You gotta' love that.

This also means that each and every conservative wing-nut malcontent in PA -- who stays home and doesn't vote, or who votes third party, to "send a message," to spite Santorum, or to "prove their point" about whatever's vexing them that day -- will wind up casting de facto ballots in favor of Al-Jazeerah's candidate.

I'm sure they'll be proud of themselves.

I also love the fact that the editorialist at Al Jazeerah made an H. P. Lovecraft reference. 'The oldest kind of human emotion is fear and the oldest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.' From his Supernatural Horror in Literature.

Perhaps the Old Gods have something to do with this? Cthulhu for Prime Minister of Israel!

"...by not acknowledging that a political agenda is not the same thing as a belief system..."

Don't two negatives make a positive? If he didn't acknowledge that they are not the same, then he must have acknowledged that they are. Which is, if I'm reading the al jeez broken English correctly, true. At least for Islamic fundamentalists.

Osama Bin Laden endorsed Kerry in '04.

Now Al-Jazeerah is endorsing the Democrat running against Santorum.

Could it be a trend?

The Democrats put a lot of effort into trying to appear not to be pro-terrorist, but the terrorists have no problem letting everyone know they are pro-Democrat.

Lee, mantis, et. al. must be so proud.

Lee, mantis, et. al. must be so proud.

I'm no Democrat, fool.

"Osama Bin Laden endorsed Kerry in '04."

"Now Al-Jazeerah is endorsing the Democrat running against Santorum."

Poor dumb lumberjack - you probably think of Al-Jazeerah as a terrorist organization, don't you?

"you probably think of Al-Jazeerah as a terrorist organization, don't you?" Lee

And it speaks volumes about you, that you do not.

Explain d_brit or Bunyan, or anyone else - no drive-by hurlings of spit - explain how Al-Jazerra is a terrorist organization, pls. Or link to someone smarter than you who can explain that position.

My position is that al-Jazerra is as much a terrorist organization as Fox News. Do you disagree? Is there any difference in their motives, practices, etc? Aren't they identical with respect to serving up a nationlism viewpoint -- and AJ is just the mirror opposite politically of Fox News? Where Fox News serves up their coverage with an American Nationalism slant, AJ slants theirs towards Arab Nationalism - they both do exactly the same thing but just aim at different audiences.

Claiming al-Jazerra is a terrorist organization shows just how ill-informed and braindead you righties are. Like cattle being led to think, instead of drink.

If AJ is a terrorist organization, so is Fox News.

Nice try at equivalence between AJ and Fox but its laughable on the face of it.

"Or link to someone smarter than you who can explain that position." If we did that you wouldn't understand it, as you're having trouble comprehending us.

Al Jazeera is providing active support in a propaganda war. Fox is not. I know that your view of advocacy journalism makes it hard for you to see the difference but your difficulty is the point.

When a 'news' organization provides active propaganda support to a terrorist organization it becomes de facto, a part of that organization.

"Al Jazeera is providing active support in a propaganda war. Fox is not."

Sad. You've lost your balance - but I guess that is the defining quality of a conservative - someone who chooses themselves and their views as the only "correct" view. Fox News is a very active propogandist for the adminstration. Your denial of this fact shows you're incapable of critical thinking. Ok, this proves you're nothing but a patriotic nutcake, but go on....

"I know that your view of advocacy journalism makes it hard for you to see the difference but your difficulty is the point."

Likewise. Do you believe Fox isn't the prime example of "advocacy journalism", and is balanced in any sense of the word? Wait - that requires analysis - you're already proven you're just a conservative, boot-licking Republican shill - so go on...

"When a 'news' organization provides *active* propaganda support to a terrorist organization it becomes de facto, a part of that organization."

*Active* propoganda support - wow - you used italics - that must mean you're saying something important!

but can you provide an example of Al Jazerra "actively" providing propoganda support? Or is this just something that Fox News or some other "unbalanced source" told you to think?

No, apparently you can't support your argument with facts. You are yourself just a propogandist - unable to think for yourself - just passing along the word according to George or Sean or Rush or one of the other people who do your thinking for you.

Or surprise me - give some examples of how AJ provides propoganda support. I'll give you a second chance - you've wasted this much time so far - I'll give you some more....

tick...tick...tick...

