Iranian Nukes

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonofcolin:
Hardly the most neutral read, but whatever flicks your switch I guess.

---

- An interesting read. That's why I posted it. Still, a rose by any other name ...

"Iran state sponsored terrorism" (Google)

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
Iran doesn't tend to get its hands dirty with such attacks. However, it is known to be very active in its support of terrorist organizations which do.

---

We could say the same of the US and the UK although we would say we were supporting freedom fighters.

---

Could we really, Tom?

Do you truthfully believe that there's an equivalence between Iran and the US & UK, in terms of sponsorship of terrorism?

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
... Do you truthfully believe that there's an equivalence between Iran and the US & UK, in terms of sponsorship of terrorism?

quote:

---

Yes

---

---

I'd like to say a little more because it seems to me that many people, particularly those to the left of centre, are in serious denial about much of what actually goes on.

It also seems to me that our own media conspires to create an imbalance in our thinking.

This worries me greatly and I'd like to contrast these current examples to illustrate the point.

How many on this forum have seen the news item of the US soldier shooting an injured insurgent in Falluja? I'd guess, everyone.

How many on this forum have seen the reports of more than 20 torture and death houses discovered in Fallujah? Somewhat less?

How many people on this forum have seen the reports of the French shooting of unarmed civilians in the Ivory Coast? Anyone?

I haven't seen this mentioned on the BBC or in much of our media. Why not?

If you think we get told what's happening, watch this.

Why haven't we been shown this? What's the media agenda here?

I condemn any human rights violations by the Israelis and I condemn any violations carried out in Iraq, by our soldiers. I condemn the torture and murder by Iraqi insurgents in Falluja.

But I also condemn the agenda-driven reporting that we are fed by our own media under the banner of neutrality. And when our own thinking becomes so slanted that forum members honestly equate the actions of our governments with the actions or sponsorship of terrorists, I become very worried indeed.

And more than that, I really don't understand it.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
I may appear to be to the left of Mick Parry in your eyes ...

---

Now hang on just a minute. I wouldn't go that far.

We'll have to disagree on this one. Luckily, your musical appreciation is better than your political judgement.

Warmest regards
Steve M

quote:

---

Interesting use of the word 'thinks'

---

Depends how bored you are Steve.

“thinks” is just the present tense of “thought”, as used in Justin’s hypothesis

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
Would Isreal have a right to take military action against Iran if it thought that Iran was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon?

---

I could be wrong and frankly don’t care as this hypothesis is as pointless as the thrust of this thread, but I’m guessing that perhaps he used the word “thought” as opposed to “had firm, independently verified and incontrovertible evidence” because then the scenario and the resultant alternatives would be quite different. Just like the difference between the US/UK actually having such evidence of WMDs in Iraq and an imminent threat rather than just having the thought and concocting evidence to support the thought. FWIW I know as much as you or anyone else on Iran’s intention, which is precisely the square root of damn all, which is why I personally would advise against a pre-emptive act of war whilst there is an ongoing and apparently constructive dialogue with the Iranians.

quote:

---

Regarding evidence of Iranian threats against Israel, I quoted near the beginning of this thread statements

---

Your quotes earlier in the threat are exactly the kind of rhetoric directed for domestic consumption I referred to and are frankly as far away from specific actionable threats as you can get without falling off your chair laughing.

quote:

---

I don't agree with your statement of the long-term aims of Likud

---

You may not agree with my statement, that is your prerogative. One might dismiss the following link http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/LikudPlat1977.html due to it’s age but IMO Dov Weisglass rather let the cat out of the bag about the overall game plan.

When was it in Arafat’s gift to sell a viable Palestinian state?

So you’re saying that eretz Israel simply refers to the land of Israel as existed pre-1967 and not the historical land of Israel? If so, I must have misunderstood.

Again, none of these particularly matter in this regard as my point still remains that continually offering the notion of the Jews of Israel being pushed into the sea or other jingoistic rants as a basis for any pre-emptive strike is patently ludicrous.

quote:

---

I assume that 'wherever' includes India, UK, France, Russia and the US. Shutting the lot down would certainly eliminate the risk of nuclear war. Would you like to tell them or shall I?

