US *supports* terror when "necessary"

Its all in how you write an article keep in mind in the US we have tabloids as well.

More than often the main reason they get sued and loose is because they mention the name of a private citizen in preparing there articles and that citizen feels maligned.

As far as the rest they can pretty much get away with saying anything they want as long as they consistently identify themselves as a tabloid.

Main Entry: [1]tab�loid
Pronunciation: 'ta-"bloid
Function: adjective
Etymology: from Tabloid, a trademark
Date: 1901
1 : compressed or condensed into small scope
2 : of, relating to, or characteristic of tabloids; especially : featuring stories of violence, crime, or scandal presented in a sensational manner

As someone has pointed out: who doesn't support terrorism when necessary. As long as one has the ability to have one's definition of "terrorism" and "necessary" sufficiently widely accepted by the masses to make denial perfecttly easy.
Resistance movements in W.W.II -were they "necessary terrorists", or "freedom fighters" etc etc...

"You're kidding me right?"

No, I think you may just wind me up on his but....if as per your assertion all that is in the newspapers are unmitigated lies, why do I see the same items repeated 10, 20 more times in a variety of media formats. Whilst I won`t accept the spin papers put on these things such dismissal of them is silly.

I`ve no reason to disbelieve this report. The motive of the newpaper may well be suspect but the story does n`t need to be a lie.

Toltec the Guardian is NOT a tabloid. It does have leftist views and I would n`t doubt everyone that works there is a member of Amnesty International as well.
Despite what some may have said there is no reason to disbelieve them.


[Edited on 30-5-2003 by cassini]

[Edited on 30-5-2003 by cassini]

I'd just concure with cassini. The Guardian is an independent broadsheet, owned by The Guardian Media Group. The Times, Telegraph etc. are all owned by major corporate news organisations, and strangely enough, have all been told to be pro-war by their owners. (I know this, because I have contacts inside the telegraph who confirmed it)

So yeah, The Guardian is not a tabloid, and I have very rarely seen factual inacccuracies in the paper. I'm not arguing it doesn't have a left-wing bias, I'm just saying that it's factually accurate, and by no means a tabloid.

And back to Uzbekistan, just to repeat, I'm not saying that the US should attack Uzbekistan. All I'm saying is that the US should stop paying the secret police any money until they stop boiling people to death... It may be Russias sphere of influence, but the US have noticed that there's oil in them there hills.

So, does the US turn on Uzbekistan and cut off funding and aid until they comply with our human rights demands or do we try to change them by example while helping to ease their financial woes? It seems that in the instances the US has played it tough on these kinds of human rights issues, the world disagrees. Do you get the feeling that whatever the US does with reguard to the rest of the world, there is always going to be someone pointing out its wrong in one aspect or another. You know the UN also sends aid there along with many other countries which support these kinds of atrocities and worse. From reading what I have found about the it from the US point of view, we have been very critical of these abuses which no one can rightfully defend but which does more good, standing outside chanting while people die or trying from the inside to change it? I agree if the leader doesn't begin to change his stance, then the US will have to realize that another avenue is needed ( much like Hussein ).

Where have the US played it tough on human rights abuses?

Certainly not...
Nicuragua,
Haiti,
Columbia,
Uzbekistan,
Chile,
Israel,
Turkey,
etc.
etc.

You wouldn't be refering to Iraq would you? Because that was nothing to do with human rights abuses and everything to do with American influence in the middle east...

Originally posted by dom
Where have the US played it tough on human rights abuses?

Certainly not...
Nicuragua,
Haiti,
Columbia,
Uzbekistan,
Chile,
Israel,
Turkey,
etc.
etc.

You wouldn't be refering to Iraq would you? Because that was nothing to do with human rights abuses and everything to do with American influence in the middle east...

Certainly so. Whether you personally agree with the aid or lack therof is your issue from which it seems you come from a strong militant Islam point of view. Its taken me a long time to realize that the open-minded point of view I first thought you held is really very limited by this influence. I therefore conclude that any argument I present will be rejected, merited or not, and replaced with personal flaming and insults. Lets just agree that we differ so significantly in our reasoning that any agreeable point is unattainable as I am not in a position to be forced to accept the doctrine my country is so stearnly standing against.

