New Board of Directors to Qatar's Al Jazeera

1) I am not talking about that Butterfly, I’m talking about news channels in OUR countries (yes, France, Italy, and even the BBC) that too often used the word « terrorists » to describe resistance in Iraq. Of course there were some exceptions, usually left wing newspapers. I will not generalise of course but I happen to read the news on a wide variety of European websites and that’s the general feeling I got. “Bien sur� the vast majority stood against the war, but right now I’m talking about their description of facts. I might be the only one around to think so, but what we call terrorist organisations (in Iraq, Palestine, Ireland, Mexicao, Tchetchnia...) are to me legitimate Liberation organisations that are strggling for their basic right of living free and God help anyone who stands against oppression. They become terrorists when they target innocent people by killing, abducting or abusing them. No one can accept that.

And Chirac’s stance against the war was due to the loss of French interests in the region. Don’t forget that Total lost all its market shares in Iraq since the American invasion. And France learned its lesson from the first gulf War when Mitterrand supported Bush father but in return obtained nothing in returns. Not even a share of the war costs (paid by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait among others) or oil. I could say more about that but it’s not the subject (Don’t forget what De Gaulle said: “States have no friends. They only have interests). Chirac stood against the war. Fine. But is he a journalist? Surely not. And my criticism were aimed at “Medias�.

2) Buttefly. What do you expect from me? To say that the killing of civilians is legitimate?

3) I am not standing as Taycir’s lawyer. Read my previous post…

Yet another bad case of the hiccuphs on the site!

GIasi: LOL!

Buttefly. I apprciate your comment and I agree on many points. I was going to type but I'm having lunch. So I'll back to you and you'll see that we're (almost?) on the same page.

Peace!

Hahaha, watch out aussies!!!!

GIASI,

I have a short video on the computer (On the Streets of America) in which American's were asked who they should attack next. The responses were incredible. When asked to put a pin in a world map to show where Iran was......one of them stuck it in Australia!

Hey guys... it doesnt matter if your fighting for right or wrong. You have to put a military uniform on thats all, then youre a liberator, one of the good guys. Handing sweets out to kids and then napalming them the next day.

All media is a tool to control the masses and god help any media outlet that tries to produce REAL independent reporting. I advise you all too seek information from a wide range of sources to be able to make up your own mind.

As an example, did you know that the MAJORITY of americans still think that saddam was behind 911 and thats why the troops are there now?

Thats media manipulation for you. and if i have to argue that point with anyone then they are already lost.

Respect

GIASI

Fat C:

1- "Our medias are guilty for not showing everything". Do not generalise. What do you mean by our? Italian? Well, everyone knows who owns the media and everything else in Italy, so it's only natural that B is using HIS media to tell HIS lies. When it comes to spanish media, please.... You don't know how strongly the spanish media attacked the war in Irak and the Aznar government. 99% of the spanish population was against the war, yet A ignored the feelings of its people. If it wasn't for "our" media, we would still be blissfully thinking in Spain that the train attack was carried by ETA and Aznar would be still in power.

But lets stop talking about spanish media and focus on French media... Now I'm pmsl. Do you actually think that french media has hidden information about Irak? Pleaaaase.... Not to mention Jack's strong attacks against the war. I remeber how it hurt the americans at the time. A boycott France campaing was everywhere in US... I was unlucky enough to be in California with my husband when that happened and everybody looked down on us. Funny enough, we were even insulted in Subway by the inmigrant latino servers. Too bad that they insulted us in the spanish language thinking that we were not going to understand... Anywayz...

So what do you mean by "Our" media... American Channels? Then your right, they tell you a load crap and expect you to be stupid enough to believe it. Insulting, I know, but arabic channels do pretty much the same, from the oppisite point of view.

British channels? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I never had to listen or read shit from British media. Unless I get the "Sun". I think they deal with news independently and yes, they have strongly attacked Blair and his decision to go to war.

2 -Now, Resistance is not terrorism. Agreeed. I'm more than happy for the Iraki people, Al Qaida, Afghanistanies, Palestinian etc, to fight for their freedom. Get them out. Fight agaisnt the militars. That's it. Period.

