Ken Bigley.

Posted by: Tony Lockhart on 08 October 2004

Well, it looks like they went ahead and killed him anyway:

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-13228464,00.html

Tony

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by matthewr

"Whether or not one is critical of what was done, the issue is what should be done now"

Basically:

1) Internationalise the process to remove the feeling that it has more to do with US Imperialism than anything else.

2) Withdraw as soon as possible and let the Iraqis run their own country for themselves.

It seems obvious to me that George Bush in particular is incapable of doing this.

"It seems to me that the majority of people, here, in the media and elsewhere, are far more interested in the former than the latter"

The problem with ignoring the former is that Bush and Blair are still maintianing that they have done no wrong despite overwhleming evidence ot the contrary.

To be taken seriously part of the solution rather than the problem they need to understand their mistakes and apologise. The lack of this and a failure to understand the damage they have done adn the anger they have caused is definitely a problem, not least becuase we need to know they won't do it again.

Matthew

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by BrianD

quote:
It can't possibly have escaped your notice, but both ourselves and Bush have our own supply of oil, I believe that "we" are still even a net exporter of oil,

Oldie

I'm definitely not an expert on oil, but I'm sure I've heard in the past that our oil is different to the oil available in the Middle East. In what way I wouldn't know, but it led me to believe that the uses for oil sourced in the Middle East is not the same as that from our own oil, or the USA's oil.

Even if this isn't the case and all oil is the same, it must be true that not all countries are able to produce their own oil. So what happens to those countries unable to produce their own oil if the Middle East source of oil is not protected, do we have enough to supply the world if this source was lost?

[This message was edited by BrianD on Tue 12 October 2004 at 17:48.]

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by oldie

Steve,
Yes we are totally dependant on oil, but it doesn't have to be as clear cut as this,the problem is one of economics not dependancy over 60 years ago Germany developed artificial oil and petrol,we used at the time coal gas for fuel for transport, Brazil has developed alcohol from sugar cane instead of using petrol[a bit of a waste of good alcohol this one is though in my opinion

]but seriously if there is a will, the way forward is technically speaking already available,it's just economics not dependency that drives the greedy forward needing not just profits but even greater profits, hence the invasion of a sovereign state and the untimely and horrendous deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent people.
oldie.

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by 7V

In 1973, the Arab oil embargo meant that the USA couldn't maintain it's fleet and prosecute the Vietnam war. They threatened the Saudi Royal family that unless they broke the embargo the USA would secure the oil for themselves. The Saudis bowed to this pressure and secretly supplied the US fleet.

When Bin Laden planned that all of the non-pilot terrorists were Saudi nationals, he effectively and intentionally planted the seeds of the conflict in Iraq.

Steve M

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by oldie:
Yes we are totally dependant on oil, but it doesn't have to be as clear cut as this,the problem is one of economics not dependancy ... the way forward is technically speaking already available,it's just economics not dependency that drives the greedy forward needing not just profits but even greater profits, hence the invasion of a sovereign state and the untimely and horrendous deaths of thousands if not tens of thousands of innocent people.

I'm not sure whether it is as easy as that to replace oil but I agree with you 100% that we should have been making all efforts to do so and should still make all efforts to do so.

Steve M

PS: Perish the thought but, if it's absolutely necessary, I'm prepared to donate my own personal supply of Scotch (the good stuff) to this cause.

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by oldie

Brian
You are correct in your assumption ,the oil produced in the North sea is a much lighter oil and at the moment ,due to economics needs to be mixed with the heaver oil from the far east to suit our requirments or the refineries I'm never quite sure which, but if Brazil can develop a petrol substute fron suger cane and Germany did the same from coal surly its not beyond our ability to modify engines to run on a lighter fuel, Rolls Royce claimed that they had developed a engine that would run, so the internal publicity they issued to us stated, on peanut butter, not sure what happend to it though
oldie.

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by oldie

Steve M
I'll arrange the collection of your Scotch
so that duly we can start the process of converting the liquid to a useable fuel the method I intend to use, and would reconmend is that the liquid is passed through a "bio gas generator" to convert, through due chemical/ecological process the Scotch to methane a very high calorific gas this can then be pressurised and used in most "converted" engines. Good malts do tend to produce better results though.
The larger the glass the greater the volume of gas generated

Cheers
oldie.

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by oldie:
I'll arrange the collection of your Scotch
so that duly we can start the process of converting the liquid to a useable fuel the method I intend to use, and would reconmend is that the liquid is passed through a "bio gas generator" to convert, through due chemical/ecological process the Scotch to methane a very high calorific gas this can then be pressurised and used in most "converted" engines. Good malts do tend to produce better results though...

oldie,

I find your description of the conversion of liquid to fuel curiously fascinating and would like to participate myself in such a worthy endeavour.

