View Full Version : Is this a free country?
You might have missed it, the media hasn't made a fuss but last week two men, a Cabinet Office communications officer and a MPs researcher were sent to prison for trying to alert the people that there is a mad man in charge of the most powerful country in the world.
There was very little the press could have said about the trial anyway, they were excluded from most of it and prevented from publishing much of what they did know by the Official Secrets Act.
So what was their crime? Were they passing on details of British troop movements to a foreign power? Handing over technical details of weapons systems to the Russians maybe? These are the things the Official Secrets Act is there to prevent. No, they just thought we should know that in a meeting between Bush and Blair at the White House Bush was arguing for bombing the offices of al-Jazeera, a newspaper manned by civilians in a friendly country, to stop them from telling the truth about Iraq.
Two men are in prison, not for trying to reveal information which might endanger our country or our troops but for trying to reveal information which would be embarrassing to the President of the United States. It was a political trial, they are political prisoners and freedom of speech in this country is dead.
Metalattakk
14-May-07, 21:05
I don't get it fred. What exactly are you trying to say? All this 'beating around the bush (sic)' is becoming tiresome.
Out with it man, say what you really mean!
j4bberw0ck
14-May-07, 21:08
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what was discussed and what they did, I'd have to suggest that freedom of speech and the Official Secrets Act are mutually exclusive.
I'd go a long way to agreeing with the proposition that this isn't a free country any longer, and getting less free all the time, but the people in question must have known what they were playing with. Not too much sympathy here, I'm afraid.
changilass
14-May-07, 21:16
Totally missed out on that one Fred, where can I get more info, would like to read both sides of the arguament afore commenting on it.
Thanks
Changi
Jeemag_USA
14-May-07, 21:21
I don't get it fred. What exactly are you trying to say? All this 'beating around the bush (sic)' is becoming tiresome.
Out with it man, say what you really mean!
He just said exactly what he wanted to say, whats so difficult to understand about it, your post is nothing short of trolling trying to provoke and argument.
Jeemag_USA
14-May-07, 21:25
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of what was discussed and what they did, I'd have to suggest that freedom of speech and the Official Secrets Act are mutually exclusive.
I'd go a long way to agreeing with the proposition that this isn't a free country any longer, and getting less free all the time, but the people in question must have known what they were playing with. Not too much sympathy here, I'm afraid.
Many people throughout History have done things against the odds to try and bring awereness to people, sometimes you have to face danger when your conscience tells you you cannot keep quiet. Those people have made a sacrifice they believed was right to make and they have my sympathy.
Nelson Mandela played with fire and spent a long time in Jail to benefit many millions more down the line. Mahatma Gandhi defied governments, armies and police to benefit millions down the line, he had several jail sentences and one or two public floggings but he didn't waver. Sometimes you have to do what legally may be wrong to achieve something morally right. Wether these people are right or wrong remains to be seen but to dismiss them offhand without knowing all the facts seems harsh to me.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16397937&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=exclusive--bush-plot-to-bomb-his-arab-ally-name_page.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2005/11/bush_blair_bombs_and_aljazeera.html
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=73720&d=25&m=11&y=2005
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1123/dailyUpdate.html
Tried to find a range of links so those are The Mirror, Washington Post, Arab News and Christian Science Monitor, can't vouch for any of them but you can get an idea from it.
Totally missed out on that one Fred, where can I get more info, would like to read both sides of the arguament afore commenting on it.
Thanks
Changi
You can't read both sides of the argument, one side would be sent to prison if they published their side of the argument.
The Independent did an article on it at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2527728.ece it doesn't say much but it says as much as they can.
Totally missed out on that one Fred, where can I get more info, would like to read both sides of the arguament afore commenting on it.
Thanks
Changi
Here is another side Changi
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2527728.ece
I have no sympathy for them they broke the law, and got off lightly
North Rhins
14-May-07, 22:39
Fred,
Have you ever been subject to The Official Secrets Act? During your working life have you ever been employed under the stipulations of the act? Have you ever undergone security vetting? If the answer is yes to any of the above then you will know the gravity of the subject. If the answer is no and your only knowledge is that gleaned from the media then I respectfully suggest that you are in no position to criticise it. Once signed, you are governed by its contents. It does not give you the option to cherry pick what parts you will adhere to or what parts you will not.
I suspect that this is a thread soon to be headed into the winds of conspiracy/Blair/Bush/Iraq/war crime/invasion etc. etc. ad nauseam.
j4bberw0ck
14-May-07, 22:44
Sometimes you have to do what legally may be wrong to achieve something morally right. Wether these people are right or wrong remains to be seen but to dismiss them offhand without knowing all the facts seems harsh to me.
I most certainly didn't dismiss them; I said that the Official Secrets Act and the concept of free speech are mutually exclusive. As signatories to the Act, they knew the penalties for breaching it. To that extent, it's cut and dried.
I also qualified my answer by setting aside the rights and wrongs - which are matters of opinion - and boiling the issue down to the only absolute that matters in the context of fred's statement / question. I'm well aware that Nelson Mandela was - officially - a terrorist for many years, and that Mahatma Gandhi was a royal pain for the British in India. The examples aren't really relevant to the specific question unless you introduce a value judgement about the worth of what each of them did. And I don't see a valid method of comparison.
luskentyre
14-May-07, 22:47
and freedom of speech in this country is dead.
It doesn't seem to stop you Fred.
I always saw this one as a double edged sword.
Obey the chain of command or follow your conscience.
If you obey the chain of command, no matter what, then command (read Blair/Bush) are ultimately responsible for everything that goes on.
Follow your conscience, and it is hard to be a good soldier etc. The problem with being only a good soldier is that people look back in retrospect and say "they should have known better". The Holocaust is a good example of soldiers following orders and we now say they should have said no to what was going on.
Those on the ground seem to be damned of they do or damned if they don't. Personally I would rather they stood up for what is right than risk another Holocaust type of incident. Good on those two for standing up for what is right!
North Rhins
14-May-07, 22:55
I always saw this one as a double edged sword.
Obey the chain of command or follow your conscience.
If you obey the chain of command, no matter what, then command (read Blair/Bush) are ultimately responsible for everything that goes on.
Follow your conscience, and it is hard to be a good soldier etc. The problem with being only a good soldier is that people look back in retrospect and say "they should have known better". The Holocaust is a good example of soldiers following orders and we now say they should have said no to what was going on.
Those on the ground seem to be damned of they do or damned if they don't. Personally I would rather they stood up for what is right than risk another Holocaust type of incident. Good on those two for standing up for what is right!
Do you think that comparing these two with that of the Holocaust is appropriate? Are they both of the same magnitude?
Jeemag_USA
14-May-07, 22:58
I most certainly didn't dismiss them; I said that the Official Secrets Act and the concept of free speech are mutually exclusive. As signatories to the Act, they knew the penalties for breaching it. To that extent, it's cut and dried.
I also qualified my answer by setting aside the rights and wrongs - which are matters of opinion - and boiling the issue down to the only absolute that matters in the context of fred's statement / question. I'm well aware that Nelson Mandela was - officially - a terrorist for many years, and that Mahatma Gandhi was a royal pain for the British in India. The examples aren't really relevant to the specific question unless you introduce a value judgement about the worth of what each of them did. And I don't see a valid method of comparison.
