Here Today... Gone To Hell!

LONDON - British authorities thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up several aircraft mid-flight between the United States and Britain using explosives smuggled in hand luggage, officials said Thursday.

"A major terrorist plot to allegedly blow up aircraft in mid-flight has been disrupted in a joint, pre-planned, intelligence-led operation by the metropolitan police anti-terrorist branch and security services," a police spokesman said.

Britain?s Home Secretary John Reid said the alleged plot was ?significant? and that terrorists aimed to ?bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life.?

Police arrested a number of people overnight in London after a major covert counterterrorism operation that had lasted several months, but did not immediately say how many.

The national threat level was raised to critical ? a warning level that indicates the likelihood of an imminent terrorist attack. The threat rating was posted on the Web site of Britain?s MI5 ? the British domestic spy agency.

The U.S. government raised its threat level to the highest level for commercial flights from Britain to the United States early Thursday.

?We believe that these arrests (in London) have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted,? said U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Prime Minister Tony Blair, vacationing in the Caribbean, had briefed President Bush on the situation overnight, Blair?s office said.

The Department of Transport advised all passengers that they would not be permitted to carry any hand baggage on board any aircraft departing from any airport in the country.

Passengers faced delays as tighter security was hastily enforced at the country?s airports and additional measures were put in place for all flights. British Airways said laptop computers, mobile phones, iPods and remote controls were among the items banned from being carried on board.

The Associated Press                                                         

All you UK Gunners stay safe. Definitely major shit.  Has the level been this high before, like before or immediately after that last terrorist attack?


Just thought of something after posting this: Since it goes into minor detail about Blair- Bush and US Government agencies, could it be classified as a political thread even though it is strictly a news article? :nervous:

Its scary stuff especially as im planning on going to the states in the next few months lets just hope they got everyone.  :nervous: Although none of the terrorist actions have had a direct effect on me it still makes you worried about the what if factor because one day it could be you or someone you know and love involved in it all.

IVe jsut turned on the news here , and it was the first thing that was reported , as someone who lived and worked at the world trade center , this shit pisses me off.

Just only hope that this time indeed plans were thwarted , as much as its a pain in the ass when this shit confronts people, only way to over come is to keep moving forward.  This is the first I ever heard of the critical terror level being implamented. BUT if these security warnings are supposed to be in place to protect, than I hope that all the world govt's and people  react accordingly. Shame we need this shit. BUt then again, we had no system to gauge  9/11.

This is scary because my girlfriend has gone on a plane trip today... she sent me a text at 6:30am saying there is a security alert and she can't take her phone, so I won't hear from her for a long time.

This is killing me because I just want to talk to her and I have no contact  :'(

It will be fine, MI5 have been watching everyone involved in this plot for months now, the only reason they moved in and kicked all this off was because "something happened" probably the beginings of the supposed opperation, perhaps they saw someone packing etc indicating the start of some attack or heard something via wiretaps/phonetaps. What is clear though is that its still in the early stages, with all the security and the amount of survailence that goes on that we dont know about, there is no way the British govt would let things advance to a point where the mass majority are put in danger.

Jonx

Shit my brother is flying today

Peaceful religion... :hihi:

The insane thing is, they've caught these guys, but this is an evil circle that will never stop. No matter how many people they arrest/detain/put in jail, there are always going to be more extremists willing to take their places to commit evil.

This world is a scary and strange place.

I'm just glad so many lives have been spared here.. so many people would have died and their families and friends lives ruined.

It's just scary to think about what happens if sometime again soon, they don't catch them beforehand  :nervous:

Up until today I had been planning a trip back home to the UK, and around Europe then to the States.. it's been a few years now since 9/11 and I hadn't even given the whole terror thing a second thought.. but I'd hate to think how I would feel if this news broke and I was a week or so from boarding a plane.

Good job U.K. investigators. :)

But, I wonder how how long it will take now before some organization(s) comes to the defense of the terrorist saying that their rights were violated? I'm sure U.K. officials are dirty and did something illegally to obtain this plot information. Some poor terrosits rights had to be violated. ::)

Yeah somehow i dont think it was a coincidence that yesterday lunchtime John Reed gave a press conference saying that European Regulations and International Treaties were hampering his job and stopping vital investigations from taking place. The example he used was that he finds it hard to understand how he cant send one person home who is threatening the lives of thousands of people because there is a risk that that one person may be tourtured when he is returned home! Dirty survelience will surely have been used, just read up on GCHQ and project Echelon and some of the stuff they do and have done in the past, fortunatly i doubt we will ever know about it since this is a threat related to the US and UK and can be kept in house, both countries have a long history of covering things up and bending the law to the limits!

Jonx

I

We've let everyone and anyone into our country and this is what happens.

I'm glad what could of been a disaster has been avoided and everyone is safe.

glad my flight was on tuesday.  sad for all the people trapped at airports or on planes feeling scared and confused and also for the airport staff there that are having to deal with loads of stressed passengers when they prob dont know any further details.

In reply to your question jameslofton, I think the last time we were at Critical level was immediately after our bombings last July and then the "fake" ones two weeks later.  Not as high a level in between although there has been talk of at least four major plots being foiled since last years atrocities.

britain has been and will continue to be a bit of a mess for some time thanks to certain people in power.

stay safe all.  xx

The sad thing is that the Islamic terrorists that have been arrested are born in the UK...

well you know what I would do...... in fact wont say propley get banned!!!