Rather than arranging collection, I therefore propose that we perform this operation jointly, at least as far as final conversion to methane which, from your description, might be better practised alone.

Oxted being reasonably close to Brighton I would suggest either venue as appropriate. Perhaps we could accompany the conversion with some music listening.

Steve M

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by BrianD

quote:
Originally posted by oldie:
Brian
You are correct in your assumption ,the oil produced in the North sea is a much lighter oil and at the moment ,due to economics needs to be mixed with the heaver oil from the far east to suit our requirments or the refineries I'm never quite sure which, but if Brazil can develop a petrol substute fron suger cane and Germany did the same from coal surly its not beyond our ability to modify engines to run on a lighter fuel, Rolls Royce claimed that they had developed a engine that would run, so the internal publicity they issued to us stated, on peanut butter, not sure what happend to it though
oldie.

Oldie

I don't want to keep on at this perhaps to a point where you think I'm taking the mick, I'm not I can assure you.

I understand exactly what you're saying about alternative fuels, but you seem to be solely blaming the West for not developing this alternative on the grounds it is not in our interest due to greed.

Well I think there's a bit more to it than that. What would happen to the economies of the oil exporting countries in the Middle East should the rest of the world cease to rely on oil? They want and need the world to rely on oil, surely?

I believe there will be pressure coming from all over the place NOT to produce an alternative to oil, this won't be restricted to just Western greed, there is also Middle Eastern need. I would suspect there to be some big money floating about from the Middle East that is being used to discourage those who might want to develop alternatives to oil. I may be wrong though, it's just a suspicion of mine.

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by Don Atkinson

Bigmick,

My gatekeeper credentials are clearly excellent. You found it necessary to attempt to explain your earlier, still inappropriate, response.

Your persistent, selective and misleading claims about the Iraq conflict, have clearly been influenced throughout by the dealings in Jordan, that you have now revealed.

I've spent the best part of the summer working in Jordan ...When I first worked on this project in 1998, most of my clients, middle class professionals. middle-ranking civil servants......These same people now have barely concealed contempt for the motivations of the US and the UK governments in Iraq and the overall feeling is that the region as a whole has been utterly shattered on the basis of lies..... now they just loath the US and UK and want them to make good, without killing more innocent Muslims, and then go away.

There is nothing new here. I have worked in the middle east since 1968 and you have simply described a large, almost archetypical, section of persons native to this region. Shallow, spineless, belligerent, driven by jealousy, with an inbuilt hatred of the west. We have seen them on our TV screens every day since 9/11. After the first Gulf war, when Kuwait was being re-built, these archetypical persons couldn't praise the Brits and US enough. For about six months. Then the old habits returned and they couldn't hide their jealousy and lost pride, which they tried to mask by false contempt. Hussein then threatened another strike, and guess what? They were back on their knees, begging for help. I also notice that, like you, your Jordanian friends can't differentiate between deliberate murder and accidental loss of life. It appears that bigots aren't confined to your neck of the woods.

We now also know where YOUR position lies. You have a vested self-interest in the region. You are no better than the worst self-interested ass lickers around and your postings here have lost all credibility.

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz

When Bin Laden planned that all of the non-pilot terrorists were Saudi nationals, he effectively and intentionally planted the seeds of the conflict in Iraq.

Steve M[/QUOTE]

Totally Absurd³

G.G.v. Dreamonmatey

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:

When Bin Laden planned that all of the non-pilot terrorists were Saudi nationals, he effectively and intentionally planted the seeds of the conflict in Iraq.

Totally Absurd³

Fritz,

Are you saying it's absurd that Bin Laden planned 9/11, that he intentionally chose Saudi nationals for the job or that his plan was to de-stabilize relations between the USA and Saudi Arabia?

I didn't make this stuff up you know or the business about the Saudi Royal family and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. I got it from a late night interview with a British diplomat on BBC News 24. 'Hard Talk' I think it was.

Steve Honestyoucouldn'tmakethisstuffupifyoutried.

PS: I've just found this article in The Washington Times which refers to an interview between September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and U.S. interrogators. It makes more or less the same points that I heard on the BBC.

[This message was edited by 7V on Wed 13 October 2004 at 2:22.]

