Tep,+Alexis

Synopsis: Anwar al-Awlaki a cleric and a US citizen is being aimed at for being apart of planning attacks on the US. He was connected to the attempted bombing of an airline for the US and also a shooting that occurred on the US Army base. He was born in New Mexico and then later on became the leader of mosques in California, Colorado, and Virginia. Awlaki became well known for his preaching in English in which supported the use of violence as a religious duty. During one of his lectures while being an imam (leader of a mosque) in San Diego, two of the 9/11 hijackers attended. After that, he flew to the US in 2007 and then later on moved to Yemen. The US used to see him as a radival Islamist preacher, but now they say that he is an effective recruiter for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He was also connected to the suspects in the shooting that killed 13 people, in Fort Hood last November. Not only that but failed at an attempt to bomb a transatlantic airliner on Christmas day. The US is planning on attacking him with an remote controlled aerial vehicle. The US is already approved for this act.
 * US approves killing US-born cleric**

Sources: "BBC News - US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki." //BBC NEWS | News Front Page//. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2010. . "US Approves Targeted Killing of American Cleric - Arab News." //Home - Arab News//. Web. 07 Apr. 2010. .

Compare & Contrast: Both of these articles have most of the same information. They both state that the US is approving the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, they actually both have information about how he was linked to the shooting in Fort hood, and also include how he had contact with two of the 9/11 attackers. The differences between the articles are the titles, BBC's is "US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki" whereas Arab News' title is "US approves targeted killing of American cleric". Arab News' focus seemed to be on how the CIA is involved in this and also kept talking about a "list" and BBC did not mention the CIA much, neither did they mention anything about a "list". BBC had an image too which makes it good for people who are reading, so they know who they're reading about, it actually gives them an image of him. Arab News included no pictures whatsoever.

My opinion: I actually think them killing him is definitely for the better. Yeah, I'm not exactly for the whole "killing" idea in general, but in this case I'd have to side with the US. I mean, it's kind of like what we've been learning, the whole conflict thing. He was basically in the same room as two of the 9/11 hijackers and I'm just going to ASSUME he knew they had a plan to hijack the planes and did nothing to stop them. The 9/11 attack was such an historical event and if he would've said something about it, it maybe would've never happened, or at least a bigger group of people would've known about it and couldve been prepared or something. That's just wrong, why do that type of stuff.

Synopsis: A journalist was sentenced 13 years in prison by the military court in Burma because he was working illegally for foreign media organizations. It has been told that he was found guilty of disobeying immigration laws and the Electronic Act. In Burma, most foreign journalists are restricted and the state removed all media. Ngwe Soe Lin was arrested when he left an internet cafe in June 2009 in the Rangoon area of Kyaukmyaung. He was questions for two months then sent to a notorious Insein prison in the city, where his sentence was passed on Wednesday.
 * Journalist Jailed in Burma

Sources: BBC: [|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8487179.stm] Bangkok Post: []

Compare & Contrast: These two articles had a few things in common, they stated that Ngwe Soe Lin's sentence was for 13 years in prison made on Wednesday. Bangkok Post posted, "...part of a continued crackdown on those involved in anti-junta protests led by Buddhist monks in September 2007" and BBC posted something very similar, "..part of a continued crackdown by the military authorities on those involved in the mass anti-government protests in September 2007". They were both posted on the same day January 29, 2010. The differences were that Bangkok Post had more detail on the actual sentence such as, " Aung Thein added that Ngwe Soe Lin would appeal the ruling, which sentenced him to 10 years in jail for violation of the country's Electronics Act and another three years under the Immigration Emergency Provisions Act" and Bangkok actually had a picture of the  Insein prison whereas BBC had a picture of a map, zooming in on the city this was all taken place in. 

