PDA

View Full Version : Gifford (and others) Shooting



IdleRich
10-01-2011, 07:00 PM
Nothing about this on here or did I miss it?

mistersloane
10-01-2011, 10:35 PM
Obama's a clever bloke, no? Taking out one of his own to take down Palin, that's chess for you.

Nice piece on ObamaLondon pointed out by the Guardian about Palin's Facebook page.

http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html

Palin's response about "politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence" is amazing, she really does walk the earth as Satan.

IdleRich
10-01-2011, 10:42 PM
I actually spent the afternoon reading that blog and all the comments on it (saw it on Crackerjack's facebook, thanks for that). Great piece, good job that someone can be arsed to do that so that no-one else has to - and totally agree about Palin obviously.

IdleRich
10-01-2011, 10:44 PM
I realise it should read Giffords obviously.
Also, I should point out that I'm not saying that Palin is responsible for the killings, in fact her target thing probably had no effect on the nutter - but she's evil anyway.

crackerjack
11-01-2011, 05:50 PM
Palin.... she really does walk the earth as Satan.

this is FACT

IdleRich
11-01-2011, 07:36 PM
The fact of her utter unwillingness to engage with criticism on her blog (to the extent of "de-friending" people who don't toe her line) is illustrative of how she is going to be incapable of winning over anyone from the centre. Surely Palin realises that if she is to be president she can't just talk to people who already agree with her - or possibly she doesn't.

crackerjack
11-01-2011, 08:59 PM
The fact of her utter unwillingness to engage with criticism on her blog (to the extent of "de-friending" people who don't toe her line) is illustrative of how she is going to be incapable of winning over anyone from the centre. Surely Palin realises that if she is to be president she can't just talk to people who already agree with her - or possibly she doesn't.

Many commentators think she won't run cos
a) she can't win
b) all that policy-learning & reading & preparation really ain't her bag
c) she's doing very nicely as a roving right-wing maniac for hire

Sectionfive
11-01-2011, 09:42 PM
fingers crossed.

She or what surrounds her at least, scares the shit outa me.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2011, 11:10 PM
There's no way she could possibly win. She's thicker than GWB and surely anyone but her die-hard supporters can see that. And as the ObamaLondon blog shows, the fact that


"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."

was left up on her facebook page for at least half an hour, while various relatively innocuous (to any sane person) comments were deleted as soon as they appeared, presumably demonstrates that unlike Bush, she doesn't even have clever people around her.

mistersloane
11-01-2011, 11:20 PM
I just think it's precisely those reasons that will make her a viable candidate and will get her in. It's her not backing down, it's her resistance, if you like, that will see her all the way through. It kindof has to happen.

Aside from the fact that she's the flesh incarnation of Satan and this is her domain and she's here to bring about the end times. Or because of it.

baboon2004
11-01-2011, 11:32 PM
She won't win because she's a woman. Which is, well, good and bad.

Mr. Tea
11-01-2011, 11:53 PM
I can't tell you how wrong I hope you are, Jim.

zhao
12-01-2011, 11:04 AM
Sarah Pallin is a true American.

I mean that without a hint of sarcasm.

She is the living embodiment of the qualities, ideas, convictions and faith that the Best Country On Earth was founded and built upon.

In these trying times my prayers go out to all the church going, law abiding citizens of the United States. To all the Good, honest, God fearing Christians with wholesome family values. All the true believers of Democracy, soldiers for Freedom, who would kill a liberal, shoot a queer, fry a commie and lynch a nigger without batting an eyelash.

Mr. Tea
12-01-2011, 11:46 AM
She is the living embodiment of the qualities, ideas, convictions and faith that the Best Country On Earth was founded and built upon.


Is she, though? The US Constitution provides for freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Palin and her crowd want to put a cross, ideologically and literally, in every classroom, courtroom and hospital ward in the country. To do that they'd have to rip up one of the core pieces of the USA's conceptual foundation.

I don't doubt there are plenty of people who really believe she represents 'the convictions the USA was built on', but I would hope plenty of other Americans - people who consider themselves patriots, 'good Americans' - are able to see this gaping contradiction, whatever their own beliefs.

mistersloane
12-01-2011, 12:25 PM
I would hope plenty of other Americans - people who consider themselves 'good Americans' - are able to see this gaping contradiction, whatever their own beliefs.

