That was my comment on Guardian cif.
How long before it is moderated out?
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
No, I simply didn’t read the entire thread. Could happen to anyone.
You, on the other hand, completely misquoted a JFK speech (presumably picking up on the doctored version from a right-wing American website) and showed that you were ill-informed enough to think the speech was from 1963, and not 1961. You then attempted to cover up your ignorance by inventing a mythical speech from 1963 – still suggesting that just prior to his death JFK made a speech strikingly similar to a speech he made in 1961.
This is what we can expect from someone who runs a phony charity.
Infallible, never wrong and not at all gay larry,
its third columnists and shit rakers like you who were responsible for his demise, people who just can’t fathom loosing control of their puppets and who have not changed one iota.
go fetch larry
Angry wrote 8,104 words (with spaces) – Gee lar’ go back to kinder’
“Building what…?”
What if I were gay? Would you have a problem with that?
Mark Golding, how much money have you pocketed through the use of your war porn?
Have you registered as a charity in the UK?
“Angry wrote 8,104 words”
Yup. We ran afoul of one of its checklists, like a trawler snagging a wreck. Wow – JFK! Gotta couple a pages on that somewhere!
So disappointing. Surely we’re worth more than these minimum wage shills?
Pay attention, Vronsky – your conspiracy nut friend brought up JFK.
But the JFK topic did (once again) demonstrate how easily you people will believe completely false claims.
Like Mark Golding, I think you’re still going to believe that JFK made that speech about the New World Order just before he was killed. People like you don’t allow yourselves any form of education.
So, getting back to the subject of this thread, does anyone think Alistair’s Campbell is a good man, who acted on principle and who deserves a better hearing than he’s had? Does anyone think the same about Bush? Let’s hear their supporters’ arguments. That’s what discourse is about, no?
Let’s get away from JFK – as I advised some hours ago, for precisely the reason amply exemplified in recent posts.
Read Robert Fisk’s recent memoir on journalism, ‘The Age of the Warrior’. I’d recommend it.
http://www.johnpilger.com/
An timely tribute to the journalists who died while covering the Iraq invasion/occupation. THIS is REAL journalism. You know it when you see it.
And another activist academic:
michaeljamesbarker.wordpress.com/
And a brilliant journalist-editor:
http://www.razarumi.com/raza-rumi/
And another:
nadeemfparacha.wordpress.com/
I’ve omitted the usual prefix.
Suhayl,
Would have been nice for jihadists like you to drop your weapons, so such people would not have to die.
Or perhaps you think that such jihadists were subjects of Zionist mind control.
From a Scottish point of view, he is a Campbell, a member of an outcast tribe, the agents of the massacre in Glencoe. Plus ca change, apparently.
Have you read Nigel Tranter’s ‘Bridal Path’? Or (more probably) seen the movie? It concerns the adventures of a young man from the isles, extradited to the mainland to find a bride. There was a terrible fear of ‘consanguinity’ on the island, you see (marriage to a cousin, or closer).
Two constraints on his quest: no Catholics, and no Campbells. As the hero says when one lady introduces herself: Oh no – another bloody Campbell! (Extremely daring language for the time – 1959). Our Alastair might just be the bloodiest Campbell of all.
Nice quote from the movie:-
Police Sergeant Bruce: ‘This looks like the biggest job we’ve had in years, Alec. Better get the bicycles out.’
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052649/
And a nice gaelic soundtrack – brochan lom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBp2ke5Bye4&feature=related
Brilliant, Vronsky, I shall check it out! I haven’t read the book or (to my recall) ever seen the film – though it sounds like one of those (even then) old British monochrome films broadcast on Sunday afternoons during the 1970s.
Marr has just done a knocking job on JFK. Marr is famous of course for being up Bliar’s whatnot and to have interviewed him at the time of the release of Bliar’s book.
A Journey Unchallenged – Andrew Marr Interviews Tony Blair
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100917_a_journey_unchallenged.php
During the JFK progamme, when he wasn’t poncing about doing shots to camera and gazing into the far distance, Marr was heard to say “Kennedy knew how to use journalists to good effect”. No irony.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8145356/John-F-Kennedys-dirty-road-to-the-White-House.html
“I know you didn’t introduce the subject. I think Courtney did. But if we get onto JFK/ RFK, it’s likely that we’ll be here, on this thread, for a century! And the journalism critique will be forgotten.”
Suhayl, yes it is very likely that we’d never get off the topic of JFK if we go down that path particularly if wholesale fabrications from his life are introduced.
