Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY {Al-Jazeera in Qatar}

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY {Al-Jazeera in Qatar}

    22 November 2005

    EXCLUSIVE: BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY
    Madness of war memo

    By Kevin Maguire And Andy Lines

    PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

    But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

    A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.
    The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.

    A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.
    "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.

    "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do - and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

    A Government official suggested that the Bush threat had been "humorous, not serious".

    But another source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

    Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions.

    "I hope the Prime Minister insists this memo be published. It gives an insight into the mindset of those who were the architects of war."

    Bush disclosed his plan to target al-Jazeera, a civilian station with a huge Mid-East following, at a White House face-to-face with Mr Blair on April 16 last year.
    At the time, the US was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah.

    Al-Jazeera infuriated Washington and London by reporting from behind rebel lines and broadcasting pictures of dead soldiers, private contractors and Iraqi victims.

    The station, watched by millions, has also been used by bin Laden and al-Qaeda to broadcast atrocities and to threaten the West.

    Al-Jazeera's HQ is in the business district of Qatar's capital, Doha.

    Its single-storey buildings would have made an easy target for bombers. As it is sited away from residential areas, and more than 10 miles from the US's desert base in Qatar, there would have been no danger of "collateral damage".

    Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.
    To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.
    The No 10 memo now raises fresh doubts over US claims that previous attacks against al-Jazeera staff were military errors.

    In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre.

    The memo, which also included details of troop deployments, turned up in May last year at the Northampton constituency office of then Labour MP Tony Clarke.
    Cabinet Office civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of passing it to Leo O'Connor, 42, who used to work for Mr Clarke. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street court next week.

    Mr Clarke, who lost at the election, returned the memo to No 10.
    He said Mr O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly".

    Neither Mr O'Connor or Mr Keogh were available. No 10 did not comment.
    If the allegations are true, and I am currently inclined in that direction owing to subsequent actions of HMG (links posted below), most un-statesmanlike conduct on the part of President Bush.

    U.K. charges official with leaking Blair memo

    LAW CHIEF GAGS THE MIRROR ON BUSH LEAK
    Last edited by Hari_Om; 24 Nov 05,, 08:31.

  • #2
    This is a repost, and Al-Jazeera is enemy media and is fair game morally.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hari_Om
      If the allegations are true, and I am currently inclined in that direction owing to subsequent actions of HMG (links posted below), most un-statesmanlike conduct on the part of President Bush.

      U.K. charges official with leaking Blair memo

      LAW CHIEF GAGS THE MIRROR ON BUSH LEAK
      People who believe this was a serious remark are idiots. Our CENTCOM headquarters is in Qatar - you think we would bomb Al Jazeera in the country where we are allowed to have the nerve center of our operations? Just plain dumb.

      As far as being un-statemanslike, it was a private remark intended for a private audience. Also, where's the moral outrage over the being the mouthpiece for a terrorist organization that saws off people's heads?
      "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

      Comment


      • #4
        But thanks for playing, Hari_Om. You've managed to drive your reputation on and value to this board even lower.

        And I didn't think that was even possible.

        Comment


        • #5
          ENTER FLASHBACK MACHINE"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." EXIT FLASHBACK MACHINE

          This is at one level vaguely amusing and at another vaguely disturbing but the whole issue is still just an allegation in the press at this point. However, it probably bears a closer look.

          Many people consider those who choose their targets to bomb and murder based on the victims political, religious or editorial stance to be "terrorists". Many people also consider governments and their officials who advocate and otherwise support such actions to be "state sponsors of terrorism."

          Depending upon how many people discussed the possibility of bombing property in and possibly murdering citizens of a friendly state and how much if any contingency planning was done, there may be a case for indictments to be handed down for conspiracy to plan and/or commit an act of terrorism.

          Let me reiterate that I understand this is still essentially an allegation in a media outlet. However I also understand the potential for calamity if the White House is pondering orchestrating acts of state sponsored terror against a friendly nation. This story needs to be investigated at least to the point of determining whether any United States laws and counter terror provisions have been violated.

          Even if no laws were broken in Mr. Bush's alleged advocation of state sponsored terrrorism against the Qataris, it would still amount to the pinnacle of stupidity.

          When we take an objective look at Qatari gas fields, the order books of American C & E firms, order books for South Korean shipyards, rig counts, disposition of US forces in the Gulf region, etc., Qatar looms very large in the United States security picture by the end of this decade. Insulting your allies by advocating terror against their subjects under such circumstances strikes me as the work of true foreign policy lightweights.

