Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Red Neoliberals: How Corbyn’s Victory Unmasked Britain’s Guardian
Topic Started: Sep 26 2015, 01:37 PM (305 Views)
Cymru
Alt-Right
[ *  *  *  * ]
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

I love this piece on Corbyn and how his challenge for the Labour leadership ended up exposing certain sections of the media claiming to be alternatives to the establishment narrative to be nothing of the sort when genuine change threatens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.
Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

George Orwell
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Include the Mirror .......... shocked?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 01:54 PM
The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.
Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

George Orwell
:thumbsup:
Still true today .....
It's quite simple really ...... if a newspaper were to determinedly oppose the Establishment it would simply be bought out ......... the money rules.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.


I have seen a few articles in the Guardian giving faint praise to some aspect or other but none totally supporting Corbyn.
That's not to say they dont exist, I just haven't spotted them.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Sep 26 2015, 01:58 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 01:54 PM
The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.
Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

George Orwell
:thumbsup:
Still true today .....
It's quite simple really ...... if a newspaper were to determinedly oppose the Establishment it would simply be bought out ......... the money rules.



Indeed and dont forget that most columnists in newspapers like the Guardian have been through the system, minor pubic school perhaps, university etc.
They are as much as the establishment as the right wing. They are simply another side of the coin.
Frankie Boyle pointed out that the so called ground breaking satirists like Peter Cook and David Frost were actually just privileged posh boys taking the piss out of other privileged posh boys.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Cymru
Sep 26 2015, 01:37 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

I love this piece on Corbyn and how his challenge for the Labour leadership ended up exposing certain sections of the media claiming to be alternatives to the establishment narrative to be nothing of the sort when genuine change threatens.
IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

At best I suspect we have a smart arsed CIA operative who wants to appear to be far cleverer than he is, and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:27 PM
Cymru
Sep 26 2015, 01:37 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

I love this piece on Corbyn and how his challenge for the Labour leadership ended up exposing certain sections of the media claiming to be alternatives to the establishment narrative to be nothing of the sort when genuine change threatens.
IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

At best I suspect we have a smart arsed CIA operative who wants to appear to be far cleverer than he is, and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth.
Are you subbed to the guardian by any chance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:27 PM
Cymru
Sep 26 2015, 01:37 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

I love this piece on Corbyn and how his challenge for the Labour leadership ended up exposing certain sections of the media claiming to be alternatives to the establishment narrative to be nothing of the sort when genuine change threatens.
IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

At best I suspect we have a smart arsed CIA operative who wants to appear to be far cleverer than he is, and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth.


Or that their paymasters in the US government knew too and they colluded with them to keep it secret because it would take away a compelling reason to invade IRAQ.
Personally I dont believe that heads of governments are ignorant of what their secret services know but they appear to be when it suits them.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 02:01 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.


I have seen a few articles in the Guardian giving faint praise to some aspect or other but none totally supporting Corbyn.
That's not to say they dont exist, I just haven't spotted them.
Owen Jones.

I've seen a few others, some were pretty good..swore I posted at least one on here?

PS: My favourite columns are by Stewart Lee. D Mitchell and Armando Iannucci, the "communist conspiratorial lefty agendaistas.

Should be done for treason (genuine comment on Lee  !bgrin! ).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 03:32 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:27 PM
Cymru
Sep 26 2015, 01:37 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

I love this piece on Corbyn and how his challenge for the Labour leadership ended up exposing certain sections of the media claiming to be alternatives to the establishment narrative to be nothing of the sort when genuine change threatens.
IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

At best I suspect we have a smart arsed CIA operative who wants to appear to be far cleverer than he is, and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth.


