Breaking News - BBC1 1pm Milosevic dead

[Anonymous]

Breaking news on bbc 1 at 1pm Milosevic is dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4796470.stm

Its a great shame, in that he will now never be brought to justice for his attrocities.

Discuss...

[mac]

One Murdering tyrant down, still plenty of them to go ( Mugabe, Bush etc etc )

[Iansv]

Good, shame it wasn't a painful one

[Fizzy Fish]

well at least he died behind bars and not in some mansion like some of these dictator types...

[22]

One Murdering tyrant down, still plenty of them to go ( Mugabe, Bush etc etc )
dont forget BLAIR in that list

[mac]

One Murdering tyrant down, still plenty of them to go ( Mugabe, Bush etc etc )
dont forget BLAIR in that list



True - but he is more Bush`s lap dog than a stand alone, strong willed despot.

[Ed]

Milosevic was a murdering savage. I hope he burns in hell for evermore.

[kingnothing]

One Murdering tyrant down, still plenty of them to go ( Mugabe, Bush etc etc )
dont forget BLAIR in that listGet bent, both of you.

[Tara]

I'm glad he's dead, like Rizla said at least he died in Jail

[Lissa]

I can't think there will be many tears shed over his death. Just a shame he died 'peacefully', unlike the thousands who's deaths he was ultimately responsible for.

[kingnothing]

One Murdering tyrant down, still plenty of them to go ( Mugabe, Bush etc etc )
dont forget BLAIR in that listGet bent, both of you.

Manners... They're entitled to their opinion.apologies. they ARE entitled to their wrong opinion. :P

[Iansv]

hehe *fetches popcorn*

[Anonymous]

Hehe.. honey, im home! Im never one to miss a good argument! :wink:

Now..... Bush... where do i start?

:lol:







Only kidding, im on probation, im going to sit back and take a rain cheque on this argument.

[Richie]

Hehe.. honey, im home! Im never one to miss a good argument! :wink:

Now..... Bush... where do i start?

:lol:

.

Have you ever beaten about a Bush before ?? :lol:


Sorry couldn't resist, no offence M8.

as to the main thread, Yes glad he's dead, I did some body exchanges back in 1993 in Gornji Vakuf.... not very pretty, also was hijacked out there but that was another story... pull up a sand bag and swing the light.

[Anonymous]

Hehe.. honey, im home! Im never one to miss a good argument! :wink:

Now..... Bush... where do i start?

:lol:

.

Have you ever beaten about a Bush before ?? :lol:


Sorry couldn't resist, no offence M8.

as to the main thread, Yes glad he's dead, I did some body exchanges back in 1993 in Gornji Vakuf.... not very pretty, also was hijacked out there but that was another story... pull up a sand bag and swing the light.

:lol: :lol: Well that would be telling - and i cant do that as it is a U rated site now...

:wink:

[Peter Henry]

Sorry but I disagree here. I do not mourn at all the death of someone it appears was a total disgrace to humanity. However I do feel that in some way the victims of his regime and their families have in some way been cheated by his trial not reaching it's natural end and him surely being found guilty and punished.

A chance to send out a strong message to others has also been snatched away here also.

I am no big fan of either Mr.Bush or Tony Blair but I do think that bracketing them in along with people like Mugabe and Milosevic is not at all fair or accurate.


This of course is purely my own personal opinion.

[Ed]

There's a very interesting collection of views on BBC news home page - have your say. Lots of Serb nationalists :roll: - some quite despicable comments idolising this genocidal butcher :evil:

[tinpants]

Sorry but I disagree here. I do not mourn at all the death of someone it appears was a total disgrace to humanity. However I do feel that in some way the victims of his regime and their families have in some way been cheated by his trial not reaching it's natural end and him surely being found guilty and punished.

A chance to send out a strong message to others has also been snatched away here also.

I am no big fan of either Mr.Bush or Tony Blair but I do think that bracketing them in along with people like Mugabe and Milosevic is not at all fair or accurate.


This of course is purely my own personal opinion.


:winner: Well said Mr Henry. =D> =D> :thumbsup:

[akbarhussain]

I have no sympathy for Milosivic, his family or his followers.

It is, however rather a shame that he died just days before his legal team were to instigate proceedings that may have forced NATO chiefs to be questioned over the illegal bombing of the former Yugoslavia. A shame that the facts surrounding these illegal bombing raids of Yugoslavia, are now never likely to be disclosed.

A great shame, but obviously just one of lifes mysterious coincidences.


I am no big fan of either Mr.Bush or Tony Blair but I do think that bracketing them in along with people like Mugabe and Milosevic is not at all fair or accurate.


You're are correct Mr. Henry, it is not really fair to bracket Bush/Blair along with the likes of Mugabe/Milosovic. When did you ever hear about Mr. Mugabe starting several illegal wars, with the death-toll of innocent civilians running into tens of thousands?

[Jelster]

I fail to see ANY relevance in the bringing to justice of a vicious and evil man like Milosevic and Tony Blair....

I hate Blair with a passion, but for Gods sake, he doesn't directly order the death of thousands and genocide... Whatever your views on the British Government and the "war" in Iraq, you cannot (with any sanity) actually believe these two men are alike....

I'm not going to be drawn on the rights or wrongs of the war in Iraq as that's off topic, but to even consider that Blair and Milosevic are similar is completely ludicrous and I suggest yo need to see a doctor....

.

[Peter Henry]

akbarhussain?

Have we just gained our own insurgent? Next you will be telling us that nice humanitarian, presently on trial in Iraq is merely misunderstood by the world community? Get real! :?

