Al-Jazeera: Again

[Ghosty]

gilliam: First of all you’ve never demonstrated that Al-Jazeera intentionally puts any kind of slant on their news, or claims that they do. They simply admitted that remaining objective is very difficult when dealing with certain issues. Secondly, contrary to what the article you posted claims, images of injured children do not present a slant towards viewing Iraqis as being “invaded” rather than “liberated”, it simply shows the human cost of the war.

A point I find very telling about your own bias is that you blast Al-Jazeera for airing footage of injured and killed Iraqis because it presents, according to you, an anti-American bias, yet you turn around and criticise them for airing footage of injured and killed Americans because, according to you, it’s being done as a perverse thrill for a rage-filled audience. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Al-Jazeera is simply airing footage of the victims of violence, regardless of their side? When they air such news here, and on their English web-site, are they not presenting a “pro-American” bias? They did amazing coverage of the September 11th massacre, showing crying U.S. civilians and rescue efforts. I suppose that was just sick glorification of the act of terrorism too, right? There was certainly no cheering going on in front of the camera by the Al-Jazeera’s news anchors during that event.

It seems that you are the one putting your own slant on the footage that Al-Jazeera airs. How is it that Reuters and Al-Jazeera can both air the video without commentary beyond the facts of the event, yet Reuters is more objective?

 

[gilliam]

Ghosty,

If Al-Jazeera was actually recognized outside of certain circles as objective, I would buy your arguements. But it isn’t. It is recognized as slanting the news against anything Western in the Arab world. That includes US helping Iraqis, and Israel. They say they slant their news with an ‘Arab slant’ whatever that is. At least that is what they have told the ‘Independent’. Anyway. Now they are against the Iraqi government who is struggling to form a democracy and their broadcasts have caused such division in the county that the Iraqi government, not the US, has censured them.

You can believe they are fair and balanced, I don’t. And I know very few people who do. It is very obvious when you view their website.

Slanting, by the way, is not lieing. You simply put a certain face on the news. In Al-Jazeera’s case it is a distinctly anti-Western face.

After siding with Saddam during the war, then the terrorists, who they called ‘insergents’ or ‘defenders’, now they are in the situation of having to either embrace the democracies coming up in the Arab world or ignore them or fight them. So far, I am not impressed with the choices they have made.

 

[gnjsdad]

Your definition is off.

Gilliam,

I don’t accept that my definition is that far off from the ones you provided, although I consider it not bad for a top-of-the-head, late night effort.

In short, what you see in Baathists and Islamofascism. What you see in the enemy we are fighting now in Iraq

.

Would somebody please put a moratorium on the use of Islamofascism? Can you define that word? Is it a coherent body of political thought? In what sense does it differ from regular, run-of -the-mill fascism? Real, authentic fascists were proud to have the word applied to them and regularly referred to themselves as fascists. I have yet to hear a so-called “Islamofascist” refer to himself as such.

It appears that the right has succumbed to the same verbal tomfoolery that afflicts the left, with it’s use of terroristic words like homophobia, another made-up anti-word used merely to smear people who have prolems with the homosexual “lifestyle”.

Mosques are not milliary targets
Voting booths are not military targets
Bakeries are not military targes
need I really go on?

This has nothing to do with my original post, which, you’ll recall, was in response to your post about Al Jazeera’s report of a suicide attack on an *American checkpoint. *Please note that the word “checkpoint” has a military connotation and is not associated with the civliian locales you mentioned

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

This has nothing to do with my original post, which, you’ll recall, was in response to your post about Al Jazeera’s report of a suicide attack on an *American checkpoint. *Please note that the word “checkpoint” has a military connotation and is not associated with the civliian locales you mentioned

“My original post” was an article written by someone else.

I will not stop using the word Islamofacism. If you don’t want to read it, don’t read my posts But it is a perfectly good word that I think describes the enemy. They are fascists and their fascism is rooted is a warped view of Islam as the super state with no tollerance for other views within their borders, or for that matter anywhere else. Therefore they are Islamofascists.

Let me be clear, I do not condem all Muslems. I am a strong advocate for the Iraqis and Afghans for example. I will and do condem terrorism.

 

[gnjsdad]

“My original post” was an article written by someone else.

I will not stop using the word Islamofacism. If you don’t want to read it, don’t read my posts But it is a perfectly good word that I think describes the enemy. They are fascists and their fascism is rooted is a warped view of Islam as the super state with no tollerance for other views within their borders, or for that matter anywhere else. Therefore they are Islamofascists.