 :rant:

And what sucks even more is that you know the fuckers that are gonna blow the planes up are Arabs. But you have people that would rather look at 90 year old women than focus on the only ethnicity to pull shit like this.

Actually they were not arab, they were of british decent..pakistani

Well I heard from my g/f now.. but she's still gotta fly home... I just want to be with her and comfort her

Oh dear - critical threat level is issued when an attack is imminent

Its spread like wildfire over here - hand luggage on all outbound flights has been banned - not even a wallet is allowed with you

The scenes on Sky News, particular at check-in inside Heathrow Airport are crazy.

They won't let her fly back so she has to get a 5 hour train journey and then go back to the airport for the car.

Severe carry-on limits lead to chaos?
By James Kanter International Herald Tribune

Published: August 10, 2006
 
 
PARIS Strict new rules banning laptops, cameras, cellphones, and nearly all liquids from hand luggage created chaos in British airports on Thursday as travelers struggled with the most immediate consequence of a plot to blow up planes flying from Britain to the United States.
 
British officials warned that the new rules would cause "immediate and severe disruption for travelers." This was quickly borne out as mothers were required to sip their babies' milk to get bottles on board flights, and clear plastic bags were handed out to carry passports and the few other items allowed on board.
 
In Britain, the authorities banned laptop computers, mobile phones, iPod music players, and other electronic devices from being carried on board; passengers were obliged to empty their remaining carry-on items into the plastic bags.
 
Eyeglasses were allowed into the bags but not their cases; contact lens solution also was banned. Prescription medicines in liquid form were allowed under certain conditions.
 
In the United States, Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security secretary, said, "Due to the nature of the threat revealed by this investigation, we are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels and lotions, from being carried on the airplane."
 
There were chaotic scenes at Heathrow, Britain's main international airport, as travelers sought to cope with restrictions that appeared to be more extreme than any imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States by hijackers.
 
It was uncertain how long the new rules would remain in effect, and also whether they would affect all international flights or only those entering or leaving Britain and the United States.
 
The measures "will mean major disruption at all U.K. airports from today," warned John Reid, British home secretary.
 
"This heightened level of security will last only as long as the situation demands," said Douglas Alexander, the British transportation secretary, adding that the government would "keep this under review."
 
Antony Concil, the director of communications at the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, declined to comment on how long he thought the new bans would stay in force. But he emphasized the costs to the airline industry - and to passengers - of additional security rules in the wake of the terror attacks on New York and Washington five years ago.
 
Concil said that since the Sept. 11 attacks, additional costs borne by the industry averaged about $5 billion a year and that those costs needed to be recouped from customers.
 
"'At this point all I can really say is that security is a top priority of the airlines and that passengers need to check airlines' Web sites before they go to the airports for latest information, to check what's allowed on the aircraft, and to find out about cancellations or delays," Concil said.
 
In its advice released early Thursday concerning all flights leaving from London and Manchester, Singapore Airlines warned that all passengers would be hand-searched and that all footwear would be screened by X-ray. Singapore Airlines also issued details about permitted items that mirrored advice from the British Home Office.
 
Nothing would be allowed in passengers' pockets, and all handbags and electronic items were prohibited, including electronic key rings.
 
The airline warned that only airport-provided pushchairs would be allowed beyond screening points.
 
Prescription medicines in liquid form would need to be verified as genuine before being admitted, and spectacles and sunglasses would have to be carried without their cases. Passengers could carry their contact lenses, but not bottles of solutions for the lenses. Women's sanitary items could be taken on- board but only if they were unboxed and "sufficient and essential for the flight."
 
Passengers sought help over the Internet in understanding the restrictions. But shortly before midday Thursday, the Web site for the British Airports Authority was out of service due to the high level of hits.
 
The rules looked likely to have their strongest effect on business travelers, who have grown used to taking day flights to meetings with hand luggage only and who rely on laptop computers and other devices to work while flying en route to meetings.
 

good to hear she's ok, mate.   hope she gets back to you asap.

extra security checks are welcome - i've always thought the UK was quite slack in comparison to other countries. although am not sure if paperback books pose a security threat....

Thanks... I'll let you know when she is home... very scary day.

mass panic. terrorist threat critical.


i smell new laws put in place to protect our freedom.

You've gone a bit overboard by the wallet statement, haven't you?



The time has already come and gone and still present for these new stricter laws. But there are too many people in America that don't want to hurt someone's feelings. And people complain about wire tapping and other methods used by intelligence agencies to try to stop terroism.

I don't think the complaint is about wire tapping...rahter ILLEGAL wire tapping.  This is still America, just b/c you're president doesn't mean you can make up your own laws:

Anyways, and much more importantly, thank god they caught this.  Sounds like a cooperative effort between US/Pakistani/British intelligence.  From what I just read they were DAYS away from the attack.

I'm glad the British scooped these guys up, this is great news. They seem much more dangerous then the "terrorist" dipshits we picked up here a bit ago (the guys with no car, explosives, or means necessary to do much of anything.)



This has been discussed before. W ordered wire tapping before 9-11. He then used 9-11 as an excuse to do so and justify his disregard for the laws of this nation.

How long is the "no liquids" rule gonna apply.  It's definitely approaching a slippery slope with regards to limits on what one can carry.  The next restricted items I'm predicing are electronic devices.  No watches, laptops, cell phones, ect.  They can be used to detonate a device.  Let's ban them too.

I think I'm just bitter because I'm flying internationally Thursday and I won't be able to buy a bottle of jack to take with me.

If teams of guys can board planes with benign liquids and then assemble them into bombs, I don't see how that threat could go away.

