Lies,hypocrisy & Hyperbole

[DiogenesUK]

...And living in the US of A

Just seen tv footage of some kuwaiti or other in the states with Colin Powell.No doubt the aforementioned Mr Powell will be pressing him,and the Saudi administration on their adoption of democracy in the near future.......NOT :(

This latest massacre has produced new lows in reporting,the likes of which I never thought anyone would dare to even contemplate.The only conclusion I can draw is that the audience truly is as stupid as was feared by the rest of the world :blink:

[N£MO]

It's no worse than the lies told in the UK.One example that springs to mind is the theosis that was drawn up before the war by the UK gov,didnt that include some stuff that a student wrote... :lol: :lol:

My point....all goverments lie to their people and are hypocratic,i dont think the USA are any worse in that aspect :)

[ne1GotZardoz]

Originally posted by N£MO@15 April 2003 - 10:37
It's no worse than the lies told in the UK.One example that springs to mind is the theosis that was drawn up before the war by the UK gov,didnt that include some stuff that a student wrote... :lol: :lol:

My point....all goverments lie to their people and are hypocratic,i dont think the USA are any worse in that aspect :)
I'm curious to know what those Theosis were on exactly.

I've heard two people now who made a big to-do over them, but I have yet to find out what its about, and if the theosis were right in their assertion.

Thats something I would think should be brought out before you proclaim a doccument as a fabrication...What was the validity of the source?

And the other person who referenced that doccument admitted that the UK/US was up front with that fact that the doccument was comprised of information from several sources.

So far I'm not seeing a problem here.

What are you not mentioning?

[ne1GotZardoz]

Just seen tv footage of some kuwaiti or other in the states with Colin Powell.No doubt the aforementioned Mr Powell will be pressing him,and the Saudi administration on their adoption of democracy in the near future.......NOT 

This latest massacre has produced new lows in reporting,the likes of which I never thought anyone would dare to even contemplate.The only conclusion I can draw is that the audience truly is as stupid as was feared by the rest of the world 

Just call me stupid then, because I have no idea what you just said.

It looks like you are accusing Powell of not trying to encourage the spread of democracy.
I wonder what you make of the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN first visiting New York, then Paris, then Jordan?

Suspicious don't you agree?

[DiogenesUK]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@15 April 2003 - 21:26

Just seen tv footage of some kuwaiti or other in the states with Colin Powell.No doubt the aforementioned Mr Powell will be pressing him,and the Saudi administration on their adoption of democracy in the near future.......NOT

This latest massacre has produced new lows in reporting,the likes of which I never thought anyone would dare to even contemplate.The only conclusion I can draw is that the audience truly is as stupid as was feared by the rest of the world

Just call me stupid then, because I have no idea what you just said.

It looks like you are accusing Powell of not trying to encourage the spread of democracy.
I wonder what you make of the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN first visiting New York, then Paris, then Jordan?

Suspicious don't you agree?
Yes indeed,deeply suspicious,I'll watch that chap with interest,maybe he's the information ministers (half !!!) brother :ph34r:

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@15 April 2003 - 21:26
I'm curious to know what those Theosis were on exactly.
There have been two incidents in particular regarding falsified intelligence. The first is the British report, cited by Colin Powell in his address to the UN, where he lays out the evidence against SH. Second, a story originally broke by hirsch in the new yorker, detailing how a hopelessly incompetent forgery somehow passed the scrutiny of American intelligence as it was forwarded all the way up to the top, and served as evidence to ground the rumsfeld/wolfowitz doctrine.



British Government Plagiarizes MERIA Journal: Our Response
As some of you may have heard, a major scandal which has received global media coverage erupted over the British government’s plagiarism of a MERIA Journal article.

In brief, the story is as follows. Ibrahim al-Marashi wrote a fine article in our September 2002 issue entitled, “Iraq’s Security and Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis,” which looked at that country’s secret police and other such forces in detail. He used captured Iraqi documents from the 1991 Kuwait war but updated it to cover later developments, power shifts, and personnel changes among these agencies. (For other works using these archives in MERIA Journal, see Robert Rabil, "Operation "Operation Termination of Traitors": Iraq's Anti-Kurdish Campaign"MJ Vol.6, No.3 (September, 2002) and Robert G. Rabil, "The Iraqi Opposition's Evolution: From Conflict to Unity?" MJ Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 2002).

