| Author |
Message |
    
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 97
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, July 23, 2009 - 09:47 am: | |
“It is a letter - if you define a message board posting as a letter. I don't.”
That’s fine and I won’t question your opinion about it again.
“if you call that "directed" because it says "Mr Rippon" you are surely on another planet”
My assumption is that the letter was ORIGINALLY directed to Mr Rippon at the BBC. The author of the letter then copied and pasted the letter onto the Media Lens message board.
“it turns out that there are 43 Mr Rippons at the Beeb, and none of them checked the media lens message board this week, so unfortunately it didn't get to them”
How do you know this? |
pipling
Member
Username: Reality
Post Number: 254
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 11:33 pm: | |
' The real agenda, though, is surely to gain access to natural resources. I read recently that 400 British troops are still in Iraq, helping to ‘protect oil fields’…'
I should bloody well think so too. What do you think I pay my taxes for! |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1030
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 06:12 pm: | |
I do so love pedantry
It is a letter - if you define a message board posting as a letter. I don't.
"it was written by someone called Anthony" - no surname, return address either physical or electronic. I'd call that anonymous.
"The letter was directed to Mr Rippon at the BBC" - it was posted on the internet for heaven's sake, if you call that "directed" because it says "Mr Rippon" you are surely on another planet, it turns out that there are 43 Mr Rippons at the Beeb, and none of them checked the media lens message board this week, so unfortunately it didn't get to them. |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 94
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 - 01:12 pm: | |
"Its not a letter, its an anonymous posting on the media lens website, so not directed to anyone and no-one to reply to"
Nice to see a fellow Media Lens visitor on this forum!
It is a letter and it was written by someone called Anthony. The letter was directed to Mr Rippon at the BBC. |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1028
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 09:35 pm: | |
Its not a letter, its an anonymous posting on the media lens website, so not directed to anyone and no-one to reply to |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 93
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 04:27 pm: | |
Pulp – I haven’t seen a response to the letter yet. I’ll post it up here if I see it.
“Is this a war on terror or on Islam/Muslims, or is it conincidental that all the countries they choose to attack/threaten are Muslim?”
There can be no doubt that Muslims have been demonised as part of the war of terror. The real agenda, though, is surely to gain access to natural resources. I read recently that 400 British troops are still in Iraq, helping to ‘protect oil fields’… |
Pulp fiction
Member
Username: Pulp_fiction
Post Number: 89
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 - 01:28 pm: | |
The Boy, did they ever get a reponse to this letter?
US attack Iraq, US attack Afghanistan, US have threatened Iran, US have threatened Pakistan they blame almost ebverything on Muslims. They chose to attack Muslim countries.
Is this a war on terror or on Islam/Muslims, or is it conincidental that all the countries they choose to attack/threaten are Muslim? |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 92
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 10:46 pm: | |
Letter to BBC, not by me:
Dear Mr Rippon
The assumption that 'we' are in Afghanistan to bring security and democracy to the Afghan people is so taken for granted by the BBC that you do not consider it to be worthy of attention. Therefore, as Professor Jean Bricmont explains: "the debate will typically be centered on questions such as: do we have enough power, resolve, etc. to achieve our goals? Are our leaders sufficiently clever, determined, and strong? The more vociferous the debates, the more the implicit assumptions concerning the nobility of the attentions come to be reinforced" (Bricmont, J, 'The responsibility of the intellectual', in 'The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, P:285, 2005).
Last week's Newsnight special provides a perfect example. The title of the programme was 'Why are we in Afghanistan?, but the debate was restricted to challenging the attainability of 'our' leaders' proclaimed noble goals - i.e. Mr Paxman asked questions such as: should we send more troops to Afghanistan? Do our troops have enough tanks and helicopters? Is Afghan culture too primitive to accept democracy? Please can you explain why the claim that 'we' might be in Afghanistan for reasons other than those presented in official discourse was completely excluded from the debate?
