I was surfing YouTube a second ago, putting in a reply to yet another westerner who is wondering why the service allows a terrorist-sponsored channel on it. He or she was referring to al-Jazeera.
   Al-Jazeera is sponsored, the last time I looked, by His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, who, when visiting the White House, pledged his and his country’s support to President Bush and the War on Terror. It is sponsored by an ally of the very countries from which its critics reside. Since the critics tend to be pro-War on Terror, I find it unpatriotic of them to attack their own allies. Heck, even the US Marines have training sessions at Qatari bases.
   While I understand that there are Qatari nationals in al-Qaeda, need I remind people where Timothy McVeigh and his mates were from? We in the west have these rogue elements, albeit less grouped into a virtual organization such as al-Qaeda. And it’s not like the country of Qatar gives these guys a pat on the back for killing Muslims and other people: they are considered thugs and murderers.
   Al-Jazeera has never shown a beheading—that is an urban myth which a very good friend of mine has heard reported as fact in his country.
   (It’s like saying Rambo helped the Taliban in the fictional Rambo III film, which I’ve also seen online from westerners. Sorry, he helped the Muhjahadeen. I am not an authority on anything Afghan, but I thought those guys became the Northern Alliance, who helped US troops fight the Taliban.)
   The other argument is that al-Jazeera is in league with Muslim terrorists. Their evidence is that terrorist organizations send their video footage there.
   If this argument holds true, then NBC is in league with school shooters like Cho Seung-hui, who had his DVDs sent there, and that the entire British media were in league with the IRA, who were busily blowing up British people.
   These bastard terrorists and murderers have been sending their messages to the nearest media outlet(s) for most of my lifetime, so why do these critics believe al-Jazeera should operate under a different set of rules?
   If anything, terrorists’ messages have often sent them to the people who are against them, such as the IRA’s ones. When al-Jazeera broadcasts, say, an extremist group blowing up a US convoy, the effect would probably solidify American support more readily than the watered-down versions shown on anything from ABC to Fox in the United States. Such footage is no worse than officially sanctioned Pentagon-released videos of successful air raids on terrorist targets which, equally, makes our enemies more determined.
   I do feel that al-Jazeera is more anti-war than, say, the Fox News Channel, but it is probably no more anti-war than Dan Rather or the late Peter Jennings were. These days, I must admit I prefer the less flashy Voice of America TV broadcasts for “fair and balanced” when it comes to American news. Just give me the facts.
   Hang on, I figured it out. They have Middle Eastern-sounding names. That’s why they need a different set of rules.
   And as to why US pay-TV companies do not carry the channel, it’s not about patriotism. It’s about money. Posted by Jack Yan, 02:43  permalink

comments

Post a Comment  Links to this post