Pages

Jump to bottom

194 comments

1 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 6:37:15pm

Some effort to make arrests is logical, but that red-letter warning hits just about every paranoia button you would find in a FEMA-camp alert.

2 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 6:40:19pm

OMG! New world Order put fluoride in mah H2O!

3 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 6:41:22pm
4 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:04:16pm

I think I'm misunderstanding the points being made here and I want to ensure that we have a dialog. Are you saying that there is not actually an effort underway to arrest DDOS hackers, and that any warning to the contrary is ludicrous?

5 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:12:12pm

Unless I'm missing something, the Al Jazeera piece you linked is basically an attempt to explain away their obvious use as a propaganda arm of the Qatar royal family -- which was revealed by the Wikileaks cables. Why would you take the word of the propaganda arm of a totalitarian government that the US is deliberately killing journalists, and ignore the more important story -- that Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar?

6 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:17:22pm

re: #4 Barrett Brown

I think I'm misunderstanding the points being made here and I want to ensure that we have a dialog. Are you saying that there is not actually an effort underway to arrest DDOS hackers, and that any warning to the contrary is ludicrous?

Not ludicrous, obvious and predictable. Of course their going to arrest people for the attacks. Did you think the nation states were just going to collapse from your awesomeness?

7 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:34:07pm

re: #5 Charles

Unless I'm missing something, the Al Jazeera piece you linked is basically an attempt to explain away their obvious use as a propaganda arm of the Qatar royal family -- which was revealed by the Wikileaks cables. Why would you take the word of the propaganda arm of a totalitarian government that the US is deliberately killing journalists, and ignore the more important story -- that Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar?

You need to click on the Guardian piece which is linked to from that article in which it is shown that the U.S. has already attacked al-Jazeera offices. I can also introduce you to a former CIA Special Operations agent who will tell you the same thing if you're still not convinced even after confirmed reports of Bush and Blair discussing additional bombings. Please let me know, as it's obviously something of importance and if for some reason I am making a major journalistic mistake for the first time in my history at this site, then I will need to correct it.

8 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:35:10pm

Fuck MIA.

9 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:36:07pm

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Uh, no... I was asking about why you and some other guy were leaving comments to the effect that these are conspiracy theories. FEMA, fluoridated water, etc. I really don't appreciate the manner in which you're acting.

10 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:40:07pm

re: #7 Barrett Brown

They're linking to a five-year old article, with accusations that have already been hashed and rehashed a million times.

If we're supposed to be supportive of what Wikileaks is doing, shouldn't we be paying attention when their leaked cables show that Al Jazeera is a hopelessly compromised propaganda tool -- and shouldn't that have some effect on how trustworthy their earlier claims are?

11 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:44:45pm

re: #9 Barrett Brown

Uh, no... I was asking about why you and some other guy were leaving comments to the effect that these are conspiracy theories. FEMA, fluoridated water, etc. I really don't appreciate the manner in which you're acting.

I really don't appreciate the manner in which you're acting.


I know. That's why I'm doing it.

12 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:50:50pm

re: #10 Charles

They're linking to a five-year old article, with accusations that have already been hashed and rehashed a million times.

If we're supposed to be supportive of what Wikileaks is doing, shouldn't we be paying attention when their leaked cables show that Al Jazeera is a hopelessly compromised propaganda tool -- and shouldn't that have some effect on how trustworthy their earlier claims are?

1. Does an article become untrue by virtue of someone reading it five years after it was written?

2. You and I have "hashed and rehashed" the accusations against R.S. McCain. Does that make them wrong? Several neo-Confederate and anti-Arab bloggers have said that such a process really exists because we cite old articles about McCain and repeat those arguments. If our arguments are valid despite being based on factual information from several years ago, then all arguments have this "privilege." Right?

3. As for al-Jazeera being a "heavily compromised propaganda tool," I would love to see the most significant piece of evidence for that charge. Certainly it is not perfect, anymore than are the U.S. mediums. The fact is that Bush and Blair discussed bombing their HQ and that the U.S. has targeted its regional offices for attacks.

13 Decatur Deb  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:50:52pm

re: #4 Barrett Brown

I think I'm misunderstanding the points being made here and I want to ensure that we have a dialog. Are you saying that there is not actually an effort underway to arrest DDOS hackers, and that any warning to the contrary is ludicrous?

I'm assuming that someone would want to arrest someone, once they get their paperwork ducks in a row. I'm also saying I've seen handbills similar to the red-lettered warning on RW nutcase sites, alerting to hallucinatory Fed sweeps.

14 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:51:49pm

Funny you know. The Anti-Scientology Cult™ is almost as bad as Scientology itself. Perhaps even worse.

15 Virginia Plain  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:53:18pm

re: #14 Gus 802

Funny you know. The Anti-Scientology Cult™ is almost as bad as Scientology itself. Perhaps even worse.

How so?

16 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:55:46pm

Here's the real Al Jazeera:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Sorry, Barrett, but Western media organizations have a LONG way to go before they reach this level of debasement.

17 Randall Gross  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:57:19pm

Arriving late, and leaving early (meaning now...) but I must say again that DDOS attacks are evil, and perpetrators of them need to be arrested for many of the same reasons that people who attempt to obstruct traffic on freeways need to be arrested.

I explained that when you DDOS a site, you really attack everyone's internet in an earlier comment in another thread. Since anon has little concern for others, I fail to sympathize over their arrests if they even occur.

18 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:57:49pm

re: #14 Gus 802

Funny you know. The Anti-Scientology Cult™ is almost as bad as Scientology itself. Perhaps even worse.

It's quite a feat.

19 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:59:05pm

I see that the video of Al Jazeera's birthday party for a child murderer has been removed.

20 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:59:14pm

Exclusive Al Jazeera footage of Barret Brown's interrogation at the hands of the evil American Empire...

21 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:00:33pm

I still think this is an interesting discussion.

I was wondering if he (Assange) would be considered to have suborned the document leaks.
From dictionary dot com

sub·orn
   –verb (used with object)
1.to bribe or induce (someone) unlawfully or secretly to perform some misdeed or to commit a crime.

22 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:02:13pm

re: #18 Killgore Trout

It's quite a feat.

They need a hobby. I almost got drawn in during my days at Topix. Then I realized that I was doing nothing than fabricating a self-driven hatred for a group that I have nothing to do with.

They also keep bringing up Lisa McPherson time and time again. While it was a senseless death the cause of her death is technically unproven. And if you look at other religions and even secular groups more of them have died or been allegedly "killed" through their practices than the lone Lisa McPherson.

It's an obsession that I do not understand nor wish to be subjected to anymore.

23 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:04:00pm

re: #16 Charles

I agree that this man should not have been given a celebratory welcoming by al-Jazeera. I also disagree that G. Gordon Liddy, who proposed the firebombing of a civilian institution, is worthy of having a syndicated talkshow. But I would never blow up the company that gives Liddy his talk show, even if certain other people would had Liddy been an Arab. Likewise, I don't think that the U.S. has the right to kill a great number of men and women who work for a media company because it happens to have a bias towards the murderers of its society rather than the murderers of our society.

24 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:06:29pm

re: #11 Killgore Trout

You should be ashamed of your conduct. Obviously you're not because you know that you're in the right, but you should be ashamed anyway.

25 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:06:48pm

re: #23 Barrett Brown

I agree that this man should not have been given a celebratory welcoming by al-Jazeera. I also disagree that G. Gordon Liddy, who proposed the firebombing of a civilian institution, is worthy of having a syndicated talkshow. But I would never blow up the company that gives Liddy his talk show, even if certain other people would had Liddy been an Arab. Likewise, I don't think that the U.S. has the right to kill a great number of men and women who work for a media company because it happens to have a bias towards the murderers of its society rather than the murderers of our society.

You're kind of missing the point. Gordon Liddy may have proposed firebombing a civilian institution, but Samir Kuntar, who was celebrated and praised as a hero by Al Jazeera, bashed a little girl's brains out after shooting her father in front of her.

