The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by sallypelt on 19.03.13 13:16

I think it would be a good idea to list the stories we would never have known about if the press had been gagged.
I'll start off with the MPs stealing taxpayers' money in what they call "MP's expenses". This full story broke in the Telegraph, when it named and shamed those who were lining their own pockets.

sallypelt

Posts : 3298
Reputation : 518
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by plebgate on 19.03.13 13:30

The lie that was Weapons of Mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes - to this day none have been found.

Iraq war 10 years ago today (started). 10 years of loss of life all sides plus all the monetary cost.

Where's Blair today? Oh yeah going round the World earning zillions.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by tigger on 19.03.13 13:37

Savile.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by sallypelt on 19.03.13 13:41

@plebgate wrote:The lie that was Weapons of Mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes - to this day none have been found.

Iraq war 10 years ago today (started). 10 years of loss of life all sides plus all the monetary cost.

Where's Blair today? Oh yeah going round the World earning zillions.
Not only that WMD could be deployed within 45 minutes, we now know that Saddam didn't have any. They had all been destroyed in the 1990s

sallypelt

Posts : 3298
Reputation : 518
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by jd on 19.03.13 14:14

@sallypelt wrote:
@plebgate wrote:The lie that was Weapons of Mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes - to this day none have been found.

Iraq war 10 years ago today (started). 10 years of loss of life all sides plus all the monetary cost.

Where's Blair today? Oh yeah going round the World earning zillions.
Not only that WMD could be deployed within 45 minutes, we now know that Saddam didn't have any. They had all been destroyed in the 1990s

A comment to last nights Panorama....

On BBC tonight, only caught the last thirty miunutes of the so called expose on what led us into war with Iraq. I could hardly believe what I was watching...like a pantomime. They dragged out all the major players who were in positions of power at the time who, to a man, said they'd been tricked into believing the intelligence information about WMD. They then had a pantomime Arab bogey man who said it was all his fault, heh heh heh, he had made the whole thing up. Why he'd do this to his own people, we never got to find out. Tony BLiar and George Bush didnt know a thing, they were the poor innocent victims of his misinformation. The final moments were: BBC interviewer: "So it was you who spread the lie about WMD that started the war?" Actor/well paid bogeyman with a devious grin "Mwahahah, Heh heh, yes, it was me!" Then the credits roll. Cue fury from Britain and the world at a nasty foreign type with dark skin. Jeez, you couldnt make it up. Oh hang on, they just did!

So all of the generals and army leaders in the USA, Britain and Germany who were interviewed, the politicians, the intelligence services, the Queen (who signed the treaty to go to war and murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people, her own subjects, and abroad) were all led astray by some shifty bloke no-ones ever seen before who told a little fib for a laugh. Nice try BBC. Every single person on that programme knew the war was arranged well in advance of 2003 and possibly even before 9/11 and they all just had to find an excuse. All shifting the blame, all claiming innocence, all liars. Because they know the net's closing in.

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by Newintown on 19.03.13 14:27

I found this comment on Dan Hodges' blog - "Hacked off by bullying politicians, hijacking legislation and holding secret meetings, has become what it despised" - on the Telegraph last night, I think it's an excellent comment and I've highlighted a few of the stories which would have been covered up if not for the newspapers' exposures. This person is from the USA but seems to have a good grasp of UK politics, which is more than can be said for a lot of the UK population -

IgonikonJack
03/15/2013 01:29 PM

I think the new press-legislation slogan should be: "Hack Off,
back off".

Compare this with what happened when corporate power wanted to purchase
British forestry at bargain-basement price.
The people
swiftly rose against it and called their legislators to stop it.
They cannot stay idle and let their struggling newspapers
fined 1 million pounds in failing or refusing to back a legislation
that is trying to muzzle them for telling the truth--a legislation
that's trying to impose fear, intimidation and censorship
through financial terrorism. "Wow, my media can't afford
1 million pounds fine. I'll better not publish this truth."

That's what this is all about.
Think about it; This is a country where the Mid Staffs atrocity
was committed and lasted that long and outsiders didn't know what's going on until a whistle-blower mechanism brought it to
the attention of the press that publicized it. Think about what
happens if the Leveson censorship machinery is implemented.
Many more "Mid Staffs" violations would go on, because the
parameters of media investigatons and anti-corruption
whistle-blower journalism would have been disincentivized through Leveson recommendations.


