From: Ellen K. 

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 22nd
>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