---

You asked me this question a few months back when you last tried to get this idea off the ground and so I repeat, we should send inspection teams into all countries suspected of having nuclear comparability, beginning with the most twitchy nations and finishing up with the least twitchy. And to answer your next question…..again, North Korea, India and Pakistan and anyone in the Middle East I would regard as twitchy. Russia, China and US less so. Britain and France the least twitchy. Since Iran’s nuclear weapon is only, in your words, “possible”, and no evidence exists to support its existence, how on earth you feel qualified to speculate on time scales tests credibility. Unless you know something that the IAEA doesn’t, this kind of talk would appear to come from the same discredited school of creative writing that sold us Saddam’s 45 minute preparedness.

quote:

---

Here, I strongly disagree. Just because 'Israel is perceived to be a major threat to world peace' does not make it so.

---

Again it is your right to disagree with my contention, though as you concede, my opinion chimes pretty much with the global perception; a perception held IME by people are very familiar with the conflict and the actions of the parties to the conflict. I believe that Israel has shown limited restraint most recently in it’s violence against the Palestinians and it’s record at the UN and in matters of human rights is lamentable. Any restraint that has been shown has only been at the demand of a US which has enough sense to recognize when Israel’s actions are doing more harm than good to itself and the wider Middle East. The other question is how the hell can we trust a nation who has lied consistently to it’s sponsor and protector and continues to lie to the rest of the world about it’s nuclear development and capabilities. Where do these liars get the right to decide who else has civil or military nuclear capability? This is like defending the right of paramilitaries to dish out summary justice to whoever they think may or may not be petty criminals and it brings me right back to the nub of this all, which is that we need to be even-handed. Iran and many other states may or may not have offensive nuclear capability, for all the fevered speculation and blood thirst, none of us really know and there has been precious little evidence around to support this claim. There is considerably more proof that Israel has clandestinely developed this capability. I’m not saying that we launch pre-emptive strikes on Israel, but I am saying that as a first step, any country, suspected of having or developing a clandestine weapons capability, needs to be subject to the same inspections and the same restrictive measures, no exceptions. IMO whoever disagrees with an even-handed approach can’t seriously be hoping for anything more than a US and Israel seeking a joint hegemony in an increasingly bitter Middle East surrounded by Arab states cowering at the end of a nuclear stick.

If you honestly think that French foreign policy is more hypocritical and self serving than the US then you really do need to further acquaint yourself with political history. You really have little regard for European diplomacy specifically? So you’ve been impressed with non-European diplomacy? I’ve a very average grasp on the history of international diplomacy and would be keen to hear your expanded take on the performance of European diplomacy versus non-European diplomacy. Let’s take the time frame from 1900 to today.

As I’ve said before the UN, much like every nation state, has had its share of failed policies and action, The undermining of the UN has been largely due to US abuse which has created the perception of the UN being the servant of the US. The US has used it’s economic power to cajole smaller countries to support it’s aims, happily used UN resolutions as justification for punishing states that it does not support or ignoring breaches by friendly states, vetoed otherwise unanimous security resolutions for purely political reasons, and of course when it has failed to bully or buy off support, it has defied the rules and acted unilaterally. The alternative is that whenever the next superpower comes along, China as you’ve said, or a reinvigorated Russia, we can dance to their tune. If that's the choice, I'll take a body of the world's nations talking matters over before acting any day. And I disagree with you, I find your remarks as offensive as any anti-Semitic, racial or ethnic prejudice.

quote:

---

bigmick, how did I miss this?

---

I neither know nor care. Maybe you were so preoccupied with banging on about bombing Iran that you didn’t actually read it properly.

What I said was:

quote:

---

You can’t honestly see what’s happened in recent conflicts and think that issues like these are going to be solved by keying in coordinates for missiles. You’re just going to create more people who are willing to strap on explosives and get themselves on buses, trains, planes and all our weaponry and so-called power will count for nothing.

---

If one continues to escalate the actions in the first sentence, the cause; then one is going to get the results in the second sentence, the effect. One is the present and the other is the future. Plucking examples from history is irrelevant and fails to prove any point.