Fat, Lili, a question. If your son, sister, mother, whatever, was in a train in Milan on his/her way to work/school and the train was bombed because Italy has taken part in the war, and that person was murdered.... What would you call that, resistance or terror? I'm sorry, but I think nothing justifies the murdering of innocent people. I call that terror.

3- Wouldn't it be great if all these people ended up in Jail? Maybe lock them together, so they'll be cursed to listen to eachother's rubbish constantly.

4- Are you comparing the case of Taysir with people locked in Guantanamo? Don't get me started with Guantanamo, I don't know about that one, maybe he is a criminal, maybe he is not. We will never know, because, hey, he's in Guantanamo! Who knows why?

Taysir had his trial and was sentenced. Legally. I don't know the details of the evidence against him and I would presume that many would be confidential. Justice is a separate power with no liks to government, but if it was a political decision to sentence him despite his innocence, then I would be asking myself why. Why why why... There is no reason.

It's truely a relief to hear someone speak the truth for a change...with all the muddled media around I'm glad it's not forgotten.

thankyou fat C for mentioning the fact that most people totally ignore or try to forget to just make life easier and ease their conscience

The fact that people fighting for their country are not terrorrists....resistance is not terrorrism.lili.

Butterfly, I strongly disagree with you that western medias showed the abuses of the Iraqi war first and that Al Jazeera was busy doing sometihng else. I myself think that sometimes Al JAzeera focues too much on what's going on in thier part of the world but hey, they're the first concerned so I guess I shuoldn't be expecting them to speak more of European issues.

Our medias are guilty for having not showed everything when it comes to the abuses. We, I mean "I" just saw parcels of videos footages whether on public channels or cable TV and let's not even mention CNN or FoxN News.... For professional journalists (in Europe) to call resistance, terrosists when we all know this war is illegal in the face of UN resolutions and even basisc common sens is a proof of either incompetence, intellectual dishonnesty and/or ignorance.

All limits of morals, dignity and God given rights have been violated! And here at home, the land of freedom and human rights we give credit to journalists who can't make a difference between the oppressor and victim?

Those pictures were taken by US and British soldiers so of course those picures will end up in the hands of western journalists; just like tapes of Bin LAden or Zarqawi end up in the hands of arab journalists.

Butterfly, please don't be so quick to throw accusations. If

"Innocent until proven otherwise" I wish you were true my firend, but this golden rule is only applied to the common people not the decision makers. And if terrorists are people who kill innocent people to reach poltical goals, then yes they deserve the worst punishment we can find. Just like our home grown terrorists: Bush, Blair, Berlusconi, Aznar, Putin... should all be next to Taysir in jail.

Having made the wrong friends is not enough of an evidence to send somebody to jail Butterfly. I'm not not taking his defense whatsoever, if he did something illegal, he should be punished for it. But until then, was there a proof that he was member of those organisations? Was the money he sent intended to terrorists? Did the accusation make an inquiery about who took the money and what they did with it?

And what about the Al jazeera photographer who was sent to guantanamo? What was his crime?

Whilst the station is partly funded by the State of Qatar, I understand that they do not "own" it. I am not prepared to say who I think owns it as it wouldn't be politic! But you must know who pulls the strings in Qatar.

The Al-Jazeera history page continues (with some editing due to obvious anomolies in the text)

A few months later, disappointed by the lack of press freedom in the Arab world, Sheik Hamad pledged to let Al-Jazeera "report the news as they see it." "I believe criticism can be a good thing," the emir said in a 1997 speech, "and some discomfort for government officials is a small price to pay for this new freedom."

The station has come a long way since it was launched in November 1996. With more than 30 bureaus and dozens of correspondents covering the four corners of the world Al Jazeera has given millions of people a refreshing new perspective on global events. Free from the shackles of censorship and government control, Al Jazeera has offered its audiences in the Arab world much needed freedom of thought, independence, and room for debate.

I personally believe that the reasons for Qatar "hosting" Al-Jazeera are:

1) The desire of Sh Hamad to both promote and change the nation quickly after "taking over".

2) To antagonise the Saudis who had discouraged other potential backers.

I think that Al-Jazeera is a very good channel and I have watched it in Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Turkey even though my arabic is not fluent. If the english channel is half as good it will be an exceptional channel.

