Al Jazeera - US front or US target?

[Bushwacker]

Two men have just been jailed for leaking a memo detailing a meeting between Bush and Blair which was regarded as "extremely sensitive". The press have been barred from disclosing the contents, but one item made into into the newspapers, a proposal by Bush to bomb the head office of Al Jazeera in Qatar, a solid US ally. Blair is said to have persuaded him that this was a more than usually crazy idea and the plan was dropped, but it does shed new light on earlier incidents which were claimed to be military blunders, In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, Al Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre. The hotel where Al Jazeera correspondents in the southern Iraqi city of Basra was also hit by four bombs that did not explode.

On the other hand, Al Jazeera hosts the bin Laden tapes on its website and treats them as genuine, including the confession video. They appear to have no doubts about the existance and activities of Al Qaeda, and they must be the best informed news source in the Arab world. If this is mentioned, conspiracists airily dismiss Al Jazeera as simply a CIA front. So is it a CIA front, or does Bush really regard it as such a thorn in his side that he is prepared to commit an illegal attack on the territory of one of his allies in the Middle East? Does the best informed news source in the Arab world accept that the OBL tapes are genuine and therefore AQ carried out the 9/11 attacks, or is it a just a CIA front, despite Bush wanting to attack it?

Report of memo's contents
Al Jazeera transcript of OBL video
Al Jazeera reports video of OBL with 9/11 hijackers

[karlos]

Interesting question
I personally have watched al jazeera and found it very disappointing

BUT it is still better than nothing
having a semi free independent tv station is better than the status quo

but because it is owned by an arab billionaire depending on his survival for british and us support the editorial comment is only slightly less pro USA than the bbc and sky news
hell it even has all the same presenters including david frost

[Bushwacker]

[EmptyBee]

I don't doubt that Bush routinely comes up with inane suggestions in private. I doubt many of them get translated into policy though.

Al Jazeera essentially rose phoenix-like from the ashes of what was going to be BBC Arabic. They're largely moderate and essentially pro-Western, but also pro-Arab. The documentary Control Room gives an inside perspective on the station during the Iraq war. Note that any independent journalists or non-embedded reporters were risking their lives reporting on Iraq. Even John Simpson narrowly avoided being blown away - and he was embedded with the Kurds! However the fact that Al-Jazeera specifically notified the US as to their exact location in Baghdad and still got bombed does look suspicious.

[Bushwacker]

But the point that Al Jazeera believes in the authenticity of the OBL tapes is countered routinely by the accusation that they are a CIA front, in which case there is no basis for Bush to propose bombing them. If they are in fact what they appear, the fact that they believe in the authenticity of the OBL tapes is very strong evidence that they are indeed authentic, is it not?

[Mark Gobell]

To paraphrase our beloved Dr Reid:

Bushy, you really just don't get it do you.

[EmptyBee]

[Bushwacker]

[EmptyBee]

[pepik]

These attempts to link OBL to the CIA are so pathetic I'm surprised they havent' been abandoned. The CIA had spies and contacts inside the KGB - does that mean the CIA controlled the KGB? I have contacts at numerous companies - does that mean I control these companies?

I don't know why you continually set the standard of evidence so low and then expect people to take you seriously.

Nafeez Ahmed is so far from being a credible journalist that he makes Alex Jones look good. If you are that desperate you need a new theory.

[EmptyBee]

I'm sorry Pepik but it goes beyond mere spying. There is a clearly documented evidence of what appears to have been at least a 'hands off' approach to al-Qaeda activity, and at worst an active facilitation of their activities by the CIA, the FBI and their allies across the globe. The fact that you are unaware of this is not entirely your own fault, as there's a pretty blatant media bias against such politically problematic information.

By the way Ahmed not a journalist by profession, he's an academic and author. I would have thought you might know that. If you want to discredit him, I suggest you actually read him first.

[pepik]

"Clearly documented" depends on how low your standards are. Like Ahmed, you assume a god like power of the CIA to control everything it touches. Its ridiculous. Allegations that someone is in a country allegedly "controlled" by the CIA is so far from being clearly documented or proof of anything... I'm surprised you even bother with such innuendo.

All I've seen so far is flimsy allegations and loose connections. But this is exactly the kind of thing Ahmed does, from what I have read of his work (casual flip throughs at a bookstore, admittedly). I also see he is involved in a 911 conspiracy project. He loves referring to other people's belief in 911 conspiracy theories, often praising their credentials, but is careful not to allege anything himself. Let other people do the dirty work.

