The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Saw a snippet of a story yesterday live on Sky and the BBC about allegations that the British Government had bugged the offices of the UN Secretary General during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
Page:
If I'm not mistaken Claire Short is the "whistle blower" who informed the press regarding the bugging of the UN.
(I bet this all stemmed from Tony misunderstanding his chum Bush on a telephone conversation:
Bush "Can we go to war now please Tonnyyy?"
Tony "Not yet"
Bush "Why not?"
Tony "The UN says so"
Bush "The UN are really bugging me"
Tony "OMG really? Right two can play at that game!")
Anyway on a serious note: the overall impression I garnered from Newsnight etc is that most "top level" people's reactions were to shrug their shoulders and say "she shouldn't of mentioned this and anyway EVERYONE bugs everyone else....common practise....that is how intelligence works".
Personally I think that Short should be ousted from the Labour party.
(I bet this all stemmed from Tony misunderstanding his chum Bush on a telephone conversation:
Bush "Can we go to war now please Tonnyyy?"
Tony "Not yet"
Bush "Why not?"
Tony "The UN says so"
Bush "The UN are really bugging me"
Tony "OMG really? Right two can play at that game!")
Anyway on a serious note: the overall impression I garnered from Newsnight etc is that most "top level" people's reactions were to shrug their shoulders and say "she shouldn't of mentioned this and anyway EVERYONE bugs everyone else....common practise....that is how intelligence works".
Personally I think that Short should be ousted from the Labour party.
So, according to Blair, he can't deny it because he doesn't reveal intelligence info, under *any* circumstances, 'because then it's impossible to draw a line on when not to'. To paraphrase his words yesterday.
Yet he released stuff on iraq. Which disproves his belief in this argument. You can't have it both ways.
Moreover, if this line were believed, we'd be in a position where only the government and its security services could know any of those security services' activities.
Thus the only scrutiny can come from the very people who are being scrutinised. And if they choose to act immorally or breach international law, they aren't about to own up to it.
I know there's a huge slice of the country who have no trust for Bliar (intended), we need to be fricking thankful for people like Short.
In a government where MPs vote against their consciences from Iraq to Foundation hospitals to Tuition fees, just to obey one man and keep from losing face to tories, we need every individual willing to stand up for what they believe in that we can find.
On the point of the UN sweeping their offices for bugs:
This wouldn't necessarily catch perpetrators. Other methods of 'bugging' would include picking up on calls during satellite transmission or tapping a line elsewhere.
This kind of method would be only sensible choice knowing that 'sweeping' would be likely.
So that sweeping by no means indicates that bugging didn't take place.
Heard an interesting theory on BBC breakfast news today: that the UK may have been bugging some other world leader, who happened to talk to Annan while being recorded, which is how the transcripts were taken.
This seems misguided on 2 points:
1. Short seemed to suggest in her earlier statements that there were a number of transcipts.
2. She seemed to say that she read a transcript of a conversation she herself had had with Annan.
Even if (an unlikely scenario, I feel) the UK were bugging Short and various other people, not the UN, to get these transcripts, the very fact that transcripts featuring Annan were grouped together for examination ammounts to bugging Annan. However they got the transcripts, such treatment of the intelligence shows them using the transcripts to monitor his private conversations, with the focus on Annan.
Do I believe the allegations? We've had related allegations from at least 3 sources now.
Plus Short has shown herself to act on her conscience, Blair has shown himself to be an a** hole about this kind of thing (morality).
Plus there's strong evidence that he doesn't really believe there's justification for not discussing these matters, so pretending that he shouldn't was the only way to avoid having to:
a) Admit it's true
or b) Lie and risk losing any chance of re-election if the truth came out.
So it's an easy choice.
Of course, I could be wrong, and if Bell cares to explain his claim about Short being a proven liar I'll happily listen.
But I really don't think I am.
Yet he released stuff on iraq. Which disproves his belief in this argument. You can't have it both ways.
Moreover, if this line were believed, we'd be in a position where only the government and its security services could know any of those security services' activities.
Thus the only scrutiny can come from the very people who are being scrutinised. And if they choose to act immorally or breach international law, they aren't about to own up to it.
I know there's a huge slice of the country who have no trust for Bliar (intended), we need to be fricking thankful for people like Short.
In a government where MPs vote against their consciences from Iraq to Foundation hospitals to Tuition fees, just to obey one man and keep from losing face to tories, we need every individual willing to stand up for what they believe in that we can find.
On the point of the UN sweeping their offices for bugs:
This wouldn't necessarily catch perpetrators. Other methods of 'bugging' would include picking up on calls during satellite transmission or tapping a line elsewhere.
This kind of method would be only sensible choice knowing that 'sweeping' would be likely.
So that sweeping by no means indicates that bugging didn't take place.
Heard an interesting theory on BBC breakfast news today: that the UK may have been bugging some other world leader, who happened to talk to Annan while being recorded, which is how the transcripts were taken.
This seems misguided on 2 points:
1. Short seemed to suggest in her earlier statements that there were a number of transcipts.
2. She seemed to say that she read a transcript of a conversation she herself had had with Annan.
Even if (an unlikely scenario, I feel) the UK were bugging Short and various other people, not the UN, to get these transcripts, the very fact that transcripts featuring Annan were grouped together for examination ammounts to bugging Annan. However they got the transcripts, such treatment of the intelligence shows them using the transcripts to monitor his private conversations, with the focus on Annan.
Do I believe the allegations? We've had related allegations from at least 3 sources now.
Plus Short has shown herself to act on her conscience, Blair has shown himself to be an a** hole about this kind of thing (morality).
Plus there's strong evidence that he doesn't really believe there's justification for not discussing these matters, so pretending that he shouldn't was the only way to avoid having to:
a) Admit it's true
or b) Lie and risk losing any chance of re-election if the truth came out.
So it's an easy choice.
Of course, I could be wrong, and if Bell cares to explain his claim about Short being a proven liar I'll happily listen.
But I really don't think I am.
Nah, I watch Sky most of the time (when I have time at the moment) and Fox occassionaly. Online I look at BBC, Fox, Sky, and a few others. Surely some of you must watch a fair bit of Fox to be able to comment on it?
Everything I saw was on C4, no doubt Belldandy doesn't trust them either. In fact he ony seems to watch US news sources, do you live in the US Belldandy?
Goatboy wrote:
> You instantly sneer and say "same old same old", indicating
> that you don't believe them, it's always the same biased stories from
> these groups etc.
> Fair enough, it's your opinion.
Because the Guardian and the BBC (unknown kernel mention the Blix story but I was not referring to that) fail to offer any balance. Never mind that both showed amazing willingness to report - if it were true - a story that breaches the Official Secrets Act and damages the reputation of UK security services whether true or not. Short has been so incredibly vague that how either organisation reached any meaningful conclusions is quite staggering, not to mention this is an ex government minister who:
a) if it were true has known this long before now - it's not like she's trying to cash in on the Catherine Gunn (sp?) case is it? She's doing this because she knows that, true or untrue, it damages the government and the government cannot do anything about it.
b) has already lied once to the public for her own ends.
> However, you will then try and use Fox News as a source and ask why
> Haiti is being reported on Fox etc etc.
And why did I do that? Because you claimed Fox ignored such stories.
> So how is it ok for you to accept Fox News - owned by Rupert Murdoch
> who operates a distinctly pro-government stance whilst he is
> attempting to get his ppv and satellite/internet business into Asia
> Yet - you will disregard any story, report or similar from an
> organisation that does not fit with your view of events?
So I have said I accept EVERYTHING on Fox News have I? Don't remember that. When Fox reports in a manner I consider to be accurate then of course I will accept it - in the same way you would do likewise with any story emanating from any place like the Guardian. All the news media has a wider agenda but you're taking the "Murdoch wants satellite in Asia" too far.
> It makes no sense to shrug off anything from the BBC/Guardian etc as
> "yeah well...", but then 100% take Fox News as truthful and
> to be trusted.
See above for comments on Fox. Why don't I trust the BBC ? Because of how they report. This is the BBC who allowed Gilligan to broadcast, who cannot even sort out their own inhouse people, the BBC that reduced the US ambassador to tears on 9/11 and took several days to apologise, the BBC who takes every anti-government story it can with little scepticism. Last night Short's allegations were, apparently "threatening to topple the government", which is pretty good for a story only the BBC made headline news this moring when other relegated it to secondary story.
> You instantly sneer and say "same old same old", indicating
> that you don't believe them, it's always the same biased stories from
> these groups etc.
> Fair enough, it's your opinion.
Because the Guardian and the BBC (unknown kernel mention the Blix story but I was not referring to that) fail to offer any balance. Never mind that both showed amazing willingness to report - if it were true - a story that breaches the Official Secrets Act and damages the reputation of UK security services whether true or not. Short has been so incredibly vague that how either organisation reached any meaningful conclusions is quite staggering, not to mention this is an ex government minister who:
a) if it were true has known this long before now - it's not like she's trying to cash in on the Catherine Gunn (sp?) case is it? She's doing this because she knows that, true or untrue, it damages the government and the government cannot do anything about it.
b) has already lied once to the public for her own ends.
> However, you will then try and use Fox News as a source and ask why
> Haiti is being reported on Fox etc etc.
And why did I do that? Because you claimed Fox ignored such stories.
> So how is it ok for you to accept Fox News - owned by Rupert Murdoch
> who operates a distinctly pro-government stance whilst he is
> attempting to get his ppv and satellite/internet business into Asia
> Yet - you will disregard any story, report or similar from an
> organisation that does not fit with your view of events?
So I have said I accept EVERYTHING on Fox News have I? Don't remember that. When Fox reports in a manner I consider to be accurate then of course I will accept it - in the same way you would do likewise with any story emanating from any place like the Guardian. All the news media has a wider agenda but you're taking the "Murdoch wants satellite in Asia" too far.
> It makes no sense to shrug off anything from the BBC/Guardian etc as
> "yeah well...", but then 100% take Fox News as truthful and
> to be trusted.
See above for comments on Fox. Why don't I trust the BBC ? Because of how they report. This is the BBC who allowed Gilligan to broadcast, who cannot even sort out their own inhouse people, the BBC that reduced the US ambassador to tears on 9/11 and took several days to apologise, the BBC who takes every anti-government story it can with little scepticism. Last night Short's allegations were, apparently "threatening to topple the government", which is pretty good for a story only the BBC made headline news this moring when other relegated it to secondary story.
Belldandy wrote:
> So I supposed I was the only one yesterday who saw the UN statement
> that Annan's office was routinely swept for bugs and none were ever
> detected?
You must have been, because I saw various UN sources stating that they are very angry, that if such practices are being carried out they must be stopped immediately, and that they were going to intensify their efforts to protect the institution from espionage. Nothing that implied it wasn't happening.
It totally undermines the position of the UN if world leaders cannot talk to Kofi Annan in the knowledge that nobody else is listening. In a sense I think Clare Short has done Bush/Blairs work for them, since Bush was intent on showing the UN as an outdated and ineffectual organisation, so he could go to war unhindered. Now nobody is going to trust the UN.
> So I supposed I was the only one yesterday who saw the UN statement
> that Annan's office was routinely swept for bugs and none were ever
> detected?
You must have been, because I saw various UN sources stating that they are very angry, that if such practices are being carried out they must be stopped immediately, and that they were going to intensify their efforts to protect the institution from espionage. Nothing that implied it wasn't happening.
It totally undermines the position of the UN if world leaders cannot talk to Kofi Annan in the knowledge that nobody else is listening. In a sense I think Clare Short has done Bush/Blairs work for them, since Bush was intent on showing the UN as an outdated and ineffectual organisation, so he could go to war unhindered. Now nobody is going to trust the UN.
Belldandy wrote:
> Not surprising which publications and organisations are pushing the
> story though...same old, same old.
--------
Ok, I'm going to hold off with sarcasm and jibes and try to explain why I have difficulty accepting discussions with you outside of gaming (because I'm perfectly civil in Xbox or PC forums)
You instantly sneer and say "same old same old", indicating that you don't believe them, it's always the same biased stories from these groups etc.
Fair enough, it's your opinion.
However, you will then try and use Fox News as a source and ask why Haiti is being reported on Fox etc etc.
So how is it ok for you to accept Fox News - owned by Rupert Murdoch who operates a distinctly pro-government stance whilst he is attempting to get his ppv and satellite/internet business into Asia
Yet - you will disregard any story, report or similar from an organisation that does not fit with your view of events?
You either accept that Fox is "honest", and extend that same ideal towards news sources that you do not like, or, you have to treat all mainstream media sources as tainted with their agendas.
It makes no sense to shrug off anything from the BBC/Guardian etc as "yeah well...", but then 100% take Fox News as truthful and to be trusted.
> Not surprising which publications and organisations are pushing the
> story though...same old, same old.
--------
Ok, I'm going to hold off with sarcasm and jibes and try to explain why I have difficulty accepting discussions with you outside of gaming (because I'm perfectly civil in Xbox or PC forums)
You instantly sneer and say "same old same old", indicating that you don't believe them, it's always the same biased stories from these groups etc.
Fair enough, it's your opinion.
However, you will then try and use Fox News as a source and ask why Haiti is being reported on Fox etc etc.
So how is it ok for you to accept Fox News - owned by Rupert Murdoch who operates a distinctly pro-government stance whilst he is attempting to get his ppv and satellite/internet business into Asia
Yet - you will disregard any story, report or similar from an organisation that does not fit with your view of events?
You either accept that Fox is "honest", and extend that same ideal towards news sources that you do not like, or, you have to treat all mainstream media sources as tainted with their agendas.
It makes no sense to shrug off anything from the BBC/Guardian etc as "yeah well...", but then 100% take Fox News as truthful and to be trusted.
Skarra wrote:
> unknown kernel wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he
> did,
> every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
>
> This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability.
> You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up
> to in our name?
Yes, but Clair hasn't given any proof. At the moment, its just
slanderous against the Intel Community.
> unknown kernel wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he
> did,
> every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
>
> This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability.
> You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up
> to in our name?
Yes, but Clair hasn't given any proof. At the moment, its just
slanderous against the Intel Community.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Skarra wrote:
> One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he
> did,
> every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
>
> This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability.
> You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up
> to in our name?
Yes, but Clair hasn't given any proof. At the moment, its just slanderous against the
> Skarra wrote:
> One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he
> did,
> every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
>
> This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability.
> You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up
> to in our name?
Yes, but Clair hasn't given any proof. At the moment, its just slanderous against the
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/ Story/0,2763,1157686,00.html
Phones of weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Richard Butler were also bugged. And, Bell, since you seem to have slipped back into 'they're commies, it can't be true' mode, this story is originally from Australia's ABC - who may or may not have commie credentials.
Phones of weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Richard Butler were also bugged. And, Bell, since you seem to have slipped back into 'they're commies, it can't be true' mode, this story is originally from Australia's ABC - who may or may not have commie credentials.
Page: