Slashdot Mirror
BBC Buys Google News Keywords In Kelly Case
foreign devil writes "BBC has purchased keywords related to coverage of the Hutton Inquiry in an attempt to direct all traffic to their special news coverage. This would be only moderately interesting, except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier. The article in the Guardian says this is coming out of the GBP 63.5m ad budget. I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google." It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.
This guy is just being a bastard with this line, "I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google."
vampirical
Yet we'll publish it anyway.
The BBC is a giant entity, they can't magically coordinate all this... I'm sure somewhere in their halls there isn't a dogmatic poster proclaiming:
1. Sex-up Iraq dossier
2. ???
3. Profit!
With #2 circled and 'GOOGLE ADWORDS' scribbled next to it.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
The fair and balanced dept seems to be shrinking these days.
So the Englishmen went the pond to buy themselves some keywords to use over tea and received the merchandise in a Kelly case - it takes a lot of money to buy keywords in such magnificent cases, I tell you. News indeed. I wonder if my rights online are part of their deal.
All your Dr. Kelly are belong to us. - BBC
"alledgedly"
Ben
Work Safe Porn
One could argue that the Beeb pushed Dr. Kelly to suicide, but calling them "complicit in ... the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier" is somewhat bizarre. Are we missing a relative clause here or what?
Is this a slightly wordier verion of the 'is it wkack' troll? ;)
The BBC claimed the weapons dossier was sexed up, and claimed to have a HIGH RANKING official who told them this. As it turns out, Kelly was the source, and not only was he not nearly as senior as the BBC claimed that he was, but he was not in a position to know what he claimed to know. Then he suddenly winds up dead.
Imagine if SCO bought up key words on their suit against Linux. Now imagine they're a news outlet to boot. Kinda stinks, doesn't it?
Seems their adword budget ran out. The adword links don't appear on "hutton report" or "hutton enquiry" anymore. At least not on google.co.nz, google.com or google.co.uk.
The top non-ad links are the BBC, but that is more than likely due to the fact that the BBC is generally considered a _very_ good source of news, with a great reputation.
As for the whole sexing up discussion, I'll wait until after I've seen the report. :)
I'll go to a new source other than the BBC, since they are obviously trying to skew the news surrounding the case by buying up these Google results.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
According to the newspaper (the Sun), Lord Hutton criticised the BBC and its reporter Andrew Gilligan over a broadcast suggesting Downing Street inserted a claim that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.
"I am satisfied Dr Kelly did not say the Government probably knew or suspected the 45-minute claim was wrong before the claim was inserted in the dossier," Lord Hutton is reported as finding.
"The allegation reported by Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew the claim was wrong or questionable was unfounded."
As a result, the program's listeners were given a misleading impression that the Government "embellished" its dossier.
The British newspaper, The Sun, has gotten its hands on a leaked copy of the report, from which this above information is drawn. Dr. Kelly killed himself after it was claimed he was the one to give the 45 minute quote. Therefore, the BBC is complicit.
BBC should track the referrers. If the person comes from Google, instead of displaying a news page, they should display a giant banner proclaiming
"You are the victim of a shameless advertising experiment.
Footnote: We are not liable for any self-inflicted damage after reading this page"
webpage
...except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier...
Actually, the BBC was citing Dr. Kelly to criticize the 'sexing up' done by the british government. Then the government revealed the name of Dr. Kelly as the source, leading to pressures on him. So I don't think the BBC is really complicit in his death and it's definitely haven't 'sexed up' the Iraq dossier.
Of course, I still find what they're doing with google questionable at best.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I have tried the obvious search strings "kelly suicide", "Hutton report", "Iraq war", suicide, murder, bbc, labour government, in various combinations without seeing any adverts. Perhaps the ads are only being targeted at non-UK residents, or perhaps they only start appearing after the report is published in a few hours time? Has anybody actually seen Kelly/BBC related ads on Google yet?
I hardly ever read the colored boxes on the right. They're more ads than anything. Getting results like 'Read the gravitational fields Ebook on Amazon.com' doesnt entice me to look to the right side of my screen. I'll read the normal results over the right-hand side results any day of the week, thank you.
The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
no one worth there own pocket change claims the BBC has no bias. it just has bias similiar to a lot of people who read news
everyone is bias, as some dead person once said.
Buying Google keywords doesn't redirect searches. It just determines what sponsered links show up.
Doesn't this qualify as an abuse of the Google search service?
I (and I'm sure millions of others) browse through Google results to get the articles and opinions from over the world. Allowing this would mean no fair-an-balanced news via Google anymore.
Google would be wise to come up with way to prevent such abuse IMHO.
I once tried watching the news on BBC America and Fox News in the same evening but it made my head implode.
If they get any further apart they're going to meet.
Anyway I'd prefer a left bias to a right bias. At least with a left bias, the arguments are intelligible. With a right bias, reason is thrown out the window, facts are ignored, and science is tossed in the fire.
And if the Palestinians are not freedom fighters, what are they? Terrorists? After all, they were living on the land before and have to defend themselves somehow. They aren't the ones bulldozing down houses or killing children who pelt rocks at them. They are speaking out and it's working. Every country except for the US is against Israel.
BBC shows the fact like it is. It isn't a CNN or Fox News, which are both controlled by the US.
Independant Counsel does a report for Congress on who knew what and when and who ordered what and why.
NPR buys keywords so they can ??
You get the picture. Fortunately nothing like this could ever happen in the US so go back to sleep citizens, theres nothing to worry about.
Only the names have been changed to protect the writer from defamation action.
"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""
history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google
Google would pull the ad as soon as it appoaches the daily limit. You might be able to mute the ads by seeing to it that you're the only one who sees them, but you wouldn't be able to drive them over their budget.
Haha, idiots.
Welcome to the Internet, Grandma!
Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
Uh, it would be less accurate because we have history. By your logic, we could call anyone who kills people a "freedom fighter". The reason we call our forefathers heroes is because, in hindsight it looks like they did good things. We can't say that here. So, reserve all judgement on the palestinians because we just don't know, and won't for quite a while.
history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them.
You contradict yourself. Terrorists attack civilians, while the military are always legitimate targets.
Palestinian groups don't attack the Israeli military - the military has lots of guns, and shoots back. Blowing up Israeli children is so much easier.
If your group claims to be "freedom fighters" in an allegedly legitimate resistance, deliberately attacking innocent civilians makes you a terrorist group.
Why would anyone assume that the "sponsored links" are somehow independently managed by an editor? So what if the BBC comes out on top--it just means that they paid the most.
In my mind a news organization has the right to actively defend itself when it itself is being accused of a crime--just as any other entity would...
Well, at least Google doesn't has as much power as I originally thought when I read this headline. Seeing the phrase "Buys Google" really caused be to tense up. The thought of a major media outlet buying Google is unthinkable.
Before we all don our tin-foil hats, its worth pointing out that the episode of Panorama (a highly-respected current affairs programme) which aired last Wednesday was highly critical of the BBC involvement in the Kelly business. Which channel did it air on? That would be BBC One. Don't beleive me? Check out this story on the BBC website.
In light of this, it's pretty peverse to suggest that the BBC has gone to any lengths to hide or downplay their involvement in the whole affair. I myself think the Google ad buying is simply part of the BBCs shift towards positioning itself as more of a 'regular' media player (albeit with public funding), as opposed to the state-run service which it originated as.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
JUST READ EM
Yes...sniping at officers who are in uniform by other solider is acceptable.
Sniping at civilians isn't. Now if you are an irregular not in uniform and snipe and are caught, you can be summarily executed.
That's an accepted fact for the last...3-400 years.
Now during the American Revolution...very limited warcrimes were carried out by both sides as did irregular operations against other irregulars and against uniformed soldiers. Fellas like Nathan Hale were hung by the British for being soldiers out of uniform...thus a spy.
The North did carry out military operations against logistical targets in the war, however they did not attack civilian targets for the sake of attacking civilian targets, and the North isn't hailed for it's operations in the war...it's considered an agressor and in large parts of the country...they are considered war criminals...no matter how clean a campaign might have been.
Reading this article I'm surprised that The Guardian (very respected UK daily newspaper) have missed one of the more important aspects of the BBC (must highly respected news broadcaster in the world) buying Google search keywords related to the Hutton inquiry. This action will cause the BBC to appear as a link on any website mentioning the Hutton inquiry that uses Google advertising banners on its pages, not just on Google search results pages.
... Google is automatically directed to a paid-for link to BBC Online's own news coverage of the inquiry."
In taking this action, the BBC will be inexorably linked with the Hutton inquiry as a source of information, rather than having an major role in the events that have led to it.
I would also question the use of the phrases "buying up all internet search terms relating to the inquiry" and "anyone searching for "Hutton inquiry" or "Hutton report" on
The first of these phrases implies the BBC is attempting to prevent others from using these keywords by buying Google's entire stock. This is obviously false, as anybody can buy Google's keywords and there is an unlimited supply.
The second of these phrases states that uses will atuomatically be directed to the BBC Online site when searching for 'Hutton enquiry'. This is blatantly false. Instead, a link to the BBC Online coverage will be displayed amongst a separate list of clearly demarcated sponsored links.
Buying advertising to negate the effect of negative crticism is a well-established business practice for which The Guardian (and indeed all other media which provide advertising facilities) have long served as a platform for.
What's far worse than the implied misdirection by the BBC in The Guardian's article is the blantant misreporting of opinion as fact in the Slashdot headline. Stating that the BBC is 'complicit' in the death of Dr Kelly is factually incorrect, not to mention libellous in the extreme.
...Terrorists attack civilians, while the military are always legitimate targets.
I have often wondered if the U.S. Military HQ the pentagon is considered a "Legitimate" target. If it were the only 9/11 target would we all respect and admire UBL as an equal adversary on the battlefield? Don't think so. If *you* don't like them then you rationalize that they are evil.
Let me guess, you think Fox News is "Fair and Balanced" right?
It puts every fact - when issued by the Blair govt - in quotes, to make it look suspicious
Yea, that really bothers me too. Things like Saddams WMDs. I wish they had just reported as fact that Saddam had WMDs, like we did here in the US. It is totally rediculous that a news agency would question the government.
Seriously, it's clear what the guy wrote was what he thought. But by all means let's not beat him up over the quality of his conclusion jumping but rather his unwillingness to pretend a wink-and-a-nod for the sake of appearences. Clearly it's alleged. (stated as fact without proof), if it was proven I imagine the trials would be pretty much over. Please for the children, who bruise like grapes, and most of all appearences, let's make pointless redundancy mandetory, because the last thing we should be doing is expecting people to act like adults.
The BBC misrepresented Kellys statements and views (largely by ommision) and created the furor that led to him losing his grip. If you are going to claim the Iraq dossier controversy pushed him over the edge, then you have to put a lot of the blame on the BBC for turning what was a difference of interpretation into worldwide controversy. REF
The BBC puts everything in quotes.
At the time of writing the following headlines on the BBC news page contain quotes:
Mydoom virus 'biggest in months'
Martha Stewart 'lied about tip'
'Several dead' in Baghdad blast
'Bribery' halts Kenya graft probe
Obviously the put those headlines in "scare quotes" to make them seem more suspicious!
And if the Palestinians are not freedom fighters, what are they? Terrorists?
Yes, they* are terrorists. Murdering innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympic games is a terrorist act. Throwing a wheelchair-bound person off of the Achile Lauro cruise ship into the sea during a hijacking is a terrorist act. Hijacking airliners are terrorist acts. Deliberately targeting civilians are terrorist acts. If you don't believe me, go ask Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch.
*(by they, I mean groups such as Hamas, the PLO, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, etc. The majority of Palestinians are civilians.)
There are civilized ways to engage in warfare, and there are barbaric ways. The Palestinian groups have chosen the path of barbarism to try to get their way.
Now, let's talk about the Palestinian claim to a homeland (which is different from discussing how the Palestinians try to obtain said homeland):
After all, they were living on the land before and have to defend themselves somehow. They aren't the ones bulldozing down houses or killing children who pelt rocks at them.
The "we were here first" argument isn't a good one for you - the Jews were there thousands of years before the Muslims & the Arabs. Islam is only 1400 years old.
The UN (in the 1940s) divided the British Mandate of Palestine into 2 countries, one Israeli, one Arab. This was unacceptable to the Arab nations, and they chose the path of war. And lost many times.
The central issue is not Israel's borders, not land, not water, not the wall, not Jerusalem. The Arab grievance is that Israel exists.
They are speaking out and it's working. Every country except for the US is against Israel.
So, if speaking out is working, why are they blowing up innocent civilians? A recent suicide attack in Haifa killed more Arabs than Jews.
Have you tried it?
I googled for "hutton inquiry" and did not get redirected. The ads appear right at the top, but no redirection.
If you're going to cry, "unacceptable!" here, try it out first.
And I think they are betting that the Hutton report would be favorable to them (which it seems it isnt) and blames Tony Blair for Dr Kellys death (which it seems it isnt too).
"Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes."
Well, I would think that one small difference between the Americans and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" is that the Americans did not sneak into Britain and blow up random civilians, though when you think about it this had been an option available to them at the time. In fact, it would have been stupid for them to have done so because it would have just made Britian much angrier and more inclined to smash the colonies into the ground, just as the acts of many of the Palestinian "freedom fighters" has caused Israel to get really angry and bitter and respond with military action.
Personally I agree with you though about the North attacking civilian targets in the South -- this is a part of American history which I am not particularly proud of.
Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
>> palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters
:)
well, anyone that blows themselves is pretty flexible to say the least... and not likely to ever leave their own home. So, I doubt they'd be very effective freedom fighters.
As for blowing innocent babies... that'll get you 25 to life here in America.
MadCow
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Nah, he was being fucked with, by both. One minute his name wasnt going to be released to the press, the next minute he it was. The press actually played 20 questions with the govt (absolutely true!) to guess his name.
I have often wondered if the U.S. Military HQ the pentagon is considered a "Legitimate" target. If it were the only 9/11 target would we all respect and admire UBL as an equal adversary on the battlefield? Don't think so. If *you* don't like them then you rationalize that they are evil.
The Pentagon is a military installation. If only the Pentagon was attacked on Sept 11th, I don't think UBL would be respected & admired as a result, he's still the enemy.
But it would be difficult to call it a terrorist act. Terrorists attack random civilians.
Did anyone else notice that when you google "Kelly", this story (as in, this /. story) comes up under 'News'?
I guess I knew that googleheads read slashdot, but now google does too!
Ferrari and other exotic car rentals in New York
I'm sorry, but someone has to draw a line in the sand here. The American revolutionaries wanted freedom from the British, and they fought the superior enemy's military and won. That is a HUGE fucking difference than sneaking men and women onto busses with explosives and killing dozens of innocent people, or blowing up religious dinners (but no, they don't hate jews, just "zionists"), or hiding with sniper rifles behind kids throwing rocks hoping one of the IDF accidently hits a 12 year-old.
The Palestinians don't want freedom from Israel, if they did they would have taken the offer of a state they got 3 years ago instead of launching this latest jihad. The palestinians want to destroy Israel because they hate Jews. Do some research and find out about how many of the founding members of the PLO helped recruit soldiers for the Waffen SS. The Mufti of Jerusalem even lived in Berlin during the war, helping Hitler organize military units. Oh yeah, he was related (uncle I believe, it's been awhile) to Arafat. Oddly enough Arafat doesn't use his real name anymore because it ties him directly to the Nazis.
If the revolutionaries in america had said "No thanks, we'll just destroy your country instead" when the British gave up, THEN they'd be no different than the palistinians.
it has for like ever since its inception..
Now that's Jerk City dialogue if I've ever heard it.
It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case)
Yeah, I'd hate for slashdot to become known as a place where people make false claims and jump to unjustified conclusions.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Well, I would think that one small difference between the Americans and the Palestinian "freedom fighters" is that the Americans did not sneak into Britain and blow up random civilians
Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that Britain had belonged to America 50 years prior to the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, although the case in Israel, which belonged to the Palestinian peoples until 1946, it was not the case in the US. Hence, your analogy is completely flawed, and all statements you make after the one I quote above are meaningless.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Frankly I see it as an indication of the poor state of public education in the country.
_nfotxn
With terrorist groups, there's no way to parlay, no way to set peace conditions. In the Civil War, when Robert E. Lee surrendered, the war was OVER. In the Revolutionary War, when the British pulled out, it was also over (at least until the British started enslaving American sailors to fight Napoleon, sparking the War of 1812). With terrorists, there's no victory or defeat, only eternal terror for both sides.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Thanks guys, for responding to my original WHAA post. But I am amazed how some people who probably have soup in their heads, think that blowing up innocent children is okay. THOSE people are terrorists. It is SICKENING to see that these dumb people compare it with the civil war. If that dumb person has a baby, would he want his baby to be blown into 1000 pieces?
As opposed to what PBS and NPR? Name 2 regular conservative hosts on PBS, assclown.
It's especially sad when someone reads one piece of propaganda and goes psycho without considering the motives behind it. The Guardian hates the BBC, and they along with Rupert Murdoch have been trying to get the British government to shut down the BBCs great website, so that more people go to their services.
What exactly is wrong with advertising your side of the story. Most advertisers are interested parties, and the article made it sound like they were preventing other voices from being heard, which is ridiculous.
Finaly
"I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google."
Absolutely nothing.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
You're missing the main difference. The American revolutionaries did not target civilian restaurants and schoolbuses. That's what makes the suicide bombers so despicable. It's who they're killing, not just that they're killing at all.
"The North did carry out military operations against logistical targets in the war, however they did not attack civilian targets for the sake of attacking civilian targets"...please explain the burning to the ground of the entire city of Atlanta, Georgia by Union forces, good sir.
Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that Britain had belonged to America 50 years prior to the Revolutionary War. Unfortunately, although the case in Israel, which belonged to the Palestinian peoples until 1946,
Bull. The land belonged to the British, and the Ottoman empire before that. And if you want to make the "we were here first" argument, you lose, since the Jews were on the land thousands of years before the Muslims & Arabs.
And it was the UN which divided the British Mandate territory into 2 states. This was unacceptable to the Arabs, and they declared war. And lost many times.
During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Actually, even at that time, this tactic was very controversial in the North. And in the South of course it was reviled and led directly to the conspiracy to decapitate the federal government.
history is written by the victors man.
I've ceased to believe this. After looking at the current state of the world I find that the victors write thier history and think that no one else knows any different while the victims (and much of the rest of the world) remember. It's not hard to find grudges in europe that go back thousands of years where the victors thought they wrote history and it turns out that 300 generations later thier decendandts still remeber the old hatred.
At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time.
Not really, I've heard this one said many times. While it wasn't normal it was by no means so extraordinary that one would call it "terrorism". That statement needs a little more backing up than "I said so". The British at the time used it as propaganda but pretty much every known army has *always* done so, it so foolish not to that any and all commanders know to do it.
During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Have you ever been to the south? Having grown up there and currently living there I can tell you that is a *very* reviled thing that Sherman did. It went well beyond "unconventional warefare" even for it's time. Grant tried to reign Sherman in and was pretty much unable to. It is probably the number one reason for resentment between the north and the south today. Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
The reality is that for one side they do, that doesn't make it legitamate. Our American forefathers fought pretty much within the rules of war, many other revolutionaries have also.
A large part of terrorism is attacking civilian targets (not as collateral targets, but as the main targets), as far as I know they didn't attack innocent civilian targets over in england. Neither did the British for the most part. Most of the civil war was fought in the same way, in the places civilians were specifically targeted the victims hate the agressors (no need to look further than native americans for another example). There are few recent wars where people did and in most of those cases it was normal rules of wars (WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever).
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
Erm, no. They call people who blow themselves up, "suicide bombers". They call the militants, "militants". In Iraq, they call the insurgents, "insurgents". Compare to the completely unbiased and independent American media, who refer to all of those under the collective term, "terrorists".
Has it occured to you, that they might be using quotes because they are quoting someone?
The coverage of the Dr. Kelly affair was incredibly poor. That's a large part of the Hutton Inquiry, right?
However, I get the impression, sir, that you are simply part of the angry right complaining that the BBC is not biased to the right enough.
As for blowing innocent babies... that'll get you 25 to life here in America. :)
But blowing up guilty babies... that'll get you a 10% discount at Wal*Mart (TM).
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
The Sun 'sexes up' page three every day.
Oddly, the first paid link that came up when I searched for Hutton at google.ca was version of this very story, about the beeb buying up adwords.
Wacky wacky world.
-- http://vectorvector.tumblr.com/
SCO has bought the google keywords "litigous bastards" and linked them to the Free Software Foundation.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Roses are red
Violets are blue
In Soviet Russia
Poems write you
Berrik
Current karma: Terrible (due to mods without a sense of humor)
That's supposed to be "insightful", is it? Some half-arsed dipshit who mouths off because he doesn't like the angle the Beeb took on one or two stories?
Here's "insightful" for ya: the Beeb is actually very good by industry standards. Actually, it tends to be rather rightist in the angles that it takes. It's "left" of Fox, but "right" of the Guardian. Various individuals in the organisation make dubious decisions, just as with any organisation, but generally, their facts are more accurate than the vast majority of what passes for "news" these days.
However, if it comes down to believing CNN, Fox, or the Beeb, I'll take the Beeb, thanks.
I hope they drive ALL the Arab squatter scum into the desert at gunpoint, and burn every mosque in Israel to the ground (including Al-Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock.)
In fact, most of the heart of the Arab world was once Jewish. This includes Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Israel would be justified in expelling all Arabs from their ancestral homelands, or just killing them, and taking back possession of the oil fields.
I certainly hope they do so, and destroy the Kaaba after defiling it with dog shit and bacon grease. Let them shower nukes on any Muslim shithole if they raise a finger in protest. Jews have taken shit from Arabs long enough.
I want Jewish boots kept on the throat of the murderous Muslim fiends until the sun dies.
-- A Gentile Zionist
That post reminds me of the people that vote "Don't Know" in phone polls.
What was the point?
The Palestinians don't want freedom from Israel, if they did they would have taken the offer of a state they got 3 years ago instead of launching this latest jihad.
No, I suspect you have that correct - They don't want "freedom from Israel"... They want their damn land back! Why should they accept a tiny strip of land, rather than insisting on what they had before?
If I came to your house, kicked you out into the dog-house, and then offered you a "peace treaty" to let you keep the dog-house, would you walk away smiling at your great success at the negotiating table?
I suspect you'd see that situation as a tad bit different.
We hear a very one-sided view of this particular situation, because news outlets (other than the GP's claim about the views of the BBC) greatly fear the "anti-Jewish" label. I used to fear similarly as well, suffering a tad bit of cognitive dissonance as a result, until I realized something VERY important... "Israel" does not equal "Jews" (although it has done its best to blur that point, hoping our memory of WWII will keep us from protesting their actions that, performed by any other country, we would consider as bad as Saddam treated the Kurds). "Israel", though made up of a large number of Jews, exists as a political entity, with its own goals and means, entirely separate from either the race or the religion.
You can observe that "Israel" commits atrocities that make people wonder if they've copied a few pages from Hitler's playbook, without it meaning that you want to put Jews back in camps. You can say "Sharon should stand trial for his actions against the Palestinians", and it doesn't mean you have close-cropped hair and discuss the Final Solution while goose-stepping around your bunker.
See the difference? Try it a bit, and you might feel a lot better. Israel can err. It can commit crimes against humanity. You can admit that, and it doesn't make you a Jew-hater, because Israel has as much to do with Judaism as a philosophy, as Stalin's regime did with actual communism - Just a name.
Oh my fucking word. You've either never read the Guardian or are trolling. Likely, both. You are so unbe-fucking-leivably ignorant. Your ignorance is only surpassed by the fuckwit that thinks your post was interesting.
As in "allegedly committed suicide" ?
Well, none of this really matters to me because I never see Google's ads, actually. Just put... well, I'm sure you all you know a good way to block ads so I'll just share the ad server addys.
pagead.google.akadns.net
pagead2.googlesyndication.com
Loop them back and yer good to go. YMMV
Yeah but when their TV reporters do "air quotes" it looks really suspicious...
+1 attempted humourSo, while where on the topic of fair and balanced lets examine the following 2 situations:
1. Angry people waving flags and guns and quoting from the Koran:
-are called islamic extremists, enemy combatants/insurgents, or even terrorists.
2. Angry people waving flags and guns and quoting from the Bible:
-are called the moral majority, Republicans, or even patriots.
*cough*
The historical European attitude towards Jews (oh sorry, Zionists) is well known.
MOD DOWN, Not Informative. Link to freaky guy.
Dude, you forgot to use the phrase "In this post September 11th world."
Maybe only +4 Funny instead...
Whoa buddy, God has NOTHING to do with these United States of America. And you know what, these terrorists don't give a rat's ass about you or I, or especially our freedom. You have been soaking in too much propaganda. America is a victim of terrorist attacks because of our government's greedy capitalist tactics that trash poorer developing countries and humiliate proud people. I am not defending terrorist tactics by any means, but you should know that from every other country's perspective, the US is the largest terrorist threat in the world (and has killed more foreign people and destroyed more foreign property during "peace" time than any one else).
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
At lease check the link before you moderate someone as informative. It's clearly a picture of that Nazi guy from a few months back on Fark. He's got a huge friggin swastika tatooed on his neck. I'm pretty sure Dr. Kelly wasn't a Nazi biker... was he?
for an english (public)organization.
Haven't you been paying attention? Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he had weapons programme related activities. Please do try to keep up.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Quoting the Sun second-hand by way of the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't really count as a news source. The Sun, as a flagship of Rupert Murdoch's News International has its own axe to grind with the BBC. You can't trust the Sun's "reporting" on anything, least of all about subjects where Murdoch has a vested interest. Your link is about as convincing as if the Sydney Morning Herald had quoted Slashdot.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
It seems that the slashdot effect has taken the Ads down
on google for bbcnews.com on the "hutton report"
Or just maybe, they put things in quotes when they are, um, quoting what somebody said?
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
It's a massive, disparate, semi-controlled corporation where one arm can frequently operate without the others being aware. There is the occasional shitstorm which flies up because of this (when, accidentally, the BBC 6 and 9 o'clock News programs almost entirely neglected the ruling Conservative Party's campaign in one election they went nuts and refused further interviews, threatened funding changes etc.) but on the whole the system balances out, given time.
Hutton is a big story in the UK. I don't work in News (thankfully) but I am willing to bet that what we have is an entirely regular attempt to drive traffic to the BBC for coverage of a major story. The BBC is an interested party, but news.bbc.co.uk couldn't give a damn about protecting Andrew Gilligan, broadcast news or any other part of the corporation.
In another situation, maybe you would have Conrad Black or Rupert Murdoch flaying the different section chiefs about contradictory coverage, or maybe not. But in the beeb, it simply doesn't happen. Nobody knows about anyone else's activities, and if they want to find out they've got to investigate, like journalists should. It's not efficient, but in terms of a free press, it's effecive.
Whatcha been readin? Oh, Noam Chomsky - figures. In your effort to cut through all the propaganda of the US govt. you've allowed yourself to be propogandized by someone else.
"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters"."
It could be said that anyone that's capable of blowing themself isn't a freedom fighter - just very talented.
It certainly should be said that anyone blowing innocent babies should be blown up, Palestinian or not.
fromthewilderness.com has three articles about the death of David Kelly. Interesting reading and more detail than the mainstream news corporations provide.
There is no civilized way to engage in warfare.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Its called historical fact. Documented, historical fact. Have you heard of Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama (and much of Central America)? Ask people that live in these places about US terrorism. Or even our very own Native Americans, hmm were we at "war" with them. Damn, too bad because apparently then we would have been totally justified in slaughtering entire races of people, to suit our greedy-ass ever expanding needs. I mean, we should have been at war, after all, they were living on OUR property and using OUR natural resources. Just like those damn Iraqi's holding all of our oil under their sand. And if you think this war was not about oil, then your head is in the sand. Read a book or two that you were not allowed to read in high school. Now, one can argue with the meaning of documented facts, but one cannot refute their existence. OK, whatever, one can do whatever the hell one wants, but it does tend to make one look silly and ignorant to deny what plainly exists.
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
If you want to make the "we were here first" argument, you lose also. It's plain you haven't done your bible reading! You forgot about the people who were there before the Israelites... the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites, the Jebusites... - And no doubt, there was other people living there prior to them as well.
You underestimate the resentment Israeli actions have created!
