Bomb those journo scum!
 

Bush plotted to bomb al-Jazeera -- report

LONDON -- US President George W. Bush planned to bomb pan-Arab television broadcaster al-Jazeera, British newspaper the Daily Mirror said Tuesday, citing a Downing Street memo marked "Top Secret."

The five-page transcript of a conversation between Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals that Blair talked Bush out of launching a military strike on the station, unnamed sources told the anti-war-in-Iraq daily.

The transcript of the pair's talks during Blair's April 16, 2004 visit to Washington allegedly shows Bush wanted to attack the satellite channel's headquarters.

Blair allegedly feared such a strike, in the business district of Doha, the capital of Qatar, a key western ally in the Persian Gulf, would spark revenge attacks.

The Mirror quoted an unnamed British government official as saying Bush's threat was "humorous, not serious."

If this was a jokey comment by Dubya, that would be clear from the memo, which both the White House and No.10 refuse to allow to be published.

Al-Jazeera's perspectives on the war in Iraq have drawn criticism from Washington since the US-led March 2003 invasion.

One Al-Jazeera journalist is held in Gitmo, where he's come under pressure to say that the station is funded by Al Qaeda, which he naturally refuses to do.

Al-Jazeera's offices in both Kabul and Baghdad were bombed by US aircraft.

The UK is threatening the first ever prosecution of a journo or editor under the Official Secrets Act. The leakers will be prosecuted under the OSA.

Surely this can't be right? Bush was talked out of it by Blair, I thought a post not a million miles away from here had decided that he was a toothless Poodle??????????????????????


Now if it had been the other way round, and al-jazeera had revealed that Blair had talked Bush out of bombing the Daily Mirror I might be more easily convinced...........................

Bombing? that's too easy far too quick. Crucifixion thats what they need .. nail em up I say!

With apologies to the Life of Brian.

What would the chances be that reporters from the NY Times, the BBC and CBS news might be in the building as the al-Jazeera reporters when the Traumahawk homed in? If the building is big enough, might be able to pack a few lawyers and used car salesmen in as a bonus.

I think we should take everything the Daily Moron says with a colossal pinch of salt; that esteemed rag displayed its credentials to full effect with the QLRs pissing on Iraqis scandal (oops... fake photos).

In these times, when the "CNN Factor" plays a massive part in military planning, I can see why Bush - who is, to say the least, a rather impulsive leader - might consider al-Jazeera a legitimate target. This is a news channel that is plainly biased - even more so than the Fox Network. It is al-Qa'ida's channel of choice for broadcasting tapes of bin Laden and his cohorts. It was the channel that felt it appropriate to broadcast explicit excerpts of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's tapes showing hostages being beheaded.

However, I don't think even Bush would consider bombing a location inside the nation that hosted his general staff for the whole of the war, and subsequently, at Al Udeid. This single action would have disrupted the entire war effort, and Bush would never have recovered from the ensuing scandal.

[rant]The Daily Moron is an utter disgrace. It seeks to undermine coalition efforts to make peace, and it has the explicit intention of attacking all participants of Op TELIC, military or otherwise, to fuel its irrational populist stance. Personally, I'm surprised and disgusted that my Mess still carries copies in the ante-room. To me it ranks alongside the Daily Sport in terms of its journalistic worth.[/rant]

Al Jazeera is not the Arab equivalent of Republican News - take a look at their web page and make your own mind up -
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

tablet - I never understood why the 'Daily Moron' paid good money for those pictures either they could have had the ones from the Mod for free!

Although Downing St has not commented, the fact that the Mirror (and by default any other outlet that chooses to print/broadcast details) has been threatened with prosecution under Section 5 of the OSA suggests that it's more than just a lot of smoke.

I'm going to reserve judgement for the time being, but I will also note that it's interesting that this story is apparently leaked a week after the publication of Sir Christopher Meyer's book accuses Bliar of being W's poodle.

Sometimes with some of the inaccurate crap they print the idea has much appeal.

NC43

Yes, laugh away until some "raghead" blows up Canary Wharf, accompanied to much wailing and gnashing of teeth and cries of "terrorist scum...targeting civilians". :yuk:

Rumour has it that Uncle Dubya thought it was a fast food chain giving Big Mac a hard time which would affect their funding to other terrorist organisations - ??????

Jessthe dog,

Can't say that I noticed too many rags on heads in the actual 7/7 bombings or the 21/7 attempts. Noticed quite a few UK and other citizens wearing what you would disparingly term "rags" on their heads heroicaly helping the injured and distressed though.

Why do you feel the need to be so insulting?

Perhaps M'learned friend should consider that the quotation marks suggest Jess was being ironic?

I am happy to clarify that I employing irony in an attempt to highlight the double standard whereby it is seen as acceptable to consider attacking civilian targets of "raghead" nations in a manner completely contrary to international law and the laws of war, whilst at the same time condemning in strident terms any such attack by "ragheads" or their sympathisers against civilians of European or American citizenship.

pr00ne, how is it that only you missed the irony? Do you seriously believe anyone on this forum would be dense enough to post something so transparently racist?

Tablet,

I think you will find that such transparent racism has existed in posts across Jetblast for many years.

Most of them are picked up by the mods, but it never seems to stamp out the problem. For every xenophobe banned another seems ready to take their place.

Cheers

BHR

Vainly attempting to drag the thread back on track.

Leaving aside the gung-ho aspects of the initial example, there is an important question to be debated - namely:

Situation:

24 hour real-time reporting is contributing to the combat intelligence gathering capabilities of western armies enemies.

Complication:

Network enabled warfare anticipates the forced reduction in all aspects of an enemy's capabilities.

Questions:

How to reduce the intelligence gathering capabilities without actually slotting journos?

Or

Because they assist the enemy are they fair game?


Jacko - care to comment?

EG

Killing journalists on the basis of shared religion and skin colour is really not cricket. It would also be counterproductive as it would generate many willing martyrs and shatter the little remaining goodwill that the international community has towards the US. I doubt the last shreds of UK public support for coalition operations would survive such an action, for example.

And, to quote a certain war hero and one of the few Americans with any scruples, it's not about them it's about us.

However, both wideband jamming and spoof broadcasts could be used if a real need existed other than a despotic desire to censor unfriendly news.

mordern journos are all about stirring sh8t up, take recent shooting of a suspected terrorist, the journos made ian blair a hero and in two weeks after some suspect leak :yuk: they are villifying him . another fine example of mordern jouno.Doctors in cromwell hospital give george best minutes to live in the morning all newspapers carry an obituries for george best he dies in the afternoon of the morning on which his own obitury was published
how do you make that out

and i am sick of the hypocrisy of these journos who change from anti war to pro war at the drop of the hat

i say shoot down these jornos first we might have peace in the world
:ok:

Sikeano- The facts are that the Met choose to release 'facts' regarding the tube training killing of the Brazilian within hours.
Subsequently a lot of this has been proved to be wrong or not quite how the event panned out.
The media reported directly what the Met said - was it a case that the media got it wrong or the case that the Met made statements without either knowing the whole truth or filling in the gaps?