          Elsewhere in the scheme of things, it is worth asking what the state of US counterpropaganda in the GWOT at large is. Given whats going on over at Voice of America, I can see why the Bush Administration would think it needed to use terror to silence a competing information outlet.

          I will conclude with two general GWOT observations that are pertinent. First, the history of terrorism and counterterrorism is littered with the corpses of newspapaer editors and journalists who were victims of the terrorists or victims of the governments hunting the terrorists. Secondly, the United States government for all its tough talk on counterterrorism has not itself publicly renounced the use of or sponsorship of terror.

          P.S.: I think you should reconsider your position on al Jazeera, Leader.

          Al Jazeera is an attempt at democratic reform in a region that is distinctly devoid of it. Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani founded al Jazeera because he promised his people a free press which is why he has resisted US entreaties to muzzle them.

          If Bush's remarks are indeed true, not only is he advocating stabbing an important ally in the back, he is advocating a blow to the heart of democratic reform in the region of the Arabian Gulf which would seem to contradict his public stand on the subject.

          In the interest of a "fair and balanced" accounting, it is interesting two see what the victims of Mr. Bush's alleged idea have to say about it: www.http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage.

          In general, I have used al Jazeera as an information source based on some of the great photogrpahs and video available there but do understand their editorial bias; al Jazeera has much better visual imagery to go with the headlines than the heavily sanitized, pre digested stuff that makes FOX News (I have always liked FOX's visuals for an American media outlet with the same caveat: beware their editorial slant).

          ENTER FLASHBACK MACHINE"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." EXIT FLASHBACK MACHINE
          Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

          Comment


          • #6
            Possibly the most unfair and unbalanced view from a person with decent grammar and spelling on this board.

            Let me tell you where you've gone off the rails AGAIN, professor:

            Many people consider those who choose their targets to bomb and murder based on the victims political, religious or editorial stance to be "terrorists". Many people also consider governments and their officials who advocate and otherwise support such actions to be "state sponsors of terrorism."
            Being defined as a terrorist or a state sponsor of it does NOT depend on one's point-of-view. It is a well-established term, and words mean things. You don't get to define it for yourself, and I don't either. What 'many people consider' this or that or another thing is immaterial to what IS.

            This story needs to be investigated at least to the point of determining whether any United States laws and counter terror provisions have been violated.
            Sheer genius. Let's begin to treat every allegation of every single off-hand remark, unproven, as a possible criminal act, like saying 'bomb' in the check-in line at airport security. THAT way, we'll have all of our investigative personnel doing 'he said'-type inquiries, and you just gotta KNOW that'll make us all safe from terrorism.

            Even if no laws were broken in Mr. Bush's alleged advocation of state sponsored terrrorism against the Qataris, it would still amount to the pinnacle of stupidity.
            I reject your assertion that it was any advocation of state sponsored terrorism, and if that's your position, you have a twelve-year-old's comprehension of the term.

            You really have no demonstrated understanding of Al Jazz's MO. Let me tell you that every single day that I'm at work, I attend the general's briefing here at SOCOM. THe egregious nature of the 'information' spewed from Al Jazz has prompted him to direct that EVERY DAY'S BRIEFING will include a side-by-side graphic of the English and the Arabic version of Al Jazz's website. Now, why do you suppose that is? Because the one that YOU read is NOT the same one that is intended for their real target demographic.

            Bottom line: they are a propaganda outlet for an enemy that kills your countrymen. It really is that cut-and-dried.

            ...Qatar looms very large in the United States security picture by the end of this decade. Insulting your allies by advocating terror against their subjects under such circumstances strikes me as the work of true foreign policy lightweights.
            Qatar IS a key ally, and I do not have any doubt that this was NOT a serious remark, if it occured at all. (The fact that it was included in a Brit classified document seems to give it more credence with you than many another of the same kind, but I digress.) Once again, you are all too willing to believe it DID happen, or WAS meant seriously, and once again, you would erroneously describe it as 'terror'. Well, I don't. Neither would any responsible analyst of what we're talking about.

            Elsewhere in the scheme of things, it is worth asking what the state of US counterpropaganda in the GWOT at large is. Given whats going on over at Voice of America, I can see why the Bush Administration would think it needed to use terror to silence a competing information outlet.
            Our propaganda effort is for crap, and I'm the first to declare it. But describing Al Jazz as an 'information outlet' aggrandizes what they do beyond any objective viewpoint. Do you recall what it was they did during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM? Hardly functioing as a news service; hardly even-handed and dispassionate reporters.

