:dubious: If you asked me about the “reputation” of the New York Times I could probably come up with a hundred cites.
And I repeat – relevance? A publication that is not “respectable” can still be, by and large, credible. The New York Daily News is not “respectable,” goes out of its way not to be “respectable,” but everybody is reasonably confident that what they read in it has not simply been made up, as it would be in the Weekly World News.
No shit…really? Bombing a news station in a purportedly friendly country would be a grave breach of international law? I’d ask you for a cite for that but…
Look. BG asked for what MIGHT be valid reasons for attacking AJ. I speculated on some. They were pure speculation to humor BG. I didn’t list them as particularly probable…only possible. I also said several times that I DON’T THINK BUSH WAS SERIOUS. Since this seems to be flying over your head let me point out that if Bush was kidding then HE NEVER MEANT TO BOMB AJ. Since he never meant to bomb AJ, THERE WAS NO REASON TO BOMB THE PLACE…IT WAS A FRIGGIN JOKE. Seriously, are you getting this?
Gods death. My speculations were just that. In point of fact they WOULD be valid reasons for bombing AJ if they were proven true. Personally, as I’ve said several times (and as you seem to be unable to grasp), I don’t believe them…they were there to humor the OP.
Seriously, what exactly is our problem?
-XT
But the US didn’t gain anything from Tareq’s death, did they? I mean, it’s not like Al-Jazeera backed off them, or even slowed down it’s Iraq reporting much because of his death, nor would the US have any reasonable reason to think that that is what would happen. So again, your theory is that the US (and it wouldn’t be just Bush, I’d imagine a whole military chain of command would have to be involved to plan the strike) went after journalists belonging to a news organization they didn’t like for no decernable gain.
Also consider that Tareq wasn’t the only journalist to be injured or killed by US fire over the course of the war (remember the tank firing on the hotel). Was the US trying to “take-out” all these other media organizations as well? I find it much more likely to assume that Tareq was tragically killed by accident, as so many others were, because he was working in a war zone.
True or not, I’ve heard claims of exactly that; that unwanted journalists tend to be victims of “friendly fire”. In fact, IIRC a CNN executive claimed that - and resigned soon after. Link. Personally, I find it quite plausible that our military would do that; I also have no real evidence, and expect none will ever be permitted to come to light should it exist. Nor do I expect a real US investigation; it appears to be a taboo subject.
Seriously, Atticus, I am no fan of xtisme or his politics, but he is right here. He is saying two things:
If we discovered rock solid infallible proof that Al Jazira was actually just a front for Al Qaida and that almost all of its employees were knowing agent of the same, then yes, it would be a valid military target. Hard to argue that this is not true.
Al Jazira is NOT a cover organization for AlQaida. I doubt you disagree with this. This is all he is saying… with one exception:
I absolutely disagree with you here. People may or may not have liked what happened in Afghanistan, but they are willing to believe the connections they had with AQ and the reasons we had. I doubt people would believe even rock solid evidence against AJ and the reprisals for us blowing up a news business in an allied nation would be far more than we will ever see from taking out the Taliban. We would lose any ally we have ever had in the Middle East.
The US said that Iraq and al Qaida were in cahoots, it seems like it’d be easy to run the same bullshit argument on some kind of al Jazira - al Qaida axis o’ evil. I’m just trying to cut off any such idea at the source by pointing out there’s no connection, that al Jazira and al Qaida are not remotely on the same side. That’s why I’m coming down so hard on your mere speculation, xtisme. No offence meant.
He wouldn’t have to be insane, he’d just have to be an asshole. We already know he’s an asshole. We already know he has no conscience about killing civilians and we already know he he regards any public criticism of himself as intolerable and “evil” by definition. He is a religious zealot. Don’t forget that. He is really psychologically no different from Osama bin Laden. They both think they’re involved in a holy war, they both regard the other side as infidels and both regard the killing of civilians on the other side as being completely justified. They think they’re doing God’s work. The only difference is that Bush has more power. I don’t believe he thinks in terms of politics in these matters. He thinks in terms of black and white, grandiose religious fantasy. He thinks Jesus is guiding him. I would bet that he’s had to be talked out of these kinds of crackpot ideas more than once.