One of these things is not like the other.

26 rwmofo  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:07:00pm

re: #19 Charles

I see that the video of Al Jazeera's birthday party for a child murderer has been removed.

Maybe they needed the room to "celebrate" the release of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, who is the Libyan convicted of bombing the Pan Am flight that exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland.

27 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:08:18pm

And by the way, I despise Gordon Liddy.

28 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:11:15pm

re: #25 Charles

Yes, one of them was not able to carry out the murders he favored. Thus one of them can have a radio show whereas civilians who work at a station which once gave a party to a man who killed civilians should be killed. As in, this man killed civilians, so we must kill other civilians who may not have know him but who worked for a station at which some producer did like them. I understand.

29 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:13:58pm

re: #28 Barrett Brown

He tortured and murdered a father and his daughter, for no reason, and then he was given a party by Al Jazeera. I'm kind of amazed that you think this is equivalent to Gordon Liddy having a radio talk show.

30 Varek Raith  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:16:14pm

Most interesting...
Al Jazeera is to be taken as a credible source of information?
Methinks not.

31 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:22:06pm

Samir Kuntar

Image: samir20kuntar1.jpg

Fascinating.

32 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:22:28pm

re: #29 Charles

I'm not saying his murder is equivalent to G. Gordon Liddy having a talk show. I'm saying that his murder is equivalent in intent to that of a guy who intended to burn a bunch of people alive in a building. See, I think the intents are the same, largely because they are the same. I know I'm going to catch flak for saying that one guy one intended to do one thing is equal in intent to another guy who intended to do the same thing, but that's just how it's going to have to be.

I'm also using him as an example out of any number of Americans who are actually more closely affiliated with American institutions than he is to al-Jazeera and who also committed murder, such as the troops in Afghanistan who hunted and killed several Afghan civilians and then hassled one of their command officers when he freaked out about it. Obviously there are any number of other examples I could pull out. And I know that me pulling them out at all is considered offensive by some people. But America is good enough to be criticized harshly when certain Americans dishonor it by their conduct.

33 freetoken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:22:37pm

re: #17 Thanos

... I must say again that DDOS attacks are evil, and perpetrators of them need to be arrested for many of the same reasons that people who attempt to obstruct traffic on freeways need to be arrested.

I was about to offer up a similar analogy (about blocking driveways.)

If the perps of the DDOS intentionally were not identified, arrested, and charged then that would be a dereliction of duty on the part of law enforcement.

34 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:22:38pm

re: #24 Barrett Brown

You should be ashamed of your conduct.

aybe so but I'm not. Not at all. I'm actually quite pleased with myself.

35 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:23:57pm

...and here we have it. I'm glad we have all this out in the open.

36 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:26:50pm

re: #32 Barrett Brown

See, I think the intents are the same, largely because they are the same.

The intent may be the same, but one of these people actually committed horrible murders in the real world. Samir Kuntar carried out his murders, and then he was feted on Al Jazeera -- specifically FOR those murders. Not in spite of them, because of them. Do you really not see a difference here?

I'm also using him as an example out of any number of Americans who are actually more closely affiliated with American institutions than he is to al-Jazeera and who also committed murder, such as the troops in Afghanistan who hunted and killed several Afghan civilians and then hassled one of their command officers when he freaked out about it. Obviously there are any number of other examples I could pull out. And I know that me pulling them out at all is considered offensive by some people. But America is good enough to be criticized harshly when certain Americans dishonor it by their conduct.

Those troops are currently under arrest and are probably going to spend a long long time in a military prison.

37 laZardo  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:29:11pm

re: #36 Charles

Those troops are currently under arrest and are probably going to spend a long long time in a military prison.

For emphasis.

38 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:29:54pm

re: #37 laZardo

For emphasis.

Let me rephrase that -- almost certainly going to spend a long time in prison.

39 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:31:38pm

" Do you really not see a difference here?"

Just state your position. Should men and women who work for al-Jazeera be killed in a bombing because a producer at al-Jazeera and a crew put together a tribute to a guy who committed a war crime?

40 jamesfirecat  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:31:53pm

re: #14 Gus 802

Funny you know. The Anti-Scientology Cult™ is almost as bad as Scientology itself. Perhaps even worse.

I don't think you grasp just how horrible Scientology is. Do you anything about their treatment of children?

41 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:33:01pm

re: #14 Gus 802

Funny you know. The Anti-Scientology Cult™ is almost as bad as Scientology itself. Perhaps even worse.

Definitely not worse. Absolutely and definitely not worse.

43 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:33:22pm

re: #40 jamesfirecat

I don't think you grasp just how horrible Scientology is. Do you anything about their treatment of children?

You mean like this?

Image: hizballah-child-abuse-02.jpg

44 laZardo  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:33:25pm

re: #14 Gus 802

Funny you know. The Anti-Scientology Cult™ is almost as bad as Scientology itself. Perhaps even worse.

Not sure how a bunch of basement-dwelling pseudo-white-supremacist nerds that think they're 1337 h4xx0rz for putting on Guy Fawkes masks and voluntarily running DDOS protocols on their computer is supposed to be worse. There are probably only a very few that are actually as good as they say.

45 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:33:41pm

Oops. Wrong picture. Hang on.

46 jamesfirecat  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:34:18pm

re: #43 Gus 802

You mean like this?

Image: hizballah-child-abuse-02.jpg

Are you claiming Anonymous is responsible for that?

Because otherwise I fail to see the importance....

47 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:35:06pm

re: #39 Barrett Brown

" Do you really not see a difference here?"

Just state your position. Should men and women who work for al-Jazeera be killed in a bombing because a producer at al-Jazeera and a crew put together a tribute to a guy who committed a war crime?

No one made that proposal.

Why are you misrepresenting what was said?

48 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:36:13pm

re: #39 Barrett Brown

" Do you really not see a difference here?"

Just state your position. Should men and women who work for al-Jazeera be killed in a bombing because a producer at al-Jazeera and a crew put together a tribute to a guy who committed a war crime?

My position is that Al Jazeera's claims about that bombing are not trustworthy, because they are the propaganda arm of the Qatar royal family. You're building a strawman, and you're too smart not to know it.

Is it your position that the official media department of the totalitarian Qatar royal family should be considered as trustworthy as the American media?

49 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:36:14pm

re: #46 jamesfirecat

Are you claiming Anonymous is responsible for that?

Because otherwise I fail to see the importance...

It's a joke James. Remember that? It's high sarcasm. Let me do my thing and if I need any help I'll let you know.

50 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:36:26pm

re: #47 researchok

Bush and Blair made that proposal. Read the post that we are discussing, please.

51 laZardo  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:38:06pm

re: #50 Barrett Brown

I'd like to see the actual cable they're talking about, for starters...

52 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:38:12pm

re: #50 Barrett Brown

Bush and Blair made that proposal. Read the post that we are discussing, please.

And you find Al Jazeera credible?

53 jamesfirecat  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:38:38pm

re: #49 Gus 802

It's a joke James. Remember that? It's high sarcasm. Let me do my thing and if I need any help I'll let you know.

Well I'm not being sarcastic when I say that Scientology is worse that Anonymous.

It's not even a contest.

Do you know anything about what "Child Dianetics" has to say about raising children?

54 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:40:24pm

And by the way, nobody was killed, and Al Jazeera's headquarters were NOT BOMBED. The cable shows a discussion of something that never happened.

And I'm supposed to believe this is just as bad as smashing a little girl's brains out with a rifle butt.

55 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:40:39pm

re: #53 jamesfirecat

Well I'm not being sarcastic when I say that Scientology is worse that Anonymous.

It's not even a contest.

Do you know anything about what "Child Dianetics" has to say about raising children?

That's debatable. Regardless though that's your gig not mine. If you don't mine I'd really prefer if you don't address me for a couple of days. I'll let you know when I'm interested in "chatting" with you.

56 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:41:35pm

re: #48 Charles

Charles, we are going by The Guardian's claims about the bombing, along with cables showing that Bush and Blair discussed bombing it more.

