From: "Gary Britt" 

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