Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ok, that's a bit of a tangent . But this is troubling - Two to Stand Trial in Memo Leak . It would be a hard decision whether or not to pass a conversation like this on. I have to wonder, given all the talk you're bound to overhear - between people with the will, means, and power to do it - about who to kill and what to bomb, where the threshold is, where you have to say, This is ridiculous, and more people need to know. I do wonder how this trial will turn out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 ....i'm drawing a blank here...what's the big deal? (i'm asking because i'm sure there is one, i just don't see it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted January 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 You mean about the trial per se, or the persistent need of the US admin to shut down ("with extreme prejudice") sources of alternative viewpoints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timouse Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 Terminate...with extreme predjudice? Every president gets one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexis Posted January 11, 2006 Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 (edited) i can kinds see why these guys are on trial, i don't know why they felt the need to leak the document, and i don't see why it's a bad thing for a country at war with another to want to try to stop whatever means are being used to spread proaganda and spread the hate towards who they're at war with. do you think if the government of iraq (how do you spell iraqy?) or al quaida or whoever the fuck they were fighting had the capabilities of of destryong CNN or Fox news, or MSNBC they wouldn't? this is war...not tea time with bushyall conspiracy theories aside, a bunch of al quaida came and flew planes into the pentagon and the world trade centers...a targeted attack. television and media are vehicles to spread messages and breed ideas. do you think that maybe, al jazeera had a tiny bit of responsibility in feeding the anti western, anti american hatred? can you see why americans, in war, might want that to be stopped? when westerners are kidnapped, where do the tapes go? when bin laden wants to do a press conference from his cave, where do the tapes go? al jazeera, it's a voice for the people that the americans are fighting. i can see why they would want it to be shut down. do i think civilians should die in that? no. covert op that shit and shut 'er down.edit to add: do i personally think it's a good idea to shut own al jazeera? not really, i think it would cause more harm than good to the people. but i can see why bush wanted to do it. Edited January 11, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Evil_Mouse Posted January 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2006 I can't see how in any real sense any sort of direct line can be drawn between Al Qaeda, Iraq, and Al Jazeera (I'd thought the ersatz link between first pair had been beaten to death); I mean, these things are obviously inseparably linked, at least for practical purposes, in Bush's mind, and sure he acts downright Machiavellian, and hamfisted. That's what he sees as his divine mandate. I think the lion's of the antipathy in news media globally is directed against Arabs, and Al Jazeera happens to be the major global Arab news network. I expect the folks that have it out for the States have given taking out the major networks some thought, but really, how impossible would that be. Al Jazeera stands more or less alone as "the Arab voice", against the whole armada of corporate media outlets, American and British alike. Sure, it's by no means ideally impartial or democratic or free of gender discrimination and so on, but holy smokes, the last time I watched MSNBC I just about shat. That tripe is embarrassing for someone who is purportedly from an advanced Western nation. I guess that's where my CBC comment came from; I think I've heard enough conservative grumping about it, from, say Bill O'Reiley to, say, people in the CPC to see where the dangers to it come from as well. It also ties in for me to the whole farce of rationalisations that have been put forward for having invaded Iraq in the first place. "They can have a voice," this one would go, "as long as it's ours."That said, these guys did break wartime protocol, so it won't be much of a surprise what will happen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamilton Posted January 12, 2006 Report Share Posted January 12, 2006 I guess that's where my CBC comment came from; I think I've heard enough conservative grumping about it, from, say Bill O'Reiley to, say, people in the CPC to see where the dangers to it come from as well. The other day, I heard a report that some members of the Conservative party felt that the CBC was deliberately over-reporting the success of the Conservatives in the polls in the hopes that it would frighten people into voting Liberal.As opposed to, say, reporting the fact that the Conservatives are doing well in the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now