But it's the New America, isn't it? In the times of Fox, I think it's exactly her doublethink that will get her ahead, truth doesn't matter in the face of fundamentalism. It's all NLP and bravado.

But I've got toothache and am in a particularly pessimistic mood.

Mr. Tea
12-01-2011, 12:44 PM
Yeah sure, I can see that (unfortunately). I remember hearing about some survey recently that showed that a huge proportion of Americans had no idea what it actually says in their Constitution and its various Amendments, beyond some vague idea about the right to bear arms.

I'm no expert on American political history, I just get the impression that Jefferson and Washington would not have wholeheartedly approved of Palin, as zhao seems to be saying. For one thing, she basically wants to institute theocracy; for another, the post-deleting antics on her Facebook page and calls for Assange's extra-judicial execution don't show a great regard for freedom of speech.

Edit: thanks STN, I was just thinking of that exact Onion piece.

zhao
12-01-2011, 12:45 PM
The US Constitution provides for freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

the declaration of independence also includes sentences like "all men are created equal", written by slave owners. anyone with 1 eye can see how consistent these words of law are with reality.

we are talking about cities designed for segregation and urban planning which implements ghettoization.

we are talking about an entire system from the roots up designed for inequality and injustice along class (and to a lesser degree, racial) lines.

it is a country built on injustice at home, and injustice abroad.

a country grown rich by the rape of foreign lands and the enslavement of its own people.

so yes, people like Sarah Pallin are the true Americans.

STN
12-01-2011, 12:51 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

IdleRich
12-01-2011, 12:54 PM
I believe that the separation of church and state thing (or the lines which are commonly taken to mean that) are in the 1st Amendment rather than the original document. Does that make a difference? Also, if you can have amendments to the constitution then surely that's a recognition that it's not a single immutable thing that is always right. Maybe someone American can help me here; what is the status of amendments, are there people who refuse to accept any of them? Are they given more credence if they happened longer ago? How often do amendments occur?
But yeah, I seem to see examples of double-think in US politics all the time - so called Christians calling for the death penalty when one of the Ten Commandments says "don't kill" etc etc And then compounding this by falling back on the literal word of the bible when it happens to say what you like - normally something about homosexuals.

Mr. Tea
12-01-2011, 12:59 PM
I'm aware that there have always been inconsistencies. But nonetheless, the Right's attempts to bring explicit religiosity into American politics and law are unconstitutional and also quite a recent development, aren't they? I mean, as far as I'm aware, even hardline Reps from a generation ago didn't have this overarching obsession with rewriting the statute books around the Bible.

Edit: yep point taken Rich, I dunno - the above^ was mainly a reply to zhao but you squeezed in between us like a little gooseberry.

IdleRich
12-01-2011, 01:30 PM
I'm not disagreeing, I'm just wondering about how amendments to the constitution are seen. And if they're accepted don't they mean that there is a recognition that the Constitution is far from perfect? Which makes sense, should a modern democracy be run according to a document that is more than 200 years old? When they mentioned bearing arms they weren't talking about a Glock Automatic or whatever it was.

zhao
12-01-2011, 01:55 PM
the constitution regarding separation between church and state...
you know when i went to middle and high (i was for a lot of it) school every morning the students are made to say the "pledge of stupid fucking allegiance" yeah?
and you now it includes the line "one nation under God", right?

but that's just one small part of my point anyway. i'm looking at the BIGGER PICTURE here.

crackerjack
12-01-2011, 02:39 PM
Now she's complaining about blood libel.

To save time all stories about her should just read "idiot says something stupid".

Mr. Tea
12-01-2011, 02:40 PM
the constitution regarding separation between church and state...
you know when i went to middle and high (i was for a lot of it) school every morning the students are made to say the "pledge of stupid fucking allegiance" yeah?
and you now it includes the line "one nation under God", right?

Which, as The Onion points out, was added in 1954.



but that's just one small part of my point anyway. i'm looking at the BIGGER PICTURE here.