Or that their paymasters in the US government knew too and they colluded with them to keep it secret because it would take away a compelling reason to invade IRAQ.
Personally I dont believe that heads of governments are ignorant of what their secret services know but they appear to be when it suits them.
Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 03:32 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:27 PM
Cymru
Sep 26 2015, 01:37 PM
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/21/red-neoliberals-how-corbyns-victory-unmasked-britains-guardian/

I love this piece on Corbyn and how his challenge for the Labour leadership ended up exposing certain sections of the media claiming to be alternatives to the establishment narrative to be nothing of the sort when genuine change threatens.
IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

At best I suspect we have a smart arsed CIA operative who wants to appear to be far cleverer than he is, and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth.
Are you subbed to the guardian by any chance.
I believe I asked a perfectly reasonable question.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
I find it amazing that Corbyn spouts complete bollocks and many on the left, because it is pointed out to be complete bollocks, see a Witch-hunt.
Those that cannot see Corbyn for what he is, a serial objector to almost everything with loony economic policies that will debase our currency and ruin the economy, are dreamers who in reality do not give a stuff. Why? Mainly I suspect out of pure spite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:39 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 03:32 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:27 PM


Or that their paymasters in the US government knew too and they colluded with them to keep it secret because it would take away a compelling reason to invade IRAQ.
Personally I dont believe that heads of governments are ignorant of what their secret services know but they appear to be when it suits them.
Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ?



Do you believe that they had to know? The fact is that there were no WMD. If there believed that there were they would have been duped.
That is not beyond the limits of possibility because WMDs in IRAQ was a lie anyway.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

RJD
Sep 26 2015, 03:45 PM
I find it amazing that Corbyn spouts complete bollocks and many on the left, because it is pointed out to be complete bollocks, see a Witch-hunt.
Those that cannot see Corbyn for what he is, a serial objector to almost everything with loony economic policies that will debase our currency and ruin the economy, are dreamers who in reality do not give a stuff. Why? Mainly I suspect out of pure spite.


A serial objector? OK so if he does become PM and implements a socialist agenda would the Tory leader themselves become a 'serial objector'.
Would they be acting out of' pure spite'.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:41 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 03:32 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:27 PM
Are you subbed to the guardian by any chance.
I believe I asked a perfectly reasonable question.
Re-reading your post, the intelligence displayed overwhelms.

"and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth."

Ah-mazing, thats the end of this conversation. !wav!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 03:45 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:39 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 03:32 PM
Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ?



Do you believe that they had to know? The fact is that there were no WMD. If there believed that there were they would have been duped.
That is not beyond the limits of possibility because WMDs in IRAQ was a lie anyway.
According to Hans Blix Saddam played "cat and mouse" with the UN weapons inspectors. As Blix pointed out this did not allow the inspectors to do their job. So it was impossible for them to know whether or not he had WMD.

This position was exacerbated by the fact that Saddam refused to allow the inspectors into Iraq from 1998 to 2002.

If the CIA could produce irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD then presumably he presented such to the weapons inspectors in which case they colluded in a conspiracy of silence. Or he did not have irrefutable evidence just opinion which left the situation as it was. It was felt at that time that certain knowledge, one way or the other, was a necessity.

Hindsight was not available at that stage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 03:50 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:41 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 03:32 PM
I believe I asked a perfectly reasonable question.
Re-reading your post, the intelligence displayed overwhelms.

"and a newssheet that is more interested in fighting for Corbyn than in assessing the truth."

Ah-mazing, thats the end of this conversation. !wav!
It would have made more sense if you had addressed the questions. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:01 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 03:45 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 03:39 PM


Do you believe that they had to know? The fact is that there were no WMD. If there believed that there were they would have been duped.
That is not beyond the limits of possibility because WMDs in IRAQ was a lie anyway.
According to Hans Blix Saddam played "cat and mouse" with the UN weapons inspectors. As Blix pointed out this did not allow the inspectors to do their job. So it was impossible for them to know whether or not he had WMD.

This position was exacerbated by the fact that Saddam refused to allow the inspectors into Iraq from 1998 to 2002.

If the CIA could produce irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD then presumably he presented such to the weapons inspectors in which case they colluded in a conspiracy of silence. Or he did not have irrefutable evidence just opinion which left the situation as it was. It was felt at that time that certain knowledge, one way or the other, was a necessity.

Hindsight was not available at that stage.


According to the article hindsight was not necessary. If that was the case then all the officials that believed there were wmd's were duped.
The CIA could of known that there no WMD's and told the appropriate members of the Bush administration.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 03:35 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 02:01 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.


I have seen a few articles in the Guardian giving faint praise to some aspect or other but none totally supporting Corbyn.
That's not to say they dont exist, I just haven't spotted them.
Owen Jones.

I've seen a few others, some were pretty good..swore I posted at least one on here?