Stupid dont you think:
giving away a coutry that isn't yours.
surely americans and their concept of ownership should understand this situation
sure Jews have a "right" to a "homeland", they just do not have the right to occupy, and disrupt an entire peoples.
so
the word freedom fighter is in order.
It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.
That's what Timothy added to the story summary before he posted it. Now, I have to ask: why the fuck didn't Timothy edit or rewrite the submission if he believed it was inaccurate or misleading? (Which, by the way, it was: other posters have pointed this out.)
The editors do a good job of over-extending themselves in so many ways so why can't they actually do their job and edit out any bias or overexuberance shown by story submitters? Would that really be too much to ask?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Well, if Germany had faced 1400 years of oppression and genocide at the hands of the Jews, if the very existence of Germany had hung by a thread because of the attacks of invading Jewish armies, you might have a point. But what they did to the Jews was unprovoked and despicable. There is no equivalence whatsoever.
The Jews are just defending themselves, and taking back the land of their forefathers, which they lost to genocidal Muslim oppression and aggression that persists to the present day.
Moreover, I do not want to kill all Muslims. I only want to kill all Muslim enemies of Israel, and drive all Muslims out of the historical Jewish homelands. I do hate Muslims, but if they leave Israel alone they would face no danger from me. Hitler wanted to kill all Jews no matter how innocent, no matter how patriotic, even the German Jewish heroes of World War I.
I pity you, I really do.
fucking supercilious liberal jackoffs with their 'pity'... People who use that word are preening and posing and basking in their own supposed moral superiority.. .. Pity is for retards and orphans and three legged dogs, I don't need your pity, you fucking wanker. . . Put all your pity in one hand, and take a shit in the other. Let me know which one fills up first.
--Gentile Zionist
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Losen up and read the quote more carefully, instead of taking the first opportunity to pipe in on Palestine vs Israel.
It's a shame that Slashdot doesn't inject prozac into the cookies they serve.
Nothing I could possibly say could compete with Yes Prime Minister's rather brilliant and oft-quoted commentary.
PM {Responding to Sir Humphry}: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is run by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is run by another country."
Sir Humphry: "Prime Minister, what about the Sun?"
Bernard: "The Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits."
You are right -- the Pentagon is a military installation. (The New York WTC of course was not.) Even so, by the usual "laws of war", only a government fight a legitimate war. If some hick from Alabama decides to go on a shooting spree at a Canadian military base, it does not mean that he is a military adversary... he is just a nut, terrorist, or insurrectionist; take your pick.
The Sun has a page online called Page3.com, which is an online version of the 'topless lady' page 3 in the newspaper. No, this is not a troll, check the link :-)
The Jews are a living people who survived millennia of oppression at the hands of the other peoples of the Middle East. Their enemies were destroyed, whether by Jewish valor or divine Providence, yet still the children of Hebron survive. Their Arab enemies also should be and will be destroyed.
The Jews are entitled to their ancestral homeland, and to remove all squatters from it.
--Gentile Zionist
You see, the Skull & Bones (*cough* Kerry *cough*) is not the only secret society in the world of this type...blood oaths, etc. Word has it that Oxford's Rhodes Scholars (*cough* Clinton *cough*) have a similar org...something about 'New World Order' but I can't remember the club's name. Google it.
No tinfoil here, just knowing that anyone in power as is Blair has close ties with the CIA type agencies that exist there. Kelly was a liability, especially if grilled about his "leak". Do they make Kevlar Wristbands?
In summary, I don't believe either Hatfield or Kelly killed themselves. Oh yeah, and don't do anything that might mar the image of someone powerful, especially if it's telling the truth!
db
Cig:
ôô
Name 2 regular conservative hosts on PBS
What's-his-name and that guy.
Why didn't you just write "Compare this with the NY Times reaction when it was discovered that a reporter was falsifying stories."?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Your point would be relevant, if it were the case that [blah]
In what way does X or Y being "the first" to live in a spot of land make irrelevant the essential differences between organised serial mass murders of civilians based on race and religion and regular warfare?
Much like this place...
"Uh, Sarge, I've finished digging this hole. What shall I do now?"
"You got mod points, soldier? Go and shut up some hippies."
Ah the Slashdot Mod battle as those who disagree with the poster's political point of veiw mod it down, and other's mod it up.
This whole Slashdot article is just one big troll.
Its called historical fact. Documented, historical fact. Have you heard of Mexico, Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Panama (and much of Central America)? Ask people that live in these places about US terrorism.
I wouldn't call most of those terrorist acts, they are Acts of War.
When Bill Clinton ordered the bombing (with a cruise missile) of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, that wasn't an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, not terrorism.
Hypothetically, if Clinton supported a guerrilla group that went and bombed the pharmaceutical factory, then they would be supporting terrorism.
Notice that the result is the same - a blown up pharmaceutical factory. Terrorism is a tactic, it is not a goal in and of itself.
Are you implying that the people that bring me Page3 might not be top flight reporters?
Well I never...
Bull-fucking-shit. From an AP press report: (link may break in the future)Descriptions of three different attacks in Iraq -- no references to terrorism. (The last attack was probably a terrorist act, unless the goal was to somehow get the car to a military facility.)
It's a free market: advertising space is available to anyone, whether they have vested interests or are for/against an issue. Equally, anyone can buy television or newspaper space to do the same thing.
I don't see that there are any "rights" problems here ? If you had an opposing view, you too could have purchase keywords for the hutton case.
Irrespective of who purchased those keywords, Google is always going to serve up pageranked results for "objective" results, or return collective links to press coverage from google news.
If you have a problem, purchase keywords at other search engines. You can argue that Google has a dominant position and therefore subject to anti-trust concerns, but as it returns pageranked results, it's hard to see how this argument is sustainable.
Thats an uncredited Associated Press report, which has been picked up by several newspapers. It was probably not written by an american.
Relating this to today's events, my dictionary defines "terrorism" as
:)
"the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments"
One man's terrorism is another man's "shock and awe"... It sounds almost friendly in comparison, doesn't it?
You make it sound as though Dr. Kelly was bumped off. Lets be clear here; Dr. David Kelly commited suicide. Poor bastard.
You have history?? are you sure??
damn "american" history is like recent memory comparefd to the middle east and europe..
oh well, the few native americans alive may have some i guess
bah!*@%!
Yeah, well, your great-great-grandparents were fighting to preserve slavery, if not actual slave owners themselves, and therefore deserved no better than what Sherman dished out.
In fact, had I been in Sherman's shoes, I would have summarily shot or hanged every slave owner I captured.
People forget, or lie about, what the Old South stood for and what it was fighting for. Talk of states' rights is crap. The Confederacy existed purely to preserve human chattel slavery. It was destroyed and will never rise again. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Tony Blair?
It sure sounds like it, the -BBC- killed Kelly? Oh yeah right. The independant media reporting about governement fallacies is actually resposible for the consequences of the actions by the same governement.
BLAIR (or his spin-minions) leaked Kellies name, ruined his life, and ultimately killed him. No matter that the original BBC story was not entirely correct, semantics is a stupid game to play anyway, it was NOT the BBC leaking Kellies name.
Any other conclusion is in the "lets blame the messenger" department.
"/Dread"
What about buying AdWords for the same criteria which say right below BBC Adword - "Don't go to BBC site! There's dimensional shambler waiting there!" or something similar. Wonder how that would look like :D.
This highlights my (totally offtopic) hatred of Anonymouse submission.
This dude actually had something to say and he said it succinctly, clearly and with a dash of humour for good measure... just wih he was logged on so i could mod
whats the point in saying anything if you dont have the belief in your convictions to stand up and be counted
bah!*@%!
the "Anonymouse" is a new breed of rodent I am developing for scientifically testing the effectiveness of questionnaires.
or it could just be a typo....
bah!*@%!
> "BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""
>history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and
>sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA
>call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical
>step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would
>have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
>Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy.
>Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american
>forefathers heroes.
I noticed a lot of people use the word 'terrorism' with out really knowing what it means, a lot like say 'rascist' or 'nazi'. You see sniping officers isn't terrorism, becouse they are, beyound any doubt, legitimate military target, blowing up innocent babies is terrorism and so is attacking civilian targets by union forces.
Likewise attacking a american military vessal isn't a terrorist act, slaming civilian airliners into civilian or military buildings is.
That picture comes from Smoking Gun's Favorite Booking Photos. It's a mugshot of Dion Milam, a white supremacist from California who received a broken nose (among other injuries) during a fight with the cops.
The picture has nothing to do with Kelly. Whoever modded the parent up is smoking serious rock.
>I have often wondered if the U.S. Military HQ the pentagon is considered a "Legitimate" target. If it
>were the only 9/11 target would we all respect and admire UBL as an equal adversary on the battlefield?
>Don't think so. If *you* don't like them then you rationalize that they are evil.
The pentagon is indeed a legitimate military target, however a civilian airliner isn't. Try again
The cretin who submitted this doesnt even live in the UK - he is an American who lives in San Francisco.
Quote : "the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier."
Where does this idiot get his information from ? Yes, looking at this sentence, the BBC IS involved in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'dossier' accusations, but only as a part of a whole, including the BBC senior management, the Government, MOD, some MP's and Dr. Kelly itself. And NO-ONE is directly accused of directly causing Dr. Kellys death - he committed suicide, end of story. The BBC's alleged involvement was to stand by an accusation against a government adviser of 'sexing up' an intelligence dossier, despite grave misgivings about the accuracy of the story.
