Re: Some advice from the people who know please.


"//\\\\o//\\\\annabee <Free" " <Wannabee@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:op.tkqn71e95b921x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
På Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:25:24 +0100, skrev Ratch <watchit@xxxxxxxxxxx>:


I understand what you are saying. It is sometimes hard to discern
what
is true and what is part of someone's agenda. Unfortuately there is no
easily way to parse out the truth quickly. Usually the truth finally
comes
out, but it takes time. If you cannot wait, the only thing you can do is
first evaluate how the information was obtained, how it fits in with
other
the information, the integrity of the source, and anything you believe is
pertinent to its veracity. While that will not get you the absolute
truth,
it will probably give you a higher or lower confidence level.

That is what we are supposed to have journalist, historians and such
people for. People who have a spesial interesst, and spesial skills in
discovering truth. I am not a journalist. I am a computer entusiast, who
spends most of his time searching for information about programming,
assembly and stuff like that. This is my main field of interesst. Theres
no possible way I could do a better job, at finding any truth than the
people who spends all of their time with it....

But the way I see it, I frequently find that the journalists that I am
supposed to offer some level of trust, misuse that trust, by presenting
only a small part of the equation, usually biased to fit with their own
agenda as well. Because they really dont care much for the truth. Besides
their own convictions they mostly care about _ratings_ so they never take
much time to go deeply into the material. Its all just a superfacial, soup
of half-lies, tewed again and again, and escalated from one media to the
other so that it ends up like some kind of foggy message, that could only
be termed as nothing but insane propaganda, much like the ones thats
depictured in "1984", George Orwell. I have seen this for years. We have
in our country several central newsmedia. Institutions that have
"diffrent" names and owners. I frequently listen to all theese "diffrent"
sources. What I see frequently, is that in the morning, a few issues are
presented in the radioshows that is sent first, then theese issues are
repeated, like clockwork from one radioshow/-station to the other, until
about 6 in the afternoon, when the TV takes over the insane propaganda
show. During that day, the two or tree people conserned with each of those
issues are transported from one studio to the next, saying the same
things, about the same issues. Furthermore, the people that are guests in
theese radio and TV shows, are re-used again and again; the same players.
What was supposed to be "richness" (the many diffrent sources of media),
turns out to a race for listeners, and viewers, which only effect is to
completly water out any kind of information value to nothing short of a
freekshow. And the various debatants never are allowed to go deeply enough
into the issues to be of any value. While there are many interviews, all
are short once, and each dont take over where the other one stopped, but
starts over from scratch until time runs out. And never gets anywhere. If
someone tries to go deeper, they are either interupted, or the focus
changes to a diffrent issue. It seesm so staged as I would guess it would
have been authored into every detail in advance. In addition, many of the
issues, that consern politics, or recent research or so, are comming from
sources, (research-institutions) that the reasearch is simply ORDERED.
Like the govt wants to portray its point of view, it orders a report from
one of theese institutions, (or several for what I know) and then if the
research is in support of their view, or the view they want people to
know, they present is as the holly gospel, whereas in many cases, it turns
out that the sources deliver mostly what they are told to deliver, since
otherwise they wouldn't get any orders or money to stay in buisness. Thats
about the level of trust you can put in a modern democrazy today. So how I
am supposed to find any kind of higher level of confidence out of all of
this?

Impossible.

Yes, I agree with you on the decline of good journalism standards.
It's identically the same in the USA. I hope we did not export that
sloppiness to your country.

Yes, all people tend to believe their government first and foremost.

Which is absurd.

Which is natural.


Especially in democracies where their leaders are elected and the
government
doesn't control the press. That's normal.

They DO control the press. Its just that you will never be allowed to
publicly admit it. This is not a kindergarten. Theese people are
professionals. They control the agendas of the newmedia, downto the kind
of haircut on the head of the news reporter. They probably could deside
what kind of paper the guys could wipe his ass with if they bothered.

Do you mean "they" as the government? I would not say control so much
as influence and spin of the media.


I don't believe all unverified
facts are propaganda, but they certainly have a higher probability of
being
just that.

The propaganda is so strong, and so thourough that it corrupts even
genuinly good journalists. In fact is so strong that the only way to
espcape is to stop listening. Take a look at the last piece of hightech,
on the last piece of equipment money can buy. What makes you think that
the art of deception has stand still the last 50 years? They have become
exceedlingly good at it.

It was always that way.


As an exercise, I would suggest buying a stopwatch. Get out a piece of
paper, and a pensil. Pick your favorite TV channel. Start to count the
commersials, and time how long a show lasts. Repeat until you have a clear
statitic about the magnitude of the thing. Can you even do it? Was it 7-
10 or 14 commersials in that segment? How many segments are there? Repeat
this exercise once a year. What do you find?

