Guys? Dick Cheney.
Then it should be no problem providing a link to the al Jazeera reporting on that story, right? Because I have found two al Jazeera references, and neither describes the attackers as “freeedom fighters.” Now, the Voice of Palestine radio operation called the attackers heroes, but there is no evidence that al Jazeera made any similar claim unless it may have been reporting what Voice of Palestine had said.
Regarding post #116, after some staff discussion, I have disabled the links that Dishfunctional provided to the videos of the executions.
Our “two click” rule is intended to make sure that no poster stumbles into an awkward situation (such as at work) by simply clicking on an apparently innocent link. While the rule is generally enforced regarding pornography, executions in process are probably not good things to have pop up unexpectedly, either. Not every browser has mouse-over pop-ups capabilities, (and not everyone will recognize every name in the urls), so the links, embededed as text, had the potential to cause some difficulties for people who opened them unaware of what they displayed.
Let’s show some respect for our fellow posters by not placing unexpected links that could cause difficulties if opened without foreknowledge.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
If the source is just making shit up (like you are doing), why not release the “secret” memo and blow his credibility out of the water? And WTF is a “Chaque”? 
If it helps, you can see their releases on their website.
Interesting stuff!
Their code of ethics… If I may quote?
As for the ‘freedom fighters’ part, wasn’t that a third party editorial?
I understand, Tom, and I apologize. That seems an entirely fair interpretation of the “two click” rule.
Frankly, I’m amazed that this is the first time this issue has arisen, with specific regard to the beheading videos. As soon as they became available, I wanted to see them, because like many people, I simply had no frame of reference within which to properly access this type of alleged behavior. All previous descriptions of “atrocities”, such as those attributed to the Nazis during WWII, Pol Pot’s regime, etcetera, simply didn’t cover this sort of activity, so I had to try to understand it for myself. Just as millions of people have taken the tour of Auschwitz (and I have) to see for themselves what they had only heard of, I just had to see for myself these un-edited clips in order to broaden that frame of reference I mentioned, and to convince that part of my humanity that still doubted any such things could possibly be happening.
So, in the likely event that there are those who, like me, want that information for reasons similar to those which I have described, in observance of the ‘two click” rule I will provide a link to the page that contains the four links I posted earlier. The links are at the bottom of the page. Be forewarned… these are extremely graphic. You will see people dying a slow, agonizing and horrifying death. These people are fully aware of their circumstances, and to the extent that they can with whatever faculties remain, they first beg for their lives, then as they realize they are being killed, they fight wildly to the very end. You will do more then watch their deaths… you will hear their deaths as their final screams gurgle from their severed throats. I simply cannot exaggerate the horrific nature of these clips. I promise you that these sights and sounds will haunt you. You cannot watch these clips, and then carry on as if nothing has changed, because something will have changed. Whatever terms you currently use to define “humanity” for yourself will be changed forever, and definitely not for the better.
Click here.
Why are you characterizing al-Jazeera as the “voice of the enemy”?
Thanks for the correction! I wonder if the Daily Mirror could use that to get the relevant memo released – but I doubt it; Part II exempts info that’s important to “national security,” and if your government’s anything like ours, that means anything that might be embarrassing.
Cite?
This is a whoosh, right? You can’t seriously mean to defend a position that self-evidently idiotic, can you?
Update: British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has ordered the Daily Mirror to publish no further details of the memo in question, or they will be in violation of the Official Secrets Act; and the newspaper has “essentially agreed to comply.” http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16401707%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=law-chief-gags-the-mirror-on-bush-leak-name_page.html
Meanwhile, the head of Al-Jazeera has flown to the UK to demand answers of the British government. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1518324.htm
Al-Jazeera now has a page up of comments received via its website on this story. As in this thread, some commentators are highly skeptical of the story while to others it seems quite obviously plausible: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/326255B5-5F1F-467A-8B3E-1C3B94A99A3E.htm
Meanwhile, in response to Lord Goldsmith’s gag order, MP Boris Johnson has declared that if someone will get him a copy of the memo, he will publish it in The Spectator and risk a jail sentence. http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2005/11/bush_and_al-jaz.html
And BlairWatch is trying to recruit persons willing to make the same committment: http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/603
The Wikipedia now has a page up (updated as events develop) on the “al-Jazeera bombing memo”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo
Sorry, BG, but not having the depth of experience (or vocabulary) that nearly 10,000 posts on this board undoubtedly provides, the term “whoosh” means nothing to me. Please elaborate, and if a response seems worth my while, I’ll provide one.
Hopefully, defining that term will go considerably farther toward explaining to me exactly why you take issue with my position than did your post, and you won’t have to devote any more energy or specificity to your objection than the negligible amount you already have.
As I’ve already said…
Now, if you have a better explanation for why I characterized al Jazeera as the “voice of the enemy”, I’d be interested to hear what you think.
IIRC it means a joke/sarcastic comment someone doesn’t realize is not serious. For example If I said "Yeah, and the Nazis were good guys because they had an enlightened forestry policy :rolleyes: ", and someone else returned with a rant about all the evil the Nazi’s did - that’s a whoosh, or so I understand.
A “whoosh” is a position you don’t really mean to take, usually intended to entrap into serious confrontation with it any Doper whose irony meter is improperly calibrated.
I was characterizing as “self-evidently idiotic,” which it is, the very idea that al-Jazeera’s broadcast of terrorists’ statements makes it the “voice of the enemy” and, therefore, by implication, a legitimate military target. Even in purely hypothetical terms, that is completely indefensible. All al-Jazeera is doing is what our own news networks should be doing – broadcasting everything of relevant news value regardless of the source. And who can dispute that statements by al-Q terrorists are not only relevant, but crucially important to any coverage of the “War Against Terrorism”?
But that’s not true is it? I mean, you may not be aware of this given the hours you apparantly spend watching Al Jazeera and hearing these messages that you believe ‘cannot be heard anywhere else’, but the reports are in fact passed on by all media outlets. Hence those of us who don’t share your arab linguistic talents also get a translated form of them.
Here, for example, is Fox News. You consider them ‘voice of the enemy’ too, presumably?
Thanx… now it makes sense.
Learning something, anything, justifies having made the grudging decison to get out of bed in the first place.
Got it.
I’m afraid you are inferring something I never implied. As a matter of fact, I spoke directly to that point, saying exactly the opposite. You might want to take a look at the rest of my comments in that post.
My noting that the president might have wished al Jazeera were off the air is quite a ways from 1) my condoning such an action, or 2) the president condoning such an action.