Page 1 of 1
Al Jazeera bombing plot
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:52 pm
by SonomaCat
Re: Al Jazeera bombing plot
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:16 pm
by Hell's Bells
not really since that is the tv station that airs the decapitation of people
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:19 pm
by BobCatFan
It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:35 pm
by SonomaCat
[Sigh] Yeah, the U.S. should bomb every TV station that airs views we don't agree with or has employees that are Muslim.
"They" declared war on the U.S.? That's an interesting assertion.
Hey maybe Fox News will declare War on Syria (or maybe they already have, and we just don't know it yet). That would be cool. Then Syria would be justified in bombing News Corp. Makes sense, huh?
And to think that all of our votes count the same....
Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 7:35 pm
by Grizlaw
BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
And who, pray tell, is "they?"
Re: Al Jazeera bombing plot
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:03 am
by '93HonoluluCat
Like you're so fond of pointing out, BAC, it'll be interesting to see what the other side of the story is.
Re: Al Jazeera bombing plot
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:27 am
by SonomaCat
'93HonoluluCat wrote:
Like you're so fond of pointing out, BAC, it'll be interesting to see what the other side of the story is.
I will be as well. I am hoping that the assertions made by the Brit aren't true. I don't want to think that thoughts like that even came up in discussions, and I particularly don't like the idea of the British having to talk us out of making a huge mistake of that magnitude. If we find that there is no merit to this story, I will be very happy.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:29 am
by '93HonoluluCat
I didn't catch this the first time I read the SF Gate article, but they're quoting the Daily Mirror--one of the UK's most popular tabloids? Of course the White House is not going to comment, just like they would not comment if the Weekly World News reported that Osama Bin Laden was not human, but an android of Martian construction!
Additionally, who is really going to believe a newspaper whose editor was fired after publishing faked pictures of British troops torturing prisoners?
Maybe, just maybe, this story doesn't deserve the interest we're giving it.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:32 am
by SonomaCat
Well, the guy is being charged by the UK government for leaking the information, so there must be something to it. Whether the leaked information was precisely what they are reporting is the question. They may well be manipulating the evidence to make the story they wish to make.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:48 am
by lifeloyalsigmsu
Bay Area Cat wrote:Well, the guy is being charged by the UK government for leaking the information, so there must be something to it. Whether the leaked information was precisely what they are reporting is the question. They may well be manipulating the evidence to make the story they wish to make.
Hasn't Blair's political clout been getting thinner as of recently? I don't keep up with their political activity over there but wasn't something recently voted down or defeated that would have been huge for his party? Maybe this is a backlash from him as well as his supporters.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:36 pm
by BWahlberg
BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
Oh man, so now our job is religious cleansing? Lets kill all the Jews while we're at it huh?
So if a Christian terrorist bombs a government building should we declare war on their faith? wow...
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:47 pm
by BobCatFan
Grizlaw wrote:BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
And who, pray tell, is "they?"
Radical Muslims.
This is why we are in a religious war and not at war with a country. If you think we are in Iraq for oil, you need to study history and politics. We are only in Iraq to spread the benefits of democracy. We are planting the seed and hopefully it will grow like a weed in the Middle East.
War is never pretty, but as a nation cannot lose this war. Religious wars never have an easy outcome. They last decades if not centuries. The Radical Muslims have about 60-year head start on us. They have preached against the west ever since the state of Israel was created. Let us hope with modern communications, our view of the world is received and is adopted.
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:59 pm
by SonomaCat
BobCatFan wrote:Grizlaw wrote:BobCatFan wrote:It still needs to be done. They declared war on the US so they are now our enemy. People, we are in a religious war. This could take a century or two.
And who, pray tell, is "they?"
Radical Muslims.
This is why we are in a religious war and not at war with a country. If you think we are in Iraq for oil, you need to study history and politics. We are only in Iraq to spread the benefits of democracy. We are planting the seed and hopefully it will grow like a weed in the Middle East.
War is never pretty, but as a nation cannot lose this war. Religious wars never have an easy outcome. They last decades if not centuries. The Radical Muslims have about 60-year head start on us. They have preached against the west ever since the state of Israel was created. Let us hope with modern communications, our view of the world is received and is adopted.