[akbarhussain]

I'm afriad that there is plenty of relevance.

but for Gods sake, he doesn't directly order the death of thousands and genocide...


And neither did Milosovic. Whenever the US/Britain feel the need to wage another illegal war, notice how it always falls under the umbrealla of 'humanitarian' grounds. Hence the wildly exagerated claims of 10's of thousands of muslim deaths in the early days of the war, which have been proved fictisious. I'm not trying to say that Milosovic is a nice guy - his administration killed people during wartime. But no different to any other administration.

"I'm not going to be drawn on the rights or wrongs of the war in Iraq as that's off topic


Why presume that I am referring to an illegal war in Iraq? (weren't humanitarian grounds used to justify this one, after the countless lies surrounding WMD were exposed?)

I could have meant the war in Afghanistan (weren't humanitarian grounds used to justify this one, after countless lies surrounding War on Terror were exposed?)

Or indeed, the illegal war in the former Yugoslavia (ahem, no, not humanitarian grounds again, surely) - which on this thread, I would say is most definetly not off-topic.

but to even consider that Blair and Milosevic are similar is completely ludicrous and I suggest yo need to see a doctor....

lol, ok then. I'll get myself off down the doctors just as soon as you see fit to start reading something other than the filthy, proaganda ridden, Blair-spiel that is found on a daily basis in the UK media.

[akbarhussain]

Have we just gained our own insurgent?

Very classy Peter Henry - racism is always a nice way to welcome a new member to the forum.

"Next you will be telling us that nice humanitarian, presently on trial in Iraq is merely misunderstood by the world community?"

Nope, he is on trial for the cultivation and use of WMD.

Oh hang on, thats right, the WMD was all a big lie. Get real yourself.

[Peter Henry]

akbar..I hardly think that the term I used would be classed as racist? If only you knew me, a racist is so far from the truth it is ridiculous!
I could be very wrong here but I will hazard a guess that you are Muslim? Which to me means no more than you have a different way of honouring and worshipping your own God than I do. No more,no less.

I am Christian and what Milosevic and his followers,(christians) were doing to the Muslim community of the former Yugoslavia was totally unforgiveable and could never in anyway be considered acceptable to any right minded person.

However your own propaganda would it seem come from the fanatical Muslim's like the "Mad Mullah's" who present such an offensive image that can only lead to mistrust and suspicion from those around them.

I do not agree with christian/western ideology being forced upon other people's,but nor do I think that we should stand by and watch such outrageous abuses of basic human rights being carried out.

Milosevic carried out genocide on a large scale, I beg to disagree that is common place in any war? Sadam Hussain was also,( among many other atrocities) responsbile for his regime attempting genocide in his country also.


btw...OFF TOPIC......

Did you find this site to simply talk politics are do you have any interest in motorcycles at all?

[akbarhussain]

akbarhussain?

Have we just gained our own insurgent?

The term you used may not be considered a slur on its own..... but the way you referred to my name, and then suggested that I was an 'insurgent' led me to believe that you were using the racial sterotype that all muslims are somehow dangerous.


If only you knew me, a racist is so far from the truth it is ridiculous!

Let me guess..... you have one or two black 'friends'?


But this is all besides the point.



However your own propaganda would it seem come from the fanatical Muslim's like the "Mad Mullah's" who present such an offensive image that can only lead to mistrust and suspicion from those around them.

I'm genuinely interested here, just what it is you are referring to as 'my own propaganda'? The FACTS I am stating about illegal conflict do not originate from any house of worship, man of cloth, or 'Mad Mullah' as you so delicatley put it. But infact, are formed on the basis that there were never any UN resolutions passed stating that military force could be used. That is what makes the wars illegal. Not propaganda, but fact.


I deeply fail to see that this issue is a Christian viewpoint Vs Muslim viewpoint - or in fact, how it is in anyway connected with religion. It is far more a case of Right Vs Wrong. If you go back to my original post, I pointed out the coincidence in timing of Milosovics death and the iminent tribunal hearing into the legality (or lack of) of the Yogoslavia attrocities (those committed by NATO).

It strikes me as verging on hypocrisy, for people whose only insight into the situation is from reading/watching BBC news, to publicly declare what an evil tyrant Milosovic was, without any question of the actions of the other world leaders that brought 'attocities' to Yugolvia.




Oh, and yes, I am a biker.

[Peter Henry]

akbar..Some very interesting points made there.

I used to have several good friends,( who as it happens were black) when I lived in the U.K. But where I lived I did not often come in to contact with many people from ethnic or minority communites to be honest.

But more importantly to me is that a person is a person,skin tone,religious back ground,culture etc. do not dictate how I would judge a person.

[tricky]

It strikes me as verging on hypocrisy, for people whose only insight into the situation is from reading/watching BBC news, to publicly declare what an evil tyrant Milosovic was, without any question of the actions of the other world leaders that brought 'attocities' to Yugolvia.


Mr Hussain, can I ask what is your source of information in UN/NATO actions in the former Yugoslavia ?

[Anonymous]

It strikes me as verging on hypocrisy, for people whose only insight into the situation is from reading/watching BBC news, to publicly declare what an evil tyrant Milosovic was, without any question of the actions of the other world leaders that brought 'attocities' to Yugolvia.


Mr Hussain, can I ask what is your source of information in UN/NATO actions in the former Yugoslavia ?

He seems to have fallen silent. :?

[Peter Henry]

Joe....You started this! :? :P

[akbarhussain]

I'd be delighted to oblige Mr.Tricky - is there any area in particular that you would like to see documented?

