The results of the siege of Fallujah

Who are Novak and Blair?

I don't know, sofia, obviously the explanation them raggy-heads gave, about not wishing to assist OBL can't be right, can it? After all, they're the enemy, right? I'm taired of participating while you make a mole hill into a towering everest. You don't trust al-Jazeera, and have no real reason for your distrust, other than that you just don't. How nice.

I have no idea why they lied, Sofia.

Neither do you.

We can only guess.
We can ask others what they think, which is what I'm doing. Do you have a problem with that?
Clearly, your guess attributes sinister motives to Al Jazeera.

Sinister? If you define protecting a disgusting, murderous thug sinister...
But I do not follow your logic - why would they do the interview at all if they wanted to protect him?
Ratings. Since they are about the only people, who will give him the courtesy of an interview--or either because they treat him so deferentially--not pestering him with questions like Oh, I don't know, "Isn't the murder of innocent women and children against Islamic law, or is it OK?
What are you saying changed?
They realized BL's rhetoric fell right into Bush's hands. Clips could be used for Bush's campaign commercials. The 'Americans freedom will be taken from them' line...? It would strength the resolve against BL.
Presumably they originally intended to show it.

CNN showing it did not result in his capture - why would Al Jazeera showing it have done so?
Who said it would?
My guess would be that the material was so inflammatory that they were worried about the west's reaction if they showed it - as opposed to CNN, against whom the same accusations would not be made - at least not as stridently.
Why would they be worried about the West's reaction? Was it BL or Al Jazeera talking?
How did the intelligence authorities get it? Having it seemed to make no impact on their ability to find Bin Laden. Again, I do not follow your logic.
You sure don't.

Ought British media not to have reported on Hitler between when he went into the Sudetenland and when Britain declared war? His intentions to overrun Europe were clear at that time
He was a country's leader at war. Not a terrorist, who had organised the murder of innocents with NO provocation, and vowed to do more. Pathetic.

Many Arab citizens now consider Bush to be a criminal terrorist - ought their media not to be reporting him? Ought any reporters who interview him from these countries only do so if they pinpoint his position for those who would kill or capture him?
This is so lame.
I know this analogy is rather starined - but I do think the news is supposed to be reported without fear or favour - and Al Jazeera, however inexpertly as yet - straddles THE huge political chasm of the moment - I think they will be drawing lots of fire from both sides - which probably means they are doing a not bad job. I hope they do not fall into the chasm and disappear.
Rather strained...?

dlowan wrote:

I have no idea why they lied, Sofia.

Neither do you.

We can only guess.
We can ask others what they think, which is what I'm doing. Do you have a problem with that?
Clearly, your guess attributes sinister motives to Al Jazeera.

Sinister? If you define protecting a disgusting, murderous thug sinister...
But I do not follow your logic - why would they do the interview at all if they wanted to protect him?
Ratings. Since they are about the only people, who will give him the courtesy of an interview--or either because they treat him so deferentially--not pestering him with questions like Oh, I don't know, "Isn't the murder of innocent women and children against Islamic law, or is it OK?
What are you saying changed?
They realized BL's rhetoric fell right into Bush's hands. Clips could be used for Bush's campaign commercials. The 'Americans freedom will be taken from them' line...? It would strength the resolve against BL.
Presumably they originally intended to show it.

CNN showing it did not result in his capture - why would Al Jazeera showing it have done so?
Who said it would?
My guess would be that the material was so inflammatory that they were worried about the west's reaction if they showed it - as opposed to CNN, against whom the same accusations would not be made - at least not as stridently.
Why would they be worried about the West's reaction? Was it BL or Al Jazeera talking?
How did the intelligence authorities get it? Having it seemed to make no impact on their ability to find Bin Laden. Again, I do not follow your logic.
You sure don't.

Ought British media not to have reported on Hitler between when he went into the Sudetenland and when Britain declared war? His intentions to overrun Europe were clear at that time
He was a country's leader at war. Not a terrorist, who had organised the murder of innocents with NO provocation, and vowed to do more. Pathetic.

Many Arab citizens now consider Bush to be a criminal terrorist - ought their media not to be reporting him? Ought any reporters who interview him from these countries only do so if they pinpoint his position for those who would kill or capture him?
This is so lame.
I know this analogy is rather starined - but I do think the news is supposed to be reported without fear or favour - and Al Jazeera, however inexpertly as yet - straddles THE huge political chasm of the moment - I think they will be drawing lots of fire from both sides - which probably means they are doing a not bad job. I hope they do not fall into the chasm and disappear.
Rather strained...?

dlowan wrote:

Who are Novak and Blair?

Robert Novak exposed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, after being tipped of by an anonymous source in the WH. She is the wife of the former ambassador who exposed the "aluminium tubes" story as yet another Bush lie.

Jason Blair was a reporter for the NY times who was fired for plagiarizing many of his stories, and fabricating the rest.

But to comment on some of your points:

"He was a country's leader at war. Not a terrorist, who had organised the murder of innocents with NO provocation, and vowed to do more. Pathetic."

I am unsure on what basis you would make such a ridiculous claim about Hitler. Not organised the murder of innocents?

But this is a sidetrack on this thread.

Interesting how you managed to slip this in after I'd posted a response. It wasn't here last night.