OK, we get the point - no-one here is sticking up for America per se or saying its govt has never done terrible things or allowed its citizens to do terrible things. And no-one's denying that the USA has always been a principally Christian country. All I'm saying is, the religious Right's attempts to inveigle explicit Christianity into the country's legislation is ahistoric and represents a movement away from the founding principles of secular government. There is no Church of America the way there is a Church of England. The early colonies were founded in large part by members of minority sects fleeing persecution in Britain, after all.

IdleRich
12-01-2011, 02:44 PM
But what is the bigger picture? Simply that lax gun laws + hate speech from leaders + nutter = spree kiling?

Sectionfive
12-01-2011, 02:47 PM
The early colonies were founded in large part by members of minority sects fleeing persecution in Britain, after all.

Well thats not the official story (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/25/todd-akin-pilgrims-socialism/) now is it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74xujNVrCp4

crackerjack
12-01-2011, 02:50 PM
Well thats not the official story (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/25/todd-akin-pilgrims-socialism/) now is it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74xujNVrCp4

ah ha ha ha ha ha

*sticks nose in toaster*

IdleRich
12-01-2011, 03:00 PM
I'm always amazed by the extent to which in the US people are able to publicly say things which are demonstrably untrue without any consequence whatsoever - eg with the health thing when they were putting it about that Stephen Hawking would never had made it to adulthood if he'd grown up in England. I mean, it happens everywhere but isn't there some legal recourse to stop people telling actual, clear lies for their own profit in the political sphere - as happened here with Woolas say?

Mr. Tea
12-01-2011, 03:00 PM
Well thats not the official story (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/25/todd-akin-pilgrims-socialism/) now is it.


Yeah, cos 17th century England was one big collectivist commune. :rolleyes:

What's amazing is that so much of the stuff Jesus supposedly said is basically socialist anyway - but the way some of these arseholes in America go on about the evils of socialism, you'd think they'd be less offended if you said he'd been a kiddy-fiddler.

Sectionfive
12-01-2011, 03:10 PM
Not %100 but I think the Pilgrims actually set up a 'communal' type society when they originally got to America.

crackerjack
12-01-2011, 03:21 PM
Not %100 but I think the Pilgrims actually set up a 'communal' type society when they originally got to America.

I was thinking maybe they'd mistaken Cromwell for a communist (dumb, but you could almost see where they were coming from), but the Mayflower was 16fucking20 (thanks wiki) and James the fucking I. I mean......

*goes back to toaster*

baboon2004
12-01-2011, 03:45 PM
What's amazing is that so much of the stuff Jesus supposedly said is basically socialist anyway.

Yes, which is why some religious people have been among the loveliest people I've known. Pity it is so often distorted.

zhao
12-01-2011, 05:35 PM
But what is the bigger picture?

that Sarah Pallin and her ilk are actually, factually, the true Americans.

and the rest of us are the Unamerican ones.

crackerjack
12-01-2011, 06:14 PM
that Sarah Pallin and her ilk are actually, factually, the true Americans.

and the rest of us are the Unamerican ones.

horseshit

unknown soulja
12-01-2011, 07:58 PM
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

zhao
12-01-2011, 09:30 PM
horseshit

naive little crackerjack.

if ever you choose to look closer, and if you dare believe your own eyes rather than what people in positions of power tell you.

you will see that the criminality, injustice, and lies.

are not exceptions.

but the rule.

padraig (u.s.)
12-01-2011, 09:31 PM
I just think it's precisely those reasons that will make her a viable candidate and will get her in. It's her not backing down, it's her resistance, if you like, that will see her all the way through.

no. not only is she loathed by many, many - both personally and as the embodiment of the stereotype zhao is so wildly expounding upon - but more importantly, the thought of her scares the hell out of even more people, including a not inconsiderable portion of the right. the saner portion, you know david brooks & all that, as well as plenty of people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, not to mention anyone who calls themself a moderate. there's also the question of whether the gop would be stupid/crazy enough to let her run in the first place, after the fiasco with mccain. i doubt it, the party heads have got to know she's nowhere near their best shot to unseat obama, who'd I suspect would be overjoyed if she was his opponent.