PS: My favourite columns are by Stewart Lee. D Mitchell and Armando Iannucci, the "communist conspiratorial lefty agendaistas.

Should be done for treason (genuine comment on Lee  !bgrin! ).


OK cheers. :thumbsup:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:05 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:01 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 03:45 PM
According to Hans Blix Saddam played "cat and mouse" with the UN weapons inspectors. As Blix pointed out this did not allow the inspectors to do their job. So it was impossible for them to know whether or not he had WMD.

This position was exacerbated by the fact that Saddam refused to allow the inspectors into Iraq from 1998 to 2002.

If the CIA could produce irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD then presumably he presented such to the weapons inspectors in which case they colluded in a conspiracy of silence. Or he did not have irrefutable evidence just opinion which left the situation as it was. It was felt at that time that certain knowledge, one way or the other, was a necessity.

Hindsight was not available at that stage.


According to the article hindsight was not necessary. If that was the case then all the officials that believed there were wmd's were duped.
The CIA could of known that there no WMD's and told the appropriate members of the Bush administration.
"Could have known" ? And therefore might not have Known. So far all we have is one CIA agent claiming he knew there were no WMD in Iraq, he doesn't explain how he supposedly knew. All he has to back up his claim is hindsight.

As far as the UK and the UN were concerned they believed Saddam did have WMD. They were even referred to in UN resolution 1441 passed by the international community. And until full and free proactive inspections, as called for in Res 1441 were allowed, that belief would continue to be the case.

When troops were placed on the border of Iraq there was high activity on the Iraq Syria border. This is likely to have been many Iraqis getting out of the way just in case, but it has also been suggested that WMD might have been taken across the border because the Inspectors were coming back in. Like the claim by the CIA, WHO KNOWS ?



Edited by C-too, Sep 26 2015, 04:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Missing from this Iraq & WMDs distraction is any reference to the French (or Russians) who opposed the invasion but neither indicated that they were aware of there being 'no WMDs' - surely if these knew there were none they would have asserted the fact?

Edited by Affa, Sep 26 2015, 04:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

:tumble:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:33 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:05 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:01 PM


According to the article hindsight was not necessary. If that was the case then all the officials that believed there were wmd's were duped.
The CIA could of known that there no WMD's and told the appropriate members of the Bush administration.
"Could have known" ? And therefore might not have Known. So far all we have is one CIA agent claiming he knew there were no WMD in Iraq, he doesn't explain how he supposedly knew. All he has to back up his claim is hindsight.

As far as the UK and the UN were concerned they believed Saddam did have WMD. They were even referred to in UN resolution 1441 passed by the international community. And until full and free proactive inspections, as called for in Res 1441 were allowed, that belief would continue to be the case.

When troops were placed on the border of Iraq there was high activity on the Iraq Syria border. This is likely to have been many Iraqis getting out of the way just in case, but it has also been suggested that WMD might have been taken across the border because the Inspectors were coming back in. Like the claim by the CIA, WHO KNOWS ?





What we have is a CIA operative's allegations. If he is correct then it is entirely possible that the UN and weapons inspectors were kept in the dark.
The claim that they HAD to know is quite wrong. Your argument seems to be that the allegations must be wrong because it cant be right.
If you can refute the claim then do so. If you say that the article cannot be proven then I agree but the point of the OP was that a CIA operatives serious allegation was not published by the Observer.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.
I wonder how they fiddled the opinion polls which show Corbin with minus support from the public? That's a neat trick if true.
Corbin, as is the Labour party is being damned with faint praise.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Sep 26 2015, 05:00 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.
I wonder how they fiddled the opinion polls which show Corbin with minus support from the public? That's a neat trick if true.
Corbin, as is the Labour party is being damned with faint praise.
It is a neat trick if true, what were you saying about the media being trustworthy again?
Hard to make an independent opinion if polls have been fiddled is it not?

Strangely you only slate the guardian, the tele and times never lie do they?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tytoalba
Sep 26 2015, 05:00 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.
I wonder how they fiddled the opinion polls which show Corbin with minus support from the public? That's a neat trick if true.
Corbin, as is the Labour party is being damned with faint praise.