I always switch channels, or turn off the sound, or record programs and
fast forward to avoid commericals.


Another thing. The goggle search I did for "Guantanamo" returned 11,3
million hits. Thats a LOT right? Doesnt the share number sort of sneak in
some kind of hidden authority to the word? Just because there so many,
that you are completly unable to verify them all, it automatically gives a
certain weight to it. The number itself becomes a powerful argument in and
of itself. Magic isnt it? For all I know, only 100 of them contains truth,
and I have no possible hope to find those 100.

A Google search only looks for a word or phrase, it does not do any
analysis, and certainly cannot discern truth and lies.


The only possible kind of arguments left then, are those derived from
thinking, feeling and speculating about the non-facts and the reverse
of
them, some of which could be true, and some which are likly not.
Trying
to
penetrate what could possible be true by the arguments from each side.

I don't give up on what is in the links if they come from
reputable
sources and the analysis is sound.

There are people today that belives that the holocost did not happen and
can show 1000s of links to verify it.

I bet those links don't stand up to close scrutiny.

So do I, but in anycase, it is a bet. Even if it appear a safe one.

The Holocaust is one of the most documented events in human history.
The direct evidence is still present today. All credible evidence fits
together in such a way that no doubt exists.

There are still pouring out many new evidences about WWII. Many people in
my own country, who took more or less activly part of that war. Rich
people who made tons of money from that war. Some secrets have been hidden
all the way up today, and there are still things to come yet. I agree that
the evidences of the holocoast are overwhelming, and I have no reason to
doubt them. (Would be allmost absurd). But still I reserve a right to make
room for a few modifications at least, as even if strong evidence may
exist, I have never seen a single one first hand.

No one living today has seen Attila the Hun ravage Europe, but no one
denies it either.


Yes, that was truly the dark side of human nature. The land of
Mozart
and Beethoven willingly turned into a criminal nation for nationalistic
pride and gain. The USA and other nations have exceeded the Nazis in
killing innocent humans for other reasons, that being the convenience of
disposing of a child by abortion.

This is to me an absurd view.

It is a fact.


I cannot point
at
some link and say : Proof.

Maybe not one link, but you can find other sources that, when taken
together, confirm your beliefs.

I have no choise in the matter. Thats what I am saying. No possible number
of links can free me from having to make value judgements upon the "facts"
presented to me by other people.

We all have to do that all the time. Propaganda is thick in the air
these days, and has been for a long time now.


Why did you not find links in support of _my_ arguments?

The mere existence of those links do not prove anything. They must
be
evaluated.

This is a circular argument. Dont you see? How can you evaluate one second
hand fact with another second hand fact? The only way is to make some kind
of unsupported value based judgement. Like we are doing here.

You CAN compare facts with each other. For instance, would all those
people get tattooed and lie about being send to a concentration camp? Does
that sound reasonable? What about all those paper records of people killed
each day that can be verified as being over 50 years old. Was that some
fiction writer's dream back then? Facts can be, and have been cross checked
thousands of times, so there is absolutely no doubt the Holocaust happened.



They are there at wikipedia, for instance - same as yours. I spent
just a
few minutes finding a long explanation of the preparations for the Irak
war, and how US, UK, and a few other countries, _illegally_ invaded
Irak.

I would believe Wikipedia as to the preparations for war, but not
the
conclusion that the invasion was illegal.

Which again is an unsupported valuebased judgement. Because in this
incident you question the "facts", whereas in other incident you do not.

No, in this instance I did not question the facts of war preparations.
I questioned the conclusion of illegality.


There is no world institution
including the UN that makes that kind of law and enforces it. There
might
be treaties between nations like there was between Germany (Hitler) and
Russia (Stalin) which they called a nonaggression pact. But that did not
last long when Germany invaded Russia as soon as it was convenient. What
has to be determined is whether the invasion was for good and justifiable
reasons.

Yes. But you are very naive if you think it was for freeing Irak from
Sadam.

Not just freeing Iraq from S&S. Freeing the whole world from him.



What do you mean by bases?

Basis, not bases.

Links? Yes I can show about as many as I want. But those are not bases
as
in "proof", as I allready try to point out.

OK, what do you mean by stealing oil? Has the US ever stolen oil?

Not only the US. Here is another google search for "Hydro in Irak" (in
norwegian translation).

Funn 1-10 av omlag 469 000 som inneheldt hydro i irak. (0,14 sekund)

http://www.olf.no/nyheter/ntb/2005/06/?26662
This has the title in translation "Hydro invest long term in Irak".


Noone in their right mind thinks that this is just to "help" get the
Irakis oilproduction back on its feet again.

I don't know who "hydro" is. I assume it is some oil company. I agree
with the above statement. There are other good and legitimate reasons to
invest in a war torn country.

It is also, and they openly admit it, a long term commersial investment.
In other words, they are going to earn a considerable indecent fortune
from it.

And they are also taking an indecent risk of their capital.

Yes, it will also benefit Irakis long term, but its hard to call it
anything but a wholy lie as long as Irak could have managed all of this hy
them selfes if it wornt for the illegal invasion.

That is an unwarranted assumption. The oil infrastructure was in bad
need of repair under S&S. It did does not appear to me that they could have
done so effectively if S&S was still there. If fact, the whole country's
infrastructure was decaying. Hydro was not lying when they said their
investment would help both the Iraqis and themselves.

And mind you, the reason for norway beeing there in the first place is to
assist the bigger players earning an even bigger and even more indecent
fortune.

And what does Norway get out of assisting other companies? Nothing?
Doesn't make sense. Oil procurement of a war zone is a risky business, and
should be rewarded handsomely within limits.

They call it "help". I call it theft. Or rather; Rape.

No one can steal oil from another country a continent away. Moving oil
takes an infrastructure of pumping stations and transport. If someone can
provide those things, they should be rewarded.

50000 sivilans have died so far in this war.

That is an estimate, but I won't quibble about the figure. But those
figures also reflect the deaths caused by the insurgents, revenge killings,
sectarian violence, and other non coalition caused deaths. The coalition
cannot be responsible for those deaths. It tries to prevent them if it can,
but it can't be everywhere at once.

Now analysts predict the development of a sivil war, and this was one of
the major projections also before the illegal invasion even started.

That was an easy prediction to make. Who holds them to account if they
are wrong? What is hard is to prevent that from happening.



Can
you name a place where it happened. As far as I know, we have always
paid
the market price for oil. True we sometimes try to negociate the lowest
price, but that is normal and lawful. Also we like to keep our oil
supply
lines open, but there is nothing wrong about that either.

Belive what you want to belive. A man who equals abortion to genoside, I
dont credit that much.

Abortion is killing an innocent human being. A lot of people don't
like to hear it put that way, but it's the truth isn't it?



But you dont seem to be needing that kind of help. You are just
generally
misinformed to a surpricingly high degree.

I don't think so.

;) I know.


I have been following the media reports, and the only
thing that has cause me the slightest surprice is that the 9/11 yet is
not
descovered to be a crime against the US from a force within.

There is a kook from the University of Wisconsin who avers the same
thing. Remember the old saying, extraordinary statements require
extraordinary proof. So far he had not provided any. Doesn't the
evidence
pointing to Osama mean anything to you?

No. What _means_ something to me is that as a result of the 9/11 attacs,
the world seem to have embraced an allmost religious way of thinking about
terrorists threats and ways to avoid it. I never seen such degree of
flocking monkey behaviour my entire life. Because of it, the police in
even my own country has been given much extended rights to perform
survailance of average citizens. Yet, its more likely that something
leathal happens to you from a drunk familymember than you beeing attacked
by some terrorist. The extended rights given to the police are a potential
for great horror and great crimes to a sosiety given a change in
governent. Not that it could be much worse, but actually it _could_ be
much worse, yet. This means something to me. Osame bin laden means NOTHING
to me.

I thought there was some doubt in your mind about whether Osama was
involved in 9/11. After all, you did imply someone else did it. The
security forces of your country are just trying to protect you from
terrorists who are real, and would like to damage your way of life. Britain
and Spain found that out. They can't help too much from attacks within your
family, but external threats are what they are supposed to prevent.


None of the above. The voted for the best of what was available.

Obviosly not true, but if it was, then I would wish death to the entire
US. However, I do not. In fact one of the most wonderful people I knew was
infact an american woman. The best movies I saw was made in america. (and
the worst). And I guess I owe quite a lot to US in terms of ideas and
wisdom that _do_ exists there. US is one of the most diverse countries in
existance, with about as much good as bad in it. But from my perspective
you are now well entering in some sort of a new dark ages. Mind you, this
dark ages, is no surprice, or shouldn't be. We had seen it comming from
miles away. Its a natural reaction to the free expression of so many
diffrent cultural ideas, including some that are just plain evil shits,
combined with you still not able to shake the midevil idea of the
existance of a christian God. I hope that after some time you will return
to your senses and find a useful middleway between liberally absurdity and
right wing facist religous demence. By the way. Norway, my own country is
allmost a spitting mirror image of US, only skewed in time somewhat. The
litle native cultural we have left, can be a wonderful thing, but most of
our popular culture is nothing but a doomed to fail attempt at trying to
become americans.