Give it a couple years, we'll all have to fly naked with no carry on baggage.

i read on myspace.com that fernando said they were going to NY. for a few days then going home.i wonder if that stopped the plans going back to the states for axl an co.i assume axl stayed back in london for a bit after the tour.hope everything works out them coming home to the states.

I've been asking Delta for this for years now.................

Reminds me of a topic that Wathefuck ever started! Damn that NSA we need to get rid of them haha What a waste of time..

the thing is you could get rid of all the terrorists in the world but not the stupid pilots

(http://pictureserver.funnyjunk.com/pics2/0103.jpg)

Even if that was the case they'd find ways to smuggle bombs and detonators(sp?) on.

easier to spot them though they would be the ones sitting down slowly or they would have wires pokin out of holes :-X :o

Scary shit.  Neighbours went on hols yesterday, they phoned me and let me know they were okay this morning.  Jackie (my neighbour) had to taste her baby's milk to prove that's what it was but hey, I'd rather go through that than be blown up.  Nice to know the security in this country is doing it's job, comforting.  I feel sorry for some of my muslim mates though, they are already feeling the tension and suspicion which is crazy cause not all muslims are in favour of this kind of action.  You cant tar everyone with the same brush but it does make you think there needs to be more regulation over whose allowed to come into Britain and who isnt especially if they are coming to live here.  I go on hols in October hopefully it will have quietened down by then.

it is terrible that muslims in britain are so obviously being picked upon, but the fact is that they are british. currently britain is a hotbed for fundamentalist, muslim terrorists. all of whom are hell-bent on destroying western culture and implement an islamic state under sharian law.

cant wait for bush and the boys to invade Bradford and flush them out.

In my opinion, this being "picked on" could be slowly stopped or slowed if the Muslim people of the world would stand up and help more. You hardly ever see any protest against these terrorist. It's more that they don't agree with them but we'll just throw our arms up in the air cause we can't dop anything to stop them anyways. Plus, it's easier and more sexier to cry to the news outlets(CNN and the BBC especially) and just blame the U.S.

that wouldn't stop it.

Peaceful religion my ass!!

This just reinforces my opinion that religion is a whole bunch of bullshit and shit like this wouldn't HAPPEN if people just learned to be good to each other instead of harping on about who is right and who is wrong and who shouldn't have the right to do this and who should and AAAAAAARGH!!

Fuck religion and fuck the cunts who think its OK to kill people in the name of religion. IT IS NOT RIGHT TO KILL ANYONE IN THE NAME OF ANYTHING!! :rant:

Jeez if I'm going anywhere now I'm going by boat. It might take longer, but at least I'm not gunna be stripsearched before I get on the thing and I'll be able to read a book if I like!!

Sorry if I'm offending anyone, but shit like this just really really really REALLY makes my blood boil! :rant:

these people have very little to do with religion. blaiming religion is like saying being a guns n roses fan makes you more likely to riot. its getting the cart before the horse.

if religion ceased to exist they would still exist and would still be doing the same things.

religion is not the problem, its the people that are the problem.

oh man i used to think like that when i was 12 !!! :)


so is it ok to kill someone in the name of democracy ? freedom ? justice ?


religion has little to do with what's going on.
it's a mere 2% of the problem, one little parameter, like the kind of pen they use to write their plans, the brand of the shoes they wear.

I understand what you're saying 2naFish, but all I said was that if people abolished religion and just were good to each other, then those fanatics wouldn't have an excuse for killing or threatening to kill thousands of people... because those thousands of people wouldn't be seen as "infidels".

It IS the people that are the problem, but you can't say that religion doesn't play a part in helping those people think that they are right for killing others...

They need to remove the people who preach this incorrect intrepretation of the Koran no? The people are just doing what their higher ups order them to do.

escuses : land, race, political opinions, injustice, poverty, hair color, music taste, oil, water ...

for example the israel-palestine issue is not about religion it's about land.
and at the root of our today's terrorism there is no religion but again land, power, oil ...



i think we better start at the base with the little kids rather than at the top with the old fools.

Religion is just an excuse for people to be shitty to each other, take away religion and they'd still be shitty to each other.

Doing what they THINK their higher-ups order them to do!

Surely willing volunteers for this kind of operations will be dime-a-dozen consider how honourable they are lead to believe suicide bombing is? Take down the big guy and all the little kids will run scared?

So they mishear what their leaders say and bomb accidently?

No, they think if they bomb places and kill shitloads of people who don't follow the "Suicide Bomber Faith", then that automatically gets them into their version of heaven.

if the religion didnt exist then they'd find another reason.

therefore getting rid of religion would be pointless, except that it take something away from billions for whom it is a near essential part of their existence.

it is short sighted and naive to even consider that removing religion would make any difference whatsoever.

Yeah I know, that's what I mean when I say "the people who preach" tell the bombers that. The "THINK" confused me a bit.

Well there's a good side to everything I guess, and yea religion is good for a lot of reasons, but it ISN'T good when zealots decide that they have to kill everyone who doesn't believe what they do, and that somehow if they do that, everything will be peachy keen for them in the afterlife... load of bollocks!!

nobody is disagreeing with that. i dont think anyone would claim that any religion has only ever produced positive effects. you are arguing and mute point.

you said we should just get rid of religion, which is ridiculous and pointless.

I only said that as a spur-of-the-moment thing because I'm really fucking angry about this kinda shit happening!!

thats understandable, but acting on your first impulse is very dangerous.

on a forum anyway.... *le eye roll*

2nafish takes things seriously. forum or no forum !

thats true.. terrorism stems fron shotty pilots!!

