From: Ellen K. 

Actually I'd like to see us mount a huge "Radio Free America"
type campaign in the Arab world.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 18:56:40 -0500, "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message :

>Well I think it is reprehensible that the political parties (both of them I
>believe) gave Al Jazeera space at their conventions and more regrettable
>that the MSM reports from them as though they do have credibility.
>Regrettable may not be the right word.  Treasonous might be more apt.
>
>Yes, jamming might be worth a try, but if not effective enough.  I'd blow
>them up and kill their reporters.
>
>Gary
>
>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:3eh6p1d82vvg8igu0ash1blo5775hpgvge{at}4ax.com...
>> I don't think it's realistic to expect to change the hearts and minds of
>> the "radical and radical leaning Muslim factions".   But
Al Jazeera is
>> now a household name, quoted on "mainstream media" all
over the world --
>> and this is changing the hearts and minds of those who keep hearing it,
>> and not to the benefit of freedom and democracy.  Those are the minds in
>> which I would like to see it marginalized.
>>
>> I do like the idea of jamming their signals.
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:49:29 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>>  wrote in message
:
>>
>> >Your points are good, but I don't think it is reasonable to think Al
>Jazeera
>> >could ever be marginalized in the minds of the radical and radical
>leaning
>> >Muslim factions.  I think its more reasonable to believe we could fade
>the
>> >heat for taking them out.  Sure they would start up somewhere else, but
>not
>> >with satellites, etc.  We could also do some things to deliberately jam
>and
>> >interfere with their broadcast signals that might should be tried first
>> >before just killing them and their equipment.  But taking them down one
>way
>> >or another should be done as long as they are the media arm of
the enemy.
>> >
>> >Gary
>> >
>> >"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>> >news:2as5p1pknk79h7n5dmpr5vbnidspccdmvv{at}4ax.com...
>> >> The trouble with doing something like bombing Al Jazeera
is that they
>> >> then become a "martyr"... They would just start
up again from another
>> >> location and meanwhile we've added fuel to the fire
that's trying to
>> >> burn us.  It would be much better if we could effectively
marginalize
>> >> them to the point that nobody paid any attention to them.
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:37:19 -0500, "Gary Britt"
>> >>  wrote in message
:
>> >>
>> >> >They should censor it if they feel its necessary,
even if it still
>gets
>> >out.
>> >> >Attempts to compare Fox News or any western news
outlet to Al Jazeera
>> >> >reflects such a disturbing lack of knowledge of the
differences that
>> >further
>> >> >discussion on the subject is almost impossible.
>> >> >
>> >> >Western news media, whether it be Fox news or otherwise, do NOT
>function
>> >as
>> >> >the media wing of murdering criminal head hacking
organizations.  Al
>> >Jazeera
>> >> >does.  Al Jazeera is to news organizations what Bin
Laden and his
>> >> >islamofascists are to world peace and multicultural
understanding.
>> >> >
>> >> >The fact is Al Jazeera is part of the enemy
operations command and
>> >control,
>> >> >and I'm on the USA side.  I'm not struggling to
understand the other
>> >side, I
>> >> >just want to kill them and keep killing them until
they see the error
>of
>> >> >attacking the USA and USA interests.  I'm not in
favor of letting the
>> >> >enemy's command and control operation known as Al Jazeera keep
>operating.
>> >I
>> >> >was in favor of taking out their broadcast tower and
satellite hookups
>> >and
>> >> >reporters and CEO and anyone and everyone in the entire enemy
>> >organization
>> >> >since 2003.  Its stupid not to do it.
>> >> >
>> >> >So bottom line for me is, I don't give a rats ass
about whether Bush
>said
>> >he
>> >> >wanted to bomb Al Jazeera.  I happen to think he was
joking, because
>he
>> >does
>> >> >what he wants to do.  I think he's wrong NOT TO HAVE
BOMBED OUT AL
>> >JAZEERA 2
>> >> >YEARS AGO.