If we’re faced with the reality that there are a number of suicide bombers planning to target our countries, then I think, yeah, that’s a shit way to live. I see scared and unhappy people in Israel and Iraq, horrific scenes in the aftermath of a bomb and I think what a crap thing to have to live with. Do I think that Blair or Bush would be routinely be facing the same threat level, the same exposure as the workers in The City, tube users or rail passengers? No, of course I bloody don’t, it’s patently ludicrous. If you do, then I think that you might just be in a minority of one this time.

Steve, this continual harking back to a huge media conspiracy, or rather one which doesn’t paint the picture that you’d like to see, is not only tiresome but patronising. I, surely like many others here, read widely, newspapers and journals of all political and national hues and I don’t rely solely on the British or even the European broadcast or print media for my information. So you’ll excuse me if I resent reject the notion that I’m living on a diet of propaganda fed to me by the majority of the world’s media which doesn’t square with your politics.

Apart from what happens in former colonies, I imagine a fraction of what happens in Africa makes it as far our media. If what’s happening in the Ivory Coast was happening in Zimbabwe the UK media would be over it like a rash and the French media would be using it as filler. It’s what happens in the media the world over where editors run what they sense will interest their audience rather than censoring a hot story. What happens in Falluja or anywhere in Iraq by the US or UK forces is a runner because unfortunately it’s being done in our name and thus matters a great deal to a UK audience.

FWIW, the media conspiracy suppressed this story by running it on Sky news, the BBC, and I also saw it in, I think the Indy, Guardian or Times and einnews. It’s certainly sounds gruesome but unsurprisingly the incident is less clear cut and more complex than your tag line suggests; I concur though that if troops simply shot unarmed demonstrators then they should of course be condemned. They probably also suppressed the story about the French peace-keepers who were killed, the alleged Israeli involvement in the attack that killed them or the fact that sseveral dozen white women have been raped in the Ivory Coast over the past week by pro-government gangs whilst they ransacked the homes and businesses of Europeans in Abidjan. Who would be pulling the strings in the UK media to ensure that the story doesn’t run and what would be their motivation? These stories all play to different sentiments and yet all were freely aired. That’s one hell of a conspiracy. Of course others probably stumbled across the Ivory Coast story on freerepublic or fuckfrance.com, where predictably intelligent comment is losing out to much jubilation and more hypocritical double standards that you can shake a stick at.

If you aren’t aware of the extent of the US sponsorship of state and private terrorism, the governments that have fallen, the deaths that have resulted then you are either dangerously naïve or deliberately deluding yourself.

Tom your political judgement is pretty much spot on so your musical appreciation must be top notch.

Bigmick,

Clearly we have very different views on these issues and in discussing them we just end up going around in circles.

I'm sure you'll find it less 'tiring and patronising' and far more enjoyable if you restrict yourself to discussing these issues with people whose views tally with your own.

As I also have some work I must do, I'm happy to leave you to do that. Enjoy.

Regards
Steve M

The reason the discussion goes round in circles Steve, is that the thrust of the thread that you started, just like the last one, is clearly based on a flimsy premise which thus far is unsupported by evidence and seems to be driven almost entirely by prejudice. Where did you think this pointless thread would go if not in a circle? What did you expect from this thread or the last one? Were you just baiting or somehow hoping that people would somehow forgive the lack of reasoning and sign up on faith. This isn’t some dumbass neocon site and as the majority of posters were smart enough not to swallow the Iraq plan I think that they are just as unlikely to back this crazy idea. If some good evidence turns up then we've got something to discuss and that might break the circle, but if no solid evidence is being offered, and it has been bloody noticeable by it’s absence, then all you’re proposing is that any country that can, is free to attack any other country for whatever reason. It’s unsustainable and reckless and I sincerely doubt that a hundred such threads are going to win over many sensible forum members.

Just to clarify Steve, I spend most days successfully discussing issues with people who views do not tally with mine. Most discussions rely on sound reasoning and hard facts Steve; often a learning experience, challenging and enjoyable and anything but “tiresome and patronising”. What I did describe as “tiresome and patronising”, was having you shirk a debate that you initiated, preferring to attempt to undermine your fellow members by claiming that their facts and political motivations were wrong since they were fed by a global media conspiracy which doesn’t back your cause. Sorry, I don’t generally find notions of global or national media conspiracies very convincing.

All I said was that if anyone is going to take action, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t happen, then we should get the facts from every country suspected of hiding WMD and take measures against them irrespective of who they are or who their friends are. It only becomes circular when people start presenting emotional arguments as to why their favoured countries should get an opt-out.

Good luck with your work.

The editors and reporters in the business of reporting news are as susceptible to ambition, greed and self-interest as are those governments and officials they choose to report upon.

This is just my opinion, of course, but there seems to be some underlying assumption on the part of many people I know that there is some kind of purity of heart and noble intention of the press to report the facts. If news reporting is a business then it has one aim at it's fundament and that is to make the owners of that business wealthier and wealthier with each passing day.

IMO the only way to inform opinions and decisions about the greater world around us is to gather information from as large a selection of the news media's offerings as we can. Bigmick has alluded to this approach in one of his posts on this thread and he comes across to me as having a very balanced, informed and appropriately sceptical position.

Deane

Bigmick,


I really had hoped that we wouldn't engage further in this debate but when the level of misrepresentation, condescension and arrogance exceeds a critical mass - and then I'm accused of 'shirking a debate that I initiated' - I feel obliged to respond.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
The reason the discussion goes round in circles Steve, is that the thrust of the thread that you started, just like the last one, is clearly based on a flimsy premise which thus far is unsupported by evidence and seems to be driven almost entirely by prejudice. Where did you think this pointless thread would go if not in a circle? What did you expect from this thread or the last one?

---

Actually, I started this thread by posting a link to an Associated Press news item about Iranian ex-pats protesting about Iran's planned development of a nuclear weapon.

Since you've forgotten, here it is again.

I had found the item interesting and, in view of the original thread on the subject, I wanted to share it with the forum, as I thought it would provoke some interesting debate and that was my expectation in starting the thread. My lack of confidence in my ability to navigate the Naim Forum search system led me to start a new thread rather than continue the old one. For this I apologize.

As the news item was a strong one, and as far as I know, was not widely seen in the UK, it did provoke some interesting debate. As for your 'the thrust of the thread that you started, just like the last one, is based on a flimsy premise which thus far unsupported by evidence and seems to be driven entirely by prejudice.' What nonsense. This thread was started with some video footage, what premise is that, exactly?

quote:

---

Were you just baiting or somehow hoping that people would somehow forgive the lack of reasoning and sign up on faith. This isn’t some dumbass neocon site and as the majority of posters were smart enough not to swallow the Iraq plan I think that they are just as unlikely to back this crazy idea. If some good evidence turns up then we've got something to discuss and that might break the circle, but if no solid evidence is being offered, and it has been bloody noticeable by it’s absence, then all you’re proposing is that any country that can, is free to attack any other country for whatever reason. It’s unsustainable and reckless and I sincerely doubt that a hundred such threads are going to win over many sensible forum members.

---

I have never considered this 'some dumbass neocon site' and as for hoping that people would 'sign up on faith', sign up for what? For a debate? To watch a brief video clip?

As a matter of fact, if I had to label you, bigmick, on the evidence I've seen so far, it would not be as a neocon but as a 'Lefto-fascist bully'. It takes a bully to make an absurd accusation such as 'If some good evidence turns up then we've got something to discuss and that might break the circle, but if no solid evidence is being offered, and it has been bloody noticeable by it’s absence, then all you’re proposing is that any country that can, is free to attack any other country for whatever reason' and then to spice it up by the use of 'we' as if to imply that you carry the weight of all forum members with you. It also takes a bully to make such statements in such a manner, after he assumes that the other party has already left the debate. It should be quite clear to anyone reading this thread that I proposed no such thing. Nor do I accept that all forum members agree with you, although I will freely admit that there are a number of members here whose political views are closer to yours than to mine.

