|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: New evidence clears up whether Bush sought to bomb alJazeera |
 |
|
For their eyes only
New evidence clears up whether Bush sought to bomb al-Jazeera. But we are not allowed to hear it
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday October 13, 2006
The Guardian
Two men are to be tried behind closed doors in an Old Bailey courtroom in a move that will stop the public finding out whether George Bush proposed what would have been a war crime and how Tony Blair reacted. The evidence the government does not want us to hear is in an official record of a meeting in Washington in April 2004, when the situation in Iraq was deteriorating fast. The memo, it has been reported, refers to Bush's alleged proposal to bomb the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera, and is said to reveal how far Blair went in criticising US military tactics in Iraq at a time when troops were bombarding Falluja.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1921199,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like Bush, but something about you, BB, propels me to defend the man.
Here's my question. Did Bush bomb Al Jazeera? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't like Bush, but something about you, BB, propels me to defend the man.
Here's my question. Did Bush bomb Al Jazeera? |
I don't know, but unlike you, I'm very interested in knowing the answer.
From what I read at the time, there was a very strong case against the US forces. The only possible defence must be utter utter incompetence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't like Bush, but something about you, BB, propels me to defend the man.
Here's my question. Did Bush bomb Al Jazeera? |
I don't know, but unlike you, I'm very interested in knowing the answer. |
The article you quote says nothing about Bush actually bombing Al Jazeera, it is only talking about how Bush sought to bomb it. As in he discussed it.
Bush didn't actually bomb Al Jazeera. There's enough mistakes the man has made that you needn't jump on him for mistakes he didn't make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
I don't like Bush, but something about you, BB, propels me to defend the man.
Here's my question. Did Bush bomb Al Jazeera? |
I don't know, but unlike you, I'm very interested in knowing the answer. |
The article you quote says nothing about Bush actually bombing Al Jazeera, it is only talking about how Bush sought to bomb it. As in he discussed it.
Bush didn't actually bomb Al Jazeera. There's enough mistakes the man has made that you needn't jump on him for mistakes he didn't make. |
Many observers at the time (with some reason) believed the US deliberately targetted Al Jazeera. The article doesn't say whether or not he did. Obviously, he didn't literally do it. That task would have been left to the cannon fodder. You get full points for reading comprehension there sonny. The article hints that the truth is known and we are being kept in the dark.
If I were you, I wouldn't go jumping in to defend a man's innocence of a crime that you do not know he didn't commit. The jury is still very much out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
If I were you, I wouldn't go jumping in to defend a man's innocence of a crime that you do not know he didn't commit. The jury is still very much out. |
Right, I shouldn't defend a man's innocence of a crime that I don't know that he didn't commit. Isn't that backwards? You know, you require evidence to establish guilt?
| The Guardian wrote: |
| The evidence the government does not want us to hear is in an official record of a meeting in Washington in April 2004, when the situation in Iraq was deteriorating fast. The memo, it has been reported, refers to Bush's alleged proposal to bomb the Arabic TV channel al-Jazeera |
This is the only quote in the article directly discussing the proposal to bomb the Arabic TV channel. It doesn't say that it was anything more than a proposal, and I don't believe al-Jazeera was actually bombed by anyone, so...
...maybe if someone has a link for us of an al-Jazeera station being bombed at about that time?
My reading comprehension is not so bad as to be ridiculed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
A proposal to inflict harm on someone or entity would be viewed by police investigating a murder, for example, as a motive behind the crime and to suspect those who voiced such opinions. I used to not believe that the U.S. and U.K. who are supposed to stand by the liberal values of freedom of speech would not try to silence a news network. I changed my mind after seeing the scandals that have emanated from Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. What would you think if Al jazeera was bombed twice? Anyway, read what Ron Suskind says about this:
According to Ron Suskind who wrote the 1% doctrine the U.S. government bombed Al Jazeera.
In the new book, "The One Percent Doctrine," investigative journalist Ron Suskind writes that that the U.S deliberately bombed the Kabul, Afghanistan offices of Al Jazeera. He writes, "On November 13, 2001, a hectic day when Kabul fell to the Northern Alliance and there were celebrations in the streets of the city, a U.S. missile obliterated Al Jazeera's office. Inside the CIA and White House there was satisfaction that a message had been sent to Al Jazeera."
