Page 1 of 1

Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera - in Qatar

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:30 am
by Rigorous Intuition
From <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Mirror</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="">BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>22 November 2005<br>BUSH PLOT TO BOMB HIS ARAB ALLY<br>Madness of war memo<br>Exclusive By Kevin Maguire And Andy Lines<br><br>PRESIDENT Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.<br><br>But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.<br><br>A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=>Rigorous Intuition</A> at: 11/22/05 12:30 am<br></i>

Re: Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera - in Qatar

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:34 am
by Rigorous Intuition
Calls For Talks Transcript<br>Updated: 00:54, Tuesday November 22, 2005<br><br>There have been calls for Downing Street to publish a transcript of a conversation between Tony Blair and US President George Bush.<br><br>It comes amid claims the Prime Minister persuaded Mr Bush not to launch a military strike on a TV station in a friendly Arab state.<br><br>According to unnamed sources quoted in the Daily Mirror, the memo - stamped Top Secret - records Mr Bush suggesting that he might order the bombing of al Jazeera's studios in Qatar.<br><br>And it allegedly details how Mr Blair argued against an attack on the station's buildings in the business district of Doha, the capital city of Qatar, which is a key ally of the West in the Persian Gulf.<br><br>Al Jazeera had sparked the anger of the US administration by broadcasting video messages from al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden and leaders of the insurgency in Iraq.<br><br>According to the Mirror's source, the transcript records a conversation during Mr Blair's visit to the White House on April 16 last year.<br><br>A spokesman for 10 Downing Street refused to discuss the leaked memo.<br><br>But former defence minister Peter Kilfoyle - a leading Labour opponent of the Iraq War - has called for the document to be made public.<br><br>"I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain," he said.<br><br>"I think they ought to clarify what exactly happened on this occasion.<br><br>"If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."<br><br>Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If true, then this underlines the desperation of the Bush administration as events in Iraq began to spiral out of control."<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href=",,30000-13466894,00.html">skynews</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

Megalomania and homicidal delusions

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:45 am
by robertdreed
Maybe there's a semi-private bedroom available nearby for George W. Bush, within ambulance range of the White House. Next to John Hinckley, say... <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:24 am
by Qutb
That should put to rest speculations about al-Jazeera secretely being a CIA front and the Bin Laden tapes being CIA productions, then.<br><br>Unless the supposed war between BushCo and the Company is a lot more serious than anyone had suspected... <p></p><i></i>

Re: Geez - ummm?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:35 am
by hmm
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>That should put to rest speculations about al-Jazeera secretely being a CIA front and the Bin Laden tapes being CIA productions, then.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>fuzzy logic?<br><br>Al-Jazeera did NOT produce the Bin Laden tapes,it aired them.<br>afaik nobody (of any significance) has ever suggested they did produce them.<br>cnn has shown parts of Bin Laden tapes on TV,does this equate to them having a part in their production?<br><br>so it might put to rest speculation that Al-Jazeera is secretly a CIA front but i doubt it will end speculation that some (if not all) the Bin Laden/Al-Qaida tapes are CIA fakes. <p></p><i></i>

Bush wanted to bomb al Jazeera - in Qatar

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:33 pm
by anonymous
Jeff,<br><br>It's been picked up by Yahoo also.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

Re: Geez - ummm?

PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:51 pm
by Qutb
al-J didn't produce them, but they usually were the receivers of them (from sources they probably know more about than we do), and never voiced any doubts about their authenticity. The head of al-Jazeera (can't remember the name now) has met Bin Laden, he should know if the Bin Laden he sees on a video tape is real or not (incidentally, I know a woman who has interviewed him about Bin Laden). And if he isn't in cahoots with the CIA, he would probably let his viewers know if he suspected it was fake.<br><br>I think all those tapes were real, including "fat Osama". If you look at other frames from that tape other than the one Mike Rivero shows in his whatreallyhappened piece, it looks a lot more like him. <p></p><i></i>

Re: Geez - ummm? mysterious tapes versus the interviews

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:04 am
by hmm
Its odd, when you compare the interviews with well known journalists to the mysterious video's that appear out of nowhere one thing that strikes me is in interviews he consistantly denies direct involvement or knowledge of terrorism.. while in the video's...<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Transcript of Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett<br>The first-ever television interview with Osama Bin Ladin was conducted by Peter Arnett in eastern Afghanistan in late March 1997. Questions were submitted in advance. Bin Ladin responded to almost all of the questions.<br>~snip~<br>Q) Mr. Bin Ladin, were you involved in financing the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City?<br><br>BIN LADIN: <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I have no connection or relation with this explosion. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.<br>~snip~<br>Ramzi Yousef was a follower of yours. Do you remember him and did you know him?<br><br>After the explosion that took place in the World Trade Center, Ramzi Yousef became a well known Muslim figure. Muslims have come to know him. Unfortunately, I did not know him before this incident.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Interview published in newspaper Ummat<br>Karachi, 2001-09-28<br>~snip~<br>UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?<br>~snip~<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I had no knowledge of these attacks</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>and lastly robert fisk on interviewing Bin Laden<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This is the transcript of an interview with Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent for the UK Independent. The interview featured in Prime Suspect, 4C's profile of Osama bin Laden.<br><br>17th September, 2001<br>~snip~<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>He has of course denied that he was involved.<br></strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>Look an awful lot of statements come from Bin Laden, sometimes they're denials and sometimes not and several times they've proved to be false. I don't know what he said eh officially if he's denied it, then he's denied it. Whenever I asked him and of course I haven't seen him for several years, but whenever I've asked him about individual bombings, for example I asked him about a bombing of an American Base in Riad, the Saudi capital. He admitted to me that of the three men who'd been executed, beheaded by the Saudi's for the bombing, he knew two of them but he said he was not behind it, though he approved of it and would like to have been one of them. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>So here is a man who can sometimes, if you like, give his blessing to something after the event but that doesn't mean that he is actually admitting responsibility.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> I'd be very surprised if he did admit responsibility for this, even if he was in fact to blame, although at the moment I'm still keeping my books open on who was.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

Better not say no more...

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 3:56 pm
by heath7
<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="">Warning over Jazeera bombing report</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Britain has warned media organizations they are breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to show U.S. President George W. Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>God forbid the world should have more proof of Bush's compassion. <p></p><i></i>

Re: CIA fakes

PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:02 pm
by Qutb
Osama doesn't deny being involved in terrorist attacks in interviews with Hamid Mir, his "official biographer". But Osama isn't the "mastermind" of any of these attacks, anyway. He's more like a symbolic leader, a "figurehead". Others do the organizing and planning. <br><br>Of course, many suspect Osama is being told what to say by others. I think so too. There are some shadowy people behind him, and above him, who I wish people were more interested in. One is Pir Mubarak Shah Gilani, Bin Laden's remarkably little known "spiritual master". Gilani is the leader of an extreme Islamist cult in Lahore, Pakistan, called al-Fuqrah, one of his followers was Richard Reid, the hapless "shoe bomber". "Pir" means "great master" in Urdu. His peculiar version of Islam emphasizes the existence of "dark forces" lurking just beneath the surface of visible reality (an idea that is alien to ordinary Islam), and the invocation of these forces in the jihad against the infidels and the Jews.<br><br>And here's the interesting part: Gilani used to live in the US. It was he who established the al-Kifah center in Brooklyn which served as an operational base for the WTC bombing in 1993. He also established several organizations, one of which is Muslims of the Americas (est. 1980), which maintains several countryside "camps" in the US. The sniper who killed that FBI agent (Muhammed something?) belonged to this group. So did one of the 7/7 bombers, if I'm not mistaken (the Jamaican one).<br><br>So why haven't the FBI raided these camps and outlawed this organization? Why indeed.<br><br>Gilani was the man WSJ journalist Daniel Pearl was trying to meet when he was lured in a trap, kidnapped and killed - probably by the Pakistani secret services. Who are, of course, tight with the CIA. <br><br>Certain suspicions naturally arise, from this.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="" target="top">Sultan Muhyidden Syed Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani Hashimi, Al-Hasani wa'l-Husaini.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>A few quotes from the Muslims of the Americas, courtesy of the ADL. They seem to inhabit much the same mental universe as does Henry Makow.<br><br>"The enemies of Islam all over the world under the leadership of the Zionist New World Order are poised to eliminate the Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] or so is their conspiracy….We thus find today that all Muslim countries are ruled by kufirized [infidel] locals operating under the guise of Islam. All of these rulers are thoroughly under the Zionist New World order in every sphere of their mental outlook and conception. They today rule the World of Islam on behalf of their masters who dictate all the terms….Without Islam there is no Ummah, and no force to contest the Kufr Zionist New World Order….As we all know the Yahood (Jews), are master conspirators. They plot and plan for a century ahead. Since they are deprived of true belief in spite of their overt profession of faith and religion, they labor under the misconception that their plans will always remain on course….The setbacks which the enemies of Allah, are experiencing and which are impeding the full achievement of their satanic goals, all of which is part of the Divine Scheme of save the Ummah from annihilation." <br><br>-- MOA E-mail message, January 3, 2002<br><br> Every God-fearing individual, whether in America or abroad, must become informed of the heinous, barbaric, and purely sub-human nature of Zionism and all of its offshoots. It is the duty of every individual to become familiar with the nature and ways of Zionism and become educated to the whims and craftiness of these devils…" <br><br>--"The True Nature of Zionist Propaganda," MOA Web site <br><br>"If you ask any Christian 'What is meant by belief in God Almighty?' he will not be able to give you any rational explanation. On the contrary, he will confuse you, and damage you psychologically…Christians would rather submit to the theory that they have killed their god and now believe in the supremacy and power of Satan. Try to imagine the type of mentality that is build upon such a belief: Masochism, suicide, Satanism…<br><br>-- "Psycho-Religious Causes of Some Incurable Diseases," MOA Web site <br><br>"The agents of Shaytan (Satan) are many. Many efforts are put forth to mislead masses into darkness via Satanic philosophies, ideologies, and schisms brought forth to divide and keep humanity divided, resulting in immorality, bigotry, break-down of family structure, and numerous unspeakable crimes against humanity. A perfect example of this point would be homosexuality." <br><br>-- "Conspiracies Against Islam," MOA Web site <br><br>"Jews are an example of human Satans. This is why Jews are the founders of Satan worship and Masonic lodges, and are now trying to take over the entire globe in which the global religion is to be Satanism….In the US there are now thousands of temples where Satan is worshipped. This Satanism has now become the ultimate tool in the hands of Zionists. " <br><br>-- "Satanism," MOA Web site <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