I know news coverage in the US is poor, but I would suggest the original submitter tries to get some decent news coverage - BBC TV news (if you can get it in the US) still beats the pants off anything else you are likely to get for objectivity and editorial quality. I was also under the impression that the Guardian is a bit of a cheerleader for the BBC in general - public service broadcasting is something I would think the vast majority of it's readership support.
"BBC thinks palestinians who blow themselves (and innocent babies) are "freedom fighters""
history is written by the victors man. At one time a bunch of people hiding in the woods and sniping at officers was beyond reproach, and were the "terrorists" of their time. We here in the USA call them revolutionaries now, and revere them. During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.
Conventions of warfare go OUT THE WINDOW when you are faced with a militarial superior enemy. Calling palestinians freedom fighters is no more or less accurate than calling our american forefathers heroes.
For another example see this
Excellent show though, I have even seen it dubbed into Russian. This together with show like "drop the dead donkey" gave a pretty good picture of British politics and the TV journalists.
Why is this guys suicide such a big deal in the UK? The goverment/foreign affairs commitee
caught him in a lie/exaggeration and he killed himself over it. So what?
Yes that must explain why Israel was created under a British mandate when Britian pulled out of its middle eastern teritory at the end of WW II. Because we hate them, we gave them their own country.
Or are they just naturally biased?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Good thing they are only quoting someone else, eh?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
anyone searching for "Hutton inquiry" or "Hutton report" on the UK's most popular search engine Google is automatically directed to a paid-for link to BBC Online's own news coverage of the inquiry.
Bollocks, and everyone here knows it. This reporter hasn't a clue about technology and hence isn't qualified to write the article. Jack "Microsoft" Schofield could have written a less biased and idiotic article than this, and that's a statement and a half.
And I like the Guardian!
adam
19 year old medical student with 40,000 debt over her head
Her Story
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
"BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier." Complicit: to ssociated with or participating in a questionable act or a crime.
The BBC have been biting at the heels of the goverment, ever since they caught a wiff of the fact the goverment did sex it up, theve been hounding them like a rabbid dog, if it wasn't for the BBC, I doubt we'd even have an inquiry, they were in no way complicit with it, they didn't even allow it to go by without being noticed.
Yes perhaps this did lead to the death of poor Dr. Kelly, but that was because the goverment wanted a fall guy, not the BBC's doing and depending on the outcome of the report the goverment could be in some deep doo-doos.
"Every country except for the US is against Israel."
Not every body is against Israel. Just like it is possible to dislike communism without hating Russians in general it is quite possible to dislike Ariel Sharon, his fanatical Zionist cronies and their landgrabbing in the occupied territories without at the same being against Israel and hating all Jews.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
They went by Kelly, and what Kelly actually said will conveniently never been known ...
1. Sex-up Iraq dossier
I wish people would stop using that expression "sex-up". Mainly because it sounds damn stupid, and describing anything non-living as "sexy" (such as the latest "boy's-toy" gadget) is way overdone (unless you have a genuine fetish for techno-crap... hang on, this *is* Slashdot).
But also because it brings back memories of that foul Color Me Badd song, "I wanna sex you up". I'd almost managed to forget it existed- who said repressing memories was a bad thing?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Some joker was on this weekend using the terms "e-mail", "web", and "Internet" as synonyms. He then went on to call Bill an "Internet pioneer", conveniently forgetting how late Microsoft was to the starting gate for the web and the Internet. All the other horses had run a few laps by then. Worse, the Beeb recently had an MS employee on to commentate about the Democratic primaries, with deep insight like which ones had large heads. I really hope that's not repeated.
Above gripes aside, it did seem to do an excellent job of the war issues.
At this time I still don't notice a difference, so I have to wonder if Google didn't pay the BBC for all this publicity.
Shouldn't a good journalist ask the tough questions of all parties involved, and then follow up with other sources trying to confirm the answers provided?
That's what the British armed forces were complaining the journalists weren't doing. Why? Because work is hard, and doing their job well would mean twice as much of it for less sensationalistic ratings. (This is called being well past the point of diminishing returns, or wasteful.)
What's really awesome, is the US armed forces seem to not like it, but have a very thick skin, and generous outlook about that kind of thing. They're just kids, but when asked about what they think about the negative press, they respond with a "Well, we know we're doing a good thing, and the people's right to bullshit, accurate or not, is what we're putting our asses on the line for." I doubt I'd be as magnanimous in their shoes now, let alone how I might have felt were I a decade younger.
Say what you want about the administration, but those are some damn fine people.
... if it were true. As anyone who bothered to type "Hutton enquiry" into Google would have found out.
WWII for instance, though even then the fire bombing of dresdin was seen as over the line back then and that was probably the most "no rules" modern war ever
Here's a thought. If it's true that Nazi Germany was still a long way off developing a genuine atomic bomb (as opposed to the dirty-bomb they supposedly wanted to explode over New York), then what would have happened had Germany been a bit stronger and WWII had lasted another 18 months or more?
The United States had the atomic bomb. Would they have held back from using it, even though many civilians would die? Would they have risked Germany successfully developing their own bomb, with the Nazis unlikely to be troubled by any questions of morality over its use? I doubt it. I believe that the atomic bomb would have been used against Germany sooner rather than later, had the war not ended when it did.
What would the morality of that have been?
To get back to your point, I'm not convinced that bombing of civilians for the sake of frightening them into submission wouldn't be counter-productive- but regarding the morality, it's much easier to criticise in retrospect. WWII had to be won. Knowing what we know now, a hundred-fold more so.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Palestinian groups don't attack the Israeli military - the military has lots of guns, and shoots back. Blowing up Israeli children is so much easier.
Yeah, right.
Is it just me who gets pissed off with the way this kind of thing gets worded in the media?
"Sexed up"? Whats wrong with "lied"?
The actual phrase was 'senior official in charge of compiling the dossier'. Not 'high-ranking', which implies cabinet level. The actual embellishment (in my opinion at least) which Gilligan unjustifiably made was not the use of the word 'senior', but 'in charge' (Kelly, after all, was a former senior UN weapons inspector, so there is just enough wriggle room to call him senior). Gilligan's loose use of language, and the BBC's failure to act on this either before the broadcast or before they'd issued a strong statement of support is their failure, and one I fully expect Lord Hutton to have taken them to task for.
OK, this is being pedantic, but if you're accusing someone else of being loose with language, you have to be pretty accurate yourself.
Noone seems to be looking too hard at what happened. So lets have a quick walk through the scandal:
The BBC reported that the goverment had decided to "sex up" the dossier which contained evidence of weapons of mass destruction. This is the dossier known as the "dodgy dossier" (because there was little or no actual evidence of these WMDs and a lot of fuzzy language that didn't say a lot but sounded threatening).
At the heart of the dodgy dossier was a claim that WMDs could be ready within 45 minutes. This was a major pinnacle of Blair's justification of war. David Kelly (an important intelligence expert) expressed to Gilligan (BBC journo) that this claim was dubious.
Now lets not get this wrong, after the war weapons inspections teams have been crawling all over Iraq and they have found ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of WMDS, let alone WMDS that could be released in 45 minutes. So this 45 minute claim is without a shadow of doubt ABSOLUTELY BOGUS.
Now before this report was released, Tony Blair was talking up the dossier and the contents of it and saying how this dossier justified war for about 9 months. SO when the dossier was released he had built up a massive expectation of the contents of the dossier (which eventually turned out to be pretty underwhelming).
After Kelly's death, it was widely reported that the dossier had been passed backwards and forwards between Blair's press office, intelligence departments, and other cabinet members. They were altering the report, improving the wording etc.
One alteration that Alastair Campbell made (Tony Blairs Head of (press) Communications) was that the 45 minute claim should have much stronger wording. So it is clear that this dossier has been messed with to improve its impact and pursuasiveness. Instead of being an impartial intelligence report, it has turned into a PR document.
So what now?
Kelly expresses scepticism about the report to Gilligan. Gilligan reports that the government has "sexed up" the dossier. The government who perceive this as a major PR loss if this goes unchallenged, and which has a lot riding on this report anyway challenges the BBC on this.
So the Alistair Campbell challenges the BBC head on, makes a massive confrontation in the press (trying to bluster the governments way out of the mess). He demands that the BBC reveal their source of who said that the "dodgy dossier" had been "sexed up". Gilligan refused, and the BBC stood by him because he had tapes from the interview with Kelly so they could prove their point.
The goverment doesn't like the BBC anyway at the moment, and had openly criticised the BBC's coverage during the war for not presenting the government's side enough - I think the government wished that the BBC's coverage of Iraq was more like Foxes! (It is a joke criticising the BBC for not presenting the government's side enough - the reason the BBC is such an amazing institution and people listen to/watch it around the world is that they always present both sides of a story and allow the viewer to make their own mind up).
In addition before the war, the government had been floating ideas for what to do with the BBC when its charter comes up for renewal including such ridiculous ideas a *privatising* the BBC!(BBC's charter is renewed every 10 years, and it is this charter that allows it to operate/collect the license fee. There is always an anti-BBC lobby that is against everyone having to pay a poll tax on the BBC. )
So this standoff between Alastair Campbell and the BBC has be looked at in the context of the government's ongoing feud with the BBC.
The government get wind of who the source is (probably through intelligence channels) and they put about the word to the press that although they will not release Kelly's name, they will confirm to any press member if they suggest the right name. So the press are phoning up with lists of candidates, and miraculously some of them guess David Kelly.
So the government has leaked his name to the press, eve
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.
Do you suppose it makes you feel more happy or less happy than the descendants of the slaves that they kept?
Well, so they are. What's your point?
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Dr. Kelly commits "suicide" because he was outed for telling the truth; yeah right. Bush, Powell and the rest of those damn blokes in washington are responsible for the deaths of thousands based on sexed up documents. They should be the ones with moral angst.
