America & UK Inc.

[Eniigma]

No lets. You are admitting your bias before you even start. In itself should cause some internal questioning, for instance: what do you have against hippies? Are you equally prejudiced towards other people? Are your views excessively rightwing, for instance: do you believe you are superior to other people, for instance, hippies, muslims; or even (god-forbid) black people??! Is your natural bias influencing other areas of your life, for instance: your political view (or your views on an illegal war?!) Is your natural bias such that you cannot form a objective opinion because your subjective reality is so influenced by your fundamental prejudice? For instance against hippies (or perhaps against any opinion that differs from yours?) I advise that you look into those dark corners of your morality and opinion and not curtail yourself when your natural prejudice comes to life, i.e., your curtailed comment on hippies!

Nice, lets come right out and start with a bit of character assassination. Anyway regardless, that was actually meant as a bit of light hearted humour before I started my rant. I tend to have a twisted since of humour.

But to answer your challenge... No I am not nor do I consider myself superior to any person, peoples, race or culture. I might disagree with certain political or religious beliefs but that in no way makes me better.

You keep referring to this "illegal war". What makes it illegal? The United Nations Secretary-General said he it was, but others say it was legal. I have not seen any UN or World Court resolution labelling it illegal and no action taken against them. Or maybe the UN and Word Court are poodles for Bush as well?

What were they discussing that is so secret? If it was/is such a minor thing why did it take numerous requests under the freedom of information act to ascertain the calls had even taken place? No, in a western nation that proscribes western ideals it is unacceptable that a certain part of the media gets briefings, plans or any other detail that is not freely available to all elements of the media (at least) never mind the right to know of the general public when their sons and daughters are dying in an illegal war!

What it is so important about what they where discussing? Should the freedom of information act, require that Blair discuss all his conversations to his wife about last night’s performance in bed? I want to know everything you and your mates discussed last week! Tell me now. Are you going to? No, because it is none of my business.

Here you are, getting all hell bent out of shape, basing your assumption on your bias against this "illegal war" that the conversations between Blair and Murdoch where discussing and giving out confident ional information.

If they where discussing this as you suppose (without any proof) then I totally agree with you, that it is out of line, but we have no proof of what they where discussing.

As I said ...but we will never know. Granted that’s a little unclear, what I should have said is, we will never know what was discussed unless we get some evidence, preferably in the form of audio records or transcripts. Any evidence can be faked and as such we can never be 100% certain of what was said there.

....though in terms of the greater internet Rawstory qualifies as a legitimate source. ....
My quote:
"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.'

I am still not all at convinced that Rawstory is all that unbiased. (Doubt there is any truly unbiased media machine in the world) However I won't argue with you that the unit needed to be shut down. One can equally argue that the unit was there in place to stop propagandist against the US stories from reaching the media, but I won't pretend I am naive enough to believe that was there goal.

Aah quoting George Orwell. Joke not. Notes article was written in 1944, i.e., if there was clear evidence of fascism it certainly existed then and no it didn't include (your list) so yes Orwell was right however he would not be wrong on George Bush.

I stand by the quote from Orwell.. I believe it clearly indicates the way in which the term Fascist has become nothing more then an explicative for people whose politics or thinking you don't agree with. Much in the same way someone would call anyone anti-war a hippy

Originally, the term "fascism" (fascismo) was used by the political movement that ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini (see Italian fascism). Later, fascism became a broader term used to cover a whole class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties and political systems, although no consensus was ever achieved on a precise definition of what it means to be "fascist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Yes it directly relates to the SA government and everybody's freedom in general. I point you at one case, i.e., 'kidnapped and deported illegally on SA soil only to be released months later found innocent and no charge!!

I fail to see how Blair talking to Murdoch relates to this unfortunate incidence. Or are you implying the Murdoch was involved in his kidnap?
Regardless, lets say this chap was involved a plot to blow up a major target in South Africa, would it have then been an issue, if he was kidnapped and taken off to a prison camp? Personally I don't have a problem with the governments doing things like this, if it means I get to sleep peacefully at night not having to fear for my life or family’s life from terrorist attacks. How does this effect me living in SA? Not much, but I happened to be living and working in London 2 years ago when there where those attacks on the transport systems.

The big bad terrorists and criminals? Pray tell: how do you arrive at this view?

That is not some charge slur at the people of Iraq (not that anyone claimed it was). I mean in the general sense when the government goes after those two groups. Whether they are drug smugglers or people planning a bomb attack on a shopping centre in [insert country / town of choice here]. We expect the government to protect us, yet we get all up in arms when the do so.

I'm not one of those. See, I actually think the terrorists do what they do because of stupid actions of the west, like the invasion of Iraq. Western interference in the Middle East has been ongoing for at least the last 50 years. Instead of blowing the whole place to kingdom come, I say the west shouldn't stick its nose where it doesn't belong.

Even if the terrorists are responding to the actions of the west, does that justify their actions? Even so why should it fall to a group of disgruntled people to take action instead of their government?

