The Real Reason for NATO Attacking Libya ?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

sorry diogenes, i'm not wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_news_channels
so while channel 4 might be a highly respected award winning news program, it it not counted as a mainstream news channel.

Because of a wikipedia link? Proves you right?

It has a list of Public News Channels, Which Channel 4 is not.

But you also forget that Channel 4 News is actually Run by ITN.

Which is by anyones standards a major news organisation.

Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4_News
.


well if you really want to stick to this point, maybe you should open a new thread, and we can debate it there.

you've twisted what i've said.
i know you were talking about my factual claim that "the whole wmd being claimed by how many stations" is not equal to your spurious claim that i said "that no mainstream media challenged the case for the Iraq war".

even your first post was this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75085085&postcount=422

like i said before, this was being used as a point in relation to gaddafi's supposed crimes against his own people, the whole reason nato invaded.

i'm sure you want to beat this wmd claim to death, but if you really want to pick at one point and argue it to death, even though it is not the critical point of this argument, i can oblige, just start a new thread ...

You made the claim that no main news organisation covered the debate about WMD before the Iraq war. Its a factually inaccurate claim, as is pretty much everything you're arguing here.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Because of a wikipedia link? Proves you right?

Di0genes wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_4_News

seriously?

and it is a serious news channel, but i just don't think it is counted as mainstream.
that's just a matter of opinion, and you'll notice the wiki link does not say mainstream.

Di0genes wrote: »

well if you really want to stick to this point, maybe you should open a new thread, and we can debate it there.

i don't, you do, which is why you've ignored my other points.

do you want to continue this debate over wmd reporting major news?
if yes open a new thread.

Di0genes wrote: »

You made the claim that no main news organisation covered the debate about WMD before the Iraq war. Its a factually inaccurate claim, as is pretty much everything you're arguing here.

a quote from the post that i made that claim please.
please don't ignore this in your response.

.
.
.

and since you want to lump in the "everything you're arguing here", show me some evidence of everything i argued here being wrong?

davoxx wrote: »

is that what they have in england with the queen?

The Libyan monarchy of King Idris, which was based in Benghazi, was installed by the United States and Britain in the 1950’s to oversee their economic and military interests in North Africa.

Libya in 1952, under the leadership of King Idris, had among the lowest standard of living in the world. The Idris monarchy was overthrown in a bloodless revolution led by Muammar al-Gaddafi in 1969.

This led to the American Wheelus Air Base (The largest American base outside of the US at that time) being dismantled and the American and British armed forces stationed in Libya evacuating.

The western oil companies were then nationalised.


http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26246

facts ...

is that wrong? I did not see you offer anything to counter it.

or how about this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75053333&postcount=372

ed2hands

*sigh*

There was a certain amount of "debate" on the WMD dossier. In general though, the editorial policy of the BBC, ITV, and all the yank channels was to swallow it hook, line and sinker;

ie "It could be dodgy but it's most probably accurate; i mean the CIA/MI6 would never lie about this would they? So we just have to consider the intel and decide if it's accurate. Oh! But what if the "intel" is accurate and we don't act now??"


The usual scaremongering. Terror, terror, terror. A feeble attempt at proper journalism and unbiased reportage that could be seen through for what it was.
There was very little attention given to the fact that the war was actually illegal.

The fabricated excuses for war were given a big editorial seal of approval in general and Iraq was painted as a very real and existential threat; which of course many independant journalists and sources at the time were saying was complete rubbish.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

seriously?

and it is a serious news channel, but i just don't think it is counted as mainstream.

Why not. It's on a major terrestrial broadcaster.

that's just a matter of opinion, and you'll notice the wiki link does not say mainstream.

Your opinion is wrong.

a quote from the post that i made that claim please.
please don't ignore this in your response.

Certainly

you wrote:

the major news sites did not till after the invasion

.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Why not. It's on a major terrestrial broadcaster.

so was channel five, but we are talking viewing shares.

Di0genes wrote: »

Your opinion is wrong.

only to you.