            I will conclude with two general GWOT observations that are pertinent. First, the history of terrorism and counterterrorism is littered with the corpses of newspapaer editors and journalists who were victims of the terrorists or victims of the governments hunting the terrorists. Secondly, the United States government for all its tough talk on counterterrorism has not itself publicly renounced the use of or sponsorship of terror.
            I'll take your impertinent observations one at a time:

            It is absolutely true that either side that wishes to hide from the truth about the justice of their cause attempts to silence the truth. But that isd NOT the position the US finds itself in. In our case, we welcome as much exposure to the truth. The greatest disinfectant is sunlight. I have NO PROBLEM with being treated fairly and having everything we do - GOOD AND BAD - reported in full, with equal treatment for our enemies. We win that one every single time, and compare VERY favorably with our opposites. No, we aren't going to silence somebody enagaged in telling the truth.

            As for your second point, you are quite simply incorrect, and it is the Michael Moore position to declare otherwise. We have renounced formally and in action the use of or sponsorship of terror.

            P.S.: I think you should reconsider your position on al Jazeera, Leader.
            Leader may answer you if he chooses, but he's dead right: they are the propaganda arm of a sworn enemy, and what they do makes it more difficult, dangerous and expensive for us, in terms of blood, treasure and time. He's correct, but you seem not to know that.

            Al Jazeera is an attempt at democratic reform in a region that is distinctly devoid of it. Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani founded al Jazeera because he promised his people a free press which is why he has resisted US entreaties to muzzle them.
            Al Jazz is working against their professed goal, then. They are most definitely on one side - the WRONG one, and whether they be independent or not, it makes not a dime's difference from our side, as the side they've chosen would certainly throw a net over them, should they prevail. Best thing that could happen to Al Jazz and any other media organization in that part of the world would be for us to win through in Iraq, and begin the transformation of the region into a place that would see them prosper and grow into a REAL news organization that may fearlessly contend with tolerant governments and religious organizations. That is NOT what they seem to want, however, and that leads me to conclude that they have another agenda.

            If Bush's remarks are indeed true, not only is he advocating stabbing an important ally in the back, he is advocating a blow to the heart of democratic reform in the region of the Arabian Gulf which would seem to contradict his public stand on the subject.
            Wait a sec. I thought you were one of the guys that LOVE the idea of stabbing allies in the back. Like Iraqis that voted or joined the cops, and that you now want to abandon. Like Saudis that, although yucky in civil rights, have managed to kill the entire top teir of aQ leadership in their country. Like the Pakistanis, that although beastly to their own people, are armed with nukes. I thought that you were all in favor of turning on those that are helping us.

            And I've already addressed what I think of your notion of the role Al Jazz plays in the process of democratic reform of the region. Laughable.

            In general, I have used al Jazeera as an information source based on some of the great photogrpahs and video available there but do understand their editorial bias; al Jazeera has much better visual imagery to go with the headlines than the heavily sanitized, pre digested stuff that makes FOX News (I have always liked FOX's visuals for an American media outlet with the same caveat: beware their editorial slant).
            Ever wonder HOW they get all those great pix and vids? Ever hear the allegations that the terrorists tip off the Al Jazz 'correspondents' before an op, so they'll be RIGHT THERE to get the happy snap? Are you aware that the allegation has been PROVEN, and do you know what that means? It means that before innocent people and/or your own uniformed countrymen are killed, Al Jazz COULD HAVE done something about it, but that would hurt the side they've chosen, and impede the propaganda message that they are hoping succeeds, and defeats us. (By 'us', I certainly don't include YOU; I'm aware you're not at all invested in our success, so don't worry, I'm not grouping you in with those of us that are endeavoring to protect you from what you obviously do not comprehend clearly enough to be opposed to.)

            Thanks for the use of your flashback machine. It was a great moment then, and it's still true today. Al Jazeera sure as hell ain't with us, and they never were.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Swift Sword
              ENTER FLASHBACK MACHINE"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." EXIT FLASHBACK MACHINE
              Those are the only two choices I see.

              Thread closed, please refer to http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=9405 for further postings.
              No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
              I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
              even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
              He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

              Comment

              Working...
              X