There is a valid comparison there if you choose to see it. The two in question described their actions as an act of conscience, sometimes you have to face perile, punishment or death for a more worthy cause. I also said that without knowing the full details its easy to dismiss them. I don't know how the conversation took place or what was said but I don't think Bush woudl be able to publicly bomb Al Jazeera press offices in a conventional manner with the US army so it would have to be done in an unconventional manner, in other words using terrorism to fight terrorism which is maniacal. If i had heard of such a plan I don't think my conscience woudl allow me to say nothing, especially considering innocent people would die in an excercise which would enrage every arab nation there is and cause more hatred towards any nation or nations involved in perpetrating the act bringing more danger to more people in the world, don't think I could sleep with that. Mandela may not have signed the official secrets act in SA but he stood up and let people know about stuff they would not have known about from any government or media source and was jailed for it.
It all depends on the scenario and we do not know the full facts. Think of a scenario where you were party to the official secrets act and were in the army, you overheard a conversation saying a civilian public place was going to be attacked by selected soldiers or agents out of uniform and many people would die and you felt the attack would have no benefit to anyone, would you proceed and wrestle with your conscience to the grave or would you defy and take the consequences with peace in your mind. I know what I would do.
Do you think that comparing these two with that of the Holocaust is appropriate? Are they both of the same magnitude?
Magnitude is not the issue, at what point do you NEED to follow your conscience?
You can't read both sides of the argument, one side would be sent to prison if they published their side of the argument.
The Independent did an article on it at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2527728.ece it doesn't say much but it says as much as they can.
Here is another side Changi
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2527728.ece
I have no sympathy for them they broke the law, and got off lightly
Are those not the same link?
I don't know how the conversation took place or what was said but I don't think Bush woudl be able to publicly bomb Al Jazeera press offices in a conventional manner with the US army so it would have to be done in an unconventional manner, in other words using terrorism to fight terrorism which is maniacal.
Actually they have bombed offices of Al Jazeera twice in the past, the Iraq offices and the Afghanistan offices. Both times they claimed it was in error, collateral damage, the contents of the leaked document make that look even more unlikely than ever.
Are those not the same link?
Drat!!! you saw right through me [lol]
Is this better
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/10/nsecrets110.xml
Better class of broadsheet
No it's not a free Country, it's rather expensive, especially if you try to save!
For people who are so aware of everything involving Bush and Blair I am surprised that you didn't see the reports about the Civil Servant (who are supposed to keep themselves politically neutral), who passed on confidential information with which he had been entrusted, had been punished for breaking the law.
It was reported and given the full importance due to it. It's now yesterday's news and only fit for fish supper wrapping.
You really should pay more attention to so you don't get left behind, the world moves very fast these days.
Of course, had he done the same in some countries he would have died of Radiation Poisoning by now!
I have no sympathy for them they broke the law, and got off lightly
I don't think there can be any argument that to bomb a civilian target in a neutral country would be a far greater criminal act, murder to be precise and what was revealed in the leaked document was evidence of conspiracy.
Surely you're not suggesting that the Official Secrets Act should be used to protect a criminal?
Magnitude is not the issue, at what point do you NEED to follow your conscience?I thought that the whole problem started because two leaders did exactly that!
Jeemag_USA
14-May-07, 23:32
Actually they have bombed offices of Al Jazeera twice in the past, the Iraq offices and the Afghanistan offices. Both times they claimed it was in error, collateral damage, the contents of the leaked document make that look even more unlikely than ever.
Of course, but had this attack for example had been targeted for their headquarters in Qatar, it would be a lot harder to cover up as an accident, unless you just happened to have troops there on maneouvers? This would have to be an underground operation made to look like someone else did it, when you look at the proximity of Qatar it would be pretty hard to blame it on a stray missile from Iraq, but it might be easy to blame it on a some kind of attack from Iran which is not a member of the Arab Nations League, just an example. Qatar supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war but since then their relationship has been somewhat improved, and there is a realtively large Iranian population in Qatar so it would not be hard to drum up a story, not saying that was what was on the cards but you can't rule it out.
fred,
You'd better get into practice - it'll soon be B-R-O-W-N........[lol]
fred,
You'd better get into practice - it'll soon be B-R-O-W-N........[lol]
Now now MP, you will be accused of trolling/stalking by jeemag [lol]
I thought that the whole problem started because two leaders did exactly that!
What made you think that?
North Rhins
14-May-07, 23:47
Fred,
At what point, in your opinion, does a secret no longer deserve to be deemed a secret?
When would you justify a person, who is subject to the Official Secrets Act, divulging information to the public domain?
How would you account for this persons behaviour within the Act?
Who would, ultimately, decide whether a persons apparent breach of the Act is legal or illegal?
Jeemag_USA
14-May-07, 23:50
Now now MP, you will be accused of trolling/stalking by jeemag
I bring it to attention when it definately does take place because for some reason its only noticed when certain people do it :roll: I am sure most of you agree if your not going to counter the discussion that has been set forth with something relevant then why bother to comment, no? ;)
Do you think that comparing these two with that of the Holocaust is appropriate? Are they both of the same magnitude?
I think it is very appropriate.
The reason the document has been suppressed is because it shows the true nature of the President of the United States. If a similar record of a meeting between Hitler and Mussolini had existed and been published in Germany perhaps the Holocaust may never have happened. The document wouldn't have had to have been about the Holocaust itself, once someone decides that murder of the innocent is justified to further a higher cause there is no telling where it will end and enough people in Germany may have realised that.
changilass
15-May-07, 00:10
Is there not some special dispensation within the official secrets act that allows information to be given out if it can be proved it is in the public interest???? Or is this just something I have been led to believe???
Please don't shout at me if I am wrong, full of the cold and feeling very fragile
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 00:16
Another good example of breaking agreements in order to expose something that people should know about was Jeffrey Wigand the once head of Brown Williamson Tobacco Co. who went public with secrets to expose the fact tobacco companies were altering the chemical compounds within cigarettes to make them more addictive. Common sense prevailed and he was not jailed but it did ruin his marriage and brought a lot of mysterious cloak and dagger stuff apon himself, but i bet he slept better after it.
How can a story be deemed to be suppressed when it is printed in a newspaper?:roll:
j4bberw0ck
15-May-07, 08:46
Is there not some special dispensation within the official secrets act that allows information to be given out if it can be proved it is in the public interest???? Or is this just something I have been led to believe???
Please don't shout at me if I am wrong, full of the cold and feeling very fragile
Changi, there's no dispensation in the Official Secrets Act (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/1/newsid_4251000/4251355.stm) for disclosure in the public interest.
You and gealbhan may be thinking of the Public Interest Disclosures Act (http://www.pcaw.co.uk/legislation/legislation.html) - more usually known as the Whistleblower's Act, which covers public employees but which certainly doesn't overlap with the OSA.
Keep on at the lemon and honey...... :D
Fred,
At what point, in your opinion, does a secret no longer deserve to be deemed a secret?
When would you justify a person, who is subject to the Official Secrets Act, divulging information to the public domain?
How would you account for this persons behaviour within the Act?
Who would, ultimately, decide whether a persons apparent breach of the Act is legal or illegal?
To divulge a secret should be illegal when it harms the defence or security of this country not to cover up a criminal conspiracy.
People have been convicted of Conspiracy to Cause an Explosion on a lot less evidence than is contained in that document. Could you explain the difference between blowing up a tube train and blowing up a newspaper office to me? If someone in another country had prior knowledge of the plans for 7/7 do you think it would be right for them to be sent to prison for trying to make those plans public?
Metalattakk
15-May-07, 10:26
I don't get it fred. What exactly are you trying to say? All this 'beating around the bush (sic)' is becoming tiresome.