This is the environment that allowed the Superinjunction
legislation that encourages cover-ups for celebrities
. Privacy laws already exist to penalize invasion-of-privacy journalism,
respecting what celebrities or powerful politicians do in
their private lives. But, if there's something like a divorce
case or reasonable accusations of forcible, sexual violations,
celebrities should not be treated any different from other
people in the media covering it.

This legislation should not have passed under equal protection under the law
constitutional protections of all persons under the same nation. Well, if you are top sportsman,
you are "above" the law and entitled to superinjunction invocations. Now, an additional layer of censorship is coming through.
I just don't know what's happening in Britain. The people need to step up
and stop this one--take out partisan politics, and deal with the
substance of unjustifiable press censorship.

Igonikon Jack, USA
(Edited by a moderator)

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by sallypelt on 19.03.13 14:59

What a fantastic quote: "Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"
I hope Jane Tanner is reading this!

sallypelt

Posts : 3298
Reputation : 518
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by sallypelt on 19.03.13 15:10

@tigger wrote:Savile.
But Savile wasn't exposed until after his death. This shows what gagging can do, over five decades of child abuse and rape. And they tell us we need MORE press control? Give us a BREAK!!!

sallypelt

Posts : 3298
Reputation : 518
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by Newintown on 19.03.13 15:13

@sallypelt wrote:What a fantastic quote: "Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"
I hope Jane Tanner is reading this!

It was printed in my local supermarket's monthly magazine. It just had the quote, but not if it was directed to anyone in particular.


____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by Newintown on 19.03.13 15:27

I found a list of political scandals on Wiki, going back to the 1890s. I started copying and pasting some of them but there were so many I thought I'd put the link up instead. I'd forgotten about a lot of them going back to the 1950s which is as far back as I go -

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

____________________
Laurie Levenson, Quoted in the Guardian ........

"Never trust an eyewitness whose memory gets better over time"


Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by bobbin on 19.03.13 15:57

9/11 the reason to go to war with Iraq. The BBC interviewer standing in front of building 7 announcing it had come down. No it hadn't it was still behind her, even the UK BBC news caster was saying but it's still behind you. She'd got a note from Reuters, saying it's fallen down. NOW we know it was fixed, along with the building being re-insured for a vast sum several days before. Important people being told to go see their doctor, whatever, but not to go to work in the towers that day. The security guys having 'checked' the building just before the 'falls'. Bush saying he'd seen the first airplane strike on the TV at the children's school. Then being told about the second one. NO, the first one wasn't televised. So many lies, and we saw it all on the TV and in the newspapers.
Blair, yesterday, was shown on TV during his 'mad-man' political justification for going to war. I watched the whole parliamentary show. I saw Robin Cook amongst the MPs assembled in the Parliament.
Soon to be dead, in 'totally questionable circumstances' just like David Kelly, whose inquests have been so whitewashed it would be almost blinding, except they aren't because the facts and reports of the case show screaming inconsistencies.
It all goes to show, that politics and politicians (some but not all) are as corrupt as you like and if it weren't for the press, they'd be even less restrained in what and who they took out.
I trust the press will continue to hold politicians to account. The laws are in place for criminal activity, whether it be false libel or illegal phone hacking.
The press does not need to be controlled by government. The thin end of the wedge, Orwellian, this is an alarm call.
I hope and believe the press will resist joining this big stick / poisoned carrot charade and those who have something to hide and who hijacked the Dowler's tragedy can just face the public consequences of their filth and lies.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by tigger on 19.03.13 16:10

@ Bobbin You're good at finding things in Hansard. After the large anti war demo, Blair spoke to parliament. He said iirc something on the lines of: I rejoice that we live in a democracy where my people can freely demonstrate.

Didn't Blair also say that if it hadn't been WMDs they would have had to think of something else? Why was Blair a closet catholic? He wasn't in line for the throne!
and this tweet: Greg_Lance-Watkins ‏@Greg_LW
Why does the BBC ask Blair's opinion? He is a proven liar & a war criminal responsible for crimes against humanity justifying his crimes?

This is fast moving towards a new political party, thanks to the likes of Clegg and Milliband: shall we call it Liberal Marxism?


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by bobbin on 19.03.13 16:40

@tigger wrote:@ Bobbin You're good at finding things in Hansard. After the large anti war demo, Blair spoke to parliament. He said iirc something on the lines of: I rejoice that we live in a democracy where my people can freely demonstrate.

Didn't Blair also say that if it hadn't been WMDs they would have had to think of something else? Why was Blair a closet catholic? He wasn't in line for the throne!
and this tweet: Greg_Lance-Watkins ‏@Greg_LW
Why does the BBC ask Blair's opinion? He is a proven liar & a war criminal responsible for crimes against humanity justifying his crimes?

This is fast moving towards a new political party, thanks to the likes of Clegg and Milliband: shall we call it Liberal Marxism?

I'll go have a look, but doesn't this just show how 'detached from any semblance of reality' this mad-man is.
Did Hair Hidler have a twin brother, ah, no, wrong generation, can't be a connection, my mistake, I retract that feeble minded thought.
Time to go and refresh the fading parts that no other thing can reach with a nice big glass cup of whiskey tea.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by jd on 19.03.13 17:09

@bobbin wrote:9/11 the reason to go to war with Iraq. The BBC interviewer standing in front of building 7 announcing it had come down. No it hadn't it was still behind her, even the UK BBC news caster was saying but it's still behind you. She'd got a note from Reuters, saying it's fallen down. NOW we know it was fixed, along with the building being re-insured for a vast sum several days before. Important people being told to go see their doctor, whatever, but not to go to work in the towers that day. The security guys having 'checked' the building just before the 'falls'. Bush saying he'd seen the first airplane strike on the TV at the children's school. Then being told about the second one. NO, the first one wasn't televised. So many lies, and we saw it all on the TV and in the newspapers.
Blair, yesterday, was shown on TV during his 'mad-man' political justification for going to war. I watched the whole parliamentary show. I saw Robin Cook amongst the MPs assembled in the Parliament.
Soon to be dead, in 'totally questionable circumstances' just like David Kelly, whose inquests have been so whitewashed it would be almost blinding, except they aren't because the facts and reports of the case show screaming inconsistencies.
It all goes to show, that politics and politicians (some but not all) are as corrupt as you like and if it weren't for the press, they'd be even less restrained in what and who they took out.
I trust the press will continue to hold politicians to account. The laws are in place for criminal activity, whether it be false libel or illegal phone hacking.
The press does not need to be controlled by government. The thin end of the wedge, Orwellian, this is an alarm call.
I hope and believe the press will resist joining this big stick / poisoned carrot charade and those who have something to hide and who hijacked the Dowler's tragedy can just face the public consequences of their filth and lies.

The BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of more 9/11. How did the BBC know that it was going to collapse? And why did they report the collapse when it is clearly standing in the background?

George Bush caught LYING about 9/11. George W. Bush was not outside the classroom waiting to go in watching it on TV, the TV was not "obviously" on!!! George W. Bush was inside the classroom teaching the kids the words "Kite Plane Must Hit Steel" seconds before being "officially" told!

He wouldn't lie would he?




On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers. The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11 (At the same time of the London 7/7 attack...There was also a mock terrorist drill, at the actual stations where the attacks really happened!)...And in Sandy Hook... All coincidence?
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by bobbin on 19.03.13 18:57

Tigger, this reply is long but appropriate here.
Here is the reference to Tony Blair, glad to be in a democracy,
just 4 weeks before he ignored over 90% of his democratic population to go and
have his and Bush’s war with Iraq on 16th March 2003.


Notice how the highlighted red is in the impersonal. Carefully worded,
it side-slips the suspected truth, that USA ‘behind the scenes and above the govt.’
probably master-minded the bombing of its own rather than some al Qaeda group,
unless of course the bombers/flyers were trained by USA.


Many countries including UK were busy selling weapons and biological
agents to Iraq in the years before.


Below this article is another, 16th March 2004, about the
Spanish Madrid bombings.


Since yesterday (18th March 2013) was both the '10 year
anniversary' (nothing to celebrate here) of the Iraq invasion, and the ‘birthday’
of the Poisoned Carrot and very Big Stick ‘press control charter’, pushed for
by joint government leaders (but NOT the MPs) and the ‘sinister big money and
power wielding’ Hacked Off gang, again under the cynical disguise of doing a
good and Christian thing, it is relevant to look at how history has not changed
really and how we must be constantly vigilant and fight back to retain the
‘democracy’ that the politicians and their ‘invisible’ drivers, proclaim to be
protecting, whilst doing just the opposite.