He's one of those clowns who constantly trot out some about "some people claim" and then bring up some ludicrous allegations, but by doing it at arms length he manages to promote utter garbage while insulating himself from any responsibility for it. I would consider him Chomsky style propagandist and hate monger of the highest (lowest?) order.

[EmptyBee]

The fact that you consider Chomsky a propagandist tells me I should probably give up on you now.

However, you are correct that much of Ahmed's analysis involves quoting the work of authors and researchers who are inevitably considered "beyond the pale." However I would suggest that the actual content of the research in question is more important than their reputation, because it seems to me that anyone who steps outside what is considered the politically correct boundaries for mainstream opinion inevitably is subject to smears and casual dismissal.
Take Daniel Hopsicker; he had a nice job in the MSM until he made the foolish mistake of doing a documentary on the CIA's involvement in trafficking drugs. You only need to look as far as the late Gary Webb to see how bad a career move that was. Webb was a Pulitzer prize winner with a great future until he wrote the Dark Alliance articles and refused to retract them. It didn't turn out too well for him did it? No 'respectable' publication would touch him after that. He ended up divorced and blowing his own brains out in a bedsit. Oh yeah, all these 'conspiracy theorists' are just cashing in on our gullibility right?

That said, like Paul Thompson, much, if not most of Nafeez Ahmed's writing does not depend on such 'discreditable' sources, but rather comes from mainstream press sources, where most of the information you need can actually be found.

As weird as it may seem I have this naive belief that even people like you, Pepik, actually would rather know the truth about, 9/11, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. Unfortunately I think in order to do that you have to be willing to entertain the possibility that you are being poorly served by the MSM and government, and that means being willing to accept that people such as Nafeez Ahmed are actually involved in legitimate research.

[pepik]

Funny, since Chomsky thinks 911 troofers are loons too. Oh well, I guess the NWO bought him out too.

I think you'd have to be ignorant beyond belief to claim that all journalists who step outside the mainstream put their life in danger. Maybe you are living out some fantasy that you are some heroic resistance fighter, risking you life every time you post a crackpot conspiracy theory on the web. Well the sad thing is your life isn't nearly that exciting.

I've read all about the CIA and drugs. I think Webb's story was largely true, except the part about Contra cocaine creating the crack epidemic, which was the part he was criticised for. Sadly, his claims are regularly exaggerated and misrepresented by conspiracy theorists.

I've read much better work by McCoy, who wrote "The Politics of Heroin" in 1972. More than three decades later the book in still in print, up to its third edition and available in nine languages. He went on to produce other books, win prizes, and is a professor at a US University. As far as I know he sleeps pretty well at night.

I consider McCoy a researcher of the highest standards. To compare him or Webb to Nafeez Ahmed is a joke and not a particularly funny one. Nafeez is not in search of the truth, he is a hatemonger on a mission to villify the west by any means possible. He is a preacher to the converted, someone who is praised for telling people what they want to hear. Obviously there is a market for that.

[EmptyBee]

[pepik]

I see so Chomsky is great, except when he disagrees with you.

And reporters can't report on the bad stuff, except when they do.

I think you need to get away from the idea that people calling you crazy means you must be on to something. Sadly, that isn't true.

[EmptyBee]

Perhaps it's you who needs to reconsider whether just because someone is called a kook or a "conspiracy theorist" that automatically means they're full of it?

It's called an ad hominem argument, and I believe it's generally regarded as fallacious.

[conspiracy analyst]

for the whole Middle East region is based in the same location as Al Jazeera.

The undisputed fact that they use mostly western reporters and they have a direct line with the Bin Laden Hollywood production series show a link.

The question at the end of the day is if one believes a 'left' persona is created and manufactured by the powers that be or that it happens coincidentally.

Al Jazeera markets its propaganda for an Arab audience, not a British or a US one. Under those circumstances it would have to have an 'anti-american' flavour. Why? How else could it run the line that Al Quaeda is both real, both anti-american and almost everywhere?

After all most Arabs according to all media reports PRIOR to the 9/11 movement believed 9/11 was an inside job. If Arabs were that good they would have done something of that size in Israel prior to 9/11 and thereafter.

They didn't. Why?

[pepik]

If Arabs could have done it they would have already done it, so that proves they couldn't have done it.

Whatever you say mate.

[kc]

[pepik]

Please point out the part where I said "journalists never get hurt, even on battlefields".

Otherwise, try to come up with a valid point.

[ian neal]

[Bushwacker]