From: Ellen K. 

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