ALJAZEERA english international service is "up"

[1feral1]

One of the things that they do make a good point about is to give news in such a way that it will allow people in the U.S. / Canada / UK to connect at least on some level with the people from the middle east. I don't think the general populace knows very much about their culture or how they live.

They make a good point?

Mate, they are they ENEMY. They and their supporters are killing your countrymen, and promoting it to boot! AJ are disgusting beyond all belief, and their plug should be pulled.

I know I sure and the helll don't want any connections with this festering boil on the arsehole of the world, because thats exactly what it is.

AJ is a propaganda tool for terrorism and the promotion of anti-westernism, perhaps influencing many near-radical muslims within the west, maybe in your city!

Do you really what to know how they live? Come here and see for yourself!



Wes

 

[1feral1]

  Hmmmm?  Ever been to Qatar?  I have numerous times and "The Peninsula" is funded by the Emir of Qatar!  It is also interesting to note that the 10th anniversary special had one of the leads of "The Penninsula" saying the west was the enemy.  My question is how do they get choice video showing attacks on coalition forces?  Reporting the news or making the news?  Or in bed with the terrorists?  Time to find an alternative to oil and Natural Gas, yesterday!

Sir,

I fully support your quest for alternative fuels yesterday!

If I could have a beer and toast this thought with you, I truly I would.


Regards ,

Wes

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

Does anybody know enough Arabic to compare the Arab and English versions?

A very little,  and some stories are just translations while some stories run only in one language.  I thought I noticed a few cases of "different angles" but I see that in french and English newspapers.

http://www.google.ca/language_tools?hl=en  <-- google has translation software.  It does Arabic - about as well as it does french/German,  but that is to be expected.  You can get the basic meaning,  but I assume just like with the other languages "subtle" messages are lost.

(My Arabic is horrible,  and I havn't used it in years - I gave it up to study Dari - which I'm worse in)

 

[jollyjacktar]

I would be interested to see what all the fuss is all about.  Propaganda gobshite from the enemy as mentioned by Wesley it may be, but my Dad and his Regimental mates would have listened to Lord HawHaw in their day for pure entertainment value alone if nothing else.  I would find it interesting from the point of seeing what drives the Devil so to speak.  How else is one to know your enemy as counseled by Sun Tzu as partially listed below.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html
SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR
THE OLDEST MILITARY TREATISE IN THE WORLD

Translated from the Chinese
By LIONEL GILES, M.A. (1910)

III. ATTACK BY STRATAGEM
18. Hence the saying:  If you know the enemy
    and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
    hundred battles.  If you know yourself but not the enemy,
    for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will
    succumb in every battle.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Our Senior Service Rep above is bang on

The attached link is a look back at how Containment or better Engagement came into play. http://www.dni.gov/nic/articles_x_+_911.htm

Every conflict situation is the same - and it builds up into the campaign that Wesley Down Under is supporting now.

The trouble from our perspective - if we can generalise - is the powers that be will consistantly downplay a bad situation and then the pot boils over and then its "we never saw that coming" - time after time after time.

The take home point is - this is the norm - and peace (Containment) as we knew it supposedly from 1945 - 1989 - is the abnormal condition.

If we look back to the wars of the British Empire pre 1901 - everybody is on the make - to rip off a piece for themselves.

The big boys have no option but to guide the willing - channel the reluctant and clobber the fools.

Most of the work will be done by commercial corporations as it was first done in history through entities like the British East India Company or manufacturers seeking low paid workers which was the case post 1783 with UK and the new USA.

Trade grows and compliance follows.

Its a long drawn out process. Lots of medals and misery to go around for long into the future.

All that said - as soon as a military talking head, from who evers uniformed forces comes on TV you must ask yourself - where`s the Winston Churchill character who`s supposed to be leading this dog and pony show. If you only see the Military Talking Head - its a cue that the government doesn`t have the political strength to talk to the voter. And so the default position is the main diplomatic effort is all about the soldiers buying time until the elected reps get their act together.

 

[Kilo_302]

Funny I thought the job of a journalist was to report the news?