Let me be clear, I do not condem all Muslems. I am a strong advocate for the Iraqis and Afghans for example. I will and do condem terrorism.

They are fascists and their fascism is rooted is a warped view of Islam as the super state with no tollerance for other views within their borders, that matter anywhere else. Therefore they are Islamofascists

They are Islamofascists because they are fascists??

I think you need to differentiate between an offensive jihad and a defensive jihad. The so-called Islamic ‘super state’ (presumably the Caliphate) no longer exists. There is no Islamic superstate, and if you read the jihadis correctly, they are not interested in establishing one. In their own view, they are waging a defensive jihad in response to what they perceive as American attacks on their religion, brehteren, and lands.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

They are Islamofascists because they are fascists??.

I will rephrase if it helps. They are Islamofascists, because they are fascists whose fascism is rooted in a misconception of what the Islamic state is.

I think you need to differentiate between an offensive jihad and a defensive jihad. The so-called Islamic ‘super state’ (presumably the Caliphate) no longer exists. There is no Islamic superstate, and if you read the jihadis correctly, they are not interested in establishing one. In their own view, they are waging a defensive jihad in response to what they perceive as American attacks on their religion, brehteren, and lands.

I don’t see how you can possibly call this a defensive jihad.

Al-Qaeda’s current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems “non-Islamic” and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries. They have issued a number of statements to this effect. In February 1998, bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad issued a fatwa under banner of "the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders" saying that “to kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim who is able.”

July 2003 speach by bin Laden posted in a number of web sites:
The speech was posted in three parts - Part I: jahra.org/free/131313/Hamza3.wma;
Part II: jahra.org/free/131313/Hamza5.wma;
Part III: jahra.org/free/131313/Hamza6.wma
**‘Without Hijra and Jihad, No Islamic State Will Arise’ **

“…Since the fall of the Islamic Caliphate state, regimes that do not rule according to the Koran have arisen. If truth be told, these regimes are fighting against the law of Allah. Despite the proliferation of universities, schools, books, preachers, imams, mosques, and [people who recite the] Koran, Islam is in retreat, unfortunately, because the people are not walking in the path of Muhammad…”

“In order to establish the Islamic state and spread the religion, there must be [five conditions], a group, hearing, obedience, a Hijra,and a Jihad. Those who wish to elevate Islam without Hijra and without Jihad sacrifices for the sake of Allah have not understood the path of Muhammad…”

The speach goes on for awhile…

**‘Clerics Who Refrain From Inciting To Jihad’ **

“Most unfortunately, the young people who have the ability to sacrifice [themselves] for the religion are suffering by listening to and obeying Islamic clerics who refrain [from fulfilling the commandment of *Jihad], even though such people must not be listened to or obeyed. Therefore, these forces [who obey these clerics] remain paralyzed; they [the clerics] incite them away from carrying out the commandment that is incumbent upon them personally and towards commandments incumbent upon the collective, such as study. [Even] if everyone became a cleric, there would be no religious revival that does not include [the five conditions of] a group, hearing, obedience, a Hijra and a Jihad…” “Great evil is spreading throughout the Islamic world: the imams calling people to hell are those who appear more than others at the side of rulers in the region, the rulers of the Arab and Islamic world. Through the media and their own apparatuses, through their ruin of the country by their adoption of destructive ideas, and laws created by man… from morning to evening, they call the people to the gates of hell…”

Here it is in English
memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP53903

 

[gilliam]

“The spirit of religious brotherhood among Muslims was likewise strengthened, which constitutes a great step forward along the road towards uniting Muslims under the banner of monotheism in order to establish the rightly-guided Caliphate, God willing. People discovered that it was possible to strike at America, that oppressive power, and that it was possible to humiliate it, to bring it into contempt and to defeat it. For the first time, the majority of the American people [now] understand the truth of the Palestinian issue and that what hit them in Manhattan is a result of the oppressive policy of their government.”

-part of Bin Laden’s Sermon for the Feast of the Sacrifice, posted on www.cambuur.net/cocl (al-Nida website); The sermon was published in February 16th, 2003.

Here it is in English:
memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP47603

 

[gnjsdad]

**

in order to establish the rightly-guided Caliphate

**,

If Bin Laden’s goal has morphed into this, then it is indeed a very worrisome sign which we should rightly be concerned about. However, the fact is, the Caliphate does not exist and according to the teachings of Islam, an offensive jihad (i.e., a call to conquer new lands for Islam and the forced conversion of their populations to Islam) can only be declared by the recognized Caliph. So Osama has his work cut out for him if his goal is to somehow conquer the United States.