The above is more of a rant than an analysis of contemporary American
life. There are too many vituperative statements without explanation to
comment about. Just remember, for better or worse, the USA and most of
Europe was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and they are still strong
in this country.


But I have heard stories of US actions abroad that just is so absurdly
evil that if I was borned in that country I would have moved.

True, some bad things happened, but it was not sanctioned by the US
government. That is the difference. They were done by individuals that
went beyond what they should have done. The US at least tries to bring
those people to justice. Where would you move to? Any country that
engages
in combat operations has those types of stories on their record. Many
countries don't even report them or punish the guilty.

I have been thinking many times about moving to sweden :) Seriously.

Pictures that I still see in my mind of children running in panic from
beeing dropped napalm on.

No one targets children delibrately unless they are combatants. Why
should they? It happens unavoidably. Where is your outrage at the
combatants who hide in schools, mosques, hospitals, or set up combat
headquarters in heavily populated civilian areas?

I guess that why I am not a terrorist. But who knows, what I would be able
to do if I had to watch my loved once beeing slaughtered, raped and
misused, by a rich world that refuse to listen to any story that lacks an
high level of morbid facinating violence in it.

When S&S was in power, those attorcities were the rule rather than the
exception. After the invasion, they were the exception rather than the
rule. Now they are doing it to each other.



500000 people
diing from the dropping of the 2 atomic bombs in Japan...

And how many lives were saved by not having to do a conventional
invasion on the enemy's home turf? Don't forget that they could have
stopped the second bomb by surrendering after the first one was dropped.
They were given that option and did not take it. The decision to drop
was
taken lightly. There was a lot of thought that went into that action.
It
is easier to judge now with hindsight than it was back then.

If you could only learn a bit from hinsight, it would be a great
improvement.

Yes.


some time ago, there was a story on radio about some incident where
7000
people in a village had been shot and buldozed into the ground by the
US
military.

I have not heard about that. Can you provide a link?

No. In fact I cannot. So just disregard it for now. I shall be trying to
find out better how I got my ears on that one.

OK


So absurd that I could not belive my own ears. And now the torture
stories, from the Abu Ghraib, and the Guantanamo.

As I said before, you cannot blame the government for the actions of
some rogue soldiers. They were brought to justice.

YES. You not only can, you SHOULD!! Thats what it means to have
RESPONSIBILIY. To actually take that responsibility!!! I can't belive what
retard that could say that leaders should not take reponsibility of the
actions of the people they have the responsibility for. Anyway, all of
this was not a rogue action at all. It was a deliberate strategy. Or if
not deliberate, then the leaders should of course have been loosing their
heads by the instance it was made known.

They should take responsibility only if they sactioned it or knew it
was going to happen. They cannot be blamed for everything. The
perpetrators were brought to justice.




you want links?

Maybe a good place to start could be here.

http://www.stopusa.be/scripts/index.php?section=BDBGBC&langue=3


OK, I don't have the time to refute all the allegations, so I will
just
do the first one. Those abuses probably happened. The statement from
Tony
Lagouranis saying it was US policy to do those things was his opinion.
The
link in unbalanced because it does not give the US response.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10895558/ Also it does not chronicle the
abuses
of the insurgents. In other words, it is a USA bash site.

You do see where this is leading right?

No.


And after your read that try checking out this in your lifetime.

"Guantanamo" Funn 1-10 av omlag 11 300 000 som inneheldt Guantanamo.
(0,19
sekund)

"torture in Irak" Funn 81-90 av omlag 922 000 som inneheldt torture in
Irak. (0,11 sekund)

Those two above don't show up a links on my browser. Ratch

What do you mean by that?

Just what I said. I cannot link to those sites. They don't highlight
on my browser like other sites do. Ratch


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Godels theorem is invalid?
    ... > Then his definition of truth simply does not match the classical one. ... I am not saying that I agree with Tennant's arguments (which are based ... What exactly do you mean by the assertion ... > NOT ONE IOTA OF IMPACT on the TRUTH or the MEANING ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Universality as warrant for relative truth value
    ... say that you set postmodernism aside because it's not a means to your ... There's no truth, only points ... saying this? ... The reason is simple: ...
    (sci.philosophy.meta)
  • Re: Epic fail: News of the World loses Mosley case
    ... I'm not saying that at all. ... What I'm saying is that the line should be drawn at the truth, which is where it always was until 'privacy' started creeping in through the back door. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: OFF TOPIC: Oops...sorry...a bloody shame
    ... I have 40 years of reading political writers and journalists, ... evidence, and write about it. ... waythat won't offend their corporate bosses. ... discovery of the truth. ...
    (rec.music.beatles)