For some information regarding dis-information (or propaganda) used by Clinton/Blair administrations to justify the use of force:

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/pwood.htm

The International Action Center (above link) is an organisation setup by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and is a great resource for stories of this nature that will not appear in your average 'government-line' uk media.

http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/kosovo/

This site, although not an established 'named' media source within its own right, uses articles cut from major news sources (usually the Guardian in the UK). It contains many, many interesting links as examples of NATO lies and warcrimes.

Now, I was hoping to use the UN website as a reference to the fact that there were no resolutions passed allowing the use of force in the Balkans - but unfortunatly the site only contains reference to those resolutions that have ACTUALLY being passsed. Sorry. :wink:

[akbarhussain]

He seems to have fallen silent.

lol

[tricky]

Hmm interesting, thanks for that.

I don't think I'll join the main debate, but I'll say this:

How can you tell if a politician is lying ?
His lips move.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

usually the Guardian in the UK

Lol. Where else :roll:

[akbarhussain]

Lol. Where else

That took me by surprise, I never expected a comeback like that :roll:

I hope you understand that all media outlets have a political bias to them Flamin_Squirrel. But being as you see fit to 'lol' at the statement care to bring into question any of the articles published or referenced?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Lol. Where else

That took me by surprise, I never expected a comeback like that :roll:

I hope you understand that all media outlets have a political bias to them Flamin_Squirrel. But being as you see fit to 'lol' at the statement care to bring into question any of the articles published or referenced?

It wasnt really a come back.

I just dispise The Guardian and its complete lack of respect for the western world on which it depends.

[akbarhussain]

Fair enough.

But if, by lack of respect, you actually mean that they regularly exercise their right to print the the non-governmental line (otherwise known as the truth), then yes I agree with you.

I too despise the truth.

[Anonymous]

Joe....You started this! :? :P

Whoops! Oh yeah! Damned, ive done it again! Only this time im not participating.
:P :cry: :lol: :lol:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Fair enough.

But if, by lack of respect, you actually mean that they regularly exercise their right to print the the non-governmental line (otherwise known as the truth), then yes I agree with you.

I too despise the truth.

Dont be an idiot.

Regardless of political bias, all papers will dig at the government when presented with the opertunity.

[akbarhussain]

Dont be an idiot.

lol, ok, i'll try. Please forgive me for my idiocy, but can you explain your statement:

I just dispise The Guardian and its complete lack of respect for the western world on which it depends.

[Lissa]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear :roll:

[Jelster]

but for Gods sake, he doesn't directly order the death of thousands and genocide...


And neither did Milosovic. Whenever the US/Britain feel the need to wage another illegal war, notice how it always falls under the umbrealla of 'humanitarian' grounds. Hence the wildly exagerated claims of 10's of thousands of muslim deaths in the early days of the war, which have been proved fictisious. I'm not trying to say that Milosovic is a nice guy - his administration killed people during wartime. But no different to any other administration.

So are you saying that all the proof of his atrocities are a complete farce ?

"I'm not going to be drawn on the rights or wrongs of the war in Iraq as that's off topic


Why presume that I am referring to an illegal war in Iraq? (weren't humanitarian grounds used to justify this one, after the countless lies surrounding WMD were exposed?)

I could have meant the war in Afghanistan (weren't humanitarian grounds used to justify this one, after countless lies surrounding War on Terror were exposed?)

Or indeed, the illegal war in the former Yugoslavia (ahem, no, not humanitarian grounds again, surely) - which on this thread, I would say is most definetly not off-topic.

I said "the rights or wrongs" I didn't say that it was illegal. And if IRC, were not the British troops in Yugoslavia on behalf of NATO ? As far as I can remember, the British had no "active" part in that war at all.

but to even consider that Blair and Milosevic are similar is completely ludicrous and I suggest yo need to see a doctor....

ok then. I'll get myself off down the doctors just as soon as you see fit to start reading something other than the filthy, proaganda ridden, Blair-spiel that is found on a daily basis in the UK media.

Like I have already stated, I detest Blair, but he's not a man hell bent on genocide, which Milosevic was... He even admitted it at one stage. I don't see any reports of British troops carrying out "Ethnic Cleansing" in Afghanistan or Iraq. So if I were you I'd be making that appointment PDQ...

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Dont be an idiot.

lol, ok, i'll try. Please forgive me for my idiocy, but can you explain your statement:

I just dispise The Guardian and its complete lack of respect for the western world on which it depends.

Certainly. The free press requires the liberty to go about their job unhindered to gather all the relevant facts. But The Guardian being writen by left wing lunatics who think they know best for everyone, seek to impose their views on others, restricting the personal and economic freedom which they themselves require to function.

[akbarhussain]

So are you saying that all the proof of his atrocities are a complete farce ?

So can you provide me with any proof that they did occur? I have posted a link site with EXTENSIVE proof of documented articles, showing how the usual propaganda was used to turn Milosovic into the next 'Hitler' (this term usage was extensive in many tabloid articles at the begining of 1999), saying that he ate babies and exterminated muslims.

Most, if not all of the reporting at the time showing so called 'atroctites' has been proven to be at best, wildly exagerated, and at worst damn lies. See IAC website that I posted a link to for further details.

I said "the rights or wrongs" I didn't say that it was illegal. And if IRC, were not the British troops in Yugoslavia on behalf of NATO ? As far as I can remember, the British had no "active" part in that war at all.

