So you're blaming the U.S. for Iraq kicking Al-Jazeera out? You do know that 1.)The U.S. couldn't stop Iraq from kicking Al-Jazeera out and 2.)There is no freedom of speech in Iraq. Also of note, a retired soldier mentioned this and I think people who are claiming the U.S. did this on purprose need to listen to this. If the U.S. REALLY wanted to get rid of Al-Jazeera they would have completely wiped out those buildings earlier. I mean the U.S. gets the best P.R. they could get by taking out Saddam Hussein, why in the world would they turn around and take out Al-Jazeera will Al-Jazeera could report to the Arab world that Saddam Hussein is finally gone?
RocksMill, I think that the US changed it't strategy and took out Al Jazeera because it was showing all the images of civilians and showing a very Iraqi friendly side of the war. If Al Jazeera was more balanced, it would have been left alone. I believe we bombed it, and think it was the right thing to do. DD
I was wondering when you would pop up and take the chance to make it seem like the U.S. is killing people on purpose. Lets see, the U.S. completely wiped out several of Saddam's compounds, you don't think they could do the same thing to Al-Jazeera? One reporter was accidently hurt, and one accidently killed, and Al-Jazeera was accidently hit, and they have a base close to the Ministry of Information. The Arab World already hates the U.S., why would the U.S. then attack Al-Jazeera? So lets see the U.S. accidently hit Al-Jazeera once in Afghanistan in the early hours, and once in the Iraq war, and they're on a mission to systematically take out Al-Jazeera. Ok.
If you had told me this a week ago I would have believed you, because I could have seen it. But the reason I believe this was an accident was because the U.S. had thought they had gotten Saddam Hussein and they would have gotten some good P.R. for it. It is said that the Arab world respects force, and if wiping Saddam out with missiles isn't force nothing is. Also the Al-Jazeera building I believe is near the Ministry of Information, and from what I heard that building, Al-Jazeera's building, and several other buildings were taken out. I just think that if the U.S. REALLY wanted to get Al-Jazeera that building would be gone. Al-Jazeera is badly damaged but people need to understand the building the U.S. struck isn't the only building Al-Jazeera has, it isn't really the main build Al-Jazeera has, they have many stations all over the place. It would be like hitting a post office and claiming you wiped out all mail delivery in a city.
I'm not blaming the US for Iraq pushing them out, just showing the Irony in our claiming Al-Jazeera is biased. The Arab/Muslim world has never had free press and I feel it is a positive. If free press allows people in the middle east the ability to view the corruption and lives of their leaders, then they may rebel and want freedom. I feel that irregardless to our position about their press, the freedom of it should be an international goal of ours.
Khan, I agree with your statement. Mil, You have convinced me, I think the bombing of AL Jazeera was probably accidental. DD
From the radio broadcast of today's interview with CentCom, it sounds like the Abrams shot at the hotel cause they saw people with binoculars observing a different battle across town, and assumed they were spotters or something. First the army guy says they were responding to sniper fire from the lobby, then he says they were responding to sniper fire from that floor, both of which were contradicted by reporters.
I agree, and I think most moderate people see Al- Jazeera as a good thing, since freedom of speech is something rarely seen in the Middle East. And hopefully it can spur more change in the Middle East. But it's still biased, and they hate the US. There's no contradiction in saying that.
This is why its so important for us to succeed in Iraq. If Iran's people can see what freedom brings you. They'll change themselves.
It is WAR! People are going to die, and Journalists too if they remain in the middle of it. It is no surprise there are going to be casualties in the media, atleast it shouldn't be a surprise. They are insane to reamin there, in the confrontation.
It may be biased but is it really any more biased than Fox News whose analysts and pundits are mainly neo-conservative hawks?
Well, Fox does show the other side. They let plenty of liberals on to debate with conservatives. Plus, Fox doesn't hate other countries as far as I can tell, that's the main issue.