Whether the McCanns are cynically tied up with the New World Order plans
with their bigger agenda or not (at the child tagging level if nothing else) is
yet to be discovered but there is no doubt that something very sinister is going
on and it’s a very big web.





..............
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844298/posts - comment

Tony Blair: The price of my conviction
The Observer (U.K.) 16/02/http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/844298/posts- comment

Tony Blair: The price of my conviction
The Observer (U.K.) 16/02/03 | Tony Blair


Tony Blair tells critics of war that leaving Saddam in power has a 'blood cost'
I continue to want to solve the issue of Iraq and weapons of mass
destruction through the UN. Dr Blix reported to the UN yesterday and there will
be more time given to inspections. But let no one forget two things. To anyone
familiar with Saddam's tactics of deception and evasion, there is a weary sense
of déjà vu. As ever, at the last minute, concessions are made. And, as ever, it
is the long finger that is directing them. The concessions are suspect; unfortunately, the weapons are real.


The time needed is not the time it takes the inspectors to discover the
weapons. They are not a detective agency. We played that game for years in the
1990s. The time is the time necessary to make a judgment: is Saddam prepared to
co-operate fully or not? If he is, the inspectors can take as much time as they
want. If he is not, if this is a repeat of the 1990s - and I believe it is -
then let us be under no doubt what is at stake.


By going down the UN route, we gave the UN an extraordinary opportunity
and a heavy responsibility. The opportunity is to show that we can meet the
menace to our world today together, collectively and as a united international
community. What a mighty achievement that would be. The responsibility,
however, is indeed to deal with it.


Remember: the UN inspectors would not be within 1,000 miles of Baghdad
without the threat of force. Saddam would not be making a single concession
without the knowledge that forces were gathering against him. I hope, even now,
Iraq can be disarmed peacefully, with or without Saddam. But if we show
weakness now, if we allow the plea for more time to become just an excuse for
prevarication until the moment for action passes, it will not only be Saddam
who is repeating history. The menace will grow, the authority of the UN will be
lost and the conflict when it comes will be more bloody.


11 September did not just kill thousands of innocent people. It was
meant to bring down the Western economy. It did not do so, but we live with the
effects of it even today. It was meant to divide Muslim and Christian, Arab and
Western nations, and to provoke us to hate each other. It didn't succeed, but
that is what it was trying to do.


States developing weapons of mass destruction, proliferating them,
importing or exporting the scientific expertise, the ballistic missile
technology, the companies and individuals helping them don't operate within any
international treaties. They don't conform to any rules.


And with terrorist groups already using chemical and biological agents
with money to spend, do we really believe that if al-Qaeda could get a dirty
bomb they wouldn't use it? Think of the consequences. Think of a nation using a
nuclear device, no matter how small, no matter how distant the land. That is
why Saddam and weapons of mass destruction are important.


At every stage, we should seek to avoid war. But if the threat cannot be
removed peacefully, please let us not fall for the delusion that it can be
safely ignored.


Al-Qaeda attacked the US, not the other way round. Were the people of
Bali in the forefront of the anti-terror campaign? Did Indonesia 'make itself a
target'? The terrorists won't be nice to us if we're nice to them. When Saddam
drew us into the Gulf war, he was not provoked. He invaded Kuwait.


No one seriously believes Saddam is yet co-operating fully. In all honesty,
most people don't really believe he ever will. So what holds people back? What
brings thousands of people out in protests across the world? And let's not
pretend that in March or April or May or June people will feel different. It's
not really an issue of timing or 200 inspectors versus 100. It is a right and
entirely understandable hatred of war. It is moral purpose, and I respect that.

But the moral case against war has a moral answer: it is the moral case
for removing Saddam. It is not the reason we act. That must be according to the
UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction. But it is the reason, frankly, why
if we do have to act, we should do so with a clear conscience.


Yes, there are consequences of war. If we remove Saddam by force, people
will die, and some will be innocent. And we must live with the consequences of
our actions, even the unintended ones.


But there are also consequences of 'stop the war'. There will be no
march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of children
that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over the
torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being.


I rejoice that we live in a country where peaceful protest is a natural
part of our democratic process. But I ask the marchers to understand this.


I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the
price of leadership and the cost of conviction.


If there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less
than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If
there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in
the wars he started.


So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then
I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But
these victims will never be seen, never feature on our TV screens or inspire
millions to take to the streets. But they will exist none the less.