I reckon she does have smart people around her tho. I just also reckon they're not setting her up for a presidential run, just to continue being queen of the american right wing. the whole "resistance", maverick bit is largely a manufactured image, albeit a well-done one, more evidence of the skill of her handlers.


Sarah Pallin is a true American. She is the living embodiment of the qualities, ideas, convictions and faith that the Best Country On Earth was founded and built upon...

we are talking about...


so, 2 things. first, every powerful country or empire in history has grown powerful by injustice at home & abroad. that's how power is accumulated and empires are forged. the difference is that nowadays, unlike in the times of Rome or the Hundred Years War or the Ming dynasty, being a conqueror is in bad taste so Americans don't like to admit that their empire had as unpleasant a founding and rise as any other. the hypocrisy of it is galling, I admit, but hardly unique. the second point, perhaps more important, is that your view of U.S. - from your far-off expatriate's perch - is nearly as distorted as, indeed, Sarah Palin's. all the things you named - segregated cities, rampant inequality, and so on - undoubtedly exist, sometimes with awful frequency, but they are hardly the entire picture and to claim otherwise is to surrender to all the worst aspects of this country and those who would enshrine and further them. not that I don't understand your sentiments, because I grew up with and still have sometimes feelings even more vitriolic than your own, but there's a difference between venting spleen and appraising reality.

it should go without saying that this isn't an argument in favor of empires or for that matter, the U.S., simply a check on hyperbole about the "greatest country" etc which is, all said & done, as complicated and complex a place as any other, that cannot be reduced any single vision.


but isn't there some legal recourse to stop people telling actual, clear lies for their own profit in the political sphere

there is, but as you mostly likely know the libel laws in the U.K. are famously much, much stricter - that is, far more generous to the plaintiff - than they are here.

padraig (u.s.)
12-01-2011, 09:39 PM
if ever you choose to look closer, and if you dare believe your own eyes rather than what people in positions of power tell you.

just so we're clear, you do realize that this is exactly the same thing that crazy right wing dudes say? I feel like you're a heartbeat away from referring to "sheeple".

also, one more thought on Palin feasibility. I know it seems bad, and it is, but you have to remember that the Tea Party types are very loud, and that the whole movement is in large part, or at least was initially, manufactured by extremely media-savvy Republican political operators (i.e., astroturfing), both things which contribute to it seeming like Sarah Palin & her ilk have far more support than they actually do. granted, the hard core of that support is utterly fanatical, but it's also rather marginal and absolutely not widespread enough to win her a presidential election unless she was to seriously tone down her rhetoric to attract regular conservatives and moderates, which would in turn alienate that hard core, hence a Catch 22. I wouldn't give her no chance, it's just a serious long shot.

continuum
12-01-2011, 09:53 PM
she should be hunted and killed

zhao
12-01-2011, 10:04 PM
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/?hp

twisted evil bitch.


“We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults,”

presenting her and hers as the the voice of dissent... convoluted obfuscation such as this designed to confuse and excite the wall-eyed mouth-breathers who follow her, inspiring greater heights of delusional righteousness...

and classic evil shit like this:


quoted former President Ronald Reagan as saying that society should not be blamed for the acts of an individual. She said, “It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”

is simply wrong, WRONG, WRONG.

i pray that her and her kind will burn long before entering hell.

Mr. Tea
12-01-2011, 11:37 PM
Edit: never mind. Yes, social factors people have no control over inevitably have an influence on the attitudes and values they grow up with - no, that does not in itself absolve any given person of any given crime.

grizzleb
13-01-2011, 03:45 AM
Got to love the hyperbole, baiting and seething mass of barely contained vitriol kicking about...and that's just this thread!! LOL

zhao
13-01-2011, 05:10 AM
if ever you choose to look closer, and if you dare believe your own eyes rather than what people in positions of power tell you.


just so we're clear, you do realize that this is exactly the same thing that crazy right wing dudes say? I feel like you're a heartbeat away from referring to "sheeple".

maybe. and just off the top, i can also think of a few other people who may have said similar things... Slavoj Žižek, Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), Michel Foucault, Gandhi, Plato. Buddha, etc, etc, etc.

