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.

 

Pre Meditated Murder Planned by Bush??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   
The link to this story is true.

www.lasvegassun.com...

Al-Jazeera was one of the only first groups in 2003 to start broadcasting pictures of dead iraqi's and dead u.s. soligers and donald rumsfeld and others as people might remember told the media "not to report dead soligers" because it would make the war look bad.

In a attempt to get Al-Jazeera to stop broadcasting several things happened. The Iraq Media Center which was close to U.S. Central Command In bagdad was communicating constantly with reporters to make sure none of them accidently got in the line of fire.

Al-Jazeera tried for months to communicate with the U.S. in bagdad and never got threw until they met a U.S. marine who eventually started to give them interviews. But the establishment elite in washington and bagdad would not have that so they started a tempary relationship with Al-Jazeera's reporters and soon after they gave there positons so the U.S. Military would not bomb them accidently and soon after two of there reporters were Murdered.

After Al-Jazeera's reporters were Murdered in 2003 it was shortly there after around april of 2003 when the U.S. Media finnally decided to start reporting some of the fact's of what was really going on over in Iraq.

The same thing continued until later to try to shut up leaks U.S. reporters started getting killed over in Iraq and thats when so called leaks started to occur in the news. Later to try to shut up reporting in bagdad Al-Jazeera was bought by FOX news.

Although I would have absoultly no evidence of anyone that might have had copies of these or other reports that just happened to every once in a while make national headlines and no one can prove a thing.



Falcon


mod edit to add question mark and for spelling in title

[edit on 10-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
The subject line "Bush planned premeditated murder" is a little strong, considering the content of the linked story. It was probably just a bad joke, like President Reagan's "Bombing begins in 5 minutes" about the Soviet Union.

(emphasis added)

Two men accused of leaking details of a memo that reportedly included references to President Bush discussing bombing Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera will face trial in April, a judge said Monday.

The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's suggestion was serious.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
The subject line "Bush planned premeditated murder" is a little strong, considering the content of the linked story. It was probably just a bad joke, like President Reagan's "Bombing begins in 5 minutes" about the Soviet Union.


now that was funny...

Ahh, how quickly humour dies tho..

Seems we outlawed a country, then started bombing them anyways..

... probably would of turned out a lot better HAD it been a joke.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
The subject line "Bush planned premeditated murder" is a little strong, considering the content of the linked story. It was probably just a bad joke, like President Reagan's "Bombing begins in 5 minutes" about the Soviet Union.

(emphasis added)

The Daily Mirror said its sources disagreed on whether Bush's suggestion was serious.


Ahh, deniability... it's such a handy thing.

Well, the history of US dealings with al-Jazeera would certainly point to there being a deliberate intent to degrade their ability to project their biased interpretation of US actions into the media.

That's Government speak for "they're giving out information we want kept quiet, so we'd better kill a few reporters, that'll cramp their style." And in fact it's not just al-Jazeera that the US military regards as a problem.

Here is an article by Robert Fisk in which he describes watching an Abrams tank shelling the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, aiming directly at the Reuters offices there. According to the US' account, there was sniper fire at the tank which stopped after shells were fired. According to Fisk, who was between the hotel and the tank, and to video shot by a French news agency, there was no sniper fire. Colin Powell next day tried to justify the attack.

Fisk also mentions the single rocket that took out the al-Jazeera offices:


But it gets worse. A few hours before I visited Samia, I was in Beirut with Mohamed Jassem al-Ali, the managing director of the Qatar-based Arab al-Jazeera channel. On that same day – 8 April – that the American tank fired at the Reuters office in Baghdad, an American aircraft fired a missile at the al-Jazeera office in Baghdad. Mr al-Ali has given me a copy of his letter to Victoria Clarke, the US Assistant Secretary of State of Defence for Public Affairs in Washington, sent on 24 February this year. In the letter, he gives the address and the map coordinates of the station’s office in Baghdad – Lat: 33.19/29.08, Lon 44.24/03.63 – adding that civilian journalists would be working in the building.

The Americans were outraged at al-Jazeera’s coverage of the civilian victims of US bombing raids. And on 8 April, less than three hours before the Reuters office was attacked, an American aircraft fired a single missile at the al-Jazeera office — at those precise map coordinates Mr al-Ali had sent to Ms Clarke – and killed the station’s reporter Tareq Ayoub. “We find these events,” Mr al-Ali wrote in his slightly inaccurate English, “unjustifiable, unacceptable, arousing all forms of anger and rejection and most of all need an explanation.”

