Seems al Jezeerah thinks NRA is a boogie man

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I want fiction, Al Jezeerah...........meh, it's not even enjoyable fiction.

OF COURSE our enemies would paint the NRA as a bogeyman. Heck people who dislike the 2nd Amendment and were born in this country do it constantly. Heck if it weren't for them, I probably wouldn't be a member. NRA must be on to something to get so much hate from the people who really don't like the USA.
 
Take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about the author of the Al Jazeera piece.
Click to expand...
Ha! The guy's a disgraced journalist in the mould of Dan Rather; awesome. See? I figured this guy had an interesting background --the sheer sock-puppet hackery dripping from the article just screamed "marching orders" from some sort of director.

TCB
 
Al-Jazeera is typically no more anti-American than the BBC (which is mostly to say they are not Pro-American) with an obvious and understandable bias toward perspectives that are friendly toward their viewership.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the BBC but they aren't encouraging people to do terrorist acts. They aren't celebrating when terrorism is successful. Al-Jazeera does both. That's where they came from. You might not get this but we have been at war with that part of the world essentially since recorded time began. In out lifetimes we have seen dominance by our side but in times past it was the other way around. Those people are dead set on restoring the balance of power so that they have the upper hand.

For example Al-Jazeera has tried to push the idea that Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11. They know the Saudi's are our friends and they would like to drive a wedge between the richest oil country of the mid-east and the US. That's how I see it. They also claim Jews were warned not to go to work on 9/11. Starting to see a pattern?

Then there's the blatant anti-Semitism. The last I checked Israel was our biggest ally in that part of the world (except during the Obama administration he tried to drive them away from us).

They are pro-Muslim Brotherhood also which is one of the oldest sources of terrorism. They never publish anything negative about terrorist acts but they promote bigotry against the US constantly. That's how terrorism is fostered BTW. Blame the US for everything. Your people get bombed it's the mean old US. Never mind why those bombs are falling. Don't mention that part.

Then there's the big stuff like them airing video from bin Laden justifying the 9/11 attacks on the US. That was seen by almost everyone as propaganda on the part of terrorist forces. Yes other news agencies eventually showed clips of those videos but they didn't have the kind of approach that Al-Jazeera had. Add up all their work over time and it becomes clear that they were supporting the terrorists. They foment terrorist thinking by showing only views sympathetic to those terrorists.

So your claim that it's "jingoism" when we defend our country from the blatant anti-US actions of Al-Jazeera. But of course they're just expressing their POV. Horse hockey. Anyone who has supported the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab Spring they way have is no friend of the US.
 
Just because Al Jezeerah is in English, doesn't make it any less a terrorist mouthpiece. There are thousands of terrorists put in the ground from the result of American weaponry. I would expect a terrorist propaganda machine to come up with a "story" and "facts" to attack an American institution.
 
Also thousands using American weaponry...

"I'm no fan of the BBC but they aren't encouraging people to do terrorist acts. They aren't celebrating when terrorism is successful. Al-Jazeera does both."
English AJ? Show me.
 
Every time they talk about how awful the poor Palestinians have it they encourage terrorist activity. Those people do almost nothing else. Or maybe you think firing rockets into city neigborhoods is OK. And your Muslim friends at Al-Jazeera are constantly drumming that beat about the poor Palestinians. Hello? Rockets.

You can deny it all you want but it's obviously true. But you can't make a horse drink just because him you show him where the water is. So that's it for me. The facts are obvious. If you choose to ignore them it won't do me one bit of good to discuss them with you.
 
I watch Al Jazeera occasionally. Their international news is better than that from U.S. networks or cable news here from what I've see. Like the BBC they occasionally actually report news that happens outside the U.S. Awhile back they had a report on the Cubans fighting ebola in Sierra Leone. An interesting subject that U.S. news ignores.

They've reported more on the Kurds and the fight against ISIS than any U.S. network.

It's a bit of a slander that they promote terrorism. I don't see that. You'd have to cite me some instances that aren't also seen in the New York Times or the Washington Post, or MSNBC.

They do promote boredom though. Their outlook is generally liberal. It doesn't surprise me that they share the anti-gun outlook of the BBC or CBS or my local newspaper. When ya grow up ya realize that some news outlets disagree with your world outlook and occasionally lie especially to promote the conflicting interests of the American capitalist class. The news media is owned by very rich and powerful people. It reflects their views, interests and morality. Those are sometimes conflicting (FOX vs. CNN) but they are the views of the ruling rich none the less, of this country or another.

But I gotta get news from someplace and Al Jazeera is one place I look at occasionally along with the standard U.S. based fare.

tipoc
 
Apparently I'm the only one that remembers that network before they created their English language "news" program. They regularly showed video of IED's exploding, they showed video of "hostages" many of whom would later lose their heads, they constantly fan the flames of hatred against the US by reporting only what the poor Palestinians endure without even mentioning what those same Palestinians do to bring about their suffering, they report highly inflated casualties of the US and allies, etc. etc. etc.. How much does it take to prove they are slanting what they report to feed a certain mindset? How exactly did they have access to those IED explosion videos? The kidnapping victim videos. the bin Laden videos, etc.???

The fact that CBS and the BBC report some of the same "facts" doesn't change my view one bit. How many times have those networks been caught red handed coloring the news? Hello. Does anyone remember the world wide apology tour of our fearless leader? The fact that certain political groups also hate the US and distort the facts (something the BBC admitted to doing) doesn't make it OK for others to do it. Pointing at other bad behavior to justify their bad behavior is not proof they aren't behaving badly. It's just proof that they aren't alone in doing it. Didn't Obama just totally slam the Israeli prime minister? His party, and the news networks that prop it up, have had issue with Israel for decades. Does anyone remember our media encouraging the Arab Spring? Was that a good thing for us or did it lead to the overthrow of some of our allies?

AJ is no friend of the US in shape, fashion or form. The fact the BBC and CBS aren't either isn't proof it's OK to act that way. I would prefer to not be a slave to the Muslims thank you.
 
Cee Zee said:
Apparently I'm the only one that remembers that network before they created their English language "news" program. They regularly showed video of IED's exploding, they showed video of "hostages" many of whom would later lose their heads, they constantly fan the flames of hatred against the US by reporting only what the poor Palestinians endure without even mentioning what those same Palestinians do to bring about their suffering, they report highly inflated casualties of the US and allies, etc. etc. etc.. How much does it take to prove they are slanting what they report to feed a certain mindset? How exactly did they have access to those IED explosion videos? The kidnapping victim videos. the bin Laden videos, etc.???
Click to expand...

That is how I remember AJ news as well. On my deployment we would get into firefights and footage of it would be on AJ as part of some propaganda within a week, if not same day. Just because a news station is in English and carried by US networks, doesn't mean its money isn't used for a shiny new suicide vest.
 
I would hope aljezzera whatever doesn't like the nra! Makes me proud to be a member, and if that fool with the saying about drinking bath water runs out he can drink mine!
 
Pretty obvious NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NYT, LAT, etc don't like the NRA.

Leftist gun haters vilify the NRA CONSTANTLY. It's part of the plan. That more easily allows their press sycophants to use words like "gun lobby".......for US.
 
Good rants fellas! Let me know which news I can watch that's politically vetted for content so no hurtful things reach me. :)

tipoc
 
Just because a news station is in English and carried by US networks, doesn't mean its money isn't used for a shiny new suicide vest.
Click to expand...
Well now, that's one hell of a serious claim. Got any serious evidence to back it up? Just because they pander to an audience does not mean they directly participate in terrorism. Reporting on what happens in a local warzone is by definition gonna be bad news, and if intended for a local audience is gonna lean heavily against whatever is percieved to be causing it (the guys breaking things and blowing stuff up in a way no sitting government could justify are an easy target, even if the circumstances for their presence modify that conclusion)

Does anyone remember the world wide apology tour of our fearless leader?
Click to expand...
Has exactly nothing to do with AJ :rolleyes:

TCB
 
tipoc said:
Good rants fellas! Let me know which news I can watch that's politically vetted for content so no hurtful things reach me. :)

tipoc
Click to expand...

