Anti-CIA Rant

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
MSM = Main Stream Media

Thank you!

Well thats a wishy-washy kind of label, isn?t it?

You could stick that on anything you don?t like, just like the term “liberal” is used in the US…

It defines the large media outlets that provide most of the information to the consumer such as ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN.
It’s rather descriptive and accurate, why do you think it is wishy washy?

Mmmmmh,

if you strictly define MSM by their target audience, the mainstream, it probably isn?t.

However, the more conservative posters here often use MSM in the same slightly derogatory way they would use the word “liberal” which makes me think the term MSM describes a certain way of reporting things and not just target audiences or market shares.

They define themselves as mainstream media. Market share being the most determining factor. A blog for example would not be considered mainstream.

Why do you think it is derogatory to refer to someone as a liberal? If I called you a liberal European would you be insulted?

I would not be insulted but I would have no idea what you mean…

I always thought of myself as a liberal, meaning I never wanted anyone to tell me how to live my private live or how to run a business.

In the US that would probably make me a moderate republican, though I would decribe myself as a libertarian to an American.

In Europe however, a neo-liberal is allmost a demonic entity, a conservative entrepreneur-type person that somehow does not understand that he should open and run a business to create jobs and to finace the welfare state and not to make some money… He should also follow all the rules and regulations while doing that, the entrepreneurial risk however is entirely his…

So, if I call myself a liberal European in Europe I would probably get attacked by people most American conservatives would call “liberals”.

From now on I shall be a “jeffersonian-minarchist” who believes in public schooling and basic public health services to level the playingfield.

  [/quote]

It does show how twisted some of our labels have become, doesn’t it?

Yeah, kind of like African-American. Which is it? African OR American?

As to the original post, I dont see too much wrong with working over some suspects. It works. When lives are on the line, one must do anything to save them. I think that if you were in the position to save your friend’s life and the suspect wasnt talking, then you would do whatever was necessary to get the needed info. At least if I was your friend I would like to think you would. Im not advocating cutting body parts off or anything like that. But some pain and humiliation is fine by me. Im sorry, is that dog thats growling next to your face bothering you?

And as for unmarked flights, well there are a myriad of reasons to have unmarked flights. Most of them legitimate security reasons, ie foreign dinitaries on flight, secret info being traded to other govt, etc… Not every unmarked flight could be holding torture victims.

Ilfball, any kool-aid left for the rest of us?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Ilfball, any kool-aid left for the rest of us?[/quote]

Apparently not. Kool-Aid Man is dead after that post. He will be missed.

[quote]Miserere wrote:
Secret events are only secret until somebody finds out about them. However, at this point they are still referred to as “secret” because at the time the events took place…they were secret.
[/quote]
My first point was if you want to get an airborn vehicle in/out of a country unnoticed, it’s quite easy. If you just want to get the passengers in/out, it’s even easier. You’re right, secrets are only secrets until someone finds out about them, I’m assuming that since all of the British media knows, a good portion of the American media, a smattering of the public from both countries as well as others, that this isn’t secret.

My second and third point is, the best way to keep a secret is not to tell anyone. The idea of flying detainees anywhere (let alone the UK) to torture them is needlessly complicated, and unnecessary complication confounds secrecy. Also, my understanding is that the plane is an executive/luxury jet (Gulfstream 5), not some C130. Oddly enough, that’s the sort of thing you would want to fly foreign dignitaries around in, semi-secretly, but I’m equally speculating.

I understand the issue about unmarked flights. JohnGullick asserted much, much more than just “unmarked flights landing in UK”. As you would agree, it’s a far cry to say that the unmarked flights were even strictly CIA, let alone carrying detainees, and further let alone torture subjects. So, I think you would agree, to write an anti-CIA rant, which degenerated to a fundamentally anti-US and anti-war rant was somewhat unjustified.