Based on Bush's past reasoning, I'd assume he would be invading Denmark at any moment now............

Anyone else have the feeling that Bush, Cheney and Blair made up this whole thing, just like 911, so that they could pass stricter laws, steal oil, and look to see which books I am checking out at the library?

No, Denmark has neither Muslims nor oil.  Bush is waiting for Israel to give him the green light on what country to invade.

No.

Your well is starting to run dry.........

It was a tip from the Muslim community to the British police that brought attention to these future terrorists. Not spying on civilians or having rights stripped away from the citizens of that country.




Well that would not surprise me actually. Given our relationship with Israel, how we filter their oppressive actions in our USA media and the billions of dollars we give them each year to carry out their ethnic cleansing program.

Damn...you figured it out!!!  "They" thought that a masterful plan had been created but were too foolish to overlook the astonishing intellect of people like you.  What a major miscalculation and critical mistake on "their" parts.  Too bad you wasn't around when the government offed Kennedy.   

It was one of many tips that were received from various outlets.

I heard that too, but like most of the coverage I brushed it aside.? How could a muslim have given up these terrorists when these terrorists aren't really muslims.? They have no ties to the muslim communities.? It's not like these people are preaching hate in the mosks in Britain.? After all, you saw how quickly CAIR and other muslim groups came out and condemned the would be terrorists.? You saw them come forward and state that they will be vigilant in rooting out these "non-muslims."

You are dead on.? The media continues to boost up Israel's military might by their constant reporting of Israel's killing of civilians.? Yet, Hizzbollah gets no credit for the descrution and their deliberate targeting and destruction of Israeli civilians.? You would think that Israel would have at least learned to leaf-let these areas.? Moreover, these Hizzbollah fighters are fighting on behalf of all muslims.? How could anyone think that they would honestly shoot off rockets from civilian homes in hopes of getting Israeli jets to bomb civilians?

I also agree with the ethnic cleansing comment.? Just because the sunnis and the shiites expressly and verbally express their intent to destroy all Jews, Hindus, Christians and all non-muslims, they get all of the coverage.? Meanwhile, the Jews don't say anything of the sort and take active steps to withdraw from the Gaza strip.? Of course all of that was just an attempt to gain worldwide support before they started their campaign to rid the middle east of muslims through ethnic cleansing.? I am glad you see the truth.? I have never heard you condemn muslims for ethnic cleansing; yet you correctly characterize the Jews' actions as ethnic cleansing.? I am glad some people understand what is going on in the world.

right on Watever. Religion has nothing to do with it. They raided where my sister teaches in birmingham, england. She teaches at saltley which is on Belchers lane and they raided all houses on that road. The children are so uneducated that rather than realise seriousness of the situation they smiled and waved at the cameras. It clearly cant be them. to be honest, if CIA trained 14 year olds in afghanistan to be ruthless killing machine in russia-afghan war, do you really expect people to be sane?


"yes indeed but we cant do anything about it. Suggest they're definitley free masons.
You are dead on.  The media continues to boost up Israel's military might by their constant reporting of Israel's killing of civilians.  Yet, Hizzbollah gets no credit for the descrution and their deliberate targeting and destruction of Israeli civilians"- BerkleyRiot

I disagree the fact Hizbullah targets civilians. Look at the deaths of this war in ratio from military:civilian and compare to Lebanese death tolls. Civilian death toll is far higher in israel. Israel is terrorist government because they destroy and massacre civilian. Hizbollah isnt, civilians that die are war casualty. Even in israel, on the bakstreet of old town jerusalem they selling stuff to praise hizbollah as shown in 7DAYS and Emirates Today newspaper

looks like blair is gonna push through the 90 day detention bill on the back of this.

Its strange that this government which has been a laughing stock for the last 6 months has now pushed all its problems out the headlines and is forcing through a bill that people have never wanted subsequent to a terror plot which brought the country's airports to a stand still in the middle of summer. Well, not so much strange as incredibly fortunate, for them.

we are the puppet people.

That is not what was reported............

It is not a matter of "condemning" Muslims for ethnic cleansing. It is matter of me pointing it out. It has been going on in Bush's Iraq for a few years at this point, and I've been saying it the entire time (just as I point out Israel.) Israel has a huge lobby in America to make sure that the media report them in a completely different light then the remainder of the globe. The primary focus of this lobby is keeping reports of violence originating from Israel as sterile as possible. It works quite well, as most Americans are completely oblivious to their disregard for international law in that region .

From FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208123,00.html

Don't forget, Fox News is:  Fair and Balanced.   :hihi:

As long as it's done properly, surveillance/snooping is a necessary evil in today's world. 
In fact, I believe every public gathering locale and street corner should have cameras. 
In the "old days" every small town had a sheriff and deputy that knew everyone in the area, and the biggest threat to a community was some gun-toting bank robber or mentally ill killer.  In an age where terrorists are plotting mass-homicide on a grand scale, it is necessary our governments keep an eye on their citizens.

The most effective tool in the war on terror is the cooperation of the overwhelmingly peaceful Islamic community itself.  Even if it means alerting authorities to suspicious teenagers, or getting sheiks at the local level to be on the look-out for kids who could become radicalized, it's all good.  The problem with these scenarios seems to be fear that is generated by the "terrorist sweeps" where innocents are included in the round-ups and held with their rights thrown out the window in the name of security. 