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by JohanR

Oldie wrote:

quote:
what Bush and his backers wanted was greater proffits from a increased supply of oil

Well, I suppose the current situation with decreased oil supply (or fear of decreased supply) and a price per barrel of over $50 gives quite a nice profit to the oil makers all over the world. And with less consumed, the profit will be there for a longer time. A win/win situation for the oil producers.

JohanR

Posted on: 12 October 2004 by JohanR

Matthew wrote:

quote:
1) Internationalise the process to remove the feeling that it has more to do with US Imperialism than anything else.

2) Withdraw as soon as possible and let the Iraqis run their own country for themselves.

Agree. This will not be an instant nirvana, but in the long run it's probably the best thing to do.

JohanR

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by JohanR:
Matthew wrote:

quote:
1) Internationalise the process to remove the feeling that it has more to do with US Imperialism than anything else.

2) Withdraw as soon as possible and let the Iraqis run their own country for themselves.

Agree. This will not be an instant nirvana, but in the long run it's probably the best thing to do.

1) How? France & Russia, the most influential 'international' players, were on the take from Saddam Hussein's regime. Their toys are out of the pram and they have no intention of picking them up.

2) Is there anyone in the world who disagrees with this? BTW, which Iraqis should be let run the country?

Steve M

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by Deane F

quote:
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
what should be done to deal with the vile scum responsible for these atrocities?

TN

Don't tolerate it. Get angry and stay angry. Knock on the doors of the decision-makers and let them see the whites of your eyes. Make some banners and organise a protest march. Go on a hunger strike. Write letters to the editor complaining that the whole story is not told and filling in the spaces yourself.

Keep on doing it. Demand change until you get change.

(Or you could just vote....)

Ken Bigley's death has affected me because I can imagine the same thing happening to me. The death of thousands of others in the same conflict is not diminished in importance by the unequal apportionment of my attention.

Deane

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz

quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:

When Bin Laden planned that all of the non-pilot terrorists were Saudi nationals, he effectively and intentionally planted the seeds of the conflict in Iraq.

I say its totally absurd that you assume by your sources of speculative information that he planted (very conveniently) the seeds for the iraq conflict. He hates Saudi, and therefore wishes it to suffer, but he obviously hasn't won the day on that score has he ?
International conflict between the 'christian' & 'Muslim' World will not ensue either, as the US and others are beginning to notice at their cost. No that doesn't mean that's what they dewsire, it means that's what they've been expecting to happen and have jumped upon the advantage. Please remember our Saddam (recently operated upon successfully for a hernia) is/was no more Islamic orientated than any of us lot here, innit.

Graham George Von Those earliercommentsaboutJordonbyourfriendrandverytruefromamanwhoknowswhathe'stalkingaboutinREALITYnotSpeculationandfancyopportunisticjigoism

Totally Absurd³

Fritz,

Are you saying it's absurd that Bin Laden planned 9/11, that he intentionally chose Saudi nationals for the job or that his plan was to de-stabilize relations between the USA and Saudi Arabia?

I didn't make this stuff up you know or the business about the Saudi Royal family and the 1973 Arab oil embargo. I got it from a late night interview with a British diplomat on BBC News 24. 'Hard Talk' I think it was.

Steve Honestyoucouldn'tmakethisstuffupifyoutried.

PS: I've just found this article in http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030922-124107-9320r.htm which refers to an interview between September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and U.S. interrogators. It makes more or less the same points that I heard on the BBC.

[This message was edited by 7V on Wed 13 October 2004 at 2:22.]

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by matthewr

"1) How?"

Given the terrbile situation we currently have there is already a consensus that something must be done. The hard bit is actually getting the Americans to give up control in any meaningful way.

"France & Russia, the most influential 'international' players, were on the take from Saddam Hussein's regime"

French oil companies and elements of the French government had corrupt dealings in the Middle East, you think this is even remotely uncommon?

(As an aside I have to say that I find the notion of people who started an illegal war that killed 1000s and did untold political damage on the basis of falsehoods getting all morally indignant becuase some oil executives and civil servants working in the Gulf took backhanders more than somewhat offensive. Even before we realise that those same people are awarding their friends no contest $multi-million contracts and all sort of other dodgy dealings)

"2) Is there anyone in the world who disagrees with this?"

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove...

Matthew

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by 7V

quote:
Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I say its totally absurd that you assume by your sources of speculative information that he planted (very conveniently) the seeds for the iraq conflict. He hates Saudi, and therefore wishes it to suffer, but he obviously hasn't won the day on that score has he ?

