until i don't see a video from OBL, i'm gonna assume he's dead. i just don't believe audio in today's age of technology.
Yes, they do. They also provide a platform for "Western thugs and Zionists", so they're fair in that aspect. I will admit Al-Jazeera is as "uncensored" and "unafraid" as a news organization could get. They would be ecstatic if they can get Bin Laden and Bush on one of their shows, that's just how they are. They won't censor you, they won't edit your speech, they don't have nearly as much self-censorship as a lot of Western media outlets do. Obviously, that does and has pissed off a lot of people (they have offended everyone from Arab leaders to Jihadists to Western leaders and military generals...they don't discriminate). That's just how Al-Jazeera is...
Immortal Technique - Bin Laden http://www.nobodysmiling.com/hiphop/promotional_audio/77488.php Immortal Technique - Bin Laden (Remix) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIOxuLhMIGc
Do you deny the logic of that statement? Its the logic of your argument regarding the relationship between Osama Bin Ladin and Al Jazeera.
I think what happened was the old bait and switch. If you compare any aspect of Cheney and Bin Laden together then you are comparing all aspects in Gwayneco's eyes. If you say that they use the same media techniques then you are also saying that the two must be heads of equal terror organizations with similar goals. I disagree with that kind of arguing but I have seen it used before. Maybe I am wrong, and gwayneco can clarify his stance. Because obviously there are some things between the two that we can accurately compare.
^ That would make it impossible to argue via analogy since no two things and people are ever exactly the same but any logical argument requires that sort of comparison on a specific set of facts. I mean if I said Hitler and Ghandi are both male to make an argument that males have had a huge impact on history that is a perfectly logical argument and am comparing Hitler and Ghandi by showing they are males who have had a great impact on history. It would be mistaken and missing the point to presume that I'm saying that Hitler and Ghandi are the same in all ways. I'm merely pointing out to Gwayneco that his argument that if a specific figure chooses to release exclusive news to a specific news service that makes that news service the mouthpiece of that figure then that logic should also apply to another specific figure who choose to release exclusive news to another specific news service. If he thinks that makes me a moonbat he's free to do so but its his logic and I would hope he is true to it.
I agree with you, and I see that you are clearly following the same logic. But it is a political gimmick. Anytime two names are brought up in the same sentence, then rather than argue what was actually being compared the tactic is to act like the opponent was trying to equate the two in a more general way. It does make it impossible to argue via analogy, and when one side has weak logic, that is exactly what they want.
Al Jazeera publishing a piece which definitely reports Al Qaeda in a negative and failing light. not something a network that was a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda would do. Apparently not too many Muslims buy into Bin Laden's brand of Islam. That is some positive news and surely even gwayneco could consider that a defeat. This defeat was delivered by the hands of Al Jazeera none-the-less.
Not in person but he certainly could mail them a videotape if he chose to and I'm sure they would broadcast it. Osama Bin Ladin has never appeared on Al Jazeera in person either.
But the point is that he doesn't "mail them", now does he? Al Jazeera is his preferred outlet while Cheney has been on other outlets besides Fox.
Before Condi Rice asked news agencies not to show Bin Laden tapes in their entirety, They were shown on CNN, MSNBC, and probably others as well. Again who Bin Laden chooses to release a tape to is not incriminating against that organization.
That is correct. What does it have to do with anything? When mass murderers occasionally mail clues to the newspapers, does it mean the newspapers are guilty of supporting the mass murderers?
Interesting. So does this mean that our policies are not fueling thousands of new Al Quaeda recruits? But then again, how can we believe this crusader?
I think it means that Bin Laden's idea of Islam isn't gaining any new recruits. I believe our policies are helping fuel insurgents, and possibly other terrorists, but they aren't flocking to Al Qaeda.