>> >> >
>> >> >Gary
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Rich Gauszka" 
wrote in message
>> >> >news:438c6e30$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> And on the other side of the world there are
similar feelings about
>> >> >FoxNews.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The answer is not in bombing.  It really is
quite difficult to
>spread
>> >the
>> >> >> mantra of democracy while using cruise missiles
to silence the
>> >opposition.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  The U.S. military  broadcast trial censors
played into Saddam's
>hands
>> >> >> yesterday when they censored his remarks to the
trial judge. How the
>> >heck
>> >> >> did they think those remarks wouldn't see
distribution and achieve
>some
>> >> >> validity by the censoring ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "I don't want you to tell them, I want you
to order them," Saddam
>> >replied
>> >> >> hotly. "They are invaders and occupiers and
you have to order them."
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> news:438c5fa8$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> > Al Jazeera is used to encourage murder and terrorism.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:438c5d69$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> Both al-Jazeera and FoxNews are used
for the dissemination of
>> >> >propaganda.
>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> advocate bombing neither although a
deathmatch between the two
>news
>> >> >> >> organizations would be appealing. 
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Gary Britt"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:438c5530{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> > I've advocated that we take Al
Jazeera out since 2003.  I have
>no
>> >> >idea
>> >> >> > if
>> >> >> >> > Bush wants to do it.  I doubt that
he seriously wants to do it,
>> >> >unlike
>> >> >> > me.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This whole story is  a big yawn
except for the hate their own
>> >country
>> >> >> >> > crowd.
>> >> >> >> > To me the bigger story is, that we
HAVEN'T taken Al Jazeera out
>a
>> >> >long
>> >> >> >> > time
>> >> >> >> > ago.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "Rich Gauszka"
 wrote in message
>> >> >> >> > news:438c5297$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> >> >> >> >> Bushies say it's not true yet
people are being prosecuted for
>the
>> >> >leak
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/612
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> There are two memo's.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> We have had our suspicions
(argued below) that the Times memo
>and
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> > Mirror
>> >> >> >> >> memo citing Bush's plans to
bomb al-Jazeera are entirely
>> >different
>> >> >> >> > documents
>> >> >> >> >> confirmed by Peter Kilfoyle
MP, who has seen both documents.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> He was naturally reticent, but
when we aked Peter if the
>source
>> >for
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> Mirror article was related to
the 'prosecution' of and Keogh
>and
>> >> >> > O'Connor
>> >> >> >> >> over last years leak to the
Times he said:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Wholly different sources.
>> >> >> >> >> The Times used 'official'
leaks; the current document remains
>top
>> >> >> >> >> secret -
>> >> >> >> >> they are livid it is out.
>> >> >> >> >> We have also had it confirmed
that Keogh and O'Connor are only
>> >> >facing
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> >> >> set of charges, over one document.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Update 29/11 12:30: Thanks to
an eagle-eyed commenter - we
>have
>> >had
>> >> >it
>> >> >> >> >> re-confirmed in a Court Report:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Keogh, of Somerset Street,
Northampton, is charged with
>"making a
>> >> >> >> >> damaging
>> >> >> >> >> disclosure of a document
relating to international relations
>> >without
>> >> >> >> > lawful
>> >> >> >> >> authority."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> O'Connor, of Peveril Road, Old
Duston, Northampton, is accused
>of
>> >> >> >> > "receiving
>> >> >> >> >> a document through its
disclosure without lawful authority
>from a
>> >> >> >> >> Crown
>> >> >> >> >> Servant."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If what was reported by the
BBC on 17th November, prior to the
>> >> >Mirror
>> >> >> >> > story
>> >> >> >> >> is correct; That Keogh and
O'Connor are being prosecuted over
>the
>> >> >leak
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> the document 'Iraq in The
Medium Term' as published in the
>Times
>> >> >[May
>> >> >> >> > 2004],
>> >> >> >> >> and not for leaking the source
of the Mirror article then the
>> >Bliar
>> >> >> >> >> and
>> >> >> >> > his
>> >> >> >> >> official spokesman would be
leaving themselves wide open by
>> >> >describing
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> Mirror story as 'sub-judice'.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If the Mirror is correct in
it's assertion that Keogh and
>> >O'Connor
>> >> >are
>> >> >> >> > being
>> >> >> >> >> charged over the source of
their story [the transcript], then
>the
>> >> >> >> >> story
>> >> >> >> >> reported by the BBC about them
being charged over the leaking
>of
>> >the
>> >> >> >> >> 'Iraq
>> >> >> >> >> in the Medium Term' memo was a
construct, a 'beard' to cover
>up
>> >the
>> >> >> >> >> existence of the document
refered by the Mirror.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> This means our government must
have pre planned and
>disseminated
>> >the
>> >> >> > lie
>> >> >> >> > [or
>> >> >> >> >> spin if you prefer]; that
Keogh and O'connor were being
>> >prosecuted
>> >> >> >> >> over
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> leaking of the 'Iraq in the
medium term' memo.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> To cover up the existance of
the 'Lets bomb Al-Jazeera'
>> >transcript?
