The personal insults stop NOW.
Discuss the topic without resorting to name-calling.

-B.

Earlier in the day, Arabic-language satellite television channel Al Jazeera announced it had received a videotape, which it said it would not air, showing one of four Italians held hostage in Iraq being killed.

at least it's not airing that. Sick Expletives.

EDIT:The sick expletives being the killers, of course. I actually wonder what effect that would have to the arab world, if they did air it. Would it be outrage, cheering, or a mixture of both?

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by junglejake]

Ok, wait a second. Something just dawned on me about this. The terrorists send their information to Al Jazeera, and Al Jazeera decides to air it or not. This would mean the terrorist would have to be handing the tape to one of the reporters. That reporter would recieve it and not do a thing about a murderer standing in front of him, or, if it passed a few hands, not do anything to follow the line to the terrorist.

Even if they mail it, there's ways to track the stuff down. Email would probably be the only semi-annonymous way to send it, and we know they don't send via email this tape, at least, because it was a tape accompanied with a note...Hmmm...John might be onto something...

The number of times the mass media in Amerika has lied to us far outweighs any deciept perpetrated by Al-Jazeera. Examples galore if you look.
If one chooses not to get their information from as many varied sources as possible, then they are in effect contributing to their own brainwashing. They are limiting not only their intellectual capacity, but their ability to reason and think as well.
Knowledge is power, but limited knowledge spoon-fed to you from one source is propaganda.
Is this not fact?
To sum it up, i put no more faith in CNN than i do in Al-Jazeera.

Originally posted by aware
The number of times the mass media in Amerika has lied to us far outweighs any deciept perpetrated by Al-Jazeera. Examples galore if you look.
If one chooses not to get their information from as many varied sources as possible, then they are in effect contributing to their own brainwashing. They are limiting not only their intellectual capacity, but their ability to reason and think as well.
Knowledge is power, but limited knowledge spoon-fed to you from one source is propaganda.
Is this not fact?
To sum it up, i put no more faith in CNN than i do in Al-Jazeera.

To say the American media has lied more then Al Jazeera is just biased. You listen to the american media often, not Al Jazeera, so you catch the lies on American TV much more often. But yes, you must get all your information from multiple sources. I prefer to get it from both sides, too. Read French, Iraqi, GErman, Chinese, American, and Australian newspapers durring the UN debate over Iraq. This, I believe, gave me the knowlege to form a legitimate opinion and defend it. I believe what I believe with knowlege, not blind faith. (And that includes my following Christ.)

Originally posted by aware
The number of times the mass media in Amerika has lied to us far outweighs any deciept perpetrated by Al-Jazeera. Examples galore if you look.
If one chooses not to get their information from as many varied sources as possible, then they are in effect contributing to their own brainwashing. They are limiting not only their intellectual capacity, but their ability to reason and think as well.
Knowledge is power, but limited knowledge spoon-fed to you from one source is propaganda.
Is this not fact?
To sum it up, i put no more faith in CNN than i do in Al-Jazeera.

I read it all, everything. I cross reference about everything on a few sites that have search perimeters that sprawl the search to I would say about 85% of the news sources on the planet that are in english. I think you didn't look into it at all, hell you don't even know how to spell America. I would say from actually researching the subject that the amount of times CNN has out right lied to the public is minimal, so please show me these examples galore. Although as I pointed out this thread isn't about CNN I would be glad to look at your point of reference if you have one. Al-Jazeera runs their news network like a Muslim super hero network with western values as the villain. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by J0HNSmith