I assume by that statement quoted above and Kilo39's view on this "illegal war" you believe the US and UK and everyone else should have stayed out of Iraq and the entire Middle East in General? So Iraq should have been left to kill thousands of their own population (http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/) , invade Kuwait. Israel and its enemies should be free to go at it and kill each other off. South Africa should stand back and not get involved in Zim, just close our boarders and every other nation just put blinkers on and not give a damn about anyone but themselves?

Anyway I am tired of fighting, lets are gather for a nice group hug.

 

[kilo39]

Nice, lets come right out and start with a bit of character assassination. Anyway regardless, that was actually meant as a bit of light hearted humour before I started my rant. I tend to have a twisted since of humour.

Oh yes. I was just making a joke. Nevermind starting the character assassination before you even started your post... oh but yes, was really trying to be funny? What is it with you people? Always with the disparaging remarks or troll comments but as soon as you are challenged you HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. No I was just kidding, swear. Sickening.

But to answer your challenge... No I am not nor do I consider myself superior to any person, peoples, race or culture. I might disagree with certain political or religious beliefs but that in no way makes me better.

Well this is surely nonsense. Is it not you who started your post with prejudice against hippies? Therefore you are superior to hippies that you feel you can character assassinate them? Which other people or group do you disparage? How honest with yourself are you really?

You keep referring to this "illegal war". What makes it illegal? The United Nations Secretary-General said he it was, but others say it was legal. I have not seen any UN or World Court resolution labelling it illegal and no action taken against them. Or maybe the UN and Word Court are poodles for Bush as well?

The UN mandate was given on the basis of manufactured evidence. There was no WMD. It had been destroyed as verified over and over again by the arms inspectors. The world court has no juristicion according to Bush (otherwise he would be up on war crimes!) As to the UN: they sanctioned the lies (how do you expect them to withdraw it?)

What it is so important about what they where discussing? Should the freedom of information act, require that Blair discuss all his conversations to his wife about last night’s performance in bed? I want to know everything you and your mates discussed last week! Tell me now. Are you going to? No, because it is none of my business.

Important? You tell me. Why does it take numerous Freedom of Information requests over many months to get a call-log? Freedom of Information requests are not 'frivolous' as you are implying. Yes it is your business when thousands are dying in your name.

Here you are, getting all hell bent out of shape, basing your assumption on your bias against this "illegal war" that the conversations between Blair and Murdoch where discussing and giving out confident ional information.

If they where discussing this as you suppose (without any proof) then I totally agree with you, that it is out of line, but we have no proof of what they where discussing.

If Tony Blair or Rupert Murdoch would like to discuss the golf course perhaps he should use blairs private number! Freedom of Information Act implies affairs of state otherwise there would be no need for the request or its refusal!!

As I said ...but we will never know. Granted that’s a little unclear, what I should have said is, we will never know what was discussed unless we get some evidence, preferably in the form of audio records or transcripts. Any evidence can be faked and as such we can never be 100% certain of what was said there.

We were just talking about the weather I swear!

I am still not all at convinced that Rawstory is all that unbiased. (Doubt there is any truly unbiased media machine in the world) However I won't argue with you that the unit needed to be shut down. One can equally argue that the unit was there in place to stop propagandist against the US stories from reaching the media, but I won't pretend I am naive enough to believe that was there goal.

For goodness sake. Follow your logic. Find it leads nowhere. This thread is about propaganda and manipulation of the media otherwise Murdoch would have no reason to call blair (and tony could have a press conference as a democratically elected leader should!

I stand by the quote from Orwell.. I believe it clearly indicates the way in which the term Fascist has become nothing more then an explicative for people whose politics or thinking you don't agree with. Much in the same way someone would call anyone anti-war a hippy

Ah for goodness sake. Which part of false war don't you understand? Which part of warmongering against Iran don't you understand? Which part of illegal imprisonment, torture and kidnapping don't you understand. Fascist is a suitable label and it will be applied!

Originally, the term "fascism" (fascismo) was used by the political movement that ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini (see Italian fascism). Later, fascism became a broader term used to cover a whole class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties and political systems, although no consensus was ever achieved on a precise definition of what it means to be "fascist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

I fail to see how Blair talking to Murdoch relates to this unfortunate incidence. Or are you implying the Murdoch was involved in his kidnap?
Regardless, lets say this chap was involved a plot to blow up a major target in South Africa, would it have then been an issue, if he was kidnapped and taken off to a prison camp? Personally I don't have a problem with the governments doing things like this, if it means I get to sleep peacefully at night not having to fear for my life or family’s life from terrorist attacks. How does this effect me living in SA? Not much, but I happened to be living and working in London 2 years ago when there where those attacks on the transport systems.

He was not involved in any plot (so no, let's not say he was!) Yes your life. Nevermind the lives of innocent people and their families! (What is wrong with the picture??!)