On February 3, 2003, the British government released a report, "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation" which was said to be based on high-level British intelligence and diplomatic sources. It was produced under the approval of Prime Minister Tony Blair and was highly praised by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.  The problem was that most of the report was taken word-for-word from Marashi’s MERIA Journal and other articles.
from: http://meria.idc.ac.il/british-govt-plagia...izes-meria.html (http://meria.idc.ac.il/british-govt-plagiarizes-meria.html)

Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake (washingtonpost.com)
... UN Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged, ... president, David Albright,
wrote in the report. Powell's spokesman said the secretary of state had ...
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ articles/A59403-2003Mar7.html - Similar pages

CNN.com - Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for US - Mar. 14, ...
... From David Ensor CNN Washington Bureau, US Secretary of State Colin Powell
spoke to the UN Security Council on Wednesday, February 5. Story Tools. ...
www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/ - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

The New Yorker
WHO LIED TO WHOM?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?
Issue of 2003-03-31
Posted 2003-03-24
Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq’s weapons capability. It was an important presentation for the Bush Administration. Some Democrats were publicly questioning the President’s claim that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to the United States. Just the day before, former Vice-President Al Gore had sharply criticized the Administration’s advocacy of preëmptive war, calling it a doctrine that would replace “a world in which states consider themselves subject to law” with “the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.” A few Democrats were also considering putting an alternative resolution before Congress.

CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore
By Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A30
CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.

[j2k4]

The preceding post is on point and well-documented.
(Thought you'd like to hear that)

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz@15 April 2003 - 21:26

And the other person who referenced that doccument admitted that the UK/US was up front with that fact that the doccument was comprised of information from several sources.

So far I'm not seeing a problem here.
yes, ne1, this is otherwise known as "getting caught with your pants around your ankles, and trying to deny would only make you look stupid as well as dishonest." Its not uncommon in politics or international relations for this to happen, and when it does, the repurcussions are not normally that bad. This is because things are organized to maximize the "plausible deniability" factor -- the sum total of actions may constitute a crime, but no single person could be blamed. And so on.

Anyway, I think its pretty clear that UKUSA got caught pulling a fast one. Oh, by the way, to lend further support to this interpretation, staffers at MI6 leaked secret documents to the press that expressly contradicted the official line from Washington and London that there was a link between iraq and OBL.

Getting caught spying on diplomats at the UN, as you try to convince the world to legitimize your invasion is one thing (google that one yourself), but having your own intelligence officers leak information that contradicts the party line, well, that's not a good sign.

What do you see now?

Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by j2k4@16 April 2003 - 05:21
The preceding post is on point and well-documented.
(Thought you'd like to hear that)
I was kind of hoping i'd get some feedback, thanks. i think i now have a clear idea of how to procede. you know at the end of Fight Club, when EN says "you met me at a strange time in my life"? well, lets just say i've been a bit more confronational than normal.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by myfiles3000+15 April 2003 - 23:26--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (myfiles3000 @ 15 April 2003 - 23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@16 April 2003 - 05:21
The preceding post is on point and well-documented.
(Thought you&#39;d like to hear that)
I was kind of hoping i&#39;d get some feedback, thanks. i think i now have a clear idea of how to procede. you know at the end of Fight Club, when EN says "you met me at a strange time in my life"? well, lets just say i&#39;ve been a bit more confronational than normal. [/b][/quote]
I jumped a little quick myself.

I am embarrassed for the coalition to have suffered these faux pas, but I guess if you choose to play the game.....
I &#39;d like to believe someone cared about getting caught "pants down"; in the final analysis, though, NOBODY seems to care about appearances OR credibility.
They can&#39;t cogitate (there I go) that some, indeed, most, of the ideas they hold forth (i.e., Saddam needed to go) would stand on their own merit, no spin required.
I think the polls would indicate-regardless of Michael Moore&#39;s rantings-that for political purposes, Americans were behind the idea regardless of the pretext for removal.
I&#39;m pretty conservative, pretty Republican, and pretty hawkish-doesn&#39;t make it any easier to watch my guys dropping the rhetorical ball. :huh:

[lefty]

[FON
Why does anyone bother debating the question of evidence, Bush and his crowd, playing Cowboys and Indians, and claiming anybody hit is a baddy, are only trying to justify themselves and their barbarity. There is more to read between the lines than in the reports.
When the US and GB talk about Freedom and Democracy they are talking about freedom to exploit and plunder, By them of course.
[B]The reason for this war, and the next is to expand MARKETS..Lefty

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by lefty@17 April 2003 - 01:34
The reason for this war, and the next is to expand MARKETS..Lefty
if only life were that simple. But if you think you can persuasively argue that the only reason the US invaded Iraq was to expand markets, you&#39;d have to come up with some evidence, addressing i would think at least the following:

1. Why Iraq? It only has something like 22 million people, its not a very large market. Theres lots of other countries out there. What untapped market in Iraq is better than the other 150+ countries in the world? What would the US export the most of to Iraq? Which corporations/industries are posed to benefit the most (aside from the obvious reconstruction contracts). Where are the business opportunities? How much American merchandise is already sold in the Middle East, and how much more business would it earn?

