[OT] Egypt

D

Danyon H

New member
What has been occurring in Egypt has far ranging ramifications, both
in Middle Eastern and World politics. It may be a foreshadowing of
things to come elsewhere in the world. Regardless, if you want to see
what is really happening, in Egypt, tune in to Al Jazeera News
Network.

http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/2007829161423657345.html

Contrary to what many believe, Al Jazeera is NOT a biased mouthpiece
for Islamic parties, but a seriously objective news network. It is
proving itself the equal, both in unbiased reporting and integrity, to
any other news network in the World. It's definitely the only network
that's providing serious coverage of events in Egypt. It provides
real/full time live video streaming of on the ground events in Egypt,
something no other news network is doing.

If the events in Egypt are of interest to you, give Al Jazeera and
look. You may be pleasantly surprised. I certainly was.

nb
 
In article , [email protected]d
says...

That is untrue; it's been seriously reported in depth, as the main
news story, on both the BBC and Independent UK TV,and in all the UK
press, ever since the protests began.

Have you heard this :-(

http://news.oneindia.in/2011/01/30/aljazeera-banned-inegypt-
aid0126.html

"The Egyptian authorities announced through the statetelevision that
they are revoking the Al Jazeera Network?slicence to broadcast from the
country, and will be shuttingdown its bureau office in Cairo, according
to the Qatar-basedchannel.Egyptian state news agency MENA said Al
Jazeera?sjournalists had been stripped of their accreditation and
thenetwork?s licence had been withdrawn."

Janet UK
 
On 2011-01-30, Janet wrote:


Obviously, your definition of "serious" is different from mine. I
don't see 24/7 live streaming video and news from either of those
outlets on this major World event. I should also note I do not have
television.



In my book, it's affirmation of Al Jazeera's integrity/efficacy as a
news organ. The internet and cellphone networks in Egypt have also
been shut down and/or severely limited/censored.

Bottom line, I'm not about to get into a pissing contest over who has
the best coverage of an event that dwarfs such an issue into
insignificance. I was jes posting some info on a network I think is
doing an astonishingly thorough job and is not really the Fox News of
Islam many assume it to be. Feel free to follow whichever news source
you prefer. ;)

nb
 
On 30/01/2011 9:55 AM, notbob wrote:


Many in the western world seem to be under the impression that a popular
uprising in the arab world will be a good thing. Just be prepared for
the possibility that the popular will may end up running counter to
western values. The last big uprising over there was in Iran, and look
at how that one turned out. The US went romping into Afghanistan and
Iraq with the misguided belief that the locals would welcome them as
liberators. Saddam was one nasty bastard, but he was also the nasty
bastard that was keeping a lid on things in Iraq.






The only surprise about al Jazeera should be the realization that it has
been unfairly slammed by the US administration, as if it was somehow a
tool of terrorists. For years it has been the one truly credible news
source in the middle east. It has been in the face of corrupt and
oppressive regimes for years.
 
On 30 Jan 2011 14:55:48 GMT, notbob wrote:


We've often wondered why Al Jazeera isn't one of our cable channels.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:43:10 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
(Steve Pope) wrote:

Why Houston carries it and San Francisco doesn't is beyond me. Do you
know something I don't know? 102 is supposedly Al Jazeera. Punch 102
and it goes to 103. 103 is leased and at this moment is RT (Russian)
News Channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_English
"In the United States, Al Jazeera is available on Buckeye Cable
(Channel 220) in Toledo, Ohio and Sandusky, Ohio. It is also
available in Burlington, Vermont, Houston, Texas, and Washington, DC.
The channel is not widely available on cable and was dropped by
Comcast, a cable company with a subscriber base of over 12 million
people, a month prior to the channel's launch due to "the
already-saturated television market there" and a perception in some
circles that the channel gives airtime to terrorists."

Comcast SF is often the last to get anything new. They have no real
competition here and do whatever they want.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2613175
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0713/comcast-al-qaeda-will-americans-tune-to-al-jazeera.html



--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
sf wrote:






Thanks. I know I've see Al Jazeera on cable channels but it was
probably when traveling outside the bay area (I have no cable at home).
Perhaps I haven't seen it since my last visit to U.K.

Steve
 
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:19:44 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:


that's about the size of it. plus the cable operators fear a customer
backlash from making raghead t.v. available to Decent Americans™.

your pal,
blake
 
Dave Smith wrote:

Americans have long disapproved of the foreign policy of our own
government that supports dictatorships around the world.


But that's the condundrum - Left to their own things tend to go from bad
to worse. Americans may not like supporting dictators but we have seen
things get worse when that support gets pulled. Hypocricy indeed but
it's damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Pray for a peaceful resolution in Egypt that does not bring extremists
to power.
 
"Doug Freyburger" schrieb :
What Americans ? One or two ?

"Russians have long disapproved of the foreign policy of their own
government that supports dictatorships around the world."
Saccharov, for example.
And they had a one-party-state. You have one party more and so
less excuses.
When did the last "American" go into a Gulag for critisizing his
leadership ?


Not really. Everywhere AngloSaxons, and especially Merkins, waded in
ended up for the worse.
Remember WWI ?


Yeah, the Merkin way of life. Fuck up a country for 30 years. And then pray.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner
 
blake murphy wrote:



It might have to do with where a person lives in the USA.

In the left leaning San Francisco bay area there's an Al Jezera all the
time broadcast channel. ITs UHF channel 60 something but is the regular
news provider for that channel. And one of the subsidiary PBS stations
rebroadcasts Al Jezera 1/2 news show 2 or 3 times a day.
--
JL
 
Dave Smith wrote:

Strategically, not defending it's border with Iran in the weeks following
the conquest, which allowed tens of thousands of armed insurgents to cross
into Iraq unchecked, and disbanding the Iraqi army, were foolish, idiotic
decisions which enabled a hige escalation in partisan and sectarian
hostilities, and enabled Iran in a way previously unthinkable. Had the
border remained defended by the Iraqi army (which credible military analysts
said have been loyal to anyone giving them regular paychecks for a change,
soldiers who almost universally hated Iran) the history of this conflict in
terms of Allied casualties and length of involvement would have been vastly
less bloody. Allied casualties pale in comparison to the hundreds of
thousands of casualties among Iraqis and others native to the region,
including horrendous losses among non-combatants.

Until Iraq went down, Iran was preoccupied with legions of Iraqi soldiers
and tank battalions lined up at their border, making constant incursions and
threatening new wars on a frequent basis. That little twerp in Iran wouldn't
have time to run his mouth with his "see my big dick" blustering bullshit if
he was still dealing with this threat. Any attempt to build a nuke would
have been militarily crushed. Furthermore it would have been far easier for
the west to put military pressure on Iran through the Iraqi army. I believe
this fiasco will be judged historically as one of the most massive and
costly military blunders of this century.

MartyB
 
Dave Smith wrote:


I haven't done a point-by-point comparison, but I am not at all sure
the current guys in Iran are any worse than the Shah was.


Steve
 
On 31/01/2011 5:33 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
an, and look at how that one turned out.


Sort of like Batista and Castro. It seems to be a matter of being in the
right person's pockets.
 
On 31/01/2011 5:30 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:



That is interesting wording. If they came in from Iran they would be
invaders or belligerents. In order to be insurgents they would have to
be Iraqis.

The big error was trying to maintain the lie about WMDs. Aside from the
fact that they lied about WMDs to justify their invasion, they sent
their troops on wild goose chases to keep up the charade.

They also failed to secure arms dumps that they came across, even though
they were being looted by Iraqis. The artillery shells that were being
stolen have been turning up as IEDs ever since.
 
Back
Top