I was not aware that Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahri, or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had released their tapes to FNC first, before releasing it to al Jazeera. As a matter of fact, I was under the apparently erroneous impression that all other news outlets were simply re-broadcasting what originated from al Jazeera. Gosh… and , irony of all ironies, I probably heard that on al Jazeera.
:dubious: The vocabulary lesson continues . . . today’s word is “backpedaling.”
More specifically:
-
Simply put, Dish, that would, in fact, be unreasonable even in the terms you so circumspectly stated.
-
And I don’t believe for a moment that you didn’t mean to imply that would make al-J a legitimate military target. See “disengenuous.”
Sorry, “disingenuous.”
I was responding to your assertion that Al Jazeera ‘they routinely broadcast messages from our enemy and those messages cannot be heard anywhere else’. I quoted you saying it, so I thought that would have been fairly obvious. I gave you an example showing your assertion to be wrong.
Now you apparantly want to move the goalposts and claim that it is the fact that it isn’t the fact that Al Jazeera broadcast the words that is the problem, but the fact that someone decided to deliver it to their offices in the first place?
Believe what you like, and call it what you like, my words stand for themselves and I stand by them. The bottom line, regardless of your conjured up fury, is that it never happened. Apart from anything Bush may have thought, said, dreamt, committed to paper or carved into a fucking rock, he acted reasonably… he didn’t snuff out al Jazeera and they remain the preeminent news agency in the region, ready willing and able to once again provide a voice for al Qaeda.
I said they were the “voice” of al Qaeda, not an “echo”. If they have released tapes to other news outlets first, thus rendering those agencies their “voice”, then I stand corrected. Otherwise, I stand by what I’ve said… and said again.
Just as an aside, I really don’t see what all the fuss is about. There seems to be an unreasonable sensitivity to my using the phrase “voice of the enemy” with regard to al Jazeera. I’m reminded of the reaction some of my progressive associates display at the use of the word “liberal”. There my be no correlation whatsoever, but the incongruity of the response seems identical.
“There seems to be an unreasonable sensitivity to my using the phrase “voice of the enemy” with regard to al Jazeera.”
I think it just sounded to the rest of us that it was a criticism that you were levelling at Al Jazeera. Now that you have clarified that you don’t have any objection to the words of Al Qaeda leaders being reported and that your use of the phrase ‘voice of the enemy’ was merely a comment on Al Jazeera’s pre-eminence in the reporting of Middle East affairs, that’s fine.
The phrase “voice of the enemy” is a loaded phrase, it carries a burden of overtones. An inarticulate doofus might be able to plead, as you do, that you expressing a simple fact and had no such intention. One of the difficulties in displaying a facility for rhetoric is that such claims of innocence are no longer available.
It would be like accusing the anti-war faction of offering “aid and comfort to the enemy”. Well, you might reasonably claim, if Achmed bin Hatebush is encouraged by such a display of disunity, and he is the enemy, then aid and comfort has been offered to the enemy, certainly don’t mean to imply treasonous intent (accompanied with a furious batting of big, brown innocent eyes…)
There are very few of us here who can reasonably be said to be so inept and rhetorically challenged that the use of a loaded phrase can be held harmless and gormless. You are not one of them. And it is far, far too late to try and pretend otherwise.
By the way, BrainGlutton, with all these hurt feelings flying around, I don’t want to let this portion of your post go without acknowledgment. I agree with you, 100%. I don’t know who is in control of the sensitivity meter at our domestic news outlets, but I’m offended beyond comprehension that someone somewhere evidently feels we can’t handle the truth. I think we should see and hear every word, every chant, every swing of the saber that emanates from these monsters, and we should be able to see it on a daily basis. Rather than some stupid fucking FOOD Channel regurgitating pre-digested shit twenty-four fucking hours a day, how about a FREEDOM Channel showing the head-up-their-ass morons in this country exactly what our troops are up against?
But, then… nobody asked my opinion.
How would you feel if all the Abu Ghraib rape/torture videos and photos were released and broadcast as well ?
Well, Luc, let me see if this works, then… If the words I’ve used have offended you, I apologize. I do not retract them, for I chose those words, less any baggage others might bring to them, because they precisely embodied the thought that I was attempting to convey, but I do apologize for offending you. To express my opinion was my sole intent, not to offend you or anyone else.
Now, as for Achmed and my batting, brown eyes, let’s face it… the words “aid and comfort to the enemy” have a specific meaning associated only with the definition of treason, whether taken in or out of context. The words “voice of the enemy”, while they may have a perceived stigma dependent entirely on the sensitivities of the reader, have no such static, inflexible meaning, particularly when taken in the full context of the surrounding remarks.
al-Better?
Honestly? I would feel ashamed… angry… conflicted… a whole friggin’ raft of reactive-type emotions come to mind and heart, but at least I would have seen them for myself. Regardless of how I would feel, I would be informed, and that seems to me to be the least one should expect from the media.
Close enough. If not sincere, it is at least skillfully insincere, and I cannot pretend to “take your inventory”. I only know what evil lurks in the hearts of men by what evil lurks in mine own.
It’ll do.
Well, for once we pretty much agree.
It’s not the media which is keeping the videos from you, it’s the government. The media has done the only thing it can do, which is to inform you that the videos exist.
Why would progressives react negatively to the word “liberal”?
. . . My Ferengi opportunity-lobes are tingling . . . Is there, perhaps, a previously unexploited niche in the porn market emerging here? 
Show the whole damn thing, unedited. Let the flag wavers and “patriots” see exactly what they are cheering for.
Thank you.
How Kharmic… and I finally figured out Red Shirt! I was in Babelfish demanding a German or Dutch translation of Trihs…!