Sorry if this is a bit heavy.

Further information in a 2002 article can be found on

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/middle_east.html

Thanks for the info dweller...

But you didn't tell us who own the channel and how did they move to Qatar?

Ayman

Safwany,

I wouldn't say that the BBC Arabic Channel had financial problems (I doubt the British Government who fund the Beeb would allow that). According to their own (AlJazeera) history:

"The origins of Al Jazeera dates back to 1995 when the BBC, which had built a strong tradition of objective Arabic-language news coverage through its World Service radio network, signed a deal with the Saudi owned company Orbit Communications to provide Arabic newscasts for Orbit's main Middle East channel. However, the BBC's insistence on editorial independence clashed with the Saudi government's unwillingness to permit reporting on controversial issues, such as a documentary showing graphic executions and the activities of

prominent Saudi dissidents. In April 1996, when the BBC broadcasted a story on human rights in the Saudi Kingdom which showed footage of the beheading of a criminal, Orbit pulled out of the deal throwing the station into dissolution"

Al Jazeera is not just disliked in the West (if that is so) as they have been kicked out (albeit temporarily) of many many arab countries.

Interesting who "owns" the station, cetainly not the government.

I hope that the English version will be shown in Qatar. It will make a change from the local news which became known in the 80's and 90's amongst the expats as "The Al-Thani Show"

Hmmm? What do you mean by the "oh so convinient"...

Who showed to the world the ill treatments at Abu Grabi (the jail, spelling?), the sick behaviour of british soldiers, the killing of innocent people in Irak... Oh yes, let me think, was that Aljazeera? No, it wasn't. They were too busy creating more conspiracy theories. It came from western media.

Fat, the story of the book was not taken as a evidence against Taysir, he had have "constant close contact" with terrorist, that has been proved, they even stayed at his house in Spain!. He argues that he didn't know of their terrorist activities. Right, maybe he just made friends with the wrong people. He also sent big quantities of money to Afghanistan and Turkey, and documents were found in his house.

I don't know if he has been wrongly senteced, what I do Know is that I am very happy for anyone who is remotely linked to terrorist activities to rotten in jail, regardless of his job. It has been shown that he used his journalist job with Al Jazeera as a cover. Again, I am not a judge, and I presume that neither are you, but let me tell you something: In Spain, unlike many other countries, is pretty much the case of "innocent until proven otherwise", so I trust that the system can deal with his case justly.

GIASI I can't help but agree with you ....It's becoming very disconcerting!!

Who exactly are you?????lol!!.lili.

True that Giasi.

Fat Clemenza

I dont buy the sanitised "oh so convenient" drivel that passes for journalism these days. The biggest test for determining whos behind any event, whether its a war, a terrorist attack, cartoons in denmark etc etc is to ask yourself who stands to gain the most from it? that will lead you to the truth.

Respect

GIASI

With all pressure those guys carry on their shoulders, if something was suspicious it would be known.

Even Berlusconi, Rumsfeld and Condy Rice can't hide their frustration when it comes to AL Jazeera.

If Al Jazeerah worked with them Al Qaida guyz, believe me it would be known.

One day I was reading the news paper about their internationally known journalist (I think his name is Taysir Akkuni, he's in jail now in Spain for "being linked with Bin Laden"), and one of the arguments used by the prosecution was that when the journalist called his wife, he asked her to bring a book named "The forty nuclears" ... guyz, I'm not joking ... that's the litteral translation of a scholar's (I'm proud I did all this research by myself!!!) name: "Annawawi" . And nawawi is also the arabic word for nuclear. BUT, and I turn to the arab speakers on this forum to correct me if I'm wrong...

First, the author was born in 631 and died 676 which would make it less likely that there were nuclear bombs back then. Second, his book is very popular in the arab-muslim world. It is a collection of 40 sayings (adith) of the prophet of Islam, i.e Muhammad. These sayings are about the basics of Islam. And unless the basics of Islam are to make nuclear weapons, I don't see what's wrong with asking for such a book.

How much credibility would you give to person using taht kind of evidence to convict a journalist of being linked to a clandestine organisation? Expecting us to buy it is an insult to our intelligence.