Reread my post. I’m not saying he’d have to be insane because it would be immoral to blow up Al-Jazeera, I’m saying he’d have to be insane because blowing up Al-Jazeera wouldn’t get him anything. Even if we accept that he’s the moral equivalent of Satan (as some seem to), he still wouldn’t bomb the building in Quatar because it wouldn’t get him anything. Instead it would screw up his (presumably evil) plans in the Middle East by alienating our allies there, while still not destroying Al-Jazeera.
Invading Iraq didn’t get us anything. Nevertheless . . .
Well…
I heard Bush was going to eat dead babies and usurp God as ruler of the universe. At least that is what someone heard him whisper at a dinner at some point in the past. Sorry, I don’t have a credible cite or even any proof this was acted upon and not a joke, but I am sure it is true and he really, really meant it becuase that is just the type of guy Bush is, don’t ya know.
If this isn’t proof Bush is way, way bad, I don’t know what is.
You know what he gets like.
“We’ve bombed Al-Jazeera like you ordered Sir”
“Er yeah, about that, turns out I meant Syria…”
I’m saying he doesn’t have to be insane to want to blow up al-Jazeera for no political gain. I think he wanted to do it purely for spite and vengence. I don’t it had to be a strategic or political calculation, but simply the petty, angry whim of a spoiled, despotic child.
No, “we” don’t.
No, “we” don’t.
No, “we” don’t.
Cite? And by “cite” I mean a primary cite, in English, not some second-hand quote that someone remembered thru an arabic translation. You know the one I’m talking about.
You’ve spread this nonsense around here several times before, Dio, and I just have to call you on it. The idea of equating Bush with ObL is so far beyond the pale, that it is necessary to dismiss it out of hand. You certainly are right in that Bush has more power than ObL. If they had equivalent psychies, Bush would have demolished the entire Middle East by now, using the US’s nuclear arsenal. That fact that you cannot distinguish between the calculated, deliberate slaughtering of civilains as an act of terrorism, and the unintentional deaths of civilians during war is simply an example of utter blind partisanship of the most extreme kind.
With every passing day, I now better understand why the Bush administration is so vehemently opposed to the International War Crimes Tribunal and the International Criminal Court.
Disagree with me all you want. Mace. I stand behind everything I’ve said and my cite is everything he’s done on office. Like starting illegal wars for no reason, for instance, and like saying that Jesus wanted him to invade Iraq. I fail to see a shred of difference between Bush and ObL. Bush has killed far more civilians. He’s done it for no real reason, and he’s never shown the slightest remorse for it.
I’m sure you do stand by your assertions, Dio, but they’re still wrong. I won’t hijack this thread further on the subject-- I’ve said all I need to say. If I have more thoughts on the subject, I’ll start a Pit thread.
Well, if anyone could have persuaded GWB that outing al Jazeera was the more ethical course, we’d have bombed them long before this conversation purportedly took place.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’m sure you do stand by your assertions, Dio, but they’re still wrong.
[QUOTE]
Actually, with the exception of equating Bush with Osama bin Laden, and adjusting for angry hyperbole, Diogenes’s claims are pretty accurate. You may disagree, but it’s been discussed before that Bush and the White House of recent years 1) do not tolerate criticism very well at all (from idiocies such as “criticism is unpatriotic” and up), 2) have no particular compunction about civilian deaths and, further, frequently bend and break the Charter of Human Rights and similar treaties, 3) are obsessively Christian, from the point of view of some even appearing zealous.
Yeah, we know, John. We know that flowers don’t wilt when his shadow falls upon them, we know he doesn’t dismember live kittens (thats the other guy).
But thousands of people are dead because this nitwit will not question his own judgement. He stood before us as a candidate, he wasn’t drafted, he sought the position with great zeal, he had the gall to put himself forth as leader of the most powerful nation in history. A position for which, let the record show, he has neither the intellect, the temperment, nor the character.
Our contempt and derision is all he will ever endure. He will write a book as he drifts back to his life of shallow privilege, while thousands of others suffer for his pig-headedness. He will attend carefully screened and managed events, where he can feast on the approval and admiration he so desperately craves. He will also be dissed, and that’s as bad as he’s gonna get.
I pronounce on him the most damning epithet of my people:
“Bless his heart, he means well…”
If the memo exists, what are the odds that Blair will release it? Labour MP Clarke had the memo but returned it. What does he have to say?
If verified, this is proof that the president is off his rocker. I don’t care how much AJ villifies the US and Bush and if everything they say is a lie, they are not a military target.