Di0genes wrote: »

Certainly

thanks.

davoxx wrote: »

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

that is my claim, see the difference.
even if we consider channel 4 a major news site (which i really wish it was) that is only one news sites.
so obviously you need to prove that the majority did debate it prior.

the above quote was continuing on this:

davoxx wrote: »

my recollection was that this claim was presented as fact, as in "iraq has wmd" instead of "bush claims that iraq has wmd" ...

and i do not recall the debate over whether the wmd claim was exaggerated or not, till after the invasion was completed ...

which followed from this:

davoxx wrote: »

and lets be honest almost all news stations have their agenda ... have you already forgotten the whole wmd being claimed by how many stations?

i think even you have to agree that saying that i said "no main news organisation covered the debate about WMD before the Iraq war" was incorrect.

and as ed2hands mentions, there was a certain amount of debate, but it was always presented (even in the link that were posted) that iraq was a threat, which brings me back to gaddafi, this is the same why he is portrayed, though there is no evidence of his crimes against his people.

i would like you to post some evidence to counter my other arguments that you claim are factually incorrect.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

so was channel five, but we are talking viewing shares.

No we are not we're trying to establish what is considered a major news organisation. You've decided that viewing figures is what makes a news program major.

Incidently if we were to discuss channel 5 news we would in fact be discussing sky news who produce all of channel 5's news.

only to you.

You've just decided to cherry pick your own definition of "major news organisation"

Next you're be telling us Real Madrid aren't a major football team.

thanks.

that is my claim, see the difference.
even if we consider channel 4 a major news site (which i really wish it was)

Yes we can. Please give your specific definition of what is a "major news site"

that is only one news sites.
so obviously you need to prove that the majority did debate it prior.

I don't need to prove the "majority" You said.

the major news sites did not till after the invasion when they flip flopped.

Guardian 7th February 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/07/uk.internationaleducationnews

Thats two major news site covering the debate before the war.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

<text>

if you say so, but it's irrelevant to this thread.

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

if you say so, but it's irrelevant to this thread.

You made the fact that you thought that major news sites didn't challenge the British governments claims about WMDs in Iraq before the war part of your argument on this thread. When's it's shown your claim is demonstrably false, you announce that this is in fact irrelevant to the thread.

Why then did you bring it up in the first place?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

In your opinion. I'd say you're argue that the sun is cold if you thought it'd help your argument.

now i know why people *sigh*

cold compared to what?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2010/02/16/tech-physics-hot-quark-soup.html

"250,000 times hotter than the core of the sun."

seems like the sun is cold. are you done now?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

now i know why people *sigh*

cold compared to what?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2010/02/16/tech-physics-hot-quark-soup.html

"250,000 times hotter than the core of the sun."

seems like the sun is cold. are you done now?

Perhaps you'd comment on what I wrote.

Typical when the debate stops going your way you try to leap onto any little tangent rather than face the facts.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Perhaps you'd comment on what I actually wrote rather than whats up there now.

Typical when the debate stops going your way you try to leap onto any little tangent rather than face the facts.

i'm sorry i did not realise that you changed the post. i did comment on what you actually wrote, you just changed it. i could change what i wrote to if i wanted to, but that would get this discussion no where.

so you are saying you are wrong about the sun being cold?
since i factually proved you wrong on the sun being cold, therefore everything else you've said is wrong, by your own logic.

i like this tangent, it's better than the one you kept harping on about

like i said make a new thread, you can ask the mods to move the posts there ... but there is not point continuing it here.

Penn

Enough about the sun. Let's not turn this into another leprechaun debate. Get back on topic

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i'm sorry i did not realise that you changed the post. i did comment on what you actually wrote, you just changed it. i could change what i wrote to if i wanted to, but that would get this discussion no where.

so you are saying you are wrong about the sun being cold?
since i factually proved you wrong on the sun being cold, therefore everything else you've said is wrong, by your own logic.

i like this tangent, it's better than the one you kept harping on about

like i said make a new thread, you can ask the mods to move the posts there ... but there is not point continuing it here.

Indeed

Me wrote:

You made the fact that you thought that major news sites didn't challenge the British governments claims about WMDs in Iraq before the war part of your argument on this thread. When's it's shown your claim is demonstrably false, you announce that this is in fact irrelevant to the thread.

