I’d certainly be willing to sacrifice milroyj, but you should note that ammo52 has been around for six months - not exactly a newbie.
Oh, yeah. Funny, you’d think you’d notice something so…unusual.
Although ** ammo52’s ** rant went off into the weeds with the “muslame’ers everywhere” part, he has a point- at least these clashes ended on a better note than they have been- we gave better than we got this time.
And ** threemae **, unless you’re being sarcastic, saying Al Jazeera is “a relatively unbiased source of news” is about like saying Fox News is “a relatively unbiased source of news”. Granted, considering the area, it is * relatively * unbiased, but hardly on par with the BBC.
Damn it, why do you all always slap up the twinkie-eating fourteen-year-olds so hard and drive them from the board in humiliation before I even have a chance to join the fun? It just ain’t fair, I tell ya.
Well, he’s been warned before about this same specific offense in GD: Anybody remember OBL and Hussein?
This being a second offense, I guess ammo52 is lucky this thread was simply moved to the Pit, rather being treated as a banning offense.
rather than being…
I’m sorry, I must have missed where I said it was different.
Probably not, RedSerenity.
. . . Oh, wait, that’s not your name, is it?
Not to do a complete hijack here, but what exactly is it that makes Al Jazeera so unbalanced? Let’s go to their frontpage right now and break down all the major stories.
Story 1:
“Innocents killed in Samarra bloodbath”
The article:
"
Lieutenant Colonel Bill MacDonald told journalists on Sunday that all the 46 were killed when troops fought off multiple attacks on military convoys.
But local residents said US troops killed innocent bystanders when they opened fire on anything that moved around midday.
"
It presents two sides without strong language in either direction and attributes a source to both. It allows the reader to credit respective credibility to either side. The rest of the article is either all facts or attributes quotes, and even giving more room for quotes from Gen. MacDonald than Iraqis.
Article 2:
“Resistance targets foreign workers”
This article is very plainly written and virtually entirely fact and very similar to articles in western media detailing the same events
"Aznar said Spain’s presence in Iraq “makes sense”. Spain has some 1300 troops in south-central Iraq in a zone under Polish command.
"
Nor does the article show selectivity in the facts it shows. It demonstrates western political leaders continuing to support the involvement in Iraq.
Article 3:
“Iraqis to be consulted on handover”
"The head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, told Aljazeera on Sunday his colleagues on the council had taken “a unanimous decision” to consult popular opinion. "
Again, factual in base, and the subject matter is even positive to the Coalition. It shows the people selected by the coalition showing concern for the opinions of ordinary Iraqis.
Article 4:
“WHO declares war on AIDS”
From the sub-headline:
“With 8000 Aids victims dying every day, the UN has unveiled plans to rush life saving anti-retroviral drugs to three million of the world’s poorest sufferers.”
Hardly controversial coverage.
Article 5:
“US to release some Guantanamo inmates”
This looks like a controversial subject. Let’s see how they approach it.
"Angelo Gnaedinger, the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), last week called their legal status “not acceptable,” as one of Britain’s most senior judges, Johan Steyn, described their imprisonment as a “monstrous failure of justice”.
The US Supreme Court agreed earlier this month to hear an appeal lodged by lawyers for two Britons, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis challenging US claims that the detainees were outside the jurisdiction of American courts.
"
The most critical quotes so far. From a senior British judge. Remarks that I remember being covered by the BBC.
Article 6
“Syria hands bomb suspects to Turkey”
All of this deals with relationships between two Moslem countries. Again, pretty non-controversial stuff.
Again, the sub headline:
"Syria has turned over to Turkey 22 suspects who may have been involved in four human bomb attacks that killed 61 people in Istanbul, according to media reports. "
Article 7:
“Palestinian dies in car blast”
Israel vs. Palestine. Surely, this will expose anti-Israeli/Western/Etc. bias. And yet, the article gives quite fair play to the possiblity that, “which could make him the victim of a targeted attack, or whether he had been carrying a bomb that exploded prematurely.” And they mention, "staged in Gaza, including members of Islamic Jihad. The organisation has killed dozens of Israelis in bomb attacks.
