Bush wanted al Jazeera bombed

[kyser_soze]

It's perfectly reasonable to identify motivations for an action and also to ascribe reprehensibility to them, however logical they were in terms of military strategy. Rationality gives you one way to do things. Doesn't mean that they should be done.

My view is that war is immoral full stop, but that if you are going to prosecute a war you do it to win, not to score points with Amnesty International for good conduct. And in the grand scheme of things, taking a countries media network out isn't the greatest of sins.

Besides, if a non-linear issue based combat group wanted to disrupt Fox globally they could - everything from denial of service attacks on Fox's websites through to physical bombing on the continental US or it's overseas stations.

I just don't get the point of imposing civilian morality into a situtation that is by it's very nature immoral and then claim that something like this is a terrible thing, and in Nino's case single out the US as tho they are unique in adopting this strategy.

 

[Poi E]

I just don't get the point of imposing civilian morality into a situtation that is by it's very nature immoral and then claim that something like this is a terrible thing, and in Nino's case single out the US as tho they are unique in adopting this strategy.

By your measure, there would never ben any criticism of any aspect of the war, other than "war is bad". I'm not sure how you can disagree with a war but then subscribe to military necessity as a means of justifying things.

 

[nino_savatte]

You make it simplistic by implying that it's a purely US tactic, rather than a logical piece of military strategy. You seem to be saying that were it any other combatant other than the US that they'd somehow leave an enemy media infrastructure in place, which is toss.

The US has made it a central part of their overall tactics or would you deny that? It has made its antipathy to al-Jazeera plain or would you disagree with that too? Furthermore during the invasion of Iraq, many US commentators described the BBC in similar tones and wasn't a BBC [makeshift] studio struck by US ordnance in Afghanistan?

There is nothing simplistic about my analysis.

 

[kyser_soze]

The US has made it a central part of their overall tactics or would you deny that? It has made its antipathy to al-Jazeera plain or would you disagree with that too? Furthermore during the invasion of Iraq, many US commentators described the BBC in similar tones and wasn't a BBC [makeshift] studio struck by US ordnance in Afghanistan?

There is nothing simplistic about my analysis.

What I'm taking issue with is the fact you are singling out the US as being some kind of sole example of a combatant engaging this strategy when they aren't. It's a tactic used in war across the world and the US is not unique in doing so, which your posts imply.

 

[kyser_soze]

tum te tum

...

 

[nino_savatte]

What I'm taking issue with is the fact you are singling out the US as being some kind of sole example of a combatant engaging this strategy when they aren't. It's a tactic used in war across the world and the US is not unique in doing so, which your posts imply.

What is this thread about, kyser?

 

[kyser_soze]

What is this thread about, kyser?

About Bush wanting to bomb Al-Jazeera.

However, your comment above implies that it is only the US that has ever contemplated such a tactic.

It's one of the reasons I don't generally get involved in debates like this - rather than focussing on the stupidity of the idea itself, it becomes a 'US is the great evil for thinking this' as tho they are the ONLY country to ever consider or do it.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't think the point is the tactical stupidity of the idea, since the seppoes tendency toward tactical fuckups is well established. What is new is the disregard both for freedom of speach where it does exist, and for the territorial integrity of allies.

In any case, even if the tactic was relatively widespread (and as far as I'm aware it's a depth to which even Saddam Hussein didn't stoop), it still wouldn't invalidate the criticism of the US actions.

 

[TAE]

What I would like to know is what else was in that memo, what is it that they are now trying to keep secret?

 

[rennie]

What I would like to know is what else was in that memo, what is it that they are now trying to keep secret?

one day, the truth will come out. too late probably.

 

[Andy the Don]

The one question that bothers me about this whole thing is, how would they have bombed Al-J..??

Seeing that it is based in Qatar, a friendly country..

An airstrike would have been out of the question, especially one that took off & landed from a Qatari airbase. If a bombing had been traced back to the US they would have lost the support & more importantly the use of the assets of the Qatari government.