Considering the amount of vitriol printed in the newspapers I am surprised that he has done so well. ;D
ATM he is heading something that we do not seem to be able to comprehend in this country...an ( embryo) inclusive party that has the interests of ordinary people rather than the elite.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 02:01 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.


I have seen a few articles in the Guardian giving faint praise to some aspect or other but none totally supporting Corbyn.
That's not to say they dont exist, I just haven't spotted them.
I take it that if the press does not support our own way of thinking then they must be wrong. I expect there is a scientific name for such biased thinking.
I also suppose the opposition to his leadership proposals is because they are seen as so very dangerous and destructive to our economy and our national interests?
In opposition he can propose what he likes because he does not expect to be able to implement them.
Already he is modifying his opinions as the reality of his position, with the responsibilities that go with it, and the wider information he is being given on all aspects of the nations needs and prospects, on which to base his ideas, much of which is secret, is being imparted to him. Some would refer to it as backtracking or U turning.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:49 PM
:tumble:

Can I ask what the inferred meaning of the 'tumbleweed' emoticon is?
It would help me appreciate the use if I knew what it meant.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tytoalba
Sep 26 2015, 05:13 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 02:01 PM
skwirked
Sep 26 2015, 01:44 PM
Did you ever expect different.

I'ce seen guardian pieces on the frontpage fully supporting austerity and asking for the tories to push cuts even further.

It's by no means just a left wing paper, it expresses a range of opinions.

Some have been totally supportive of Corbyn.


I have seen a few articles in the Guardian giving faint praise to some aspect or other but none totally supporting Corbyn.
That's not to say they dont exist, I just haven't spotted them.
I take it that if the press does not support our own way of thinking then they must be wrong. I expect there is a scientific name for such biased thinking.
I also suppose the opposition to his leadership proposals is because they are seen as so very dangerous and destructive to our economy and our national interests?
In opposition he can propose what he likes because he does not expect to be able to implement them.
Already he is modifying his opinions as the reality of his position, with the responsibilities that go with it, and the wider information he is being given on all aspects of the nations needs and prospects, on which to base his ideas, much of which is secret, is being imparted to him. Some would refer to it as backtracking or U turning.


I dont see how this is relevant to my post. Nowhere does it or the previous posts claim what you allege. In fact just the opposite.
Also you still seem to be taking the rather obtuse and disingenous position that as a leader of a diverse party he is compelled to insist that his left wing political views be implemented.
He has stated enough times that he intends ( and stated this before he was elected) to be the leader of a diverse party and employ the talents of all sides in his party.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Sep 26 2015, 05:22 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:49 PM
:tumble:

Can I ask what the inferred meaning of the 'tumbleweed' emoticon is?
It would help me appreciate the use if I knew what it meant.





It means I failed to post my reply so I deleted the lot :'(

Sorry if it seemed to be aimed at you Affa.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 05:27 PM
Affa
Sep 26 2015, 05:22 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:49 PM
:tumble:

Can I ask what the inferred meaning of the 'tumbleweed' emoticon is?
It would help me appreciate the use if I knew what it meant.





It means I failed to post my reply so I deleted the lot :'(

Sorry if it seemed to be aimed at you Affa.

Thanks for that.
The nearest I came to understanding what it meant was the use which says that a conversation killer is a tumbleweed ....... something that ends discussion ..... debate is blown away.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:59 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:33 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:05 PM
"Could have known" ? And therefore might not have Known. So far all we have is one CIA agent claiming he knew there were no WMD in Iraq, he doesn't explain how he supposedly knew. All he has to back up his claim is hindsight.

As far as the UK and the UN were concerned they believed Saddam did have WMD. They were even referred to in UN resolution 1441 passed by the international community. And until full and free proactive inspections, as called for in Res 1441 were allowed, that belief would continue to be the case.

When troops were placed on the border of Iraq there was high activity on the Iraq Syria border. This is likely to have been many Iraqis getting out of the way just in case, but it has also been suggested that WMD might have been taken across the border because the Inspectors were coming back in. Like the claim by the CIA, WHO KNOWS ?





What we have is a CIA operative's allegations. If he is correct then it is entirely possible that the UN and weapons inspectors were kept in the dark.
The claim that they HAD to know is quite wrong. Your argument seems to be that the allegations must be wrong because it cant be right.
If you can refute the claim then do so. If you say that the article cannot be proven then I agree but the point of the OP was that a CIA operatives serious allegation was not published by the Observer.