However, remind me again. When you say 'as the majority of posters were smart enough not to swallow the Iraq plan I think that they are just as unlikely to back this crazy idea', what 'crazy idea' are you referring to and where did I propose it?

I believe that one of your contentions is that Iran is not definitely trying to develop a nuclear bomb. If you had watched the video, you would have heard the crowds chant "EU - Shame on you" in response to the negotiations between Iran and the EU, which have resulted in Iran's suspension of uranium enrichment with the consequent production of uranium hexaflouride, from Monday. For your information, there is only one known purpose in the enrichment of uranium or the production of uranium hexaflouride and I'm sure you know what that is. You will also know that, up until Monday, Iran has almost certainly produced significant quantities of the stuff.

quote:

---

All I said was that if anyone is going to take action, and I see no reason why we shouldn’t happen, then we should get the facts from every country suspected of hiding WMD and take measures against them irrespective of who they are or who their friends are. It only becomes circular when people start presenting emotional arguments as to why their favoured countries should get an opt-out.

---

Another extraordinary misrepresentation.

I assume that you mean Israel when you refer to my 'favoured country'. If so, perhaps, having made this accusation you will have the courtesey to review this thread and point out exactly where I said that Israel should have an op-out if measures are taken against nuclear weapon owning countries. On the contrary, you will see that I said exactly the opposite.

Bigmick, if you're going to take issue with my posts and tell me that my threads are 'pointless', is it too much to ask that you at least read them beforehand?

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deane F:
IMO the only way to inform opinions and decisions about the greater world around us is to gather information from as large a selection of the news media's offerings as we can. Bigmick has alluded to this approach in one of his posts on this thread and he comes across to me as having a very balanced, informed and appropriately sceptical position.

---

In this regard I am entirely in accord with Bigmick and yourself. I too gather my media offerings from a wide selection of media, across almost the entire political spectrum, and from right across the globe.

No one would assume that a person wouldn't be so informed simply because his political viewpoint differed from their own, would they?

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:

As a matter of fact, if I had to label you, bigmick, on the evidence I've seen so far, it would not be as a neocon but as a 'Lefto-fascist bully'. It takes a bully to make an absurd accusation . . .

---

You're just realizing this now? I said it months ago, and a few months before that. Having treated others as shabbily as you are witnessing here, some have called him (and his lap-dog) on it. We even saw glimpses of recognition and contrition a few months ago - but it seems to have worn.

It isn't as if he hasn't anything valuable to say (and quite frankly, there's no denying he has a way with diction and the turning of phrase), but rather that he's just a fcuking prick about it.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
[..](and his lap-dog)[..]

---

Lapdog?

Who he?



JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
Judd

Just when I was coming to respect you, you let it go by resorting to personal attack (and badly spelt). For shame.

Tom
http://www.activesbl.plus.com/RecordIndex.htm

---

I'm, sorry to hear that, but it had to be said. BigMick's treatment of others has been (and going by this thread continues to be) deplorable in every respect.

Unlike the insults launched by BigMick himself, mine are aimed at his behavior and style rather than the content of his arguments or the basis of his position. How often has he impuned the intelligence of others because he doesn't agree with their stance?

BTW (not that this is relevent), I can't find any misspelled words in my previous post other than "fcuking". Much like "$hit", it was intentional.

Judd

Justin

I don't wish to impune the validity of your findings on bigmick, or even your spelling of "impugn" . I only wish to say that I have been following this thread and haven't found much to be concerned about in bigmick's style.

There has been a little sarcasm posted by him and others but I'm starting to think that sarcasm is to some degree unavoidable on this forum (and in particular the Padded Cell) because, after all, a lot of people mix here who would never go near each other in any other circumstance, let alone discuss highly controversial issues. And it is very difficult to avoid misreading intent sometimes when the normal cues of human interaction are not present such as facial expression, tone of voice etc.

I hope I have not condescended to you Justin but if I have then it is my failing and I apologise.

Deane

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
[..](and his lap-dog)[..]

---

Lapdog?

Who he?




JR

---

Lapdog ? Lapdogs, shurley ? There's hundreds of us.