Out with it man, say what you really mean!
He just said exactly what he wanted to say, whats so difficult to understand about it, your post is nothing short of trolling trying to provoke and argument.
Only thing I'm trolling for is laughs. God knows, some of these threads need some humour injected.
Only thing I'm trolling for is laughs. God knows, some of these threads need some humour injected.
We are talking about dropping large amounts of high explosives on innocent human beings here, real human beings who feel pain, have hopes and dreams and families to grieve for them, partners and children who need them.
We are talking about two people in prison because they have a conscience and the President of America does not.
Hard to think of a punch line for that.
If a similar record of a meeting between Hitler and Mussolini had existed and been published in Germany perhaps the Holocaust may never have happened. The document wouldn't have had to have been about the Holocaust itself, once someone decides that murder of the innocent is justified to further a higher cause there is no telling where it will end and enough people in Germany may have realised that.If you believe that then you will believe anything that suits you. I suggest you look at the way old Adolf dealt with people who tried such behaviour and their relatives and friends. Piano wires and meat hooks were not for the use of Musical Butchers!
How many Countries had the Storm Trooper marched into before anybody decided he was being ever so slightly aggressive and that was in front of the whole World, not from a leaked confidential meeting!
The fact that you cannot see any difference between the behaviour of Hitler and Stalin and that of Bush and Blair says an awful lot about your attitudes and how you perceive the World.
Perhaps somebody should have leaked the details of the non-aggression pact between Stalin and Hitler and their agreement to divide Poland between them.
Would that have made any difference because, even when it was put into action the World carefully chose to ignore one half of it and view it in a very warped manner.
People with certain Ideals are still happy to ignore the fact that Stalin sent far more people to their deaths in Slave Labour Camps than Hitler.
No, that is not to make light of how Hitler behaved but rather a comment on how some people are willing to try to make others believe a very twisted and one sided view of things.
First of all the contents of the letter were not divulged to the media in court. The allegations about it containing threats to the offices mentioned was published once in the Daily Mirror in 2005. The judgein the case referred to this simply stating that the report was untrue - so the bottom line is we dont know what was in the letter
This makes me uncomfortable. I dont like that the official secrets act is used to simply protect someone's reputation, however I do know that any civil servant at any level, knows the penalties for disclosing information to the press or unauthorised people.
I dont think this country is as much of a democracy as it could be but i do think it is relatively free within the confines of our own legislation. You cant pass on secrets but neither can you kill someone and expect to get let off.
The law is the law and there are steps contained in the PIDA act i beleive that show what you need to do to protect yourself if you are passing on something that you beleive is sensitive -simply handing to someone else and hoping they willdo your dirty work for you is not on
Metalattakk
15-May-07, 15:25
We are talking about dropping large amounts of high explosives on innocent human beings here, real human beings who feel pain, have hopes and dreams and families to grieve for them, partners and children who need them.
We are talking about two people in prison because they have a conscience and the President of America does not.
Hard to think of a punch line for that.
And you're using the same to beat your anti-Bush/Blair/Whatever drum.
Which is more reprehensible?
Oh, and if you think I was laughing at those affected then think (or read) again. I was clearly laughing at you.
And you're using the same to beat your anti-Bush/Blair/Whatever drum.
Is it me or the noise from Fred and his beating drum, but I never heard Fred or his cronies condemning Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for the carnage and loss of life they have done, not only to infidels such as ourselves but to their own Muslim brothers.
Mr Blair as he said earlier did what he believed was right, so Fred is Bin Laden right also?
Aye, but AL Jazeera is a pretty good news agency. The fact that they show both sides of an argument and many perspectives, may make some feel uncomfortable.........you have to ask why?
And you're using the same to beat your anti-Bush/Blair/Whatever drum.
Which is more reprehensible?
There is nothing reprehensible in making the facts the media neglect known to the people here.
Oh, and if you think I was laughing at those affected then think (or read) again. I was clearly laughing at you.
That's the trouble with the clique resorting to personal insult instead of intelligent debate, before long the children start to copy them.
First of all the contents of the letter were not divulged to the media in court. The allegations about it containing threats to the offices mentioned was published once in the Daily Mirror in 2005. The judgein the case referred to this simply stating that the report was untrue - so the bottom line is we dont know what was in the letter
The White House has admitted the report was true, they claimed the President was only joking about killing and maiming a few dozen innocent journalists. Those who have read the document say it was obvious from the language used he wasn't and that Tony Blair had some difficulty dissuading him.
Aye, but AL Jazeera is a pretty good news agency. The fact that they show both sides of an argument and many perspectives, may make some feel uncomfortable.........you have to ask why?
Yes there seem to have been a lot of journalists killed in this war, 102 to be precise compared to 68 in WWII. British and American journalists have to be "embedded", they can only report what the army lets them report, foreign journalists have to be controlled in other ways it seems.
All part of the fight for freedom and democracy I suppose.
Is it me or the noise from Fred and his beating drum, but I never heard Fred or his cronies condemning Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for the carnage and loss of life they have done, not only to infidels such as ourselves but to their own Muslim brothers.
Mr Blair as he said earlier did what he believed was right, so Fred is Bin Laden right also?
You have never seen me condone any illegal act of terrorism.
You are the ones who do that.
You have never seen me condone any illegal act of terrorism.
You are the ones who do that.
But never seen you condemn Bin Laden in the same tones as you do Bush & Blair. You say AL Jazeera give a fair and honest view, I agree they show both sides, but that IMO makes you even more biased in favour of Bin Laden
I have always been proud of the fact that I have lived in countries that support free-speech. The ability to question the actions of our leaders is something we should be very proud of.
We all know how reprehensible the acts terrorists and other have war have done.
I don't have the power to hold other countries' leaders accountable for their actions, but I can hold my own leader accountable. When they start talking like terrorists, when the talk about bombing it saddens me, cheapens us as a nation and cheapens the very difficult job that our troops are trying to do.
Our troops aren't terrorists and our leaders shouldn't trivialize their hard work by talking like terrorists!
But never seen you condemn Bin Laden in the same tones as you do Bush & Blair. You say AL Jazeera give a fair and honest view, I agree they show both sides, but that IMO makes you even more biased in favour of Bin Laden
You should read my posts more carefully.
The Bin Laden family have made a huge fortune in the construction industry in Saudi Arabia and other areas, they own a major share of the Betchel Group which has made a fortune from it's no-bid contracts rebuilding Iraq. Osama Bin Laden's brother Salem bailed out George Bush's failing oil business, Arbusto Oil. George Bush senior also had close ties to the Bin Laden family when he was director of the Carlyle Group in which they had large investments.
During the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden backed by the Saudi Government and the CIA ran training camps for resistance fighters in Afghanistan. He also, backed by the Saudi Government and the CIA, made a database of international mujahadeen who would fight for the Muslim cause, the name of the database was "Al Qaeda".
The Bin Laden family is worth around $6 billion dollars much of which is invested in American corporations and American bonds, you bet I condemn them as well as their partners the Bush family.
How about you? Do you condemn them too? The whole rotten bunch of them?
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 21:52
But never seen you condemn Bin Laden in the same tones as you do Bush & Blair. You say Al Jazeera give a fair and honest view, I agree they show both sides, but that IMO makes you even more biased in favour of Bin Laden
I myself do condemn Bin Laden, Saddam and Mullah Omar and anyone else who tries to kill people, but I will also make my feelings known that George Bush and successive american governments before him have put more people in danger than Bin Laden has and killed more inoccent people for a cause than he has. So where do they all fit in the worlds top chart of nutjobs?
Al Jazeera have as much right to their peaceful existence as the BBC, CNN, FOX, CBS, ITV or whoever, and so does the nation of Qatar for that matter, if that is where the bombimg might have taken place.
To allow your own government or someone elses to be party in bombing a public newcasting company in a neutral country for their own benefit is saying that democaracy is not required, neither is free speech, we could always move to a system like North Korea where only one channel is broadcast and no world news is boradcast, only news from within the country and an occasional reference to how nasty the west is?
If an individual feels that Bush is doing more harm to the world than Bin Laden is why would they not use a different tone. I have never once heard you say to Fred, well I disagree with you but your entitled to your opinion even though i think you're wrong. More often it sounds like you and others don't believe Fred should be allowed to have the right to say what he wants to say. Its as easy to say that you constantly bang the lets bash Fred drum as it is for you to say Fred is constantly banging the lets bash Bush/Blair drum.
If someone on this forum does want to be anti-bush or anti blair, are they not allowed to be, or is this not a democratic forum? Why would they always be laughed at or mocked for it?
Also why don't some of you answer the question "Do you think bombing Al Jazeera would be a good idea, or a crazy idea?"
Metalattakk
15-May-07, 22:03
There is nothing reprehensible in making the facts the media neglect known to the people here.
No, that's true. But to use those 'facts' to further your delusional agenda is wrong. In fact, I'd class it as reprehensible.
That's the trouble with the clique resorting to personal insult instead of intelligent debate, before long the children start to copy them.
Ah, the last resort of the struggling conspiracist: The Clique. Watch out, we're all out to get you!
Your laughable claims of some sort of "clique" forming to battle against your forthright and enlightening ramblings (passed off as the truth) is nothing short of hysterical, delusional nonsense.
The simple fact is that people are becoming far too aware of your obvious agenda.
Metalattakk
15-May-07, 22:07
...Its as easy to say that you constantly bang the lets bash Fred drum as it is for you to say Fred is constantly banging the lets bash Bush/Blair drum....
Except one is a direct reaction to the other.
The simple fact is that people are becoming for too aware of your obvious agenda.
Which people would that be then?
Metalattakk
15-May-07, 22:10
I would suggest those people who regularly read your posts. Or are you being obtuse?
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 22:12
Except one is a direct reaction to the other.
If people were fed up with someone beating the same old drum, then why do they keep following along to it, usually if people get fed up with something they stop listening?
I've read enough on this forumto know if Fred posts on any political subject by himself or in someone elses post, you can almost start an egg timer and byt time its done the usual people will be in disagreeing even if they have no interest in the subject.
So obviously there is a select few who enjoy tackling Fred with regularity because they don't seem to get tired of it even though they always say its getting old [lol]
Aye, but AL Jazeera is a pretty good news agency. The fact that they show both sides of an argument and many perspectives, may make some feel uncomfortable.........you have to ask why?
Yes.
We should be asking why one of their journalists, Sami al-Hajj, has been held at Guantanamo Bay for over 5 years with no charges brought against him as well.
Metalattakk
15-May-07, 22:16
If people were fed up with someone beating the same old drum, then why do they keep following along to it, usually if people get fed up with something they stop listening?
I've read enough on this forumto know if Fred posts on any political subject by himself or in someone elses post, you can almost start an egg timer and byt time its done the usual people will be in disagreeing even if they have no interest in the subject.
So obviously there is a select few who enjoy tackling Fred with regularity because they don't seem to get tired of it even though they always say its getting old [lol]
I guess they just can't give up hope that fred will see the light and become a fine, balanced individual without the endless conspiracies to hold his free-thinking back.
;)
You should read my posts more carefully.
The Bin Laden family have made a huge fortune in the construction industry in Saudi Arabia and other areas, they own a major share of the Betchel Group which has made a fortune from it's no-bid contracts rebuilding Iraq. Osama Bin Laden's brother Salem bailed out George Bush's failing oil business, Arbusto Oil. George Bush senior also had close ties to the Bin Laden family when he was director of the Carlyle Group in which they had large investments.
During the Russian occupation of Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden backed by the Saudi Government and the CIA ran training camps for resistance fighters in Afghanistan. He also, backed by the Saudi Government and the CIA, made a database of international mujahadeen who would fight for the Muslim cause, the name of the database was "Al Qaeda".
The Bin Laden family is worth around $6 billion dollars much of which is invested in American corporations and American bonds, you bet I condemn them as well as their partners the Bush family.
How about you? Do you condemn them too? The whole rotten bunch of them?
But you are still not condemning Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for their killings are you? You side track the issue and continue your attack on Bush
I would love a definition of what this "drum" is.
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 22:22
I guess they just can't give up hope that fred will see the light and become a fine, balanced individual without the endless conspiracies to hold his free-thinking back.
;)
Ah so its kind of like a project then, groups of people who wish to impose their norm on another continously to convert them to their way of thinking. Sounds familiar ;)
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 22:25
I would love a definition of what this "drum" is.
You'll usually find the drum on a bandwagon :D
Ah so its kind of like a project then, groups of people who wish to impose their norm on another continously to convert them to their way of thinking. Sounds familiar ;)
Hmmm....sounds more like a conspiracy then [lol]
That's the trouble with the clique resorting to personal insult instead of intelligent debate, before long the children start to copy them.Do I detect a trace of organised paranoia? There seems to be a few people who make habitual use of the words "clique" and "trolling" about people who do not agree with their views.
Could the "clique" possibly be an organised "lets support fred and throw accusations at those who oppose us" clique.
I certainly do not make plans with anybody, either on this forum or any other, as to what support I should give or not give to anybody, but I know of a man who does!
Clique - An exclusive (I personally would also add the word ‘secretive’) set of associates.
Now that does seem describe some posters' actions and behaviour.
But you are still not condemning Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for their killings are you? You side track the issue and continue your attack on Bush
So which part of "you bet I condemn them" didn't you understand then?
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 22:36
Do I detect a trace of organised paranoia? There seems to be a few people who make habitual use of the words "clique" and "trolling" about people who do not agree with their views.
Could the "clique" possibly be an organised "lets support fred and throw accusations at those who oppose us" clique.
I certainly do not make plans with anybody, either on this forum or any other, as to what support I should give or not give to anybody, but I know of a man who does!
Clique - An exclusive (I personally would also add the word ‘secretive’) set of associates.
Now that does seem describe some posters' actions and behaviour.
Trolling is not about disagrreing with other poeples views provided your sticking to the subject, its about making your first post in a thread a deliberate attempt to start an argument and/or not relating to the subject at hand but stepping in anyway to insult someone else. If life was so perfect that people could come in here with their own view and debate it sensible it would be great, but more often than not it drags down into making attacks on the other persons character in order to emphasise your own belief. You can't have a sensible debate about something if the subject is about the two people sent to jail for divulging secrets and Golach is asking Fred why he will not condemn Osama Bin Laden, what has trying to out Fred got to do with the subject at hand, nothing really, its just something that follows these threads around because people are more interested in winning some kind of mental battle to make themselves look like the compooter desk gladiator than discussing the subject at hand. In the same way there was another thread on here where on of the usual suspects used quotes of a person to attack someone and changed that persons name to something sarcastic to insult him, how can you seriously discuss things with childish rubbish like that going on. Which it is also pointless me making a point of it because another desktop gladiator will come in to show the 'readers on' how mentally (un?)challenged he is.
