|
Banned
|
Notice the differences between the reactions of those who post on the foxnews site, compared to the exchanges on the Guardian UK site. Would anyone who watches foxnews and reads the reader feedback on their website, be exposed to any idea or opinion that would conflict with their "knowing what they already know"?
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207766,00.html
Here's what FOX Fans are saying:
“This is absolutely a win for the intelligence communities. Hopefully, it will also serve as a wake-up call for the citizenry to let these intelligence entities do their jobs by covert surveillance and silence those that see conspiracy behind everything. The next essential step is for the intelligence communities, governments, and ordinary people to correctly name these terrorists as Islamic radicals and seek them out overtly.” — Deb (North Carolina)
“It’s a bit early to declare it a victory. British intelligence has had its fair share of problems in their attempts at rounding up terror suspects and thwarting plots. Let’s see what we learn over the next couple of days, and not be too eager to declare victory before the real fight is over.” — Michael (New York)
“Yes, I think this is truly an intelligence accomplishment and proves that cooperation between agencies worldwide is critical. I understand fully the need to restrict or control the carrying on of liquids on aircraft.” — Bob (Fort Pierce, FL)
“This is definitely a victory for Western civilization against Muslim extremism. There are many plots foiled by intelligence agencies of which the public will never know. This is a great collaboration of countries working together for one cause. Obviously, trying to win over the hearts and minds of these despicable evil fanatics is futile.” — Sheila (Queens, NY)
“This is a victory of a single battle. The war is not over. We need to win more battles to win the war.” — Mike
“I definitely think this a huge win for U.S. and British intelligence.” — Jeff (Okemos, MI)
“Not a victory by a long shot. Victory means the state of having won a competition or battle. We haven't won anything yet! This is not a competition. It will be a long time before victory can actually be obtained.” — Brett
“Any day terrorists are caught before they can enact their destructive actions is a good day. So, yes, it is a definite victory for intelligence agencies.” — Jerry
|
Quote:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/arc...red_alert.html
Well Valeska, one could equally use that argument to defend Blair, saying that all Iraqi deaths blamed on him are OK, cos they had to die anyway. Interesting as a philosophical point, but useless in a political argument!
Posted by BlueJam on August 10, 2006 06:00 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Sensei. I would agree that people who accept the Government line without question are sheep. I would also suggest those that just put their head in their sand in the face of a clear and present danger are ostriches.
Let's wait and see what the investigators find before rushing to judgement.
Posted by ThomasY on August 10, 2006 06:14 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Valeska -
I was being a bit cynical - I�m definitely not trying to justify deaths or murders on the back of world population increases. My point was that they are ALL hugely important issues and can�t in my view be morally argued across. I would never say that it would ok if Bob the Builder down the road was gunned down because another million humans will be replacing him in the next (working) week. Although I note that Tony, George and Ehud often use this numerical justification � we are killing a few X tens of thousand innocent people in Iraq / Afghanistan / Palestine / Lebanon so that Y number of people will be saved (according to their rhetoric) in the future.
The figures might give some perspective but I reckon police executions, scented candles, smoking, suicide bombings, car accidents, Aids and global warming are all problems that need to be solved. Stopping a bomb in Lebanon, or in a plane shouldn�t prevent saving an Aids patient ... or am I being naive?
Posted by whattale on August 10, 2006 06:16 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
So While Tony is away on his airbed 'COBRA' has swung into action to save the nation. Don't worry folks our safety from the Islamic Facists that are thretening to overwhelm us, is secure in the hands of an alcoholic Scot and a womanising overweight buffoon. It's the Rab C Nesbitt and Jabba the Hut show! God help us all.
Posted by deadchild on August 10, 2006 06:17 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Bluejam, the difference between us is that you think the police always act for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, that strange foreign people are very suspicious and probably murderous savages, that any one who thinks differently from you is probably not really human, and it's their fault anyway. I don't.
If only a tenth of the "police contact" deaths were caused by carelessness or ill will, they would still equal terrorism deaths. I'm sure that more than 1% of RTAs are caused by carelessness.
If you cause someone's death by an action where you didn't give a fig for the consequences, you're just as guilty as if you did it deliberately.
You may be a very genial character in real life, that I could have a good crack with down the pub. You clearly believe in our politicians as well as our police. All I can say is, you never learnt that it is not safe to hoist to windward.
Posted by madmustelid on August 10, 2006 06:18 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
ThomasY - I haven't rushed to judgement - I said I was reserving it. But don't you think the scepticism is justified? Just a little bit?
I have no time for facism no matter what religious flag flies above it, but we shouldn't let politicians exaggerate the threat in order to manipulate us. And I don't think that qualifies as a conspiracy theory. Does anyone really believe politicians aren't manipulative?
Posted by sensei on August 10, 2006 06:28 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
I agree that many lives may well have been saved today by the security field agents (Apologies it's an old detective novel). But why do the security agencies seemingly lack intelligence? I know it�s easy with hindsight but surely those thousands of security people whose jobs/careers etc are based on it could have / should have thought of these risks (the access of passengers to cockpits before 9/11, to shoe bombs being brought aboard planes, the use of flammable liquids?) AND thought of simple solutions to mitigate the risk BEFORE these types of plans were devised by those with malicious intent.
Posted by whattale on August 10, 2006 06:43 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
I think the following says it all. Until such time that the Muslim leadership steps up and accepts that these acts are in fact done by Muslims and begin to condemn these things there will be no end. Muslims are quick to play the blame game when they can point to someone else - but the refuse to accept the fact that the fault is theirs and theirs alone.
The quote:
Dr Mohammad Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, said he remained circumspect about the basis on which today's arrests were made. "With the track record of the police, one doesn't have much faith in the basis on which people are detained," he said.
"And it poses the question whether the arrests are part of a political objective, by using Muslims as a target, using the perception of terrorism to usurp all our civil liberties and get more and more control while moving towards a totalitarian
Posted by WillieC on August 10, 2006 06:48 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
The cynicism and distrust of our governments is an absolute pleasure to read.
To those of you who wish to give Bush /Blair the benefit of the doubt:
please don�t forget that most of the terror alerts since 2001 have turned out to have very little factual basis.
We simply do not know who did what on 911 , or indeed what exactly happened.
As for the July bombing�well why does Blair refuse and open investigation if he has nothing to hide.
This alert is probably just bull to keep the public terrified and backing Blair
Posted by cjrr on August 10, 2006 06:49 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Madmustelid: "Bluejam, the difference between us is that you think the police always act for the best in this the best of all possible worlds, that strange foreign people are very suspicious and probably murderous savages, that any one who thinks differently from you is probably not really human, and it's their fault anyway."
I think none of these things! Neither have I written anything to suggest that I do! Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else's.
I was merely questioning your grasp of statistics. You seem to deny that ANY deaths caused by police might be justifiable, whereas I never denied that every accidental death or death caused by incompetence was at best a tragedy and at worst something that compelled harsh investigation.
I never mentioned 'strange foreign people' or 'murderous savages'. Perhaps these are your own views. If so, shame on you.
Posted by BlueJam on August 10, 2006 06:50 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
The cynicism and distrust of our governments is an absolute pleasure to read.
To those of you who wish to give Bush /Blair the benefit of the doubt:
please don�t forget that most of the terror alerts since 2001 have turned out to have very little factual basis.
We simply do not know who did what on 911 , or indeed what exactly happened.
As for the July bombing�well why does Blair refuse and open investigation if he has nothing to hide.
This alert is probably just bull to keep the public terrified and backing Blair
Posted by cjrr on August 10, 2006 06:51 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
Any one believing in terror alerts should check out the fake terror alert archive
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_...or.html#alerts
Posted by cjrr on August 10, 2006 06:55 PM.
Offensive? Unsuitable? Report this comment.
|
There actually seems to be a discussion going on at the Guardian UK site. Some defend the government line....others question it, and provide support for why they do so.
At foxnews, there is no "dialogue".....the comments are all alike, and, IMO, they could have been written by someone at the RNC, DHS, or by an intern in Karl Rove's office. The contrast in the posts at the two sites is the uniformity and predictability at the "closed loop" that is the foxnews reader feedback page, vs. the "anything goes", universe of opinion at the Guardian UK page.
It's too bad that it has to be one way, or the other.
I'm amused at the reaction to what some of us post on these threads, coming as such a "shock" to folks who come from the "closed loop" world, on the fringe of the open universe of diverse opinion. |