Why then did you bring it up in the first place?

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

Guardian 7th February 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/feb/07/uk.internationaleducationnews

Thats two major news site covering the debate before the war.

which two major ones? you claim channel 4 is major though you can not back it up.

regarding that guardian article, it ends with this.

'But diplomats will be trying to determine over the next few days whether it is a token gesture or a real shift away from what they describe as Iraq's "catch us if you can" approach to inspections. Hours before the announcement, a Foreign Office source in London signalled that this was the kind of change of heart that Iraq would have to make to avoid war.'

so rather than focus on the fact that the dossier was propaganda, they imply that iraq is hiding the wmd.

so you are wrong.

are we done now?

do you want to explain your definition of "major news organisation"?
and are you going to claim that RT is not a major news organisation?

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

which two major ones? you claim channel 4 is major though you can not back it up.

You claim Channel 4 isn't a major news organisation. You back up that claim.

It is a multi award winning news program and has won international recognition for the quality of it's programming and journalism.

regarding that guardian article, it ends with this.

'But diplomats will be trying to determine over the next few days whether it is a token gesture or a real shift away from what they describe as Iraq's "catch us if you can" approach to inspections. Hours before the announcement, a Foreign Office source in London signalled that this was the kind of change of heart that Iraq would have to make to avoid war.'

so rather than focus on the fact that the dossier was propaganda, they imply that iraq is hiding the wmd.

so you are wrong.

are we done now?

Thats just pathetic cherry picking on your part


Other parts of the article that you ignore

Evidence of an electronic cut-and-paste operation by Whitehall officials can be found in the way the dossier preserves textual quirks from its original sources. One sentence in Dr Marashi's article includes a misplaced comma in referring to Iraq's head of military intelligence during the 1991 Gulf war. The same sentence in Downing Street's report contains the same misplaced comma.

Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old.

Remember you said that "major news sites" did not cover the controversy over the intelligence on Iraq's WMDs before the invasion.

When you're presented with evidence that they did you try and bully your way through the argument announcing that ITN isn't major news site. Or that the Guardian article isn't covering the controversy when it clearly is.

do you want to explain your definition of "major news organisation"?
and are you going to claim that RT is not a major news organisation?

I want you to explain what your definition of a major news organisation is first.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You made the fact that you thought that major news sites didn't challenge the British governments claims about WMDs in Iraq before the war part of your argument on this thread. When's it's shown your claim is demonstrably false, you announce that this is in fact irrelevant to the thread.

i feel like i need to explain this.

so are you saying that major news sites did challenge the British governments claims about WMDs? and those that did not are not major?
the bbc did not challenge it, nor did sky news .. i'm sure there are others.

Di0genes wrote: »

Why then did you bring it up in the first place?

in the same wmd was trotted out as the reason for war, crimes against his own people is used against gaddafi. i see no news substantiating this.

hope that explains it.

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

You claim Channel 4 isn't a major news organisation. You back up that claim.

i did .. wiki.
your turn and you can't use a wiki link, that would be hypocritical.

Di0genes wrote: »

It is a multi award winning news program and has won international recognition for the quality of it's programming and journalism.

i never said it did not.

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats just pathetic cherry picking on your part

Other parts of the article that you ignore

not really, that summary was not needed and it twists the final view of the article.
is they had mentioned that uk was know for lying in the past instead, that would have made the uk look worse and placed iraq in better light.

does that explain it enough?
i can use an analogy if you want?
it is like saying that the desert is the most important part of the meal as it leaves the lasting impression.

Di0genes wrote: »

Remember you said that "major news sites" did not cover the controversy over the intelligence on Iraq's WMDs before the invasion.

just like yesterday ...

Di0genes wrote: »

When you're presented with evidence that they did you try and bully your way through the argument announcing that ITN isn't major news site. Or that the Guardian article isn't covering the controversy when it clearly is.

you say clearly it is, i say it is not.

does not get around the fact that from this you assumed that every point i made was wrong, and that you failed to back any of those up.

i agree, we can spend hours/years debating the criteria for mainstream media, and whether they were biased in there initial reporting of iraq.
clearly i am not the only one who think they did not debate it properly prior.
i already provided links showing that the bbc was quite bad in this front.

so do you want to backup your claims that i was wrong in the other points, or do i just accept that you were wrong?

Penn

davoxx banned for one week for ignoring mod warning and making the natives restless

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

i did .. wiki.
your turn and you can't use a wiki link, that would be hypocritical.

So your view is that channel 4 is not major news organisation based on that wiki. So you think RTE is a bigger news organisation than channel 4 on that logic.

As mentioned Channel 4 has one a international emmy as "best news program aired outside the united states."

Thats among the plaudits it's earned. Thats why it's a major news site. The quality and depth of it's programming.

not really, that summary was not needed and it twists the final view of the article.
is they had mentioned that uk was know for lying in the past instead, that would have made the uk look worse and placed iraq in better light.

Thats your incredibly biased reading of the article.

Your claim was that major news sites weren't covering the controversy before the invasion. When shown evidence that a major paper did cover it, you complain about the tone of the coverage.

You've lost, and now you're shifting the goalposts.

does not get around the fact that from this you assumed that every point i made was wrong, and that you failed to back any of those up.

i agree, we can spend hours/years debating the criteria for mainstream media, and whether they were biased in there initial reporting of iraq.
clearly i am not the only one who think they did not debate it properly prior.
i already provided links showing that the bbc was quite bad in this front.

so do you want to backup your claims that i was wrong in the other points, or do i just accept that you were wrong?

You won't even accept you're clearly wrong on this point. So lets just settle this first shall we?

The Outside Agency

If I was an investor..let's hypothetically say I am, Africa would be more attractive region to invest in right now than Asia.

David Cameron: The time has come for African free trade
African free trade zone is agreed

Countries like the UK and US can dress up their military engagements in Africa as "protecting Freedom and Democracy" but the reality is, many rich investors want to open up this region for business and that's about as complicated as it gets.

Forget about ideologies or religions because they're not important, it's all about money and power, greed.

It's a tough sell to the public however because most people don't appreciate the importance of raw materials and natural resources in running an economy.
There are constant arguments about Keynesian and Austrian schools which are both completely irrelevant in a finite world of resources.

Investors don't give a **** about people in Africa and never have, that's obvious to even a 5 year old.

What investors are interested in is how much money they can squeeze out of Africa and it's resources. (including people)

If politicians genuinely cared about problems in their own country, would they not illustrate this by addressing them?

Instead they are investing time and money with wars in other countries that just (by mere coincidence of course) have strategic value in securing energy or raw materials required to run an economy.

Seriously consider the belief that while the US and UK economies fall apart, they are investing time and money sending troops into Africa to help fight against terrorism...do you really believe this?

I really despair for people who believe that.

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

*sigh*

There was a certain amount of "debate" on the WMD dossier. In general though, the editorial policy of the BBC, ITV, and all the yank channels was to swallow it hook, line and sinker;

But what are you basing this on?

Didn't seem like editorial policy to me to waste a lot of airtime debating and analysing it then.

Ed, if that's your theory, it a very weak one.

ed2hands

Jonny7 wrote: »

But what are you basing this on?

Didn't seem like editorial policy to me to waste a lot of airtime debating and analysing it then.

Ed, if that's your theory, it a very weak one.

The debate and analysis was more due to public pressure than to editorial policy i gather. After all they had to at least show some semblance of impartiality. But yea at least there was some televised debate, but it was essentially controlled and tethered IMO.

Even the least worst of them, the BBC, were woeful. I can't recall Scott Ritter getting much airtime, except on hardtalk which which was hardly primetime.

The BBC impartiality myth was blown wide open good and proper out of all this if you ask me. Greg Dyke lost his job for trying to do his job. Shafted by this lot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/03/Iraqandthemedia.bbc

The BBC board of governors were directly influenced by the govt at the highest levels. Still are IMO. Who's the current chairman of the BBC Trust?
Chris Patten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
And you give out about RT;)

Jonny7

ed2hands wrote: »

The debate and analysis was more due to public pressure than to editorial policy i gather. After all they had to at least show some semblance of impartiality. But yea at least there was some televised debate, but it was essentially controlled and tethered IMO.

Even the least worst of them, the BBC, were woeful. I can't recall Scott Ritter getting much airtime, except on hardtalk which which was hardly primetime.

The BBC impartiality myth was blown wide open good and proper out of all this if you ask me. Greg Dyke lost his job for trying to do his job. Shafted by this lot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/03/Iraqandthemedia.bbc

The BBC board of governors were directly influenced by the govt at the highest levels. Still are IMO. Who's the current chairman of the BBC Trust?
Chris Patten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
And you give out about RT;)

I watched the whole Greg Dyke episode, was a very popular guy, staff were in bits when he was leaving, he only left because of the Hutton Enquiry - government pressure basically - this was Blair we're dealing with, pretty clear how he and Mr Campbell operated.

The only criticism I could have levelled at the BBC at the time was that they had him (Blair) on one ep of newsnight and they didn't grill him half enough.

Apart from that they did a good job.

Channel 4 - its the secondary station to ITV - but regularly pulled in very large numbers for their 7 oclock slot (which other stations generally didn't cover)

European media reviews are in the links I gave before.

Overall the whole WMD claim, the 45 minute claim, the Al Qaeda links, the transparency on the UN inspectators were heavily debated esp. in the first 3 months of 2003. The present-day "alternative" news was barely on the radar back then, not much youtube, etc - print media and TV news were strongly relied on, culminating in 100,000 Irish people getting off their arses to march against another country's war against another country. Dunno when the last time 100k people marched in this country.

studiorat

The BBC board of governors were directly influenced by the govt at the highest levels. Still are IMO. Who's the current chairman of the BBC Trust?
Chris Patten. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Patten
And you give out about RT

What's the problem with Chris Patten being chairman of the BBC trust?

ed2hands

No comment.

studiorat

ed2hands wrote: »

No comment.

Chris Patten :

A victim of his own interpretation of the "special relationship", Blair is all too likely to be judged by history as a leader who was braver in defending Bush's agenda in Iraq than he was in standing up for his own, and Britain's, strategic objectives in Europe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/sep/19/usa.iraq

There will be no resolution while there are so many Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Will the Obama administration say that loud and clear to Israeli politicians?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/gaza-israel-hamas-eu-us

Does this sound like a man kowtowing to the British Government?

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Chris Patten :


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/sep/19/usa.iraq



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/27/gaza-israel-hamas-eu-us

Does this sound like a man kowtowing to the British Government?

No, but it's not meaningful or indicatative of anything really other than he's prepared to state the obvious.

He would've sounded like an idiot had he said the opposite:

"Blair put Britain's interests before the US's" and "Illegal settlements built on illegally occupied land are good for peace"

ed2hands

Back to Libya.

Below is a good 19 minute video that sheds light on the ICCs attempt to detail their case against Gadaffi. Tis worth a gander.

http://www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

Brown Bomber

ed2hands wrote: »

Back to Libya.

Below is a good 19 minute video that sheds light on the ICCs attempt to detail their case against Gadaffi. Tis worth a gander.

http://www.laguerrehumanitaire.fr/english

Cheers Ed, I'll give it a look. Y'know what else is interesting to look at? This thread, it's been ongoing since close to the beginning of this tragic mess. You can see how people buy the media/politicians lies hook line and sinker and defend them to the hilt.

jackiebaron

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Cheers Ed, I'll give it a look. Y'know what else is interesting to look at? This thread, it's been ongoing since close to the beginning of this tragic mess. You can see how people buy the media/politicians lies hook line and sinker and defend them to the hilt.

Not only that, BB, but these people still can't see the idiocy of their claims that NATO went in to prevent a genocide when currently 10s of thousands have been butchered at the hands of the Anti-government terrorists. See now also that that thundering moron, Paul Bremer, yep the very fool who screwed up Iraq, is giving advice on how Libya should be run:

http://www.truth-out.org/iraq-not-model-libya/1320676783

It would be laughable if it wasn't such a tragedy.