I believe the quotes and links you provided are Bin Laden’s tirades against imams in Muslim countries who support what he would consider their apostate Muslim rulers (propped up, he would say, by the US).

How can I possibly consider this a defensive jihad? I just read what they have written, and **they **think they are waging defensive jihad.

These few examples are taken from a book I heartily recommend: Imperial Hubris

America has declared that waging jihad against Islam’s attackers is a criminal act and has seized and incarcerated - often without trial - hundreds of suspected mujahadeen around the world. For a Muslim to refrain from joining a defensive jihad to protect Islam means disobeying God’s laws and earning damnation.

America has demanded that Muslim regimes limit, control, and track the donations Muslims make to charitable organizations that serve their poor, refugee, or embattled brethren. Tithing is one of Islam’s five pillars and so America is asking Muslims to abandon God’s law for man made law.

America has demanded Muslim educational authorities alter their curricula to teach a brand of Islam more in keeping with modernity and, not coincidentally, U.S. interests. Thus, America wants Muslims to abandon the word of God as He revealed it in the Koran…

America supports apostate Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. The regimes are corrupt, ruled by man made, not God’s law and oppress Muslims trying to install shariah law. Muslims view these police states as being approved of and protected by American democracy.

America now occupies and effectively rules the Muslim states of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the states of the Arabian Peninsula, the Prophet Mohammed’s birthplace.

America invariably backs Israel’s occupation of Muslim Palestine and invaded Iraq to advance the Jews goal of creating a “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Let me say that I don’t necessarily subscribe to or agree with the above views, or the tactics used to implement the current jihad, but it should give some indication of why Muslims might regard this one as defensive.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

,

America supports apostate Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. The regimes are corrupt, ruled by man made, not God’s law and oppress Muslims trying to install shariah law. Muslims view these police states as being approved of and protected by American democracy..

He pretty much summed up all of Arabia here.

In other words, Ben Ladin is fighting an offensive Jihad against everyone but his own government that he had in Afghanistan… and maybe Iran and Syria who he has allied himself with.

But you also need to read the speeches I quoted to understand his goal is a global caliphate, and has been from the beginning. It hasn’t morphed any.

I will try to find some older ones if you wish.

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

,

These few examples are taken from a book I heartily recommend: Imperial Hubris

.

I would rather listen to what bin Laden says than what someone in the CIA says. Especially someone who failed in his mission. When trying to figure out what someone says, it is always better to actually find out what they say rather than what someone else says they said.

Here is bin Laden’s letter to America.
observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Note he demands we:
1) "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. "
2) “The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.”
3) “What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.”
4) "We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines. "
note here the desire for a worldwide Caliphate -gilliam]
5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins. their lands are any lands with muslem populations -gilliam]
*(6) "Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington. *
*(7) "We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you. *

*If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: “Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers’) hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” [Quran9:13-1] *

This is not a defensive Jihad.

Never has been

 

[Norwich]

gilliam:

I would rather listen to what bin Laden says than what someone in the CIA says. Especially someone who failed in his mission. When trying to figure out what someone says, it is always better to actually find out what they say rather than what someone else says they said.

Here is bin Laden’s letter to America.
observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Note he demands we:
1) "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. " As we call them to Christianity
*2) “The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.” *Read the threads about hollywood, abortions, homesexuality and then ask what he is talking about?
*3) “What we call you to thirdly is to take an honest stance with yourselves - and I doubt you will do so - to discover that you are a nation without principles or manners, and that the values and principles to you are something which you merely demand from others, not that which you yourself must adhere to.” *Thats an interesting one, any nation that can’t look at itself honestly can never be fully trusted.
4) "We also advise you to stop supporting Israel, and to end your support of the Indians in Kashmir, the Russians against the Chechens and to also cease supporting the Manila Government against the Muslims in Southern Philippines. "
All I see is someone who is saying stay out of others backyards.
*5) We also advise you to pack your luggage and get out of our lands. We desire for your goodness, guidance, and righteousness, so do not force us to send you back as cargo in coffins. ****their lands are any lands with muslem populations -gilliam *Are they your lands?]
*(6) "Sixthly, we call upon you to end your support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and method of education. Leave us alone, or else expect us in New York and Washington. *These by the way must include Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, remember them? threr the ones you have been complaining about.
*(7) "We also call you to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits, rather than the policies of sub dual, theft and occupation, and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you. *A call to equality? so do you prefer war?

