Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
It was only a matter of time before the media claimed that ISIS had claimed it. By claiming ISIS claimed it they shift the attention away from domestic problems and lay the blame squarely on some far off terrorist super power nominally associated (by the selfsame media) to a religion it actually has nothing in common with. If you think ISIS really claimed it, I'm pretty sure you'd have believe the WOMDs were really there as well...
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10444
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
So there is actually no logical way to post images on this forum. Videos and Soundclouds, simple. But not images. What's with that??
Last edited by rowan on Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Which Tyler
- Posts: 9009
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
They really don'tSandydragon wrote:ISIS have claimed credit for themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... uck-attack
AKA: "no idea who this person is, but we welcome his actions"In a statement on Saturday, the news agency Amaq, which supports Isis, said: “The person who carried out the operation in Nice, France, to run down people was one of the soldiers of Islamic State. He carried out the operation in response to calls to target nationals of states that are part of the coalition fighting Islamic State.”
As far as I can tell the only thing so far linking Lahouaiej-Bouhlel to Daesh is the reflex quote from Hollande before anything at all was known, and that rather lukewarm statement by Amaq Agency.
I'm sure though, that if they look hard enough, use the right language, and turn things to their own ends (planting evidence? never!) they'll be able to find a link. After all, with the right language you could say that several people here (myself included) "regularly discuss the motivations and tactics used by terrorists".
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was almost certainly someone with mental health issues and a history of externalising his problems, who decided that his life had hit rock bottom and he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. He just happens to have been born muslim. He may or may not have been broadly sympathetic to the cause, but I very much doubt that that played any part in his motivation (beyond a Pascal's wager type thing - hellfire and damnation or 72 virgins?).
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10444
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Its taken them a while to respond, hence my point about jumping on the bandwagon I make below. Its not hard to see some inspiration from ISIS, yet clearly the French police think there is something wider that needs investigation. That may not uncover any wider conspiracy, but it seems a bit soon for definitive statements yet.Which Tyler wrote:They really don'tSandydragon wrote:ISIS have claimed credit for themselves.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/ ... uck-attackAKA: "no idea who this person is, but we welcome his actions"In a statement on Saturday, the news agency Amaq, which supports Isis, said: “The person who carried out the operation in Nice, France, to run down people was one of the soldiers of Islamic State. He carried out the operation in response to calls to target nationals of states that are part of the coalition fighting Islamic State.”
As far as I can tell the only thing so far linking Lahouaiej-Bouhlel to Daesh is the reflex quote from Hollande before anything at all was known, and that rather lukewarm statement by Amaq Agency.
I'm sure though, that if they look hard enough, use the right language, and turn things to their own ends (planting evidence? never!) they'll be able to find a link. After all, with the right language you could say that several people here (myself included) "regularly discuss the motivations and tactics used by terrorists".
Lahouaiej-Bouhlel was almost certainly someone with mental health issues and a history of externalising his problems, who decided that his life had hit rock bottom and he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory. He just happens to have been born muslim. He may or may not have been broadly sympathetic to the cause, but I very much doubt that that played any part in his motivation.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Sandy actually just confirmed my earlier comment. He undoubtedly believed the WOMDs stories as well...rowan wrote:It was only a matter of time before the media claimed that ISIS had claimed it. By claiming ISIS claimed it they shift the attention away from domestic problems and lay the blame squarely on some far off terrorist super power nominally associated (by the selfsame media) to a religion it actually has nothing in common with. If you think ISIS really claimed it, I'm pretty sure you'd have believe the WOMDs were really there as well...
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10444
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
My initial comment:rowan wrote:Sandy actually just confirmed my earlier comment. He undoubtedly believed the WOMDs stories as well...rowan wrote:It was only a matter of time before the media claimed that ISIS had claimed it. By claiming ISIS claimed it they shift the attention away from domestic problems and lay the blame squarely on some far off terrorist super power nominally associated (by the selfsame media) to a religion it actually has nothing in common with. If you think ISIS really claimed it, I'm pretty sure you'd have believe the WOMDs were really there as well...