I want us to be a Government which has the intelligence, the vision and
the foresight to see that there is nothing inconsistent in saying that we will
increase our aid to development and give hope to Africa, yet be prepared if
necessary to fight to defend the values we believe in.


This is the testing time, the difficult, the tough time, but if we come
through it the prize is not just a Government able to carry on; it is far more
important than that: it is a signal that we will have changed politics for
good.


This is an edited extract of the Prime Minister's speech to delegates at
the Labour Party's spring conference in Glasgow yesterday.

........................

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2004/326-bombing-the-peace-protestors.html

2004 BOMBING THE PEACE PROTESTORS

In Alerts 2004
Post 18 March 2004 Last Updated on 18 March 2004
Hits: 9153

People Pay The Price For Realpolitik
Before last year's war on Iraq, Media Lens reported the extraordinary level of
establishment opposition to the attack. Writing in the Financial Times in
January 2003, Douglas Hurd, former Conservative Foreign Secretary, argued that
the war ran "the risk of turning the Middle East into an inexhaustible
recruiting ground for anti-western terrorism". (Financial Times, January 3, 2003)


Anatol Lieven, a Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
wrote that the Bush administration was pursuing "the classic modern
strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass
discontent into nationalism," inspired by fear of lethal threats. America,
Lieven warned, "has become a menace to itself and to mankind". ('The
Push for War', Anatol Lieven, London Review of Books, October 2002)


In similar vein, Ami Ayalon, the head of Israel's General Security Service (Shabak) from
1996 to 2000, suggested that "those who want victory" against terror
without addressing underlying grievances "want an unending war".
(Quoted, Noam Chomsky, Hegemony Or Survival, Hamish Hamilton, 2003, p.213)


No surprise, then, that as the US-UK "coalition" finalised its plans for
war in early 2003, a UN report indicated that al-Qaeda recruitment had
accelerated in 30 to 40 countries.


By February 15, 2003, public concern at the illegality, immorality, and sheer
self-destructive insanity of what Bush and Blair were planning had 2 million
people marching on London's streets. That month, fully 90% of the population
opposed unilateral action by the US and Britain.


Blair's response to Britain's largest ever protest was to suggest that no matter how
many people had marched that day, they were more than matched by the victims of
Saddam Hussein. Blair said:


"There will be no march for the victims of Saddam, no protests about the thousands of
children that die needlessly every year under his rule, no righteous anger over
the torture chambers which if he is left in power, will remain in being... If
there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less than the
number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for." (Blair,
'The price of my conviction', The Observer, February 16, 2003)


Blair's reference to dying children was one of his more cynical Machiavellian ploys.
Senior UN diplomats and aid agency reports had repeatedly pointed out that
Western sanctions - driven precisely by Bush and Blair - bore primary
responsibility for the mass death of Iraqi children under sanctions. There
+had+ been marches and protests in response - Blair simply ignored them.


As for Saddam Hussein's 500,000 victims, we asked Amnesty International for broad-brush
statistics on the tyrant's crimes. Amnesty sent a report in response: 'Human
rights record in Iraq since 1979'. This showed that Saddam's worst atrocities
were behind him - in the years when he was armed, funded and protected by the
West, to be precise. Killings in Iraq over the previous ten years had been
horrific enough, but they were numbered in the hundreds per year, not hundreds
of thousands. As ever, Blair's skill lay in calculating exactly how much the
public knew and didn't know - and in then exploiting the blind spot.


We now know Saddam had no links whatever with al-Qaeda - although al-Qaeda surely has
links with Iraq now. We know there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq. We know
that with some 55,000 Iraqi dead (Medact, November, 2003), hundreds of
Americans killed (563 at time of writing), and many thousands horrifically
wounded, that the invasion was not a cake-walk. We know that the Iraqis have
not gratefully rolled over in accepting the version of 'democracy' the United
States has in mind for them. And we know, with 200 hundred killed and 1,500
injured in Madrid, that the protestors were right in everything they feared and
warned about the war on Iraq.


So how might we expect liberal journalism to respond to all of this? In an article entitled,
'Blair is doomed to be ignored', Andrew Rawnsley of the Observer writes:


"I have increasingly got the sense that Tony Blair feels that he has turned into
the Cassandra of Downing Street. He issues his warnings to the people about the
threat. He is fated to be right. And doomed to be ignored."


