Al-Jazeera Launching all-English Channel

Hey - Tigerpermission also started the original TMac for SF trade thread. I don't know about his politics, but that one was pure gold (i think he received some flaming for that one too).

 

So you are saying that you WOULD spit on our troops when they come back? (maybe re-read my post, I think you misunderstood what I said.)

Or are you saying there IS wide spread prison abuse?

My Point: I'm saying that unless our soldiers are willfully and blatently abusing their power (not the politicians or commanders...but the soldiers themselves), typical liberals will NOT spit on the troops when they return...as Trader Jorge suggests. Do you disagree with that?

 

Al Jazeera has had numerous articles that portray Saddam in a negative light. By doing a search o

Could someone please link the history article on Iraq? I would like to see it in context.

Looking at the list of other articles mentioning Saddam it would be hard to argue that Al Jazeera has a pro Saddam bias.

I got 318 articles when I did a search on Saddam. Some merely talk about him meeting with a a lawyer, and aren't positive or negative. Others talk about his abuses, corruption, various claims he has made etc.

They don't shy away from mentioning his atrocities in some articles, so I am wondering if the history piece wasn't about modern politics at all, or what the deal is with that one.

It would behoove those truly interested in what the deal is with Al Jazeera to watch the documentary about it which shows their side, the U.S. armed forces side, et al. It is called control room, and is one of the better documentaries on any subject I have seen.

None-the-less there are certain articles on Al Jazeera that undoubtedly do only present one side. Those articles are worthless. But the agency might also present an article wich also only presents one side, but it would be the opposite side. It seems to be poor jounalism in both cases, but because they do make the same mistake both ways it wouldn't seem to be overtly biased.

Here is a couple of small samples. The first of which talks of him murding more than 140 people, and then saying that it pales in comparison to the genocide he is also accused of.

This one talks about the economic boon as a result of the fall of Saddam. Could Al Jazeera be supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq?

The articles go on and on. They have articles all over the spectrum on almost every issue.

 

Great - information and exchanging ideas leads to better understanding.

DD

 

I have watched Al-Jazeera a bit. Some is decent journalism, some is just flagrant anti-Western propaganda. Overall, I did not feel that the station is up to CNN's standard, and I couldn't help having the impression of a (more or less) hidden agenda.

 

theres no exchanging ideas. its you follow allah and islam or you die....and even if you do follow allah and islam you could still die in the name of allah.

 

Up to CNN's standard? LOL ... I guess you either enjoy or miss entirely the blatant anti-China crusade that has become a staple of Lou Dobb's daily routine, which CNN doesn't even bother to claim to anything close to be "fair and balanced."

 

lol

You kinda remind me of the boy who cried wolf.

sustitute "anti-chinese racism" for wolf in your case.

would you go learn a new song if we sprung for the cost?

 

Huh, did I touch a nerve? Maybe I shoulda known better you are a fan of Lou Dobbs and his protectionist/xenophobic populist rhetorics?

Your "boy who cried wolf" analogy makes no sense.

 

we here in the U.S. did not get any information about the gasing of the Kurds until our governmetn thought it is a good time to pull this tape out of the library to help them get a a vote on getting into Iraq. The gasing of the Kurds happened while Sadam was an ally to the U.S.

The same thing happened with the women covered in Burqa's in Afganistan and how they were shot in the head, it was also an old footage that was kept in the libraries and pulled out when the time is right to get a law passed.

 

The people in that region have been living there for thousands of years with the same mentality. The real question is why are we clashing with them now? especially in the last 10 years. Are their troops in our country? or are our troops in their country (S)?

The last 3 wars have been against Saddam, Bin Laden, and Taliban. Who created these 3 enemies?

 

The first war against Saddam he created, and arguably the 2nd as well by not adhering to UN sanctoins - though I think that war should have been the last option....

Bin Laden chose to be the outcast, he deserves whatever fate he gets.

After the devestating 9-11 attack, they were asked repeatedly to give up Bin Laden, they refused.......again....their own decisions.

Look, I think the War with Iraq was unjustified, but Bin Laden and the Taliban, I am all for....

DD

 

you are not going far enough on those 3 names. Sadam was was given weapons to fight Iran, and when that was over he could not stop fighting so he turned on his neighbors. Bin Laden and Taliban were given weapons and logistics to fight the Russians and then they could not stop the fighting and turned back on us. Bottom line is we have aided and created monsters and regardles of what they were doing to their people we kep a blind eye to it as long as it did not affect us and when it did we started talking about how evil these people are to their people and how the weopons (that we gave them) are dangerous to us.

 

The invasion of Afganistan was going to happen regardless, but if you are familiar with that region you have to know that the U.S. was asking for the impossible to have Taliban cough up Bin Laden. These guys are tribal and clanish people they will not hand over a person that they gave safety to.

The propaganda before the war was not about Taliban aiding bin laden, but rather about Taliban shooting innocent women and forcing them to cover and commiting atrocities. Something that is happening in Sudan right now and we did not do anything about because this area is of no importance to us. We were going to Afganistan regardless.