The "One Percent Doctrine" also examines how the Bush Adminstration's philosophy of separating analysis from action and embracing suspicion as a justification for the use of American power has shaped its policies.
Ron Suskind, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist and author of "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11." His previous books include "The Price of Loyalty: George W Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill" and "A Hope Unseen."
- Website: RonSuskind
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/14/147205&mode=thread&tid=25
P.S. I don't like Al jazeera's style of reporting, but I don't support bombing networks or thinking of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can't we all get along? I said that without any reason. Do you all remember when Al Jazeera was reporting on the elections and people didn't want them around? What do you think is good about Al jazeera? What do you think is bad about it? I will give my opinion aftewards.
Last edited by Adventurer on Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
My reading comprehension is not so bad as to be ridiculed. |
big bird struggles when she comes upon intelligent, articulate, relatively neutral parties such as yourself (and excluding moi). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:43 am Post subject: Re: N.Korea's Kim may trade cognac for nuclear weapons |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea's decision to test a nuclear weapon may mean no more French wines and spirits for the Dear Leader or jet skis for his beloved sons.
The United Nations is moving closer to imposing sanctions on North Korea for its announced nuclear test on Monday that include steps to hit the Stalinist state's nuclear and missile programs as well as keeping luxury goods away from its leaders.
"In a country as impoverished as North Korea, luxury goods are a key currency that keep the elite happy and reward those who win the favor of its leaders," said a South Korean government official, who asked not to be identified.
No one enjoys luxury goods more than paramount leader Kim Jong-il, who boasts the country's finest wine cellar with space for 10,000 bottles.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/international_korea_north_luxury_dc
[Anyone have some cognac? I'll trade some nukes for it. LOL] |
I think you posted this on the wrong thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| A proposal to inflict harm on someone or entity would be viewed by police investigating a murder, for example, as a motive behind the crime and to suspect those who voiced such opinions. |
No. This is not even conspiracy.
One has to take tangible steps, do something aimed at actually perpetrating a murder for it to be a conspiracy. You also cannot murder "an entity," only a human being.
Also, I do not know much about local police depts. But I do know some local DAs. And I know for a fact that they care very little about "motive." "Motive" is for crime dramas, not real life. The DAs I know only care about direct evidence that shows a suspect killed his or her victim.
And, of course, there can be no murder without an actual murder. The same goes for a bombing campaign that never occurred. Did your antagonist even put planes in the air? (Do you even know?)
People like Big_Bird and Adventurer are predisposed to think the worst of the United States govt, W. Bush in the White House or not. They see only the U.S. acting in bad faith, whatever the context or whatever the historical time. Big_Bird actively scours the internet for "information" to back this up, her "case against the United States," and this on a daily basis.
But this is much ado about nothing. There is indeed no substance at all behind this story: W. Bush might have considered bombing a Middle Eastern news agency a few years ago. So what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| A proposal to inflict harm on someone or entity would be viewed by police investigating a murder, for example, as a motive behind the crime and to suspect those who voiced such opinions. |
No. This is not even conspiracy.
One has to take tangible steps, do something aimed at actually perpetrating a murder for it to be a conspiracy. You also cannot murder "an entity," only a human being.
Also, I do not know much about local police depts. But I do know some local DAs. And I know for a fact that they care very little about "motive." "Motive" is for crime dramas, not real life. The DAs I know only care about direct evidence that shows a suspect killed his or her victim.
And, of course, there can be no murder without an actual murder. The same goes for a bombing campaign that never occurred. Did your antagonist even put planes in the air? (Do you even know?)
People like Big_Bird and Adventurer are predisposed to think the worst of the United States govt, W. Bush in the White House or not. They see only the U.S. acting in bad faith, whatever the context or whatever the historical time. Big_Bird actively scours the internet for "information" to back this up, her "case against the United States," and this on a daily basis.
But this is much ado about nothing. There is indeed no substance at all behind this story: W. Bush might have considered bombing a Middle Eastern news agency a few years ago. So what? |
Gopher, what did I say about ad hominem attacks? People like Adventurer et al is another low blow.
You seem to brush off the thinking of blowing up a news agency. You say "so what". I have not one iota, jot, or ounce of faith in the Bush Administration. I saw the Clinton Administration as an administration with redeeming qualities. I don't know if you have seen the polls but a lot of people in America do not believe this government to be associated with veracity, so I suppose I fit along with many people like Adventurer. Think about it.