So you were talking morally? As far as i am aware under international law, illegal has more importance than 'rights and wrongs'

I never said that the British were at war in Yugoslavia. But to expand on your point, using NATO rather than US/Brit forces was simply a way of creating an illusion that there was an alliance in force. It was a method being tested for future use - unfortunatley for US/Britain, the French weren't too happy to go along with the latest excapades.


He even admitted it at one stage


Source please?

I don't see any reports of British troops carrying out "Ethnic Cleansing" in Afghanistan or Iraq

Neither do I. But there was the carpet bombing of Afghanistan, killing thousands of civillians. Intentional targeting of civilians in Yugoslavis and Afghanistan.

You could even call the genocide of the Kurds by the Turks British assissted.
Oops, hang on just one minute, thats not genocide because we're freinds with Turkey.

So if I were you I'd be making that appointment PDQ

Good job you're not me then, isn't it? Maybe try reading between the lines, and look just a little outside the box. You will find enlightenment Mr. Jelster.

[akbarhussain]

Certainly. The free press requires the liberty to go about their job unhindered to gather all the relevant facts. But The Guardian being writen by left wing lunatics who think they know best for everyone, seek to impose their views on others, restricting the personal and economic freedom which they themselves require to function.

Hahahahaha!! Classic, I think the truth comes out a little here - left wing being the dirty word.

I take it that you can backup your claims about the Guardian? Or maybe even dispute a single article that has been printed within?

[Peter Henry]

Jordan... You have in the past ojected to my stroppiness and to that end I do think that you are out of order telling akbar..."don't be idiotic"


Just my opinion of course. :?

[helen]

I don't like the Guardian either, largely because they cannot spell.

[northwind]

Dont be an idiot.

lol, ok, i'll try. Please forgive me for my idiocy, but can you explain your statement:

I just dispise The Guardian and its complete lack of respect for the western world on which it depends.

Certainly. The free press requires the liberty to go about their job unhindered to gather all the relevant facts. But The Guardian being writen by left wing lunatics who think they know best for everyone, seek to impose their views on others, restricting the personal and economic freedom which they themselves require to function.

How in the world does a newspaper "impose its views" on anyone? Do you have to read it?

[akbarhussain]

I don't like the Guardian either, largely because they cannot spell.

* Checks Helens post for spelling/grammatical errors * :wink:

[jonboy]

I like the Guardian, it adds another viewpoint and helps create balance.

What I do find odd is that akbarhussain has posted continually just in one political thread and nowehere else. Does he actually own an SV? Or even any bike? :-k


.

[helen]

Jordan did say that the writers seek to impose their views. Of course, the newspaper itself is incapable of imposition.

At my uni, The Guardian was always free in the union shop. That's because very few people would buy it. And that's generally because the standard of writing was poor. I don't know if it still is poor, I haven't read it for seven years.

[jonboy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Good website.


.

[Stig]

Good topic of discussion. These type of topics will always be controversial just by the nature of the topic. I am enjoying the reading. However, these type of topics nearly always bring out strong words, and in most cases, flaming of person from another. Should this topic continue, and I hope that it does, make sure that personal insults are not thrown in to the argument.

If this does happen, then the thread will be deleted, and then there would have been no point in the thread in the first place.

Personally, I believe that unless you are living through the event, the only source of information that you have is what is available in the public domain. Regardless of what that media is, it is left for you to interpret that information in the way that you see it. Exactly the same as comments on here. Because there is no human interaction to tell you that you have misunderstood the way it was conveyed, you will interpret anything you read or watch as you see it at the time.

On top of that, you only have the authors word that what is written or spoken is fact.

The same I feel as the websites that akbarhussain has mentioned below, and the British or any other tabloid, press or news report. It is portrayed in a particular style to present THEIR interpretation of the "facts".




I'd be delighted to oblige Mr.Tricky - is there any area in particular that you would like to see documented?

For some information regarding dis-information (or propaganda) used by Clinton/Blair administrations to justify the use of force:

http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/pwood.htm

The International Action Center (above link) is an organisation setup by former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, and is a great resource for stories of this nature that will not appear in your average 'government-line' uk media.

http://www.geocities.com/anaxfiles/kosovo/

This site, although not an established 'named' media source within its own right, uses articles cut from major news sources (usually the Guardian in the UK). It contains many, many interesting links as examples of NATO lies and warcrimes.

Now, I was hoping to use the UN website as a reference to the fact that there were no resolutions passed allowing the use of force in the Balkans - but unfortunatly the site only contains reference to those resolutions that have ACTUALLY being passsed. Sorry. :wink:

[Supervox]

But there was the carpet bombing of Afghanistan, killing thousands of civillians. Intentional targeting of civilians in Yugoslavis and Afghanistan.



Source please !!

[akbarhussain]

Source please

lol, ooooh, you nearly caught me out then. I will provide a source for this tomorrow morning, got to go and fight injustice elsewhere for now.

But am I the only one providing sources for my information so far?

[Jelster]

I think everybody else also has a life......

.

[Biker Biggles]

The truth is "out there" 8)











And that's where it will stay. :(

[furrybean]

lol, ooooh, you nearly caught me out then. I will provide a source for this tomorrow morning, got to go and fight injustice elsewhere for now.

And so we know the true identity of superman!!! \:D/

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Certainly. The free press requires the liberty to go about their job unhindered to gather all the relevant facts. But The Guardian being writen by left wing lunatics who think they know best for everyone, seek to impose their views on others, restricting the personal and economic freedom which they themselves require to function.

Hahahahaha!! Classic, I think the truth comes out a little here - left wing being the dirty word.

