You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Arabia
'Al-Jazeera serves Israeli interests'
2011-11-12
[Iran Press TV] Activists in the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar have accused the Doha-based Al-Jazeera news channel of serving Israeli interests in the region.
And President Obama is a centrist...
Posting photos showing the Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, and his prime minister shaking hands with Israeli officials, activists also criticized the government for its close ties with Tel Aviv.

It is widely believed that the Emir of Qatar has direct influence on the nature of programs broadcast by Al-Jazeera.

The news network has been repeatedly accused of uneven coverage of the events of the "Arab Spring."

Al-Jazeera is accused of blowing the opposition movement in Syria out of proportion while turning a blind eye to the Bahraini government's violent crackdown on peaceful anti-government protesters.

A number of well-known journalists, including Ghassan Ben Jeddo, have resigned from the TV in the past months over the channel's coverage of Middle East events.

A profile, titled "The Qatari Revolution Page" has recently appeared on Facebook. Qatar is a country where there are no government elections. It houses a huge US airbase used for military operations in Iraq.

Qatari activists claim that many citizens living in the Arab Emirate are unhappy with their ruler's policies.
Posted by:Fred

#4  There's a difference between people fighting for freedom and people fighting to force their religion down everyone's throat.

Sometimes that is, indeed, true. But sometimes the freedom being fought for is the freedom to force one's religion - whether a certain branch of Islam or Communism or whatever it is that the Occupy Wall Streeters think they're on about -- down everyone's throat for their own good. The question on is, is freedom defined as being left alone to rule themselves, or becoming the top dog instead of the underdog? In both cases freedom from rule by others is the first step, but after that the differences between the American revolution and the French revolution is very stark -- not to mention the Iranian revolution...
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-11-12 13:46  

#3  CG, that's not true, they are both the same in a post-modern, relativistic, it's all about perspective sort of view, right?
Posted by: AlanC   2011-11-12 10:26  

#2  There's a difference between people fighting for freedom and people fighting to force their religion down everyone's throat.
Posted by: Creregum Glolump8403   2011-11-12 08:25  

#1  ...like when they hosted and Televised Samir Kuntar's Birthday Party ? ( Oh wait , in the long view that worked well for ' Infidelity ' ). It identified the enemy .
Posted by: Preptile    2011-11-12 07:29  

00:00