Posted by: Lee at July 26, 2006 07:37 PM

Oh no, who knows what to do! The dreaded ad hominem attack!

Al Jazeera TV & the Terrorists

"Al Sharq Awsat newspaper (6/27/2004) has published the story of the Saudi Saaedan who was captured by the terrorists in Falluja.

He was interrogated for 3 days and accused of working for the US army, a charge which resulted in the death penalty according to Fatwa by one of the terrorists, Wahabi Mullah.

Saaedan added that he heard one of the terrorists calling an Al Jazeera TV reporter to come to record a video tape. He was then forced to sit in front of an Al Jazeera reporter and camera and one of the terrorists read the statement. He was then moved into another place waiting for the execution on 4 June 2004.

On the early morning of the same day there was an exchange of fire between the terrorists and the US forces which helped Saaedan to escape.

Mr Saaedan is now taking legal action against Al Jazeera TV because they joined the terrorist in his death and had not informed the officials about what was happening. Especially as they knew all about it, including his place and time of execution.

In actual fact Saaedan saw the tape broadcasted by Al Jazeera on 5 June 2004 after his escape as well as on the BBC."

This provides evidence of collaboration between Al Jazeera and the terrorists as it extends far beyond 'reporting the news' and amounts to facilitating terrorists promoting their 'communications'.

So much for the 'equivalence' between Fox and AJ.

"Do you believe Fox isn't the prime example of "advocacy journalism", and is balanced in any sense of the word? Wait - that requires analysis - you're already proven you're just a conservative, boot-licking Republican shill - so go on..."Lee

Fox is biased, I never claimed otherwise. I simply objected to your claim that they are equivalent.

Fox is NOT the prime example of 'advocacy journalism'. That particular 'honor' belongs to the New York Times. And given that you're an ASS-kissing liberal 'apparachnik' you are hardly in a position to throw stones.

"This provides evidence of collaboration between Al Jazeera and the terrorists as it extends far beyond 'reporting the news' and amounts to facilitating terrorists promoting their 'communications'."

No, this proves you don't know the difference between facts and propoganda. I fact-checked the story you posted above, and found it listed on two blogs -- NO WHERE ELSE (not even Faux News), and only on two blogs --

-- so one idiot lying propogandist blogger made up this story, another idiot propogandist blogger linked to it - and a third idiot (that's you d-brit) believes it.

So in a discussion about propoganda, where you claim to know the difference, you link to propoganda as fact -- Wow - you really showed me... moron.

You will never convince Lee that al-J isn't a reliable source of news, any more than you could convince him that terrorism is a threat.

I take the threat of terrorism far more seriously then you republican jerks - who have only used "the war on terror" as an excuse for the bigger agenda - and then do a piss poor job of fighting terrorism to boot.

That's why I am so friggin angry at the mess created by the repubs in power - you guys had a chance to fight terrorism with the whole country behind you and you botched it!

And I never said AJ was reliable. In fact - I said they were biased - as biased as Fox - but I disagree that they are a "terrorist organization" - that's just a handy handle you racist bigots attach to anyone who's skin color is not as pearly white as yours.

This article is not from Al-Jazeera (the news organization)

you guys had a chance to fight terrorism with the whole country behind you and you botched it!
-----------------------------------
When was that? Because I sure recall that the moment we began action to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan, just weeks after the 9/11 attack - MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and other likeminded Democrats screamed their opposition.

The fact is a large number of Democrats opposed fighting terrorism - well before the Iraq war controversy. This nation was never united. Because there are just too many people on the left side of the aisle that would have us get hit again and again (think the 90s) and complain the moment our military did anything in response.

this Al-Jazeerah is not the news organization, but an Arab Peace Group based in the US.

Also, as Americans who are not sociopaths we all agree on a LOT of concepts.

Included are: we want to live, we want a better world, we don't want to kill babies, we want people to prosper, we support capitalism, we support democracy, etc.

Whenever I hear someone say that a Democrat is anti-American, or wants to kill babies, or is a communist, or hates voting and democracy, I know I am talking to a non-thinker.

Let me say again: for most Americans, and especially those that get ELECTED, we agree on the basics we just disagree on how to get there. There are no leftists who want us all to die, or want the US to suffer, or want abortion rates to increase, or want to suppress votes or control business via the state.