In fact, I also have seen clips that are supposed to be from Al Jazeera airing on US-based news channels... so, what's the difference?
Like you said, you saw clips. The US networks don't treat the stuff as regular programming and let it run in its entirety and it's presented under the context of terrorism and homeland security. US networks don't also run docudramas that aim to describe the "human side" of the madman that wanted to kill as many of us as possible.
Remember too that material that airs in English isn't necessarily representative of an organization's real agenda. We saw this happen with the recent attacks on the US embassy in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood expressed sympathy to the US in English, meanwhile their Arabic content was pretty much the opposite. That isn't rumor or conjecture, it was the State Department that pointed it out. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that this wouldn't be more of the same.
As if US-based news channels don't air propaganda themselves?
Propaganda encouraging the mass murder of civilians? I doubt that very much.
Our leaders do go on television and threaten leaders who threaten us, but I don't think anyone ever advocates indiscriminate killing. Remember the coverage of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib? None of our networks were cheering that, and the public response eventually shut the prison down.
Maybe we're hitting a turning point. Some Libyan civilians attacked the headquarters of a group that was supposedly responsible for the attack on our consulate. It looked staged to me, but maybe it wasn't. Who knows, our government certainly isn't saying much. Perhaps someday we'll all learn to get along. Hasn't happened yet, probably isn't likely to any time soon.
I also am pretty sure I've seen US-based news programs advocating "rising up" and "taking arms" and such.
What the heck have you been watching?
What does the very much deceased Bin Laden have to do with Al Jazeera?
Al Jazeera was his bullhorn. Not to mention other programs that they've run about the guy trying to pass off something other than the reality we know.
Have you actually watched the channel? OR are you basing your opinion on what others have told you?
A mix of the two. A lot of content was hitting the web a while back from their non-English broadcasts. It was stuff that would never air here. Frankly, I wish that I'd never seen any of it.
I try not to form opinions and hatred of content without having the chance to see that content myself.
What hatred? My point is that I don't want my monthly payments to my provider to end up going to the folks that operate that network. I'm not wishing them an eternity in hell, unlike what some of their content wishes on us. I'm sure they've learned to sanitize their English feed. That doesn't mean that their motives have changed any.
I just always find it highly ironic how we talk about freedom of speech, expression, and how other countries oppress different views... and then we have the Salem Witch trials, Communist "witch" hunts, and try our best to oppress other viewpoints than our own.
I find it depressing how whenever someone has a disagreement with someone else they start whining about their freedoms and comparing it with real oppression. If freedom of speech were being suppressed here, we wouldn't have both MSNBC and Fox News. They're two polar opposites, yet they coexist.
If Current can't attract enough viewers to stay on satellite, that's not oppression. That's economics. If viewers walk away from content and the content gets cancelled, that's the free market at work. Oppression would be the FCC threatening to revoke the licenses of any provider retransmitting the content here. That's not going to happen.
You're making a classic mistake. You think freedom of speech only applies to speech that you approve of. If I want to voice an opinion that you don't happen to agree with, that's my freedom of speech. I don't want to pay money to this network. Being a free individual, I'm entitled to make that choice without your permission or the permission of the government. I have no power to "oppress" anyone or anything. If a lot of people with similar views cause a provider to drop a network, that's the provider responding to consumer demand. Others can be just as vocal supporting the network to encourage the provider to keep it.
Good grief. You're crying about free speech and oppression because of a viewpoint that you don't agree with! How hilarious is that? We must be intolerant towards intolerance!
Some don't like the violence, sex, cursing, etc. on cable/satellite and would like to see all that censored too.
Try using profanity here and see where that gets you. Does that mean that the moderators here are oppressing us? There's nothing stopping someone from setting up a forum like this where anything goes. There aren't many like that. Why do you suppose that is? Enough people don't find it acceptable, therefore there's little demand. It's not a failure of free speech. It's not a form of oppression.