That is not some charge slur at the people of Iraq (not that anyone claimed it was). I mean in the general sense when the government goes after those two groups. Whether they are drug smugglers or people planning a bomb attack on a shopping centre in [insert country / town of choice here]. We expect the government to protect us, yet we get all up in arms when the do so.

Yes protecting us against innocent people (because they have a suspicion?) So now we can torture, imprison hundreds because of 'a suspicion?' What world do you want?

Even if the terrorists are responding to the actions of the west, does that justify their actions? Even so why should it fall to a group of disgruntled people to take action instead of their government?

Perhaps because they don't have a government. Perhaps their government has been illegally imprisoned for instance the example of Israel!

I assume by that statement quoted above and Kilo39's view on this "illegal war" you believe the US and UK and everyone else should have stayed out of Iraq and the entire Middle East in General? So Iraq should have been left to kill thousands of their own population (http://hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/) , invade Kuwait. Israel and its enemies should be free to go at it and kill each other off. South Africa should stand back and not get involved in Zim, just close our boarders and every other nation just put blinkers on and not give a damn about anyone but themselves?

FFS. Invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War 2 are completely different issues and circumstances. One was based on truth the other is based on lies! Same for any other situation that requires a conscience.

Anyway I am tired of fighting, lets are gather for a nice group hug.

I don't think so while thousands die. Blair (brown) and bush etal make me sick. I can see the blood dripping off their fingers (but you want a hug?!)

 

[Eniigma]

Yes, it was a joke. Admittedly inappropriate and in poor taste, but that does not change the fact. You calling me a liar or implying I am some coward that changes my intention as soon as someone challenges me won’t change the truth behind that statement.

I am going to ignore all this other stuff as I think a lot of it was going off the topic and will stick to what I believe is the crux of this whole argument.

Important? You tell me. Why does it take numerous Freedom of Information requests over many months to get a call-log? Freedom of Information requests are not 'frivolous' as you are implying. .... If Tony Blair or Rupert Murdoch would like to discuss the golf course perhaps he should use blairs private number! Freedom of Information Act implies affairs of state otherwise there would be no need for the request or its refusal!!

What here is the real issue for you? That Blair and Murdoch spoke before the war? Or that it took so long to get the information that they spoke?

For me the key issue, the reason I got heated about this whole issue, was because of people getting heated over them speaking. More accurately because people where getting all bent out of shape over them speaking when they have no idea what they where talking about. You are so blinded by your rage over this war, that you have tried and convicted them in your mind with out any evidence. Nowhere in the original article does it mention what phone was used. Tell my do you honestly think the Mr Blair has a private phone that is free from monitoring? Do you really believe that he and Murdoch would not have used that phone then if they where doing something wrong? As you said "[it] implies affairs of state" so if they where discussing private things, like say the round of golf they are going to play, there is no reason for them to disclose that information.

Honestly ask yourself, how do justify pronouncing them guilty without any knowledge of the subject or contents of those calls?

I concede that they where probably discussing more then the golf, but probably is not definitely. That’s what I have an issue with over this whole thread.

oh and one last thought... I don't really want to hug, but I think you need one (in case you missed it, that’s my humour again)

 

[kilo39]

Yes, it was a joke. Admittedly inappropriate and in poor taste, but that does not change the fact. You calling me a liar or implying I am some coward that changes my intention as soon as someone challenges me won’t change the truth behind that statement.

Which statement was that exactly? Your prejudice against hippies (and others?) or your 'defense' against secret phone calls between Blair and Murdoch? I mention 'challenge' in reference: as soon as you are challenged it becomes a joke (exactly as stated by you.)

What here is the real issue for you? That Blair and Murdoch spoke before the war? Or that it took so long to get the information that they spoke?

For me the key issue, the reason I got heated about this whole issue, was because of people getting heated over them speaking. More accurately because people where getting all bent out of shape over them speaking when they have no idea what they where talking about. You are so blinded by your rage over this war, that you have tried and convicted them in your mind with out any evidence. Nowhere in the original article does it mention what phone was used. Tell my do you honestly think the Mr Blair has a private phone that is free from monitoring? Do you really believe that he and Murdoch would not have used that phone then if they where doing something wrong? As you said "[it] implies affairs of state" so if they where discussing private things, like say the round of golf they are going to play, there is no reason for them to disclose that information.

Honestly ask yourself, how do justify pronouncing them guilty without any knowledge of the subject or contents of those calls?

I concede that they where probably discussing more then the golf, but probably is not definitely. That’s what I have an issue with over this whole thread.

The phone calls were made to Downing Street, home of the PM. No telephone call of the PM should be a state secret unless specifically so under the State Secrets Act. So now telephone calls between Murdoch and Blair are state secrets? WHY? (And WHY does it take numerous Freedom of Information Requests: and note, we still don't have the information. No they were not private calls otherwise they would not be STATE SECRETS.)

oh and one last thought... I don't really want to hug, but I think you need one (in case you missed it, that’s my humour again)

Nope. Still don't see the humour.