Why do you trust this adminstration, Gopher? Why should I believe in it?
Why do I have such a low opinion of it?
1)Misleading the people about WMD
2)Misleading people about the insurgency
3)Claiming no one could have foreseen the bursting in Louisiana
4)Bombing Al jazeera twice, once in Iraq and once in Afghanistan.
(Doesn't seem like an accident).
5)Violating the Geneva Convention and then getting Congress to vote
on something that violates Habeas Corpus, so Bush would not get prosecuted.
6)Rice stated she had no recollection of Tenet warning her about 9/11 then the State Department says it did happen. There was no mention of the meeting by Rice to the 9/11 commission.
7)The Niger Uranium statement which Tenet previously informed the White House was bogus.
Gopher, libertarians, democrats, and republicans do not trust this Bush Administration. It is not a minority opinion anymore.
I gave Bush the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. He lost my trust long ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
I have not one iota, jot, or ounce of faith in the Bush Administration. I saw the Clinton Administration as an administration with redeeming qualities. I don't know if you have seen the polls but a lot of people in America do not believe this government to be associated with veracity, so I suppose I fit along with many people like Adventurer. Think about it.
Why do you trust this adminstration, Gopher? Why should I believe in it...? |
Blah, blah, blah. More of the usual nonsense. And you resort to the inevitable ref to weapons of mass destruction.
I am no friend of the W. Bush Administration. Did not vote for him in either election. I do not agree with very much at all that has come out of the White House and the rest of the executive branch since early 2001. And I think the Iraqi War was illegal and remains a huge mistake.
Such meta issues as why you should have faith in W. Bush or the U.S. govt are not being discussed here, however.
It has been alleged that W. Bush ordered a bombing that for some reason was not carried out (or maybe it was) and now "we" are not being allowed to know the true story. 
Yet all of your antiBush hysteria and all of the others' added up together still do not equal proof of this particular allegation, which is, the last I checked, the subject of this thread and not whether the United States is deserving of your moral respect.
You fall back on saying you do not trust W. Bush, so he must be guilty. You seem to feel that because I want to keep the discussion centered on facts and the evidence, that I am somehow defending the man. (I assure you, I am not.)
Big_Bird falls back on this civil-rights-violating nonsense that would seem to wholly negate the rights of the accused and standards of proof...
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| If I were you, I wouldn't go jumping in to defend a man's innocence of a crime that you do not know he didn't commit... |
What else have you got?
Does it occur to you that, problematic as W. Bush is, that he does not always act in bad faith and that he is not always wrong. It probably does not because you are rather myopic on the issue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
big bird struggles when she comes upon intelligent, articulate, relatively neutral parties such as yourself (and excluding moi). |
neutral? I've never known Kuros to be neutral. Perhaps when people's views overlap with your own, you consider them 'relatively neutral.' Surely you realise that no-one on this board is neutral. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Big_Bird falls back on this civil-rights-violating nonsense that would seem to wholly negate the rights of the accused and standards of proof...
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| If I were you, I wouldn't go jumping in to defend a man's innocence of a crime that you do not know he didn't commit... |
|
Your point might mean something if Kuros was proposing keeping an open mind about the guy's innocence:
| Kuros wrote: |
Bush didn't actually bomb Al Jazeera. There's enough mistakes the man has made that you needn't jump on him for mistakes he didn't make. |
There is too much reasonable doubt about his innocence in this affair to confidently proclaim the man not guilty. And you only need 7th grade reading skills to pick up that I haven't said Bush is guilty either. I'm very curious to know though - as I have been very dismayed at the way journalists seem to have been targetted by various sides in these dreadful conflicts.
If Kuros was half as intelligent as bbum believes, he might not have allowed himself to have been so easily triggered by my blatantly tabloidesque headline, nor squander those amazing intellectual energies on what was clearly a rather personal and petty little exercise.
As usual, with you Mr G, there is no interesting debate to be had, no new interesting facts divulged, nothing to make me think "now there's an interesting point/new perspective..." - just silly little adolescent attacks on posters whose worldview doesn't coincide with your own. Don't you get bored of it? You don't even bother to vary your much overused subset of adjectives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