>> >> >> >> >> A plan derailed by the Mirror
obtaining a copy and publishing
>> >it's
>> >> >> > story.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> The BBC ran the story about
Keogh and O'Connor's prosecution
>on
>> >the
>> >> >> > 17th
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> November.
>> >> >> >> >> The Mirror state they
approached the Government with their
>story
>> >> >about
>> >> >> >> > Bush
>> >> >> >> >> wanting to Bomb al-Jazeera 24
hours before publication, on the
>22
>> >nd
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> November.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> This was four days after we
'learned' via the BBC that Keogh
>and
>> >> >> > O'Connor
>> >> >> >> >> were to be charged with the
leak of the 'Iraq in the Medium
>Term'
>> >> >> >> >> memo.
>> >> >> >> >> If this is the case, the
Mirror story did not precipitate the
>lie
>> >> >> > [spin]
>> >> >> >> >> that was reported either
wittingly or unwittingly by the BBC
>on
>> >the
>> >> >> > 17th
>> >> >> >> >> November, it exposed it.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> If we accept Peter Killfoyle's
word (and I do) that the Times
>> >> >article
>> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> the Mirror article are from
different sources, then Keogh and
>> >> >O'Connor
>> >> >> >> >> cannot be facing charges over
both leaks.
>> >> >> >> >> Either way we are being told
lies by our government, and
>either
>> >> >> > wittingly
>> >> >> >> > or
>> >> >> >> >> unwittingly by the mainstream media.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Update:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Some interesting snippets
about the exceptional use of
>Official
>> >> >> >> >> Secrets
>> >> >> >> > Act
>> >> >> >> >> which reinforce the questions
raised by this blog:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Firstly, from The Raw Story:
>> >> >> >> >> "A source familiar with
the case told RAW STORY that while
>> >> >individual
>> >> >> >> >> publications have been
targeted by the Blair administration in
>> >the
>> >> >> > past,
>> >> >> >> >> this case is particularly
extraordinary because journalists by
>> >and
>> >> >> > large
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> >> allowed the public interest
defense. Central to this case and
>> >series
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> events is the question of why
The Mirror and other news
>> >> >organizations
>> >> >> >> > would
>> >> >> >> >> accept this gag order.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "One key thing to
remember is you don't have to have signed
>> >anything
>> >> >> >> > saying
>> >> >> >> >> you would stick by the rules
and not disclose or receive
>stuff,"
>> >the
>> >> >> >> > source
>> >> >> >> >> said. "If you knowingly
received it you could be charged. But
>> >> >charging
>> >> >> >> >> journalists would fall foul of
the public interest defense, so
>> >> >> >> >> although
>> >> >> >> >> journalists are as liable to
arrest as anyone else, the case
>> >would
>> >> >> > almost
>> >> >> >> >> certainly fail if it could be
shown to be in the public
>interest
>> >> >that
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> information be made public."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Secondly, from the Guardian article:
>> >> >> >> >> "A QC specialising in
media law said: "If the material has
>> >already
>> >> >> >> >> been
>> >> >> >> >> published it's pretty hard to
see how the subsequent
>publication
>> >of
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> > same
>> >> >> >> >> material will either amount to
a disclosure - because how can
>you
>> >> >> >> >> disclose
>> >> >> >> >> something that's already been
circulated? - or satisfy the
>test
>> >that
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> publication is damaging."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> And as Christopher Reed says
in a Counter Punch article:
>> >> >> >> >> "There is one more likely
outcome in this outrageous affair.
