Good afternoon all of you. I thought I'd take a slight departure from my usual topic of interest to bring everybody's attention to this news story (http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=2062697).

It concerns a private meeting between George W Bush and Tony Blair, in which Mister Blair allegedly dissuades Mister Bush from performing an act of aggression against the Qatar offices of Arabic News Network Al Jazeera.

Now, if the content of the article, as reported by Al Jazeera, is true then it is incredibly worrying. Even more troublesome is the immediate reaction of both the British and American governments to silence the report. If, as suggested, Mister Blair did talk Mister Bush out of his chosen course of action then surely we should be allowing the reported transcript to be aired? It would show us as a country dedicated to peace; a claim that our own government has been making for quite some time.

Furthermore, if Mister Bush did indeed suggest attacking those offices then what message does this send out to the world? Is Mister Bush telling us that if we say anything bad about him, if we question his motives and actions, he's going to hurt us?

I just thought that some of the more politically and intellectually aware members of this forum might be interested in it also.

EDIT: Other sources of news regarding this topic can be found at these links:

The Channel 4 report in video from Brad Blog (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002072.htm)
Don't Bomb Us - A blog by Al Jazeera staff. (http://dontbomb.blogspot.com/)
A discussion about two memos over at BlairWatch (http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/node/603)

Originally posted by byronshadow
Good afternoon all of you. I thought I'd take a slight departure from my usual topic of interest to bring everybody's attention to this news story (http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=2062697).

It concerns a private meeting between George W Bush and Tony Blair, in which Mister Blair allegedly dissuades Mister Bush from performing an act of aggression against the Qatar offices of Arabic News Network Al Jazeera.

Now, if the content of the article, as reported by Al Jazeera, is true then it is incredibly worrying. Even more troublesome is the immediate reaction of both the British and American governments to silence the report. If, as suggested, Mister Blair did talk Mister Bush out of his chosen course of action then surely we should be allowing the reported transcript to be aired? It would show us as a country dedicated to peace; a claim that our own government has been making for quite some time.

Furthermore, if Mister Bush did indeed suggest attacking those offices then what message does this send out to the world? Is Mister Bush telling us that if we say anything bad about him, if we question his motives and actions, he's going to hurt us?

I just thought that some of the more politically and intellectually aware members of this forum might be interested in it also.


hopefully this is just the beginning of the great 'waking up and seeing the truth' that MUST happen , and quickly.

I'm not following. Since the Qatari offices of Al Jazeera were not bombed, what is the issue?

Furthermore, if Mister Bush did indeed suggest attacking those offices then what message does this send out to the world?

That the US President enjoys the right of free speech.

Originally posted by Journeyman
I'm not following. Since the Qatari offices of Al Jazeera were not bombed, what is the issue?

That the US President enjoys the right of free speech.

The issue, my friend, is whether or not Mister Bush even entertained thoughts of bombing a media outlet (a non-military target with high risk of civilian casualties). Some reports suggest that the comment was intended as a joke, while others suggest a seriousness to them that is worrying. That the idea was allegedly voiced at all is deplorable.

And don't forget, the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera were bombed.

An attack on a civilian building is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism.

Thanks for the clarification.

An attack on a civilian building is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism.

Couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Journeyman
Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.

So let's spin this round, and say that , picking purely at random.... pervez musharraf , pakistani leader, is 'alleged' to have said he intends to bomb the headquarters of CNN, would he receive the same support for his 'freedom of speech'?


just a thought.......


:clap:

If we run on the (very arguable) premise that the attack on Iraq was actually anything to do with trying to stop global terrorism then the big problem here is that Bush appears to have been trying to use the tactics of overt warfare against terrorists. If this was actually a war against a standing army you may have an argument for bombing news agency (stopping the spread of propaganda, information, misinformation etc.). However terrorists aren't a standing army they are embedded in the civilian population. If you try and attack them as if they are a standing army all you succeed in doing is brutalising a population and sending recruits swarming to the terrorist (freedom fighters?) camp to defend the civilian population from the brutal attackers. Essentially what you may have done is turned what may have been originally terrorists into freedom fighters!

Originally posted by sharpsinger
So let's spin this round, and say that , picking purely at random.... pervez musharraf , pakistani leader, is 'alleged' to have said he intends to bomb the headquarters of CNN, would he receive the same support for his 'freedom of speech'?


just a thought.......


:clap:

Maybe just a thought, but a very valid one.

Thank you for making that comparison, SharpSinger, and for highlighting the double-standards certain world leaders seem to adopt.

Originally posted by byronshadow
Thank you for making that comparison, SharpSinger, and for highlighting the double-standards certain world leaders seem to adopt.

Unfortunately politics seems to be one big arena of double standards. In this particulare area the double standard is one of if they are ours they are freedom fighters if they are theirs they are terrorists. When it comes down to to 'they' are doing exactly the same really unpleasent things...

Originally posted by evildrneil
Unfortunately politics seems to be one big arena of double standards. In this particulare area the double standard is one of if they are ours they are freedom fighters if they are theirs they are terrorists. When it comes down to to 'they' are doing exactly the same really unpleasent things...

I agree completely. The freedom fighter/terrorist argument is one I've been involved with for quite some time.

Thank you Dr Neil.

one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. It is all a matter of perspective and bias

To me a terrorist, becomes a terrorist when he tries to enforce is views or values by any physical force.

You are a Terrorist when your username is "Terrorist" and have a picture of Mohamed Ata as an avatar.

You are also a Terrorist when you create a signature on a forum which complains about the fact that your avatar has been removed by moderators.