As far as I know, Al Jazeera also shows the other side. They definitely carry news conferences of US and UK officials for instance. I haven't watched Al Jazeera much but would like to know on what basis you and others claim it is disproportionately biased (ie more biased than US news outlets). Have you watched it yourself or are you claiming it based on hearsay? I am NOT claiming here that Al Jazeera isn't as extremely biased as some assert. However since I haven't watched it myself and don't have any basis for believing this claim, I am going to suspend judgment. If you have some basis (from watching lots of Al Jazeera or from credible people that have watched lots of it and reviewed it to be so extremely biased) than I am very interested in hearing it.
I don't watch Al Jazeera, but I would venture a guess and say that they have probably shown more images of dead Iraqi soldiers than of US soldiers. What's wrong with them showing images of hurt or killed Iraqi civillians? They aren't lying, they aren't making it up, they are showing what it going on over there. People aren't turning on Al Jazeera and being influenced to be against this war and anti-US, they already are that way before they turn on their tv's. If anything, Al Jazeera reflects what the ME already feels about the US and this war. Should they show pro USA propaganda and change people's views, or should they show what they believe is true? As for showing our dead troops, how is it propaganda? They said that they always show dead bodies on that channel when they cover things like this. People in the ME have lived and are living in brutal times where war and oppression is all around them. They are desensitized to seeing dead bodies. The Drudge report and other websites put those images up as well. I've never heard you complain about them doing it. Like I said before, the cameraman who was killed was doing his job. He used to work for Fox and was well respected amongst his collegues from the US, I can't believe that you would think it's a good thing that this guy was killed.
I have not seen much of Al Jareeza. But I thought it was pretty much a consensus that it was anti-American and not really fair. And this isn't from just right- wig pundits, it's from serious people and various news outlets. I certainly have not heard that Al Jazeera is right there with CNN in terms of reporting the news mostly objectively.
But on what basis is it disproportionately unfair and biased? Do you really think that people in the Middle East watching US news outlets with lots of hawks and pundits giving the pro-war stance, news programs on various US soldiers as heroes and martys in the cause of "Iraqi Freedom", etc, etc. will also not find our new outlets biased and unfair? Will they not see US news outlets as mainly pro-war and not really fair as well? You have said that you have not watched Al Jazeera but have said that "serious people and various news outlets" claim it is anti-American and unfair. It seems a bit dangerous IMHO to based ones opinion based on hearsay, don't you think? If you have a stronger claim and can make a stronger argument (for example by pointing out specifics of what Al Jazeerza does or fails to do that is beyond what US outlets have done) then I am willing to hear it. But if you can't, isn't your judgement premature and lacking in basis?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,932488,00.html I think the Pentagon just has a hard time we made a mistake. It's a war, it happens. I watched foreign language news, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox alternately for a weekend that I housesat. All the foreign language news used Al Jazeera footage. The main reason is is that it is more interesting news wise than what we get most of the time on US news. Most of the US coverage was bland by comparison.
One guy's opinion who watches both: http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0408/p09s02-coop.html also, an interesting take by a person living in an authoritarian state, in one of the later paragraphs: http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0404/p01s04-wome.html US coverage does not impress me at all. They don't care about being neutral and go about bragging about US military prowess," says Hamed. "When my wife sees me watching US network coverage on cable she asks: Why do you torture yourself?" The American public is much more brainwashed. The media there is acting in a way we used to be accused of years ago - that is picking and choosing the news that suits their agenda. In Egypt this sort of news does not fly anymore."
It's not really hearsay when I am going by outlets like CNN and respected news sources. I am not using personal experience, but how many peoplehave personal experience with the issues discussed here? If you don't think that this is a strong argument, then fine. I'm just letting you know that it is the general view of political analysts, and that's an opinion many people trust. You don't have to agree. The general consensus is often wrong. While you can say that our news like Fox News is biased, I think there is a difference. Fox News is still a mainstream news source, even if it is right wing. CNN, MSNBC, etc. are all mainstream. Now, is Al Jazeera mainstream? No. If the KKK started their own channel, you could use the same arguments you are using now in their defence. The problem is Al Jazeera still has very extremist views that aren't really based on truth. I will try to find some links on the specifics of what Al Jazeera has done.