Congrats to the U.K. law enforcement personnel!  Fish n' chips for all of ya!   :peace: 

I can't believe somebody used Fox as their source............. :hihi:

"The Washington Post reported the original surveillance was based on a tip from a member of Britain's Muslim community."

http://www.csmonitor.com/

So nothing out of Fox is reliable?  But when people post article from biased organizations or think tanks, that's some how credible.  I hate the New York Times, but I'm not arrogant enough to disregard everything they say just because most of the editors are socialists and should be shot for treason.

Your original quote was:

Well it was reported and I showed you. Should everyone laugh if people use sources/news links from CNN, the BBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, L.A. Times, etc., etc., etc.?? I guess alot people may not believe you used The Washington Post or any other news media as a source either. Maybe you should believe when I showed you you were incorrect.

Don't waste your time.  This guy has repeatedly stated that Al Jazeera is more accurate than the U.S. media.  Whatever media outlet reports what he wants to hear is the media outlet that is most accurate.  You proved him wrong; he is trying to wiggle his way out of it by discrediting your source.  He places a smilie face next to your citation of fox news, Yet I have seen him repreatedly cite to moveon.com or mediamatters.com.  There is just no breaking through.

I don't know what media you are watching or reading.? Everytime I sign on the internet there is a story about how many civilians Israel has killed for that particular day.? Yet, there is virtually no coverage of the havoc Hizbollah's indiscriminant targeting of civilians is having in Israel.? While most media outlets are Jewish owned, these are American-liberal-Jews.? From the start these people have condemned Israel's actions.? These outlets hardly represent, let alone are pawns for, the Jews in Israel.

Your comment that the Jews are "ethnic cleansing" speaks for itself.? That comment, more than any, is the clearest sign of who gets it and who does not.?

You want to know why they disregard the UN?? It's because people like you place their actions on the same moral level as the actions by Hizbollah and characterize their actions as "ethnic cleansing."? Unlike the United States, Israel's disagreement with the European Union or Russia doesn't just jeaopordize friendships, it jeopardizes Israel's survival.? Because there are countries and groups that border Israel that preach their death and destruction, I don't think Israel gives two shits about what the UN says.?

Perhaps not more accurate, but Al-Jazeera is more balanced in showing multiple sides of a story than most of the U.S. media.

And exactly what are these sides that aren't being shown by the US media?  Please don't say Israel's killing of civilans.  Everytime I turn on CNN that is all they talk about.

I'm saying in general, not this issue specifically.

I find this very difficult to believe since there are laws in place that restrict what Al-Jazerra can display.  The first Amendment doesn't exist over there.  So if by "more balanced" you mean more anti-american you may be right.  But if you mean conveying an argument that attacks Islam or portrays the arab world in a bad ligh, fraid not.

Awe shucks, there you go again, with your left wing media bias. This time perpetrated by Lefty Jews who are so far left that they do their best to make Israel look like the bad guy. Yea right.........

Killing civilians, torturing civilians, imprisoning civilians, occupying another country, and ignoring the UN all falls under contempt for international  law. The end goal is to reduce the Arab population (see: Ethnic cleansing campaign above.) They ignore the UN because they can, knowing full well as America's client state there will be no consequences.

While you cling to the illusion of "left wing media" and focus on the usual personal attack techniques and strawmen, Israel is pumping millions upon millions of dollars into lobbying (more like bullying) the USA corporate whore media. All news outlets are guilty of this practice, and Israel's PR is intact because of it. They have been doing this for decades now.



I'd like to see you present more evidence to back your claim..........

That there are very conservative restrictions in the middle east as to what they can say and do?  You want proof fo this.  I guess you want proof that the sky is blue or that Mars is the 4th planet.  Whatever SLC, you seem to be quite content in your dereanged lil world where Fox is biased and unreliable, but Moveon and Al Jazerra are beacons of jounralistic integrity.  I really think you might be suffering from a mental illness because you keep appearing more and more crazy.

well fox is indeed biased and unreliable.
Moveon is too, but it is its role.
Al Jazerra is too, but again it is its role, a counter-weight to fox/etc ... propaganda.

Berkeley,  reason why Hizbollah destruction to israel hasnt been shown cuz everyone knows it was accidental deaths and none purposely attacked em unlike israel who are purpose terrorists tro destroyh any arab and muslim nation. feel sorry for israelis because they dont know what their government is up to the poor areas such as the north they ned war to carry on so they can get jobs to rebuild destroyed buildings.

Then why do people post smiley faces when Fox (whom is just as reliable as any other American network, but I would dare say much more objective than MoveOn or Al Jazerra) is cited? ?If all three of the sources in questions are biased, why does it seem acceptable to post garbage from MoveOn? ?Likely Berkeley said earlier about SLC, most of the people here choose a news source that aligns with their political beliefs. ?There is no objectivity or rationality, just blind hatred for anything that questions their support system and doesn't toe the line.

Sakib, that just shows how blind you are to Islam and the ME that you would say something that dumb.  I don't think any intelligent person (hell, even the UN acknoledges Hezbollah as a terrorist group) could say that Hezbollah is not a terrorist group, but Israel is in the same sentence.  Do you even know the definition of a terrorist group?  Israel is a nation that is surrounded by nations with people who want nothing short of Israel's eradication.  Every treaty made by Israel is broken by some "terrorist group" while the host nation can plead ignorance.  I'm not naieve enought o say Israel doesn't have a lot to be blamed for and their share of responsibility, but the terrorist can't kill the Israeli military, so they aim for civilians.  Hezbollah places themselves in civilian areas so when there are unforrtunate deaths, people like you blaim Israel rather than the pieces of shit who endangered the civilians.  I challenge you this Sakib, cite me one example where an Israeli leader called and prayed for the genocide of all Muslims and their nation?  Cause I can give you a few where your muslim pals did.  For a peaceful religion, it's most loyal practicioners seem to have missed something.