It is just the same as the recently departed CEO of Volkswagen said, "I had no idea that the software had been tampered with"...........do you believe him?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Rich
Sep 26 2015, 05:44 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:59 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:33 PM


What we have is a CIA operative's allegations. If he is correct then it is entirely possible that the UN and weapons inspectors were kept in the dark.
The claim that they HAD to know is quite wrong. Your argument seems to be that the allegations must be wrong because it cant be right.
If you can refute the claim then do so. If you say that the article cannot be proven then I agree but the point of the OP was that a CIA operatives serious allegation was not published by the Observer.

It is just the same as the recently departed CEO of Volkswagen said, "I had no idea that the software had been tampered with"...........do you believe him?


Nope but someone with a vested interest ( such as his mother) probably would.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Sep 26 2015, 05:44 PM
It is just the same as the recently departed CEO of Volkswagen said, "I had no idea that the software had been tampered with"...........do you believe him?
That get out worked for UK bank CEOs.

It also worked for the Murdoch family, and his editorial staff/team (most of them that is).
Edited by Affa, Sep 26 2015, 06:24 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:59 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:33 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:05 PM
"Could have known" ? And therefore might not have Known. So far all we have is one CIA agent claiming he knew there were no WMD in Iraq, he doesn't explain how he supposedly knew. All he has to back up his claim is hindsight.

As far as the UK and the UN were concerned they believed Saddam did have WMD. They were even referred to in UN resolution 1441 passed by the international community. And until full and free proactive inspections, as called for in Res 1441 were allowed, that belief would continue to be the case.

When troops were placed on the border of Iraq there was high activity on the Iraq Syria border. This is likely to have been many Iraqis getting out of the way just in case, but it has also been suggested that WMD might have been taken across the border because the Inspectors were coming back in. Like the claim by the CIA, WHO KNOWS ?


What we have is a CIA operative's allegations. If he is correct then it is entirely possible that the UN and weapons inspectors were kept in the dark.
The claim that they HAD to know is quite wrong. Your argument seems to be that the allegations must be wrong because it cant be right.
If you can refute the claim then do so. If you say that the article cannot be proven then I agree but the point of the OP was that a CIA operatives serious allegation was not published by the Observer.

"IF he is correct", not a very good start.
The UN inspectors had the job of finding out IF he had WMD. They could as you suggest be kept in the dark IF there was irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD. No such evidence was made available either at that time or since proving that the claim was right at that time.

I have not claimed that the inspectors "had to know". I put forward the scenario, if they knew, if they had been informed.

If you can prove the claim then please do so.

There is no dispute about the non-publication by the Observer (not a paper I would recommend to anyone). If there is a dispute it would be about the reasons why the allegations were not printed.
Edited by C-too, Sep 26 2015, 06:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

C-too
Sep 26 2015, 06:21 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:59 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 04:33 PM


What we have is a CIA operative's allegations. If he is correct then it is entirely possible that the UN and weapons inspectors were kept in the dark.
The claim that they HAD to know is quite wrong. Your argument seems to be that the allegations must be wrong because it cant be right.
If you can refute the claim then do so. If you say that the article cannot be proven then I agree but the point of the OP was that a CIA operatives serious allegation was not published by the Observer.

"IF he is correct", not a very good start.
The UN inspectors had the job of finding out IF he had WMD. They could as you suggest be kept in the dark IF there was irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD. No such evidence was made available either at that time or since proving that the claim was right at that time.

I have not claimed that the inspectors "had to know". I put forward the scenario, if they knew, if they had been informed.

If you can prove the claim then please do so.

There is no dispute about the non-publication by the Observer (not a paper I would recommend to anyone). If there is a dispute it would be about the reasons why the allegations were not printed.


You asked..Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ? which not only did I never suggest but the whole point was that they did not. So it has to be asked why you thought this was a given.
Also I have stressed from the beginning that this was possible not that it occurred. I have patiently repeated this in post 25, 20,15 and certainly did not claim it happened in post 10.
I think that you are being dishonest..your post I have not claimed that the inspectors "had to know". I put forward the scenario, if they knew, if they had been informed. does not support IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

This suggests that somehow if the CIA knew then the weapons inspectors and Kofi Annan would too. Otherwise it is an inane bit of musing.