You're bailing out of these debates earlier and earlier astro...

Look, if you want to say that the US have tried hard to prevent human rights abuses, and I don't mean US organisations (i.e. some of the human rights monitoring organisations), I mean the US government itself, then please back up your statement. There are quite a few studies that show a positive correlation between US aid and human rights abuses. That's worrying.

Honestly, I'm not going to flame you, just back up your argument.

Originally posted by cassini
"You're kidding me right?"

No, I think you may just wind me up on his but....if as per your assertion all that is in the newspapers are unmitigated lies, why do I see the same items repeated 10, 20 more times in a variety of media formats. Whilst I won`t accept the spin papers put on these things such dismissal of them is silly.

I`ve no reason to disbelieve this report. The motive of the newpaper may well be suspect but the story does n`t need to be a lie.

OK. I guess I'm gonna wind you up, but that isn't my intention. I just believe that I know a lot about how our media works. I've had a lot of contact in the past with journalists and their newspapers and have studied the media and still do.

Broadsheet or tabloid makes no difference. Every one of the tabloids in this country started out as a broadsheet. The Sun, The Mirror, The Express, The Mail and many more began life as broadsheets. Over the time they discovered that their format was too bulky for their customer base so they just slimmed down.
To tell the truth, you won't find a lot in a broadsheet that the present tabloids in this country haven't already printed.

As for why you see the same reports in different newspapers? You've got to understand the way it works. Take Iraq as an example: you have pooled news reports, you have reporters who work for several different papers. They pool resources and print the stories. From one paper to the next all you are basically getting is the same story, rewritten by a different journalist and remoulded to fit the political angle of the specific newspaper.

Rather than reading a newspaper for news, look for a specific journalist. If that journalist has proven himself reliable over the past few years, he is the one who you should get your news from. Not the newspaper itself. But you also need to realise that your favourite journalist is also getting his news from everywhere else. People like Reuter, AP etc, all help to give him the intelligence to write his story. The risk here is that you end up playing Chinese Whispers.

Very ocassionally a paper will run with an "exclusive". A story that it has picked up itself and that it considers to precious to share with anyone else. But have you ever seen how many of these exclusives are fakes? The majority of the time, these are the stories that get the lawyers involved and cost the media group a fortune in damages. Good exclusives are few and far between.

I could also give you countless examples where an editor sees a blank space on his page close to deadline time and desparately needs to fill it. So he goes to his journalist and asks them to find a filler story. These stories are not as well researched as other news and they judge whether it is worth risking using it or wether the financial risks are too great. Unfortunately these fillers prove to be almost as reliable as their exclusives. But unlike the exclusives the risks of litigation are far less so the paper can print them and normally get away with it.

You have to remember that it's a sad fact, but the truth doesn't sell papers. Scandal does. Money is the over-riding factor in the media world. It would be nice to be able to believe that there are newspapers out there who have a pure journalistic vision but unfortunately if they don't make the money they're out of a job.

One interesting fact that I have learnt in the past though, from talking to media people: if you want to know what is going on in the world ask the guy from The Sun. They have the resources to track down any story and verify it. The only problem is that 90% of the time, it's not what their readers want to hear and so they can't print it.

I don't put my faith in newspapers as a whole. To put your faith in one newspaper alone is daft. Read it because you like it. But don't read it and believe everything that they tell you.

Originally posted by dom
You're bailing out of these debates earlier and earlier astro...

Look, if you want to say that the US have tried hard to prevent human rights abuses, and I don't mean US organisations (i.e. some of the human rights monitoring organisations), I mean the US government itself, then please back up your statement. There are quite a few studies that show a positive correlation between US aid and human rights abuses. That's worrying.

Honestly, I'm not going to flame you, just back up your argument.

My original interest in this thread wasn't to debate but to become informed about the topic and share what I've found. As usual, I've let you draw me off course a little bit but I digress.