2. I think I read today that war has cost &#036;20 billion up to now. So how long will it take the US to begin earning profits on a &#036;20 billion investment? And how exactly would this work? Are you saying that the American government will foot the bill on behalf of corporate America? Or would the government want to earn some or all of the money back? Is there a particular tax scheme you had in mind for this?

3. Have you factored in the decrease in business that the war has caused? There have been boycott movements of American goods since the war began.

4. Are you confident that the act itself of invading Iraq might preclude future business that would otherwise have been possible? For example, now its probably less likely that a muslim country would hire an american firm for major public works projects, like building bridges, airports, water treatment, telecommunications, etc.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by lefty@16 April 2003 - 19:34
[FON
Why does anyone bother debating the question of evidence, Bush and his crowd, playing Cowboys and Indians, and claiming anybody hit is a baddy, are only trying to justify themselves and their barbarity. There is more to read between the lines than in the reports.
When the US and GB talk about Freedom and Democracy they are talking about freedom to exploit and plunder, By them of course.
[B]The reason for this war, and the next is to expand MARKETS..Lefty
This myopic view would render a short debate.

You need LOTS more than that, Lefty.

I suggest you read every post in the top ten threads in this forum and then re-post; your vision shall have cleared considerably.

[longterm]

You cannot increase markets by killing the shoppers, or totally pissing off millions of people. What CAN you do, though?
1. Justify new laws. "Freedom is way outdated, and overrated."
2. Keep people on their toes...or...nervous. "What was that? Pull the trigger&#33;"
3. Alienate many, many, many people, who in turn, become pissed.
4. These people will find new and creative ways, (or use old and standard ways), to take the war to Americans, thus justifying the need for...MORE MONEY FOR WAR&#33;
5. Close off America, much like one of the 3 "superpowers" in 1984, and keep the internal population well distracted...not necessarily well informed.
6. Kiss the dream of space exploration goodbye. "We are not gonna waste &#036; on friggin&#39; spaceships while there is a war to be fought&#33;"
Remember to ask yourselves: "WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS ACTION? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS DECISION?"
When you do this, the scales fall from your eyes, and watching the FOX Network becomes like watching MADTV, or some other insane parody.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by longterm@17 April 2003 - 02:06
You cannot increase markets by killing the shoppers, or totally pissing off millions of people. What CAN you do, though?
1. Justify new laws. "Freedom is way outdated, and overrated."
2. Keep people on their toes...or...nervous. "What was that? Pull the trigger&#33;"
3. Alienate many, many, many people, who in turn, become pissed.
4. These people will find new and creative ways, (or use old and standard ways), to take the war to Americans, thus justifying the need for...MORE MONEY FOR WAR&#33;
5. Close off America, much like one of the 3 "superpowers" in 1984, and keep the internal population well distracted...not necessarily well informed.
6. Kiss the dream of space exploration goodbye. "We are not gonna waste &#036; on friggin&#39; spaceships while there is a war to be fought&#33;"
Remember to ask yourselves: "WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS ACTION? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS DECISION?"
When you do this, the scales fall from your eyes, and watching the FOX Network becomes like watching MADTV, or some other insane parody.
Myfiles3000-

Guess what? By universal accord, you no longer wear the "conspiracy theorist" label; longterm has shown you up&#33; :lol: :lol:

I regret not being able to visit the forum the next several days-I shall endeavor to find an alternative PC so as to check in-this could get interesting. :ph34r:

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by longterm@17 April 2003 - 08:06
You cannot increase markets by killing the shoppers, or totally pissing off millions of people. What CAN you do, though?
1. Justify new laws. "Freedom is way outdated, and overrated."
2. Keep people on their toes...or...nervous. "What was that? Pull the trigger&#33;"
3. Alienate many, many, many people, who in turn, become pissed.
4. These people will find new and creative ways, (or use old and standard ways), to take the war to Americans, thus justifying the need for...MORE MONEY FOR WAR&#33;
5. Close off America, much like one of the 3 "superpowers" in 1984, and keep the internal population well distracted...not necessarily well informed.
6. Kiss the dream of space exploration goodbye. "We are not gonna waste &#036; on friggin&#39; spaceships while there is a war to be fought&#33;"
Remember to ask yourselves: "WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS ACTION? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS DECISION?"
When you do this, the scales fall from your eyes, and watching the FOX Network becomes like watching MADTV, or some other insane parody.
LongTerm I&#39;m going to kick your rhetorical ass later today.

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by longterm@17 April 2003 - 08:06
You cannot increase markets by killing the shoppers, or totally pissing off millions of people. What CAN you do, though?
1. Justify new laws. "Freedom is way outdated, and overrated."
2. Keep people on their toes...or...nervous. "What was that? Pull the trigger&#33;"
3. Alienate many, many, many people, who in turn, become pissed.
4. These people will find new and creative ways, (or use old and standard ways), to take the war to Americans, thus justifying the need for...MORE MONEY FOR WAR&#33;
5. Close off America, much like one of the 3 "superpowers" in 1984, and keep the internal population well distracted...not necessarily well informed.
6. Kiss the dream of space exploration goodbye. "We are not gonna waste &#036; on friggin&#39; spaceships while there is a war to be fought&#33;"
Remember to ask yourselves: "WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS ACTION? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS DECISION?"
When you do this, the scales fall from your eyes, and watching the FOX Network becomes like watching MADTV, or some other insane parody.
You cannot increase markets by killing the shoppers, or totally pissing off millions of people. What CAN you do, though?

1. Justify new laws. "Freedom is way outdated, and overrated."
-- Are you referring to American laws, or international law? There is nothing more central to US rhetoric/philosophy than freedom, no US official would ever say such a thing. I realize you&#39;re being facetious, but its hard to know what you mean here. Presumably you&#39;re referring to expanded state powers, but its not clear to me, following your logic, how these laws fit into your theory.

2. Keep people on their toes...or...nervous. "What was that? Pull the trigger&#33;"
--?

3. Alienate many, many, many people, who in turn, become pissed.
-- Which people? How is this different from "totally pissing off" people, above, which you said wouldn&#39;t work?

4. These people will find new and creative ways, (or use old and standard ways), to take the war to Americans, thus justifying the need for...MORE MONEY FOR WAR&#33;
-- Okay, so you&#39;re saying the US needs to provoke conflict every so often, to justify defence spending? Its hard to know.

5. Close off America, much like one of the 3 "superpowers" in 1984, and keep the internal population well distracted...not necessarily well informed.
--I&#39;m sympathetic to you on this point, but I still don&#39;t know what you mean by "close off" america. Do you mean restricting outsiders from entering? or that the media intentionally takes an isolationist view of the world? Or what?

6. Kiss the dream of space exploration goodbye. "We are not gonna waste &#036; on friggin&#39; spaceships while there is a war to be fought&#33;"
--Let me guess, you watch a lot of star trek, have posters of the solar system in your room, read science fiction. Thats cool. But what is your point here? First of all, a lot of the defence contractors that profit from defence spending also get business through "space exploration" spending. space exploration and war are not mutually exclusive -- satellite communication has become ubiquitous, and missile defence, which Bush was advocating at the start of his term, is another example. And I&#39;m sure they&#39;re cooking up weapons systems that operate outside the atmosphere of Earth -- military domination is rooted in technology, so its only fair to assume that the world&#39;s only superpower will be working on technology for use decades in the future.

Remember to ask yourselves: "WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS ACTION? WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS DECISION?"
When you do this, the scales fall from your eyes, and watching the FOX Network becomes like watching MADTV, or some other insane parody.1.
--maybe you&#39;d like to answer your own question. I just read aloud the words in CAPS and i didn&#39;t notice any change, or scales. You&#39;re saying that Fox News is behind this whole Iraq thing?

If this is your style, so be it. but this kind of commentary doesn&#39;t really add anything to dialogue, it either preaches to the converted, or is ignored by the opposition. If you want people to consider your views (which appear to me to have some merit), you have to have a conversation, not a rant.

[lefty]

The target of global capitalism is not just Iraq but the middle east and on, America are already in there now on the excuse of rebuiulding what they have destroyed and establishing their control, and investment in the country. The &#036;40m is cheep for that, and it is paid by the taxpayer anyway.
And its our blood that was spilt.
The aim of capitalism is to comtrol and use the world to work for them and it can only survive by expanding continually and relentlessly. Overcoming every other ideology and religion to impose its own and the Middle East has scope for that. Control of the economy, the ideology and the propaganda. Not just to sell them Mc Donalds but to control the Hearts and Minds as the have ours. Get all those millions consumer conscious and working for them, including the power of the worlds oil too.
Try reading the &#39;The Iron Heel&#39; by Jack London Its very old but still relevent.
Lefty