In my opinion yes, I see left wing as a dirty word. I think this way because left wingers like yourself speak of truth, good, and justice as they are absolutes. They arent, they are a matter of opinion and those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.

I had some sympathy for your initial argument. I dont think we have any business imposing our values on the peoples of Iraq or Afghanistan. Much the same way you have no business coming on here imposing your views on us. You dont have the answers, so dont pretend that you do.

How in the world does a newspaper "impose its views" on anyone? Do you have to read it?

As Helen points out, I said the writers seek to impose, I did not say the paper does.

[northwind]

So how do the writers impose their beliefs on you?

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So how do the writers impose their beliefs on you?

They dont, but they're arrogant enough to think that they should be able to, like i said.

[northwind]

It's called having an opinion.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Yes, one they wish to force on everyone else.

[Stig]

Yes, one they wish to force on everyone else.

It's not a case of enforcing it on everyone else. It's a case of making topics that sell the papers.

[Anonymous]

Yes, one they wish to force on everyone else.

It's not a case of enforcing it on everyone else. It's a case of making topics that sell the papers.

Yup. Its called Sensationalism.

People have to remember that papers are just a business. They are there to make a profit.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Yes, one they wish to force on everyone else.

It's not a case of enforcing it on everyone else. It's a case of making topics that sell the papers.

I hold most journalists with contempt, so normaly I'd agree. Not however, in the case of the Guardian. Two reasons - firstly, they are the worst selling of all the papers - secondly, I've seen their writers on the news, and it seems they genuinely believe the pompous rubbish they come up with.

[Peter Henry]

Flaming Squirrel qwrote:

those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.


And I wonder what people with an alternative view to yourself might think of you? Perhaps they might be able to accept that other's have a different point of view than themselves without resorting to such balatant name calling.

*yes I am reformed* :wink:

[northwind]

Yes, one they wish to force on everyone else.

You're in a bit of a loop there my friend... if anything, the Telegraph and the Sun have historically been far more inclined to actively press an opinion, and to run persistant campaigns in support of that opinion. I read the Guardian from time to time- well, I read Doonesbury and the G2 supplement, but I've been known to dip into the adult seciton- and I really don't see this fanatic zeal that you describe.

[Peter Henry]

Squirrel...Why are you getting so irate and offensive when all akbar is doing is perhaps bringing to our consciousness a different line of thought? Why is it with you that it is always your way or no way? Duscussion to you is nothing more than crossing swords and trying to force your own point of view.

There are members of this forum who are prepared to hear out a reasoned argument whether they agree with it or not.

[northwind]

No, it's the Guardian that wants to force their opinion on everyone else ;) (just kidding Squirrel!)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Flaming Squirrel qwrote:

those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.


And I wonder what people with an alternative view to yourself might think of you? Perhaps they might be able to accept that other's have a different point of view than themselves without resorting to such balatant name calling.

*yes I am reformed* :wink:

That quote is meaningless without the rest of the sentance.

Us humans have been around for a while now, civilisations have risen and fallen, and may different forms of governence have been tried. Yet we've still not managed to create a utopia where everyone can be happy. Why? Because it's impossible. Noone has 'the answer' and anyone who thinks they do is a pretentious fool. It's not blatent name calling.

There are members of this forum who are prepared to hear out a reasoned argument whether they agree with it or not.

Pot, kettle.

[Peter Henry]

Flaming Squirrel wrote:

Pot, kettle.

Looking back through this thread,I somehow think not. :wink:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Flaming Squirrel wrote:

Pot, kettle.

Looking back through this thread,I somehow think not. :wink:

I'm not talking about this thread, but I'm sure you know that.

Shall we get back on topic?

[fizzwheel]

Shall we get back on topic?

:thumbsup:

[akbarhussain]

Lol @:

like yourself speak of truth, good, and justice as they are absolutes. They arent, they are a matter of opinion



And then:


and those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.

Really Squirrell, I hope you can see the irony here. Your entire logic and argument is flawed. You are telling us that the left-wing, pompous rubbish printed in The Guardian is rammed down our throats, by the self-hyping, sensationalist lunatic journalists that really shouldn't be believing their own words. Lol, ok then.

So have you been able to identify a single article that they have printed that is factually incorrect?

like yourself speak of truth, good, and justice as they are absolutes. They arent, they are a matter of opinion



And taking this quote again, can you please show me where I have spoken of truth, good and justice like they are absolutes?

But while we're on th point, I would have to say that Truth IS an absolute. It is only the propaganda created around it that is open to opinion.

[helen]

I'm not sure if the sole motivation of newspapers is to make money.

Look at Richard Desmond when he bought the Express - his porn industry got him his millions - the Express was more of a vehicle to get his political views across - it's telling that the Express has chopped and changed its allegiance with New Labour depending on how well Desmond was getting on with Blair.

Newpapers are megaphones for mega rich people (newspaper owners). And they (undoubtedly in my opinion) do wish to impose their views - via their journalists.

[tricky]

I think Akbar hit the nail on the head a few pages back, you have to read between the lines. You have to find as many articles or sources of information as you can on any one incident, disseminate the useful stuff and make up your own mind.

Personally I take most things with a pinch of salt. I read an article a few years ago about something I was actually involved in and new a great deal about. The article that was published in the newspaper (I can't remember which one, but it was a credible one (if such a thing exists)) was absolute rubbish. The article was 30% fiction and even a lot of the simple details like peoples names where incorrect.

[Droc]

Peter Henry wrote:
*yes I am reformed*

Thats good to see PH :wink:

[Filipe M.]

