Reply With QuoteBump
TERROR'S PALS IN THE PRESS
By RALPH PETERS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 15, 2004 --
JOURNALISTS across the world are horrified. A U.S. helicopter gunship killed an al-Arabiya producer in Baghdad. And the international solidarity between scribblers immediately kicked into gear, outraged at American brutality.
Not a single journalist asked the fundamental question: How is it that "reporters" from al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya are on the scene immediately when U.S. troops are ambushed or when a massive car bomb explodes?
It doesn't take a new CIA director to figure it out. Arab journalists are not only in contact with terrorists, they're in collusion with them.
Time and again, we see dramatic video and photographs from the terrorists' angle, killers with rocket-propelled grenades on their shoulders and blackened U.S. military vehicles.
Iraq's a big country, the size of California. Baghdad's a big city, a blue-ribbon victim of urban sprawl. It's simply impossible to believe that the handful of Arab TV journalists on the scene are so brilliant that they
instinctively know where the action's going down.
Our journalists need to drop the feigned naivet’. Reporters who cut deals with terrorists for gory footage, who know a terror bombing's on the way and say nothing or who accompany thugs as they ambush U.S. soldiers, are not neutral observers.
As this column has consistently maintained, al-Jazeera, especially, is not a news organization. It's an anti-American propaganda bureau. Does anyone imagine that al Qaeda and other terror groups “the head-choppers for Allah” send their tapes to al-Jazeera because the postage is cheaper?
We are at war. Not only with terrorists, but with their supporters. That al-Arabiya producer joined forces with killers who ambushed a Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. He wasn't a journalist. He was a terrorist. Whether he carried a camera or a gun.
Our gunship didn't target him. It fired at the disabled Bradley so looters couldn't make off with weapons, ammunition or communications gear. Self-defense. The looters and terrorists clambering over the vehicle were
fair game. So was their sidekick from al-Arabiya.
OF COURSE, we can't even get our media house in order here at home. It's been a loathsome week for American journalism.
CBS won't name its source for those "incriminating" do ents about President Bush's National Guard service. That would violate its high journalistic principles (although lying about our president does not).
Instead, we get poor old Dan Rather, the crazy uncle of network news, insisting that those do ents could have been typed on an early-1970s super typewriter, that there might have been just the right outrageously expensive machine in that fly-specked National Guard office ú and that an officer who had never used it before would use it for note-taking.
Let me share some reality with Uncle Dan. I served in our active-duty military five years after those do ents purportedly were written. I was in Army intelligence. And only the big boss's secretary had an electric typewriter one too primitive to create those do ents. I worked on a manual machine made in East Germany (swear to God). In 1977. In a front-line division. The National Guard got the junk we didn't want.
CBS lied. The sad thing is that they just might be able to stonewall America.
That's network news, folks. Defend forgeries. Defend "journalists" who support terror. Let our soldiers die. Let the American people rot. And trash our president in wartime.
No wonder al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya get away, literally, with murder.
Bump
Al-Jazeer has been banned from Iraq for more than a month and the fighting by insurgents has only gotten worse in that time. Maybe the real issue is not that AJ is so biased, but that they don't just regurgitate the same old administration lies that the rest of the corporate media seems content to do.
Not surprising that you would side with al-jazeera!
I'm not siding with Al-Jazeera, I'm siding with freedom of the press, and liberty.
Al-Jazeera sides with the terrorists, who oppose freedom of the press and liberty.
Give me a break. Al-Jazeera is the press. Why would they want to restrict themselves? It's a false bill of goods sold to the American people. Al-Jazeera would not play the administrations game, so like CBS and Dan Rather they had to be discredited.
If they toady up to Islamic fascists or their supporters they will not be restricted.Al-Jazeera is the press. Why would they want to restrict themselves?
Al-Jazeera, CBS, and Dan Rather have discredited themselves by way of false & biased reporting.Al-Jazeera would not play the administrations game, so like CBS and Dan Rather they had to be discredited.
That's something Fox News and Right-wing talk radio do everyday. So what?Al-Jazeera, CBS, and Dan Rather have discredited themselves by way of false & biased reporting.
You argument is stupid. Al-Jazeera is working to restrict the press through its 'alleged' support of Islamic causes, so you want to restrict the press to stop it? See the hypocrisy?
How is Fox "biased" other than not being "fake, yet accurate" like CBS?
I mean we readers of the forum understand you can memorize and spout slogans well.
Go rent Outfoxed and get back to me with your argument.How is Fox "biased" other than not being "fake,
Who produced that? What is their political affiliation? Who is distributing it? Etc.
When has Fox News ever aired an investigative report attacking a presidential candidate based on fake do ents?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions