-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Do you think you could pass a driver's licence test without any preparation?
America & UK Inc.
- Thread starter kilo39
- Start date
Yes Foreign Policy is open to discussion with 'our' largest media baron but cannot be discussed with members of parliament.
So the media baron, and Tony Blair (including Gordon Brown) and probably George Bush (he has his own guilt trail) were all party to this plan: how best to present the spin of their invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq. I expect Murdoch was there from the beginning: convincing the world of WMD when there was none. Yes, imminent threat (the news said so.)
Now let's see: between 'their' propaganda unit:
"The unit would monitor U.S. and foreign press reports and highlight stories that were 'missing key elements,'" he writes. "It then would quickly send information to congressional and press contacts 'so people could see the rest of the story.'"
[source]
and sponsoring terrorism:
"The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan," the London Telegraph reported yesterday.
[source]
and creating false wars and certainly creating no peace I ask: what is this horror? Surely its name is fascism?
And that qualifies as no reply at all. Yes damning MSM: ooh turns out Murdoch (owner of Fox and Sky) is their propagandist exactly as suspected and stated. But no WE can invade other countries on a whim and trash the muslims (oh they have nothing to say) I wonder why?Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Typical
Could it be because MSM like Fox News gives them no voice besides the stories of terrorism? Could it be because George Bush, Tony Blair, etal have a plan for domination otherwise known as fascism? Could it be that the attacks on human freedom, the atrocity that is the bush, blair/brown government is tacitly approved, promoted by the likes of Fox news and Rupert Murdoch?
At least (after prodding) alanf can stand up and crack a joke (says nothing of the rest of rightwing zealots on this forum.) Those who believe the lies, lap it up. Yes alanf weren't you the one running endless MSM bashing threads? Turns out your MSM is actually the propaganda wing of blair bush government.
And the fact is: all the evidence points to their (bush, blair, brown) fascism (what then of 911?)
This is just getting nasty, can't you just change the channel and curtial some that anger?
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Why?
If people are dying, we should be sad. If they're being killed for empty reasons, we should be angry.
Unfortunately its the truth (and that's why I get angry.)
//and you're asking to ignore it: I refuse to ignore the ignominy of any government.
//especially when done in my name!
Last edited:
Then defend both sides, if it does truly make you sad. Innocent people die on all sides of any war.
There is no need for people to be dying when wars are made of lies.
The Iraq war is one solid lie.
The threat of Iran is one solid lie.
The israeli/palestinian situation is one solid lie
The jury is still out on 9/11 but that seems one solid lie as well.
Yet you speak of innocent people.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
I take the side that is under-represented in any particular discussion.
And just because innocent people die on both sides of a war doesn't mean that both sides are equally to blame for those deaths. (But equally it doesn't mean that one side is solely to blame for the deaths).
In this case, we seem to have a cabal of politicians and ogilarchs who sought to wage a war for their own personal benefit, and then lied and cagoled the public in order to have their little conflict. They initiated a conflict without there being any true danger, despite being perfectly aware that there wasn't any real danger.
And then we still have claims that Rupert Murdoch and the various publications are on the political left and thus opposed to monsters like George W Bush.
So really, what other side is there? Should I be angry at Saddam for not preventing the war from occuring?
We have a family sitting down at dinner, who are obliterated by a stray missile; or a mother and child sitting at a cafe for the last time before a fanatic takes his life and theirs?
Who's to blame?
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Entirely outside the scope of this thread.
I agree, sorry for getting side tracked. I don't understand the concept of 'who threw the first punch'; which is why I got side tracked.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the concept of trying to see who threw the first punch. More believable though, is not understanding how seeing who threw the first punch applies to this situation. Could you perhaps clarify and explain what you mean?
What do you know, a whole thread dedicated to the radical/extremist/fundamentalist and their supporters/apologists.
source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070622-000002&print=1
source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20070622-000002&print=1
Vox Populi Vox Dei
High Tory
Big surprise there 
Murdoch has always been known to try and gain editorial control of anything he owns, including The Times which acts as a government mouth-piece. That is why the owner of the Wall Street Journal - forgot who it is - is trying to resist the buyout by Murdoch's company. Murdoch has always been known to act as a government mouthpiece because of his links.
However, as usual kilo39 and his liberal buddy Xarog, they have totally missed the boat. At least in the Western world they have free press (although it is been curtailed slowly by white-guilt government ministers and their Muslim buddies). I'd like to see a Middle Eastern country (besides Dubai and the UAE) that legitimately have even 1 "free" newspaper that isn't government controlled.
Murdoch has always been known to try and gain editorial control of anything he owns, including The Times which acts as a government mouth-piece. That is why the owner of the Wall Street Journal - forgot who it is - is trying to resist the buyout by Murdoch's company. Murdoch has always been known to act as a government mouthpiece because of his links.
