From: "Gary Britt" 

I think we have started that kind of operation, but its still developing.

Gary

"Ellen K."  wrote in message
news:64v9p1dd9em10nomomr6r3fq0o72op3i32{at}4ax.com...
> 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