Although I would not put it past Bush, I am treating this with a "pinch of salt".

 

[Fruitloop]

The French managed OK with the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour - just sneak in and blow the fucker up. Like, er, terrorists.

 

[kyser_soze]

What is new is the disregard both for freedom of speach where it does exist, and for the territorial integrity of allies.

Nothing new there either - and how much of this was an inane/insane idea of Bush's and how much was it led by military thinking.

There's still no convincing argument here that says the US has acted any more improperly by suggesting this then ay other nation or group involved in combat. I mean since when has ANY military operation been 100% behind Freedom of Speech?

The whole concept is fucking stupid from a military standpoint - copmmit to a high risk actoin, antagonise a friendly in a calculated and deliberate fashion? Bombing the Beeb in Afghanistan an action against FoS...probably, but again, no different to the actions of any other military in history.

Like I said, it's not unique to the US, it was a fuckign stupid idea and all it shows is predictable thinking about free press during a war. Besides, as that aide said about the US media 'bubble' the population inhabits, this is all about control and as far as the military are concerned, the press is enemy.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's one of the reasons I don't generally get involved in debates like this - rather than focussing on the stupidity of the idea itself, it becomes a 'US is the great evil for thinking this' as tho they are the ONLY country to ever consider or do it.

Prehaps, but in the modern age?

And what does it matter that someone else has done it?. The US holds itself up as a champion of freedom, which is why it should be remarked when it isn't.

 

[kyser_soze]

Every fucker that's gone to war holds themselves up as 'champions of freedom' to the world - it's whether or not people believe it or not. Given the general level of scepticism in this community about the US generally speaking why the surprise? Why the 'OMG, can you believe the US wanted to do this?'

Well, yeah I can and it doesn't shock or surprise me.

 

[Fruitloop]

Kyser, can you provide an example of another military acting in a comparable way? AFAIK the Nazis didn't conduct terrorist actions against media outlets in third-party countries, and I'm struggling to think just who has.

 

[kyser_soze]

Give me some time to dig.

 

[Fruitloop]

I suppose the thing that's particularly alarming is that (unfortunately) you expect propaganda operations which are outside the law from both sides in a conflict within the theatre of war, and within the territories controlled by both sides. What is unexpected is illegal actions to control the flow of information outside either the countries engaged or the immediate field of operations - it really brings home the 'global war' aspect of TWOT.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Every fucker that's gone to war holds themselves up as 'champions of freedom' to the world - it's whether or not people believe it or not. Given the general level of scepticism in this community about the US generally speaking why the surprise? Why the 'OMG, can you believe the US wanted to do this?'

Well, yeah I can and it doesn't shock or surprise me.

It does genuinely shock me that they would consider bombing a media outlet in a friendly country, yes.

 

[kyser_soze]

I suppose the thing that's particularly alarming is that (unfortunately) you expect propaganda operations which are outside the law from both sides in a conflict within the theatre of war, and within the territories controlled by both sides. What is unexpected is illegal actions to control the flow of information outside either the countries engaged or the immediate field of operations - it really brings home the 'global war' aspect of TWOT.

I do agree with you here - I dunno, I've probably read WAY too much futurewar sci-fi and a few too many infowar articles in WIRED magazine, and as I said, for my money this was a really stupid fucking idea from a military standpoint (at least making it as obvious as actually bombing the place FFS...this would make a perfect black op scenario where the conspiraloons would be right!!). Media and information is a theatre of war too, and since Vietnam the US has been pre-eminently conscious about 3rd parties.

Anyway, back to infecting the memesphere meself...spent FAR too long on here today...

 

[Andy the Don]

The French managed OK with the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour - just sneak in and blow the fucker up. Like, er, terrorists.

Yes that's what I first thought. But what if it was traced back to the Americans, they would lose an ally in a very strategic geographical position.

 

[Poi E]

The French managed OK with the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour - just sneak in and blow the fucker up. Like, er, terrorists.