:rolleyes:

zhao
13-01-2011, 05:21 AM
the second point, perhaps more important, is that your view of U.S. - from your far-off expatriate's perch - is nearly as distorted as, indeed, Sarah Palin's. all the things you named - segregated cities, rampant inequality, and so on - undoubtedly exist, sometimes with awful frequency, but they are hardly the entire picture and to claim otherwise is to surrender to all the worst aspects of this country and those who would enshrine and further them.

no they are not the entire picture. i do believe the ENTIRE picture would be much more grim. how about the pandemic normalized racism toward the invisible Mexican low wage labor force? how about the millions of impoverished descendents of former slaves who live in economic bondage and with conditions much worse than their ancestors? how about under age child workers which picks the fruit sold in super markets? none of these things see mention in newspapers, ever.

of course there are good things that happen in America. you should see me defending Americans and American culture to Europeans. but that doesn't change the system which is designed to enforce and propagate social injustice, injustice which is routinely ignored/hidden/normalized, or the, as you say, "galling" hypocrisy.

and why does it matter at all from where i type? i lived in America for 20 years and i actually feel, far as my personal identity is concerned, probably more American than anything else at this point in my life. so i can be typing from a submarine under arctic ice, and my present location would not detract one gram of truth from my words.

and the truth that my eyes see for themselves, is simply a lot more fucked, on so many different levels including structural and institutional, than most people care to acknowledge.

zhao
13-01-2011, 05:36 AM
If that Reagan quote is 'WRONG, WRONG, WRONG", why do you want Palin to burn in (or even before) hell for something she's not accountable for? She's no less a product of her environment than anyone else is, after all.

that's not a Reagan quote. you missed the "she said" part in the article extract.

products of environment... compassion for white collar self serving criminals like Bush and Pallin? i suppose i would have to have some if i don't want to be like them. but not much. not much at all.

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 11:52 AM
But the morally corrupting influence of wealth is proverbial. It's probably harder not to be evil if you've very rich than if you're poor.

zhao
13-01-2011, 12:28 PM
and the likelihood of turning to petty criminality exponentially increases as you move down the poverty ladder.

you don't see the poor street kids caught up in a life of crime get any leniency due to social circumstance, why should the powerful fat-cat white collar thieves and murderers?

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 12:41 PM
[edited as it has FA to do with the thread]

FWIW, it does seem - by the sound of things - that this arsehole with the Glock may well have been influenced by Palin's violent rhetoric and/or her shitty website. It's perfectly possible that the blame for the shooting lies mainly on the perpetrator's shoulders but that Palin's campaign bears some responsibility for it too.

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 01:03 PM
this is getting weird

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 01:43 PM
Sorry. Off-topic rant there. I'm just quite strongly opposed to this tendency to say that nothing is ever anyone's fault, there there, you couldn't help it, blah blah. Not that there aren't sometimes extenuating circumstances, but there are limits to what you can excuse by blaming society.

Anyway. None of this has much to do with Sarah Palin, per se. Neither does it mean I don't think this arsehole with a gun necessarily wasn't influenced by Palin's rhetoric and stupid website. Sarah Palin is not, after all, 'society' (thank god).

In today's news: man who accessed ('hacked') Palin's emails jailed for a year on insistence of govt officials, even after judge recommended his sentence be served in a halfway-house. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12176463)

IdleRich
13-01-2011, 01:44 PM
"there is, but as you mostly likely know the libel laws in the U.K. are famously much, much stricter - that is, far more generous to the plaintiff - than they are here."
Not for long hopefully - although I'll believe in Nick Clegg's reforms when I see 'em obviously.

zhao
13-01-2011, 02:41 PM
The other day on the tube, some coked-up piece of shit threatened to 'stab the shit' out of me for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean, he wasn't even trying to mug me, he was just trying to feel like a big tough man to make up for his tiny dick. And you know what? Fuck that guy and his precious 'social circumstances'.

no, there might be exceptions, but the vast majority to all fucked up people are products of fucked up situations, and most of them deserve compassion and treatment rather than prison or the electric chair.

if you were a victim of abuse like that guy probably was as a child you would be in similar shoes as him.

and if he was pampered and spoilt rotten he might have become a smug little closet neo-con shit like you.

zhao
13-01-2011, 02:42 PM
threatened to 'stab the shit' out of me for absolutely no reason whatsoever

well judging from the way you behave on here sometimes...