And what did he get? Victoria Clarke wrote a letter that was as inappropriate as it was “economical with the truth”. She offered her “condolences” to the family and colleagues of Mr Ayoub and then went on to write a preachy note to al-Jazeera. “Being close to the action means being close to danger,” she wrote. “...we have gone to extraordinary [sic] lengths in Iraq to avoid civilian casualties. Unfortunately, even our best efforts will not prevent some innocents from getting caught in the crossfire [sic]... Sometimes this results in tragedy. War by its very nature is tragic and sad...”

Pardon me? Al-Jazeera asks why its office was targeted and Ms Clarke tells the dead man’s employer that war is “sad”? I don’t believe this. General Blount lied about his tank crew on the Tigris river. “General” Powell went along with this lie. And now Ms Clarke – who clearly was told to write what she wrote since her letter is so trite – does not even attempt to explain why an American jet killed Al Jazeera’s reporter (just like an American missile was fired at Al Jazeera’s office in Kabul in 2001).

A Ukrainian, a Spaniard, an Arab. They all died within hours of each other. I suspect they were killed because the US – someone in the Pentagon though not, I’m sure, Ms Clarke – decided to try to “close down” the press. Of course, American journalists are not investigating this. They should – because they will be next.


There are other incidents, notably the murder of the journalist who was investigating connections between the US and death squads in Iraq: a couple of the people who ran US-backed death squads in El Salvador showed up and - guess what? - soon afterwards, death squads started up in Iraq. I have a thread about that here.

Naomi Klein, author of No Logo, wrote a reply to the US ambassador in London, who had objected to an article she had written in The Guardian. He had said that her charge that the US was "eliminating" doctors who had communicated civilian casualties was baseless: this article is her reply.


US authorities have denied that hundreds of civilians were killed during last April's siege, and have lashed out at the sources of these reports. For instance, an unnamed "senior American officer", speaking to the New York Times last month, labelled Falluja general hospital "a centre of propaganda". But the strongest words were reserved for Arab TV networks. When asked about al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya's reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed in Falluja, Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, replied that "what al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable ... " Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja - but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.

Eliminating doctors
The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casual ties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital - preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit.

Whether the clinic was targeted or destroyed accidentally, the effect was the same: to eliminate many of Falluja's doctors from the war zone. As Dr Jumaili told the Independent on November 14: "There is not a single surgeon in Falluja." When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.


She also gave a succinct account of the killing of the journalists in the Palestine Hotel and the bombing of the al-Jazeera offices:


It's not the first time journalists in Iraq have faced this kind of intimidation. When US forces invaded Baghdad in April 2003, US Central Command urged all unembedded journalists to leave the city. Some insisted on staying and at least three paid with their lives. On April 8, a US aircraft bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad offices, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub. Al-Jazeera has documentation proving it gave the coordinates of its location to US forces.

On the same day, a US tank fired on the Palestine hotel, killing José Couso, of the Spanish network Telecinco, and Taras Protsiuk, of Reuters. Three US soldiers are facing a criminal lawsuit from Couso's family, which alleges that US forces were well aware that journalists were in the Palestine hotel and that they committed a war crime.


There is a pattern here. There's plenty of evidence that Rumsfeld, for one, views al-Jazeera as "the enemy": this Washington Times article shows that very quickly the US funded al-Iraqiya as a US-friendly (i.e., pro-US biased) source of news for the region, which is viewed with contempt by the locals, as one might expect. He doesn't want other news agencies giving reports on civilian casualties:


"I can definitely say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week, after the station repeatedly asserted that Marines had killed hundreds of civilians in Fallujah. "You know what our forces do. They don't go around killing hundreds of civilians. That's just outrageous nonsense. It's disgraceful what that station is doing."
But this time, Al Iraqiya was on the air with a different perspective. Its reporters filed reports from the scene, quoting the Marines.


So the idea that Bush would want to bomb an al-Jazeera office is not such a stretch, and the idea that Blair would try to restrain him isn't either.

No doubt there are people who will continue to deny that the US targets journalists... but they're in denial, it's as simple as that.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
i'm not sure this was bush's doing

rumsfeld is a better culprit. the war has been run by him from step one, so it would make sense that he's controlling the media coverage the most



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Why am I not surprised..?

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bolton.. they're all fingers of a larger hand that are slowly wringing the life from this earth.

The other hand is rewriting history.
Power is in the hands of those who control information. Control the information (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc) you control the minds.

[edit on 10/10/2006 by aecreate]




top topics
 
0

log in

join