My opinion: I guess its a good thing that he was sent to prison because breaking a law IS a huge thing, there ARE laws for a reason. I kind of think its not really that necessary to make it 13 years though because that seems like a little too long. Its not like the journalist was hurting anyone, he should've known better than to violate the immigration laws, yeah, but make a mistake and learn from it, right? **

Synopsis: Near the Afghan border, three militants were killed on Tuesday, by which they believe to be a U.S. drone strike.At about 6:30 p.m. the drone fired two missils on the compound in Daigan, Dattakhel. Dattakhel has been a target for drone attacks for a few months now. Islamic militants have a strong presence on the borders of Afghanistan. The missiles launced a few days after Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban appeared in a video given off by the Pakistani Taliban. In the video he is sitting next to Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, who is the man they believed to be the suicide bomber who killed seven CIA employees and a Jordanian army captain at a base in eastern Afghanistan December 30.
 * Suspected Drone Attack in Pakistan**

Sources: CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/19/pakistan.drone/index.html Reuters : http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60I2OI20100119

Compare & Contrast: Both articles were posted up on the same date, Reuters being posted a couple hours after CNN's. They stated two missils were shot out in the area of North Waziristan, also they brought up a previous attack where a suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees and both articles state that they believe the U.S. launched the missils through the drone. The differences between these two articles are that Reuters claimed six militants were killed whereas CNN wrote three were killed, CNN does not have a picture and Reuters does. The title for CNN, "3 die in suspected drone attack in Pakistan" and the title for Reuters, "Suspected U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, 6 killed", were also different but in a way similiar. The difference would be that CNN had written that 3 dies and Reuters 6, in their title. Not only that but Reuters includes that the U.S. was suspected.

My Opinion: I think that it's not nice to point fingers. Yes, in a way it does make sense to blame the United States for the drone attack considering the fact that they HAVE attacked before but doesn't mean they've done it this time. To whoever DID do the drone attack, I don't understand why they have. Killing innocent people shouldn't be a hobby, nor should it be done at all. If the United States did do this, It just goes to show how a little conflict between two different areas can turn into something so absurd.

Bemba's Bail Revoked Synopsis: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has countermanded its decision to allow bail to Jean-Pierre Bemba a Congolese war crimes suspect. Judges at The Hague have concluded that Jean-Pierre might runaway if he is set free. Bemba is implicated of leading militias who raped and murdered civilians in Central African Republic in 2002 and 2003. He was taken into authorized custody in Belgium last year and then released to The Hague. His bail was granted in August, but said that he would not be let go of until they find out which country would keep him. But judge Akua Kuenyehia believed that if he was let go he would runaway so the bail was taken back. The Movement for the Liberation of Congo is what Mr. Bemba led. A peace deal ended the war in 2003, where he then joined an temporary government as vice-president. He is facing three counts of war crimes and two of crimes against humanity trials.

Sources: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8390208.stm NEWS TIME AFRICA: http://www.newstimeafrica.com/archives/9406

Compare & Contrast: The information in both articles were very alike. It seemed to have had the same information except put into different words, for example, the beginning of the article on BBC is, "The International Criminal Court (ICC) has reversed its own decision to award bail to Congolese war crimes suspect Jean-Pierre Bemba Judges at The Hague decided Mr Bemba, Democratic Republic of Congo's ex-vice-president, might flee if set free." and NEWS TIME AFRICA, "The decision to award bail to Congolese war crimes suspect Jean-Pierre Bemba has been reversed by the International Criminal Court (ICC) According to the Judges at The Hague, Mr Bemba, who was Democratic Republic of Congo’s vice-president might flee if set free." To sum it all up it sort of seemed like the words were pasted in a different order, to make them somewhat "different". There were different images actually, BBC had more of a close up image where Bemba is looking towards the camera kind of and NEWS TIME AFRICA had more of a photo that was taken from a bit of a distance and he's not looking towards the camera at all. Oh! and the titles! NTA was a bit blunt and straightforward about the topic, "Bemba’s Bail Revoked" while BBC's was a bit more descriptive, "Congo suspect Jean-Pierre Bemba's bail revoked by ICC" which overall set up the article because BBC did have a bit more background information on Bemba.

My opinion: Well I think it totally makes sense to revoke the bail because it's more than likely that if he committed a crime, he can do it again. I know people "change" their ways but the things he did weren't exactly things that would persuade me or the judges to think that letting him free or capable of making bail seem like the right decision. Maybe I'm all wrong and he totally wouldn't do something like that again, but well, I guess I'm being a little biased? Have you guys heard of the guy that made bail then a few days later killed 4 police officers? He's sort of the reason I think this.

Germany arrests top Rwanda rebels Synopsis: Police officers in Germany have arrested Ignace Murwanashyaka and Straton Musoni who are the leader and deputy leader of the FDLR rebel group. They are accused of war crimes and commiting crimes against humanity and smuggling gold and other minerals to use as funding. They've also been accused to have raped many women, killed a few hundred civilians, recruited children as soldiers and forced villagers from their homes, stole and burned numerous amounts of villages. Murwanaskyaka was arrested in the city of Karlsruhe, while Musoni was found in the Stuttgart area.

Sources: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8364507.stm VAO: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/africa/a-13-2009-11-18-voa28-70423547.html

Compare & Contrast: Both articles stated that Ignace and Straton were the ones who were arrested and they are the leader and deputy leader of the FDLR rebel group. Also, that Ignace lived in Germany and that they're both being charged for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and using child soldiers. BBC stated, "He has always denied that his men, believed to number 5-6,000, were involved in the genocide and says they are fighting to bring democracy to Rwanda." and VAO stated, "The rebel group denies committing armed atrocities in eastern DRC, asserting instead that it is fighting for real democracy in Rwanda." which are basically the same except used in different words. Differences about the articles are the titles, BBC's title is "Germany arrests top Rwanda rebels" and VAO's title is " Rwanda Praises German Arrest of Hutu Rebel Leader". VAO's article talks more about what they plan on doing with the two and provides more information about who Ignace Murwanashyaka is. Also, the VAO contains no pictures.

My opinion: Well I believe that it's great their caught! After reading "A long way gone" I have strong hate for the rebels because they destroy villages, kill civilians, rape women, force children to become child soldiers and all the other devestating things that they do. They should be prosecuted for all they've done, no, ALL of the rebels should be prosecuted. They've been around for so long and are STILL around, I believe it's time to end the war crimes that they have created.

Women die in Ghana mine collapse Synopsis: In Ghana, about 30 people were working in an illegal gold mine when the gold mine collapsed and killed about 15 people-13 being women.

Sources: BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8356343.stm African Seer: http://www.africanseer.com/news/17744-Women-die-Ghana-mine-collapse.html

Compare & Contrast: The two articles were VERY similar. The articles were literally word for word except, BBC stated, "At least 15 people working in an illegal gold mine in western Ghana were killed when the mine collapsed." whereas African Seer put, "At least 18 people working in an illegal gold mine in western Ghana were killed when the mine collapsed." and African Seer stopped at "//...... control the activities of miners," he added.//" and BBC continued the article with, "//The BBC's Casper Leighton in the capital, Accra, says Ghana has large gold reserves and alongside the......//"

My opinion: I think it's terribly saddening that people had to die, because death isn't all that much of a happy concept. The gold mine they were working at WAS ILLEGAL though, so if they had took that into consideration and did not attend that place, they wouldn't have died in the first place.

U.S. tells Iran nuclear deal offer won't be changed Synopsis: The U.S. and Iran were coming up with a deal on a draft nuclear cooperation but Hilary Clinton has declared that the deal is not accepted and it will not be change, so Iran is just going to have to deal with that. The U.S. has been suspicious about Iran's nuclear program, they think it's a secret attempt to make nuclear weapons, but Iran denies their thought and claims that their intentions are nowhere near that. Now, the U.N. is asking Iran to send aboard uranium but Iran is unwilling to do so.