Again, we are not getting it from al-Jazeera.

If you think that the cables are fraudulent let me know because that would be a significant story.

If you think that the Guardian has made up the story about the U.S. targeting al-Jazeera in the past, tell me that.

If you don't want to justify what the U.S. did and also considered doing, I obviously understand. I certainly think al-Jazeera is a degenerate institution for throwing party for a murderer. I just don't think we should kill some sizable number of civilians and journalists because of it. That's all I'm really saying here.

57 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:44:36pm

re: #56 Barrett Brown

Charles, we are going by The Guardian's claims about the bombing, along with cables showing that Bush and Blair discussed bombing it more.

Again, we are not getting it from al-Jazeera.

If you think that the cables are fraudulent let me know because that would be a significant story.

If you think that the Guardian has made up the story about the U.S. targeting al-Jazeera in the past, tell me that.

If you don't want to justify what the U.S. did and also considered doing, I obviously understand. I certainly think al-Jazeera is a degenerate institution for throwing party for a murderer. I just don't think we should kill some sizable number of civilians and journalists because of it. That's all I'm really saying here.

Mr Brown, your righteous indignation is noted.

The US also has plans to invade Canada- plans, not just a cable. Does that also outrage you?

Get over your phony piety.

58 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:44:52pm

re: #55 Gus 802

He's absolutely and completely right about child dianetics. Why are you unwilling to hear about it?

59 jamesfirecat  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:46:38pm

re: #55 Gus 802

That's debatable. Regardless though that's your gig not mine. If you don't mine I'd really prefer if you don't address me for a couple of days. I'll let you know when I'm interested in "chatting" with you.

If you don't want to respond to my posts that's no skin off my nose.

Just for reference...

[Link: members.chello.nl...]


"He pulled up the wedge from the chain-locker, a dank and unhealthy part of the ship into which offenders were flung without food as a punishment. Out crawled a little girl who turned out to be a deaf-mute who had been unable to write her name and had incurred the Commodore's wrath."

60 Varek Raith  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:46:47pm

re: #57 researchok

Mr Brown, your righteous indignation is noted.

The US also has plans to invade Canada- plans, not just a cable. Does that also outrage you?

Get over your phony piety.

If it's as incomprehensible as the Cylon's Plan, then yes, I'd be outraged.
;)

61 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:47:41pm

re: #4 Barrett Brown

I think I'm misunderstanding the points being made here and I want to ensure that we have a dialog. Are you saying that there is not actually an effort underway to arrest DDOS hackers, and that any warning to the contrary is ludicrous?

If there is such an effort, I applaud it. If I had advance notice of one such raid I'd show up with coffee and doughnuts for the cops and federal agents.

62 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:48:41pm

re: #61 Dark_Falcon

Yeah, you probably would.

63 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:48:56pm

re: #60 Varek Raith

If it's as incomprehensible as the Cylon's Plan, then yes, I'd be outraged.
;)

I had to look that up.

I really LOL

64 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:49:28pm

re: #56 Barrett Brown

I want to praise your civility in this discussion.

65 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 8:55:04pm

re: #62 Barrett Brown

You sit there and push Al Jazeera propaganda on here. What a douchebag. A lot of people on here used to respect you. I doubt anyone does now.

66 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:01:50pm

The US government never killed anyone at Al Jazeera. There was a bombing of one of their offices during the Iraq invasion, but no one was hurt.

And the so-called "bombing memo" has been dismissed by both the US and British governments, who say there were NEVER any serious discussions about bombing Al Jazeera offices.

Do governments ever lie about stuff like this? Of course they do. But if you don't think the Qatar royal family's puppet media organization ever lies, you might be really really naive.

67 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:01:57pm

re: #65 NJDhockeyfan

Are you the narrator?

68 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:03:25pm

re: #65 NJDhockeyfan

I respect his opinions. We each and every one of us have a right to our opinions. It's called freedom of speech. I am very much enjoying the discussion between Barret Brown and Charles. I am learning things, and thinking about new ideas. That's what I come to LGF for. Interesting, reasoned discourse. Not "groupthink" or a pile on.

69 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:03:38pm

re: #67 Barrett Brown

Are you the narrator?

Are you the keymaster?

70 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:03:44pm

re: #66 Charles

I never said that al-Jazeera never lies. That's why I wanted to make sure everyone was clear what exactly we're arguing about. I just said I didn't think it's appropriate to kill their journalists.

71 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:04:42pm

re: #69 Dark_Falcon

I've got mineral water and vitamins and hey I'm having a party for some of my clients tonight!

72 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:04:59pm

re: #70 Barrett Brown

Good thing the US and UK agree with you then?

73 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:05:04pm

re: #70 Barrett Brown

I never said that al-Jazeera never lies. That's why I wanted to make sure everyone was clear what exactly we're arguing about. I just said I didn't think it's appropriate to kill their journalists.

Who killed their journalists? And why do they deserve the term "journalist," when they work for an organization that has been shown by the leaked cables to be nothing more than the official propaganda department of Qatar?

74 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:05:27pm

re: #70 Barrett Brown

I never said that al-Jazeera never lies. That's why I wanted to make sure everyone was clear what exactly we're arguing about. I just said I didn't think it's appropriate to kill their journalists.

Who killed their journalists?

75 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:05:53pm

re: #73 Charles

Who killed their journalists? And why do they deserve the term "journalist," when they work for an organization that has been shown by the leaked cables to be nothing more than the official propaganda department of Qatar?

Fox set precedent with the GOP?

76 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:08:09pm

re: #75 McSpiff

I certainly don't consider most Fox anchors or commentators 'journalists'.

77 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:08:46pm

re: #68 Floral Giraffe

I respect his opinions. We each and every one of us have a right to our opinions. It's called freedom of speech. I am very much enjoying the discussion between Barret Brown and Charles. I am learning things, and thinking about new ideas. That's what I come to LGF for. Interesting, reasoned discourse. Not "groupthink" or a pile on.

He can say whatever he wants. Supporting propaganda from Al-Jazeera is disgusting and I am using my freedom of speech rights to call him on it.

78 freetoken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:09:04pm

re: #66 Charles

The US government never killed anyone at Al Jazeera. There was a bombing of one of their offices during the Iraq invasion, but no one was hurt.

All this time I've been under the impression that even if Bush were serious Blair shot down the idea.

Personally I do not find leaders discussing theoretical operations to be offensive. I also don't find anything special about journalists or media enterprises that automatically excludes them from being either tools or targets.

I've always been told that in war the first victim is the truth. I seriously doubt that anything Wikileaks, Anonymous (or their misc. supporters) have in their possession will shed any more light on the conjectured operation in question.

79 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:09:18pm

re: #70 Barrett Brown

I never said that al-Jazeera never lies. That's why I wanted to make sure everyone was clear what exactly we're arguing about. I just said I didn't think it's appropriate to kill their journalists.

Yes, we were all of one mind that Al Jazeera 'journalists' ought to be blown off the face of the earth. It is a recurring theme here at LGF.

Mr Brown, you are a beacon of moral clarity.

80 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:09:34pm

re: #73 Charles

Please show me the text that supports what you're claiming.

81 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:09:39pm

re: #76 Obdicut

I certainly don't consider most Fox anchors or commentators 'journalists'.

edutaintment-ists?

83 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:10:56pm

re: #80 Barrett Brown

Please show me the text that supports what you're claiming.

Well, I think a good first step in the discussion would be for you to admit that no AJ have actually been killed by the US/UK...

84 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:12:56pm

re: #79 researchok

re: #74 NJDhockeyfan

Who killed their journalists?

As has been noted, the U.S. killed their journalists, as noted here:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

This was in the original post that we are now "discussing" and I have brought it up throughout this argument. I know, I'm a bad person. I apologize.

85 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:13:39pm

re: #84 Barrett Brown

re: #74 NJDhockeyfan

As has been noted, the U.S. killed their journalists, as noted here:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

This was in the original post that we are now "discussing" and I have brought it up throughout this argument. I know, I'm a bad person. I apologize.