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 02:48 PM
Abused as a child? Probably just never shown that there are boundaries to acceptable behaviour, is more likely. Which I suppose is a form of neglect, when you look at it like that.


well judging from the way you behave on here sometimes...

Yeah, sitting there reading a book like I had any right to, guess I was asking for it...

Anyway, you can fucking talk! I've never called anyone a "pathetic little slave", "child rapist", "smug little neo-con shit" or any of the millions of other delightful epithets you dish out when you (frequently) lose your rag. As for "smug"...you really don't have an atom of self-awareness, do you? I do love the way you try to be all Buddhistic compassion and love-thy-neighbour and then hurl screaming invective in the same post.

grizzleb
13-01-2011, 03:25 PM
Just ignore him Tea. Not seen zhao blow up for a while, it always comes in a colourful fashion.

hucks
13-01-2011, 03:32 PM
Just ignore him Tea. Not seen zhao blow up for a while, it always comes in a colourful fashion.


I think he was joking. I laughed, anyway.

Besides, I was gonna complain elsewhere that the board had got a bit quiet of late, but this thread's showing potential. So, zhao you should have heard what tea said about your mum!

IdleRich
13-01-2011, 04:09 PM
"there is, but as you mostly likely know the libel laws in the U.K. are famously much, much stricter - that is, far more generous to the plaintiff - than they are here."
Having thought about this, it's not exactly libel I'm talking about though is it? I mean, if you say that the pilgrim fathers fled communism or that Stephen Hawking would have died if he'd been English you're not libelling anyone as such (maybe Hawking in the latter but only tenuously), you're just lying. Where is the law that prevents that? I don't know if there is one in this country either but for some reason it's no so often that I see someone telling such a huge fib - although I'm sure that it does happen, maybe just not so flagrantly with such high profile issues.

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 04:16 PM
Blair's 45-minute claim? Everyone knows it was bollocks now, but there's been no legal repercussions for him (yet), despite everything that followed.

The thing about Hawking not having survived "if he'd been English" is just too funny for words, I mean do people not realise that he is English? Or do they think he comes from some obscure corner of the States where everyone talks like a robot?

IdleRich
13-01-2011, 04:30 PM
It was Hoon who made the forty minute claim wasn't it? They've had to explain the genesis of the quote and claim quite vigorously that it was Chinese whispers and a misunderstanding that caused it to appear on the front of the Standard though right? Effectively admitting that it was untrue - whereas as far as I can tell the things I am talking about went unchallenged - I mean, blogs and that picked them up but there was no way in which the people who said those things were directly confronted with the proof that they were lying and asked to justify themselves.

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 04:42 PM
It was Hoon who made the forty minute claim wasn't it? They've had to explain the genesis of the quote and claim quite vigorously that it was Chinese whispers and a misunderstanding that caused it to appear on the front of the Standard though right? Effectively admitting that it was untrue - whereas as far as I can tell the things I am talking about went unchallenged - I mean, blogs and that picked them up but there was no way in which the people who said those things were directly confronted with the proof that they were lying and asked to justify themselves.

It was part of the "dodgy dossier". I don't know if that was written by intelligence sources or the MoD (allegedly with a put of pushing from Campbell, though that was probably just Gilligan's invention). I think the mistake in the Standard front page specifically referred to Saddam's WMD hitting Britain rather than British interests or bases - the govt claimed they were talking abut Malta (I think). Hoon memorably said he hadn't corrected the Standard story cos he'd been out of the country and hadn't seen it.

edit: fwiw there's been too much made of the 45-min claim. It was a particularly egregious example of govt bullshit, but it's only retrospectively that people have claimed it played a major part in leading us into war. It didn't.

IdleRich
13-01-2011, 04:48 PM
But the point is they had to stand up and admit that the story as it was printed wasn't true and explain how it had come to be printed. OK, I don't believe their explanations but they were challenged. As far as I can tell the guy who said that Hawking would have died if he had been born in the UK never had to say "oh sorry, I was wrong" - why not?
This the story by the way (seems they later removed the editorial but as far as I know no apology was made)

http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2009/08/10/it-doesnt-take-stephen-hawking-to-figure-this-one-out/

IdleRich
13-01-2011, 04:51 PM
I've just been reading the BBC thread on Have Your Say titled "Will the Arizona shootings have an effect on US politics?".
Best response so far is "Yes, they're gonna need a by-election".

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 05:00 PM
edit: fwiw there's been too much made of the 45-min claim. It was a particularly egregious example of govt bullshit, but it's only retrospectively that people have claimed it played a major part in leading us into war. It didn't.

Fair enough, but what about the presence and threat of the WMDs more generally? I mean, none have ever been found, at least not in any usable state, as far as I remember - and I'm sure certain people would have made a very great deal out of any that had been found. Which does make one wonder what happened to them, as Saddam undoubtedly used them against his own people in the '80s and also in the war with Iran, IIRC. Is it conceivable he had his stockpiles destroyed before or during the invasion to make the coalition look bad?

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 05:14 PM
Fair enough, but what about the presence and threat of the WMDs more generally? I mean, none have ever been found, at least not in any usable state, as far as I remember - and I'm sure certain people would have made a very great deal out of any that had been found. Which does make one wonder what happened to them, as Saddam undoubtedly used them against his own people in the '80s and also in the war with Iran, IIRC. Is it conceivable he had his stockpiles destroyed before or during the invasion to make the coalition look bad?

No. It's conceded he didn't have any. Blair and Bush have both mumbled apologies for the faulty intelligence on this.

grizzleb
13-01-2011, 05:57 PM
Yeah, Saddam was confirmed by UN weapons inspectors as early as 1998 as having removed his wmd capabilities, in compliance with the conditions that were imposed by the UN, and enacted with the UN.

The point about the 45 minute claim not leading us into war is slightly disingenuous I think; there was no 'one thing' that led us into war, it was the cumulation of lots of little lies, lots of little bits of disinformation, lots of little things implied rather than said, of which the 45 minute claim is just a prime example.

padraig (u.s.)
13-01-2011, 06:04 PM
how about...

you forgot rampant militarism and staggeringly wide income gaps and a hundred other things that could fill out a litany of what's wrong that stretches from here to eternity. I'm not sure who's eyes you think you're opening here. I mean really. I got news for you tho, Europe ain't a single whit better, just more hypocritical. if you think the Germans, French and the rest aren't every bit as tied into an economic structure based around the exploitation of far-off people and their lands then you're deluding yourself (not to mention Europe's complete failure to integrate, or even try to, its own immigrant underclass). the entire world is a grim piece of work. always has been, like as not always will be, not matter the thin veneer of civilization that we drape over our savagery nowadays. which isn't a reason to give up on it or just passively accept awfulness when you can do something about it. it is a good reason, tho, not to get fixated on the U.S. as being somehow a unique entity in history, as if you toppled it the world would magically become a place of sunshine and happiness and unicorns. China or India or some combination thereof would sit down on the throne and the world would continue on in its grimness.

I reckon this is the your point anyway, the only one you ever really make:


and the truth that my eyes see for themselves, is simply a lot more fucked, on so many different levels including structural and institutional, than most people care to acknowledge.

to present yourself as the lone voice of truth in the wilderness, crying out to bring illumination to the ignorant. which isn't, of course remotely true. and, as usual, is on a topic about which you appear to know next to nothing.

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 06:04 PM
Yeah, Saddam was confirmed by UN weapons inspectors as early as 1998 as having removed his wmd capabilities, in compliance with the conditions that were imposed by the UN, and enacted with the UN.


Have you got a link for that?


The point about the 45 minute claim not leading us into war is slightly disingenuous I think; there was no 'one thing' that led us into war, it was the cumulation of lots of little lies, lots of little bits of disinformation, lots of little things implied rather than said, of which the 45 minute claim is just a prime example.

