The Network Terrorists Trust

[hist2004]

The Network Terrorists Trust

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

By Neil Cavuto

Yet another hostage tape makes its way to Al Jazeera television. This one features British hostage Kenneth Bigley pleading with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to meet the demands of his captors.

I'm not here to talk about Bigley. I hope he gets out safe. His two captured American colleagues weren't so lucky.

I am here to remind everyone that they too showed up on Al Jazeera TV: first as hostages, then hostages being brutally murdered. All on tape and sent out on tape and Al Jazeera had it first.

How does that happen? Who gives this stuff to Al Jazeera?

It seems relatively easy. I mean, is it a courier? Does it just show up: a deep throat in the desert? Someone must deliver it. All I know is Al Jazeera gets it.

Perusing its Web site, I can understand why.

Wednesday features a story on the killing of Iraqi civilians. Still another on why America likely faces a humiliating defeat in Iraq. There's a story about Israeli troops killing a handicapped Palestinian in the West Bank, but no mention of three Israelis killed just the day before. And a conspiracy item linking Israel to the September 11 attacks on this country.

It's Al Jazeera's stock and trade. But exactly who are these guys trading with?

A network that claims to be fair and balanced almost delighting in showing butchers who seem very un-fair and most definitely off-balance.

I can see the new ad campaign now: Al Jazeera: the network terrorists trust.

Regards,
Hist2004

[username]

utter drivel, what the hell do you know about what jounralism involves anyway. The idea is not to take sides and show only the facts, the reader/viewer is ment to make up thier own mind based on the facts.

There is an australian journalist in iraq atm who is regularly in contact with insurgents/whatver, for example they invited him to dinner one night and after they took him for a drive, launched a short mortar attack against coalition forces. They didint tell him they were going to do this before hand, though they also regualrly send him videos of attacks they make on coalition forces. He does not give the locations or names of the insurgents as he would then be taking sides and if he did he would not get to see that side of the war and only be able to report on what coalition forces do. Im not sure of his name he was onl lateline about a month ago

The point is that the news in theory should not take sides in conflict REGARDLESS they are there to show the facts and nothing else.

[moughoun]

Well for one Al Jezeera is the only half way independent network in the middle East, Arab's trust it like American's trust Fox, it's in a strong US allied country so maybe you should talk to them, ect ect

[Virus]

exactly how i think username....but when they "Al jazeera" only show one side of the facts, it kind of pisses people off.... all or none i say...

[hist2004]

utter drivel, what the hell do you know about what jounralism involves anyway. The idea is not to take sides and show only the facts, the reader/viewer is ment to make up thier own mind based on the facts.

There is an australian journalist in iraq atm who is regularly in contact with insurgents/whatver, for example they invited him to dinner one night and after they took him for a drive, launched a short mortar attack against coalition forces. They didint tell him they were going to do this before hand, though they also regualrly send him videos of attacks they make on coalition forces. He does not give the locations or names of the insurgents as he would then be taking sides and if he did he would not get to see that side of the war and only be able to report on what coalition forces do. Im not sure of his name he was onl lateline about a month ago

The point is that the news in theory should not take sides in conflict REGARDLESS they are there to show the facts and nothing else.

You say “utter drivel” and then conclude with “news in theory should not take sides
in conflict REGARDLESS they are there to show the facts and nothing else”. This is
non-sense, Al-Jazzera, is as biased as CBS news; only AL-Jazzera doesn’t try to
hide its allegiance. How can you say that this is not a pro-terrorist news agency?
It is consistently anti-American and Anti-Israel. If you don’t like the individual
who wrote the article that’s one thing…the content is spot on.

Regards,
Hist2004

[moughoun]

utter drivel, what the hell do you know about what jounralism involves anyway. The idea is not to take sides and show only the facts, the reader/viewer is ment to make up thier own mind based on the facts.

There is an australian journalist in iraq atm who is regularly in contact with insurgents/whatver, for example they invited him to dinner one night and after they took him for a drive, launched a short mortar attack against coalition forces. They didint tell him they were going to do this before hand, though they also regualrly send him videos of attacks they make on coalition forces. He does not give the locations or names of the insurgents as he would then be taking sides and if he did he would not get to see that side of the war and only be able to report on what coalition forces do. Im not sure of his name he was onl lateline about a month ago

The point is that the news in theory should not take sides in conflict REGARDLESS they are there to show the facts and nothing else.

You say “utter drivel” and then conclude with “news in theory should not take sides
in conflict REGARDLESS they are there to show the facts and nothing else”. This is
non-sense, Al-Jazzera, is as biased as CBS news; only AL-Jazzera doesn’t try to
hide its allegiance. How can you say that this is not a pro-terrorist news agency?
It is consistently anti-American and Anti-Israel. If you don’t like the individual
who wrote the article that’s one thing…the content is spot on.

Regards,
Hist2004
Just a question, have you ever watched it?