Then you posted.Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ?

Which suggests the same ( otherwise why mention it?) or it is an inane bit of musing

Then you posted If the CIA could produce irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD then presumably he presented such to the weapons inspectors in which case they colluded in a conspiracy of silence.

Which does more than suggest, it assumes it. Unless you meant Saddam which makes your sentence rambling nonsense that suggests the CIA colluded with Saddam which is total nonsense if taken in the context that the US was finding evidence to attack IRAQ( see Gog and Magog)

Also as said this is not the point of the OP

Even then you miss the point. Even if the Observer doubted the authenticity of the claim the article would be newsworthy simply because it was an allegation from a CIA operative.
TBH you are being dishonest and obtuse once again and I cant be bothered with you .
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Affa
Sep 26 2015, 06:21 PM
Rich
Sep 26 2015, 05:44 PM
It is just the same as the recently departed CEO of Volkswagen said, "I had no idea that the software had been tampered with"...........do you believe him?
That get out worked for UK bank CEOs.

It also worked for the Murdoch family, and his editorial staff/team (most of them that is).


Frankly the idea that either a CEO did not know that there was a full scale fraud going on in his company or that a President is ignorant of information that is gleaned from his secret service is risible.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
C-too
Member Avatar
Honourable Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 06:47 PM
C-too
Sep 26 2015, 06:21 PM
gansao
Sep 26 2015, 04:59 PM
"IF he is correct", not a very good start.
The UN inspectors had the job of finding out IF he had WMD. They could as you suggest be kept in the dark IF there was irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD. No such evidence was made available either at that time or since proving that the claim was right at that time.

I have not claimed that the inspectors "had to know". I put forward the scenario, if they knew, if they had been informed.

If you can prove the claim then please do so.

There is no dispute about the non-publication by the Observer (not a paper I would recommend to anyone). If there is a dispute it would be about the reasons why the allegations were not printed.


You asked..Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ? which not only did I never suggest but the whole point was that they did not. So it has to be asked why you thought this was a given.
Also I have stressed from the beginning that this was possible not that it occurred. I have patiently repeated this in post 25, 20,15 and certainly did not claim it happened in post 10.
I think that you are being dishonest..your post I have not claimed that the inspectors "had to know". I put forward the scenario, if they knew, if they had been informed. does not support IF the CIA KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq EITHER they failed to tell the UN chief weapons inspector (or DR David Kelly the UK weapons inspector) OR Blix and Kelly knew but decided to keep the information secrete. Even kept secret from Kofi Annan ?
Perhaps someone is taking the p!ss out of this would be news sheet.

This suggests that somehow if the CIA knew then the weapons inspectors and Kofi Annan would too. Otherwise it is an inane bit of musing.

Then you posted.Do you believe that Blix, Kelly and Annan and goodness knows how many more all knew, and all kept quiet ?

Which suggests the same ( otherwise why mention it?) or it is an inane bit of musing

Then you posted If the CIA could produce irrefutable evidence that Saddam did not have any WMD then presumably he presented such to the weapons inspectors in which case they colluded in a conspiracy of silence.

Which does more than suggest, it assumes it. Unless you meant Saddam which makes your sentence rambling nonsense that suggests the CIA colluded with Saddam which is total nonsense if taken in the context that the US was finding evidence to attack IRAQ( see Gog and Magog)

Also as said this is not the point of the OP

Even then you miss the point. Even if the Observer doubted the authenticity of the claim the article would be newsworthy simply because it was an allegation from a CIA operative.
TBH you are being dishonest and obtuse once again and I cant be bothered with you .
The question "do you believe etc." was a follow up to the scenario --- if they Knew ---. You appear to have a problem following the context from one post to the next.

I never claimed Blix and co did know because not only would that not make sense to you, but it wouldn't make sense to me either.

You are misreading my post. The scenario is and --- if -- or, or ---, in other words putting forward possible options. That is why I used the word in capitals "EITHER".

Your interpretations of my posts do suggest you are guilty of "nonsense rambling" I think you need to clear your mind and reread my posts.
Either way it is obvious this exchange is going nowhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply