From: "Gary Britt" 

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