This was one of the things the AL Jazeera journalist was blamed for. We... oops, sorry Loki... I have seen many documentaries where journalists worked in very suspicous conditions. The documentaries were about clandestine organisations that ranged from low life drug dealers showing how they worked, to banned political organisations. If we can do it, why not them?

If I go and give an interview to berlusconi or Bush, does taht make me one of them?

Having both sides of the story is the least we could ask for with so many conflicts in that part of the world. All these accusations we hear about the channel are (and I am speaking for myself only) suspicious.

Enough about all that. I still haven't had an answer to my question. Will the changes made in Al Jazeera's Board of Directors affect the way it has worked so far?

the cia??? Where did you get that from, Giasi? Gosh, I heard many conspiracy theories, most are coming from Aljazeera, they just love their conspiracy theories, but that one, never...

Fat, you mean sent by normal mail? LOL... I thought they got hand carried to the Jazeera's office in Islamabad. But there's a lot of secrecy about it. "confidencial sources", exactly.

Tapes get sent to their offices don't they? Just as other medias have confidential sources...

I'm not being naive, don't worry about that.

FC...

I guess I just don't fit in ANYWHERE in this universe...

*sigh* oh, the trials of a higher being.... :P

(Note for those who don't pick up: tongue firmly in cheek...)

They get the tapes from the CIA. Cos everytime bush gets into a stcky spot, HEY PRESTO!!! another tape miraculously appears.

Respect

GIASI

Fat Clemenza, please don't be so naive... Al Jazeera is a good channel, BUT.

by the way, please can someone explain me how they get "the tapes"?

come on dude, this is God's earth and we all are is creatures. How can you manage not to fit anywhere ...??? Oh I c....you're form another planet right? :P

No problem, FC... perhaps I am just a bit over-sensitive to the many and all-encompassing uses - here and in many other places - of words like "we (people)", "you (people)", "everyone", 'nobody", etc... mainly 'cause I feel left out as I never seem to fit into either one "side" or the other... :)

Sorry if I jumped on you a bit hard.

Cheers :)

sorry. i'm talking about my small part of the world in which I live... Europe. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

I think you should be a little less loose in your use of "our" as a broad term... you never know, there might be people out there that it doesn't encompass...

Nobody likes Al jazeerah around here. As a matter of fact, they (our news channels) don't understand how an Arabic channel could do the same job as theirs and be given so much credit.

But I wonder if these changes at the Board of Directors wouldn't affect their job. Will it mean that they'll have to loosen up and soften their speech??

Just for the record ...

I was here in Qatar in the 90s when AlJazeera started, it was the Arabic channel of the BBC but they had some financial problems and they made a deal with the Qatar government to sell the channel and move it all (stuff and equipments) to Doha, so it wasn't baught by Bin Laden and all this crap you heared in your western news, they simply hate AlJazeera channel.

Ayman

Thanks for the clarification of your opinion, FC - I really didn't understand what you meant (I guess because I don't know much about the details of Al Jazeera's history/ public image).

Cheers :)

Al Jazeerah is known for giving a way different point of view than that of our news channels. I remember how irritated were European journalists when they talked about it. They (RAI) even brought some "analysts" who was saying that Al jazeerah worked with the Talibans and was sponsored by Bin Laden .... Its coverage of the different conflicts in the M/E has irritated the Bush administration so much that several of its journalists got killed while on duty. Some others are currently jailed (one in Guantanamo, the other in Spain) and we all rememmber the bombing of their office in Afghanistan in ... I don't rememeber but somewhere in 2001 or 2002.

I guess all that required a lot of dedication and guts to continue on doing such an ungrateful job under such pressure.

I hope I managed to be clear.

What stance is that.....? Can you please be more specific...? :)

Will the change in the Board of Directors affect Al Jazeerah's famous stance?

I had no problems finding it in 1982 :)

True but without Al Jazeera no one would be able to find Qatar on a map ;)

I agree that it is a good export but not the greatest. Don't forget the gas. Without the gas very little would happen

Nice to hear from some of our fans ... thanks sophia :)

By the way, Aljazeera International (English) will be launched in few months world wide.

Easy

Nice to hear from some of our fans ... thanks sophia :)

Easy