Woof

Earlier this year I had to run the gauntlet of an animal rights protest, SHAC and friends, where I had a group of people screaming “Murdering capitalist bastard” at me. Genuinely funny to now have someone who also doesn’t know me call me a “lefto-fascist bully”. I’m not sure why you “had” to label anyone, but without wasting too much time deconstructing the abuse; lefto?? And what fascistic characteristics can I possibly have been exhibiting as an equal member of a forum when all power resides wholly with the moderators?

I’m sorry if you believe I misrepresented you, I have never intended to do so and still fail to see where this has happened. Your examples are considerably less than compelling, but why didn’t you simply have the courage to say where and how you thought I had misrepresented you and then wait for my apology or explanation?

Neither have I knowingly condescended or behaved arrogantly towards you, though if you have have the sense that I have, then I’m sorry.

I also fail to see where I have bullied you and perhaps you are misconstruing unexpected robust argument as bullying. I do think it’s poignant that the very people who are supporting the threatening bullying tactics of the US and Israel in the Middle East finally lose patience at being asked to convincingly argue their case and accuse me of bullying. If in fatc you do sense that you are being bullied, think about that aggression and abuse that you’re subsequently exhibiting and think how the Iranians, Palestinians and Iraqis feel whenever they are threatened or attacked. Maybe you now understand why we see backlashes and inflammatory language?

quote:

---

to spice it up by the use of 'we' as if to imply that you carry the weight of all forum members with you.

---

This is very weak. The dialogue has been largely between you and I. The “we” referred to you and I. Given that, the rest of your paragraph could be construed as “misrepresentation” as you would have it. Not my definition, yours. The thread isn’t exactly on fire or attracting many contributions. Even if you hadn’t misunderstood, the “we” would simply be referring to the forum members having at last something tangible, as opposed to nebulous, to discuss.

quote:

---

Since you’ve forgotten, here it is again

---

Tiring sarcasm noted; I hadn’t forgotten the link. Like your previous examples of incidents that are hushed up by our media, the Iranian expats demo was widely reported on all broadcast networks and reported in numerous papers and accorded the prominence it merited; I have no reason to believe that anyone who would be remotely interested in such matters would have registered it. I would also imagine that any most sensible reaction would be best summed up by the relevant points in Jim Levitt’s impressive post. I think the days of blindly rushing to get mileage and reliable information out of disaffected exiles have long since passed. I can’t be sure but I don’t think that the demonstration was discussed by anyone after Jim’s post. That’s how important it was.

I simply refuse to believe that you do not understand what I said when I referred to the “sign up” or your “crazy idea”?

Steve, you referred to Iran’s nuclear capability as “possible”. Israel’s is probable. Other countries in the Middle East and beyond may also be “possible”. Let’s chase them all. Also, I know as little as you do about the steps needed to develop a nuclear warhead and delivery system, but let’s get the facts straight. Uranium hexafluoride gas is the material that, in the next stage, is fed into centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Uranium enriched to a low level is used to produce nuclear fuel to generate electricity and enriched further can be used to manufacture atomic bombs. So depending on the degree of enrichment, the uranium can be used for civil or military use. As I said before, if there was conclusive evidence don’t you think that the US would be ramming it down our throats and Bush would be sitting in the Oval Office smirking to camera, announcing strikes? See my earlier comments on the credibility of Iranian opposition groups.

Steve, I say again, I am not flying a flag for Iran or any other country that has a clandestine nuclear program. I simply believe that all suspects should be dealt with equitably and preferably without resorting to military strikes.

The “extraordinary misrepresentation” didn’t even mention or refer to you specifically and was a more general commentary. When I said that “we should get facts…….and take measures” I assure you that I suggesting action at a higher level than you or I, or indeed the membership of the forum. When I said “when people start presenting emotional arguments” I also assure you that I was talking about the wider community and the powers that be in Washington and Jerusalem who still believe that Israel’s right to extensive nuclear weaponry is sacrosanct.

When something tangible happens, I’ll be happy to debate this further.

quote:

---

No one would assume that a person wouldn't be so informed simply because his political viewpoint differed from their own, would they?

---

So why are you so consumed with the apparent notion that people who disagree with you are being fed duff information by a conspiracy of national media pursuing an agenda which I guess you’re implying is anti-US, anti-Israel and pro-French?

Lapdogs?

Well, this offensive term seems to have been bandied about quite a bit lately on the forum, usually presented from a position of weakness. I’m guessing it’s going to apply to anyone who either expressly agrees with my sentiments or maybe simply doesn’t agree with those arguing against me. I’m guessing by now Deane F will be in the lapdog crosshairs for his words, and Jon, unless you’re about to condemn me as the spawn of Satan, then best say nothing.

On a final note, it’s reassuring to see how hypocritical and faux the indignation really was at the start of the month.

bigmick,

Worry ye not!

Methinks it was just yet another example of our mutual friend Justin flinging a wild accusation around and failing to substantiate it.



JR

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
... So why are you so consumed with the apparent notion that people who disagree with you are being fed duff information by a conspiracy of national media pursuing an agenda which I guess you’re implying is anti-US, anti-Israel and pro-French?

---

My concern here is with the degree to which we are suggestible and thus influenced by the mainstream media and how this impacts on our perception of the 'truth'. I don't exclude myself from the loop of suggestibility, nor do I believe that the media just influences those who disagree with my views.

There are two issues that I would like to raise but before I do, I would like to say that I don't think the term 'conspiracy' is particularly appropriate when talking about most of the media in this regard. I suspect that the bias or 'agenda' is so deeply ingrained that the organizations are probably not even aware that they are expressing it. When an agenda becomes institutionalized it is often not recognized for what it is.



The first issue is that whatever bias there is has been drip fed to us over decades, far beyond the time that most of us have had access to the extraordinary array of information now available to us over the Internet.

The second issue is one of authority. Owing to our upbringing and the ever-presence (for most of us) of 'Auntie' BBC, there is no question that we, consciously or sub-consciously, endow the BBC with a considerable amount of authority compared to, for example, ABC News, The Melbourne Age or the Jordan Times - let alone the many varied and often informative Internet Blogs. As I will explain briefly below, authority translates to suggestibility.



I have made quite a study of the field of 'suggestion' and have been impressed with the reasearch of Professor Georgi Lozanov of the University of Sofia, Bulgaria and his Institute of Suggestopedia. Lozanov is the author of 'Suggestology and the Outlines of Suggestopedia', although I suspect that I am one of only a handful of people in this country who have this book. He is better known for his application of his methodology to the learning of language in what has come to be known in the West as 'Superlearning'. The books written on 'Superlearning' have been much better sellers, although they have greatly over-simplified the man's work.

To cut to the quick, Lozanov states that the perception of authority is the most crucial single factor for suggestion to be effective. He means here authorititive, not authoritarian. So the more authorititive the news media is perceived as being, the more its powers of suggestion and influence. Hence my specific concern about mainstream media and, in particular, the BBC.

While on the general subject of influence, suggestion and authority, it might be interesting for you to know that Professor Lozanov's research led him to conclude that the two single most important attributes for the perception of authority are rhythm and intonation in the voice. This partly explains the important of these attributes in political oratory, over the course of human history. It is also one reason why John Major in particular was considered such a duff prime minister and perhaps even goes some way to explaining the influence of a certain electronics company on those hereabout.

Sorry for having gone off at what might appear to some as a bit of a tangent but I'm trying to give a truthful answer to the question about why I'm so 'consumed with the notion' of media bias and why I give such a high priority to the influence of propoganda on our daily lives.

Steve M

quote:

---

Originally posted by JonR:
bigmick,

Worry ye not!

Methinks it was just yet another example of our mutual friend Justin flinging a wild accusation around and failing to substantiate it.



JR

---

I was not the one to make the initial accusation (though I obviously shared the sentiment). It was made by another poster on another thread, in response to which the alleged lap-dog protested.

As it is a matter of opinion and analysis it really isn't subject to substantiation one way or the other.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigmick:
Lapdogs?
I’m guessing it’s going to apply to anyone who either expressly agrees with my sentiments or maybe simply doesn’t agree with those arguing against me.

---

Yes, BigMick, the bar has been set that low.

Judd