The Bin Laden family is worth around $6 billion dollars much of which is invested in American corporations and American bonds, you bet I condemn them as well as their partners the Bush family.
How about you? Do you condemn them too? The whole rotten bunch of them?
So which part of "you bet I condemn them" didn't you understand then?
You just condemned the Bin Laden family....but not Osama and Al-Qaeda, as you have not I can only assume that you must support Al-Qaeda and their killing of our troops and innocent civilains and fellow Muslims
Trolling is not about disagrreing with other poeples views provided your sticking to the subject, its about making your first post in a thread a deliberate attempt to start an argument and/or not relating to the subject at hand but stepping in anyway to insult someone else.
That is exactly what the problem is from the orgers who consistently post about Iraq and conspiracy theories thereof.
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 22:47
You just condemned the Bin Laden family....but not Osama and Al-Qaeda, as you have not I can only assume that you must support Al-Qaeda and their killing of our troops and innocent civilains and fellow Muslims
So if you are unable to condemn something that means you must be for it, thats quite an assumption, assumptions can be very troublesome things and some people would say assumptions are a result of not being able to find the right answer, so you can't have a neutral standpoint and have no opinion anymore, what kind of society would we live in if we followed those rules of thought Golach. Are people not within their rights to sit on the fence and have no opinion anymore. So if all the people who come into this thread didn't condemn the two who broke the official secrets act, does that mean they are all for breaking the official secrets act, would be safe to assume that wouldn't it?
Do I detect a trace of organised paranoia? There seems to be a few people who make habitual use of the words "clique" and "trolling" about people who do not agree with their views.
Who would they be then?
Come on, name names then we can find out if what you say is true or just another of your fantasies.
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 22:52
That is exactly what the problem is from the orgers who consistently post about Iraq and conspiracy theories thereof.
Rheg its the single most popular point of discussion in the world today, just because someone posts about it doesn't mean they are trolling, if they were surely the moderators would remove them? You know what I am going to say, if anyone in particular does not want to discuss the subject or are tired of hearing about it they don't need to read the thread nor respond.
I have moderated/administered in a much larger forum than this and I always said "If the fish stop biting, the bait will stop coming" its easy to understand when you think about it. But its very hard to stop biting isn't it. And on that note I'll stop biting now, my point has been well worn out [lol] I'd much rather discuss the subject. Still nobody has cared to quote good stuff like my question on wether it would be a god idea to bomb the offices of Al Jazeera or not and why?
So if you are unable to condemn something that means you must be for it, . Are people not within their rights to sit on the fence and have no opinion anymore. So if all the people who come into this thread didn't condemn the two who broke the official secrets act, does that mean they are all for breaking the official secrets act, would be safe to assume that wouldn't it?
Yes IMO if you dont condemn then you are for, and as for Fred being neutral thats a laugh.
I condemned the two for breaking the law and I agree they should do time for it........I signed the Official Secrets Act a long long time ago.....and I am still covered by it...so what I would not break the law
Rheg its the single most popular point of discussion in the world today, just because someone posts about it doesn't mean they are trolling, if they were surely the moderators would remove them? You know what I am going to say, if anyone in particular does not want to discuss the subject or are tired of hearing about it they don't need to read the thread nor respond.
I have moderated/administered in a much larger forum than this and I always said "If the fish stop biting, the bait will stop coming" its easy to understand when you think about it. But its very hard to stop biting isn't it. And on that note I'll stop biting now, my point has been well worn out [lol] I'd much rather discuss the subject. Still nobody has cared to quote good stuff like my question on wether it would be a god idea to bomb the offices of Al Jazeera or not and why?
So why doesn't fred just post about what he knows best (ie caithness history and stuff) and let Caithness.org address issues that affect its main agenda??? It is him that lays the bait and he knows the fish will bite, so what is the point?? He won't even accept he is wrong so what is the point of his attempt at a debate?
North Rhins
15-May-07, 22:58
Jeemag, your vociferous support of Fred is admirable, if misguided. There is no ‘clique’ on this forum and if you were honest with yourself you would know that. The problem lies fairly and squarely with Fred. His threads and posts are all so one dimensional. You know exactly what he is going to post before it appears. This current thread was started for one reason only, to have yet another dig at his one and only pet subject. It is all so embarrassingly predictable. If you don’t believe me then go back over some of his posts and see for yourself. How many of his threads are on any other subject?
If you are going to post contentious subjects on this forum then you must be willing and able to justify yourself. If someone asks you a pertinent question then it should be answered not deflected by quoting some murky web site or by flying off on some obscure tangent.
This is not a question of denying free speech or stopping anyone from airing their views but I’m afraid that so long as Fred posts the same old rhetoric then he is going to get the same old comments.
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 23:02
Yes IMO if you dont condemn then you are for, and as for Fred being neutral thats a laugh.
I condemned the two for breaking the law and I agree they should do time for it........I signed the Official Secrets Act a long long time ago.....and I am still covered by it...so what I would not break the law
Come on Goalch, I was being theoretical, I didn't even use Freds name, but fair dos if that is your opinion, if your not for your against, I find that a very archaic standpoint but your perfectly entitled to believe that, I don't. I also signed the Official Secrets Act in a previous job, if my conscience ever told me i had to break it I would, but I don't feel I need to bring that up in order to discuss the subject, not something I ever lose sleep over.
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 23:05
Jeemag, your vociferous support of Fred is admirable, if misguided. There is no ‘clique’ on this forum and if you were honest with yourself you would know that. The problem lies fairly and squarely with Fred. His threads and posts are all so one dimensional. You know exactly what he is going to post before it appears. This current thread was started for one reason only, to have yet another dig at his one and only pet subject. It is all so embarrassingly predictable. If you don’t believe me then go back over some of his posts and see for yourself. How many of his threads are on any other subject?
If you are going to post contentious subjects on this forum then you must be willing and able to justify yourself. If someone asks you a pertinent question then it should be answered not deflected by quoting some murky web site or by flying off on some obscure tangent.
This is not a question of denying free speech or stopping anyone from airing their views but I’m afraid that so long as Fred posts the same old rhetoric then he is going to get the same old comments.
Fred most certainly does not need my support nor anyone elses, he manages to keep a handful of you taggin along nicely all by himself :lol: . I share his view on this matter, but in other threads like the Petition against Blair I didn't. I don't need to prop anyone up Rhins nor do I need anyone to support me, thanks for sharing your opinion though.
North Rhins, this is just a tip, not being nasty, but try saying this "but in my opinion is misguided" instead of "admirable, if misguided" it helps a lot and it makes people feel you are simply disagreeing with them rather than being demeaning. You don't know me, if you did you would certainly know I am not a misguided person, I have my own mind and I use it frequently, but I do understand you were probably not trying to be insulting, but words sometimes can fail a person.
Come on Goalch, I was being theoretical, .
I do apologise, I thought you were being theatrical
Jeemag_USA
15-May-07, 23:11
I do apologise, I thought you were being theatrical
Think nothing of it ;)
Still nobody has cared to quote good stuff like my question on wether it would be a god idea to bomb the offices of Al Jazeera or not and why?
They know I'm right, they know I've been right and they've been wrong all along so every time I post more damning proof they just respond with personal attacks and accusations.
On the same theme did you see this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2079878,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront) article in the Guardian today? Like the leaked document it gives an insight into how the minds of the Neocon war mongers work.
An insight into how who's mind works? Perhaps it gives more insights into how the minds of other's work.