And you are saying that was deliberate?

86 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:13:46pm

re: #84 Barrett Brown

re: #74 NJDhockeyfan

As has been noted, the U.S. killed their journalists, as noted here:

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

This was in the original post that we are now "discussing" and I have brought it up throughout this argument. I know, I'm a bad person. I apologize.

Killed during an air raid. Not even Al Jazeera claims this was a deliberate killing.

87 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:15:51pm

re: #83 McSpiff

Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, was killed when an American tank fired a shell directly at the Reuters suite on the 15th floor at the Palestine hotel, where many journalists are staying.

Jose Couso, 37, a cameraman for the Spanish television channel Tele 5, was wounded in the same attack and died later in hospital. Samia Nakhoul, the Gulf bureau chief of Reuters, was also injured, along with a British technician, Paul Pasquale, and an Iraqi photographer, Faleh Kheiber.

Earlier, al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayyoub, a 35-year-old Palestinian who lived in Jordan, was killed when two bombs dropped during a US air raid hit the satellite station's office in the Iraqi capital.

American forces also opened fire on the offices of Abu Dhabi television, whose identity is spelled out in large blue letters on the roof.

I've got to go, but it's been a great pleasure.

88 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:16:05pm

re: #82 Charles

#cablegate: Al-Jazeera an 'instrument of Qatari influence', according to leak.

You know, I find it funny that people who are using the cables to attack America keep asking for cites from them. I mean, you can preface every cable with "The State Department thinks" or "The United States Government thinks". Its not exactly a secret that the American government isn't a fan of AJ, why do they think the cables would show anything different?

That shouldn't be taken as support for AJ, but seriously, what are people expecting these things to say? "They've foiled our dastardly plans, we must publicly shame them while secretly respecting them greatly in documents such as this!"

89 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:16:18pm

re: #86 Charles

See above.

90 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:16:23pm

re: #83 McSpiff

Well, I think a good first step in the discussion would be for you to admit that no AJ have actually been killed by the US/UK...

Glad you're still here.

91 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:17:07pm

re: #87 Barrett Brown

I've got to go, but it's been a great pleasure.

So if a CBC reporter dies in a car accident in Washington, should we assume that the work of The Great Satan as well?

92 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:17:07pm

re: #89 Barrett Brown

See above.

Changes nothing. My points stand.

93 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:17:28pm

re: #90 Dark_Falcon

Glad you're still here.

Shhh..I don't think that previous post was noticed.

94 jaunte  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:18:28pm

re: #88 McSpiff

Fareed Zakaria:

...the sum total of the output I have read is actually quite reassuring about the way Washington — or at least the State Department — works.

First, there is little deception. These leaks have been compared to the Pentagon papers. Which they are not. The Pentagon papers revealed that the U.S. engaged in a systematic campaign to deceive the world and the American people and that its private actions were often the opposite of its stated public policy. The WikiLeaks documents, by contrast, show Washington pursuing privately pretty much the policies it has articulated publicly. Whether on Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan or North Korea, the cables confirm what we know to be U.S. foreign policy. And often this foreign policy is concerned with broader regional security, not narrow American interests.
: [Link: www.time.com...]

95 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:18:55pm

In 24 hours, BB has gone from someone I considered credible to just another hack.

Pity.

96 freetoken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:19:31pm

re: #88 McSpiff

You know, I find it funny that people who are using the cables to attack America keep asking for cites from them. I mean, you can preface every cable with "The State Department thinks" or "The United States Government thinks".

One reason I'm rather ambivalent about most of the so called cable "leaks" in this great Wikileaks brouhaha is exactly that which you outlined.

Indeed, I should have mentioned above that given the hearsay nature of so much of the content that it's not worth me spending too much time on them.

97 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:19:42pm

re: #91 McSpiff

So if a CBC reporter dies in a car accident in Washington, should we assume that the work of The Great Satan as well?

Don't bother. The troll has returned to its liar under the bridge.

98 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:19:49pm

re: #87 Barrett Brown

Innocent bystanders getting blown up in war is not in any way proof that they were targeted intentionally. And eyewitnesses are the most unreliable sources of information ever.

Maybe there was fire coming from the hotel. Maybe there wasn't, but the tank commander thought there was and fired. Maybe the tank commander himself decided to blast the building.

Is there actually a higher percentage of deaths among journalists than other civilians during that time?

If there's one thing that's a constant in the history of war, it's that a lot of innocent bystanders tend to die.

Which is why we shouldn't engage in war unless absolutely necessary. Which is why I think it was wrong to invade Iraq. That doesn't mean that, therefore, all the deaths then become purposeful attacks and assassinations.

99 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:20:00pm

Al-Jazeera journalists are known to be a wonderful honest group of folks...

Confirmed: ISAF detains AP/Al Jazeera reporter who is described as a 'Taliban propaganda expert'

100 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:20:59pm

re: #97 Dark_Falcon

He's not a troll.

Barrett may be wrong on this issue, but that doesn't make him a troll, nor a hack. I think Hitchens is dead wrong on a lot of issues too-- that doesn't make him a hack.

I don't get the need to revile him.

101 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:22:47pm

re: #73 Charles

jour·nal·ist
   –noun
1. a person who practices the occupation or profession of journalism.
2. a person who keeps a journal, diary, or other record of daily events.

jour·nal·ism
–noun
1.the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business.
2. press1 (def. 31).
3. a course of study preparing students for careers in reporting, writing, and editing for newspapers and magazines.
4.writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying topical newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.

I am trying to learn to be more precise in the meaning of a word.

102 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:23:23pm

re: #100 Obdicut

He's not a troll.

Barrett may be wrong on this issue, but that doesn't make him a troll, nor a hack. I think Hitchens is dead wrong on a lot of issues too-- that doesn't make him a hack.

I don't get the need to revile him.

Thanks for that. Sometimes I can get overly combative.

103 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:23:23pm

re: #94 jaunte

Fareed Zakaria:

Exactly...

I'm a Dumb Kid(TM), but I thought that the Pentagon Papers revealed things like... the US bombing of Cambodia? Showing that the Vietnam War was actually more of a regional war then the US ever cared to admit.

So far the cables have shown me... that the American government is surprisingly coherent? That policy makers are largely listening to the experts in the field?

re: #96 freetoken

One reason I'm rather ambivalent about most of the so called cable "leaks" in this great Wikileaks brouhaha is exactly that which you outlined.

Indeed, I should have mentioned above that given the hearsay nature of so much of the content that it's not worth me spending too much time on them.

Exactly. They might be slightly unpolished, but I don't doubt that whatever bias that creeps into final policy is also present in these documents, if not more so. Valuable, yes. But not necessarily the gospel truth, especially as they each reflect a unique moment in time (hindsight being 20/20 and all that). Trust, but verify.

104 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:24:07pm

re: #93 McSpiff

Shhh..I don't think that previous post was noticed.

Oh, it was.

105 freetoken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:24:58pm

re: #100 Obdicut

He's not a troll.
...
I don't get the need to revile him.

I agree. Especially as someone who at times around here has taken stances that disturb certain people I can have a little bit of empathy for BB. However, I still believe his thinking is flawed about this whole Wikileaks/Anonymous thing.

106 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:26:01pm

re: #104 Charles

You don't miss much.

107 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:26:21pm

re: #104 Charles

Oh, it was.

Thanks for not swinging the hammer, even when I asked for it.

Clicking the 'report' button on my own post probably didn't help..

108 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:28:40pm

re: #98 Obdicut

Innocent bystanders getting blown up in war is not in any way proof that they were targeted intentionally. And eyewitnesses are the most unreliable sources of information ever.

Maybe there was fire coming from the hotel. Maybe there wasn't, but the tank commander thought there was and fired. Maybe the tank commander himself decided to blast the building.

Is there actually a higher percentage of deaths among journalists than other civilians during that time?

If there's one thing that's a constant in the history of war, it's that a lot of innocent bystanders tend to die.