Vis-a-vis, when the BBC reports on the actions of those who have been designated official enemies, you do not feel the need to present the rulers' proclaimed goals as their true goals. For example, when Russia entered Georgia, Emily Maitlis mocked Russia's stated motivations:
"Hello, good evening. The Russians are calling it ‘peace enforcement operation’. It’s the kind of Newspeak that would make George Orwell proud." (Newsnight, 11/08/2008).
Do you accept that if you were not biased the BBC would have explored the suggestion that 'our' leaders' justifications for being in Afghanistan could also be described as Orwellian Newspeak"?
I look forward to your reply... |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 91
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 10:09 pm: | |
Nae worries, Devonboy.
The scale of the devastation that the war has caused in Iraq is my main motivation for speaking out about it. Secondary to that is the desire to see those responsible for the war held to account. There's obviously nothing I can do about the deaths of over a million people but I can spark a debate about holding British politicians to account - who knows, maybe one day they will be forced to defend themselves at The Hague. Britain is signed up to the International Criminal Court (the US is not). Brown, Straw, Blair et al could be charged with war crimes. |
devonboy
Member
Username: Morgan144
Post Number: 36
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 06:23 pm: | |
Apologies, Boy - I was not looking to imply any such thing. I enjoy and agree with all you say about the war and most of everything else!
No time for a fuller discussion - late night reporting is just about to kick in! |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 90
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 02:45 pm: | |
Correction:
'Notice how often soldiers who think the troops should come home are interviewed.' |
The Boy
Member
Username: The_boy
Post Number: 89
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Monday, July 20, 2009 - 02:43 pm: | |
“We need to get past the constant bickering that has been going on in other posts regarding the legality or otherwise of this war and spend more time reflecting on those who have paid the price for it. Dont forget, they are all some mothers' child and it just might be that the mother works in your office.”
Devonboy - As well as the ‘constant bickering’ about the legality of the war I have referred to the price that is being paid, so please don’t imply that I haven’t. It is the fact that so many people have died and are dying that motivates me to question British involvement in ‘the war on terror’. Don’t forget, they are not all British casualties and it just might be that Iraqis are worth caring about too.
Some people I have spoken to about the human cost of the war have said that whether the war is moral or not isn’t the point – what about the legality of the war? By establishing the legality of the war you can determine whether it is ‘right’ or wrong’. Like me, you appear to be more concerned with the human cost, although those people I spoke to have a point. Indeed, without establishing the legalities of a behaviour how can people be charged and held to account? Does a judge send a person to prison for murder because he thinks murder is wrong? No, s/he sends that person to prison because murder is unlawful. The Iraq war has led to the deaths of over a million people, therefore, according to my beliefs, it is immoral. However, my beliefs count for nothing – what really matters is what international law says, and it says that the war was illegal. If the people who took us into war were charged and held to account then such wars may be prevented from happening again. Therefore, isn’t it worth trying to hold those people to account?
“You could also look at oil pipeline issues - providing secure transportation routes, the fact that many espouse it as little more than a war on Islam, or simply holding more political influence in the region.”
Indeed, you could – but the mainstream media doesn’t want to and politicians are content to talk about tactics rather than reasons. Oil is definitely a taboo.
“I was listening on the radio to a veteran soldier who had just returned from Afghanistan. He said that the kit is the best they ever had and improving at a faster pace than he had ever seen before. He also said that they felt that they were supported by the ordinary Afghanis in a worthwhile action.”
I’ve spoken to soldiers who agree and others who want the troops home. Notice how often soldiers who think the troop should come home are interviewed.
“If a radical muslim Government achieved power in Pakistan the repercussions could be huge. The action in Helmand province is to try and bring back control of the border areas between the two countries. Obama emphasised this issue as currently the greatest risk during his campaign.”
Two weeks ago Obama the hypocrite said, “In 2009, a great power does not show strength by dominating or demonising other countries. The days when empires could treat sovereign states as pieces on a chessboard are over…” He defended “state sovereignty”, describing it as “a cornerstone of international order”. He also stressed the importance of “independent media in exposing corruption at all levels of business and government”. [1]
Seriously, how on earth does he get away with such hypocrisy? Troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan – so does he really respect those countries’ sovereignty? In January missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan and were a clear sign that the military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed. [2] Does he respect Pakistan’s sovereignty? If he really did think independent media was important he would be genuinely worried that it would lead the call to hold him to account for his crimes.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/obama-russia-first-trip, 7/7/09
[2] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece, 23/1/09 |
pipling
Member
Username: Reality
Post Number: 253
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, July 19, 2009 - 08:20 am: | |
Pulp,
I thought strategically the reasons for the war are the fear of the rising fundamentalism of the Taliban and their alliance with Al Qaida was threatening the political stability of Pakistan. Pakistan is a nuclear power which borders another nuclear power it has previously been at war with (India). If a radical muslim Government achieved power in Pakistan the repercussions could be huge. The action in Helmand province is to try and bring back control of the border areas between the two countries. Obama emphasised this issue as currently the greatest risk during his campaign. |
Pulp fiction
Member
Username: Pulp_fiction
Post Number: 88
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 02:06 pm: | |
On the news today the US have found 120 helicopters they had misplaced. Bloody misplaced, how on earth do you misplace 120 helicopters.
They were found in a warehouse/hanger, and they didnt know where they had out them and put them down as being lost?
They misplaced more helicopters than the British have in operation. |
Spike
Member
Username: Spike
Post Number: 1024
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 06:35 pm: | |
I was listening on the radio to a veteran soldier who had just returned from Afghanistan. He said that the kit is the best they ever had and improving at a faster pace than he had ever seen before. He also said that they felt that they were supported by the ordinary Afghanis in a worthwhile action.
I also have no real understanding of this action and somewhat worryingly, have taken little interest and I don't know why - is it bad news fatigue? In my youth I stopped reading the papers for many years because I found the news to depressing, preferring to get drunk as often as affordable. I don't drink anymore, so post on here instead - far better for the liver |
ZogofAlbania
Member
Username: Zog666
Post Number: 499
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 05:58 pm: | |
Pulp, I don't disagree with you vis a vis relatives of people currently serving in Afghanistan. Sure, they want to see the forces back home. However, I was refering to the relatives of the fallen and those returning home maimed beyond belief. They surely wish to take some solace from the idea that some good came of it all. Imagine being a parent or partner who has lost their loved one only to be told it was all a big mistake and they died for nothing. Perhaps I am allowing myself to be too emotional? Some would argue that all military families know what is at stake. But I certainly see where Devonboy is coming from.
As for the military being adequately equipped, I do not doubt money has been spent. But like in Probation, has it gone to front line services or to some consulting firm doing time and motion studies? Maybe the military could subdue the militants by threatening to force them to read consultant reports. |
devonboy
Member
Username: Morgan144
Post Number: 33
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 04:36 pm: | |
It reminds me of something Kenneth Brannagh said in "Ten Days to War." He was playing the part of Col. Tim Collins. When asked by his driver "why are we here, why are we doing this Sir?" he replied "we are doing it because we are doing it. It's what we do."
The military have a very keen sense of why we are doing it, honed in the blood of the fallen. The government are less clear these days and their arguments are more concerned with loss of face than the loss of personnel. We need to get past the constant bickering that has been going on in other posts regarding the legality or otherwise of this war and spend more time reflecting on those who have paid the price for it. Dont forget, they are all some mothers' child and it just might be that the mother works in your office. |
Rob Palmer
Moderator
Username: Rob_palmer
Post Number: 475
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 03:42 pm: | |
I take no pride in the fact that I long ago decided to focus my attention on things I understand and to contribute only to debates like this if I thought I had anything meaningful to say.
As such, I cannot say I understand this war and have to defer to those that do to decide whether it is defensible. I have no doubt that many of the pertinent issues are not known to ordinary folk and will never be known. I also don't know whether that is a good thing or a bad one.
I just don't know what I don't know.
I don't think, therefore I'm not.
|
Pulp fiction
Member
Username: Pulp_fiction
Post Number: 86
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 03:42 pm: | |
I hear you Zog, but if you ask the majority family memebrs who have family serving in Afghanistan, they wont mind if we pulled out and showed our a@#e by pulling out and leaving them to it.
US and Uk are slowly pulling out of Iraq and thats been left ina right mess and the attitude is going down the lines of ' who cares', and 'tuff'. So why cant we leave Afghanistan to it also. Russia didnt give a monkeys when they left so why do we have to.
I feel bad when I see coffins arriving back, and photots of soldiers injured in battle being awarded medals and there was thsi one youg lad, no legs and no right arm. what a waste of a life, what can he possibly do now and who will care for him/about him in a months time when the publicity has shifted from him.
And our troops saying we havent got the right kit or weapons etc and our MP's and Brown saying they have. thats like us working on our offices saying we are short staffed and the computer system is crap and breaks down all the time, And Straw sat at the Home office saying' its not like that in your offices, I wont come out to see you all but according to my info all is OK'.
Its not right. |
ZogofAlbania
Member
Username: Zog666
Post Number: 498
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 02:19 pm: | |
Pulp, the Brits have previously been kicked out of Afghanistan for exactly the reasons you mention. As a result, and witnessing the crippling of the mighty Soviet military machine, one would have assumed our Government would have recognised the futility of taking on the Afghans. During my 'youf' I was involved at University in the pro-Soviet campaign supporting the intervention in Afghanistan. We believed that a pro-Soviet regime would bring in a form of egalitarian rule by opposing the feudal lords who prevented the likes of women receiving an education. Looking back I am no longer certain that the majority of Afghans were unhappy with their lot and do not even entertain such lofty notions such as female emancipation. It is just not seen as important to men or women. The question is how do we withdraw from the situation without making it worse than it is? When the Soviets withdrew, the Taliban buthchered those that had supported the pro-Soviet regime. We do not want to be resposible for that again. Plus, whether one is pro or anti British involvement in Afghanistan, we still have to consider those in our armed forces that have lost their lives or been maimed. They did not get asked their opinion on the rights or wrongs of the conflict. If we just withdraw our troops without something positive to show for it, it will be a tragedy for those families that have lost individuals. Sorry I have no suggestions Pulp. |
Myob
Member
Username: Psiman
Post Number: 440
Registered: 07-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 02:18 pm: | |
The line held by the government and the military as I understand it is 3 fold: to protect the Afghan people, to build a stable democracy, and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe base and stronghold for terrorists. You could also look at oil pipeline issues - providing secure transportation routes, the fact that many espouse it as little more than a war on Islam, or simply holding more political influence in the region. Depends on how cynical you want to be really. |
Pulp fiction
Member
Username: Pulp_fiction
Post Number: 85
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 10:23 am: | |
It is so sad to see that we are losing so many troops, the soldiers serving out there are saying they do not have the right or enough kit. Yet our governement sat in England are saying they do have the right and enough kit. Who could possibly be right ????????????
The main question, a number of people I talk to ask, is 'what are we still doing there'. What is the purpose? what are we trying to achieve?
Russia were there for years and years and didnt get anywhere. The Taliban are a fighting race and the current generations have known little else, as they have known conflict ever since they were born, and they know the terrain the nooks and crannies to hide and alsorts.
This is clearly Britains equivalent to Vietnam, we arent going to get anywhere, and no idea what we are still doing there, isnt it simply best to pull out and save the rest of our boys ( and girls ).
If anyone knows what we are still trying to do there ( that is not a sarci question that is a genuine question) can you let me know as I havent the foggiest. |
|