I would like to know why Mark thinks it does his cause any good to simply make stuff up. I can’t understand how he could be doing this in good faith.
The speech in question is one in which Kennedy rolls out the typical platitudes of how, yes, we all want to live in a free society with a free press and yes that’s definitely better than communism which is just plain evil BUT whether we WANT complete freedom and no secrecy, sometimes we’ll just HAVE TO keep quiet about issues that affect national security. I’m not asking you to self-censor but I am hinting very strongly that you really ought to because our enemies find out too much information about us and our government just by reading the newspapers so just shut up already!
Seriously, if you look at some of the rest of the speech or if Obama were to give the speech I find it hard to believe you would be in favour of it:
“But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.
Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.
If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.”
…
“For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.
The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.
The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.”
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm
As for Alistair Campbell on George Bush. Well, it’s just blatant trolling isn’t it?
On the other hand it helps to save time. You already know what will be in it before you read so there’s no need to bother.
At the bottom of the page is a link to Seumas Milne’s review of Fidel Castro. Again, we don’t need to bother reading it because we know what will be in that too.
Good god, Angry, when did we start c ‘n’ p-ing thousands of words from wikipedia? Couldn’t you just have given the link?
Anyone watch “JFK” last night on BBC2? The way Garrison (Kevin Costner) talked in court, about the immediate clearing away of evidence, the refusal to make info available to the public, the instant announcement of Oswald as the killer (before any investigation), all sorts of details were so similar to ‘that date which shall not be spoken’, it had me wide-eyed.
Oliver Stone made the film in 1991. (The events in the film take place 5 years after Kennedy’s death.)
Brian Cowen is teetering on his last legs. But you all know that. The Irish people are furious. I’m wondering when the simmering anger will overflow onto the streets. Talk of ‘ignomy’ and ‘shame’ in the papers – but all I hear on Twitter is ‘betrayal’.
“Anyone watch “JFK” last night on BBC2? The way Garrison (Kevin Costner) talked in court, about the immediate clearing away of evidence, the refusal to make info available to the public, the instant announcement of Oswald as the killer (before any investigation), all sorts of details were so similar to ‘that date which shall not be spoken’, it had me wide-eyed.
Oliver Stone made the film in 1991. (The events in the film take place 5 years after Kennedy’s death.)”
It’s a brilliantly made but terrible film. Garrison had no case at all and the film utterly falsified the historical record.
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
“Garrison had no case at all and the film utterly falsified the historical record”.
Luckily this was in large part rectified in the later inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives, which nevertheless concluded that Kennedy most likely died as a result of a ‘conspiracy’. Perhaps not surprisingly this inquiry tends to be totally ignored by those who cling on to the original official narrative.
And, if I read the text correctly at the end, the later inquiry recommended that another inquiry/investigation be done. But it never was.
But anyway, let’s get back to the subject.
As Suhayl asks, “does anyone think Alistair’s Campbell is a good man, who acted on principle and who deserves a better hearing than he’s had? Does anyone think the same about Bush? Let’s hear their supporters’ arguments. That’s what discourse is about, no?”
Well, I for one am not going to touch Alistair Campbell with a barge-pole. I barely know the guy and have no idea what goes on inside that noggin of his.
As for Bush, I have no idea how much he believed in principle either. Maybe if we were to read his book we might be able to judge whether or not he was sincere.
Do you want to play devil’s advocate?
Just to clear it up – this is the speech I transcribed (in good faith)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fOkx-k8a5c
Angry,
I don’t make stuff up – neither do I trash my host and neither do I assume anything before I have read it.
What I do believe and the whole point of my reference to segments of JFK and the ‘big picture’ surrounding his beliefs which you have failed to grasp, is, as quote, “the concept of a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy, where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right.”
Even today I read with disgust that an elected government can enact laws to throw common people out of social housing (Grant Shapps) or cripple young people by increasing tuition fees or commit our young servicemen to illegal wars or torture or deceive or murder children in their own homes – the list goes on.
“Luckily this was in large part rectified in the later inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives, which nevertheless concluded that Kennedy most likely died as a result of a ‘conspiracy’. Perhaps not surprisingly this inquiry tends to be totally ignored by those who cling on to the original official narrative.”
The HSCA is not “totally ignored” by those who “cling to” the “original official narrative” at all.
MJ, if you want to represent the findings of the HSCA at all accurately you’ll have to point out that they concluded that Oswald fired the fatal shots but that certain evidence had suggested there had been another shooter. The evidence has since been discredited and wasn’t agreed upon by the committee at the time. Therefore there wasn’t much particular need for a follow up investigation. That said, plenty of people have been conducting their own research and the most consistent results seem to be that the evidence that would have convicted Oswald is more conclusively proven to be genuine.
As an example, the backyard photos of Oswald holding a rifle and taken by Marina Oswald:
http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2010/02/shadows-dispelled.html
You have to be incredibly stupid to get your information on a subject from a fictional Hollywood movie.
For instance, did Clay Shaw and David Ferrie have a big gay orgy together (as depicted in the film)? No. They never met. So no gay orgy.
There’s that and a multitude of other bizarre wholesale lies in the movie.
Mark: “I don’t make stuff up – neither do I trash my host and neither do I assume anything before I have read it.”
So, you didn’t make this up then?
“The Kennedy speech segment I refer to is not of course the formal speech made at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City before the American Newspaper Publishers Association.”
“is NOT of course…” then what is it?
When and where did Kennedy make this speech that would be completely identical to segments of his formal speech that he gave at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York if it weren’t for:
a) Transcription errors (i.e “That is why the Athenian lawmakers soul”, your understanding, instead of “the Athenian lawmaker, Solon”, the correct transcription, something you seemed to have tripped yourself up on when you later Googled it – “His foundations were cemented by a deep admiration for the Athenian law-maker Solon and his concept of a unique and intriguing experiment in direct democracy, where the people do not elect representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and executive bills in their own right.” (Mark’s interpretation, which somehow suggests Kennedy was about to rip up the US constitution).
b) PC inclusions “I am asking your help to the tremendous task of informing and alerting the British people, confident that with your help, man [and woman]”
Puh-leeze! “man [and woman]!” was inserted by you!
c) Completely self-serving misreadings, “for we are opposed [in Britain, America and Israel] by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy”
Whether you want to believe this or not, Kennedy was ANTI-COMMUNIST and the conspiracy he was talking about was a communist one. His references to secret societies was merely pandering to vulgar prejudice against secret societies. The point he was making was that Communist countries’ decision making was completely opaque. That Communist countries had no need to explain to their citizens what they were doing because there was no democratic oversight and the media was far more thoroughly subservient to it than it could possibly be in the US.
I didn’t say I, “got my information on the subject from a fictional Hollywood movie”, troll — and you’re barred here, but you insist on walking in and making daft comments.
FWIW, my point was that Oliver Stone’s film was made in 1991 and seemed almost prescient with regard to another event.
Now bog off. You’re a waste of space.
As for A. Campbell, I was delighted to see so many comments in the Guardian telling him to bog off too. In his shoes I wouldn’t have the nerve to publish such a thing — which says a lot about him. Brass neck.
Here’s a link to Juan Cole’s post:
“Keith Olbermann interviews Jonathan Turley on London mayor Boris Johnson’s warning that if Bush comes to Europe to flog his ‘memoirs’, he might be arrested.” The video is entertaining.
http://tinyurl.com/35c2cl6
And I’d say: “Go for it, Boris! Go get the so-and-so! And while you’re at ti, why not send some Bobbies round to whichever residences in which Anthony Blair and Alistair Campbell are currently ensconced.”
Suhayl, a bit more to add to my previous post:
‘I’m sure Viktor Bout is being fixed up by the America as a favour to the UK government just as the UK government made a deal with Libya for the release of Megrahi to help the US and of course the Scottish judiciary.
Viktor Bout must know too much about who owned the cargo his planes carried.
In recent years, the involvement of what is believed to be an SIS agent in VAT and excise frauds has come to light. The courts have made perverse judgments which hide his role. This alleged agent was a senior logistician in the army.
I believe some of the monies from the frauds went abroad to purchase arms in such countries as Romania and then sent to Africa. It’s quite interesting that Hain called Bout the Merchant of Death in 2000 when a VAT fraud has links to Monrovia at exactly that time. Also in the trial concerning this fraud the companies involved in these transactions were cut from the proceedings.
But there are more links of Bout’s companies to the UK and Ireland, where much of the proceeds of VAT and excise frauds were sent at that time.’
I’ve found a further bit of information about Bout’s partner, Andrew Smulian, which if true adds another UK connection to the Bout case.
‘In the past he worked for Inter-Ocean Airways, an airline company seen as having links to the British secret services.
Bout’s cronies suspect Smulian of intelligence links,.. ‘
Sky News just tweeted
“The Home Office has lost its legal challenge to a coroner’s refusal to hold closed sessions of the 7/7 inquests to hear top-secret evidence.”