way the world plays it.

That is utter, utter nonsense. America has set itself up as the bastion of Western values. Every criticism it (rightly) levels at insurgents and terrorists attempting to destroy freedom is going to come back and bite it when it is shown to be ignoring the rules. WRT the Serbian TV station, maybe you just weren't looking at the right newspapers. It certainly resulted in some pretty damning press in the UK.

Basically Kimchi you are playing a very dangerous game-the world hates the US, even if we do something wrong, so do other people, any criticism is invalid. In short, my country right or wrong. And it would appear that you have many, many allies on this site.
I'm glad to say that in the UK we have far fewer people who will condone the unacceptable just because it is perpetrated in our name.

That is utter, utter nonsense. America has set itself up as the bastion of Western values. Every criticism it (rightly) levels at insurgents and terrorists attempting to destroy freedom is going to come back and bite it when it is shown to be ignoring the rules. WRT the Serbian TV station, maybe you just weren't looking at the right newspapers. It certainly resulted in some pretty damning press in the UK.

Basically Kimchi you are playing a very dangerous game-the world hates the US, even if we do something wrong, so do other people, any criticism is invalid. In short, my country right or wrong. And it would appear that you have many, many allies on this site.
I'm glad to say that in the UK we have far fewer people who will condone the unacceptable just because it is perpetrated in our name.

I keep hearing the Canadians setting themselves up on this forum as the bastion of values - after they bomb the Serb TV station.

Bombing a TV station is not against the rules. And it's rather interesting to note that while the Canadians DID bomb the Serb TV station, Bush DID NOT bomb al-Jazeera's TV station.

You're talking about it like it actually happened. Maybe, just maybe, someone informed Bush that it couldn't be done - so it didn't happen.

I guess there wasn't anyone in the Canadian government who was going to tell then-PM Chretien that bombing a TV station might be a bad idea.

..why no one was upset if Canada bombs a TV station (except the Serbs).Says who?

The bombimg was denounced all over the World...Just like the Bombing of the embassy and the downing of the Iranian Airliner...

FOX/CNN/AP didnt inform you? ... I am not surprised.

That doesn't explain why Chretien got away with it ....a President or PM can get away with a lot of "stuff"...When the Local media is in his side.

During the Iraq War (up until recently) The US Media was behind Bush...like good little soldiers...

So Bush got away with lot of "stuff".

That is changing lately...But If you only access US media...you might as well been blindfolded for the last years.

I keep hearing the Canadians setting themselves up on this forum as the bastion of values - after they bomb the Serb TV station.

Bombing a TV station is not against the rules. And it's rather interesting to note that while the Canadians DID bomb the Serb TV station, Bush DID NOT bomb al-Jazeera's TV station.

You're talking about it like it actually happened. Maybe, just maybe, someone informed Bush that it couldn't be done - so it didn't happen.

I guess there wasn't anyone in the Canadian government who was going to tell then-PM Chretien that bombing a TV station might be a bad idea.

Holy fuck, but I am getting tired of your asshat generalisations and kneejerk responses. I'm canadian. Please find one fucking post where I set myself up as a bastion of values.

Who gives a shit if the canadian armed forces accidentally bombed a serbian news outlet? It does not excuse anyone else, not even Bush, from doing the same thing with premeditation.

I'm glad it didn't happen. But it just makes the USA look as bad as Saddam Hussein's regime. No fucking wonder the insurgents keep attacking your ass, and find it so easy to recruit people. Asshat.

Holy fuck, but I am getting tired of your asshat generalisations and kneejerk responses. I'm canadian. Please find one fucking post where I set myself up as a bastion of values.

We could start with the famous posts of Stephistan...

I keep hearing the Canadians setting themselves up on this forum as the bastion of values - after they bomb the Serb TV station.

Bombing a TV station is not against the rules. And it's rather interesting to note that while the Canadians DID bomb the Serb TV station, Bush DID NOT bomb al-Jazeera's TV station.

You're talking about it like it actually happened. Maybe, just maybe, someone informed Bush that it couldn't be done - so it didn't happen.

I guess there wasn't anyone in the Canadian government who was going to tell then-PM Chretien that bombing a TV station might be a bad idea.

Actually, so far as this goes I don't disagree with you particularly. The headline would read "ALLIES DIDN'T BOMB Al JAZEERA" :)

My concern is that every time an issue is brought up that the US MIGHT have to take some criticism for, there are too many Americans ready to defend her honour without even looking at the issue in detail.

In this case, the criticism seems to be that a leaked secret document has informed the world that Bush and Blair disagreed on tactics, and Bush listened to advice. I'm slightly surprised that the pro war brigade aren't delighted at this news, in that is shows that the allies are exactly that. Personally, I'm horrified that we even considered attacking a TV station which broacasts to the Arab world. Given the current situation, it's a blessing that sense prevaled.

We could start with the famous posts of Stephistan...

A Biased Sample.

Sierra sure loves his fallacies today.

:rolleyes:

In this case, the criticism seems to be that a leaked secret document has informed the world that Bush and Blair disagreed on tactics, and Bush listened to advice. I'm slightly surprised that the pro war brigade aren't delighted at this news, in that is shows that the allies are exactly that. Personally, I'm horrified that we even considered attacking a TV station which broacasts to the Arab world. Given the current situation, it's a blessing that sense prevaled.

1. It shows that Bush and Blair work together - Blair is not the puppet of Bush.
2. Bush asks his friends for advice before doing something stupid.

gee, who would have thought...

How is it a troll? I was talking about the journalists. I wasn't talking about you or any other member of this forum. And BTW, they are a bunch of idiots. It's like handing a guy who already has a gun pointed to your head another clip for his gun.