*If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation. The Nation of Monotheism, that puts complete trust on Allah and fears none other than Him. The Nation which is addressed by its Quran with the words: “Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of believing people. And remove the anger of their (believers’) hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.” [Quran9:13-1] *A threat? a little like "if you don’t do as we want we can nuke you"

This is not a defensive Jihad.

Never has been

Gillam, you frighten the hell out of me, your language is more of the 12th century than the 21st. You read into things that which YOU want to read, the interpret things that YOU want to interpret your language is the language of war of killing and of death. I hope and pray to God that you and your kind: that includes those on the other side, never never get into a position of authority or power.

You should go back occasionaly and look at the venom you produce and yet you say you have no argument with the Moslem Nations, I bet you even know some Moslems probably even meet them at the supermarket!!!

I would dearly like to put you on my ignore list, unfortunately you seem to have too much time on your hands, trying to ignore you would elliminate over half the posts on this forum.

Sorry Matt and FF I’m out of here, the hysteria has finally got to me.

 

[gilliam]

Norwich:

Gillam, you frighten the hell out of me, your language is more of the 12th century than the 21st. You read into things that which YOU want to read, the interpret things that YOU want to interpret your language is the language of war of killing and of death.

I am simply quoting bin Laden, and yes, it is frightening and it is 12th century thought. Actually bin Laden is trying to restore what was lost in 1492 or 80 Islamic years ago, as he puts it.

Sooner or later, Norwich, you too will have to face the fact that there is an offensive Jihad being waged against the West. The Netherlands is coming to grips with that fact now.

I am not being histerical. Just stating the facts of the world we now live in. Yes there is a war on the West going on being organized by Islamofascists. I guess you can choose to ignore it, but you risk the consequences of such an action. The US ignored it and we lost 3,000 lives and over a trillion dollars. I suppose you can ignore it for awhile too. Good luck.

 

[gnjsdad]

I sincerely thank you for providing the link to Bin Laden’s Letter to America.

I think we agree that it is better to read from the primary source than from second or third hand sources.

Having said this, it is impossible to read this letter and not conclude that, in his view, Bin Laden is waging a defensive jihad.

You ignore (I can’t say whether intentionally or not) the first half of the note, where Bin Laden asks

Why are we fighting and opposing you?

His primary answer:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

---

You attacked us in Palestine…in Somalia… you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

---

I won’t bore anyone with more of Osama’s tirades, but he presents a lenghty list of specific grievances aganist the United States, grievances which, to his mind, justify waging war against us, a war which he believes he is waging in defense of Islam. See the first paragraph of the letter

Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against because they have been wronged…

 

[gilliam]

gnjsdad:

I sincerely thank you for providing the link to Bin Laden’s Letter to America.

I think we agree that it is better to read from the primary source than from second or third hand sources.

Having said this, it is impossible to read this letter and not conclude that, in his view, Bin Laden is waging a defensive jihad.

You ignore (I can’t say whether intentionally or not) the first half of the note, where Bin Laden asks

Why are we fighting and opposing you?

His primary answer:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

You attacked us in Palestine…in Somalia… you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

I won’t bore anyone with more of Osama’s tirades, but he presents a lenghty list of specific grievances aganist the United States, grievances which, to his mind, justify waging war against us, a war which he believes he is waging in defense of Islam. See the first paragraph of the letter

Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against because they have been wronged…

I would agree to this if I didn’t read the demand part of the letter. The letter seems to be saying: Well, we are attacking you because you are here, and we will continue until our demands are met. Those demands I listed.

In other words it is an excuse to start his offensive Jihad against the West. The goals he has are in the part of the letter called “what do we want” and those goals include a world-wide Caliphate. Not sure how big, but definately a restoration of the Caliphate that was turned around in 1492 (80 Islamic years ago as bin Laden calls it.

I can see him saying that Spain is occupied as well, even if the occupation started a long time ago.

By the way, I have a copy of Imperial Hubris, let me read it and get back to you. I promise to try to keep an open mind.

 

[Ghosty]

Gilliam: I find it ironic that your definition of objective is based on the subjective opinions of certain social circles. The fact is that Al-Jazeera, for the most part, simply releases information with very little commentary other than that provided by the people giving the information in the first place. That is, by definition, objectivity. They present the images and facts as they come in with little to no direct appeal to emotions. They are not even particularily selective about such images, as they’ve shown the suffering and deaths of Americans whenever such information has come in.