By whom? By the British public, of course:

"The Twin Towers may well have been a 'wake-up call' to the Prime Minister. For much
of his country, it was not long before people punched the snooze button,
snuggled back under the duvet of prosperity and went back to sleep."
('Blair is doomed to be ignored', Andrew Rawnsley, The Observer, March 14, 2004)


So it is the millions of people who trudged through the frozen streets of London under a
grey sky on February 15 last year who are guilty of dozing complacently while
Blair - vigilant, passionate, sincere, caring - struggles to alert us to the
threat of international terrorism.


In reality, of course, it was the public which knew that while the invasion of
Iraq was based on any number of illusory pretexts, it was sure to have one very
real outcome - it was bound to generate yet more violence in the hearts of
those who "love death" and who are eager to express that
"love" on our streets. This is the same public which, unlike Blair,
has no choice but to travel into London by train on a daily basis.


Rawnsley, further, invites us to consider Blair's plight in attempting to defend us from
terrorism without over-reacting:


"Imagine the reaction in Madrid if it were to turn out that the Spanish government had
been given warning of a possible atrocity, decided to err on the side of not
causing massive disruption on the railways, crossed its fingers that all would
be OK - and turned out to be horribly wrong."


In fact the Spanish government +had+ been given unmissable warnings of a possible
atrocity by the 90% of the Spanish population that opposed the war - some of
them certainly now buried in graves. A 23-year-old pre-school teacher at a
polling station in Cozlada, east of Madrid, said last week:


"Our prime minister has gotten us into a terrible, completely wrong war. And because
of it, I spent yesterday and today going to funerals. I am thinking of a
3-year-old child at my school who no longer has a mother." (Elaine
Sciolino, 'Following Attacks, Spain's Governing Party Is Beaten', The New York
Times, March 15, 2004)


Julián, a79-year-old retired carpenter, said:
"I certainly did not vote for the Popular Party. My daughter's hand was cut off,
and she almost lost a part of her leg. Aznar should come here to see that, to
see these people. But he did nothing for us. He did nothing for the poor. He is
one who brought us to war. I went through the civil war, and the postwar. But
this is worse."


It is appalling to reflect that nothing like the marches protesting the Madrid
bombings had been seen in Spain since the anti-war demonstrations of 2003.
Then, Spaniards marched in their millions every Saturday, throughout February,
all across the country. They were simply ignored.


How appalling, also, that Aznar should have led the recent marches even as his
government was trying to blame the Basque terrorist group, Eta, to protect
itself, therefore further compromising the security of the Spanish people -
even as they grieved.


Aznar paid the price in last weekend's elections, losing in a shock defeat to the
Socialists. The media has expressed outrage at what it perceives to be a
"surrender" to terrorism. In the New York Times, David Brooks
describes how the bombs have caused Spanish voters to "throw out the old
government and replace it with one whose policies are more to al-Qaida's
liking". Brooks asks:


"What is the Spanish word for appeasement?" (Brooks, 'Al-Qaeda's wish list', The
New York Times, March 16, 2004)


Max Hastings writes in the Daily Mail:

"Al Qaeda has achieved a victory beyond its wildest imaginings." (Hastings,
'So would the voters in Britain be any braver?' The Daily Mail, March 16, 2004)


On Channel 4 News, reporter Sarah Smith (March 15, 2004) repeatedly asked Spanish
Socialist Party politicians whether the election had in fact been won by
al-Qaeda.


But the truth is that Aznar lied his way to Bush's war, just as Blair did, against the
overwhelming opposition of his people. The Spanish electorate's response
should, first and foremost, be seen as a rejection of Aznar's arrogance and
deceit.


José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister elect, said this week:

"The war has been a disaster [and] the occupation continues to be a disaster. It has
only generated violence."


Others may urge Spain to keep its 1,300 peacekeeping troops in Iraq, Zapatero added, but
"fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way
to defeat terrorism. Terrorism is confronted by the state of law ... that's
what I think Europe and the international community have to debate." ('New
Spanish PM promises Iraq withdrawal', Simon Jeffery and agencies', The
Guardian, March 15, 2004)


Millions of people around the world have been shouting exactly this awareness at our
political leaders for more than a year. But when, as John Dewey noted,
"politics is the shadow cast on society by big business", our leaders
are not obliged to listen.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. In
writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite,
non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.


Email: a.rawnsley@observer.co.uk

Email: roger.alton@observer.co.uk

Email: letters@observer.co.uk

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by Guest on 19.03.13 19:05

http://www.ae911truth.org/

This is a site set up by professional people like architects and engineers who cannot accept that the three buildings were brought down other than by controlled explosions.

One of the first unexplained things that I heard about 9/11 in a newspaper article was the impossibility of mobile phones operating from the height at which planes fly. Yet that is supposedly where all the information came from about the hijackers and what happened on board the planes.

Like a certain other case nearer to home, I can't say what really happened but I can say with absolute certainty that it wasn't the way we've been told.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by Guest on 19.03.13 19:42

Jean, some years ago I saw on Dutch television a programme, where demolition experts were analysing available footage from the Towers and annex buildings. They has all sort of explanations as to the probability why the towers collapsed and the way they did it. Then they saw [IIRC] building 11 going down and were startled: this one had definitely been blown up. Bizarrely that was the building that had been evacuated the day before 9/11.

Apart from that there's still one plane "missing". And the Pentagon was defo not hit by a large people carrier.

And, yes, GWB reading a book to the children. He was in shock, that's for sure. But IMO it was because he was not expecting the news of a second aircraft ... They didn't fill him in on everything ... IMO

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by tigger on 19.03.13 20:42

In Great Britain 90% of the population was against the war in Iraq.
Yet there was a war - therefore Great Britain is a democracy.

In Iraq 90% of the population was content with Saddam Hussein
Therefore the country was a dictatorship.

Might have got that wrong thinking

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by bobbin on 19.03.13 20:43

Châtelaine wrote:Jean, some years ago I saw on Dutch television a programme, where demolition experts were analysing available footage from the Towers and annex buildings. They has all sort of explanations as to the probability why the towers collapsed and the way they did it. Then they saw [IIRC] building 11 going down and were startled: this one had definitely been blown up. Bizarrely that was the building that had been evacuated the day before 9/11.

Apart from that there's still one plane "missing". And the Pentagon was defo not hit by a large people carrier.

And, yes, GWB reading a book to the children. He was in shock, that's for sure. But IMO it was because he was not expecting the news of a second aircraft ... They didn't fill him in on everything ... IMO
Apart from being terminally brain dead and congenitally sub-human due his ancestry, and apart from being such an incompetent that he would probably blabber prematurely, I am certain that he was in on it, as much as any of the ruling elite. I don't so much think he was in shock as cannot even act well enough to feign shock, so just did the 'vacant gone dumb' thing.... he's even such an unreliable idiot as to muff his lines over the first and second planes. (reminds me of Katey shouting 'they've taken her')
No innocence there, not in either of them, not even a fleck. AIMO of course.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by Guest on 19.03.13 20:57

You're right: I might have better been writing " went blank" ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by bobbin on 19.03.13 21:12

Châtelaine wrote:You're right: I might have better been writing " went blank" ...
yeah, I saw it more as -aide whispers into bush's ear- 'sir, the towers have been struck as arranged' "Right, better not do anything precipitous" 'ok, a slight pause then sir' "yeah, well we can start backing out quietly, besides which these kids reading and this woman's strident beating on the table have got my goat, so it will be a welcome relief to get back to the golf course" 'right sir, we'll back out now, just as you suggested'.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by zodiac on 19.03.13 21:21

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/15/carter-ruck-trafigura-parliament-injunction?CMP=AFCYAH

The prominent media lawyer Mark Stephens said: "This sort of assault on democratic privileges is what you would expect to see in a banana republic."

zodiac

Posts : 73
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by jd on 20.03.13 16:40

So Peter Power thought it "funny" at the remarkable coincidence of the mock drill at the very same stations at the very same time. What happened to the mock drill actors for the mock drill then?

Note the date...2010
http://beforeitsnews.com/strange/2013/03/hoax-sandy-hook-predicted-2-yrs-early-on-public-internet-forum-2447806.html



Controlled demolition or what!

How about this for another remarkable coincidence...The Vauxhall helicopter crash....The VW's number plate... Mi5 RYY!

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The facts we would never have learned if the press had been gagged

Post by tigger on 21.03.13 7:23

http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/search/label/Bush


In order to persuade Chirac to enter the war against Saddam - Bush quoted the above. Chirac didn't know what he was talking about.
This is from about 47 minutes into the video of above reference.
"500 Days": Author Kurt Eichenwald’s New Account of How Bush Admin Ignored Warnings Before 9/11



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum