I don't tend to speak out too much defending what can be seemingly-safely labelled as propaganda news sites. But this case is different. Like it or not, news comes from all types of places and sources. The internet has opened up the portals of the world of news. We no longer have to wait and rely and trust the likes of Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw for what's going on in the world. We can look all over for what we wish to identify as truth. And many of us do.
Al-Jazeera was targeted by the US during the war in Afghanistan. They were targeted by the US during the Iraq 'bring em on' war. This we know as fact. Motives and theories abound. Most people don't think the US would deliberately bomb a news organization, arab news or no arab news. It's common to write it off as a not so smart bomb, or simply someone truly fucked up. That's acceptable, and the overall norm. But consider...Al-Jazeera responsibly enough, gave the US high command the exact ?GPS? coordinates for the locations of their offices. The exact location. Now, one doesn't have to be a smart guy to know that that's the most precise and most accurate thing one could do if they wish to be left alone aka not bombed. There's no better more guaranteed way to insure you won't be mistakenly bombed. We all know they were bombed and devastatingly so. But there wasn't a whisper to be heard in the US over it. It's because they think of Al-Jazeera as a mouthpiece for terrorists. Again that's common and acceptable. I don't accept it though. And that's because after all the shit is said and done, after the smoke has cleared, the one fact is inescapable: Al-Jazeera is consistently the only news correspondence taking place on the ground right in the centre of the hellfire carnage. The only one. CNN and the western news agencies sit near a US base and get their news from the military themselves. They aren't anywhere near the war. Nowhere near it. Al-Jazeera has reporters under fire in Fallujah and Najaf. No other western news agency does. Al-Jazeera has cameramen filming the battle, while no western agency dares to set foot into these said battles.
It's funny. I say the US is bad for killing civilians. Hawks attack me by saying "hey it's a war and people get killed in war it's sad yes and tragic yes but it's war and innocent civilians die in war...". Fine. But when Al-Jazeera says and shows the footage of these innocent deaths the same people saying that to me end up saying "Al-Jazeera's lying and that the innocent civilians who dies weren't civilians after all the dead weren't killed in battle but in being used as humans shields...". So there it is. A classic flip-flop over the results of war. I'm to believe that kids die in war but when told it's the US doing the killing it's not true, that they're not innocent after all. Is it a lie when the only news agency on the ground reports that a woman was shot square in the throat from a distance? Or is it a case of reporting what they see? Was that woman a terrorist or an insurgent? According to the likes of CNN yes. According to the only agency on the ground in the middle of the battle, she was a civilian. I don't fear learning things that bother me. Why do you all? Would it really take a headline from CNN saying "US Troops Kill Woman Who Was With-Child" to get you to believe what's really happening? While I know we should take all news with a grain of salt, I also know there is some degree of truth behind it. To say Al-Jazeera is wrong 100% of the time is outrageous. Let's all promise to keep an open mind about what we like and hate to hear. And open your mind up to other sources, even those that say things you don't want to hear or believe. Peace people.