I didn't say or imply that he's won the day on that score.

quote:
International conflict between the 'christian' & 'Muslim' World will not ensue either, as the US and others are beginning to notice at their cost. No that doesn't mean that's what they dewsire, it means that's what they've been expecting to happen and have jumped upon the advantage.

Nor did I say or imply that international conflict between the 'christian' & 'Muslim' World will ensue. I'm talking oil not religion.

Steve M

On re-reading what I actually wrote, I feel I should clarify what I meant.

Bin Laden deliberately drove a wedge between the USA and Saudi Arabia. This led to the US invasion of Iraq. I did not mean to imply that Bin Laden specifically planned for the USA to attack Iraq, although that was a consequence of his 9/11 attack. Nor did I mean to imply that fear of the unreliability of the Saudi oil supply was the ONLY reason that the USA invaded Iraq.

[This message was edited by 7V on Wed 13 October 2004 at 10:34.]

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by Berlin Fritz

I didn't say you said those points my old Son, "I said & thought them", sorry I'll try to explain every single aspect in future.

Graham Geirge von Idon'ttakeprivateeyeorbbcasgospeleither

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by bigmick

quote:
My gatekeeper credentials are clearly excellent

Of course they are Don, impeccable, whatever you need to tell yourself to get through it, old chap. Your post did make me laugh. You’ve clearly taken a lifetime of battering from the idiot stick but thank you for brightening up a dank and overcast day with your contribution.

Just a few points of query:

quote:
Your persistent, selective and misleading claims about the Iraq conflict

Instead of waffling incessantly like some poorly prepared GCSE hopeful, why don’t you quote each claim in turn, indicate where you believe them to be misleading and selective and ask me to address the matter. Even though I have done this with you and you have thus far failed to manage a cogent response, I assure you that I will respond to any sensible queries and where you present indisputable facts showing me to be factually incorrect, I will happy concede that I have erred. Which reminds me, what about your information on Iraqi Body Count? If you have good information I’d be keen to read it.

quote:
your Jordanian friends

Why do you assume that these people were my “friends” and that I unquestionably take on their positions? Apart from living and working in the UK for many years, I’ve also worked in many places throughout Europe, Asia, and the US (for considerably longer than I’ve spent in the Middle East) and in each place I’ve been aware of and exposed to the cultures, the divergent opinions and attitudes, so how does that factor into your ludicrous theory that it is the brief period, less than 1% of my working life, that I’ve spent in Jordan which has shaped my outlook?

You state that every person that I’ve met in Jordan is

quote:

Shallow, spineless, belligerent, driven by jealousy, with an inbuilt hatred of the west”

as is, I assume, certain elements of the Jordanian media. You’ve really got yourself a sack of baseless assumptions and generalisations there. Where do you get off hurling nasty and abusive generalisations at people you’ve never met and know nothing about? For the most part, the people I met were good people, industrious, smart, opinionated, very well-educated and well-informed. Possibly in your line of work you didn’t meet with such types and that is your loss, but it ill-behoves you to tarnish such people with your cants and racist slurs.

quote:
these archetypical persons couldn't praise the Brits and US enough. For about six months. Then the old habits returned and they couldn't hide their jealousy and lost pride, which they tried to mask by false contempt. Hussein then threatened another strike, and guess what? They were back on their knees, begging for help.

I don’t recall there being any specific threat from Saddam to Jordan when I was first there and if there were I doubt very much if I would have remained.

You then make utterly nonsensical and unsupportable assumptions about my interests in the region and then use that fatuous springboard to conclude that my postings have no credibility.

quote:
We now also know where YOUR position lies. You have a vested self-interest in the region

Well, this is turning into a right ‘whodunnit’. Who is the “we”, and can you or any of your seemingly well-informed clique let me know what my vested self-interest is?

Credibility?!!! Don, seriously, I very much doubt that you’d know credibility if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. To know that my posts have no credibility with you and your ilk, this omniscient “we”, is frankly comforting; a confirmation that morally and intellectually, I’m on the right track. Just out of interest, can you explain your ‘reasoning’ with regard to my credibility? The only angle I can fathom, is that you believe that my having visited and worked in Jordan twice, probably a total of 3 months all in, instead of providing a particular viewpoint from the region, actually precludes me from making any valid contributions toward any discussions involving the Middle East, Muslims, religious or state terrorism….and anything else? Surely that would cast undermine your own contributions, if they weren’t already deeply flawed. So by extension any ex-pats or former ex-pats should also be precluded from discussions involving any countries visited, worked in or where they live, so in your humble opinion, would Bhoyo, who I believe to be Scottish, clearly have no credibility when he comments on the US election? Join the dots for me because as usual your logic, if it exists at all, is impenetrable.

quote:
It appears that bigots aren't confined to your neck of the woods.