But Israel has apparently held off launching such strikes in recent weeks as new Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmad Quraya seeks to negotiate a truce with armed resistance groups and restart peace talks with Israel.
"
So they talk both about the fact that Islamic Jihad is not just a paramilitary group but in fact a terrorist one, and that the Israeli army has lightened up off of attacks in an apparently good faith effort to support the peace process.
So, where’s the bias?
ammo52, I don’t want you to tax you’re feeble little brain with a response, go ahead and let some intelligent posters take over for a while. No need to go making an ass of yourself all over again. A man-child like you has had all the trolling-stimulation that he needs for one night, go to bed before you get cranky.
Oh, and if you wish to check things out for yourself:
Just out of curiosity, how many of the people criticizing Al Jazeera have actually read or listenened to it and how many are just basing it upon second hand coverage of Al Jazeera’s coverage?
three, if you actually think that ammo is going to try providing a logical explanation for anything that he says, your experience with anonymous self-righteous whiny teenagers on the internet must be quite limited.
threemae, for that matter can you find any story factually incorrect on the FoxNews homepage?
Let us take a simple test. Here is the actual intro blurb to the Al Jazeera article in question:
Do you see this as a good example of unbiased journalism?
Sure hope not. Sorry-ass nick for a footie team.
Red Fury = la Furia Roja.
Spain’s football NT nickname ever since winning the silver medal at the 1920 Olympics in Belgium. As for WMDs, currently we have a great one: goes by the name of The Raul-1 and it is deadly accurate. However, it is never launched anywhere uninvited and is always welcomed to great fanfare – unless you’re a ManU fan.
Any political and/or ideological connotations are purely yours to make.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
TTFN
It says:
How is not a bloodbath? What’s your point?
Thats that game, kind of like football, only boring? Which is why you stole the name, right? The real name is, ah…has something to do with “suck”. “suckee”? “sucker”? Something like that.
Hey… in my opinion, headlines like this from Al-Jazeera:
versus the BBC’s
or CNN’s
hardly point to a lack of bias on Al-Jazeera’s part. And if you read the articles I’m talking about (on today’s(Nov. 30, 2003) editions), the articles are even further apart.
Other articles such as “Life and death of Iraq’s military”, which laments the dissolution of the Iraqi army by Paul Bremer, whether or not it’s legal, and how horrible it is for the lack of soldiers.
Hmm… last I heard, they were one of the worst offending armies in terms of chemical weapons use, aggressive warmaking(re: Iran, Kuwait, Kurds, Shiites), and general oppressiveness. Yet Al-Jazeera talks about their 100-year old tradition and how sad it is that it’s gone now.
Hardly unbiased by any stretch of the imagination. Granted, they’re probably better than the Tehran papers, or the Damascus papers, but they’re not unbiased, even by US standards.
Even your tiny brain can comprehend the question that was asked, can it not?
Same as it’s always been. It’s never a bloodbath when the “good” guys do it. Quite the contrary, they were simply “sanitized.”
Geez, what’s wrong with you, Des? 
elucidator,
Watch it buster. Any more cracks like that one and I might just be forced to invade your premises. I’ll be the one pointing the bong right at your face.
Mess with a footie-fanatic at your own peril.
You’re in for a world of angst if you post in future with that philosophy influencing what you’ve got to say… I mean seriously… it just simply invites getting belittled, from all corners.
If there’s one thing I’ve learnt over the years, it’s this… there’s no shame in admitting you don’t know the full oop-ba-doop about something and asking for informed opinions about that something.
But to (1) assume that the SDMB specifically exists as a forum for trashing the United States and (2) that you have to step up to the plate to defend that fine country at all costs therein is well, it’s called painting a bullseye on your back in my opinion.
I personally reckon the SDMB is filled with remarkably open-minded and intelligent folks. Every now and then you get the odd fool who just wants to bait people, but by and large, the mission statement of “fighting ignorance” is upheld with extreme honour and integrity I find.