ISIS are happy to be associated with this, one of their affiliates pushed the news story. So its not just western leaders blaming them. But it looks like you want to play the poster rather than the post.I notice ISIS have claimed some responsibility, although that could be just jumping on the bandwagon. Although the fact they do publish attack ideas using weapons like lorries gives rise to the possibility that they inspired the attack, if they didn't actually coordinate it
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Sure, Sandy, and those WOMDs really were there, right? 
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-cr ... up/5402881
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation.”
During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.
Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.
America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.
The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.
There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.
America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.
ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.
The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.
America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.
By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.
The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.
In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had employees or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.
In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense report stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-cr ... up/5402881
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10444
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Thats nice. Do I need to explain what the phrase 'jumping on the bandwagon' means?
ISIS are certainly happy tone associated with the attacks and have attempted to inspire such attacks, even if they didn't plan or actively support this one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 38261.html
ISIS are certainly happy tone associated with the attacks and have attempted to inspire such attacks, even if they didn't plan or actively support this one.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 38261.html
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Sure, quote the British corporate news, and two newspapers owned by the same company. That's very convincing. Didn't they support the WOMD's claims too?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Who are the real cranks, I wonder? Those with "conspiracy theories" about the West, or those with "conspiracy theories" about ISIS?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10444
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
There are about thirty different news outlets stating the same thing. An affiliate of Isis is claiming the attack was carried out by one of their soldiers.rowan wrote:Sure, quote the British corporate news, and two newspapers owned by the same company. That's very convincing. Didn't they support the WOMD's claims too?
They may be jumping in the bandwagon, but it seems they are perfectly happy to be associated with this type of atrocity. Equally, they have been pushing propaganda on how like minded people can use vehicle sin such a way.
The WMD argument is a bit of a straw man.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
& how many news outlets carried Washington's claims of WOMDs in Iraq? How many carried the Nayirah testimony? How many reported Gaddafi was planning a genocide of his own people? That's the corporate media you're talking about. They are totally subservient to the state. Less than 10% of the US mainstream media opposed Bush & Blair's invasion of Iraq.
What the Nice attack showed us is that tourists are sitting ducks. If ISIS were some omnipotent terrorists super power capable of striking anywhere in the world at any moment, it would have decimated the tourist industry of every single country in the west by now, exploded bombs on every beach, blown up every bus and set fire to every hotel.
It would be easy as pie. And if this allegedyly highly-organized terrorist network had been planning a strike on France, it could have as easily wiped out a bunch of fans during the Euros wrecked the tournament, and done a great deal more damage to the West's sense of security that way. Instead we get what - A psychopath in a truck speeding along a crowded promenade?
What the Nice attack showed us is that tourists are sitting ducks. If ISIS were some omnipotent terrorists super power capable of striking anywhere in the world at any moment, it would have decimated the tourist industry of every single country in the west by now, exploded bombs on every beach, blown up every bus and set fire to every hotel.
It would be easy as pie. And if this allegedyly highly-organized terrorist network had been planning a strike on France, it could have as easily wiped out a bunch of fans during the Euros wrecked the tournament, and done a great deal more damage to the West's sense of security that way. Instead we get what - A psychopath in a truck speeding along a crowded promenade?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
cashead
- Posts: 3987
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:34 am
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
And I guess no kids were shot at Sandy Hook too, right? #askquestions
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Was that ISIS too? Sure there must've been a link somewhere...cashead wrote:And I guess no kids were shot at Sandy Hook too, right? #askquestions
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
cashead
- Posts: 3987