Which is why we shouldn't engage in war unless absolutely necessary. Which is why I think it was wrong to invade Iraq. That doesn't mean that, therefore, all the deaths then become purposeful attacks and assassinations.

He is very much a hack. He is knowingly propagating falsehoods and he is defending what are clearly immoral behaviors actions.

He is no Hitchens.

109 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:30:21pm

re: #108 researchok

This is in response to Obdi's #100.

110 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:33:19pm

I kind of expected at least some kind of acknowledgment that I provided a link to prove my assertion that Al Jazeera is a propaganda tool of the Qatar government.

111 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:34:19pm

But I guess that's beside the point when you're accusing me of wanting the US to kill journalists.

112 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:34:19pm

re: #108 researchok

Hitchens has also propagated things that are falsehoods, like his argument on the French burqa.

What is gained by calling Barrett a hack?

113 Killgore Trout  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:34:56pm

re: #110 Charles

I kind of expected at least some kind of acknowledgment that I provided a link to prove my assertion that Al Jazeera is a propaganda tool of the Qatar government.

I kind of expect a lot of shit. Desire is the root of unhappiness.

114 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:35:59pm

re: #111 Charles

Excuse me. I didn't see your link. I am talking to several people at the same time and have guests over. I will look at it now.

115 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:37:20pm

And just to cap off the thread, for me:

My biggest problem with Wikileaks and Barrett's attitude towards it is if they do not examine what they are publishing for truth beyond origin-- as they didn't with the CRU emails-- then they are completely vulnerable to being used as a propaganda tool.

They published the CRU emails without regard for the fact that they were distorted in order to disinform, rather than inform. They take no responsibility for this, calling instead on scientists to fight the lies with truth-- a fatuous statement that ignores the reality of propaganda's effectiveness.

What is to stop Wikileaks being used to publish propaganda from intelligence agencies?

116 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:37:26pm

re: #112 Obdicut

Name calling doesn't do a thing, except excite the name caller.
Charles & Killgore, it has at least, been an interesting discussion.
I thank you all.

117 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:37:52pm

re: #110 Charles

I kind of expected at least some kind of acknowledgment that I provided a link to prove my assertion that Al Jazeera is a propaganda tool of the Qatar government.

Never going to happen.

For him to do that would be an acknowledgement that a big part of his belief system is flawed. To admit that is to admit a whole lot of the ideologies he espouses are flawed.

Some people can change and modify their beliefs. He isn't one of them because too much of his identity is wrapped up in his political ideology.

118 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:39:27pm

re: #115 Obdicut

What is to stop Wikileaks being used to publish propaganda from intelligence agencies?

I think we're supposed to just have faith that the all-knowing hive mind will somehow magically know the difference.

119 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:40:04pm

AL JAZEERA UNMASKED An Arab propaganda machine in the guise of real journalism
Sunday, October 14th 2001

...Al Jazeera is the favorite network of Bin Laden. It provides him with an unedited forum for his calls to jihad. Some American news executives think it might be dangerous to rebroadcast Bin Laden's screeds because they could contain encrypted messages to his followers. They can relax - Bin Laden has better ways to get out his message.

Which is not to say that Al Jazeera is harmless. It is one of the most potent weapons in the Islamic Axis arsenal.

Radical Islamic nations, including Afghanistan, are basically off-limits to the Western media. This week, the Taliban demonstrated that by catching a French journalist and marching him through the streets, where he was stoned. The reporter may wind up on trial for espionage - a crime, like many in the Islamic canon, punishable by death.

Under these conditions, the information - and, more importantly, the only pictures - from Afghanistan come from Al Jazeera. It is the sole television network allowed by the Taliban, and its satellite feeds the world.

Even a legitimate news organization shouldn't have monopoly coverage of a war. But Al Jazeera is far from legitimate. It is an Arab propaganda outfit controlled by the medieval government of Qatar that masquerades as a real media company. For years, it has inflamed the Arab world against the United States and its allies. Its occasional interviews with Western statesmen, such as Secretary of State Powell, are designed to provide it with a fig leaf of objectivity.

120 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:40:08pm

re: #115 Obdicut

Or they actively editorialize it, as with the "Collateral Murder" video.

121 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:40:22pm

re: #112 Obdicut

Hitchens has also propagated things that are falsehoods, like his argument on the French burqa.

What is gained by calling Barrett a hack?

Clarity.

As for Hitchens and his opinion of the burqa, how does that place BB in his league?

122 jaunte  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:41:53pm

re: #115 Obdicut

There has been little distinction between discussion and action, so there will probably be no distinction between propaganda and fact.

123 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:42:23pm

re: #121 researchok

In order for Hitchens to make his argument about the burqa, he has to ignore that most of the women in France who wear the burqa are converts to Islam. That's a rather glaring error in his argument, that undermines it at the base.

I think your definition of the word 'hack' is rather different than mine.

124 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:42:38pm

re: #111 Charles

But I guess that's beside the point when you're accusing me of wanting the US to kill journalists.

Shades of Eason Jordan with that accusation. Thankfully, Barney Frank clubbed down Jordan's poisonous lie, just as you've countered Barret Brown.

125 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:43:22pm

re: #114 Barrett Brown

That cable says that U.S. diplomats consider al-Jazeera to serve as an informal tool of Qatar foreign policy. It does not say what you claimed, that "Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar." I understand you have a strong opinion on this issue but if our aim is to arrive at the truth it is important that we stick to the facts.

126 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:44:25pm

re: #123 Obdicut

In order for Hitchens to make his argument about the burqa, he has to ignore that most of the women in France who wear the burqa are converts to Islam. That's a rather glaring error in his argument, that undermines it at the base.

I think your definition of the word 'hack' is rather different than mine.

Can you source that for me please?

I have not heard that.

127 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:45:59pm

Slightly OT but Wikileaks related...

So these documents are out in the open, presumably all 250k will be released. And individually, very little will be interesting in each one.

I have an idea about a few methods of data mining that may or may not pull interesting information, relationships, patterns, etc out of the entire set of documents as opposed to any one cable.

To put it in terms of real world mining... instead of finding a diamond, its like refining a few tons of ore to make a pound or two of gold.

Is this adding additional value to these documents? And would this be morally suspect?

128 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:46:17pm

re: #126 researchok

Source what? That many who wear the veil are converts?

It's in the New York Times story on it. But even one convert who was willingly wearing the burqa would undermine his argument.

129 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:48:17pm

re: #125 Barrett Brown

That cable says that U.S. diplomats consider al-Jazeera to serve as an informal tool of Qatar foreign policy. It does not say what you claimed, that "Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar." I understand you have a strong opinion on this issue but if our aim is to arrive at the truth it is important that we stick to the facts.

What exactly is the real difference between "U.S. diplomats consider al-Jazeera to serve as an informal tool of Qatar foreign policy" and "Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar"?

130 Charles Johnson  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:48:19pm

re: #125 Barrett Brown

That cable says that U.S. diplomats consider al-Jazeera to serve as an informal tool of Qatar foreign policy. It does not say what you claimed, that "Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar." I understand you have a strong opinion on this issue but if our aim is to arrive at the truth it is important that we stick to the facts.

Here's what it says:


#cablegate: Al-Jazeera an 'instrument of Qatari influence', according to leak

The cable sent from the US embassy in Doha on 19 November 2009 and published by the Guardian details the Gulf of Qatar's foreign policy for other Middle Eastern states, including Iran. The cable specifically refers to Al-Jazeera Arabic and its regional news output and makes reference to the importance of Al-Jazeera broadcasts in Qatari-US relations.

The broadcaster, which has staunchly defended its editorial independence in the past, is described as "an informal tool of GOQ [Gulf of Qatar] foreign policy" and "an instrument of Qatari influence", in the US embassy cable.

"[T]he regional Al-Jazeera Arabic news channel will continue to be an instrument of Qatari influence, and continue to be an expression, however uncoordinated, of the nation's foreign policy. Qatar will continue to use Al-Jazeera as a bargaining tool to repair relationships with other countries, particularly those soured by Al-Jazeera's broadcasts, including the United States," says the cable.

