What did Al Jazeera do that makes them complicit?

(This isn't a disagreement, this is a question. I'm trying to see things from your perspective.)

I agree that the killing of (and taking of) hostages is repugnantly awful.

--Kynn

In a press conference, General John Abizaid openly expressed belief that Al Jazeera and Al Arabya have stepped over the line from objective journalists to enablers.

They have access to information and situations that clearly indicate fore-knowledge of terrorist and/or insurgent events. During the course of the war, there were at least two live fire incidents where it was reported that Al Jazeera journalists allowed fighters to engage the US from their "space." (office, hotel room)

In addition, both networks broadcast propaganda that makes conservative complaints about the BBC pale in comparison; depicting "atrocities" committed by US troops, suggesting that US forces are purposefully targeting civilians, exaggerating casualty figures.

Even if you throw out the concept that Al Jazeera and Arabya employees are complicit in specific activities, these organs of propaganda are CREATING terrorists by willfully distorting the effors and intentions of Americans.

Read this: http://www.spiritofamerica.net/req_12/request.html

I understand that an Arab news organization is going to represent a completely different angle than we may like - but much of these efforts can only be labeled as outright opposition at odds with what is necessarily the best interests of their audience.

It's like when Western media outlets smell sensationalism and project an agenda - but 1000x worse and more destructive.