How do you feel about Al Jazeera moving here, english version?

[medicinal]

Say this about the people who run Al Jazeera: They are nothing if not persistent.
Two weeks ago, the network best known in the United States for airing video messages from Osama bin Laden launched an English-language news channel -- known as Al Jazeera International (AJI) -- despite the fact that not a single U.S. cable company or major satellite provider had agreed to carry it.

Al Jazeera bypassed the cable companies to stream on the Internet. If you have a high-speed connection and $6 a month to spare, you can tune in on your computer. The move is seen as a stopgap until AJI can find a home somewhere on U.S. television.

Not surprising, given its pedigree, the new channel has already proved controversial. Critics argue that allowing Al Jazeera International to air on American television would be essentially giving a megaphone to those who spout anti-American propaganda. Supporters of letting the network air argue that seeing the way the Arab world views the United States might broaden minds here.

But the "should we or shouldn't we look at Al Jazeera International" debate is going on in virtual darkness. Few Americans have actually seen AJI. But I have. During its first weekend on the air, I closely monitored five hours of coverage -- mostly newscasts -- to get a sense of what it was airing and to get some sense of its tone.

In both style and substance, it has a British feel. Indeed, if you briefly clicked by Al Jazeera International on television, you might mistake it for the BBC, from its understated, clean graphics to the on-camera personnel speaking with English accents. It also has the BBC's more-global view of the news, stretching far afield for stories. In its first weekend, for instance, the channel trumpeted the fact that its reporters got into Burma (Myanmar), a country that foreign reporters are rarely allowed to enter.

But AJI is no BBC clone. This is an Arab voice -- self-consciously so. It also loudly markets itself as independent. Anchors at times introduce stories by talking about the channel's "fearless journalism" -- a network slogan. In a story the channel did about its own launch, for instance, it happily pointed out that everyone criticizes Al Jazeera. The piece included clips of Saddam Hussein-era Iraqi officials saying Al Jazeera is spreading U.S. propaganda, juxtaposed against soon-to-be-former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld calling the channel "irresponsible."

Most of all, the news agenda is focused on the Middle East. Consider a rundown of the lead block of stories that appeared on the channel's Sunday evening broadcast that opening weekend.

The lead story focused on Syria getting involved in Iraq in part to prevent the war-torn country's dissolution. There was a report on Iraq that included footage of the "Islamic Army in Iraq" going through drills and graduating a group of new soldiers. That was followed by a story about the Israeli army bombing targets on Gaza and people who voluntarily went to serve as human shields of a supposed target. There was a piece on how Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah was urging followers to protest Lebanon's "illegitimate" government. New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh appeared in a short item saying that the CIA had found no conclusive evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear program. And, finally, there was a story about President Bush traveling to Asia and "failing" to secure cooperative agreements from China or Russia on how to handle Iran.

That's a heavy dose of Middle Eastern news before the first commercial break. And one that included subtle and not-so-subtle jabs at the U.S. administration.

It is also a different perspective than one would get in the U.S. media. The next day's New York Times, for example, had a front-page story about Iraq, but its stories about Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza were deep inside the paper. An item about Mr. Hersh suggesting that Mr. Bush was "ignoring" the CIA was nowhere to be found. The Bush-in-Asia piece was a fairly straightforward account of a presidential travel trip.

A few days later, a Lebanese cabinet minister was assassinated, and Syria renewed diplomatic relations with Iraq. Those stories did not come out of the blue -- something that AJI viewers, who had intensive exposure to the broader news context of these regional events, understood.

Among the many issues surrounding AJI that will arise in the days ahead, one seems foremost. Is it a mouthpiece for anti-American propaganda?

That's hard to say after just five hours of viewing. But one thing is clear: The channel seems likely to offer more in-depth coverage of the Middle East than anything else most Americans are going to see. nbbbbbbbb

medicinal Reviewed by medicinal on 12-11-2006. How do you feel about Al Jazeera moving here, english version? Say this about the people who run Al Jazeera: They are nothing if not persistent. Two weeks ago, the network best known in the United States for airing video messages from Osama bin Laden launched an English-language news channel -- known as Al Jazeera International (AJI) -- despite the fact that not a single U.S. cable company or major satellite provider had agreed to carry it. Al Jazeera bypassed the cable companies to stream on the Internet. If you have a high-speed connection and $6 a Rating: 5

[mrdevious]

I look forward to seeing AlJazheera (I just know I spelled that wrong). While I'm sure they'll be just as (if not more) biased as our own western media, at least it'll be a bias from the other end. Hopefully bouncing the public brain between the two ends of the spectrum will result in us landing somewhere at the truth in the middle.