Also, everyone assumes that the BBC was telling the truth about kelly as the source. It was rather easy to pin the blame on a dead man, wasn't it? I think the real source remains secret.
Just my two cents before inflation affected the rest of your two cents.
So blowing up babies is OK? Just answer yes or no.
Sigged!
(A scary non-news story from the future ...)
I realize that google is out to make a buck, but will this eventually become so commonplace that we will neither notice nor care?
The British dossiers state quite clearly that Saddam had WMD already, not mere programmes. Maybe you should try to keep up, eh?
I had a quick look at their server today (28th, when the report is due out) and response time was good - checking them with Netcraft it looks like they are running Apache (probably on Linux underneath - though Netcraft is not always reliable on this point in my experience), and recently changed over to Akamai presumably for edge caching - which would explain the good response time.
Any Slashdotters involved with the technical side of the inquiry? I was really impressed by the evidence management system where everything submitted got scanned in and was available on screen to the witnesses and (mostly) on the website as well.
-- Nothing unusual happened today
> The Times is read by people who actually do run the country.
That's the pre-Murdoch Times, of course.
rant
Compare to the completely unbiased and independent American media, who refer to all of those under the collective term, "terrorists".
They call the IRA (you know, that group that blows up little kids) "Freedom fighters" though
Well, just displaying the ad doesn't run up their ad budget. The ads have to actually be Clicked On as well for them to get charged. Also, the BBC would setup a daily ad budget as well so they only spend as much money as they can afford to.
Also, I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that they only charge for one click through from one IP address (maybe even cookied machine, never investigated) every so many hours or so. So if the same person clicks through a few times, the advertiser doesn't get charged for.
Google Ad Words really rock as far as I'm concerned. Small, unabtrusive, and targetted. If I have to have advertising I'll take mine that like!
I was not sea-based during the campaign in Afghanistan, but the Brits soldiers I knew then didn't seem to like the BBC much either.
And it wasn't just the BBC... I'd sit around with my fellow soldiers and airmen and watch CNN et al, marveling at how wrong they could get a story. Now, in fairness to them, a lot of our units were "quiet professionals" who valued discretion highly... you ex-military people know what I'm talking about here.
Even in Iraq, the coverage is not representative, including coverage by the much-derided foxnews. How do I know? I still have friends in the military on the ground there, including some grunt-level MPs in several branches of service (I know them from my law enforcement background). Half the time they won't even watch the news, because they get so disgusted watching it. Upon asking them their viewpoints, they reiterated to me that the lion's share of the Iraqi people love us, are glad we're there, and don't want us to leave.
Why do I mistrust CNN/BBC/FOX/NBC/ABC? Because I've seen the news media get it wrong, and because I trust a grunt on the ground before I trust a reporter drinking martinis in a hotel.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
How can the BBC be complicit in 'Sexing up' the dossier when it was them who broke the story and coined the phrase 'sexed up'
Many Americans seem to fall for spin every time, especially the subtle, well practiced British spin.
EG: Anybody who sees the middle east is such black and white terms must be gullable as phuc.
However, as a licence fee-payer I resent the cash being spent on 'damage limitation' when the BBCs TV content is going downhill and music programming pitiful.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
> There are civilized ways to engage in warfare,
> and there are barbaric ways.
Yes. Civilised warfare is when you sit in your plane, miles above the enemy, and bomb him to kingdom come with superior technology.
Barabaric warfare is what you do when you don't have million dollar computer controlled ICBMs, and are reduced to strapping TNT to your chest and blowing yourself up in a way that will, hopefully, draw international attention to the plight of your oppressed people.
I'm not saying that the Palestinian extremists are any more "in the right" that the Israeli or USA extremists, only that when you are confronted with superior weaponry, you really don't have a lot of choice.
Remember David vs Goliath? David defeated superior physical strength with superior weaponry. The story now paints him as a hero... even though he didn't following the chivalrous rules of engagement.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Listening to the BBC coverage on Radio 4, it is very good and impartial. The BBC is the only media service I know of which will openly criticize itself. They are concerned with reporting the facts, not their own agenda (unlike most newspapers, many of whom have an agenda against the BBC as their owners want to control all the media in the country)
They're now interviewing the director of news for the BBC, and he's admitting that the Hutton Report is very bad for the BBC and a lot needs to be done to ensure this doesn't happen again.
I'm just shocked at how much the MoD and Government has got away with... (the way they named Kelly was horrendous, openly inviting journalists to guess and telling them if they're right)
Do you have any cites that support your accusations of the BBC?
What information can you point to that the BBC is known to be utterly biased? socialist?
Where is your direct proof that the BBC thinks that Palestinian suicide bombers are "freedom fighters"?
Where is your proof that the BBC is an overfunded club of liars?
You do not have any, that is why...you are only regurgitating other conservative pundits that also have no supporting proof of their rhetoric. Just like the one about NPR being some left wing biased news program.
None of us are the victors
I therefore conclude that no-one is writing history.
This seems a lot more profound in my head than when I wrote it down ...
If I came to your house, kicked you out into the dog-house, and then offered you a "peace treaty" to let you keep the dog-house, would you walk away smiling at your great success at the negotiating table?
However, the palestinian arabs were not kicked out. They left their homes voluntarily, thinking it would be just a temporary move, so to allow the arab coalition to bomb the jews into smithereens, and then move back. Even many pasestinian arabs have documented these events from 1948 and explicitly said that their leaders asked them to leave their homes and allow the arab armies and cannons a free playing ground.
This tactic miserably misfired, as the jews held, against incredible odds.
Sigged!
In this instance, that implication would be correct.
This particular reported was being sheltered by the editor because of his race. That makes it relevant.
If you asked your question, the answer would have to be preceeded by "Which reporter?"
Don't take my word for it. There are a number of good dissections of what went on at NYT.
That's the pre-Murdoch Times, of course.
Still true. The Sun-With-No-Tits is now read by those who run the country because they need toknow what Rupert wants them to do.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
News media conglomerate allegedly may have a hand in creating news. Video at 6.
Of course, this is surprising given that the BBC does not film episodes of the Jerry Springer Show..
-- $G
"How ironic that your sig contains a quote by Sherman, who did exactly that in his famous "march to the sea"."
Ah, but he didn't. The popular understanding of Sherman's March to the Sea is that he raped and pillaged Georgia. He didn't. The Army attacked Confederate infrastructure while on the march, freed slaves and burned cotton and other goods the state depended on while knocking out communication (railroads and telegraph) while living off the land as they marched.
The living off the land by foraging was a time-honored tradition for an army it's just been made controversal during the March to the Sea.
Also, everyone assumes that the BBC was telling the truth about kelly as the source.
The BBC didn't name Kelly as their source. The government dropped large hints to the press, and then they confirmed it.
It was rather easy to pin the blame on a dead man, wasn't it?
Not really. He was still alive when they pinned the blame on him.
I think the real source remains secret.
I've got a rather nice bridge that you might be interested in. One that connects Manhattan with one of the outer boroughs. If you buy it from me, you could make a fortune in tolls...
No, it is not; and no, it does not.
Terrorism is the use of terror. It will not work against a competent army, only against civilians.
I just did some reading last night that a BBC reporter mentioned the palestinean suicide bombers, and was suspended. But that if you mention the Jews from NYC and that they have a Zionist agenda, that's okay.
Coupled with how bad they look as a results of this inquiry, the BBC has fallen very far in my book.
And no, I'm not jewish. Not even close.
Our forefathers did, however, lynch Tories here in the colonies.
Civilians die in war. Whether it's intentional or not doesn't really matter all that much when it comes down to it; we just killed more civilians in Iraq than the palestinians can kill in a decade. I'm not saying I agree with the palestinians, I'm just saying whether someone is a "freedom fighter" or a "terrorist" depends solely on the perspective of the writer. Really the lines aren't all that clear.
And if the IRA are not freedom fighters, what are they? Terrorists? After all, the Irish were living on the land before and have to defend themselves somehow. They aren't the ones who invaded someone else's country and intentionally starved the native populace. They are speaking out and it's working. Every country except for the UK knows that Northern Ireland is illegally occupied territory.
When was the last time Palestinians warned the Israeli establishment to evacuate because there was a bomb?
1. No, when they kill civilians indescriminatly, they are called terrorists.
2. No, when they blow up the OK building, or bomb PP, they are called terrorists.
Just waving guns and quoting some old book doesn't cut it in either case.
I said nothing about al qaeda, new york, or the WTC. Other than that, brilliant comment.
Though if you are an impoverished arab male watching the americans oddly side with the only white country in your area, your long time hated enemies... are you striking a blow the only possible way against a hated enemy, or are you a "terrorist"?
all a matter of perspective. Perhaps, before you get your panties in a bunch, you would like to consider that between Iraq and Afghanistan, we've killed more than 5 times as many civilians as died in the WTC. You say intent matters, I say intent does not matter to the civilians who are now dead, nor their families.
That's typical bbc-like: questioning everything, even 1+1=2 if it doesn't suit their taste. You must be blind... His post probably hurt you for some reaseon?
I'd like to buy a vowel please
This is nice public example of how major news orginizations fabricate 'news' for their own purposes.
It is a good reason to not just accept anything published by a news outlet since many have political biases (e.g., New York Times is a great example of this).
The role of journalists is to provide an independent perspective. The model you're pining for is one that Li Peng would have been very comfortable with back in 1989. The Chinese state-controlled media will have given you that version, in which responsible, capable soldiers went about performing a difficult job under difficult circumstances, motivated by their higher purpose and sense of moral duty to their nation.