But while we're on th point, I would have to say that Truth IS an absolute. It is only the propaganda created around it that is open to opinion.

Yep... One thing I've learned throughout the years about truth: there are three of them. "Mine", "Yours", and "The" Truth.
Dumb as it may seem, not everyone realizes this.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Lol @:

like yourself speak of truth, good, and justice as they are absolutes. They arent, they are a matter of opinion



And then:


and those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.

Really Squirrell, I hope you can see the irony here. Your entire logic and argument is flawed. You are telling us that the left-wing, pompous rubbish printed in The Guardian is rammed down our throats, by the self-hyping, sensationalist lunatic journalists that really shouldn't be believing their own words. Lol, ok then.

Why is that ironic?



And taking this quote again, can you please show me where I have spoken of truth, good and justice like they are absolutes?

Err, right here for a start?!...

But while we're on th point, I would have to say that Truth IS an absolute. It is only the propaganda created around it that is open to opinion.

But that's the point - propaganda generated by the press IS the truth - they arent allowed to print that which is factualy incorrect. By picking and choosing facts any point can be shown to be 'true', but it isnt the absolute truth.

[Jelster]

Since our new found friends insistance on "finding the real truth" I spent a couple of hours last night actually researching this on the net (yes sad I know, but there wasn't nuch on TV and the Mrs was out).

I found the sites that akbarhussain mentioned offer 1 view, but everything else offered another. I found very little taking the middle ground. So, most of what I read backed what I had previously understood to be the case.

My conclusion from this is I still feel the same as I did before the views of Mr akbarhussain. Sorry mate, you haven't converted me... I still think the guy was an evil sadistic SOB.....

So I guess, if you really want someone who is guilty to look innocent all you have to do is to find enough people to belive what you say. On the other hand you could always look at the evidence and listen to those that were there.

.

[Peter Henry]

Jelster...Based on that, what are your thoughts of the massive number of German people that refused to acknowledge that the holocaust ever took place? Despite such damning evidence?

Also can anyone explain why many of Milosevic's followers are publicly mourning his demise?

As in many such cases there are those that benefitted from the actions taken and such deeds or the result of them would suit some more than others. Never makes it right though.

[akbarhussain]

Squirrel, openly talking about a subject being a matter of opinion..... and then using the phrase 'and those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.' lol.


But that's the point - propaganda generated by the press IS the truth - they arent allowed to print that which is factualy incorrect. By picking and choosing facts any point can be shown to be 'true', but it isnt the absolute truth.


Propaganda isn't usually generated by the press. Our western media is far too accepting of what it is told by government and 'leaked' sources - it is their propaganda, not that of the newspaper.

By picking and choosing facts any point can be shown to be 'true'

But that isn't the truth. THE truth is absolute. An interpreteation is not. But hey, thats simply semantics.

You seem pretty good at quoting my posts when it suits you, but simply ignoring direct questions I am asking you - would you be willing to answer the questions I have posed? I get the feeling that you are trolling a little here, as this kind of tactic of avoidance, for debate is pretty common I notice on forums. If that is the case, fine, you are adding another angle to the debate.

[akbarhussain]

On the other hand you could always look at the evidence and listen to those that were there.

Good idea. So on that basis:

- I genuinely believe that Iraq possessed and was intent on using WMD (or do I believe that the US wanted to stamp its authority on the region, in the process gaining control of the second largest oil supply in the Middle East taking away dependance on the Saudis, and creating the largest US military base in a strategic position next door to Iran.

- I genuinely beleive that the latest round of press reporting and government threats over the dangerous, WMD toting Iranians are genuine (Or could it be that the Iranians are in the process of scrapping the USD as their favoured currency for oil dealing, planning on moving over to the Euro. Bush WILL NOT let this happen, war will ensue.)

- I genuinely believe that the War on terror, and invasion of Afghanistan was a measure taken to capture Bin Laden and server to protect the US sovierengty (or maybe I am sceptical, because so far the US has done nothing towards completing its stated aims, but seems far more concerned with securing the vast and rich oil supplies of Central-Asia.)

All situations stated above are used only as examples - but all fit the classic model currently being used by our governments to allow them to do as they please.

- Tell us we are in danger from X source

- Flood newspaper inches with stories of enemy X eating babies/torturing small animals/genocide

- Greatly exagerate any potential security threats (the recent 'cartoon' protests being a great example)

- Start war against Enemy X

- When all potential security risks from Enemy X were proved to be false, use the 'humanitarian' grounds that were created during the de-humaniising of Enemy X.

So yep, the government has a proven track record of telling us what we need to know so that we can make an informed decision.
:roll:

And also, the UK media can be relied upon to investigate, and print the stories that are valuable to UK people. And not just print the line that is spoon fed by the governement. :roll:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Squirrel, openly talking about a subject being a matter of opinion..... and then using the phrase 'and those who think otherwise are pretentious fools.' lol.

I never said people who had a certain opinion were pretentious, I said those who speak as if they have all the answers are pretentious. You've left out half the quote there.

But that's the point - propaganda generated by the press IS the truth - they arent allowed to print that which is factualy incorrect. By picking and choosing facts any point can be shown to be 'true', but it isnt the absolute truth.


Propaganda isn't usually generated by the press. Our western media is far too accepting of what it is told by government and 'leaked' sources - it is their propaganda, not that of the newspaper.

As opposed to your beloved Guardian? :roll:

I dont know what your sources are, but implying the media is controled by the government is complete nonsence.

By picking and choosing facts any point can be shown to be 'true'

But that isn't the truth. THE truth is absolute. An interpreteation is not. But hey, thats simply semantics.

So when all you have to go by are sources created by people who will always have their own bias however small, how can you possibly know what the truth is?



You seem pretty good at quoting my posts when it suits you, but simply ignoring direct questions I am asking you

The only direct question I seem to remember you asking me was if the Guardian has writen factualy incorrect information. I've already covered that (albeit not directly) by stating that the press will leave bits of information out to give their own version of the truth (which you correctly state isnt the real truth), and the Guardian is no less guilty of doing this.

[Sudoxe]

Propaganda isn't usually generated by the press. Our western media is far too accepting of what it is told by government and 'leaked' sources - it is their propaganda, not that of the newspaper.

As opposed to your beloved Guardian? :roll:

I dont know what your sources are, but implying the media is controled by the government is complete nonsence.


Ah! But, they brainwashed you as well!

Dan

[akbarhussain]

I said those who speak as if they have all the answers are pretentious.

lol.


As opposed to your beloved Guardian?

I don't, and have never read The Guardian. I simply use it as a point of reference, like I do with all journals. Your bias towards everything right wing seems to be swaying your judgement a little now, maybe try and stay bias free?

I dont know what your sources are, but implying the media is controled by the government is complete nonsence.

So in light of the examples given above (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc) - can you name me any UK media outlets that printed anything other that the government line? Or maybe some that questioned the evidence presented? Oh thats right, the BBC attempted this with the backing of a doctor. If I remember rightly, the doctor is now dead, and the BBC (under a new chief exec) are doing their best to ensure that their charter will be renewed.

So when all you have to go by are sources created by people who will always have their own bias however small, how can you possibly know what the truth is?

Read everyting you can, read between the lines, don't accept antything in major journals as a given just becasue it is in print.

[Jelster]

Well that's my point... If you only ever feed one side of a story to somebody they will only ever believe in their perception, because what you percieve is your reality. Only by seeking out more information can you take a balanced view.

You then have the situation where people are "brainwashed" to believe. People who are in despair will often back somebody strong from their community, believe what they promise and follow them along a path, where ever it takes them. Because such is their need for hope, and this leader offers them hope, then they go into a state of denile about anything bad said against them.

Unfortunately it's human nature :cry:

Jelster...Based on that, what are your thoughts of the massive number of German people that refused to acknowledge that the holocaust ever took place? Despite such damning evidence?

Also can anyone explain why many of Milosevic's followers are publicly mourning his demise?

As in many such cases there are those that benefitted from the actions taken and such deeds or the result of them would suit some more than others. Never makes it right though.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

So in light of the examples given above (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc) - can you name me any UK media outlets that printed anything other that the government line?

All of them? I've not seen any media outlets that regard the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan etc as either good or necessary. I've seen some that have tried to give a balanced view of the situation by, for example, interviewing Iraqis who are pleased to see Sadam gone, but certainly none that tow the government line as you suggest by saying things like "there are WMD's we've just not found them".

Read everyting you can, read between the lines, don't accept antything in major journals as a given just becasue it is in print.

So if you have such a balanced veiw, why do you see the invasion of Iraq as universaly evil?

[Filipe M.]

Well that's my point... If you only ever feed one side of a story to somebody they will only ever believe in their perception, because what you percieve is your reality. Only by seeking out more information can you take a balanced view.

You then have the situation where people are "brainwashed" to believe. People who are in despair will often back somebody strong from their community, believe what they promise and follow them along a path, where ever it takes them. Because such is their need for hope, and this leader offers them hope, then they go into a state of denile about anything bad said against them.

Unfortunately it's human nature :cry:

And this leads us to that old but somehow true joke... tell someone that Men have walked on the moon and they'll believe you; tell someone the paint in the bench isn't dry yet and they'll have to put their finger on it to see for themselves.

[akbarhussain]

All of them? I've not seen any media outlets that regard the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan etc as either good or necessary. I've seen some that have tried to give a balanced view of the situation by, for example, interviewing Iraqis who are pleased to see Sadam gone, but certainly none that tow the government line as you suggest by saying things like "there are WMD's we've just not found them".

The only UK media source to question the content of early security material on Iraq was the BBC. And look what happened toi them.

ALL Uk newspapers were quite happy to fill their pages with the typical government line (contatining mainly media taken directly from that dossier).

So if you have such a balanced veiw, why do you see the invasion of Iraq as universaly evil?

Where did I say it was 'universally evil' agian? I can't find where I wrote that.....

But if you'd like me to explain my feelings on Iraq:

1) Why the need to lie about the reason for going to war in Iraq?

2) No UN backing - no resolutions passed. That means the war is ILLEGAL.

3) The war in Iraq was and is only ever gonna be about the oil.

So if by 'universally evil', you mean that I disagree with it on the basis that it is illegal, money oriented, and worst of all IMO, that they weren't able to tell us the real reasons for the conflict, then yes, I agree.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

All of them? I've not seen any media outlets that regard the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan etc as either good or necessary. I've seen some that have tried to give a balanced view of the situation by, for example, interviewing Iraqis who are pleased to see Sadam gone, but certainly none that tow the government line as you suggest by saying things like "there are WMD's we've just not found them".

The only UK media source to question the content of early security material on Iraq was the BBC. And look what happened toi them.

ALL Uk newspapers were quite happy to fill their pages with the typical government line (contatining mainly media taken directly from that dossier).

So what you're saying is the media reported the news without adding their own spin? Whats wrong with that?

1) Why the need to lie about the reason for going to war in Iraq?