An "informal tool" simply means that they don't formally acknowledge the purpose of Al Jazeera.

And I'm amazed that you're going to make excuses for this kind of thing, when you know very well that if the same thing was claimed about an American media organization, you'd be outraged.

131 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:48:27pm

re: #120 McSpiff

Or they actively editorialize it, as with the "Collateral Murder" video.

More proof that Assange knows nothing about war. He clearly thinks that all the bad guys run around with special beanies that say "bad guy" and so if someone else gets killed its automatically a "war crime".

132 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:49:41pm

re: #128 Obdicut

Source what? That many who wear the veil are converts?

It's in the New York Times story on it. But even one convert who was willingly wearing the burqa would undermine his argument.

Yes, that the majority of women who wear the burqa are converts.

On any event, why would "even one convert who was willingly wearing the burqa would undermine his argument"?

133 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:49:43pm

re: #131 Dark_Falcon

More proof that Assange knows nothing about war. He clearly thinks that all the bad guys run around with special beanies that say "bad guy" and so if someone else gets killed its automatically a "war crime".

Well, if the good guys had just been wearing their Blue Beanies, I'm sure that would have reminded the bad guys...

//

134 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:49:59pm

re: #132 researchok

Yes, that the majority of women who wear the burqa are converts.

On any event, why would "even one convert who was willingly wearing the burqa would undermine his argument"?

Do you know what his argument is?

135 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:50:36pm

re: #130 Charles

Charles. First of all, I don't disagree that it is an informal tool of Qatar. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying, as I've shown, that the U.S. has killed al-Jazeera journalists and discussed killing a great deal more with the Brits. So what are we disagreeing on?

136 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:51:20pm

re: #134 Obdicut

Do you know what his argument is?

No, that is why I asked you for the source reference.

137 jamesfirecat  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:51:20pm

re: #133 McSpiff

Well, if the good guys had just been wearing their Blue Beanies, I'm sure that would have reminded the bad guys...

//

Hey it always worked for the AN!

Image: 1145-sf-movie.jpg

138 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:51:40pm

re: #135 Barrett Brown

Did the US intentionally kill Al-Jazeera journalists?

139 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:51:50pm

re: #129 researchok

What exactly is the real difference between "U.S. diplomats consider al-Jazeera to serve as an informal tool of Qatar foreign policy" and "Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar"?

Diplomat could be wrong? Not suggesting that's the case with AJ, but as anyone who has worked in a company with more than 5 people knows... there's always that one guy that somehow always manages to get it completely wrong...

140 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:51:55pm

Anyway, I actually have to go to a bar now.

141 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:52:50pm

re: #136 researchok

Ah.

Here, this details it well:

[Link: joelmathis.blogspot.com...]

142 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:53:30pm

re: #135 Barrett Brown

Charles. First of all, I don't disagree that it is an informal tool of Qatar. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying, as I've shown, that the U.S. has killed al-Jazeera journalists and discussed killing a great deal more with the Brits. So what are we disagreeing on?

You've shown a total lack of intent by the US in the deaths of those journalists.

143 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:54:01pm

re: #138 Obdicut

Beat me to it.

144 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:56:04pm

re: #135 Barrett Brown

We also discussed turning Germany into an agricultural state by destroying all industry there after WWII, but we didn't do that either.

145 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:56:42pm

re: #135 Barrett Brown

Charles. First of all, I don't disagree that it is an informal tool of Qatar. I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying, as I've shown, that the U.S. has killed al-Jazeera journalists and discussed killing a great deal more with the Brits. So what are we disagreeing on?

The US has not deliberately killed Al Jazeera journalists and the US has also discussed and made plans for invading Canada.

What is talked about in private is irrelevant if nothing comes of it. It is no more than an exercise in all possible scenarios.

There was public talk about assassinating George Bush- I'm sure that was at least equally outrageous to you. We can read about your concerns somewhere, right?

146 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:58:08pm

re: #144 Dark_Falcon

We also discussed turning Germany into an agricultural state by destroying all industry there after WWII, but we didn't do that either.

TOP US GENERAL PLANS ALL OUT NUCLEAR WAR

147 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:58:27pm

So where's the memo? Where are the documents? All I'm seeing is link to an opinion piece at al-Jazeera, a music video, and some gibberish about Anonymous.

148 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 9:59:41pm

re: #141 Obdicut

Ah.

Here, this details it well:

[Link: joelmathis.blogspot.com...]

Thanks. I missed that article.

I'd like to look into this further, as the NYT article isn't clear as to the origin of the number they quote.

149 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:00:28pm

re: #147 Gus 802

So where's the memo? Where are the documents? All I'm seeing is link to an opinion piece at al-Jazeera, a music video, and some gibberish about Anonymous.

It's secret.

And it isn't as if Al Jazeera would be less than truthful. right?

150 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:01:08pm

re: #148 researchok

Again, the argument isn't actually dependent on the numbers. It's that abrogation in one direction is not countered by abrogation in the other.

152 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:05:31pm

re: #150 Obdicut

Again, the argument isn't actually dependent on the numbers. It's that abrogation in one direction is not countered by abrogation in the other.

Are you seriously proposing that BB defense of immoral and unethical behavior is the equivalent of what might be Hitchens flawed argument about wearing the niqab?

154 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:06:09pm

re: #149 researchok

It's secret.

And it isn't as if Al Jazeera would be less than truthful. right?

The opinion piece links to another opinion piece. And then another. The attack on the Palestine Hotel was an accident or a case of understandable defense. Right now this is just a conspiracy theory based on hearsay by the usual suspects.

155 McSpiff  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:07:41pm

On that note, I apparently need sleep. Be well friends.

156 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:07:45pm

re: #153 McSpiff

Every White House Considered Nuclear Options Against World, Certain Parts Of Moon.

What did the moon do to deserve a nuclear attack by the USA?

157 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:08:06pm

re: #152 researchok

Are you seriously proposing that BB defense of immoral and unethical behavior is the equivalent of what might be Hitchens flawed argument about wearing the niqab?

I'm not really all that big into saying one thing is equivalent to another thing, so I have no idea why you're asking me this.

Barrett is wrong about Wikileaks, and wrong in his argument about the US and deaths of journalists, unless there's more information than he's presented so far.

That doesn't mean that he's not capable of making strong and sufficient arguments in other areas. A 'hack', to me, isn't someone who is very right about some things and very wrong about others.

158 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:09:07pm

re: #154 Gus 802

The opinion piece links to another opinion piece. And then another. The attack on the Palestine Hotel was an accident or a case of understandable defense. Right now this is just a conspiracy theory based on hearsay by the usual suspects.

9-11 was an inside job!
The moon landing was fake!
//

159 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:09:29pm

re: #154 Gus 802

The opinion piece links to another opinion piece. And then another. The attack on the Palestine Hotel was an accident or a case of understandable defense. Right now this is just a conspiracy theory based on hearsay by the usual suspects.

Yes.

BB is relying on opinion as credible- Al Jazeera opinion (read propaganda).

And he can't understand why he's not embraced.

160 freetoken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:12:15pm

re: #115 Obdicut

And just to cap off the thread, for me:

My biggest problem with Wikileaks and Barrett's attitude towards it is if they do not examine what they are publishing for truth beyond origin-- as they didn't with the CRU emails-- then they are completely vulnerable to being used as a propaganda tool.

They published the CRU emails without regard for the fact that they were distorted in order to disinform, rather than inform. They take no responsibility for this, calling instead on scientists to fight the lies with truth-- a fatuous statement that ignores the reality of propaganda's effectiveness.