MP willing to face jail on Al Jazeera memo

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:55 am
by banned
<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href=""></a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>/2005/11/24/do2401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/11/24/ixopinion.html<br><br> I'll go to jail to print the truth about Bush and al-Jazeera<br>By Boris Johnson<br>(Filed: 24/11/2005)<br><br>It must be said that subsequent events have not made life easy for those of us who were so optimistic as to support the war in Iraq. There were those who believed the Government's rubbish about Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Then the WMD made their historic no-show.<br><br>Some of us were so innocent as to suppose that the Pentagon had a well-thought-out plan for the removal of the dictator and the introduction of peace. Then we had the insurgency, in which tens of thousands have died.<br><br>Some of us thought it was about ensuring that chemical weapons could never again be used on Iraqi soil. Then we heard about the white phosphorus deployed by the Pentagon. Some people believed that the American liberation would mean the end of torture in Iraqi jails. Then we had Abu Ghraib.<br><br>Some of us thought it was all about the dissemination of the institutions of a civil society - above all a free press, in which journalists could work without fear of being murdered. Then we heard about the Bush plan to blow up al-Jazeera.<br><br>Some of us feel that we have an abusive relationship with this war. Every time we get our hopes up, we get punched by some piece of bad news. We yearn to be told that we're wrong, that things are going to get better, that the glass is half full. That's why I would love to think that Dubya was just having one of his little frat-house wisecracks, when he talked of destroying the Qatar-based satellite TV station. Maybe he was only horsing around. Maybe it was a flippant one-liner, of the kind that he delivers before making one of his dramatic exits into the broom-closet. Perhaps it was a kind of Henry II moment: you know, who will rid me of this turbulent TV station? Maybe he had a burst of spacy Reagan-esque surrealism, like the time the old boy forgot that the mikes were switched on, and startled a press conference with the announcement that he was going to start bombing Russia in five minutes. Maybe Bush thought he was Kenny Everett. Perhaps he was playing Basil Brush. Boom boom.<br><br>Who knows? But if his remarks were just an innocent piece of cretinism, then why in the name of holy thunder has the British state decreed that anyone printing those remarks will be sent to prison?<br><br>We all hope and pray that the American President was engaging in nothing more than neo-con Tourette-style babble about blowing things up. We are quite prepared to believe that the Daily Mirror is wrong. We are ready to accept that the two British civil servants who have leaked the account are either malicious or mistaken. But if there is one thing that would seem to confirm the essential accuracy of the story, it is that the Attorney General has announced that he will prosecute anyone printing the exact facts.<br><br>What are we supposed to think? The meeting between Bush and Blair took place on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah, and there is circumstantial evidence for believing that Bush may indeed have said what he is alleged to have said.<br><br>We know that the administration was infuriated with the al-Jazeera coverage of the battle, and the way the station focused on the deaths of hundreds of people, including civilians, rather than the necessity of ridding the town of dangerous terrorists. We remember how Cheney and Rumsfeld both launched vehement attacks on the station, and accused it of aiding the rebels. We are told by the New York Times that there were shouty-crackers arguments within the administration, with some officials yelling that the channel should be shut down, and others saying that it would be better to work with the journalists in the hope of producing better coverage.<br><br>We also recall that the Americans have form when it comes to the mass media outlets of regimes they dislike. They blew up the Kabul bureau of al-Jazeera in 2002, and they pulverised the Baghdad bureau in April 2003, killing one of the reporters. In 1999 they managed to blow up the Serb TV station, killing two make-up girls, in circumstances that were never satisfactorily explained.