[Torog]

Howdy medicinal,

I lived and worked in Saudi for awhile,and we didn't even bother turning on the tv there,because the only thing on,was state-run crap and al-jazeera.

AJ airs snuff films of my fellow soldiers and and gives free rein to our enemies to spout their vile propaganda,so I don't support them being in America,in anyway.

However,I'm sure that the 5th columnists here in America and elsewhere,are eager for the vile pablum that comes from AJ.

Have a good one...

[medicinal]

However,I'm sure that the 5th columnists here in America and elsewhere,are eager for the vile pablum that comes from AJ.Every nation-state brainwashes it's citizens. A.J. is no different I suppose, although it represents a wide ranging teritorial citizenry. When I was in the Army, they didn"t let us watch much TV, And BTW I am 1000% behind our troops, it's just the leaders that rile me. quit killing muslim jihadists and start negotiating with their leaders. If you can find a common ground with their leaders, the brainwashed idiots will fall in line. If the Mullahs said to love America because that is in the Kuran, the idiots would shape up, I realize this a little oversimplified, but I'm sure you get the drift. Negotiate, don't annihilate. And when you get some spare time, look up the definition of liberal in the dictionary, you may be surprised! You don't have to be a conservative or whatever you suppose yourself to be to love your country. I love my country, it's just that the policies of my government don't convey the type of message that made me proud to be American, I'm a Vet also!

[Breukelen advocaat]

However,I'm sure that the 5th columnists here in America and elsewhere,are eager for the vile pablum that comes from AJ.Every nation-state brainwashes it's citizens. A.J. is no different I suppose, although it represents a wide ranging teritorial citizenry. When I was in the Army, they didn"t let us watch much TV, And BTW I am 1000% behind our troops, it's just the leaders that rile me. quit killing muslim jihadists and start negotiating with their leaders. If you can find a common ground with their leaders, the brainwashed idiots will fall in line. If the Mullahs said to love America because that is in the Kuran, the idiots would shape up, I realize this a little oversimplified, but I'm sure you get the drift. Negotiate, don't annihilate. And when you get some spare time, look up the definition of liberal in the dictionary, you may be surprised! You don't have to be a conservative or whatever you suppose yourself to be to love your country. I love my country, it's just that the policies of my government don't convey the type of message that made me proud to be American, I'm a Vet also!

You cannot have negotiations, as we know it, with some people of the Islamic faith because a large number of them are mentally ill due to their religion and culture. You say that we should, "quit killing muslim jihadists and start negotiating with their leaders. " Which leaders? Whatever we do will upset somebody. Somebody has to kill the jihadists. Killing their families is another option that would discourage them, but we'd be unwilling to do that.

The best way to deal with this cultures like these is to boycott them until they change. This will never happen because it would involve inconveniences, sacrifice, and commitment from the population of the West - which the average person, corporation, etc., is unwilling to do. So when the world is destroyed and/or our society is ruined, someone will realize that we should have stayed out of the Middle East entirely, and protected ourselves from any and all problems with them. This includes forgoing aid to Israel - and making it very clear to the Arabs that they will receive nothing good from us until they get their act together and eliminate the uncivilized, murderous terrorists, and hostile regimes, themselves.

Of course, this is only a dream and will never happen. The emotion of greed is too strong.

[medicinal]

You cannot have negotiations, as we know it, with some people of the Islamic faith because a large number of them are mentally ill due to their religion and culture. Then would you also agree that some in our culture are mentally ill for starting wars and gobblying up global resourses, all in the name of anti-terrorism, spelled Profit

[Breukelen advocaat]

You cannot have negotiations, as we know it, with some people of the Islamic faith because a large number of them are mentally ill due to their religion and culture. Then would you also agree that some in our culture are mentally ill for starting wars and gobblying up global resourses, all in the name of anti-terrorism, spelled Profit

To some extent - but I am not so cynical to think that if there was an easier way to make money, that it would be ignored in the West.

This is not an equal playing field, in terms of craziness - but it should be. The terrorists have to see us as crazier than they are - and if non-violent boycotts do not stop them, then we have the right to protect ourselves by using extreme force.

I believe that we should do exactly what bin Laden and his ilk wants, which is to leave the Middle East entirely - and take it from there. I do not care about Oil profits, "Holy" lands, foreign aid to Muslim societies, trade with them, etc., until they themselves wake up and smell the coffee.

Of course, if there are any more terrorist attacks from them all bets are off and we should lower the boom.