Sources: Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091105/pl_nm/us_iran_nuclear_clinton Kansas City: http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/1545118.html

Compare & Contrast: The titles of the two articles are essentially alike, "Clinton says nuke offer to Iran won't be changed" and "U.S. tells Iran nuclear deal offer won't be changed". Although they are stated differently, they basically specify the main concept. "This is a pivotal moment for Iran." said by Clinton, was used in both articles, Yahoo News actually put the entire quote: "This is a pivotal moment for Iran. We urge Iran to accept the agreement as proposed and we will not alter it and we will not wait forever," whereas Kansas City only used the first sentence of the full quote. The U.N. demanding uranium was also mentioned in both of the articles. A difference between the two, is Kansas City also adds in information about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Yahoo News, doesn't mention him at all. Also, Yahoo news talks about "three major powers" that would also not be changed, while Kansas City doesn't mention "three major powers".

My opinion: I can see where the U.S. is coming from, thinking that Iran is secretly trying to attempt to make a nuclear weapon because during 9/11 the people who hijacked the plane were from iran and iraq- atleast those were the main areas they focused on although they were primarily from Saudi Arabia- and correct me if I'm wrong. I just think it's a whole stereotyping thing, just because the whole 9/11 incident happened the U.S. probably believes anyone within the country of iran or iraq is planning a plot to make an attack on our country, i guess that's my understanding on why they wont accept irans deal.

Pakistan's growing anti-US anger** Synopsis: In recent times, Pakistan's government has been saying very unfriendly things about the US. Munawar Hassan has stated that America just wants Pakistan's country to face total chaos. He also says that America claims Pakistan for having unsafe weapons and that America wants to bare Pakistan of their nuclear program. Hamid Mir, who has a talk show called, Capital Talk, has alleged the United states for amplifying the amount of marines that are in Pakistan. Capital Talk and the entire country of Pakistan is anti-American. Hilary Clinton has tried to tell the Pakistanis that the white house has no intentions to dominate their country, all the white house wants to do is support ties and help them handle the offensive threats that they receive. A new bill was passed by the congress called Kerry-Lugar bill which affirms a large injection of aid to Pakistan, but Pakistanis believe that this gives the US a ton of control over their country's duties. There have been threats that happened recently in the last few weeks in Pakistan, two suicide bombers blew themselves up as they walked onto the campus of Ismalic University. Students claim that America had some association to the blast and that they are spreading terror into Pakistan. Pakistanis consider that they were/are better off without the help of the US. For a while now, America feels the need to keep a very close eye on Iran's nuclear program and Iran has borders with Pakistan. There are connections to other countries that Pakistan thinks America might be using them for.

Sources: BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8332569.stm China View: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/29/content_12356468.htm

Compare & Contrast: The title's are different for the articles, BBC's is, "Pakistan's growing anti-US anger" and China view's is, " Hillary Clinton: U.S. committed to helping Pakistan". Also, BBC elaborates more on the Pakistanis behalf and how they aren't extremely fond of the US, whereas China view elucidates on Hilary Clinton's pledge to help out the Pakistan's. The similarities between the articles were that they both contained information about Pakistan and the US.

My opinion: I really think that the Pakistanis should actually take the offer of being helped out, because help doesn't come around a lot. Although, it might seem like America is trying to use them and take over, at least give it a shot before making assumptions. The US government seems like they're trying extremely hard to come to a consensus according to the China view article, and certainly would like to collaborate with the Pakistan country. But, the Pakistanis can only say bad things about the US. When did offering to help ever become a bad thing? Seriously, does that make any sense? If people were trying to help me, of course I would want to take it into consideration and think about it for a while rather than go up and talk about how the only reason they want to help me is because this person is trying to use me or take over me or anything close to that!