<br><br>To be fair to the Americans, we must also accept that they had good grounds for resenting al-Jazeera. The station is hugely respected in the Arab world, has about 35 million viewers, and yet it gives what can only be described as a thoroughly Arab perspective of current affairs. It assists in the glorification of suicide bombers; it publishes the rambling tapes of Bin Laden and others among the world's leading creeps and whackos; it is overwhelmingly hostile to America and sceptical about the neo-con project of imposing western values and political systems in the Middle East.<br><br>And yet however wrong you may think al-Jazeera is in its slant and its views, you must accept that what it is providing is recognisably journalism. It is not always helpful to the American cause in Iraq, but then nor is the BBC; and would anybody in London or Washington suggest sending a Tomahawk into White City? Well, they might, but only as a joke. Exhausted Western leaders, living in the nightmare of a media-dominated democracy, are allowed to make jokes about blowing up journalists. I seem to remember that when I was sent to Belgrade to cover the Nato attacks, Tony Blair told the then proprietor of The Daily Telegraph that he would "tell Nato to step up the bombing!" Ho ho ho.<br><br>But if there is an ounce of truth in the notion that George Bush seriously proposed the destruction of al-Jazeera, and was only dissuaded by the Prime Minister, then we need to know, and we need to know urgently. We need to know what we have been fighting for, and there is only one way to find out.<br><br>The Attorney General's ban is ridiculous, untenable, and redolent of guilt. I do not like people to break the Official Secrets Act, and, as it happens, I would not object to the continued prosecution of those who are alleged to have broken it. But we now have allegations of such severity, against the US President and his motives, that we need to clear them up.<br><br>If someone passes me the document within the next few days I will be very happy to publish it in The Spectator, and risk a jail sentence. The public need to judge for themselves. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for, and in an important respect we become as sick and as bad as our enemies.<br># Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of 'The Spectator' <p></p><i></i>

red herring

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:41 am
by rocco322
This story is a plant. Blair's ratings are dipping so low that this memo was leaked to make Blair look like the good guy. The Brits and Blair have used Bush like this before. He works very well as the scapegoat and helps make Blair look good. DOn't believe the hype. How do you think this story grew legs so fast? There has been many reports before of the US actually bombing the Baghdad Al Jazeera, yet those were violently suppressed. <p></p><i></i>

Re: red herring

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 2:32 pm
by chiggerbit
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Brits and Blair have used Bush like this before. He works very well as the scapegoat and helps make Blair look good.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>No reason that both points can't be true--that Bush did say it AND that Blair is now outing the memo for his own benefit. <p></p><i></i>


PostPosted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 7:49 am
by Byrne
I now believe that this story is a plant.<br><br>Newsnight had an interview with the lawyer representing one of the men accused (Leo O'Connor or David Keogh I can't recall which one),who was at Bow Street Magistrates Court yesterday. He stated that the Government has had this case 'bubbling' for months now, having called in the accused before, for different hearings.<br><br>All of a sudden, now, they let the case proceed. but all the accused did was only to confirm their details and they were then bailed until January 2006, when the story will be resurrected at their (UK Gobberment) convenience. As Newsnight states - How can the case proceed when defence lawyers haven't seen the memo? <br><br>The leaked memo apparently claims that B&B wanted to bomb Al-Jazzeera also adds weight that they think that the station represents a threat, whereas it is a convenient medium for them to release their spin - Bush & Blair wouldn't want rid of Al-Jazzeera, because who would then provide the channel for the Iraq Hostage videos, the UBL tapes & the responsibility claims for any Al-CIA-da activities?<br><br>It's a convenient plant & it's now obvious to me. <p></p><i></i>