Speaking of which:

French WikiLeaks Coverage Reports Cyberattacks on Climate Scientists

Leading French newspaper Le Monde has been delving into WikiLeaks in depth with a growing online section devoted to new revelations. An article posted Dec. 12, titled Pirates informatiques contre climatologues (Computer pirates against climatologists), reveals a few American diplomats’ fears that cyberattacks on climate scientists might increase in the days leading up to the 2009 Copenhagen meeting. One email reveals an unsuccessful attack against the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science (OES) that has received very little coverage (none that I can find) in domestic press.

According to Le Monde, there was little discussion of “Climategate” via diplomatic cables, but June 19, 2009 traffic revealed by WikiLeaks discussed a failed attack against an agency of the U.S. government. During the summer of 2009, five OES employees received an email titled “China and climate change”, disguised to look as if it originated with an economics journalist for the National Journal. The body of the message was also written specifically for the recipients, according to their professional roles. Attached to the message was a PDF document carrying malware designed to take silent control of the targeted computer. At least one of the targeted employees opened the attachment. Fortunately the State Department’s frequent computer security updates detected and disabled the attack.

The note cited by Le Monde concludes (my translation of the French translation):

As climate negotiations continue, it is likely that attacks like this will persist…. Personnel involved in climate change research or related subjects should remain conscious of the elevated risk.

As loud voices call for prosecution of Julian Assange and warn of the risk of Chinese cyber warfare, I can’t help but wonder, where were the voices of outrage and the demands for investigation and justice when unknown parties attacked the U.S. State Department in an attempt to derail the Copenhagen negotiations? Or does the need for justice depend on the ends pursued by “cyberterrorists”?

I had thought of putting up a Page about it, but as the actual content of the leaked cable is hardly revelatory (in common with most of this stuff) I decided there was not enough there there to make something of it.

161 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:13:00pm

re: #157 Obdicut

I'm not really all that big into saying one thing is equivalent to another thing, so I have no idea why you're asking me this.

Barrett is wrong about Wikileaks, and wrong in his argument about the US and deaths of journalists, unless there's more information than he's presented so far.

That doesn't mean that he's not capable of making strong and sufficient arguments in other areas. A 'hack', to me, isn't someone who is very right about some things and very wrong about others.

This isn't like disagreeing about who has the best burger in town.

When you defend what is unethical and immoral, I don't care if you get the sports scores right.

As far as I am concerned, he is a hack.

162 researchok  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:13:33pm

Manana, all.

163 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:13:44pm

re: #159 researchok

Yes.

BB is relying on opinion as credible- Al Jazeera opinion (read propaganda).

And he can't understand why he's not embraced.

Slander America first. Ask questions later or for that matter get the documents later. For what? No way, let me guess. To try Bush as a war criminal or some other such bullshit which will never happen. In the meantime the propaganda is read as fact by those intent on destroying America and rebuilding it like something out of a bad science fiction movie.

165 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:15:43pm

Here's Greg Housh.

Image: Gregg_Housh.jpg

Please. This is just too funny.

166 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:16:31pm

re: #165 Gus 802

Here's Greg Housh.

Image: Gregg_Housh.jpg

Please. This is just too funny.

And another...

Image: 09-gregg-300.jpg

167 Gus  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:17:25pm

High School

168 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:18:16pm

I STILL say this is an interesting discussion.
Thoughts and opinions matter.
Yours do too!

169 NJDhockeyfan  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:19:31pm

Gonna go, later friends.

170 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:21:24pm

re: #168 Floral Giraffe

I STILL say this is an interesting discussion.
Thoughts and opinions matter.
Yours do too!

As do yours. [waves]

171 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:27:09pm

Signing off for the night, sleep well all.

172 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:30:52pm

re: #140 Barrett Brown

Stella Artois, one for each of you.
Maybe two or three.
It remains to be seen.
*clink*

173 Pythagoras  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:54:47pm

The title of this tread says "US purposefully kills journalists." The word "purposefully" has been totally refuted, right?

174 Barrett Brown  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 10:58:15pm

re: #173 Pythagoras

Yes, by majority vote.

175 freetoken  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:04:37pm

re: #173 Pythagoras

The title of this tread says "US purposefully kills journalists." The word "purposefully" has been totally refuted, right?

Barrett's case is not very strong.

re: #174 Barrett Brown

Yes, by majority vote.

Did I miss any evidence that you provided that was not (at best) circumstantial or hearsay?

176 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:06:14pm

re: #174 Barrett Brown

Yes, by majority vote preponderance of evidence.

Or rather, a complete lack thereof which supports "purposely" part.

Either way, FTFY, FOC.

177 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Dec 13, 2010 11:59:30pm

re: #54 Charles

And by the way, nobody was killed, and Al Jazeera's headquarters were NOT BOMBED. The cable shows a discussion of something that never happened.

And I'm supposed to believe this is just as bad as smashing a little girl's brains out with a rifle butt.

I guess when it comes to demonizing "The Other", there is no moral equivalence that goes too far.

*sigh* I find it quite disturbing, the lengths that some will go to to justify their support of criminal behavior.

178 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 12:07:42am

re: #61 Dark_Falcon

If there is such an effort, I applaud it. If I had advance notice of one such raid I'd show up with coffee and doughnuts for the cops and federal agents.

re: #62 Barrett Brown

Yeah, you probably would.

So would I. Just sort of the thing an evil bastard like me would do to show my support for the rule of law when it comes down on criminal hackers that exploit the property of others to commit their crimes.

179 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 12:22:26am

re: #105 freetoken

Flawed to the point of fantasy.

180 boxhead  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 12:47:44am

Apologies for coming to this thread late, but how credible is Mr. Brown's link? Al Jazeera is a source that has proponents and detractors much like a college football rivalry.

181 BishopX  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 8:01:30am

re: #180 boxhead


The story about Bush planning to bomb Al-Jazeera HQ is reasonably credible. It was originally published in The Mirror iin the UK, ad was apparently based off of a top secret memo leaked to a MP. The leaker was charged under the official secrets act, and the MP returned the memo. The mirror was subsequently gagged by the British government, who denied that Bush and Blair had ever discussed it.

In summation, there is ample evidence that something happened, and depending on who you listen to it was either a joke or a serious attempt to continue to stifle Al-Jazeera through violence.

182 Obdicut  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 8:19:07am

re: #181 BishopX

But what is agreed is it that it did not, in fact, happen.

183 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 8:36:27am

re: #181 BishopX

How can it have been "a serious attempt to continue to stifle Al-Jazeera through violence" when there was no attempt, and no violence?

184 BishopX  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 9:25:19am

re: #183 Charles

Perhaps I should have been more clear:

In summation, there is ample evidence that something happened there was some discussion of bombing Al-Jazeera's headquarters, and depending on who you listen to it was either a joke or a serious attempt discussion about attempting to continue to stifle Al-Jazeera through violence.

From Al-Jazeera's perspective, there had been a number of incidents with the US military over the previous five years. The bombing of the Kabul office, the detention of a Al-Jazeera cameraman, the bombing of the Baghdad office. In lights of this, it is understandable that Al-Jazeera would be worried about alleged discussions of an attack on their headquarters.

To be clear, I'm not claiming that there was in fact a deliberate campaign of violence against Al-Jazeera, only that it's possible that they felt there was.

We're arguing over the reverberations of whispers here. There is no clear evidence of intent in any of these cases, but there is also no clear evidence that all of these incidents were accidental (aside from the military saying they were, which they would even if they were not).

185 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 9:35:22am

re: #184 BishopX

What is also clear is that Al Jazeera's hands are NOT clean. The link I posted above to their birthday party for a monstrous child killer is just one incident. There are many other examples of open support for terrorism at Al Jazeera. And now we have evidence from the Wikileaks cables that they are considered a propaganda tool by the Qatar government, which is absolutely no surprise to me.

I continue to be amazed that people take their claims at face value, given their very clear motivations for exaggerating and/or lying about these issues, and the fact that they are the acknowledged propaganda department of a totalitarian monarchy.

186 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 9:47:37am

re: #5 Charles

and ignore the more important story -- that Al Jazeera itself is nothing but a front for Qatar?

re: #73 Charles

an organization that has been shown by the leaked cables to be nothing more than the official propaganda department of Qatar?