I agree it was a build-up of lots of little lies, but my point is that the 45-min claim has acquired a greater significance in the demonology of the war since then precisely because it was such a flagrant example of bullshit. People have since made it into a major factor - it wasn't.

padraig (u.s.)
13-01-2011, 06:15 PM
Slavoj Žižek, Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), Michel Foucault, Gandhi, Plato. Buddha, etc, etc, etc.

somehow I feel Foucault and Plato (you're maybe thinking of the allegory of the cave? that's not what it's about), not to mention to the rest - excepting the guy from the Matrix - were on to something a bit more complex but then I never thought to see Buddha on a list with Zizek, let alone one that has them supporting the same viewpoint, silly though it may be, so kudos for that I guess.

really tho, Morpheus? getting soft in your old age, bro...

but I think dude is right, it's best to let these meltdowns burn out on their own so that is what I shall be doing henceforth

Sectionfive
13-01-2011, 07:56 PM
We are a long long way away from stopping politicians talking shite unchecked I'm afraid.



Have you got a link for that?

In that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7wXhN5h_Pg) John Pilger film afaik.

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 08:35 PM
In that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7wXhN5h_Pg) John Pilger film afaik.

Pilger talking arse? Well bollock me backwards.


23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2167933.stm

Sectionfive
13-01-2011, 08:55 PM
Not sure, Pilger eats the arse of the beeb in it though..

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 09:00 PM
Not sure, Pilger eats the arse of the beeb in it though..

Pilger crossed the line from polemicist to charlatan some time ago IMO. I'm sure you could find those timeline details verified elsewhere if you don't trust aunty.

edit: To clarify, I don't want to give the impression the US & UK made a credible case over WMD. They didn't, they grossly exaggerated his threat into one that could be carried abroad and throughout the region, when really most believed it only threatened Iraqis. This might still have been a technical breach, though not one that could justify the inflated rhetoric emanating from her and Washington. This is what Robin Cook was getting at when he said:
"I have never ruled out the possibility that we may unearth some old stock of biological toxins or chemical agents and it is possible that we may yet find some battlefield shells.

"Nevertheless, this would not constitute weapons of mass destruction and would not justify the claim before the war that Iraq posed what the prime minister described as a 'current and serious threat'."

anyway, apologies, derailment over

grizzleb
13-01-2011, 10:21 PM
Have you got a link for that?

.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7ig_bqu4qTMJ:www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/pilg-j04.shtml+john+pilger+un+weapons+inspector&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

The paragraph that starts below the picture of the wikileaks video footage.

Fuck knows, had the UN weapons inspector guy saying that though. Think that's reasonably good source.

crackerjack
13-01-2011, 10:27 PM
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7ig_bqu4qTMJ:www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/pilg-j04.shtml+john+pilger+un+weapons+inspector&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

The paragraph that starts below the picture of the wikileaks video footage.

Fuck knows, had the UN weapons inspector guy saying that though. Think that's reasonably good source.

w/o looking, gonna guess the Un guy is Scott Ritter, right?

edit: Yep. The notion that he gave them some ind of all-clear back in 98 doesn't really tally with what he was saying at the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Weapons_inspector)

Mr. Tea
13-01-2011, 11:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONGv1cUkBqo

crackerjack
18-01-2011, 12:59 PM
so apparently she managed to get through an entire 30-min interview without once mentioning Gifford or other victims by name.

You won't find much better illustration of why she'll never be president.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/18/sarah-palin-defends-blood-libel

IdleRich
18-01-2011, 03:33 PM
Just been reading that interview.


"Palin conceded that some of the points Obama made "really hit home", but she suggested he had tried to exploit the incident. "The setting was a bit bizarre. It was a bit like a pep rally, kind of like a campaign stop. The setting really did detract away from the message," she said."
Doesn't seem to realise that the way to look as though you are not exploiting the tragedy is to rise above the accusations, not to accuse everyone else of exploitation.

Her phrasing is just such a mess.


"If a lie does live, then of course your career is over and your reputation is thrashed and you will be ineffective in what we intend to do."
Why will I be ineffective in what she intends to do?

Mr. Tea
18-01-2011, 04:01 PM
Why will I be ineffective in what she intends to do?

Don't try to understand an intellect that operates on a radically different level from yours.

Sectionfive
23-01-2011, 08:07 PM
http://i.imgur.com/13Xyx.png

crackerjack
23-01-2011, 08:35 PM
Ha ha.

But there's a more earthly explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_politics#History_of_the_terms