They know I'm right, they know I've been right and they've been wrong all along so every time I post more damning proof they just respond with personal attacks and accusations.... Like the leaked document it gives an insight into how the minds of the Neocon war mongers work.
It takes one to know one.
It is funny how your posts always crumble under close scrutiny...:roll:
An insight into how who's mind works?
I would have thought the headline might have given you a clue.
Paul Wolfowitz, Neocon, member of PNAC, Assistant Secretary of Defence at the time of the invasion of Iraq, got promoted to head of the World Bank for his part in the fiasco.
Are these the sort of people we want in charge of the world?
Who would they be then?
Come on, name names then we can find out if what you say is true or just another of your fantasies.Do you think I have anybody in mind? Perhaps you think my comments fit somebody in particular. If you don't then I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
Keep the entertainment coming, I enjoy an 'alternative' view of the world it's so much more entertaining than reality. You never know, if you keep at it for long enough you might even get one or two converts, but don’t hold your breath.
Your picture of the World is not bad but it would be far better if it stuck to the original plot in the book.
Do you think I have anybody in mind? Perhaps you think my comments fit somebody in particular. If you don't then I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
I have no doubt that if there is anything in your mind it will be feeling lonely.
I would have thought the headline might have given you a clue.
Paul Wolfowitz, Neocon, member of PNAC, Assistant Secretary of Defence at the time of the invasion of Iraq, got promoted to head of the World Bank for his part in the fiasco.
Are these the sort of people we want in charge of the world?I didn't know he was in charge of the World. So he promoted his girlfriend. He's not the first and he won't be the last.
It's a molehill made into a mountain by people with political motivations. There are people in power in this Country and in Europe who have done the same and worse and have ended up smelling of roses. One Commissioner in Europe put her Dentist on the payroll and another assisted a foreign boyfriend to fraudulently obtain papers to stay in the Country and gave him a pass for Parliament. One married senior politician managed to dump an inconvenient baby because it would be detrimental to a political career and over thirty years later, when the inconvenient child surfaced, was very publicly overcome by sudden parental affection for the benefit of the Media. Another Minister in this Country tried to get one of his Civil Servants sacked to replace her with his girlfriend. Not to mention the one who was claiming expenses and travelling for his girlfriend who just happened to be married to somebody else at the time.
No, I’m sorry, simply giving a girlfriend a job comes a long way down the list of things people have done wrong. in public life. The Europeans had their knives out for him and were looking for ways to stop him getting the job before he even got it so it’s no surprise that the “anything will do” attitude has surfaced.
Your obvious blinkered outlook is on display again, but don’t worry about it because very few other people do. Most people have far more important things to bother about in their lives than fretting about Wolfowitz and his girlfriend, far more important things.
I must go and decide what to have for dinner tomorrow before something trivial starts to distract me. Darn it, stop the World, I really must check what Wolfowitz's girlfriend's name is, now that really is important! :roll:
Oh, I forgot to answer your question, "Yes!"
I have no doubt that if there is anything in your mind it will be feeling lonely.Oh deary, deary me. What were the comments earlier about people resorting to insults? [lol] What a joke!
I didn't know he was in charge of the World. So he promoted his girlfriend. He's not the first and he won't be the last.
It's a molehill made into a mountain by people with political motivations. There are people in power in this Country and in Europe who have done the same and worse and have ended up smelling of roses. One Commissioner in Europe put her Dentist on the payroll and another assisted a foreign boyfriend to fraudulently obtain papers to stay in the Country and gave him a pass for Parliament. One married senior politician managed to dump an inconvenient baby because it would be detrimental to a political career and over thirty years later, when the inconvenient child surfaced, was very publicly overcome by sudden parental affection for the benefit of the Media. Another Minister in this Country tried to get one of his Civil Servants sacked to replace her with his girlfriend. Not to mention the one who was claiming expenses and travelling for his girlfriend who just happened to be married to somebody else at the time.
No, I’m sorry, simply giving a girlfriend a job comes a long way down the list of things people have done wrong. in public life. The Europeans had their knives out for him and were looking for ways to stop him getting the job before he even got it so it’s no surprise that the “anything will do” attitude has surfaced.
Your obvious blinkered outlook is on display again, but don’t worry about it because very few other people do. Most people have far more important things to bother about in their lives than fretting about Wolfowitz and his girlfriend, far more important things.
I must go and decide what to have for dinner tomorrow before something trivial starts to distract me. Darn it, stop the World, I really must check what Wolfowitz's girlfriend's name is, now that really is important! :roll:
Oh, I forgot to answer your question, "Yes!"
So you see nothing wrong with someone abusing their position of trust for their own personal reasons.
That explains a lot.
wavy davy
16-May-07, 13:07
[QUOTE=JAWS;223873]
No, I’m sorry, simply giving a girlfriend a job comes a long way down the list of things people have done wrong. in public life. The Europeans had their knives out for him and were looking for ways to stop him getting the job before he even got it so it’s no surprise that the “anything will do” attitude has surfaced.
I'm with Fred on this. It's clearly corruption and he deserves everything he gets. The American/European divide on his appointment is irrelevant.
j4bberw0ck
16-May-07, 16:17
So you see nothing wrong with someone abusing their position of trust for their own personal reasons.
His politics and CV - and the additional question of whether the World Bank is actually worth having, or just another gravy train - simply aren't relevant.
Fact: he's a senior official in a worldwide, influential organisation.
Fact: he used his authority to arrange his girlfriend's promotion.
Fact: that amounts to gross misconduct.
Opinion: He should have been fired on the spot without the opportunity to resign.
So you see nothing wrong with someone abusing their position of trust for their own personal reasons.
That explains a lot.
I'm sure it does fred. If you take the attitude that it is wrong for one person, neo-con, Iraq War, which seems to be your main concern about him and his behaviour, then you must do the same for all others who behave in a similar fashion.
You must remove at least three-quarters of the World Leaders and the UN would be operating with about two very small countries who were so insignificant that nobody was interested in them.
The humbug here is because of who it is, not his position or his actions. The incident is simply a convenient stick with which to poke at him.
This is obvious from the previous constant moans about the same person vocalised at the least excuse. Had this been the only and indeed the main complaint I would believe it was made because of some sense of distaste for what he is accused of.
The simple fact is that the shock, horror expressed is because there is a dislike of what he has done in the past, which has been brought up here more often than the sun rises.
His sin is for being involved with Bush, Iraq, the Neo-Cons, big business, the World Bank (another favourite "hate institution") and any number of other sins real or imagined.
Both you and certain others have been finding any reason you could imagine to point the finger at him and this is simple another case of that.
Your distaste for people's behaviour is as blinkered and narrow as ever.
But I don't think anybody is surprised about that, but don't worry, one day you might even surprise yourself by having a new idea!
Never mind, a few weeks and you will have somebody new to try to convince us to put on the party "Hate List"!
I love it when things "Go West"!
I'm sure it does fred. If you take the attitude that it is wrong for one person, neo-con, Iraq War, which seems to be your main concern about him and his behaviour, then you must do the same for all others who behave in a similar fashion.
You must remove at least three-quarters of the World Leaders and the UN would be operating with about two very small countries who were so insignificant that nobody was interested in them.
So what you are saying is that in your role as moderator it would be perfectly justified for you to ignore the rules and show favouritism to your friends if most of the other moderators were doing it as well?
So what you are saying is that in your role as moderator it would be perfectly justified for you to ignore the rules and show favouritism to your friends if most of the other moderators were doing it as well?I was wondering when you would resort to that old chestnut, you must be mixing with the wrong people.
Not to worry, I don't mind! :roll:
I was wondering when you would resort to that old chestnut, you must be mixing with the wrong people.
Not to worry, I don't mind! :roll:
You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer the question.
You never answered mine!! Why have you not condemned Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda for killing our soldiers and other infidels and countless muslims?
What was the answer you once gave? It went something like "I answer the questions I choose to answer!"
Nover mind fred, I'm sure you will be able to work the answer out one day all by yourself.
For me to answer it you will have to wait until I am in charge tof the World Bank!
Just accept that, in the meantime, I am an evil capitalist neo-con supporter who is vying for First Place.
If they have broken the law, they have left themselves open to prosecution. However, some spin doctors etc also leak information, and apparently little or nothing is done about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6635333.stm
quote: "Liberty wants new rules to be brought in immediately to cover police officers and civil servants, including government "spin doctors". "
It is only fair that if these spin doctors etc also leak sensitive information the matter should be properly investigated and possibly prosecutions should follow.
What was the answer you once gave? It went something like "I answer the questions I choose to answer!"
Nover mind fred, I'm sure you will be able to work the answer out one day all by yourself.
For me to answer it you will have to wait until I am in charge tof the World Bank!
Just accept that, in the meantime, I am an evil capitalist neo-con supporter who is vying for First Place.
I think from what you have said already the answer is obvious, your lack of a response only confirms it.
If they have broken the law, they have left themselves open to prosecution. However, some spin doctors etc also leak information, and apparently little or nothing is done about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6635333.stm
quote: "Liberty wants new rules to be brought in immediately to cover police officers and civil servants, including government "spin doctors". "
It is only fair that if these spin doctors etc also leak sensitive information the matter should be properly investigated and possibly prosecutions should follow.
Yes it defies all logic. The government can leak lies to the press with impunity but the penalty for leaking the truth is prison. We are living in an Orwellian world where evil reigns supreme.
Yes it defies all logic. The government can leak lies to the press with impunity but the penalty for leaking the truth is prison.
Rubbish. If I told you the submerged speed for the latest UK submarine, which I thought was true, then I'd go to prison, however, if I told you a speed, knowing it to be false then I'm innocent.
Rubbish. If I told you the submerged speed for the latest UK submarine, which I thought was true, then I'd go to prison, however, if I told you a speed, knowing it to be false then I'm innocent.
Is intent not important in that case. Similar to if you sell drugs it is illegal but I think it is also illegal to claim something is a drug, like pot or cocaine, and sell it.
Is intent not important in that case. Similar to if you sell drugs it is illegal but I think it is also illegal to claim something is a drug, like pot or cocaine, and sell it.
Aye I think that is covered by the Emporers New Clothes Act 1745
Is intent not important in that case. Similar to if you sell drugs it is illegal but I think it is also illegal to claim something is a drug, like pot or cocaine, and sell it.
Not a good analogy but an interesting one.
If I was to buy flour and believed it to be cocaine then I would be guilty of attempted possession of an illegal drug. It would probably need some case law to decide it though but if I was to sell flour as an illegal drug knowing it to be flour then I will just be selling flour, I don't think I would be guilty of a crime. If I was selling flour and I thought it was cocaine then I would be guilty of attempted possession with intent to supply.
So how does that relate to someone who speaks nonsense but thinks it is fact?
So how does that relate to someone who speaks nonsense but thinks it is fact?
It doesn't. Speaking nonsense isn't a crime.
So in your eyes Fred is innocent. Sorry Fred - just trying to get these guys to be nice to you once in a while:)
So in your eyes Fred is innocent. Sorry Fred - just trying to get these guys to be nice to you once in a while:)
Oh I don't think anyone with an ounce of intelligence takes any notice of them any more.
I see our Members of Parliament have voted to make themselves exempt from the freedom of information act today.
I see our Members of Parliament have voted to make themselves exempt from the freedom of information act today.
That was a cracker wasn't it.
That was a cracker wasn't it.
Yes, they have legislated against truth, passed a law designed to keep truth from the people. Two people were sent to prison to keep truth from the people, truth is the thing our leaders fear the most.
Which brings us back to why Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera in the first place, they commit the crime of telling the truth to the people, that is why Bush was so afraid of them.
This documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm4g7ujkiO0) is an example of the sort of truth they give us, everyone should see it so in the days to come if there is talk of Iran in the media and in this forum they will know what is happening.
Yes, they have legislated against truth, passed a law designed to keep truth from the people. Two people were sent to prison to keep truth from the people, truth is the thing our leaders fear the most.
Which brings us back to why Bush wanted to bomb Al Jazeera in the first place, they commit the crime of telling the truth to the people, that is why Bush was so afraid of them.
This documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm4g7ujkiO0) is an example of the sort of truth they give us, everyone should see it so in the days to come if there is talk of Iran in the media and in this forum they will know what is happening.
I'm not sure I believe all that Al Jazeera say, as thet are very slanted in their editorial style, but that said I cannot see how Bush could justify bombing them.
I think from what you have said already the answer is obvious, your lack of a response only confirms it.You obviously judge others by your own standards.
You will believe what you want to believe as you usually do, besides I enjoy giving the twitterers something to twitter about.
You obviously judge others by your own standards.
No, I was judging you by your standards which you openly admitted to here.
I'm not sure I believe all that Al Jazeera say, as thet are very slanted in their editorial style, but that said I cannot see how Bush could justify bombing them.
Maybe you prefer the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6672097.stm) nothing slanted there now is there?
Maybe you prefer the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6672097.stm) nothing slanted there now is there?
Well Fred, to be honest if you take all you read in the press as true then you must have some serious issues.
If it were only about a search for the truth, instead of trying to score points.
it's just a slanging match now, and if either side took on board all the facts and decided they were 'ill considered', do you think they'd step up to the plate and say 'woah, scuse please, I may have re-considered my view..d'ya know, i was not taking everything into account, perhaps we could start again!
It's all about keeping or losing face, not right or wrong, Sadly!
Well Fred, to be honest if you take all you read in the press as true then you must have some serious issues.
What makes you think I take anything I read in the press as true?
You accused Al Jazeera of being slanted in their editorial style, they are no more slanted than the BBC, probably less in many respects.
Jeemag_USA
19-May-07, 23:08
If it were only about a search for the truth, instead of trying to score points.
it's just a slanging match now, and if either side took on board all the facts and decided they were 'ill considered', do you think they'd step up to the plate and say 'woah, scuse please, I may have re-considered my view..d'ya know, i was not taking everything into account, perhaps we could start again!
It's all about keeping or losing face, not right or wrong, Sadly!
Nail on the head, exactly right, well said! ;)
No, I was judging you by your standards which you openly admitted to here.I have neither admitted or denied anything about my own actions, you have simply decided to place your own interpretation of how you wish to portray me and that seems simply to be the same misconception certain others have tried to claim previously without much success.
Same sad tired tactics, same sad tired accusations, ah well, whatever keeps some people entertained.
Problem is, only the already converted have the least interest in the game.
Keep banging the drum though, at least it provides something to have a giggle about. I never thought I would warrant so much of your concern, it's nice to know you consider me to be that important. :roll:
I have neither admitted or denied anything about my own actions, you have simply decided to place your own interpretation of how you wish to portray me and that seems simply to be the same misconception certain others have tried to claim previously without much success.
Same sad tired tactics, same sad tired accusations, ah well, whatever keeps some people entertained.
Problem is, only the already converted have the least interest in the game.