Uhm, they certainly may be a front for Qatar and an "official" propaganda department of Qatar (I don't think you meant to say "official", btw, because then they would be on the books for that, badges and all, instead of it being just an opinion expressed in the cables) -- but hey certainly are not "nothing but" or "nothing more" than that. They are also a pretty useful english language news organization. For instance, when I wrote about scandals plaguing Wilder's party, I could not find one other comprehensive source in English at the time other than al-Jazeera. And even if that article I cited there was somehow a screw in some giant Qatari totalitarian propaganda machine -- it was still factually correct.

187 BishopX  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 9:48:31am

re: #185 Charles

Al-Jazeera didn't make the original claims. The Mirror (a UK paper) did. It's totally understandable that they published followup piece about it after the fact, both as Op-Eds in the UK and in their own paper. If there had been a news story about China targeting the wall street journal, I would expect that the Journals editorial staff would publish similar pieces.

None of this means that parts of Al-Jazeera don't support terrorism, that's a straw-man. Boxhead asked if Barret's link was credible. I followed it back far enough to find that there was something to it. Whether or not you think it's true depends on who you believe. There isn't an easy answer to this one.

As an aside, I do agree with you that Al-Jazeera's story should be taken with a grain of salt. They tend to be very sensationalist.

188 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 9:59:05am

Why are people so willing to accept behavior from Al Jazeera that you would NEVER accept from a US media organization?

Don't you understand the nature of the Qatar government? Is there something confusing about "totalitarian monarchy?" Is this who you want to provide your news and information?

re: #187 BishopX

The Mirror isn't just a "UK paper," it's a low-class tabloid that specializes in hype, exaggeration, and celebrity gossip.

189 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 10:06:23am

Currently featured on the front page of the Mirror:

BOOBLESQUE -- Xtina, Cher and lots of boobs at Burlesque premiere

Now there's a credible source for information about international affairs.

190 BishopX  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 10:31:28am

re: #189 Charles

And the National enquirer is a low class tabloid not usually noted for it's stunning political reporting. That didn't seem to stop it from nailing John Edwards feet to floor.

If you want me to peg where I think Al-Jazeera goes on the trustworthy news source or propaganda arm of a hostile foreign government divorced from reality spectrum, Al-Jazeera is somewhere on the high end of the tabloids. Namely, I'll listen to what they have to say, but I won't assume it's true without outside confirmation.

191 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 10:33:04am

re: #186 000G

re: #73 Charles

Uhm, they certainly may be a front for Qatar and an "official" propaganda department of Qatar (I don't think you meant to say "official", btw, because then they would be on the books for that, badges and all, instead of it being just an opinion expressed in the cables)...

How do you know they aren't? Oh, that's right, you'd have no way to know that, because Qatar is a closed totalitarian society.

-- but hey certainly are not "nothing but" or "nothing more" than that. They are also a pretty useful english language news organization. For instance, when I wrote about scandals plaguing Wilder's party, I could not find one other comprehensive source in English at the time other than al-Jazeera. And even if that article I cited there was somehow a screw in some giant Qatari totalitarian propaganda machine -- it was still factually correct.

The fact that Al jazeera is a propaganda machine doesn't mean that everything they publish is false. It means that you have NO WAY of knowing what's true, what's false, and what's been misrepresented or exaggerated.

192 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 1:15:03pm

re: #100 Obdicut

He's not a troll.

Barrett may be wrong on this issue, but that doesn't make him a troll, nor a hack. I think Hitchens is dead wrong on a lot of issues too-- that doesn't make him a hack.

I don't get the need to revile him.

This.

193 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 3:38:58pm

re: #191 Charles

How do you know they aren't? Oh, that's right, you'd have no way to know that, because Qatar is a closed totalitarian society.

So you are admitting that you don't know that your claim of their status being "official" is true or not?

The fact that Al jazeera is a propaganda machine doesn't mean that everything they publish is false. It means that you have NO WAY of knowing what's true, what's false, and what's been misrepresented or exaggerated.

I am pretty well read in philosophy. It has brought me to the conclusion that for all practical purposes, there always are ways to know and none of them is perfect.

194 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Tue, Dec 14, 2010 3:42:31pm

Expanding on that last point: Yes, I had a way of knowing that this particular article they published on Wilders and his party was true, in this case specifically by counterchecking it with dutch sources.

The solution to propaganda and deception is not to go out and define some specific information outlets as oasises of truth and trustworthiness but to achieve a personal and experience-informed understanding of how all of the outlets interact with each other.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
‘I Felt More Traumatized Than Trained’: Education WeekIt just seems like it would be easier and more humane to prevent school shootings by taking away access to the weapons, rather than expect teachers to instantly become John McClane or Rambo or Atomic Blonde. By Evie Blad and ...
wheat-dogg, raker of forests, master of steam
17 hours, 56 minutes ago
Views: 206 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Orville Peck - Turn to Hate [OFFICIAL VIDEO] Pony (Release Date: March 22, 2019) Spotify: u.subpop.comSub Pop Mega Mart: megamart.subpop.com Orville Peck available via Royal Mountain Records in Canada royalmountainrecords.com Subscribe to Orville Peck's channel youtube.com Orville Peck orvillepeck.comFacebook facebook.comInstagram instagram.comTwitter @_orvillepeckSub Pop subpop.comBandcamp orvillepeck.bandcamp.com #OrvillePeck #TurnToHate ...
Thanos
4 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 247 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Fitz and the Tantrums - 123456 [Official Video] Fitz and the Tantrums official video for their new single '123456'.available now on Elektra Records. Download / stream '123456' today! lnk.to See Fitz and the Tantrums on tour this summer! fitzandthetantrums.com Production Company: Son&HeirDirector: Jamie Thraves & Ofir Shoham ...
Thanos
4 days, 1 hour ago
Views: 380 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Marine Corps Commandant Says Deploying Troops to the Border Poses ‘Unacceptable Risk’ - Los Angeles Times Neller, a four-star general, said because of the problems, Marines will not participate in planned training exercises in Indonesia, Scotland and Mongolia, and will reduce their participation in joint exercises with Australia and South Korea. Marines “rely on the ...
Unshaken Defiance
4 days, 2 hours ago
Views: 378 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Ryuichi Sakamoto - ‘Energy Flow’ (From BTTB) - Official Music VideoOfficial Music Video to "Energy Flow" by Ryuichi Sakamotofrom the BTTB 20th Anniversary release Directed by Neo S. Sora and Albert TholenProduced by Zakkubalanzakkubalan.comgoodbabyfilms.com
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 575 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Red Ribbon - Full Performance — KEXPkexp.org presents Red Ribbon performing live at Avast! Recording Co.. Recorded November 28, 2018. Songs:Seven MonthsOverdriveYour CarIdiot Orange Host: Sean MarrowAudio Engineer: Kevin SuggsCameras: Jim Beckmann, Alaia D'Alessandro & Justin WilmoreEditor: Scott Holpainen kexp.orgavastrecording.com
Thanos
1 week, 1 day ago
Views: 558 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
West Sacramento Goat Grazing Underway at Clarksburg TrailGoat morning all. More: West Sacramento goat grazing underway at Clarksburg trail
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 796 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 9 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
The Misinformation Age: How False Beliefs Spread Third, we sometimes care more about social status and social relationships than about holding true beliefs. Consider, for instance, a parent who is friends with many vaccine skeptics. This person may choose not to vaccinate their child, and to ...
Thanos
1 week, 2 days ago
Views: 834 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Neil & Liam Finn - Where’s My Room Where's My Room Featuring: FAFSWAG and the Finn Familyfrom Neil & Liam Finn's album LightsleeperTo buy: musicglue.com Directed by Sam KristofskiChoreography: Pati TyrellProduced by Tara RiddellStunts by Jacob TomuriDOP: Darryl Ward2nd Unit: Alan Waddinton and Matthew Chaung ACS ...
Thanos
2 weeks, 6 days ago
Views: 1,210 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0