>It
>> >is
>> >> >> >> >> that
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> Blair government, in trying to
banish from public consumption
>the
>> >> >> >> > ill-timed
>> >> >> >> >> and appallingly judged remark
of the world's most powerful
>> >> >> >> >> commander-in-chief, will
prolong its life -- or even give it a
>> >new
>> >> >> >> >> one.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Older commenators are
recalling the absurdities of Britain's
>> >> >> >> >> Spycatcher
>> >> >> >> >> scandal of 20 years ago. In
that case, a British ex-spy from
>MI5
>> >> >> >> >> called
>> >> >> >> >> Peter Wright sought to publish
a book in which he revealed
>> >> >> >> >> embarrassing
>> >> >> >> >> secrets of his former
employers, who in turned sought urgently
>to
>> >> >> > prevent
>> >> >> >> >> exactly that. To silence two
newspapers that were revealing
>some
>> >of
>> >> >> >> > Wright's
>> >> >> >> >> spicier stories, the attorney
general invoked the Official
>> >Secrets
>> >> >> >> >> Act.
>> >> >> >> >> He
>> >> >> >> >> spent much time, energy -- and
public money -- in vain. The
>book
>> >was
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> >> >> only published but became a
best-seller because of the
>publicity.
>> >> >> >> >> Finally,
>> >> >> >> >> the British government lost
its case before the European Court
>of
>> >> >> >> >> Human
>> >> >> >> >> Rights.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Going back to the 1980s,
official British brandishing of its
>> >> >> >> >> oppressive
>> >> >> >> >> Official Secrets Act has
almost always ended in humiliation
>for
>> >its
>> >> >> >> >> champions. The present case of
Bush and the Arab TV Bombing
>seems
>> >> >> > likely
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> add to these fiascoes."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> We should hopefully know more
tomorrow, when the case starts:
>if
>> >> >nowt
>> >> >> >> >> else
>> >> >> >> >> that the government prefers to
keep digging deceiving when in
>a
>> >> >> >> >> hole...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Update 29/11/05
>> >> >> >> >> Scaryduck went to the meeting
yesterday and Reports Here.
>Salient
>> >> >> > points
>> >> >> >> >> include:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> * A source (which Maguire will
not name) approached the Mirror
>> >with
>> >> >> >> > details
>> >> >> >> >> of a top secret memo, which
had "accidentally" found its way
>into
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> > papers
>> >> >> >> >> of a certain MP. Noting that
the memo contained, amongst other
>> >> >things,
>> >> >> >> >> details of UK and US troop
movements in Iraq, said MP turned
>it
>> >back
>> >> >> >> >> to
>> >> >> >> >> Downing Street.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> * The memo also contains
details of a conversation between
>George
>> >W
>> >> >> > Bush,
>> >> >> >> >> and his London spokesman Tony
Blair, in which the Leader of
>the
>> >Free
>> >> >> >> >> World
>> >> >> >> >> reveals plans to attack Al
Jazeera TV, a civilian broadcaster
>> >> >financed
>> >> >> > by
>> >> >> >> >> the government of Qatar. Mr
Blair, for all his faults, tells
>him
>> >> >that
>> >> >> >> >> this
>> >> >> >> >> may not be a particularly good
idea, and other, unnamed
>officials
>> >> >tend
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> concur with Tony's line of thinking.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> * The Mirror, out of courtesy,
informs Downing Street that
>they
>> >will
>> >> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> >> publishing details of this
memo. Downing Street has a hissy
>fit,
>> >and
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> White House, according to
Maguire "went beserk", leading to
>> >threats
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> Official Secrets Act against
anybody who is even considering
>> >> >> >> >> publishing
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> document.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> * Of course," said
Maguire, "the government wouldn't be using
>the
>> >> >> >> >> Official
>> >> >> >> >> Secrets Act if the reports
weren't true. This government will
>go
>> >to
>> >> >> > great
>> >> >> >> >> lengths to keep this memo secret."
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> To date NOT ONE mainstream
news outfit has picked up on the
>two
>> >> >memos
>> >> >> >> > story
>> >> >> >> >> and the implications. Perhaps
the future of news is in
>blogging.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Trackback URL for this post:
>> >> >> >> >>
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/trackback/612
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5