Alright, here goes.  I wrote a paper on the American media vs. Al-Jazeera back in December for my last college paper.  Just a few statistics and bits of information from it.  If you want full citations on any of these for proof, feel free to ask.  Even if you want to read the whole paper (14.5 pages plus a 3-page bibliogrqaphy), shoot me a PM.

I'm breaking it down to two posts because it's too long.  Part One...

In the 2001 battles in Afghanistan, CNN reported on civilian deaths in Afghanistan.  Editors at CNN told news writers to say in every story about these civilian deaths that "the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian deaths," and "the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the U.S."  Why should both of these be mentioned in every single story?  It's basically saying "Well, yes, there were civilian deaths, but we didn't mean to.  And besides, these are evil people, so it's basically alright."

Fox News' Brit Hume and Michael Barone have gone so far as to ask why the media is even covering stories of civilian deaths.  Hume also told the New York Times "Look, neutrality as a general principle is an appropriate concept for journalists who are covering institutions of some comparable quality.  This is a conflict between the United States and murdering barbarians." While one of Fox News' slogans is "We Report, You Decide," these gentlemen seem to have no problem in defaming a party in a story, thereby influencing the viewers as to how they should feel.  The viewer no longer has a say in what he believes, but is rather overtly told what he should believe.

Journalist Alex Jones of Harvard-- "[The accusations of manipulation of stories] especially applies to American television coverage, which was largely pro-war, while the European television coverage was antiwar. European public opinion was very much against the war, and the coverage reflected that. An interesting thing to note is that while half the American public believed there was a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, an idea that has been debunked, it's also true that a quarter of the German public believes George Bush was responsible for the September 11th attacks. It makes me wonder who is more ill informed."

Moving on now to Al-Jazeera: legitimate and credible news organization or "mouthpiece for al-Qaeda?"

Al-Jazeera is one of the few stations willing to show images of POW's, dead soldiers, and bombed civilians, both Arab and American.  American Lieutenant Joshua Rushing witnessed Al-Jazeera's coverage of the war dead, and found it disturbing: "It was powerful, because [the American media] won't show those kinds of images. It made me sick to my stomach. I just saw people on the other side, and those people in the Al-Jazeera offices must have felt the way I was feeling that night, and it upset me on a profound level that I wasn't bothered as much the night before."  He went on to add, "It makes me hate war, but it doesn't make me believe that we're in a world that can live without war yet."  Al-Jazeera seems to be simply reporting what has happened in the war-- they choose to show civilian and military deaths, not just include death tolls in a spoken or graphical number.  While this may incite viewers to fight back, it is simply showing the truth of what is happening.  Fox News reporters have called the people that the United States is fighting "murdering barbarians," while Al-Jazeera has not used any such slurs against Americans in statements made by their reporters.

Al-Jazeera has come under fire from many sides during the war-- the American people, the American government, and even people of the Middle East have criticized Al-Jazeera's news coverage.  "Detroit residents attacked an Al-Jazeera correspondent because they believed the network's coverage to be too anti-American... [Some Arab-Americans] believe Al-Jazeera is in cahoots with the American and Israeli governments, airing Osama bin Laden videos at moments beneficial to U.S. interests. Still, even those who are critical of it continue to watch."  In March of 2003, the United States military stormed Baghdad, and the video of a statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled was shown for weeks on end in the American media.  Most stations showed this to be a heroic act by the military, going off with no problem.  Al-Jazeera painted a different picture: "Al-Jazeera even made sure to show a picture of an Iraqi man celebrating by waving a picture of Dick Cheney. But it also showed the anguish of Iraqi civilians: images from Basra of a wounded boy, his face partially burned off."  The American media covered up the perceived negatives of the story, while Al-Jazeera showed all the pieces.  Other Arab-Americans have said that unlike the American media, Al-Jazeera is not Jewish-controlled, and therefore more trustworthy.

According to research from the Pew Research Center, only 25% of Americans trust Fox News' credibility.  The station has been accused of being consistently Republican-leaning on many issues in America.  Add in the fact they promote themselves as the most watched news station in America, and other American news agencies will follow them on their rightward drift.  When one factors in their issues of credibility with the issue of other news agencies trying to imitate them to be successful, the final result is an untrustworthy press.

Al-Jazeera also has been criticized and viewed with distrust in the Middle East.  The station has had correspondents banned from several Middle Eastern countries because of their criticisms of authoritarian regimes.  The Committee to Protect Journalists also says Al-Jazeera's journalists are constant targets of threats of violence.  If anything, this criticism from the Middle Eastern governments has increased its popularity.  Al-Jazeera's audience is used to massive censorship and bias from within their governments' news releases, in the rare events that the government actually ever tells what is happening.  An independent press agency is a welcome and refreshing change for these people.  Al-Jazeera is occasionally a target of protest from the public.  This was seen on December 14, 2005, when it was reported that a group of Shiite Muslims protested against the comments of Al-Jazeera contributor Fadel al-Rubaie, an exiled Sunni Muslim from Iraq.  Al-Rubaie made comments telling Shiite clerics to stay out of politics in Iraq.  The demonstrators demanded an apology and requested the government do something about Rubaie.  Little can be done however, as the station has been banned from broadcasting from Iraq.

