It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush ready to bomb Al Jazeera Headquarters.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Did you notice the website that article is from?!? Islamicawaking.com

I would never trust a site like that as a source.

I also see that there is a link to the UK's guardian which doesn't work and it is also my understanding the the guardian is a rag paper with about as much credibility as the Weekly World News.




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Of course, any media source reporting unpleasant facts about the Dear Leader must therefore be lying, and should probably be attacked as Enemies Of The State. Time to turn your Tomahawks on London, kiddies, that'll learn 'em...

I guess we need to bomb the Dutch too, as Reuters is reporting on it now. Frankly, only once we bomb the entire planet back to the stone age will our Fearless Leader's name be unsullied...

[edit on 11/23/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
^^^ Seems most of the media will pick this up, they don't want to be left off the bandwagon

Interesting how the western press is " oh so believable " when it suits someones agenda.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Bush ready to bomb Al-Jazeera Headquarters

Just another off the wall set of questions:
What is the real issue here anyways if the memo and allegations are true?
Did anyone have issue when past president Clinton and Gen. Clark decided to bomb Serb TV [ie: Radio Televizija Srbija]?
"Clinton the New Oklahoma Bomber"

Would the targeting of Al-Jazeera have been any different?






seekerof

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Yes, the bombing of Serb TV was despicable, one of many reasons I am no fan of Clinton.

Yes, the bombing of Al JAzeera would be very different, seeing as they're based in a friendly country.

So you've made a tactical retreat eh, from saying "this never happened" to saying "this would have been justifable?" Do considerations other than simple expediency ever enter into the eqaution?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
So you've made a tactical retreat eh, from saying "this never happened" to saying "this would have been justifable?" Do considerations other than simple expediency ever enter into the eqaution?


You may term it as you see fit.
In persisting to do so, please re-read what I said:


What is the real issue here anyways if the memo and allegations are true?

You are aware that I said "if", xmotex?
There is no tactical retreat.
Simply putting this matter in a larger historical context, whether the TV station was in an alleged ally nation or not.






seekerof



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Seeker:

Do you think that FDR or Truman would have targeted Tokyo Rose during WWII if they could have?


Go rent The Control Room if you can. It's a documentary about Al Jazeera, and it's fascinating.

They are NOT Osama's mouthpiece. They are not propagandists. They are NOT Arab apologists. They are NOT terrorists. These are all things that Bush and Cheney and especially Rumsfeld cried about.

Yes, they show dead bodies on their reports. Because that's the reality. People die during the war. They are not under the same restrictions as the US media.



They are trying to do their job and report the news. The bias they have is their geographic location.

Tokyo Rose was pure propaganda, Al Jazeera is trying to report what they feel is important to THEIR AUDIENCE, just as Fox, ABC, NBC, etc.

See The Control Room, it will honestly make you feel differently when you actually see these reporters and editors as PEOPLE (mostly ex-BBCers).


jako



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
What is the real issue here anyways if the memo and allegations are true?
seekerof


U really don't see an issue here ? Cause I, among many others do.
If you have no problem with the president of the USA wishing death on innocent people then I don't even know what to tell U.

Shall we let him go around bombing people and places he doesn't care for ? Hell, why not! Let's roll out the red carpet for the NWO!!
*insert loud cheers from the crowd*
Please.

Please tell me you're not serious, because the fact that people even think like that is scary.

I bet everything I own that had this been Al Qaida "joking" about or seriously wanting to (which is what I believe Dubya had every intention when he pulled down his pants to even mention this) bombing CNN s**t would be hittin the fan and George Bush would have brought the cow.

smh un-insertexpletivehere-believable :shk:

Jakomo, U my friend are a gem!
that could not have been said better! we need more people like U on this planet, that's for damn sure



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
It suprises me how people on this thread can justify, or i should say ATTEMPT to justify this memo. Also trying to deny its existance. There is a gag order on all british press (tv, web, print...) from leaking any of this memo. If they do, they get prosecuted under the official secrets act. If you are as (how can i politely put it) THICK and blind as to still think the memo doesn't exist after that - then maybe you ought to buy i "i heart george bush" t shirt. Secondly, assuming what is said in the memo wasn't said in jest - what the justification for bush wanting to bomb al jazaeera? What threat have they posed to the US or the UK? please provide evidence.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
You guys are way over this memo crap. One person say that Bush was serious and the other person says he was joking. Now we have to see the memo to be certain and to conclude in our view if Bush was serious or not.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

"i heart george bush"


You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Now I’m sorry that I don't automatically believe leaks from "secret" memos, there have been too many politically motivated “Secret Memos” in the past that have been anything but that.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Now I’m sorry that I don't automatically believe leaks from "secret" memos, there have been too many politically motivated “Secret Memos” in the past that have been anything but that.


Nor should you automatically believe secret leaked memo's - until they become official secret leaked memo's. Why on earth are two people arrested for leaking these memo's, and the entire british media gagged from printing them "for matters of national security"? Is it because they are bogus? I mean, come on...

[edit on 23-11-2005 by paranoia]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
For a conspiracy site of supposed critical thinkers, it's sad how many people fall in line with whatever the mainstream press feeds them. You people need to stop letting your hate for Bush, Republicans, Fox, jews, blacks, cheeseburgers, or whatever cloud your critical thinking and judgement. Many of the same people who post anti-religion rants are the 1st ones to throw their belief at anything that fits their predispositions. A bit hypocritical don't you think? Belief should not be given away so easy. It is not up to anyone to prove a negative (ie something DIDN'T happen). It is the antagonist's responsibility to prove the accusation.

So we have another Downing street memo, Dan Rather forged document story, Katrina death count...etc.

Until I see the proof I believe nothing. Quite frankly, the credibility of the left wing in this country and abroad is at an all time low. They have shown time and time again that they relegate to lies and distortions as their ideals don't fit in with majority of this country. They think if they tell the lies long enough, maybe people will start believing them.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
*siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*

I too am finding it hard to understand why people are still questioning the memo's existance with all that has come to light. But oh well, I ain't gonna lose any sleep over anyone's disillusions


Deltaboy, if I may ask, why is if he was serious or joking of significance ? aren't they equally still shocking ?

I don't see who could find "joking" about bombing a network to cause death to innocent people funny. Especially in light of his supposed WOT, he of all people should be sensitive to this issue. Or is it just that we know better and that is why some people are justifying that this man inparticular is implicated in this type of BS ?

hmmmmmmm




[edit on 23-11-2005 by ImJaded]



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apoc
Until I see the proof I believe nothing. Quite frankly, the credibility of the left wing in this country and abroad is at an all time low. They have shown time and time again that they relegate to lies and distortions as their ideals don't fit in with majority of this country.


Just to re-iterate, the media in the UK are completely gagged and tied up from reporting or quoting anything from the said Memo. So who exactly is lieing and distorting anything? If anyone is to now print anything regarding the memo, the journalist or editor can get arrested. This hasn't happened before. What more do you want as proof that this document is official? Tony blair and george bush coming around to your house and telling you face to face? Let's deny ignorance and stop stumbling around this most obvious fact. Let's ask ourselves WHY we are prevented from hearing or reading about this memo? Out of interest, are there any internet sites out there or links to this memo? Or are ATS equally bound and gagged by this (as some members would say) "fake" memo?



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:04 PM
link   
There is another thread on this same exact topic and just to set the record straight:

The lead off article did say the memo was "TOP SECRET" and the definition of Top Secret is information, the disclosure of which would cause severe and irreparable harm to the country. Whoever first published anything from the memo should be prosecuted, as should anyone who provided them the information. And yes, that means the media is not free to say, print, or show anything they want and they never have been. There are limitations on "Freedom of the Press" and disclosing classified information is one of those limitations. You may argue that the "Memo" was wrongly classified (and it might have been), but it was classified and so printing anything from it is a crime.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
You may argue that the "Memo" was wrongly classified (and it might have been), but it was classified and so printing anything from it is a crime.


Correct. And so this memo, whatever you may think of it (and parts of it HAS been published - the sunday telegraph i believe), isn't made up. Now we can move on?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
And so this means it does exist
that solves the "authenticity of it" for those still questioning.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by yanchek
Bush ready to bomb Al Jazeera Headquarters?

They'll probably just kill some poor janitor working the night shift.


LOL, wasn't that a line from that movie where Michael Douglas played the president

Was it called " The American President " ?


Good memory.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I just came across this article.




www.sciencedaily.com

Head of Al-Jazeera wants to see memo

The head of Al-Jazeera has asked British Prime Minister Tony Blair to release a memo that reportedly shows President Bush talking about bombing the network.

The Mirror, a British tabloid, said last week the memo included a transcript in which Blair talks the president out of thoughts of attacking the Arab-language news network's Qatar headquarters.

"Al-Jazeera is in the foremost of free form and democracy in the Arab world and therefore this news that we have heard is very concerning," Wadah Khanfar told the BBC in an interview. "So we demand a proper explanation and we would like to know the facts about this letter."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join