I read it all, everything. (Everything?) I cross reference about everything .........hell you don't even know how to spell America. (actually i do know how to spell America, its where i grew up, ameriKa unfortunatly is what it turned into. Dont worry tho, we're gonna fix it) I would say from actually researching the subject that the amount of times CNN has out right lied to the public is minimal, (In my own observations, which i admit i can only watch ANY news channel for about three minutes before the propoganda starts to make me nausious, I have witnessed reporter after reporter ask standard prearranged questions. Never new questions, always the same old dog and pony show. I have even noticed that anchors/reporters who wear an amerikan flag pin on their lapel tend to preach the party word the loudest. Now, telling part of the truth constitutes telling mostly a lie in my book, and that is exactly what CNN AND Al-Jazeera do. Both lie/tell half truths and SPIN it to reflect their view. That is FACT, and if you are so naieve to believe that CNN doesnt have an agenda just like Al-Jazeera then comrade, the new amerika (oceania) is the place for you!)so please show me these examples galore. (open your eyes)....... Al-Jazeera runs their news network like a Muslim super hero network with western values as the villain And what exactly are western values? "I used to think that only Americas way, way was right. But now the Holy dollar rules everybodys lives, gotta make a million doesnt matter who dies" Geoff Tate. What exactly are western values? Prove me wrong.

I will sum it all up again..I put NO MORE FAITH in CNN than i do in Al-Jazeera
The truth lies somewhere between the two, thus you CANNOT discount one because it is the balance that keeps the other in check.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by aware]

IMO, any reporting that comes out of Iraq that has been vetted by military censorship team over there (i.e. nearly all American news outlets/reporting in Iraq) is far more likely manipulated and unreliable than that from any independent news source--including, especially, Al Jazeera.

I laugh at the frequent use of saying Al Jeezera is biased. Everyone is biased, its a ridiculus term, anyone has their own social, politicial and religious agendas. The truth is never recorded because humans don't have the ability to remember what really happened only what their senses happened to pick up at the time and what their vaguring brains remember. Its best to read the news from as many sources as you can, get all the angles and make your own judgement, don't trust the western media just because you are western. Al-Jazeera has strong religious motiviations but most of the Western Media is owned by a small group of media tycoons and control what they want to be aired, just as Aljazeera does.

Terrorists being traced when they deliever their videos to Al-Jazeera. Talk about laughs. Every heard of a middle man? Tracing the postal service? Erm, the only way is the post mark and I think they will be clever enough to post it in a box not outside their house.

Good show, MrSteve,

I had to laugh at that bit about the tapes being so easily traced..as if Osama (or "Tim Osman" as he was known in the US in the 80s) was going to just walk up and say "here," scratch his beard a minute, and jump back on his camel.

The CIA is very expert in planting evidence. I am sure they could get one of their production tapes into the hands of Al Jazeera anonymously.

Interesting. You're all typing but are you really saying anything? How about this, next time before you mindlessly type in a thread making accusations why not 1. STICK TO THE TOPIC and 2. BACK UP WHAT YOUR SATING WITH FACTS. I know for you guys it seems a lot easier to say something because you like how it sounds but it's meaningless because it's supported by premises that are nonexistent. And, no telling me to "open my eyes" is not a way to present evidence of your point. You don't know what western values are? Go look it up, I can't help you if you can't help yourself.

I'd venture to say that the real dog and pony show is going on in the 4 threads above this one. So either find some research to back up what you're saying or keep the baseless crapola on someone elses thread.

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by J0HNSmith]

"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Police have arrested a correspondent for Qatar-based Al-Jazeera TV at his home in southern Spain accusing him of having links to the al Qaeda terrorist group."

Maybe not all Al-Jazeera reporters are terrorists but some of them are, FACT."

Fact? No an accusation is not fact.I think you should wait until there is a conviction before it is a fact.

Now if we take a different view and look at western journalists being a traditional cover for spies.....

JB: Great post, brother!! LMAO...Preach it!!

Originally posted by mepatriot
I had to laugh at that bit about the tapes being so easily traced..as if Osama (or "Tim Osman" as he was known in the US in the 80s) was going to just walk up and say "here," scratch his beard a minute, and jump back on his camel.

You obviously didn't really read my post, just the gist of it. Reread it, and then attack the content, not just the first line.

Originally posted by John bull 1
"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Police have arrested a correspondent for Qatar-based Al-Jazeera TV at his home in southern Spain accusing him of having links to the al Qaeda terrorist group."