And as far as reporters drinking martinis in a hotel, did you catch the news yesterday at all? Ever hear of Daniel Pearl?
(How about George Orwell?)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
We should all remember that the Hutton inquiry is an internal inquiry initiated by the government. The fact that it clears the government of wrongdoing is hardly surprising.
Oh, and nobody is accusing the BBC of 'sexing up' the Iraq dossier. In the first case, it was the BBC who were accusing the government of this.
In a democracy these kind of diversions are the cost of unpopular wars of aggression. Apply the usual pinch of salt.
No longer.
He manages to find that the Covernment did no wrong, despite commenting on the insufficiency of the records of the meetings upon which he based this judgement.
He finds all the government claims justified, and all the counterclaims without foundation.
Here's a hint - don't let him near the SCO trial - you'll end up with SCO (no evidence) winning against the rest of the world (tons of evidence).
As you can tell, I'm disappointed - the independence of the judiciary is once again called into question, and we still have the liars in charge.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
It's totally ridiculous that anyone still thinks 'rediculous' is a word.
As of now, 11:45 eastern time, nothing on Google or Google news brings up anything from the BBC.
Hmm.
"Angry people waving flags and guns and quoting from the Bible:
-are called the moral majority, Republicans, or even patriots."
That's because Jesus is powerfuler than Mohammet. Mohammet seems to be able to take a desert people and turn them into raving lunatics.
Jesus made the entire western world.
So you go figure it out.
I'd call you "assclown" because it sounds funny, but I don't know what it means, so I won't use it. I dont' mean to be insulting to my Muslim brothers.
If you say the palestinean animals blowing themselves up are "terrorists", then you are suspended, sent to re-education camp, and then forced to pay a fine.
If you say the Isrealis are just part of the Zionist conpiracy, that fits what the BBC believes is the "truth".
Hey, Fox is biased, but then we all know about that. The BBC has fallen a long way.
I always thought "Sexed Up" was slang for when a girl starts kissing you, starts giving you oral, then she stops.
you stand up and say "goddamnit woman, don't stop, I'm all sexed up!".
That is by George TECUSAH Sherman.
He is a general who knew how to KICK ASS.
" Whoa buddy, God has NOTHING to do with these United States of America"
That's so wrong.
Look on your money.
Then read about the founding fathers and their view on religion.
Then you'll know. You may be shocked. You might want to move to China or Iran to be really free.
Bub,
We all die. Get over it. But we want to die as free Americans.
People who think about killing for Allah... they're rats. And we'll kill them like the vermin they are.
One more attack, the entire middle east is smoking, radioactive glass.
Don't think or a moment we won't do it and then feel bad about it. Be we'll do it. Don't push us.
The other side is being told, by the mainstream media... but I'm also getting the perspective of the grunts on the ground, which is extremely valuable.
Are you seriously comparing the work of the US military in Iraq with the Tiananmen Square massacre? I almost thought you were making a serious point until I read that part... China is a totalitarian regime, has state-controlled media, brainwashed soldiers, and no independent reporting to speak of... Iraq has an independent media presence, including a home-grown media that's growing like kudzu... totally different from the media situation in China.
As far as Daniel Pearl, I think it should be encouraged for reporters go out and get the story... that's what I was talking about in my post (instead of sitting in the Palestine Hotel bar). Daniel Pearl gave his life for his profession... he couldn't have given more. I think the reporters that covered the war first-hand, particularly the "embeds," many of whom risked their lives by doing so (and at least one of them died in the process) did outstanding work... That's the kind of reporting I'm talking about.
The model that I'm "pining for" is most definitely not a state-controlled media whitewashing of a brutal mass murder like Tiananmen... do not insult me, sir.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
These are the facts as known to the public ta large in UK.
/. get teh damn facts right before you jump the gun.Learn from the Beeb.
Andrew Gilligan (of the BBC) accuses the govt of sexing up the dossier.His sourse is unnamed and supposedly connected intimately with the govt.
Alastair Cambell,Tony Blair's sort of head honcho,calls the report a fabrication.And notes in his private diary wants to fuck gilligan up.
The Beeb and No 10 have a war of words with both standing by their versions.
Kelly goes to his bosses and tells them that he did tell Gilligan abot misinterpretation of Intelligence data but not in so strong a terms.
A meeting of MOD chaired by PM personaly clears naming of Dr.Kelly as the source.
Meanwhile Dr.Kelly is grilled by two parliamentary Commitees.
At a Press conference Dr.Kelly is confirmed by MOD as the source.
Next day dr.kelly has lunch and goes for a stroll.His body is found next morning.Both police and hutton are convinced that it was a suicide.
So both BBC and Govt are to blame but the govt more so for revealiong his name.
Hutton clears govt of any misdeeds but blames the BBC for jumping the gun and not getting their facts right.
The chairman of the board of governors of teh BBC Greg Davies has resigned.
So
Wanted : A Signature.
Yes, as long as the baby is in uniform, holding a gun.
and if we did, we'd be neither heroes nor terrorists for doing it, or both, depending on your perspective, which is the entire point.
So what were the real reasons for the Iraq invasion? Two main reasons 9/11 and that the dollar is the fiat currency. Before the Bretton Woods agreement. All currencies were tied to the value of gold, after Bretton Woods all currencies became tied to the value of the dollar, this worked ok, whilst the American economy was ok. The American economy is no longer ok, America is running a massive trade deficit with the rest of the world, America is a net importer of oil, America can get away with this because oil is priced in dollars. In 2000 Saddam asked for his oil money to be paid in Euros, this scared America, because of the domino effect. Different countries pay for their raw materials in dollars, this means countries have to hold a large quantity of dollars for international trade, this effect keeps the value of the dollar artificialy high and funds the American way of life, just compare the price of fuel in ECC countries with the price of fuel in America and you will see what I mean.
Back in 91 General Swarzkopf wanted to finish the job ie march all the way to Bahgdad, haul Saddam out by the scruff of the neck and try him as a war criminal. But Colin Powell told him not to, this should be the correct question, why did they wait for twelve years before finishing the job. If they had done this in 91 it would have sent a marvelous signal to every other tin pot dictator on the planet. It might have meant Milosovich would have thought twice. We need international law and we need it badly. We should be ruled by principle, not people.
Funny how all the cruise missiles are manufactured in Texas, also funny how General Franks and George Bush jnr went to school together.
Lord Hutton "independent" inquiry not really independent: http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0, 13812,1133385,00.html
"Multifarious law lords have been asked to investigate the government over the years, and if anyone can name one where the government has not been exonerated pretty much entirely I would be interested, from Profumo onwards. Law lords do not often attack the government, what we usually see happen with inquiries is that the ministers get off scott free."
And yes, the statement from the Sun is actually factually wrong. BBC reported that the Government "sexed up" the document. And a large amount of uk voters still do.
Whats another old government bought fart, who actually believes Blair when he turns on the waterworks, worth anyway?
Interestingly, its gone unstated, but there are a percentage of the uk population that believe that Government killed Mr Kelly. I personally don't, but it does show how much Mr Blair is respected nowadays. He led his country into an unpopular war in Iraq (yes, it was unpopular in the uk, some of the biggest protests in recent times happened over the Iraq war) and now the public plainly distrusts him...
Story on BBC.
I think this guy's resignation shows some of the integrity that's lately been questioned.
First off, Muslims are not the same thing as Arabs. In fact, the term "Arab" seems to be used to describe Semites living in the Middle East. Well, non-Jewish Semites have been living on the land now known as "Israel" far before the Judaism took over. In the Torah and Old Testament of the Bible, stories are told of the Jews destroying Canaanite cities, killing Canaanites, etc... until the Jews took over.
While religious texts aren't necessarily historical, plenty of scientific evidence exists which supports the existence of non-Jewish Semitic civilization in Israel for thousands of years before Jewish control. Furthermore, scientific evidence also suggests that these Canaanites were Semitic and ancestors of both Jews and modern-day Palestinians.
It turns out that "Palestinians" have been living their since pre-history. These people's culture and religion has slowly changed, some became Jews, some Christian, some Muslim... whatever...
In this day, why does the current government of Israel apply two different standards: one to Jews and another to "Palestinians"? They are both people of the same land. There is a word for such a thing: apartheid.
In my opinion, two nations (Israel and Palestine) is not a solution, it is a further institutionalization of the problem. The true solution is one nation as has always been the case. Call it Israel, call it Palestine, call it Judea, whatever... BUT _everyone_ should be equal under the law and _everyone_ should have religious freedom. Religious sites should be respected and shared in such a way as to respect each religion's beliefs.
I've always loved that attitude to the political-correct "it was all about slavery" teachings. Ever noticed how those who write the history also do it to make themselves look righteous?
I'm seriously comparing the perspective of soldiers with the perspective of independent journalists -- that being the point of your post, to which I was responding.
I chose that example specifically because it was extreme. Did you follow that at all? Again, tell me -- would the story you got from the "grunts on the ground" have been substantially different in Tiananmen? Wouldn't the Chinese foot soldier headed into Beijing have said he was following orders that were meant to protect his nation? The contrast between the governments and the situations is quite wide, you're right -- that being the point.
You've just suggested that soldiers know what the majority sentiment of Iraqis is. When the news is about Shiite leaders staging large-scale demonstrations in which they protest our election plans, I suppose we could ask a Master Sergeant what it all means... It just doesn't seem to me like that person's going to necessarily have the best grip on Shiite politics. I'd much rather rely on Iraqis for that information. (For one thing, Iraqis would take the more inflammatory sides of the Shiite clergy's rhetoric a little less to heart.)