Because people in the west have a false sense of morality. We are no longer able to accept that our standard of living comes at the detriment of others, yet we are unable to accept a decline in said standard of living.

Therefore (if for arguments sake, lets assume that show of solidarity with the Americans by going to war with them will indirectly make us more wealthy) when the government needs to make an unpopular decision that will help maintain our life style, the easiest thing to do is make that decision and lie about the reasons.

2) No UN backing - no resolutions passed. That means the war is ILLEGAL.

Yes, and the reason for the lack of UN resolution was because of a bunch of corrupt frenchmen. Iraq sold oil in Euros, and as you've pointed out already the americans want the USD to dominate. The French opposed the war because they knew that if the Americans invaded and took control then Iraq would stop selling in Euros and start selling in USD, which of course the French didnt want.

[akbarhussain]

So what you're saying is the media reported the news without adding their own spin? Whats wrong with that?

No, i'm saying they reported what they were told. There is a big difference. Once upon a time, people expected that journalists investigated their work, and wrote a piece that reflected their own opinions. Nowadays, it seems that when the government decide it is right they just report what their told.


Because people in the west have a false sense of morality. We are no longer able to accept that our standard of living comes at the detriment of others, yet we are unable to accept a decline in said standard of living.

Therefore (if for arguments sake, lets assume that show of solidarity with the Americans by going to war with them will indirectly make us more wealthy) when the government needs to make an unpopular decision that will help maintain our life style, the easiest thing to do is make that decision and lie about the reasons.

At last, we are getting somewhere. That is exactly what the US/British are fighting for. It is nothing more than a balnace of power issue - currently, we have the power and are afraid of losing it, so will keep on fighting our wars until we are sufficeiently reassusred that the power is still ours.

I am glad that you regcognise that the governments percieved need to force our will upon that of others, does NOT make it in any way right.

Yes, and the reason for the lack of UN resolution was because of a bunch of corrupt frenchmen. Iraq sold oil in Euros, and as you've pointed out already the americans want the USD to dominate. The French opposed the war because they knew that if the Americans invaded and took control then Iraq would stop selling in Euros and start selling in USD, which of course the French didnt want.

Lol at it just being the 'corrupt frenchmen' that didn't want the war. Pretty much all of the EU were against it if you remember.

But as we're discussing the French oil situation, you are correct that they were in the position (along with Russia) that they had successfully negotiated contracts worth billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq. Completely legally and above board.

These contracts will now be ripped up, and the Iraq 'government' will decide who should be awarded the new contrcats - guarentee they are going nowhere other than US.

I'm afraid that doing business i this kind of way, even if as you say, the governemnt feel it is required, that in no way makes it right.

Yes, and the reason for the lack of UN resolution was because of a bunch of corrupt frenchmen. Iraq sold oil in Euros, and as you've pointed out already the americans want the USD to dominate. The French opposed the war because they knew that if the Americans invaded and took control then Iraq would stop selling in Euros and start selling in USD, which of course the French didnt want.

As a point of interest, take a look at this website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Pretty much spells out where we are heading. And notice the names of the comittee members, I beleive there are several you would expect to see, including ol' Jeb. SO they no longer feel the need to keep their aims quiet anymore. Interesting.

[jonboy]

Note to akbarhussain:

Taking on the never-ceasing fabulously biased contra-arguments of Flamin_Squirrel is truly an Herculean task, and one that requires cyber-endeavour of the most resilient kind. Be aware that you'll never win (even if your argument is correct) and that in the end it just becomes a test of endurance. However, I wish you much luck :lol: .



Sorry Jordan :-dd

.

[akbarhussain]

lol, thanks for letting me know jonboy.

[Ed]

Do we really have to have the war for oil debate - again and again and again :roll:

I believe that Blair and Bush did themselves believe the now discredited intelligence on WMDs. There were other reasons too which weren't really relied upon at the time, like for example the fact that Hussein (like Milosevic) was a genocidal butcher.

But oil? Yawn....

[akbarhussain]

like for example the fact that Hussein (like Milosevic) was a genocidal butcher.

Yep, just like ID cards will help to prevent terrorism.

Yawn.

[Droc]

Sythree wrote:
I believe that Blair and Bush did themselves believe the now discredited intelligence on WMDs. There were other reasons too which weren't really relied upon at the time, like for example the fact that Hussein (like Milosevic) was a genocidal butcher.

"The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6596

"Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War."

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

Looks to me like the 'alliance' has killed more Iraqi's than the 'genocidal butcher' :oops:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Lol at it just being the 'corrupt frenchmen' that didn't want the war. Pretty much all of the EU were against it if you remember.

Yeah, but then most of the EU use the Euro.

But as we're discussing the French oil situation, you are correct that they were in the position (along with Russia) that they had successfully negotiated contracts worth billions of dollars in oil contracts with Iraq. Completely legally and above board.

True, but if the French had an interest in the USD prevailing instead of the Euro, you can bet they'd be fighting too.

I'm afraid that doing business i this kind of way, even if as you say, the governemnt feel it is required, that in no way makes it right.

True.

As a point of interest, take a look at this website: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I read the first line, that was enough. Lunatics.

Greg, how about contributing? I'm not bias, I'm eminently open to anyone elses opinion providing they can justify it, and while I may not agree with everything he says, akbar does a good job of this.

[tricky]

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/us-presidents.html

[northwind]

like for example the fact that Hussein (like Milosevic) was a genocidal butcher.

Yep, just like ID cards will help to prevent terrorism.

Yawn.

So are you denying that Hussein used nerve gas against kurdish iraqis?