[myfiles3000]

Originally posted by lefty@19 April 2003 - 02:27
The target of global capitalism is not just Iraq but the middle east and on, America are already in there now on the excuse of rebuiulding what they have destroyed and establishing their control, and investment in the country. The &#036;40m is cheep for that, and it is paid by the taxpayer anyway.
And its our blood that was spilt.
The aim of capitalism is to comtrol and use the world to work for them and it can only survive by expanding continually and relentlessly. Overcoming every other ideology and religion to impose its own and the Middle East has scope for that. Control of the economy, the ideology and the propaganda. Not just to sell them Mc Donalds but to control the Hearts and Minds as the have ours. Get all those millions consumer conscious and working for them, including the power of the worlds oil too.
Try reading the &#39;The Iron Heel&#39; by Jack London Its very old but still relevent.
Lefty
The target of global capitalism is not just Iraq but the middle east and on, America are already in there now on the excuse of rebuiulding what they have destroyed and establishing their control, and investment in the country. The &#036;40m is cheep for that, and it is paid by the taxpayer anyway. And its our blood that was spilt.
-- if the taxpayer isn&#39;t in on it, and neither are you, who is? the military industrial complex? the number is closer to &#036;40b.

The aim of capitalism is to comtrol and use the world to work for them and it can only survive by expanding continually and relentlessly.
-- who is them? and why must capitalism grow to survive? You&#39;re suggesting capitalism couldn&#39;t exist in a closed system with zero population growth. I&#39;ve never heard that before. I thought the reason capitalism is growing is because the world&#39;s population is growing, and a rising tide floats all boats.

Overcoming every other ideology and religion to impose its own and the Middle East has scope for that.
-- how would you define the USA&#39;s ideology (democratic capitalist racist megacorporist hyperpower?) and religion (revival Baptist Moderate Reformist Fundamentalist?). Seriously, what ideology are you referring to?

Control of the economy, the ideology and the propaganda. Not just to sell them Mc Donalds but to control the Hearts and Minds as the have ours. Get all those millions consumer conscious and working for them, including the power of the worlds oil too.
--There&#39;s 30 million people in Canada. That&#39;s a 30% bigger market than Iraq. The people have much more money to spend. They have lots of untapped oil. Its closer. Why Iraq?
Is their a system under which you&#39;d prefer being controlled? I can only think of ones I wouldn&#39;t prefer.

Try reading the &#39;The Iron Heel&#39; by Jack London Its very old but still relevent.
Lefty
I Will try this summer.

[myfiles3000]

Having said all that, I should say I don&#39;t believe there&#39;s a moral justification for invading Iraq. The problem has more to do with shrub, cheney, rumsfeld and wolfowitz than global capitalism.

[lefty]

[I am not talking about flea markets, I&#39;m talking about global markets and the Middle East is a market that does not come under the control of Global Capitalism like Europe and America. For a system that has to grow or die GP has to expand across the world. Iraq was the way in to the Middle East and America are there now and ready expand its control over the Political and, Economic forces there and its resources. The people and the resources are ripe for exploitation. With millions of people to &#39;Civilise&#39; millions of hands to work for them, to introduce consumerism & commercialism to, while they control their economy, their lives and continue their advance and influence.

The excuse of &#39;terrorism&#39; is now an excuse to establish the agents of Global Capitalism anywhere in the developing world including Asia, It is the beginning of a new Empire, and you&#39;ve Gotta believe it. Bush&#39;s &#39;Axis of Evil&#39; lays out the targets for future objectives, aided by the &#39;Weapons of Mass Destruction&#39; THEY&#39;VE been preparing for decades to this end.
You are seeing History in the making, recognise it. Lefty :ph34r:

[clocker]

Originally posted by lefty@25 April 2003 - 13:55


The excuse of &#39;terrorism&#39; is now an excuse to establish the agents of Global Capitalism anywhere in the developing world including Asia, It is the beginning of a new Empire, and you&#39;ve Gotta believe it. Bush&#39;s &#39;Axis of Evil&#39; lays out the targets for future objectives, aided by the &#39;Weapons of Mass Destruction&#39; THEY&#39;VE been preparing for decades to this end.
You are seeing History in the making, recognise it. Lefty :ph34r:
Every day is history in the making, Lefty.
There really isn&#39;t anything THAT extraordinary going on.

btw- When was the last time you saw a film clip from anywhere, repeat anywhere, in the world where some kid in the backround wasn&#39;t wearing a Chicago Bulls hat or a Oakland Raiders t-shirt? I think capitolism has done a pretty effective job of infiltrating the world without the help of warfare.