Anyone can report the news. It's the good journalists who uncover the news, or expose previously unknown facts about newsworthy events. Look at Bernstein and Woodward. They reported the news, but did additional research, and as a result got Nixon to resign. That's what "monitoring the centres of power" is all about, and it's crucial to any healthy democracy.

Hmmmm?  Ever been to Qatar?  I have numerous times and "The Peninsula" is funded by the Emir of Qatar!  It is also interesting to note that the 10th anniversary special had one of the leads of "The Penninsula" saying the west was the enemy.  My question is how do they get choice video showing attacks on coalition forces?  Reporting the news or making the news?  Or in bed with the terrorists?  Time to find an alternative to oil and Natural Gas, yesterday!

How do they get choice videos of attacks on coalition forces? Perhaps there is an embedding program for AJ journalists wishing to report on insurgents. I doubt very much there is, but it is a fact that Western network and independent journalists as well as AJ journalists have interviewed insurgent leaders, and in some cases, filmed attacks. I do not see anything wrong with that. Coalition forces embed journalists all the time. I agree that the line can be blurred between combatant and journalist. Apparently Oliver North used an M-16 in combat during OIF, and he was there strictly as a journalist. There was also a reporter, I think from CBS who admitted at times he was considering using a rifle when he was pinned down with a US army unit underneath a bridge during the attack on Baghdad. Similarily, Robert Fisk admitted accepting an AK from a Soviet soldier in a convoy as they were travelling through a route known to be popular for mujahadeen ambushes. It goes both ways.

As far as AJ is concerned, the reason they seem to get such dramatic footage is firstly, they will air it. You won't see CNN or FOX news airing graphic attacks on coalition forces, or anyone else for that matter. This doesn't mean they don't possess such footage. Secondly, since most AJ reporters are Arab, they can more effectively report in dangerous areas in Baghdad, the result being that they see more attacks, by both Coalition forces and insurgents. They may  be biased, but do you really think the media we have access to in the West is not?

 

[blacktriangle]

The only thing I find Al jazeera good for is when I need a very biased article. They make study papers about bias in the media super easy...

 

[armyvern]

The only thing I find Al jazeera good for is when I need a very biased article. They make study papers about bias in the media super easy...

Really? Ever actually watched the channel? I have. Want to watch a Muslim woman without headcovering beaking off about her Governments failings and shortfalls ? You'll find all this and more on Al Jazeera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAXoDHy3_Ek&mode=related&search=

I've read about Al Jazeera and listened to the gabbering about them on the western TV channels too, and what the western media writes and broadcasts about them is not necessarily what you get. They are no more biased than the western media IMHO.

 

[blacktriangle]

Really? Ever actually watched the channel? I have. Want to watch a Muslim woman without headcovering beaking off about her Governments failings and shortfalls ? You'll find all this and more on Al Jazeera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAXoDHy3_Ek&mode=related&search=

I've read about Al Jazeera and listened to the gabbering about them on the western TV channels too, and what the western media writes and broadcasts about them is not necessarily what you get. They are no more biased than the western media IMHO.

Point taken. I have only ever used the website, and maybe a half dozen articles. In those few articles, the bias was VERY notable but I will try to be more objective from now on when reading.

Thanks for the link.

Regards,

 

[armyvern]

One can always find what they look for on the internet.

Search google for "bias on Al Jazeera" and that's the hits you'll get.

Search Google for "Bias on XXX (insert Western media org here)" you'll get the same results.

Vern

 

[1feral1]

Well, the other day in the CP I was watching the english version of AJ. The weather for the middle east came up on a map, and guess what, Israel was not enev mentioned, ha! Everywhere else but!

Goes to show you, doesn't it.


Regards,

Wes

 

[geo]

Wes,
did they have Israel cut out of the map?
or was it that they felt it wasn't particularly important or called it "greater palestine"?

 

[1feral1]

Wes,
did they have Israel cut out of the map?
or was it that they felt it wasn't particularly important or called it "greater palestine"?

Not that it was cut out, but more so ignored. Unless you new where it was you would not know if it was there.

Cheers,

Wes