As for putting an Arab slant on the news, that is hardly the same as putting an anti-Western slant on the news. In everything I’ve seen and read by and about Al-Jazeera, it simply means that they put all worldly news into an Arab context; they ask the question “What does this mean to us?” This means that they will predominantly air news that relates to the Arab world, their primary viewers and readers. They are less likely to print something about a sheep falling in a well in Scotland, or even about the love affairs of Prince Charles, unless they have direct bearing and impact on the Arab world in general. That is all an “Arab slant” is.

 

[Matt25]

Tell me about how biased this al-Jazeera report is then
english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9786919D-958C-4548-9ECD-DD6E8C383C37.htm

					 						  							 	 		 										http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/9786919D-958C-4548-9ECD-DD6E8C383C37/64590/14867A7978EF473998978BD7F82B4846.jpg 									 	 	 		 										** 												The cabinet separately approved a rerouting of the West Bank wall 											** 									 	   						

					 **Israel's cabinet has approved the evacuation of Jewish settlements under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza pullout plan, Sharon's office said. **

					  The 17-5 vote on Sunday marked the first time an Israeli government has given the green light for the removal of settlements from occupied land the Palestinians want for a state of their own.

The decision effectively gave the 8000 settlers slated for evacuation the five months’ notice Israel’s attorney-general said was required under law before they could be ordered to leave.

Earlier Walid al-Umari, Aljazeera’s correspondent reported that Palestinians were concerned the withdrawal include the re-routing of the illegal separation barrier built on land occupied by Israel.

Palestinians believe the separation barrier should be set up, if necessary, along the Green Line and not inside their lands, he said.

Opposition threat

The route change would keep some settlements under Israeli authority on their [Palestinian] lands particularly between Bethlehem and Hebron, al-Umari added.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to remove settlers has been called a possible step towards peace by both Israelis and Palestinians.

However, even if the withdrawal is approved on Sunday, opponents could use a pending budget vote to bring down the government.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/rdonlyres/9786919D-958C-4548-9ECD-DD6E8C383C37/64640/CCB5DCA3B1944F9598662CFF75041815.jpg   **Settlers have vowed to resist the

removal of the settlements**

Sharon is still trying to juggle allies to back the budget and if he fails by the end of March, new elections must be called.

Further cabinet votes would also be needed to approve specific settlement evacuations nearer the time.

Israeli media said about 6000 unarmed troops and police would be involved in removing each settlement.

De facto truce

Jewish settler leaders have urged non-violent resistance, but security services have said there could still be bloody confrontations.

Concerns that withdrawals might be hampered by Palestinian attacks have receded somewhat since President Mahmud Abbas agreed a ceasefire with Sharon.

Palestinian resistance movements have not formalised the agreement, but are keeping a de facto truce.

Israel has been accused of violating the ceasefire by killing a 15-year-old boy in Hebron and two other alleged activists of Palestinian resistance movements.

 

[gilliam]

this part?

Matt25:

Israel’s cabinet has approved the evacuation of Jewish settlements under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Gaza pullout plan, Sharon’s office said. .

or this part?

.

Israel has been accused of violating the ceasefire by killing a 15-year-old boy in Hebron and two other alleged activists of Palestinian resistance movements.

Doesn’t matter though. You will say Al-Jazeera is just reporting what it has heard around the street and I will say it is a propaganda arm of the Arab states in the region.

 

[gilliam]

this part?

Matt25:

Israel’s cabinet has approved the evacuation of Jewish settlements under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Gaza pullout plan, Sharon’s office said. .

or this part?

.

Israel has been accused of violating the ceasefire by killing a 15-year-old boy in Hebron and two other alleged activists of Palestinian resistance movements.

Doesn’t matter though. You will say Al-Jazeera is just reporting what it has heard around the street and I will say it is a propaganda arm of the Arab states in the region or the terrorists depending on the day. Again, they call it an ‘Arab slant’ at least that is what they told the Independent.

 

[Ghosty]

You intentionally left out the crucial part of the article:

Palestinians believe the separation barrier should be set up, if necessary, along the Green Line and not inside their lands, he said, preferably using the bones of Jewish children after the Zionist Entity is pushed into the sea! Death to the infidels! EEEEEYAIYAIYAIYAI!

Talk about Jihadist propaganda!

 

[gilliam]

Personally, I am willing to give Al-Jazeera another try. If they turn me off again, I will report it, as I will if they seem to be fair and balanced.