However, as usual kilo39 and his liberal buddy Xarog, they have totally missed the boat. At least in the Western world they have free press (although it is been curtailed slowly by white-guilt government ministers and their Muslim buddies). I'd like to see a Middle Eastern country (besides Dubai and the UAE) that legitimately have even 1 "free" newspaper that isn't government controlled.
Big surprise there
Murdoch has always been known to try and gain editorial control of anything he owns, including The Times which acts as a government mouth-piece. That is why the owner of the Wall Street Journal - forgot who it is - is trying to resist the buyout by Murdoch's company. Murdoch has always been known to act as a government mouthpiece because of his links.
However, as usual kilo39 and his liberal buddy Xarog, they have totally missed the boat. At least in the Western world they have free press (although it is been curtailed slowly by white-guilt government ministers and their Muslim buddies). I'd like to see a Middle Eastern country (besides Dubai and the UAE) that legitimately have even 1 "free" newspaper that isn't government controlled.
I have to agree, wasn't the western media that brought up no weapons of mass destruction and much more?
effing hipp.... no i won't go there.
I cannot believe the utter stupidity of this post. So Mr Bliar and Mr Murdoch had a few converstations before the start of the war. So what?
Do you know what they spoke of? Where you listening? Maybe it was simple conversations between to mates. Ok probably not, but we will never know.
Nice sources.. decidely biased against the government, but I guess you have to start somewhere right? I am sorry but sites like that don't count much as reliable witnesses, imo.
...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Says who? What proof of this? The Santa Clause is not real is a lie.
I will concede that the way this whole situation has been handled is wrong, but then again Saddam, showed that he is willing to invade other countries and oppress people. The only reason this happened now and not back in 90/91 was because the leaders back then either did not have the balls or where wise enough to know that Saddam was what was holding stablity in Iraq, and they knew removing him whould have been messy.
Sorry if I went off on a bit of a tangent here, but I am so sick and tired of people expecting thier governments and the western world in general (USA, UK in particular) to be there saviours and protect them from the big bad terriorists and criminals and such and get scream and shout and throw their toys out the cot when they do something and heaven forbid get their hands dirty.
I cannot believe the utter stupidity of this post. So Mr Bliar and Mr Murdoch had a few converstations before the start of the war. So what?
Do you know what they spoke of? Where you listening? Maybe it was simple conversations between to mates. Ok probably not, but we will never know.
kilo39 said:
Nice sources.. decidely biased against the government, but I guess you have to start somewhere right? I am sorry but sites like that don't count much as reliable witnesses, imo.
Oh no you didn't not the f word. Maybe you should explain that. Seems not everyone agrees on what it means. Most of the definitions I have seen (wiki) certainly don't look anything like what Bush has done... in fact in many cases the total opposite. Or maybe you mean it has George Owell refers to it here....
...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come. http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
Says who? What proof of this? The Santa Clause is not real is a lie.
I will concede that the way this whole situation has been handled is wrong, but then again Saddam, showed that he is willing to invade other countries and oppress people. The only reason this happened now and not back in 90/91 was because the leaders back then either did not have the balls or where wise enough to know that Saddam was what was holding stablity in Iraq, and they knew removing him whould have been messy.
Why even bother? What does any of this have to do with you? I assume that as you are posting it on a South African forum, that you are in some way south African, either a citizen or living here. If you are someone that is directly affected by this - i.e. living in Iraq or UK or USA, then fine. If your concern is about the media being a mouth peice and propoganda tool of the government, surely your effets could be better focused with worring about SA's media, and how they may / may not be tools of the government here.
Sorry if I went off on a bit of a tangent here, but I am so sick and tired of people expecting thier governments and the western world in general (USA, UK in particular) to be there saviours and protect them from the big bad terriorists and criminals and such and get scream and shout and throw their toys out the cot when they do something and heaven forbid get their hands dirty.
chiskop
Executive Member
Bordering on treason?
So not wanting soldiers to needlessly die invading a country that, outside of the conservatives' fevered imaginations, posed no threat to them, is treason?
(Leaving aside for the moment alanf's tortured definition of liberal extremist.)
So not wanting soldiers to needlessly die invading a country that, outside of the conservatives' fevered imaginations, posed no threat to them, is treason?
(Leaving aside for the moment alanf's tortured definition of liberal extremist.)
Bordering on treason?
So not wanting soldiers to needlessly die invading a country that, outside of the conservatives' fevered imaginations, posed no threat to them, is treason?
(Leaving aside for the moment alanf's tortured definition of liberal extremist.)
No but misinforming and painting misleading stories to undermine their mission and putting their lives at greater risk differently does. Especially when so many "journalists" rely on these soldiers for their own safety while gathering their "stories" that drag the soldiers through the dirt.
It makes no sense to claim "not wanting soldiers to needlessly die" then go out of your way to make their chance of surviving a small as possible.