I was thinking something similiar a few weeks ago.

We are in the age of the 24 hour news cycle and have whole channels dedicated to the news.
If there was a true news channel, it would air only about an hour a day, relaying all the FACTS known about events being reported. No conjecture, no speculation, no opinions and no bias.

Most "news" channels such as MSNBC, CNN, Fox and the like are about 3% news and 97% entertainment. Each one hits their demograph to get ratings.

Most the time, you can get the facts of events in the first 10 seconds or the first 2 sentences of the article. The rest is just fluff and opinion.

You can get all the same news from any source, it's our job to filter out the talking heads opinion.
 
True enough. They ALL have a bias and an agenda. Heck the "newspaper" wars go way back in many free-ish countries and the USA is no exception. Some of those were pretty nasty.
 
I've dabbled with al jezeerah. No big deal really. Most here are likely exposed to numberous news outlets daly.

I enjoy all news and information. I appreciate the opportunity. All media outlets are a form of propaganda. At least we have the option to review all (or the few we have available) outlets for an informed opinion. It shouldn't be a shock to us that most (all) media these days want to influence our opinion.

So AJ has an opinion... Big deal! So do we.
 
Last edited:
barnbwt said:
Well now, that's one hell of a serious claim. Got any serious evidence to back it up? Just because they pander to an audience does not mean they directly participate in terrorism. Reporting on what happens in a local warzone is by definition gonna be bad news, and if intended for a local audience is gonna lean heavily against whatever is percieved to be causing it (the guys breaking things and blowing stuff up in a way no sitting government could justify are an easy target, even if the circumstances for their presence modify that conclusion)
Click to expand...

There is a big difference between reporting the news/war and glorifying it and acting as propaganda. Learn a little Arabic and watch AJ in the original context. You might be singing a different tune afterwards.
 
tipoc said:
I watch Al Jazeera occasionally. Their international news is better than that from U.S. networks or cable news here from what I've see. Like the BBC they occasionally actually report news that happens outside the U.S. Awhile back they had a report on the Cubans fighting ebola in Sierra Leone. An interesting subject that U.S. news ignores.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I don't have cable so I don't watch AL Jazeera but I do use their news app. They have very good international news coverage. Along with the BBC they are one of the few news outfits that have enough bureaus to actually cover news. I don't bother with the opinion pieces.

I'm sure why many of you are going on about Al Gore. He isn't associated with Al Jazeera. Al Jareera is owned by the Qatar royal family. They bought Al Gore's network to gain access to the US market without having to start from scratch trying to sign up networks and stations to carry their programming.
 
If "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" opened a burger joint, would you eat there?

Didn't think so. That is the same reason I won't watch Al Jazeera. I know what the parent organization stands for and won't support it.

As for the O.P., the NRA being viewed as a "bogeyman" is a good thing. That means they have enough money and clout to have an effect.
 
Uh, guys, the NRA's website corroborates the body of the al-Jazeera America article the OP linked to (though obviously not the slant) --

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11466/no-compromise-nra-takes-on-united-nations/

Certainly the headline is histrionic and the writer is pro-gun control, *and* we can all "al-Jazeera is bad mmmmkay" back and forth reflexively in an Americanized version of tacking "death to America" onto sentences is punctuation in politically correct Islamic discourse, but the NRA is active in lobbying against the ATT treaty.
 
Fella's;

"Governments simply don’t know when guns are being sold, where they’re going or how they’re going to be used. "

It's obvious that the source, Beauchamp, that the O.P. cited, has no idea what an end-use certificate is regarding the export of firearms from this, or almost any other first-world, country.

900F
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Think Globally ???????????????!!?!?!?!?
Replies
2
Views
565
Mark Tyson
M
S
  • Locked
Going Global
Replies
0
Views
294
Sylvan-Forge
S
H
  • Locked
NRA Global Interest Gets a Debate
Replies
9
Views
723
StandOnGuard
S
2
  • Locked
Now, more than ever, the United States should be backing small-arms control.
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Ironbarr
I
A
  • Locked
NRA Grass Roots Alert might interest some readers
Replies
1
Views
307
alan
A
Back
Top