Anyone who does that is an idiot.

And btw, wouldn't what you did be considered flaming? I've never called you an idiot, yet you insist on calling me one circumspectly. There's no need for either of us to continue this. I'm sorry if you mistook my comment to mean that you or anyone else on this forum is an idiot, but I specifically meant those journalists are idiots.

Actually, it's more like if I told the guy who's pointing a gun at you that you fucked his wife, if you did fuck his wife.

1. It shows that Bush and Blair work together - Blair is not the puppet of Bush.
2. Bush asks his friends for advice before doing something stupid.

gee, who would have thought...

Which is exactly what I said with regards to this particular issue. But we're getting off the point of this thread, which is whether or not the British government should now try to silence the media on what should be a PR goal for both Bush and Blair. Certainly from the perspective that any premier is going to consider any kind of action in order to shorten an armed conflict.

By trying to stifle information that is now effectively in the public domain, the only logic that I can see is that if they let them away with this, what else will they publish? Not a particularly ringing indictment of Western freedoms.

Which is exactly what I said with regards to this particular issue. But we're getting off the point of this thread, which is whether or not the British government should now try to silence the media on what should be a PR goal for both Bush and Blair. Certainly from the perspective that any premier is going to consider any kind of action in order to shorten an armed conflict.

By trying to stifle information that is now effectively in the public domain, the only logic that I can see is that if they let them away with this, what else will they publish? Not a particularly ringing indictment of Western freedoms.

The problem is that if it was a secret beforehand, then it's a leaked secret. If it was public first, you can't go back and classify the information.

A leaked secret is a leaked secret is a leaked secret.

Public information is public information is public information.

A leaked secret is a leaked secret is a leaked secret.


Normally I'd agree with you, but if you knew how much "leaked" info in the UK came via the government itself (a la Alasdair Campbell in the old days), you'd realise that the government has really got itself in a mess with this.

Add to this the fact that the Mirror went through the proper channels to tell the government that it was publishing, received no response and then AFTER the publication get attacked by the government, and it is by no means black and white.

It's funny how everyone says that Bush wanted to bomb them because he wanted to stifle free speech. Heres one of my posts from the other thread on the SAME topic.

Sure. Here's my beef with Al-Jazeera.
1) Al-Jazeera refuses to call people who blow up civilians on purpose and cuts of peoples heads terrorists.

2) They play propaganda videos of mass murderers.

3) Its Spanish reporter was arrested for terrorist ties to bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

4)At least two of its Iraqi reporters and one executive had secret connections with, and apparently worked for, Saddam Hussein's intelligence service.
5) Described Islamist suicide-homocide bombers in Israel as "martyrs"

Shall I go on?
__________________

And I will go on. It was (and is) suspected that they were aiding the enemy, that they knew the whereabouts of wanted criminals, that they leaked information to Al-Qaeda, that they were purposefully slandering the U.S. and on and on and on.

Is this enough proof to bomb their headquarters? Maybe not. Is it enough proof to consider it? Your fuckin right it is! Did we bomb them? No.

Is everyone bitching because the we DIDN'T bomb them? As un-fucking-believable as it seems, apparently they are.

You people need new hobbies besides attacking America for shit we didn't even do.

What I want to know is why only the Serbs seemed to be upset about Canada bombing a TV station during the Kosovo conflict. Not one mainstream news org seemed upset in the slightest - even though 16 civilians were killed and the TV station put off the air.

I remember there was quite a furore about it, and rightly so.



I've noticed that if someone else does it, it's a great idea. If Bush does the same thing, people are quick to throw dirt. Nice partisan double standard.


Because no matter how horrific the event was of the Canadian bombing of the TV station, there is as yet no evidence it was deliberate and premeditated as opposed to Bush's willingness to bomb Al-Jazeera Television

It's not throwing dirt. It's criticising the complete horror that he even considered it seriously.

Sure. Here's my beef with Al-Jazeera.
1) Al-Jazeera refuses to call people who blow up civilians on purpose and cuts of peoples heads terrorists.


It's called being a balanced media. Calling suicide bombers and people who decapitate people as terrorists would be taking in the US description of them.
That would be agreeing with the US view and side when it wants to stay neutral.

Some media decide to stay neutral others don't. Al-Jazeera understands that the philosophy of one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter is true according to perception and to lean on one side of the philosophy is bias.


2) They play propaganda videos of mass murderers.


CNN interviewed Bin Laden long before Al-Jazeera existed. It's called showing the other side of the story.


3) Its Spanish reporter was arrested for terrorist ties to bin Laden's Al Qaeda.


For connections to Al-Qaeda, as in journalistic it seems. He may have been pressured by Al-Qaeda to do things to gain interviews, we will wait and see.


4)At least two of its Iraqi reporters and one executive had secret connections with, and apparently worked for, Saddam Hussein's intelligence service.


I've not heard these allegations before, but CNN were close to Saddam's regime during the first Gulf War to get the best technological access for their equipment and access for reporting. Journalism gets dirt under it's nails. Do you want to bomb CNN?


5) Described Islamist suicide-homocide bombers in Israel as "martyrs"


Muslims often describe dead muslims as "martyrs". For example, being martyred/martyr/s in a fatal car accident, being martyred/martyr/s by drowning, and thus martyed/martyrs as a result of bombing.

Al-Jazeera in particular does this to show it is not showing any judgement or bias on the suicide bombers by describing them as martyrs as in people who met their death.

It's not saying 'martyrs' as a symbol, but a phrase for muslims in connections with death, dead, killed.



Shall I go on?


....supporting bombing a TV station?

Why not. The consequences and morality of such actions are lost on you.