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 4:34 am
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Sandy says "ISIS are saying 'that totally was us, guys. Honest!' which is a bit sus since it took them a while to actually claim responsibility. It is what it is, but I'm calling bullshit on it." and then you're turning around and arguing about something he literally never said, complete with truther-level tinfoil hat shit.rowan wrote:Was that ISIS too? Sure there must've been a link somewhere...cashead wrote:And I guess no kids were shot at Sandy Hook too, right? #askquestions
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
-
morepork
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Fair point. There are unfortunately many conflicts and movements around the world that are heaped into the same pile by the meeja. Are more nuanced discussion of a compartmentalised nature would be constructive but the meeja reacts to social media like a fly does to a shit.In fact, social meeja is a major tool with which to ferment support or opposition, and it's high time the distinction between fact and conjecture was formalised. The next generation of legal academics are hopefully aware of this. It has probably gone too far to be regulated without pissing someone off, but it is a massive problem. The media rely upon, and get far too much leverage from "trending" social media "data". It's probably high time this aspect of information technology had some responsibility imposed on it. It's a total fucking mess.cashead wrote:You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Sandy says "ISIS are saying 'that totally was us, guys. Honest!' which is a bit sus since it took them a while to actually claim responsibility. It is what it is, but I'm calling bullshit on it." and then you're turning around and arguing about something he literally never said, complete with truther-level tinfoil hat shit.rowan wrote:Was that ISIS too? Sure there must've been a link somewhere...cashead wrote:And I guess no kids were shot at Sandy Hook too, right? #askquestions
-
canta_brian
- Posts: 1262
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:52 pm
Re: RE: Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Well put.morepork wrote:Fair point. There are unfortunately many conflicts and movements around the world that are heaped into the same pile by the meeja. Are more nuanced discussion of a compartmentalised nature would be constructive but the meeja reacts to social media like a fly does to a shit.In fact, social meeja is a major tool with which to ferment support or opposition, and it's high time the distinction between fact and conjecture was formalised. The next generation of legal academics are hopefully aware of this. It has probably gone too far to be regulated without pissing someone off, but it is a massive problem. The media rely upon, and get far too much leverage from "trending" social media "data". It's probably high time this aspect of information technology had some responsibility imposed on it. It's a total fucking mess.cashead wrote:You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Sandy says "ISIS are saying 'that totally was us, guys. Honest!' which is a bit sus since it took them a while to actually claim responsibility. It is what it is, but I'm calling bullshit on it." and then you're turning around and arguing about something he literally never said, complete with truther-level tinfoil hat shit.rowan wrote:
Was that ISIS too? Sure there must've been a link somewhere...
-
Vengeful Glutton
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:36 pm
- Location: Circle No.3
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
It's on Bilderberg's "to do" list. Accessing d'internet in the not too distant future will probably require ID (c/w photo and personal & bank account details). What's next? Imposing financial penalties for inciting hate speech, calling someone a "cvnt" etc. etc.?morepork wrote:Fair point. There are unfortunately many conflicts and movements around the world that are heaped into the same pile by the meeja. Are more nuanced discussion of a compartmentalised nature would be constructive but the meeja reacts to social media like a fly does to a shit.In fact, social meeja is a major tool with which to ferment support or opposition, and it's high time the distinction between fact and conjecture was formalised. The next generation of legal academics are hopefully aware of this. It has probably gone too far to be regulated without pissing someone off, but it is a massive problem. The media rely upon, and get far too much leverage from "trending" social media "data". It's probably high time this aspect of information technology had some responsibility imposed on it. It's a total fucking mess.cashead wrote:You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Sandy says "ISIS are saying 'that totally was us, guys. Honest!' which is a bit sus since it took them a while to actually claim responsibility. It is what it is, but I'm calling bullshit on it." and then you're turning around and arguing about something he literally never said, complete with truther-level tinfoil hat shit.rowan wrote:
Was that ISIS too? Sure there must've been a link somewhere...
Last year, Merkel was overheard asking Zuckerberg if he'd gotten around to censoring anti-immigrant posts on faeces book.
People often worry (and complain about) "The Police State". Strangely, it never occurs to them that "The Police State" can only function with lots and lots of collaborators: the stasi successfully kept tabs on its East German citizens by employing over 300,000 snitches from amongst its own citizenry.
Trust no one.
Quid est veritas?
Est vir qui adest!
Est vir qui adest!
-
morepork
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Vengeful Glutton wrote:It's on Bilderberg's "to do" list. Accessing d'internet in the not too distant future will probably require ID (c/w photo and personal & bank account details). What's next? Imposing financial penalties for inciting hate speech, calling someone a "cvnt" etc. etc.?morepork wrote:Fair point. There are unfortunately many conflicts and movements around the world that are heaped into the same pile by the meeja. Are more nuanced discussion of a compartmentalised nature would be constructive but the meeja reacts to social media like a fly does to a shit.In fact, social meeja is a major tool with which to ferment support or opposition, and it's high time the distinction between fact and conjecture was formalised. The next generation of legal academics are hopefully aware of this. It has probably gone too far to be regulated without pissing someone off, but it is a massive problem. The media rely upon, and get far too much leverage from "trending" social media "data". It's probably high time this aspect of information technology had some responsibility imposed on it. It's a total fucking mess.cashead wrote: You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Sandy says "ISIS are saying 'that totally was us, guys. Honest!' which is a bit sus since it took them a while to actually claim responsibility. It is what it is, but I'm calling bullshit on it." and then you're turning around and arguing about something he literally never said, complete with truther-level tinfoil hat shit.
Last year, Merkel was overheard asking Zuckerberg if he'd gotten around to censoring anti-immigrant posts on faeces book.
People often worry (and complain about) "The Police State". Strangely, it never occurs to them that "The Police State" can only function with lots and lots of collaborators: the stasi successfully kept tabs on its East German citizens by employing over 300,000 snitches from amongst its own citizenry.
Trust no one.
Insisting on some validation of veracity with respect to media statements that rely on social media would seem a far better end to the means here.
-
Vengeful Glutton
- Posts: 451
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:36 pm
- Location: Circle No.3
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Rupert Murdoch....oops...the Media corporations would oppose that level of regulation.
Your sensible suggestion would cause hysteria. People want panem et circenses. The media provide it.
Next time your visiting a prison count the number of TV sets.
Your sensible suggestion would cause hysteria. People want panem et circenses. The media provide it.
Next time your visiting a prison count the number of TV sets.
Quid est veritas?
Est vir qui adest!
Est vir qui adest!
-
morepork
- Posts: 7512
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Vengeful Glutton wrote:Rupert Murdoch....oops...the Media corporations would oppose that level of regulation.
Your sensible suggestion would cause hysteria. People want panem et circenses. The media provide it.
Next time your visiting a prison count the number of TV sets.
It doesn't have to be regulation. A set of standards adhered to by professionals working in media would suffice. Perhaps the 4th estate needs reminding of it's role in a democracy in a meeting which advertising execs and PR people are excluded from. If qualification for inclusion is limited to trending social media or conflict of interest, then fuck off. Journalism is a discipline and should be regulated by standards appropriate to that discipline. Will it happen? Not unless we insist on it.
-
Len
- Posts: 608
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 1:04 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Take a quick peek at facebook pages like Britain first and Our Britain. The level of outright racism, islamaphobia and xenophobia is unreal. Literally thousands upon thousands of people commenting vile shit. How do we stop it though? Now people like that stupid bitch Sonia Kruger are jumping on board. She doesn't feel safe apparently.
-
rowan
- Posts: 7750
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
- Location: Istanbul
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Reports estimating about a third of those killed in Nice were Muslims. Now, that wouldn't be too hard to predict in southern France, which casts further doubt on links to organized terrorism fabricated by the mass media. Again, it would have been just as easy for them to target, say, drunken British or German fans at the Euros last month, possibly even got the tournament canceled, and in that manner made a far bigger impact - not to mention killing what they would regard as the 'right' people. The thing about this guy is he already had multiple convictions, so the only real question is why hadn't they deported him?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
-
Sandydragon
- Posts: 10444
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 7:13 pm
Re: Nice, France - More Heartbreak.
Why would the presence of Muslims deter a Muslim terrorist? AQ and ISIS have killed far more Muslims than 'Christian's in the past decade or more.rowan wrote:Reports estimating about a third of those killed in Nice were Muslims. Now, that wouldn't be too hard to predict in southern France, which casts further doubt on links to organized terrorism fabricated by the mass media. Again, it would have been just as easy for them to target, say, drunken British or German fans at the Euros last month, possibly even got the tournament canceled, and in that manner made a far bigger impact - not to mention killing what they would regard as the 'right' people. The thing about this guy is he already had multiple convictions, so the only real question is why hadn't they deported him?
Not wishing to prejudge the full investigation, but your rationale for why it can't be a Muslim terrorist group doesn't hold up against recent events.