This is completely relevant, 'Gullick lists the US’s atrocities and says we have no room to assume the moral high ground, and while I’ll agree the US isn’t faultless, as I said, often it was the lesser of two evils. Namely, anything else vs. Communism (two of the top three were communists). Part of what he says is that it was wrong to install Saddam at the helm of Iraq and he’s right. But the US didn’t put Saddam in charge for sheer entropy. Afghanistan was at tentatively ruled by the Soviets, Iran nationalized oil production and was becoming unstable, and depending on your level of paranioa, capable of falling into Communist hands. Iraq was very much internally conflicted. Now, as I said, Saddam wasn’t the best choice, but he was centralizing power in Iraq around himself. Depending on your PoV and some guesswork (ignoring what is now hindsight), you had your choice of Saddam in charge of Iraq or Breshnev.

A leader responsible for the death of one man to save millions is a different story than a leader who kills one man.

American Catholic or Protestant money?
I won’t go much further, this could be a whole thread in and of itself. I’ll only say that the aims of Jihadist terrorists are somewhat more grand than Sinn Fein’s even though their methods may be similar.

How is it UN jurisdiction?

Generally, I agree, there are some areas where the US’s presence has done more much more harm than good (Columbia comes to mind). My point was that 'Gullick just went down a laundry list of ‘bad things’ the US has done without even considering cause, alternatives, consequences, or overall results. All because an executive air liner keeps landing in his back yard.

John,

Apparently your best bet is to grab the plane and all the passengers.

Then, simply torture everyone that isn’t a UK citizen until you get the whole truth.

At that point, you will “know” what is going on and be allowed to talk about it.

I’d suggest writing to your member of parliament immediately for approval!

[quote]vroom wrote:
John,

Apparently your best bet is to grab the plane and all the passengers.

Then, simply torture everyone that isn’t a UK citizen until you get the whole truth.

At that point, you will “know” what is going on and be allowed to talk about it.

I’d suggest writing to your member of parliament immediately for approval![/quote]

…or maybe you plan an ambush of the suspected CIA agents on board, only once get there, you execute the innocent citizens with heavy overcoats and backpacks that don’t even match the description of your suspected CIA agents. Subsequently, see if you can cover it up. Then you won’t have to worry about keeping the torture a secret and it won’t matter what was really happening.

The program isn’t a secret? The administration won’t acknowledge them and you have to go through several shadowy front businesses to figure out maybe the CIA is the real player?

What do you consider a secret?

The administrations supporters on this board will accept any behaviour at all now. They seem to be in too deep to see that real American values and conservative ideals were just lip service.

[quote]Big Dave56 wrote:
The program isn’t a secret? The administration won’t acknowledge them and you have to go through several shadowy front businesses to figure out maybe the CIA is the real player?
[/quote]

I’ll repeat the key part:
“figure out maybe the CIA is the real player?”

[quote]
What do you consider a secret?[/quote]

That depends, I don’t consider something that happens 400 times in public airports in the UK a secret. Especially when any military air base would equally suffice.

[quote]
The administrations supporters on this board will accept any behaviour at all now. They seem to be in too deep to see that real American values and conservative ideals were just lip service. [/quote]

Support any behavior at all? Landing of unmarked planes on allied soil? You’re right, all air travel between the US and the UK should be fully disclosed, and we should paint a bright red bullseye on the planes, that have either military leaders, political leaders, or both on board, and maybe paint the whole plane neon green if the political leaders of the new “Democratic Iraq” are on board.

Call back when the Nicaraguans shoot down another C-123 full of weapons.

You are contradicting yourself, in the first half of your response you say its not a secret, in the second half you saying this type of travel should remain a secret.

What a convincing argument you put forward, how could I possibly agrue with that?

[quote]Big Dave56 wrote:
You are contradicting yourself, in the first half of your response you say its not a secret, in the second half you saying this type of travel should remain a secret.

What a convincing argument you put forward, how could I possibly agrue with that? [/quote]

I can’t believe I have to do this, but there’s no contradiction:

secret- adj. - Kept hidden from knowledge or view.

unmarked- adj. - Not bearing an identifying mark.

Do I really have to teach you ignorant twats english too? Just because you don’t scream it from the hilltops doesn’t mean it’s a secret.

BTW- My understanding is that MI 5 and 6 are in on this too, so who exactly would be on the moral high ground here?

???