What does this mean?

You remind me of my wife’s late uncle, generally accepted as an objectionable old fart with a faulty moral compass and a predilection for making ignorant, offensive and denigratory remarks about the people of countries where he’s served, everyone from the Japanese to Indonesians to the Arabs, since to him they’re a homogeneous group. He was a gargantuan flapping arse, an embarrassing anachronism but there was no stopping him making a public tool of himself because he believed that he knew best, in spite of any logic and always in the absence of any supporting hard facts. Buttock-clenchingly embarrassing. You and he both.

There is a group of people better served by saying nothing. The more they say the more they let themselves down, no rhyme nor reason, no facts, no analytical ability, appearing like caricatures, flatulent buffoons if you will. You, old chap, are one of these hapless individuals and I, for one, say, please, please keep those gems coming.

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by bigmick

When I countered your suggestion that the Middle East was actually much better now, with what I had recently experienced in Jordan, you took this as licence to ridicule the people I met and worked with. Simply because these impressions didn't match your statement, you have dragged this thread into a racist slanging match.

Americans aren't all bloodthirsty, warmongering, self-serving imperialists, just as the French aren't devious, cheese-eating surrender monkeys, just as Jordanians aren't shallow, spineless, belligerent beggars. Such offensive slurs belong on Fox and the Tory press and this increasing castigation of entire nationalities is becoming a lamentable sight, especially on this thread. I shouldn't need to defend these people for speaking their mind and for you to use my Jordanian reference as anything other than what it was, a reference, is desperately sad for this thread.

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by Simon Perry

quote:
You remind me of my wife’s late uncle, generally accepted as an objectionable old fart with a faulty moral compass and a predilection for making ignorant, offensive and denigratory remarks about the people of countries where he’s served

Fantastic stuff.

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by Don Atkinson

On the first page of this thread, in response to my question re what should the world do about terrorists, Alexg posted a link to a web-site www.iraqbodycount.org.
The suggestion is that this is a reliable source of factual information, concerning the number of innocent civilians killed in Iraq by the coalition. It suggests the number is about 14,000.

When you read the "small print" you find that
it is based on press reports
it includes all casualties, including those murdered by terrorist
it includes 7,000 casualties that arose during the actual "war"

There is no immediate summary of those killed accidentally by the coalition, or those murdered by terrorists. It makes no attempt to differentiate morally between accidental loss of life and indefensible murder.

It fails to recognise the hundreds of thousands murdered by saddam prior to the conflict.

It is blatant anti-American propaganda.

I doubt whether many on this forum are persuaded by this type of propaganda. Those who are, will no doubt jump to its defence

Cheers

Don

Posted on: 13 October 2004 by Don Atkinson

Bigmick

How should the world respond to terrorists and Osama Bin Laden/Al quaida in particular?
By actually going after the bastards that carry out and support these sickening outrage.
Correct answer, if somewhat sentimental and lacking in detail.

By stopping the equally sickening justification of the massacre of innocent women and children in Iraq and Israel by insurgents/resistance and occupying forces alike. Of the numerous children murdered in Gaza this and last week, the teenage girl shot dead by Israeli soldiers as she walked to school, was especially sickening. Her body was riddled with 20 bullets, 5 in the head.Again, sentiment and lacking in detail as to how we stop the justification. Also unbalanced in not asking the Palestinians to stop terrorists etc.

The footage of the F16 pilot casually taking out a crowd of 30 people running down a street in FallujaWhere is the evidence that the pilot was acting "casually" etc. Falluja is noted for its terrorist bases. If this was a main street in Baghdad....I presume there is factual evidence that this was an unauthorised attack by a "maverick" pilot on innocent civilians. Or are you saying this was an authorised attack on innocent civilians?

that a squadron of cowboys dropping bombs on a group of unidentified people
Is this the same squadron as above? or a different squadron. Where is the evidence that they are cowboys, and that the group was genuinely unidentified.

Don, 13,000+ innocents blown to pieces! Doesn’t there come a time when you stop playing semantics and realise that every innocent life is equally valuableThere never WAS a time when I played semantics on a subject like this. I do value innocent lives equally.
There is a colossal difference between murder and the accidental loss of life. I realise now that you can't recognise this.
You can debate as long as you like whether the coalition have taken enough care to minimise accidental loss of life, but that almost pales into insignificance alongside the deliberate mass murder of innocent people in Iraq, before, during and after the conflict.

Cheers

Don