Maybe not all Al-Jazeera reporters are terrorists but some of them are, FACT."

Fact? No an accusation is not fact.I think you should wait until there is a conviction before it is a fact.

Now if we take a different view and look at western journalists being a traditional cover for spies.....

Ok, I thought he was convicted, the article I posted was old. I could be wrong.

As far as journalists being a traditional cover for spies, not since the early 80's I believe. It wasn't "traditional" either, it was a few CIA agents who had CNN press passes.

Well, it wasn't always journalists, but spys used inocous jobs as their front. They still do, and I'm sure we have a few journalist spys...If I didn't know he was an idiot, I would have wondered if Geraldo was an Iraqi spy...

John Smith siad:

So either find some research to back up what you're saying or keep the baseless crapola in the mud pit.

Erm we ARE in the mud bit. So I have left it to the mud pit. Are you some kind of fool?

Correct me if I misunderstood but are you saying you believe the Western media isn't in the slightest bit biased?

This is an discussion board not a throughly researched book so you have to have a little patience for people not posting reference after reference of evidence.

But here's an example of the Western Media hiding a few facts for the sake of making the US look better: (that's bias to you)

March 14 2004:
"For example, the New York Times printed a story last Thursday titled "Thousands March in Haiti for New Leaders and Army." The story devotes 760 words to describing the rally held by supporters of the death squads that recently overran the Haitian countryside: "Some of the signs read 'Arrest Aristide!' Others said 'Down with Bill Clinton!' and 'Down with Jesse Jackson!' ... Others chanted 'Bring back the army!'" For those who don't know, the Haitian Army was created by the U.S. during the first half of the 20th century. It was used as an instrument of terror against Haiti's poor by the wealthy ruling class until Aristide bravely disbanded it in 1995."


[Edited on 15-4-2004 by mrsteve]

Originally posted by mrsteve
John Smith siad:

So either find some research to back up what you're saying or keep the baseless crapola in the mud pit.

Erm we ARE in the mud bit. So I have left it to the mud pit. Are you some kind of fool?

Correct me if I misunderstood but are you saying you believe the Western media isn't in the slightest bit biased?

This is an discussion board not a throughly researched book so you have to have a little patience for people not posting reference after reference of evidence.

I, for one, think all media is biased. I think that's evident from my posts here. As far as this not being a well researched book, however, I have to disagree with you. Generally, ATS is my stepping stone into research, including the mud pit. If we refuse to look into the facts, we're just going to be bulldozed by whoever is better at debate. That's not denying ignorance, that's allowing it into your heart.

Originally posted by mrsteve
Correct me if I misunderstood but are you saying you believe the Western media isn't in the slightest bit biased?

This is an discussion board not a throughly researched book so you have to have a little patience for people not posting reference after reference of evidence.

But here's an example of the Western Media hiding a few facts for the sake of making the US look better: (that's bias to you)

March 14 2004:
"For example, the New York Times printed a story last Thursday titled "Thousands March in Haiti for New Leaders and Army." The story devotes 760 words to describing the rally held by supporters of the death squads that recently overran the Haitian countryside: "Some of the signs read 'Arrest Aristide!' Others said 'Down with Bill Clinton!' and 'Down with Jesse Jackson!' ... Others chanted 'Bring back the army!'" For those who don't know, the Haitian Army was created by the U.S. during the first half of the 20th century. It was used as an instrument of terror against Haiti's poor by the wealthy ruling class until Aristide bravely disbanded it in 1995."


[Edited on 15-4-2004 by mrsteve]

First, yeah if you're going to make an accusation you might want to have some points of reference to post along with it. Second I don't care about Haiti, when most people read the news do you think that they say "hey let's see what's going on in Haiti today"

Looks to me like they reported the current events going on and any one who wants a historical reference can look it up. If it's someone who follows that particular countries events than they will already know the context of the article. What are you saying exactly? Should they post a complete history of Haiti in the paper so they can write a current event article on it?

Sorry, try again.