DreamOn,

In many ways the quality of reporting on the BBC and Al Jazeera seems to be better than the mainstream western corporate newsmedia. I exepct this would have been even more true of Aljazeera during Israel's invasion of Gaza as you write. On the other hand, as brutal and criminal as that invasion was, that was obviously not going to be a watershed as, for example the invasion of Iraq or 9/11 were.

In any case, Aljazeera's participation in the cover-up of 9/11, alongside all the Western newsmedia, has caused a vast amount of more harm to Arab speaking people than what good would have come from its reporting of Gaza.

It should be obvious by now that merely 'better' reporting is just not good enough. I believe that if the BBC, in particular, had told the whole truth about the Iraq war in 2003 they would have made it impossible for the British Government to participate in the invasion. And I believe that the same applies to Australia's ABC.

The ABC's lame pretence at being critical of the Iraq war is exmplified by Kerry O'Brien's lightweight interview of John Howard on 31 March 2003 at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s821040.htm

Note, how Kerry O'Brien called the war an 'ethical war':

"At some point in the ethical war the coalition leaders may have to decide between two high-cost actions - and I don't say the phrase 'ethical war' in a sarcastic fashion ..."

O'Brien could have easily torn John Howard's case for war to shreds simply by putting to him the known facts, for example, about the WMD inspections that had been aborted not long before then and the plea by WMD inspectors to the coalition not to invade, but he chose not to, and so hundreds of thousands died.

The BBC's effort appeared little better from this distance and however much, if at all, Al Jazeera was an improvement upon the BBC, it is obvious that, as I mentioned above, by failing to report on the controversy over 9/11 Al Jazeera gave a free kick to the Coalition forces.

The gas pipeline is what the US is there for.
Its the elephant in the room folks, and like oil in Iraq it will eventually be officially admitted (quietly) to be the reason.
We went because Howard was stupid and bowed to threatening US officials, believing the war 40 years ago is still paramount today and that truth can be suspended while the war drums beat. Idiot. The US used our previously good world reputation to help justify their illegal war. If Howard had said no then maybe even Britain would have re-thought and thousands would still be alive today. (Saddam could be taken out without killing the country and empowering thousands of armed criminals and mercenaries)
LNG reserves in region and coastal factors make it the target, nothing to do with Bin Laden. Another CIA trained US agent who went bad. No conspiracy theory there, just history.
Godless, not all conspiracy theories are incorrect. As others have pointed out, the "official" set of events around that time have many inconsistencies and the press went out of it's way to ignore truth. Anyone who still believes the stories coming out of the Bush administration is naive, or possibly gullible.