You'd think they would have thought of an escape plan NZ plod's proudest moment.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah I think the whole country was stunned at their ability to actually catch people.

 

[TAE]

Why the 'OMG, can you believe the US wanted to do this?'

Well, yeah I can and it doesn't shock or surprise me.

The surprise is that it is not just a neutral country but a friend.

The US might just as well have bombed Toronto, Birmingham, Munich, or Tokyo.
Would you really not find that shocking?



(And of course, AJ are in no shape or form part of any military infrastructure.)

 

[lostexpectation]

Qatar's response

Interestingly at the time of the Blair visit there were diplomatic strains


between Washington and Qatar over the issue of al-Jazeera:

But despite Qatar acting as the launch pad for the Iraq war and hosting the US central command during the conflict, a long-running dispute over al-Jazeera’s coverage provoked deep strains in diplomatic relations last year.

The Bush administration avoided meeting Qatari officials for several months and Washington insisted Qatar should put pressure on al-Jazeera – launched with government funding nine years ago – to tone down its broadcasts out of Iraq. (...)

US pressures led the Qataris to suggest that they might put al-Jazeera up for sale. This option was not welcomed by US officials, who feared a privatisation could make al-Jazeera more difficult to control.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/92fad322-5c58-11da-af92-0000779e2340.html

One member of Qatar's ruling family comments:

“I thought this was just a rumour, but now the UK has used the secrecy act to stop it, it raises more questions. It makes this high profile and we would be really interested to know what is going on,” a senior member of the ruling Al-Thani family said.

 

[newharper]

The Nation have taken up the case.

"Or was it a deadly serious option? Until a news organization or British official defies the Official Secrets Act and publishes the five-page memo, we have no way of knowing. But what we do know is that at the time of Bush's White House meeting with Blair, the Bush Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The Bush-Blair summit took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was there to witness the assault and the fierce resistance."

carries on with

"What was more devastating than the direct resistance US forces encountered in Falluja was the effect the story of the local defense of the city and the US killing of civilians was having on the broader Iraqi population. A handful of unembedded journalists, most prominently from Al Jazeera, were providing the world with independent, eyewitness accounts. Al Jazeera's camera crew was also uploading video of the devastation for all the world, including Iraqis, to see. Inspired by the defense of Falluja and outraged by the US onslaught, smaller uprisings broke out across Iraq, as members of the Iraqi police and army abandoned their posts, some joining the resistance. "

and ends with a challenge;

"What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see--and if they face legal action, they should be backed up by every major media organization in the world. If true, Bush's threat is a bold confirmation of what many journalists already believe: that the Bush Administration views us all as enemy combatants."

It's also on common dreams.

Is it too much to hope that the media will run with this?

 

[laptop]

"What is needed now is for a British newspaper or magazine to publish the memo for all the world to see..."

Is it too much to hope that the media will run with this?

Possibly or probably

If the memo fell into my hands tomorrow...

I think I'd be fucking off to Sweden and getting it published there.

That's the usual route for things allegedly covered by the Official Secrets Act. Back in 1963 the entire UK media had documents proving the existence of nuclear bunkers for top Brit bureaucrats ... and held off until they were published in Belgrade.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Personally I liked the business a few years ago where you could only find out which Cabinet Minister's son had been arrested if you had friends in Scotland. Now we have the internet there's no fun any more.

 

[fela fan]

Is it too much to hope that the media will run with this?

If that's the british media you mean, then unfortunately yes.

Spineless gits.

The act of breaking an unjust law and being prepared to face the consequences can be found throughout history, and such actions help develop nations to the common good of the public, at the expense of the wankers who exploit and abuse the power they have.

I'd love to see a british editor prove me wrong.

It shouldn't be a problem coz are the public gonna accept blair having said editor put behind bars...?

 

[fela fan]

kyser...

... you still digging mate?

You'll get to new zealand faster than you thought at this rate...