Want a much simpler comparison that won't upset you nearly as much? How accurately do you think police officers understand public opinion? I've always thought cops' sense of people was off, because they're constantly dealing with the public in minor confrontational situations like traffic stops. Their sense of how people react to them is distorted, from the examples I see -- including the officer who lives next door, whom I like a lot. Comes with the job.
Now: you're a solider with a mechanized infantry division, and you've been thrown into a policing role, despite inadequate training for it, in an Arab Muslim country during the chaotic months after all-out war. How accurate do you think your perceptions are about people's attitudes? More or less accurate than my neighbor's read on public opinion in his home town?
(As far as the mainstream media goes, they basically "embedded" themselves so thoroughly during major combat that we got an overwhelming share of our information, in the U.S., from reporters who were being toted around like baggage with military units.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Well, the argueing over the facts can stop. The Hutton report is now out.
At a Glance
is it ok for us or our friends to blow up babies? answer yes or no.
"Hypothetically, if Clinton supported a guerrilla group that went and bombed the pharmaceutical factory, then they would be supporting terrorism"
like we have done in several of the countries the previous poster mentioned?
You were aware, of course, that US troops can be disciplined for speaking with reporters without first consulting with their unit's Public Affairs officer?
Did you follow that at all? Again, tell me -- would the story you got from the "grunts on the ground" have been substantially different in Tiananmen? Wouldn't the Chinese foot soldier headed into Beijing have said he was following orders that were meant to protect his nation?
If you were a state-run-media reporter asking him that question, in the presence of his superior officer... I'm certain he'd tell you it was for the good of the country (and thank you, BTW, for making my point). I'm not a reporter for a totalitarian regime, asking a soldier a question with a gun to his head. What I'm talking about is friends of mine, sharing their frustrations, making comments to me completely unrecorded, unscripted, and off-the-cuff. I'm certain you understand the difference... with me there's no duress, it's friend-to-friend and soldier-to-soldier, and it's off the record. These are people whose jobs require them to interact with Iraqis all day long, both as police, and as trainers training police... so yes, I'm very interested in what they have to say.
I suppose we could ask a Master Sergeant what it all means
If you were fortunate enough to have access to somebody like that on the ground, and they'd talk to you, you'd be a fool not to ask him/her.
It just doesn't seem to me like that person's going to necessarily have the best grip on Shiite politics. I'd much rather rely on Iraqis for that information.
Well of course... but which Iraqis? Planning on asking the ones that always hang around and demonstrate outside the Palestine Hotel? How do you like your spin? The Iraqis, and that includes the insurgents, are not fools... they understand politics, and don't think for one second that the insurgents wouldn't do anything/everything they could to knock GW out of office, including bullsh*t reporters every chance they get. If you can't win militarily, win politically.
Also, there's something about a camera and notebook that seems to distort things all by itself... I put far more faith in the extemporaneous opinions of the "man on the street," compared to something guardedly told to a reporter, colored by that reporter's perceptions, then filtered through multiple editors. How many layers do you like between your brain and the actual events?
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, you seem to be arguing that the grunt is either inadequately educated, or too close to the situation to have an accurate perspective, and while that might be true for some strategic, theatre-level issues, it's a poor commander who doesn't listen to small-unit, boots-on-the-ground tactical intel. For a close-in view of what regular Iraqis think, I'll take very seriously the word of the troops who interact with them every day. It's like asking the CEO what the guys in the mailroom think... the CEO probably has no idea past what some miscellaneous lackey might have told him; too many layers between CEO and the mailroom. I take what I get from CNN et al with a similar grain of salt.
As for your "much simpler" comparison claiming cops misunderstand public opinion... that doesn't square at all with my experience.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Like I said, you've been propagandized by Chomsky and the gang. I'm not denying that any of that happened; I'm saying that you have shown zero perspective and zero ability to grasp the complexity of those situations.
The US may have been involved in some covert operations here and there, but you fail to look at it in perspective. Lets take Vietnam for example. Before US involvement communist insurgents were infiltrating South Vietnam, assassinating leaders, and trying to spark a communist revolution. The US reacted with support to the South Vietnamese govt. and later with direct military force. Perhaps it was wrong to get involved and escalate the war in Vietnam, but you can hardly say we started it. You could fault North Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union more than you can fault the US for the clusterfuck that ensued. Same with Korea. You talk about "documented, historical fact" and then try to equate our defense of South Korea (which was invaded) with terrorism? Any serious student of historical fact would laugh you off the stage for that one. Lets examine South/Central America for a minute. Ok, so we supported guerilla fighters in an effort to combat Communism. You think those South/Central American govts were just naturally inclined to adopt communism, or do you think the Soviets had their own brand of covert activity going on? Had we not acted, its likely we would have a bunch of despotic Fidel Castro wannabes down there throwing people in prison for daring to criticize their govts. For all the crap you leftists spew about human rights and social justice, you don't seem too keen on defending those rights when the bullets start flying. Christ you even mentioned Cambodia, as if the US is to blame for Pol Pot's raving mad left-wing genocide. You could argue that he came to power when CIA meddling backfired in Cambodia, but I could argue that CIA meddling was a result of a need to establish a pro-US govt, which in turn was the result of Chinese and Soviet meddling in SE Asia. As for bombing the shit out of eastern cambodia, I could argue that if the Vietnamese "terrorists" would not have violated the sovereignty of cambodia then the US would not have done the same. For all your bullshit fingerpointing, I can point fingers right back.
You aren't wrong to criticise the US for our activities over the years, but you are living in la-la land if you think those activities were a sole result of US "terrorism". It takes two (and more often than not three or four) to dance. You have not recognized that fact and for that you get a big fat F in your history class.
Or even our very own Native Americans, hmm were we at "war" with them. Damn, too bad because apparently then we would have been totally justified in slaughtering entire races of people
I have two points: (1) If you feel so guilty about what your/our ancestors did then you're welcome to leave the country and go back to Europe (or wherever you came from). And while you're at it why don't you take your car and your bank account and give it to the Native Indians as a down-payment on reparations? (2) You're argument about the US taking land from natives is harldy evidence that the US is any worse than other countries. As long as you're criticising us, why don't you talk about the land "stolen" from the Aztecs, Incans, Mayans, etc. in central/south America. Why don't you call out Canada for the same crimes? Oh, and make sure you tell the Aussies that they should give Australia back to the Aboriginees.
-- LD
You are missing the point, all of this US military activity was about one thing, money. We weren't trying to stop the evil commies, or bad guy X, out of the goodness of our hearts, if that were true why did we wait so long to get involved in WW2? Because it wasn't profitable for us to do so. The US has a lengthy and vicious track record of exerting our political and military might to "capitilize" the rest of the world. Using military tactics for monetary gain is terrorist activity IMHO. As far as your assertion that I should move to another country, how about I keep working on making this country what it CLAIMS to be and you try to notice when Big Money/Big Government (they are one and the same) tells you what to think.
every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
*SIGH* God almighty. This is what passes for critical analysis in your mind? It was because we had an "isolationist feeling" at the time. We wanted to stay out of foreign entanglements, aliances and wars, particularly the neverending, bloody European ones. We'd just gotten over WWI, why the fuck would we want to repeat it? I suppose the attitude was that if the Europeans were so stupid as to wind up fighting the same damn war over again after just 20 years then then they were a lost cause and we should just let them destroy each other.
Unfortunately we found out the hard way that if we don't join the party on our own then the party will come knocking at our door anyway (witness Pearl Harbor).
I don't know where you got the profit BS from. No doubt you read it in a book written by communists or socialists. What better way to bring harm to the reputation of capitalism than to blame all wars on a naked motivation for profit by capitalist countries? I find it very interesting that left-wing thinkers tend to blame the the US for Korea, Vietnam, et. al, while conveniently leaving out the other side. It would look too bad if a communist country was actually to blame for a war; no sir can't have that can we Mr. Chomsky?
The [INSERT ABOUT A DOZEN COUNTRIES HERE] has a lengthy and vicious track record of exerting our political and military might to "capitilize" the rest of the world.
Wow, what a genious you are for pointing that out. I didn't know that. Yes, we're such bad imperialists. We leave our footprints in the sand to be discovered. Everyone else makes sure to conceal theirs.
By the way, if war is so profitable then why are people complaining about the $200+ billion we're sinking into Iraq. By your accounts the war should miraculously pay itself off.
-- LD
Very nicely put. Likely to fall on deaf ears, but I wholeheartedly support the opinions you have expressed.
Bravo.
I've never heard the BBC call suicide bombers "freedom fighters". Can you provide even one example of a BBC report that says that? Don't think so.
It was payback to MI5 (MI6?) for some Contract work they did.
-------- In Soviet Russia, "Soviet Russia" sigs hate Slashdot.
Lauren?
I totally agree. I noticed that Google now is a lot different from Google a year ago. They have become greedy. The quality is going down.
The link is to an "independent Internet marketing firm"'s website talking about the fact that the BBC got Google ads and offering commercial help with pay-per-click advertising to other organisations for non-commercial purposes.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
Probably about the same I would suppose.
As far as I can tell I haven't been dreamily talking about raping, torturing, or killing slaves. But I sure do understand them greatly dislikeing those that do - I empathise with that fairly well.
I do not like the practice of slavery and do not feel bad about the end of civil war (that is, the south loosing - it was the best and correct outcome). Grant did the correct thing and even though he defeated us few have animosity towards him (in fact many show affection based on his treatment of the south). Sherman did the wrong thing and is reviled here. Just as there were slaves that stayed with thier former masters there were ones that immediatly left. I would suppose the treatment and resentment is similar to the difference in Sherman and Grant.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it