We need to get rid of Christianity also - and tell the idiots over there that we are not functioning according to superstition and ancient tribal customs anymore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran."
http://www.historyofjihad.org/future.html

A religion is at the root of the terrorism that we witness across the world today. All Religions originate from a psychiatric paranoia, based on a misunderstanding of the unknown universe as a god. This paranoia becomes a threat to civilization when a religion insists that everyone should accept that, the way in which this religion misunderstands the unknown universe as a god, is the ONLY right way (to misunderstand the universe!).

Missionary religions are an infectious psychiatric paranoia and Violent Missionary religions are a criminally infectious psychiatric paranoia that threaten human civilization. While all religions are psychiatric paranoias, only Islam is a criminally infectious psychiatric paranoia.

With the Quran setting the principles for forcible conversion of all non-Muslims to Islam and using coercion of treating non-Muslims like 2nd class beings, the base is prepared for the Madaressahs (Islamic theological-terrorism schools) to inculcate these Quranic principles into the minds of every growing generation of Muslims to have this attitude of paranoid coercion. Further at every prayer (Ibadat/Namaz), the Muslim priest (Maulavi) preaches the practice of terror to his audience. This is how a terrorist is born. So the Quran, and what is preached in the Madaressahs and the Mosques are the real roots of terror. And until the world over, we do not eradicate these, the problem of terrorism will not end.

There will come a point when widespread Muslim terror attacks against the U.S. will no longer allow military actions as we have taken in Iraq and Afghanistan and will call for a re-appraisal of our military strategy. A re-appraisal as happened during World War 2 when the allies in 1939 began by bombarding Germany with pamphlets asking the Germans to make peace, to the bombing of Dresden to rubble in 1945. It took six years during the last World War to bring about this change. How long will it take now? And in what circumstances now do we reach that point? Here's the dilemma: to have any hope of victory over the Jihadis, we must use a terrible, overwhelming, and insidious force; yet, in using that force we risk losing popular support for the war effort.

Victory requires a devastation so complete as to disabuse the enemy of any and all notions of pride (in this case Arab and Muslim pride) and the futility of resisting us. This kind of psychological change is forced in the enemy only by visiting a defeat on him that is so horrendous and complete that his very existence is dependent upon your will. Think of the bombing of Tokyo, and the fire-storms that followed in 1945. Think of Dresden. It is said that bombs fell in Dresden until the only effect was to bounce the rubble. Think of Hiroshima (horrendous as it seems, but can we prevent it from coming to that sometime in this war?).

If you are familiar with U.S. history, consider the way we completely drove out the last Britisher (colonialist) from the newly independent United States in 1776, consider the sacking of Atlanta during our Civil War, and the psychological impact on Southerners of Sherman's March to the Sea. Unfortunately, these are the necessary atrocities of a successful military campaign. This is what the history of war teaches: Without a complete and total annihilation of the enemy, he will never come to realize the folly of his ways... and he will rise to fight us again. The point is when and under what circumstances will we be provoked to carry this war to a decisively successful conclusion. Last time it was Pearl Harbor, this time if it has not been 9/11, then will it be a nuke or dirty nuke attack on the West or the US mainland?
http://www.newsonterror.com/

[Zimzum]

Let it air here if we support free speech. I've read some of there articles and for the most doesn't seem to really bash the US. And just like Bill O'Rilley / Howard Stern, if you don't like it you don't listen to it.

[medicinal]

Do you really think the only rational solution is to bomb them to extinction, Kill all women and children because they will grow up to hate us as well? I think thats called Genocide. A rational person could not promote Genocide. It's either them or us is a dismal outlook, If the hatred could be extinguished on both sides, I would call that a better solution. By offering the Genocide solution, you are not any better than them, I thought we held the "moral" high ground, maybe not!

[Breukelen advocaat]

Do you really think the only rational solution is to bomb them to extinction, Kill all women and children because they will grow up to hate us as well? I think thats called Genocide. A rational person could not promote Genocide. It's either them or us is a dismal outlook, If the hatred could be extinguished on both sides, I would call that a better solution. By offering the Genocide solution, you are not any better than them, I thought we held the "moral" high ground, maybe not!

I am not advocating "Genocide". If we are constantly under attack, and the preservation of the planet is in jeopardy, we have no choice but to fight back.

As I said, I'd rather boycott them peacefully. That option doesn't appeal to many - because most people are simply not facing reality. I don't even "hate" them - I only want the people that commit jihad and acts such as 9/11 to cease and desist. However, if there are hideouts, financial help, schools for terrorists, and other types of support for these murderers linked to a place, then they are also guilty.



Here's some good ideas: DealingWithTerrorists-BrooklynStyle