Aljazeera: brickbats & bouquets

[Palimino]

I am really impressed with Aljazeera’s correspondent in Tripoli (Anita McNaught). Not a bimbo, articulate and incisive. I wonder if Aljazeera know what they’ve got? I am considering transferring my crush from the South American Teresa Bo to her.

Aljazeera are notoriously biased when it comes to the ME. When interviewing people that don’t necessarily toe the pro-Arab line they are continually interrupted by the biased Aljazeera mob when they get on an uncomfortable track that Aljazeera don’t want their viewers to hear. Analyse the sound bites the Israeli’s use (if they have time to think of them). They strive to construct their sound bites in an integrated fashion so that they can’t be quoted out of context or their quotes used without including damning material.

Aljazeera has been (rightly IMO) supportive of the overthrowing of non-democratic regimes. I wonder if they will still be supportive if Qatar’s ruler was under pressure. Remember in all this, money matters. It is the deep pocket of Sheikh Hamad al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, which got the Aljazeera Arabic channel going 10 years ago. Once more, it is he who is bankrolling Aljazeera International......

Aljazeera English, **produced under the aegis of Aljazeera International**, makes a virtue of being based in the Middle East. Its media pack states: "From its unique position within the Arab and Muslim World, looking outwards, Aljazeera International reports inclusively, examining all perspectives of a story and providing a fresh 360-degree approach to news coverage."

How can you expect Aljazeera English to be unbiased about regime change pressure when al Thani (ruler of Qatar) also owns Aljazeera Arabic – an extremely anti-Israel station run by a spittle-flecked, Quran clutching, doggerel-spouting bunch of wild-eyed religious fanatics?

One does not have to wait to verify the statement: "Aljazeera International pursues no domestic agenda." The reason lies in geopolitics. A small player in the Arabian Peninsula compared to its neighbour, the mighty Saudi Arabia, Qatar does not have an agenda to pursue regionally or internationally (I don’t think). Aljazeera’s credentials may be dodgy.

Consider - Hamad al Thani (the ruler of Qatar) bankrolls Aljazeera. Aljazeera staff stand to lose their jobs if Hamad al Thani is overthrown. It could be said that the welfare of Aljazeera depends on Hamad al Thani keeping his position.

To be fair, I haven’t detected any bias yet and I am sensitized (thus expecting bias). So far, reporting seems balanced.

 

[Alan]

I was watching a documentary on Al Jazeera the other day on U.S Medevac helicopters in Afghanistan. One could be forgiven for thinking WTF portarying the western military in a positive light on Al Jazeera but the catch was soon exposed.

The film-maker puts forward the argument that what allows these wars too continue is keeping the casualty rate down. Medevac helicopters do exactly that and hence are "force multipliers" which should be legitimate targets. That would require the Geneva convention being "updated".

How sick is that!!!.

Medevac helicopters not only save soldiers( from both sides) but also injured or sick civilians as well.

 

[Palimino]

The film-maker puts forward the argument that what allows these wars too continue is keeping the casualty rate down. Medevac helicopters do exactly that and hence are "force multipliers" which should be legitimate targets.

I saw it as well. It was a point that was made (valid enough) not fore grounded as you imply.

Medevac helicopters not only save soldiers( from both sides) but also injured or sick civilians as well.

A point made (and shown if I recall). Noble. I was a bit sceptical about the self-pity about the job destroying his marriage. He valued the job more than his marriage.

It’s a nice job for a young man with no attachments. With an element of risk, lots of expensive toys, respect & gratitude from the general public and the dying, a meaningful yet non-violent contribution to the war effort, flying around in a helicopter, etc.

 

[Palimino]

IMedevac helicopters do exactly that and hence are "force multipliers" which should be legitimate targets. That would require the Geneva convention being "updated".

How sick is that!!!.

Medevac helicopters not only save soldiers( from both sides) but also injured or sick civilians as well.

It must be assumed that somewhere in leadership the enemy have done, at least, Military Doctrine 101. You are working on the assumption that killing is the primary reason for war. It’s not. The purpose of war is to subdue the enemy nation. Killing its citizens is considered effective and is the most popular method but it is not the prime objective (which is ‘subdue the enemy’). A clever (in a ghastly fashion) doctrine was formulated. Don’t kill the enemy soldier outright. The enemy authorities are only out a “We regret to inform you…” letter and a body bag not to mention the propaganda value in dead bodies as well – to demonise the opposition. Rather strive to wound only (hence the metal jacket on military rounds). This has the advantage of causing the enemy to tie-up transport (Medevac helicopters), doctors, nurses (paramedics), hospital beds. Use-up food and medicine. The invalided soldier returns home. His family, friends and neighbours are alienated from the war effort. National morale is impacted. He is often bitter and gets involved in anti-war poetry, protests and literature etc. A single, wounded-only soldier can cause far more havoc than a platoon of dead. By shooting-down Medevac helicopters, the enemy may kill but they fail to tie-up opposition personnel causing them to waste their substance or cause havoc at home. Destroying Medevac facilities is short-sighted and counter productive so Medevac personnel are reasonably safe.

The returns from wounding exceed (by far) the small possibility that the wounded may return to the battlefield as a fighting soldier. It is so successful that all militaries (the world over) have adopted this doctrine. They would have you believe that it’s for ‘humanitarian’ reasons (Geneva Convention). That’s only a small part of it. If the ‘Geneva Convention’ got in the way it would be ignored.

Thus the purpose is not to “kill the enemy” but to get the enemy to see things your way. Killing them is only a means to an end. If there was a better method, it would be used.

 

[Palimino]

Medevac helicopters not only save soldiers( from both sides) but also injured or sick civilians as well.

And that’s not all. Medevac helicopters are further protected from hostile fire by the possibility that they have injured or sick civilians (locals) on board. The locals would be severely pissed-off if the enemy started to shoot-up their medical aid source and this may compromise any clandestine assistance they require. Not a good strategy for ‘winning hearts & minds’.

This does not imply that the occasional psycho might not take a shot, but it’s unlikely to be enemy policy. Medevac helicopters are largely protected from hostile fire through self-interest.