It's great that you think our involvement in the Middle East is purely as a gift of democracy to the Iraqi people (even though that wasn't the reason we were told we were going to war, but apparently you never believed that WMD line -- good for you). That little bit of poetry aside, what does any of this have to do with suggesting that it would have been okay to BOMB A TV STATION that is located within the borders of one of our allies?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:06 pm
by Grizlaw
BobCatFan wrote:Radical Muslims.
This is why we are in a religious war and not at war with a country. If you think we are in Iraq for oil, you need to study history and politics. We are only in Iraq to spread the benefits of democracy. We are planting the seed and hopefully it will grow like a weed in the Middle East.
War is never pretty, but as a nation cannot lose this war. Religious wars never have an easy outcome. They last decades if not centuries. The Radical Muslims have about 60-year head start on us. They have preached against the west ever since the state of Israel was created. Let us hope with modern communications, our view of the world is received and is adopted.
I agree that we are not at war with a particular country (and I have never argued that we are in Iraq because of oil; why would you assume I meant that?)
I just think characterizing this as a religious war is incredibly dangerous in light of the fact that (1) it discounts the fact that we have many Muslims in this country as well, and (2) even though you qualify the statement by saying we are at war with "radical Muslims" (as opposed to all Muslims), the reality is that all Muslims would feel threatened (and rightly so) by the characterization of this as a war based on religion.
I would much prefer to see this characterized as a war against terrorism, period. When we start making it about religion -- even if it is only against "radical" Islam -- we are starting down a path that could take us to a very bad place.
Just my opinion, of course...
--GL
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:17 pm
by '93HonoluluCat
BAC wrote:[W]hat does any of this have to do with suggesting that it would have been okay to BOMB A TV STATION that is located within the borders of one of our allies?
The Geneva Convention, and appropriately, our own military's Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) give certain provisions when striking such a target would be lawful and appropriate.
However, those same provisions still mandate a weighing of benefits and costs. Case in point, during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Fedayeen Sadaam were using mosques and hospitals as supply depots for weapons and ammunition, and even sometimes using them as firing positions, apparently in the hopes that the Coalition forces would not fire on them due to their location. However, the Geneva Convention, and again, the LOAC, state that the protected status of religious sites and hospitals are surrendered when used for military advantage.
I'm not making the case for bombing the al-Jazeera HQ, but just because something has civilian use doesn't mean it can't be a legitimate military target, given the right set of circumstances.
EDIT: Additionally, there no guarantee that the "official" that was arrested for leaking classified information was arrested for this specific information. It very well could be that he leaked other information in addition to this bombing allegation.
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:04 pm
by SonomaCat
'93HonoluluCat wrote:BAC wrote:[W]hat does any of this have to do with suggesting that it would have been okay to BOMB A TV STATION that is located within the borders of one of our allies?
The Geneva Convention, and appropriately, our own military's Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) give certain provisions that striking such a target would be lawful and appropriate.
However, those same provisions still mandate a weighing of benefits and costs. Case in point, during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), the Fedayeen Sadaam were using mosques and hospitals as supply depots for weapons and ammunition, and even sometime using them as firing positions, apparently in the hopes that the Coalition forces would not fire on them due to there location. However, the Geneva Convention, and again, the LOAC, state that the protected status of religious sites and hospitals are surrendered when used for military advantage.
I'm not making the case for bombing the al-Jazeera HQ, but just because something has civilian use doesn't mean it can't be a legitimate military target, given the right set of circumstances.
EDIT: Additionally, there no guarantee that the "official" that was arrested for leaking classified information was arrested for this specific information. It very well could be that he leaked other information in addition to this bombing allegation.
So yes, if they were housing a terrorist cell in the basement of the building or operating a chemical weapons plant in the studio, the fact that they were a civilian operation wouldn't prevent us from bombing them.
But it appears that the only reason we theoretically would have bombed them was because we didn't agree with their news coverage which, ironically, now appears to have been more accruate in many cases than our own. The idea that we would even consider attacking any press outlet in such a way sends shudders up and down my spine, and should to anyone else who truly believes in anything other than lip service to the idea of "freedom."
So again, I think HC and I are on the same page in that we are skeptical that this idea was ever hatched and both sincerely hope that it was not. What scares me is that some people would actually advocate such an idea.
Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2005 7:52 pm
by '93HonoluluCat
BAC wrote: think HC and I are on the same page in that we are skeptical that this idea was ever hatched and both sincerely hope that it was not. What scares me is that some people would actually advocate such an idea.
Definitely arriving at the same point from two different avenues, but yes, I suppose you're right. 