Keep banging the drum though, at least it provides something to have a giggle about. I never thought I would warrant so much of your concern, it's nice to know you consider me to be that important. :roll:
I think it is the principle that is important, cronyism is wrong be it from the President of the World Bank or the moderator of a forum. It is one of those things which is inherently wrong like racism and sexism. It is a corrupt practice and I am sad, but not surprised to see a moderator trying to defend it.
I think it is the principle that is important, cronyism is wrong be it from the President of the World Bank or the moderator of a forum. It is one of those things which is inherently wrong like racism and sexism. It is a corrupt practice and I am sad, but not surprised to see a moderator trying to defend it.
Fred IMO "This is a Free Country" and what is your problem with Moderators and Jaws? Are Moderators a sub-culture in your eyes?
What makes you think I take anything I read in the press as true?
You accused Al Jazeera of being slanted in their editorial style, they are no more slanted than the BBC, probably less in many respects.
Did you miss the IF Fred?
Al Jazeera are fairly blatant in their editorial bias, as they have, in some respects please their main audience in the same way as say Fox do in the US.
Not slagging them off, just stating the facts - would you really expect otherwise?
You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make - that although Bush might disagree with their editorial that is not a reason to bomb them.
Jeemag_USA
20-May-07, 13:21
Not wanting to start another USA/Iraq thread, justed wanted to post this story, just thought it was funny that only after it was pushed through and building is started that the people are now being made fully aware of this
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-05/20/content_876346.htm
$592 million for the worlds biggest embassy anywhere and most fortified to be built in Baghdad, its two thirds of the size of the mall in Washington. Now why do you suppose they would need that soddin great thing there? Might be easier to jam other countries communications from such a big building and spy on other neighboring countries. Why woudl they need 1000 people doing office work, they don't even have that many in the Mexico City embassy which is probably the busiest in the world. This is just another case of politicians doing whatever the hell they want and never mind the voting public.
I think it is the principle that is important, cronyism is wrong be it from the President of the World Bank or the moderator of a forum. It is one of those things which is inherently wrong like racism and sexism. It is a corrupt practice and I am sad, but not surprised to see a moderator trying to defend it.I have not defended anything. Once again you are seeing what you want to see.
You are the one who started this thread by defending a person who signed a declaration that he would not make certain things public and then decided that he declaration should only apply when it suited him.
The question you posed was "Is this a free country". As usual you side tracked it into your usual anti-Bush, anti-Wolfowitz fixation. To refresh your memory,
Paul Wolfowitz, Neo-con, member of PNAC, Assistant Secretary of Defence at the time of the invasion of Iraq, got promoted to head of the World Bank for his part in the fiasco. Never mind, I'm sure Wolfowitz must be a hot topic of conversation somewhere but I suspect in most places it would simple raise the question, "Paul Who? Who does he play for?"
Are you suggesting that I am also Racist and Sexist?
Your comments, including your implication that I am not only defending corrupt practice, which I have not, but, by linking it to the behaviour of other Moderators, are implying that they to are associated with "corrupt practices". And you are the one who complains about people resorting to personal abuse and insults.
Don’t worry though, implying the Mods of are guilty of the attitudes you describe is not unusual and is only to be expected from certain quarters.
Keep the entertainment coming fred, it's very amusing.
Have you any idea who is being discussed as a possible candidate to replace Wolfowitz because I am quite sure you will be thrilled by the possibility, especially if the position is offered and accepted by the person concerned.
Al Jazeera are fairly blatant in their editorial bias, as they have, in some respects please their main audience in the same way as say Fox do in the US.
Hardly a valid comparison, Al Jazeera is a highly respected news organisation Fox News is a joke.
Not wanting to start another USA/Iraq thread, justed wanted to post this story, just thought it was funny that only after it was pushed through and building is started that the people are now being made fully aware of this
They are also building 14 permanent bases in Iraq.
But because they promised they wouldn't build any permanent bases when they invaded they are calling them "enduring" bases.
Hardly a valid comparison, Al Jazeera is a highly respected news organisation Fox News is a joke.I'm surprised you trust Al Jazeera, fred, it's organised and run by ex-BBC staff. It is, however, financed by the Saudis which probably means it is fairly accurate in it's reporting.
Jeemag_USA
20-May-07, 14:59
Like your source Jeemag.
The source was yahoo news, when I clicked on it thats where it went, there are other sources if you want them. But as usual you only comment on the source and not the story :roll: Well done.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-04-19-us-embassy_x.htm
The $592 million facility is being built inside the heavily fortified Green Zone by 900 non-Iraqi foreign workers who are housed nearby and under the supervision of a Kuwaiti contractor, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report. Construction materials have been stockpiled to avoid the dangers and delays on Iraq's roads.
Jobs for the boys huh? The company in question undertaking the contract is First Kuwaiti General Trading and Construction, a few years ago they were only worth about $35 million, now they are valued well over a $billion, not surprising when you see who their top 5 clients are now as named on their own website, and they are currently being investigated for slave labor.
-US Army Corps of Engineers, (USACE)
-Halliburton, Kellog Brown & Roots (KBR)
-US Government, Army
-US Government, Marine
-US Government, Air Force for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE), subcontract through ECCI
Not wanting to start another USA/Iraq thread, justed wanted to post this story, just thought it was funny that only after it was pushed through and building is started that the people are now being made fully aware of this
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-05/20/content_876346.htm
$592 million for the worlds biggest embassy anywhere and most fortified to be built in Baghdad, its two thirds of the size of the mall in Washington. Now why do you suppose they would need that soddin great thing there? Might be easier to jam other countries communications from such a big building and spy on other neighboring countries. Why woudl they need 1000 people doing office work, they don't even have that many in the Mexico City embassy which is probably the busiest in the world. This is just another case of politicians doing whatever the hell they want and never mind the voting public.
Looks more like a fortress to me.
I have not defended anything. Once again you are seeing what you want to see.
To refresh your memory:
I didn't know he was in charge of the World. So he promoted his girlfriend. He's not the first and he won't be the last.
It's a molehill made into a mountain by people with political motivations. There are people in power in this Country and in Europe who have done the same and worse and have ended up smelling of roses. One Commissioner in Europe put her Dentist on the payroll and another assisted a foreign boyfriend to fraudulently obtain papers to stay in the Country and gave him a pass for Parliament. One married senior politician managed to dump an inconvenient baby because it would be detrimental to a political career and over thirty years later, when the inconvenient child surfaced, was very publicly overcome by sudden parental affection for the benefit of the Media. Another Minister in this Country tried to get one of his Civil Servants sacked to replace her with his girlfriend. Not to mention the one who was claiming expenses and travelling for his girlfriend who just happened to be married to somebody else at the time.
Did you miss the IF Fred?
Al Jazeera are fairly blatant in their editorial bias, as they have, in some respects please their main audience in the same way as say Fox do in the US.
Not slagging them off, just stating the facts - would you really expect otherwise?
You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make - that although Bush might disagree with their editorial that is not a reason to bomb them.
Would you care to ellaborate on what you consider their editorial bias to be? Who do you consider their main audience to be? Just interested, as I find their reports pretty balance, and they certainly have many "enemies" in the Middle East.
Thos unfamiliar with Al-Jazeera can have a gander at their website:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm
Think this may be an interesting book, will have to keep an eye out for it when published:
http://www.amazon.com/Mission-Al-Jazeera-Bridge-Change/dp/1403979057/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1573032-2899045?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179680148&sr=8-1
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.