You become a terrorist when your veiwpoint is different to that of the ruling parties and are prepared to act to support your beliefs.

Like George Bush said "You are either with us or against us!".

I wouldn't call anyone a terrorist or a freedom fighter. These terms have been so kicked back and forward by the slimiest slithering two faced liars on the face of the planet for so long now, that neither word has any meaning anymore, except in the minds of the hypocrites who use them for their own ends, or those stupid enough to look on these people as leaders. Our own glorious free media included - most major UK networks running stories under the banner 'war on terror' within days of Bush having coined the phrase. Baa Baa...pass me the vomit sack.

Originally posted by wayne72
To me a terrorist, becomes a terrorist when he tries to enforce is views or values by any physical force.

That would make the US/UK/Israel the biggest terrorists around.
If you are going to measure the degree of force used or the number of people killed, then Al-Quaeda is in the vauxhall conference leage compared to the big two 'champions' of 'Democracy'.

We've dropped more munitions in Iraq to further our political objectives (control of oil, and the sale of oil in Dollars) than we dropped on Germany during the course of the Second World War.

I still haven't heard of a coherent definition of terrorism, which is odd considering we're passing laws left, right and centre allegedly combating an action we cant wholly define.

The definition I would say is the most accurate (in the current context) of terrorism, is violence (be it justified or not) that is perpertrated without the consent/blessing of the US.

When does someone become a terrorist?

when they attack civilian targets with the intent to cause terror amongst the general population in order to cause political change.

When does someone become a freedom fighter?
When they attack legitimate military/governmental targets in order to cause political change.

Although that would make someone a freedom fighter if they bombed number 10, just so long as they only intended to hurt government officials, maybe I still need to work on that second definition...

Originally posted by Terrorist
You are a Terrorist when your username is "Terrorist" and have a picture of Mohamed Ata as an avatar.

You are also a Terrorist when you create a signature on a forum which complains about the fact that your avatar has been removed by moderators.

You become a terrorist when your veiwpoint is different to that of the ruling parties and are prepared to act to support your beliefs.

Like George Bush said "You are either with us or against us!".
Is u a Muslim like then innit?

Originally posted by byronshadow
The issue, my friend, is whether or not Mister Bush even entertained thoughts of bombing a media outlet (a non-military target with high risk of civilian casualties). Some reports suggest that the comment was intended as a joke, while others suggest a seriousness to them that is worrying. That the idea was allegedly voiced at all is deplorable.

And don't forget, the Baghdad offices of Al Jazeera were bombed.

An attack on a civilian building is not an act of war, it is an act of terrorism.

During the Balkans war I seem to remember a British/Nato cruise missile hitting a TV station in the former Yugoslavia causing loss of life and injuries to nothing more military than journalists and broadcast technicians. Was THIS an act of war against a legitimate target or an act of terrorism?

Originally posted by Nimrod
During the Balkans war I seem to remember a British/Nato cruise missile hitting a TV station in the former Yugoslavia causing loss of life and injuries to nothing more military than journalists and broadcast technicians. Was THIS an act of war against a legitimate target or an act of terrorism?

If it was deliberately aimed and fired then it was an act of terrorism. If it was an accidental hit then it was an act of stupidty. Both are acts of war; civilians are never legitimate targets, no matter how you try and paint it.

the tv station was broadcasting propaganda and dis information, those actions made it a legitimate target as it was aiding the war effort.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the tv station was broadcasting propaganda and dis information, those actions made it a legitimate target as it was aiding the war effort.

Does that mean any civilian judged to be aiding the war effort is a legitimate target?

Originally posted by Journeyman
Does that mean any civilian judged to be aiding the war effort is a legitimate target?

I guess that's one of those questions without a clear answer.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the tv station was broadcasting propaganda and dis information, those actions made it a legitimate target as it was aiding the war effort.

Judging our own media, and the manner in which it acted as a mouth piece for the Neo cons and their lies, I presume you're saying that it also is a legitimate target ?

Take for instance the case of the journalist from New York Times who wrote articles for the neo cons visa vis the Iraqi WMD program. She said that she was doing her job, but in effect she was simply printing propoganda for the neo cons.

Its never so clear cut and simple.

Would you say that bombing the headquarters of Al-Jazeera is warranted or indeed permissable ?

Originally posted by Cyclone
the tv station was broadcasting propaganda and dis information, those actions made it a legitimate target as it was aiding the war effort.

Define propoganda? Didn't our own media broadcast propoganda by repeating the government's reasons for going to war in the Gulf in the first place. How would you feel if Al Qaeda bombed the BBC? The same goes for disinformation. Whose truth is true?

As the man said, "history is always written by the victors".

Originally posted by wolfman
Judging our own media, and the manner in which it acted as a mouth piece for the Neo cons and their lies, I presume you're saying that it also is a legitimate target ?

Take for instance the case of the journalist from New York Times who wrote articles for the neo cons visa vis the Iraqi WMD program. She said that she was doing her job, but in effect she was simply printing propoganda for the neo cons.

Its never so clear cut and simple.

Would you say that bombing the headquarters of Al-Jazeera is warranted or indeed permissable ?

no i wouldn't say that it is.

Originally posted by Cyclone
no i wouldn't say that it is.

what makes it different to the TV station that was bombed in Serbia ?

Originally posted by wolfman
what makes it different to the TV station that was bombed in Serbia ?

for a start it's not in a country that is at war, legally.

so Saddam would have been justified by your understanding to blow up newspapers in the UK ?

and Al-Queda is also justified as we are at war with them ?

and I dont think our little war in the middle east is quite legal do you ?