|
|
Post by Wench on Sept 30, 2003 19:38:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Sept 30, 2003 20:20:24 GMT -5
Aljazeera? I refuse to give them a hit on their web-site from me. They employ terrorists.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wench on Sept 30, 2003 21:03:02 GMT -5
Yeah, but they think they know us so well from America. That's why I want the "close" poll to win in favor for Bush.
Anyway, who cares about the hits? They only get so many because they ARE terrorists. They don't sell ads, so who does it help? I remember when the war started an American had hacked their site and was flying an American flag on the front page with the words...."Let Freedom Reign".
Too cool. I certainly looked at their site that day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nemesis on Oct 14, 2003 14:51:51 GMT -5
I personally enjoy going to aljazeera. It helps to open your mind to other views. Fox and company give me to much biased news, so I get biased news from the other side, henceforth equalling the viewpoints out. If you only get your news from western viewpoints, it's very likely that you will be indoctrinated. Viewing many different sources helps to keep my mind open to other ideas, and cultures. I encourage all of you to go on to aljazeera and try to keep an open mind.
Calling aljazeera terrorists is crossing the line. This is a steryotype, just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're terrorists. Rember one of the greates men ever, Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was labeled a terrorist.
|
|
|
|
Post by athan on Nov 3, 2003 9:31:58 GMT -5
nemesis,
two wrongs don't make a right! there is plenty of unfiltered news and information in the USA. do you honestly believe that aljazeera type news agencies show an objective point of view?! i am astounded at the sheer blindedness of this point of view. we are in a war against reaction! may I please entreat you to reread the preceding sentence? or perhaps you will let me restate it for emphasis. THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES ARE NOW AT WAR WITH REACTION!
This outcome was clearly not willed, at least on the American side. And everybody with half an education seems to know how to glibly dilute the statement. Isn't Saudi Arabia reactionary? What about Pakistani nukes? Do we bomb Sharon for his negation of Palestinian rights? Weren't we on Saddam's side when he was at his worst? (I am exempting the frantic and discredited few who think or suggest that George W. Bush fixed up the attacks to inflate the military budget and abolish the Constitution.) But however compromised and shameful the American starting point was (and I believe I could make this point stick with greater venom and better evidence than most people can muster) the above point remains untouched. THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES ARE NOW AT WAR WITH REACTION!
Do I have to demonstrate this? The Taliban's annihilation of music and culture? The enslavement of women? The massacre of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan? Or what about the latest boast of al Qaeda--that the bomb in Bali, massacring so many Australian holidaymakers, was a deliberate revenge for Australia's belated help in securing independence for East Timor? (Never forget that the Muslim fundamentalists are not against "empire." They fight proudly for the restoration of their own lost caliphate.) To these people, the concept of a civilian casualty is meaningless if the civilian is an unbeliever or a heretic.
Confronted with such a foe--which gladly murders Algerians and Egyptians and Palestinians if they have any doubts about the true faith, or if they happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if they happen to be female--exactly what role does a "peace movement" have to play? A couple of years ago, the "peace movement" was saying that Afghanistan could not even be approached without risking the undying enmity of the Muslim world; that the Taliban could not be bombed during Ramadan; that a humanitarian disaster would occur if the Islamic ultra- fanatics were confronted in their own lairs. Now we have an imperfect but recovering Afghanistan, with its population increased by almost two million returned refugees.
The line that connects Afghanistan to Iraq is not a straight one by any means. But the oblique connection is ignored by the potluck peaceniks, and one can be sure (judging by their past form) that it would be ignored even if it were as direct as the connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Saddam Hussein denounced the removal of the Sunni Muslim-murdering Slobodan Milosevic, and also denounced the removal of the Shiite-murdering Taliban. Reactionaries have a tendency to stick together (and I don't mean "guilt by association" here. I mean GUILT). If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the 19th province of Iraq (and based on his own recently produced evidence, Saddam Hussein would have acquired nuclear weapons). Moreover, Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority that surrounds those who intone the "peace movement."
Shall I go on? ...Indulge me here for a minute.
There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what is euphemistically termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is why the Senate (at the urging of Bill Clinton) passed the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously before George W. Bush had even been nominated. The second is the persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide: an effort which was thwarted and which was condemned by the United Nations before George W. Bush was even governor of Texas. The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. I could write a separate essay on this alone; at the moment I'll just say that it's extremely rash for anybody to discount the evidence that we already possess. (And I shall add that any "peace movement" that even pretends to care for human rights was very shaken by what was uncovered when the Hussein regime fell. Prisons, mass graves, torture chambers etc.)
None of these things on their own need necessarily make a case for an intervention, but taken together--and taken with the permanent threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the oilfields of the region--they add up fairly convincingly. Have you, or your friends, recently employed the slogan "No War for Oil"? If so, did you listen to what you were saying? Do you mean that oil isn't worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren't worth protecting? Do you recall that Saddam Hussein ignited the oilfields of Kuwait when he was in retreat, and flooded the local waterways with fire and pollution? (Should I patronize the potluckistas, and ask them to look up the pictures of poisoned birds and marine animals from that year?) Are you indifferent to the possibility that such a man might have been able to irradiate the oilfields next time? OF COURSE it's about oil, stupid.
The United States is now at war with the forces of reaction, and nobody is entitled to view this battle as a spectator. Abe Lincoln wasn't wholeheartedly against slavery. The USA under Roosevelt had its own selfish agenda even while combating Hitler and Hirohito. The hot-and-cold war against Stalinism wasn't exactly free of blemish and stain. How much this latest crisis turns into an even tougher war with reaction, at home or abroad, could depend partly upon those who currently think that it is either possible or desirable to remain neutral. I say "could," even though the chance may have already been shamefully missed.
With loving affection, your's truly,
athan
|
|
|
|
Post by ItWillNeverWork on Nov 3, 2003 11:05:43 GMT -5
Athan: I think the point that nemesis was making is that ALL media is biased and so to get a 'balanced' view you have to incorperate all biases into your viewing schedule. So in answer to your question, no he does not believe Al-Jazeera show an objective point of view.
As for the rest of your post, I think you need to learn to condense your posts into somthing more readable and precise. I'm not critisising what you are saying exactly, i thought you made some farir points, it's just that it was a bit TOO much of a rant. (I know its the 'Rant' forum but even so...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter on Nov 3, 2003 14:38:25 GMT -5
I agree. Aljazeera is watched and believed by many middle easterners both in the mddle east and in the USA. You will find the genesis of many of the attacks by politicians (US and Int'l) against the USA by reference. If one is easily convinced by anything on the web, perhaps one should not be reading any website, this one in particular. Aljazeera has great cartoons:   |
|
|
|
Post by Ogilvy on Nov 3, 2003 16:49:43 GMT -5
I remember when the war started an American had hacked their site and was flying an American flag on the front page with the words...."Let Freedom Reign". Too cool. I certainly looked at their site that day. Don't you think that's a bit antithetical to freedom? |
|