I have to realize that you and I come to this forum with two different motives. Mine is merely to gain knowledge on subject matter and let others gain from my knowledge...kind of an exchange. From your posts so far, I'd have to say you're more interested in swaying opinion toward your cause which by its very nature limits what you're able and willing to accept.

Now, while I do admit that I have defended my country in the heat of the moment, I have also faced up to the parts about it I don't like..ie..the unlawful confescation of earnings for redistribution to non-deserving parties for the purpose maintaining a larger political base and from that political power.

I'm saying this because I have no stake in bringing people over to my point of view, hell boat loads of people come here, they don't leave for somewhere else. I say this because I think that maybe I should have realized your motives long ago and who and what you support and your degree of committement to them or it. I have only recently understood the danger of the ideas of liberty I and others like me share with other posters to your agenda. I have no idea why it hadn't hit me sooner. I guess I do see the world through rose colored glasses to a degree. In other words, I've finally seen I'm in over my head and have no desire to attain this level of fanatical confrontation any longer.

Fine astrocreep, I'm just asking. Really, what we're talking about is exactly what this thread is discussing. Does the US care about human rights abuses when it gives out "humanitarian" aid.

But whatever, if you're intent on maintaining some higher moral ground by not getting involved in the discussion that's a little sad, but it's your choice.

Dom. I always disagree with you and I can see Astro's point but I reckon he's just taking it a little too hard!!!


I think what it boils down to is reality. The fact is that sometimes, harsh decisions have to be taken if they are in your best interest.

Western societies are fickle things. We consider our societies superior to those in les developed countries. It's a sad fact, but nonetheless true. People will deny it and claim equality but the true gut feeling is the correct one. Morally we might be no better, but for what we do and how we live, our society provides us with law and order, food, medicine, education and all of the other necessities that we need to live on.

The fact that you might not like your society doesn't mean that it is detrimental to the vast majority of those of us who live in it.

Sometimes our society has to make decisions that we might not see as the right ones. But if those decisions were not taken the alternative could undermine our system. We're all about self preservation. Selfishness is a human trait but it's a very necessary one to ensure our survival.

We can't be expected to deal with everyone else's problems. We have enough of our own. Hopefully in the future (if the report is true) we can get around to dealing with issues like this one. But for now we aren't able to deal with it.
It's easy to say - just cut off their money or voice displeasure at the Uzbeki's actions (if the report is true) but do you fully understand what the consequences of taking that action might be?

I find it very doubtful that our Western societies deal with certain countries in this world and totally ignore social issues like the possible one above. But sometimes necessary evils are tolerated if it is for the good of the whole. Not forever, but temporarily whilst the strength to deal with them later is gathered.

Leveller I`m not disagreeing with out right but this is an international board and your assertion that anything printed in Uk is crap is very misleading

"Unfortunately in the UK we don't seem to have a single newspaper that prints reliable news.
I gave up reading newspapers years ago for news value. I read them now only for amusement."

"Broadsheet or tabloid makes no difference."

again BS. It cleary does. I quite prepared to give you the BoTD but a claim such as this does you no favours as its ultimately unsportable (oh dear)

The problem with this thread is that those on the right (all say aye) are faintly supportive of abuses against man. The hypocrisy of government is not in question, your own morals should be........

Well, I guess I'll wait for "proof" that these atrocities occured.
Until then you can reserve judgement on my morals.

Guys the questions I asked were simple the article simply does not offer the answers. As I stated I read much of what the Guardian has to offer in respect to post presented in this thread and to be honest the periodical simply does not measure up.

If I tell you that the Russian Republic/allies is allowing people to be boiled alive and that certain international agencies have knowledge of this and as well. Clinical information pertinent to this matter was ascertained by assets of a certain embassy, what would be your first question?

The article simply does not have enough information to verify the data and that is as I have mentioned, a pattern with respect to what the Guardian reports.

If it is the truth where is the proof?

If I read an article like this in the Washington Post I would be asking the same question and I would also seriously question the credibility if those responses were not forthcoming. A person can tell me "well you know its the Washington post there known for telling the truth." My response would revolve around the subject of so what.