The aforementioned host of Fox News' Special Report, Brit Hume, is one of the worst offenders of right-wing bias in selecting guests on his show.  According to a study published in Extra! Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, 71% of all guests on Hume's show in 2001 were "Conservative," while the other 29% were classified as "Non-Conservative."  The latter classification included people of many different political ideologies-- Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and more.  Fox calls Special Report its "signature show."  The fact that 71% of guests on the show come from one political ideology is troubling, especially when it is mentioned that the station calls itself "fair and balanced."  In 2004, a similar study was performed, looking at the guests of Special Report, and classifying them as conservative, centrist, progressive, or non-ideological.  The final breakdown of these guests was 57%, 12%, 11%, and 20%, respectively.  Once again, conservatives dominated the numbers, but not as egregiously as they had in 2001.  Additionally, the guests were primarily white males.  In the 2004 report, women represented only 7% of guests, while nonwhite people made only 11% of all guests.  None of the women or nonwhite guests were classified as progressives.  While the station has attempted to be more "fair and balanced," it appears they have a long way to go before living up to their slogan.

This rightward bias is not only found in Fox News.  The remainder of the nightly network newscasts favored conservatives when it came to partisan sources.  ABC, NBC, and CBS newscasts all featured more than 70% of partisan sources being conservative-leaning in 2001.  Even National Public Radio, often called "liberal radio" by its detractors, had conservatives outnumbering progressives by almost a three to two ratio.

Part Two...

Al-Jazeera shows multiple sides of every issue they report on in the Middle East and abroad.  The only criticism of Al-Jazeera not being fair or balanced comes from their decision to show wounded soldiers and civilians and to broadcast tapes of terrorist leaders speaking.  They attempt to cover all sides of a story, not just the perspective of one side.  As previously mentioned, this has been a problem for the station.  Posted to a blog were the paraphrased comments of Hafez Al-Mirazi, the Washington Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera.  He said that trying to remain neutral has made them appear to be terrorist sympathizers.  "In a world in which you are either 'with us or with the terrorists,' displaying any material not favorable to the US is not simply seen as anti-America, but also pro-terrorist. Because of this view, Al-Jazeera's is often accused of bias when they are, like any other news channel, informing their audience of relevant events."  So every side feels alienated.  Americans feel Al-Jazeera sympathizes with terrorists, while Middle Easterners see it as having too much influence coming from the West.  However, the station continues to cover every side of the story, no matter what story it is reporting.  Neutrality is important to Al-Jazeera.  Apparently it is also important to viewers, as on an average day, Al-Jazeera's news station has over 35 million viewers in the Middle East.  Compare this to Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC who each have a million or fewer viewers in America on an average day.

So, we've seen the views of America and the Middle East on the whole Al-Jazeera vs. American media war.  What does the rest of the world think?

Canada has been a major battleground in the Fox News/CNN vs. Al-Jazeera news war.  In July 2004, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, their equivalent of the United States' Federal Communications Commission, approved Al-Jazeera to be broadcast into Canada.  At the time, Fox News was unavailable to Canadians except through illegal satellite connections.  In November 2004, the CRTC finally chose to approve Fox News for broadcast in Canada.

Several other countries, including the United Kingdom, have ties to Al-Jazeera.  In October 2005, famed British broadcaster Sir David Frost joined the ranks of Al-Jazeera from their London branch.  In addition to Frost, numerous other reporters and correspondents for Al-Jazeera have worked for the BBC.  Some Al-Jazeera employees have made comments in the past to the effect of saying that if you work for Al-Jazeera, you probably used to work for the BBC.  In early 2006, a former executive from New Zealand's TVNZ, Paul Yurisich, will be taking a position with Al-Jazeera International as their program editor.  Al-Jazeera is more open to having journalists on its staff who have come from, and worked in, different countries before joining Al-Jazeera-- more open to the idea than the American news media appears to be.  This could be what affects their coverage.  An American-born and bred news reporter would have a more pro-American bias, whether intended or not.  By taking journalists from all over the world to work in their ranks, Al-Jazeera is able to provide a more diverse opinion that is less biased toward one particular side.

Overall, it appears that despite the moniker of "Fair and Balanced" news belonging to America's Fox News, Al-Jazeera is much more fair and balanced.  Al-Jazeera does not cover up news stories it does not wish to see aired.  They are more graphic in what images they show and at times may show too much; but it is better to show too much than too little.  By showing more than the West would consider necessary, it allows the news viewers of the world to get as much information as they can.  This way a news viewer is smarter and better informed about the world around them.  As previously stated, "The danger is that [the media] hide the truth.  People are falsely assuming that they are making an informed decision.  The 'truth,' as an informed decision, cannot be made when facts are arbitrarily hidden."  They have a wider range of broadcasters coming from many different backgrounds instead of one national background.  Al-Jazeera's coverage of domestic issues does not concentrate primarily on one view (e.g. Fox News' conservative white males), but rather tries to represent a broader spectrum of views.

It is an unfortunate state of affairs that something as simple as information as to what is happening in the world is now a commodity to be bought and sold.  For as long as there is money to be made, the unethical practices will continue.  Information and media have become a business, with profits to be made.  As long as some stations will go past the rhetoric and truly be "fair and balanced," then the media will still have an upside in spite of profiteering.  The will of the people and what they want is always changing and because of this, the news media will be constantly evolving.  When the people of the world open their eyes and finally decide they want a truly free press rather than one agency parroting what the others say, it will happen.  It is just a matter of when it happens and who will do it.

Very interesting read Duffman.

Please tell me you are joking around with this post.  If not, I am not really sure what to say to you. 

Sakib never jokes. He falls for al jazeera propoganda hook, line, and sinker. :hihi:

Wow.  My post went over someone's head.

And you wonder why politics are banned...........

I asked you a simple question. In return you created a false argument and then attacked me personally.

First of all this is false and always has been about me. It is a weak argument you all use when you no longer have a leg to stand on. Brody tried this tired lie on my forum and I posted all my sources, just as I have done here in the past.

You also left something out that was very important in the above post. BR claimed that, and then I gave him my source (in relation to the topic we were discussing), which was a right wing owned and operated news corporation. He quit replying at that point and then slunk away from the thread. Not only was he wrong, but he couldn't even stick around to admit it, or offer an apology. Yet, here you are ignoring that and repeating a half truth.
 
Talk about rational............

Maybe because your post was way the hell off topic.

Lie.


******

Why did everybody run away when Mal Brossard threw out one helluva post?

as i said, moveon is not to be compared to fox.
it would like comparing John Stewart's show to .... lets say ... crossfire ?

on aljazeera. again, it's a reaction to fox propaganda. a reaction.


well.

why is sakib saying that HZB is not a terrorist organization ? wel simply because there are not consensus on what a terrorist organization is.

I guess you can define it from its methods. alright.
So a terrorist organization is terrorist if it uses terror. so what ?
aren't you guys the first to say that the The End Justify The Means ?

when do the reasons start to have some wieght in the issue?

do freedom and democracy in iraq justify the bombing and the civilians ?
does the protection of israel justify the civilians casualties in lebanon ?
some would say yes.
if so. HZB has every right in the world to be what it is. i personnaly condenm it. cause i think the end does not justify the means.

during WW2 the "french resistance" used terrorist methods to get to the nazis. terrorism. and they were seen as heroes.
see it all depends on wich side you are.
a evil terrorist organization, or the heroes defending your land.
al-quaida is utterly evil. they are tangled in a wide, global war, outside of time. issue-less.
HZB is more down to earth. they were created for a reason (fight israel occupation). they still act for specific reasons. concrete reasons. reactions. a little different than a hate group.


about the news source. they are many sources, left or right that are objective enough.
i read Le Monde in France, it is clearly on the left, some would say "intellectual elitist". but it's objective enough.

fox, al jazeera and sky news are to be avoided. for clear reasons.

Considering all the media bashing, and especially Al-Jazeera bashing, that's going on here, I don't think it was off-topic at all.

Lie.

Lies!  LIES!  IT'S ALL DAMN LIES!!!!

OK, seriously though.  If a fact can be proven as just that-- a fact-- why does it matter who reports it, whether it's MoveOn.org, Fox News, or Al-Jazeera?

We've been through this plenty of times.

Not only that but Pilferk came out and backed me 100 percent on that. The independent who agreed that I always use mainstream media (including conservative owned rags) as my sources. You then.......slunk away, like always. I recall posting an opinion piece out of NY Times once that sent you guys into a frenzy, foaming at the mouth and giving each other high fives because I was "caught" using a lefty source. 'Bout made me fall out of my chair with laughter.

Day in, day out, nothing changes. You guys all lie through your teeth about the real world and then anybody who dare come along and tell you emperor is not wearing any clothes.

The thing about Moveon, media matters etc, is that they thoroughly source their reports. They go out of their way to source their articles. I have seen plenty of neocons attack these groups, but never with merit. They just throw the dirty word liberal at the wall and  hope it sticks. For those that repeat the mantra without a thought of their own, it works just fine. For those of us who actually read the sources, and past the headlines, it is not accepted. Ask for it here, and you will only get a personal attack in reply (as seen above as I asked Gunslinger for more info.) Any group or person who gives an opposing view to the lockstep march of the neocons is labeled "liberal media".

That is how it works.......

You can call it slinking away, but I actually have a job and can't dedicate, although I enjoy the discussions, the time that you can to a GNR website.

Maybe one day when you work for yourself, you can...........

Perhaps.  Although I am sure I would probably have less time to look at this board if I worked for myself.  Right now I like my lifestyle, and I am not willing to take the paycut. ;)  Perhaps I just work in the wrong industry.

I have had one day off in two months.....

Stay at your job......

wow, another thread turned into a right-left discussion. and this time something new.....the media!

hilarious since the first article posted was not from foxnews. it was an AP article.

but back on topic, this is a major W in the long war against terror. nice work!

sadly this isnt a laughing matter. I cant fall for Al Jazeera because i cant speak arabic so i dont understand a word. My sources come from 7DAYS newspaper and BBC documentary i saw back in 2003. Btw, a terrorist group i believe is group that causes terror e.g. Policemen- supposeldy cause terror among criminals. HZB dont target civilians like a say look at the civilian: soldier ratio death of both sides.

The "loyal" practitioners have missed something namely; unity, sanity, education. Btw, my other source comes from good old JACOB who is currenly in South American continent. Shouldn't every group be terrorising? Think about it, people dont commit crimes when they feel "teror" of being arrested. Am i misdefining terrorist here? Is that the type of terrorist HZB are?

Isn't Neocon a dirty too? Kind of like the teapot/kettle theory?

Did you get past my FOXNews link before throwing out your remark of 'belief'?

P.S. I never have a problem with people who disagree with me. I can respect that without personally attacking others. :)