Dom your conclusions on the US as being UN-supportive of humanitarian goals in incorrect, if it were true than the population of this country would be American Indian, African Americans and the descendants of the British and French (it would look a lot like Canada).

To tell me that Guardian is owned by conservatives or for that matter Bozo the clown makes very little difference (it simply is not relevant). What is important is where is the documentation which the article states suports its relevance as something which should be looked into???

As to why that is important well that is simple, it invovles a territory which is controlled by a country which has the right to ask why?

So as a result, still waiting for a response?

You see leveller, we actually agree some of the time. For example I agree with you that Western governments do turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. I don't think the US ordered Uzbekistan to boil these people to death, but it did give money to the secret police. We both agree on this. We both agree that morally it's not right. But whereas I think the US could do something about it, you think that doing something about it would damage US interests in the region, and therefore the human rights issues should be swept under the carpet.

So you see, we agree on about 80% of that. And actually, on many other threads I don't post a response saying "I agree with leveller", I only post when you say something that I disagree with, and would like to discuss more.

Toltec - Sure, question things, but you have to trust some element of journalism, otherwise you'd only believe things that you'd seen with your own eyes. Honestly, the representation of the Guardian as being inaccurate is false. Generally it's accuracy is very good, it's journalists do win prizes, but yes, it does have a non-conformist(/leftist) slant. However, that's not enough reason to ignore everything it says in my opinion.

The US giving money to Uzbekistan is pretty stupid period. But then again, when the US fails to give money to poor countries, they get criticized.

\human rights abuses occur everywehre, in ever country. So?

Not every US interest revolves around oil, Dom. You seem incapable of realizing this fact. There are more dubious motives for US actions around the globe you seem to ignore.

Everyone screams the US should do this and that, then when we do dosomething, we get screamed at for interference. If we dont f=do things they way others think they should be done, we get criticism, if we dont do anything, we get criticized. Either way, the US will get criticism for this and tht, it matters not what we may do.

We should have stayed out of world war 2 as well. Except for japan. Let Europe deal with its own problems. Wed have been better off.

And incedentally, Dom, Ive been here in the Uk watching your news and reading your papers. Back to an earlier point: your papers are biased as well.

The US should stop funding people period and spend its money on the people who the world doesnt give a # about: american citizens who need it more than doped up religous loonies who have little better to do then kill each other for God, Alaah, or whoever the hell.

So we agree on one thing, stop funding Uzbekistan. Veterans, poor families, and sick people in the US need it more.

Dom I take as of yet you are unable to respond to the
questions made by me to you about this article?

Dude. There is no evidence at the moment, other than this newspaper report. I've seen or heard nothing that corroborates or even remotely refers to this story, either on the net, the TV, the radio or the UK newspapers.

Looking at other threads in this forum, the negative reaction to the US doesn't suprise me though. Some people only want to see darkness.

One thing you can be sure of though and it strikes me as being totally hypocritical: if any of the UK media stated that the Guardians article is false? None of these guys would believe it them.


Dom. I don't sweep my morals under the carpet. If this story was true, I'd feel as much pain as the next guy. Probably more, because I'm immensely proud of my country and for them to support a regime that boils it's people alive means that we have been brought to a low. But I can live with it? Why? Because I know for a fact, that if my country had a choice in the matter?

It would go over there and kick their butts.

Leveller, look at some of the links I posted from the state department. The '99 report was very critical of the government and we , to this very day, are working to bring human rights to the forefront. This country has a problem with militant Islamic terror based groups and it seems that some non-militant take the brunt from the government sometimes. This boiling alive stuff shouldn't be done to anybody (no exceptions) however it seems that militant Islamic groups see no problem whatsoever with the principle seeing as how some of the 3000 people killed on 9-11 probably burned in the jet fuel. If you'll read the info, one link also states the government also hassles Christian groups too so they aren't real keen on any religion. I for one, feel that this head honcho over there should be replaced but when we do that, the world goes nuts.

Its damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of scenario.