Extract from Daily Telegraph

Sorry US Folks but this is not on.

CIA has access to your bank records
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
(Filed: 28/06/2006)



The bank transaction records of millions of people in Britain and around the world may have been disclosed illegally to US intelligence agencies as part of the Bush administration's counter-terrorism programme, privacy campaigners said yesterday.

CIA agents and US treasury officials have been secretly monitoring financial transactions routed through Swift, the Brussels-based, industry-owned co-operative that links 7,800 financial institutions in more than 200 countries.


Swift links financial institutions worldwide


Swift, an acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, provides electronic instructions for transfers between virtually every bank, brokerage house, and stock exchange and routes 11 million transactions each day.

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Program was disclosed by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, which said they had been pressed by the administration not to divulge its existence.

American officials denied that it amounted to an invasion of privacy and said it was vital to anti-terrorism operations. It means Washington may have access not only to financial data on its own citizens but everyone else's too.

An agreement with Swift to hand over the transaction records was reached after September 11 but has never been divulged until now.

John Snow, the US treasury secretary, said disclosure of the information was subject to ''very significant safeguards'' and had proved useful to the anti-terror operations, though there were no specific examples of how it had helped.

In a statement, Swift said it had negotiated with the US treasury "over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas". Under the deal, counter-terrorism analysts can ask Swift to look for information on activities by suspected terrorists as part of specific terrorism investigations.

Swift said the agreement concerned ''limited sets of data from the office of foreign assets control of the department of the treasury''. It added: ''Our fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users' data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate."

Privacy International, a campaign group, filed simultaneous complaints with data protection and privacy regulators, including Britain's, in an attempt to uncover the scale of the exercise. Simon Davies, the group's director, said: ''We know very little, but it seems that the data are being sent regardless of people's nationality. If blanket authorisations are being given for millions of records, it would be impossible to separate them out.''

He said the activity was undertaken without regard to legal process under data protection law, and that the disclosures were made without any legal basis or authority whatever.



What are your opinions

Len B

I note that Bush and Chenny accused the Washington Post of treason and aiding terrorism by divulging the truth.
So much for freedom of the press:rolleyes:

I note that Bush and Chenny accused the Washington Post of treason and aiding terrorism by divulging the truth.
So much for freedom of the press:rolleyes:

It was the New York Post. Should it be called freedom of press when the press releases information about a countries war time strategies? I think it is treason, when I newspaper cares more about selling their papers than it does being loyal to their country.

This is absolutely insane. This administration feels they can get away with everything by playing on terrorism. Does anyone else feel like the Bush Administration are terrorists themselves? They encompass the very definition of a terrorist. They made the American people believe that there were terrorists threats in the world in order to get our backing by making us fear "weapons of mass destruction" and terrorist attacks in order to get what they want. They used our fear to accomplish their goals and they continue to get away with it.

I'm thinking of starting a website....BushIsATerrorist.com. Of course I would host it outside the US to avoid Big Brother snooping. Can anyone recommend a webhost outside the US?

It was the New York Post. Should it be called freedom of press when the press releases information about a countries war time strategies? I think it is treason, when I newspaper cares more about selling their papers than it does being loyal to their country.

And how is this a wartime act? There are terrorist threats at ALL times/ Does that mean every country is always ni war? How can this be called a "war"?

I'm sure part of the New York Posts strategies involved making money, but the bulk of it is to work for US! The American Citizens who are ignorant and don't have the knowledge that our civil liberties are being restricted due to an overbearing and radical government. It's about time us as American citizens became more aware of what our own government is doing to attack our privacy and liberties fought for so many years ago that our country was founded on! These things are being taken away from us!!!

And how is this a wartime act? There are terrorist threats at ALL times/ Does that mean every country is always ni war? How can this be called a "war"?

I'm sure part of the New York Posts strategies involved making money, but the bulk of it is to work for US! The American Citizens who are ignorant and don't have the knowledge that our civil liberties are being restricted due to an overbearing and radical government. It's about time us as American citizens became more aware of what our own government is doing to attack our privacy and liberties fought for so many years ago that our country was founded on! These things are being taken away from us!!!

I did not say a "war time act." I said giving away war time strategies. Even the Demy's had said getting to their money would help to weaken terrorist. Then we do it and now everyone is hollering like a pig under a fence. "How can this be called a war?" In case you haven't notice, whether you agree with it or not, we have soldiers that are fighting in a foreign country. What else would it be called?

This is absolutely insane. This administration feels they can get away with everything by playing on terrorism. Does anyone else feel like the Bush Administration are terrorists themselves?

No! I think it's insane to make such a ridiculous claim.

I hate political debates because they often turn personal.
However, I'm putting my 2 cents in and saying, Yes.... I do feel Mr. Bush has had a major role in my terror and is therefore a "terrorist" to me. I am made to be fearful about expressing my opinions to the majority of brainwashed Americans that I live among in this Ultra Republican state of Florida. If I dissent, I am labeled "Anti-American" or "Unpatriotic".

Just the other day, a law BANNING the burning of the American flag was voted down... by ONE vote. I was happy about it myself, but the morning radio screamed in outrage.

Now, if I see foreigners on TV burning an American flag, I think "They HATE us!" And, that makes me a little afraid, of course, because Mr. Bush says they want to kill me. But when American citizens burn their own flag, I don't think they're going to bomb anything or kill anyone... I think they're REALLY pissed at something in particular and are actively working to express their displeasure and affect a change in government.

But, now we have "free speech zones" where the protesters of whatever can gather.... miles away from any televised political event where only fervid supporters of the government are welcomed so they can perpetuate the bullshit, turn film into propaganda, and brainwash even MORE people into believing that all of America is 100% in support of whatever Mr. Bush does. And by the way, Jesus doesn't love you if you aren't a Republican...

I feel sick. These people have WAY too much power.

And by the way, Jesus doesn't love you if you aren't a Republican...

Have you actually heard this?

Thank you Tess. As a fellow Floridian, I understand your fear of being determined anitpatriotic, but I want to bring on another point on why Florida has been labelled so "pro-republican" as of late.

Most of the younger generation I have spoken with (actually all if I really thinka bout it) dislike the Bush administration completely. When the 2004 elections were taking place. There was a new law passed in Florida by no other than our great governer relative to the president under the carpet that stated you must register at least 30 days to vote before the date of the election. Most states allow voting within a much shorter time frame, including many states that allow voting on the same day as registration. Almost everyone I know who intended to vote, did not get to because of this law. It's ridiculous to think that there isn't a conspiracy within the Bush administration that caused this to happen.

I am not in any way pro one political party or another. I only want honesty from our government and I feel that we currently do not recieve that. I am as pro-American as one can be because I believe in standing up for what this country is SUPPOSED to stand for, not what it currently does.

I claim Bush as a terrorist because it's exactly what he did. He caused false fear in the American people by claiming weapons of mass destruction and he continues to do this in one way or another. He made Americans fear for their lives every day. How anyone could not see this is beyond me. You call this idea insane, but you have no evidence to rebute my claims?

This is NOT a war. A war you claim against an enemy you can identify. Terrorists are not even an identifiable enemy! There have always been terrorists in the world and there always will be. The unibomber was a terrorist. The Columbine kids, they were terrorists. As I pointed out, we have one in office.

I hate political talk as well, but I really hate when people take such a one sided approach to things. Americans need to think more outside the box. Will we allow all of our freedoms to be taken away because of fear?

I hate political talk as well, but I really hate when people take such a one sided approach to things. Americans need to think more outside the box. Will we allow all of our freedoms to be taken away because of fear?

I'm not a fan of political talk either. It's doesn't get you anywhere. You say you hate when people take such a one sided approach to things. To me, this is exactly what your doing, so at this point is why talking politics and religion usually doesn't do anything but make the tires spin. I always say, people see things the way they want to and usually nothing changes their mind. I'll hold my comments from here cause I would rather not get frustrated or cause you frustration.:)

Shane,

Vass didn't introduce religion into the equation, I did.
And, I don't think Vass is being one-sided... although I may be.
"Jesus doesn't love you if you're not a Republican" Have I actually heard those words? Uh... no... but I was in church for SEVERAL years and everything I heard from the pulpit was in support of the Republican spin. Democrats were called "Demoncrats" And yes... I HAVE heard that... directly from the pulpit.

Now, I'm not saying that if the Demoncrats were in power that I would be happy with everything they did. Actually, no matter which political party is in "power", I don't trust them. They aren't looking out for America. They are looking out for the people that back them. THEY are Anti-Americans! THEY are UnPatriotic! THEY are selling this country down the river!

And, yes... they are taking the UK down the river with us. Where will we end up?

My gut says to scream "REVOLT!" and yet the current undertow in my country stuns me into fear of screaming that word. I fear we are turning into Nazi Germany, little by little... day by day. I may be saying something extremely unpopular in my next utterance..... (oh... so unlike my last sentence... lol)... but I understand how the good people of Germany fell victim to the powers of the Nazi Government. I honestly believe that the majority of Germany most likely consisted of wonderful, caring, good people that were brow-beaten by fear into subjection and submission until they all chanted "Heil!"

You know what? My husband said.... you may be right, but you may not want to send that post. I wonder if he's afraid the Bush administration may find this "Anti-American" sentiment and burn our house down.

I did not say a "war time act." I said giving away war time strategies. Even the Demy's had said getting to their money would help to weaken terrorist. Then we do it and now everyone is hollering like a pig under a fence. "How can this be called a war?" In case you haven't notice, whether you agree with it or not, we have soldiers that are fighting in a foreign country. What else would it be called?

That war was based on a lie and our idiot of a so called leader got us dragged into it too :mad:

I claim Bush as a terrorist because it's exactly what he did.


Bush never stops finding ways to harm Americans and neither do we.
I may have got that the wrong way around :confused: :D

I am certainly not one sided and I too agree that political debates can be touchy and are best left for mature individuals unlike myself. ;) I just can't think of much good the Bush administration has done. I also agree with Tess that most government officials are only in it to back the people who pay the most money as well. They are nothing more than pawns for the corporations, gas, computers, music, movies, etc. A little money will buy you a politician.

Oh well, maybe my trip to Japan will clear my head.

Oh well, maybe my trip to Japan will clear my head.
Strange isn't it that 60 years ago, Japan was the USA's worst enemy - a country that killed and tortured 1000's of Americans, paying no attention to the Geneva Convention.

Now they are best buddies:rolleyes: Yet Japan has never formally apologised for their atrocities to the US soldiers

Maybe the USA will once again (in time) befriend the Taliban or Al Quaida:D

It wasn't so long ago the USA armed the Taliban to fight the USSR for them

Col

Quite interesting posts.

I actually expected that there would be commments by the Brits (no too hard I hoped) having a dig at the CIA. It was not the intention to provoke any flaming, really interested in the differing views.

It seems that it is those across the pond that are most fired up about the subject however.

As for me.

keep money under mattress where CIA cannot see it....I think

Len

There was a programme on satellite TV a few months ago (produced by the BBC I think) which investigated the "activities" of the CIA. Plus of course their activities (the CIA's) were included in the Fahrenheit 9/11 film.

Anyway, in the programme it seemed to me that the CIA were a "western" version of the old USSR secret police or even Hitlers Gestapo.
The CIA have carte blanche to do anything they like, arrest whomever they choose on no real grounds (apart from looking Asian).
Then they also penetrate other countries "undercover" to report back to the white house what is happening around the globe.
As we know, this "intelligence" information is about as robust as a wooden house in New Orleans:rolleyes:

Col

I think the CIA are on a hiding to nothing.

The fact is, undercover operations only work if they are just that, undercover. We could demand that all undercover operations are exposed to the public but what would that entail? The exposure of same to the enemy.

It's very simple. If we are going to find ways of stopping psychotics from blowing up buses or flying planes into buildings, the first step is not to tell them how we are going to do it.

So all that aside, we are left with the decision to either trust our authority to perform these operations responsibly or not.

The problem is, is that undercover operations can't justify themselves by broadcasting their achievements. Would terrorism in the developed world be worse without these operations? We certainly know how bad it can be without appropriate security but we don't know for sure their benefits

So it's a personal opinion as to who is being more invasive. The terrorist or the counter-terrorism system.

I think the CIA are on a hiding to nothing.

The fact is, undercover operations only work if they are just that, undercover. We could demand that all undercover operations are exposed to the public but what would that entail? The exposure of same to the enemy.

It's very simple. If we are going to find ways of stopping psychotics from blowing up buses or flying planes into buildings, the first step is not to tell them how we are going to do it.

So all that aside, we are left with the decision to either trust our authority to perform these operations responsibly or not.

The problem is, is that undercover operations can't justify themselves by broadcasting their achievements. Would terrorism in the developed world be worse without these operations? We certainly know how bad it can be without appropriate security but we don't know for sure their benefits

So it's a personal opinion as to who is being more invasive. The terrorist or the counter-terrorism system.

Interesting reply Dan. Its impossible to say if things are better or worse with or without 'undercover' espionage.

There is one thing though (and this is NOT a knock at the USA:rolleyes: ) It seems to me and others here that the US government just can't wait to tell the world about what its doing - undercover or not. Quite often we are surprised to see a spokesman or military person detailing exactly how things were / are done. I get the feeling the word "undercover" and "secret" are absent from the government dictionary.

For example, every now and then some spokesman says exactly where the US troops are in Afghanistan searching for Bin-Laden, I've even seen them point it out on a map:rolleyes: Not only does this tell the "enemy" where their target is, it also tells the "enemy" where to go next to avoid capture.

In the UK, the MI5 and MI6 tend to be fairly secret, I'm not sure I want to know exactly what they do to try to keep us safe.

Col

WEhen an Intelligence Organisation is given access to data in a particular country then both the Country supplying the data should ensure that they only supply data for the "host" country, Seems to me that here SWIFT were very much at fault and CIA just said nothing.

CIA saying nothing one can understand to a degree but this is where things start to fall apart.

Moral responsibilities should have said...hang on ... we need to get the okay from other countries.

Those moral responsibilities rest with both SWIFT and CIA.

But it seems that in general moral responsibility is something sadly lacking in most areas these days and I do not mean just SWIFT, CIA.

We have a bunch over here who would have resigned long ago if they had any morals at all.

L

Bush never stops finding ways to harm Americans and neither do we.
I may have got that the wrong way around :confused: :D

The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany.

There is one thing though (and this is NOT a knock at the USA:rolleyes: ) It seems to me and others here that the US government just can't wait to tell the world about what its doing - undercover or not. Quite often we are surprised to see a spokesman or military person detailing exactly how things were / are done. I get the feeling the word "undercover" and "secret" are absent from the government dictionary.

Indeed, the bravado that comes with these militiary press conferences is impossible to deny. I like to think that it is all intentional bulls__t to make the militiary look as if they are doing something proactive rather than them broadcasting their strategies on CNN. But then again...


In the UK, the MI5 and MI6 tend to be fairly secret, I'm not sure I want to know exactly what they do to try to keep us safe.

Yes. It's down to trusting your authority. Sometimes there is a time to accept your leader and trust their judgment. Most of us did that with the 'WMD' excuse in Iraq. However the intelligence fell way short. Again the intelligence regarding the reconstruction of Iraq was woeful.

These points lead to distrust and yet we haven't had another terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

So as you can probably tell, I'm undecided on the issue :p

PS: Blaming the fear culture on GWB is a tad unfair. Watching the national geographic channel makes me afraid of going out into the yard :D

There was a programme on satellite TV a few months ago (produced by the BBC I think) which investigated the "activities" of the CIA. Plus of course their activities (the CIA's) were included in the Fahrenheit 9/11 film.
Col

Colin,

I've seen you post a number of times using Fahrenheit 9/11. This is were I get my statements that "people find what their looking for." People will agree with souces that they think are telling it like they want to hear it and give them a thumbs up but anything reported they are not in line with is "censored", "brainwashed" or some other term. Micheal Moore is a screen writer. He has enough money backing to make a film and express his "opinions" of how things are and from there people get to choose whether they think it's based on facts or not. I really have a hard time understanding how someone can read a source or watch a source and just take it all in and say that must be the way it is. This includes the BBC. I do not trust the media, right or left, to express the truth without their bias mixed in. I guess I get involved with some of these threads cause it allows me to interact with people but some times I really wonder why I or anyone else does because what it really accomplishes is allowing me to express my opinion or read someone else's but nothing really changes.

I'm not trying to put a finger in your ribs. Just wondering why you would put so much stock (as least it appears to me that way) in a screen writers opinion being expressed as fact.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Colin,

I've seen you post a number of times using Fahrenheit 9/11.
Have you seen the film?

Col

Yes everybody, see Fahrenheit 9/11. You can't have a meaningful debate (argument) with Colin without it! :p

It was the New York Post. Should it be called freedom of press when the press releases information about a countries war time strategies? I think it is treason, when I newspaper cares more about selling their papers than it does being loyal to their country.

Unless I'm missing something - and it wouldn't be the first time - they didn't actually reveal any strategies. Knowing that an organization is monitoring all transactions is hardly helpful to those wishing to remain secretive. After all, it was hardly a secret from the Germans that the British were monitoring radio transmissions during WWII.

Once equipped with this knowledge, they have the options of (a) carrying on, in which case they get caught; (b) stopping, in which case the 'good guys' win or (c) changing their methods. Given that the system being monitored probably covers the majority of transactions, this would at the very least be an inconvenience for them, no?

Putting to one side the argument of whether or not it violates people's rights, I don't really see how this article could be classed as treason.

Yes everybody, see Fahrenheit 9/11. You can't have a meaningful debate (argument) with Colin without it! :p

How can you have a meaningful debate with anybody about the film if you haven't seen it ? :confused:

The point now is how do we work together to achieve important goals. And one such goal is a democracy in Germany.
Somebody should point out that it's actually a Republic, like the US :D

I by no means trust the media. As you stated, there is plenty of one sidedness in the media as well. Fox news has never broadcasted anything against the Bush administration and makes everything seem positive about them. I hate political media as they always choose a side. This is why I watch it all. I want to understand all points of view. I try to see the argument from both sides, which allows me to try and understand the opinions expressed from both.

To reference what Colin was saying about the government being too open, I hate to disagree (as I'm likely to pay for it) but I think it's misinterpreted. I strongly believe that the government makes press statements that only benefit themselves. They try to justify their own missions by showing scenes and plans that may be months old, only to try and get the approval rating higher. Do you really think that the terrorists they show who the troops have successfully gunned down actually were gunned down on the day specified? What are the chances that they are withholding the truth until it would benefit them to announce the death of a terrorist, say, when the approval ratings are lowest to try and boost support from the civilians.

I by no means trust the media. As you stated, there is plenty of one sidedness in the media as well. Fox news has never broadcasted anything against the Bush administration and makes everything seem positive about them. I hate political media as they always choose a side. This is why I watch it all. I want to understand all points of view. I try to see the argument from both sides, which allows me to try and understand the opinions expressed from both.

To reference what Colin was saying about the government being too open, I hate to disagree (as I'm likely to pay for it) but I think it's misinterpreted. I strongly believe that the government makes press statements that only benefit themselves. They try to justify their own missions by showing scenes and plans that may be months old, only to try and get the approval rating higher. Do you really think that the terrorists they show who the troops have successfully gunned down actually were gunned down on the day specified? What are the chances that they are withholding the truth until it would benefit them to announce the death of a terrorist, say, when the approval ratings are lowest to try and boost support from the civilians.

You're becoming cynical at an early age Vass, that's good, I like it ;) :D

You're becoming cynical at an early age Vass, that's good, I like it ;) :D

I learn from the best! :p

How can you have a meaningful debate with anybody about the film if you haven't seen it ? :confused:

I was referring to the fact that you cannot have a meaningful debate with Colin about ANY topic without seeing that film. It was sarcasm (well, with a bit of truth tossed in).

Have you seen the film?

Col

No, and do not plan to. I have heard enough about it to know that I do not want to see it. I listen to plenty from both sides but when "I feel" like something has gone way past the lines of truth, then I do not want to take part in wasting my time on it. I have heard clips from it and quoted "lines", to know that I feel it is nothing more than a man's opinion who is out to the extreme left.

Shane,

Vass didn't introduce religion into the equation, I did.
And, I don't think Vass is being one-sided... although I may be.
"Jesus doesn't love you if you're not a Republican" Have I actually heard those words? Uh... no... but I was in church for SEVERAL years and everything I heard from the pulpit was in support of the Republican spin. Democrats were called "Demoncrats" And yes... I HAVE heard that... directly from the pulpit.

Now, I'm not saying that if the Demoncrats were in power that I would be happy with everything they did. Actually, no matter which political party is in "power", I don't trust them. They aren't looking out for America. They are looking out for the people that back them. THEY are Anti-Americans! THEY are UnPatriotic! THEY are selling this country down the river!

And, yes... they are taking the UK down the river with us. Where will we end up?

My gut says to scream "REVOLT!" and yet the current undertow in my country stuns me into fear of screaming that word. I fear we are turning into Nazi Germany, little by little... day by day. I may be saying something extremely unpopular in my next utterance..... (oh... so unlike my last sentence... lol)... but I understand how the good people of Germany fell victim to the powers of the Nazi Government. I honestly believe that the majority of Germany most likely consisted of wonderful, caring, good people that were brow-beaten by fear into subjection and submission until they all chanted "Heil!"

You know what? My husband said.... you may be right, but you may not want to send that post. I wonder if he's afraid the Bush administration may find this "Anti-American" sentiment and burn our house down.

Sorry I didn't reply sooner Tess, I just flat missed your post.:) I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't say anything about being Demy or Reb in order for Jesus to love you, so I believe we're on safe ground there.:D

I always find it unfortunate that people have bad experiences in church. Preachers seem to take their pulpits too far now days. They preach their opinions or convictions rather than what the Bible says. I can see where churches and Demy keep getting further and further apart cause the Demy's keep making stands for things that would be contrary to Biblical teaching but to go so far as name calling from the pulpit is just too far.

I guess I can't share your concerns for our country needing a revolt but I can respect yours and others opinions to think otherwise. I guess I just can't see what others do. I do believe things are bad all over the world and every country has their problems. I just can't see how ours is so much more magnified than anyone elses. I'm sure this opens up a whole can of worms for a couple of my fellow forum playmates to jump in but at least I'm being up front.

No, and do not plan to. I have heard enough about it to know that I do not want to see it. I listen to plenty from both sides but when "I feel" like something has gone way past the lines of truth, then I do not want to take part in wasting my time on it. I have heard clips from it and quoted "lines", to know that I feel it is nothing more than a man's opinion who is out to the extreme left.

But you can't really say you "know" anything about the movie. Just because peoople tell you about it, doesn't mean their opinion should be the same as yours. If you feel that 9/11 meant something to you, you should see it regardless of your opinions about Michael Moore or what people tell you.

to know that I feel it is nothing more than a man's opinion who is out to the extreme left.

Unlike the war in Iraq which was based on one mans opinion and who happens to be on the extreme right.

But you can't really say you "know" anything about the movie. Just because peoople tell you about it, doesn't mean their opinion should be the same as yours. If you feel that 9/11 meant something to you, you should see it regardless of your opinions about Michael Moore or what people tell you.

Vassago,

Your right I can't say that I "know" anything about the movie, that's way I said I've heard enough about it to know I wouldn't come close to agreeing so I haven't watched it. If it would make you feel more comfortable about me commenting on it then I'll rent it and just have detailed reasons why I wouldn't agree with it. Michael Moore is a screen writer, not a documentor, with a left wing axe to grind, why would I want to listen to that? Same reason I would not go watch Al Gores new movie or read a book by Hillery. I want to be open minded but I can't see why I would need to read anything or watch anything from extreme views. Left or right.

Unlike the war in Iraq which was based on one mans opinion and who happens to be on the extreme right.

Your right Rich. We have a dictator here. One man makes all the decisions without any other government officals say so. We have a government of men here who make decisions with checks and balances, so no one person can make a final decision about something.

Somebody should point out that it's actually a Republic, like the US :D

"The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like....We stand for things."

Hurray!!! A debate on this forum that has not digressed in to squabbling among the UK and Us!!!. :D :p

I have not been around for a while as it was starting to feel that any thread opened in the cooler ended up in a squabble about Iraq. However I have really enjoyed reading this thread and found some of the posts really interesting. I did have two questions. Firstly I picked up a lot that a lot of people don't trust their respective governments (me included!) I was curious if people felt this was a more modern trend or we are just more open about our feelings about government. There are certainly more ways now to communicate our feelings! The second things was with regard to the use of a film/document to support an argument. I was under the impression that most of what is written about political / philosophy or most other social sciences was based on opinion. But maybe some opinions are more "factual" than others?

Firstly I picked up a lot that a lot of people don't trust their respective governments (me included!) I was curious if people felt this was a more modern trend or we are just more open about our feelings about government.

It may just be that it's now safer to express dissatisfaction. I know that's not true everywhere, but compare the way it was a few hundred years ago in most western countries to the way it now. Back then, if you spoke out against pretty much anything to do with the ruling body, you'd be looking over your shoulder for a long time afterwards.

There are certainly more ways now to communicate our feelings!

Definitely a major part of being able to speak out in (relative) safety.

The second things was with regard to the use of a film/document to support an argument. I was under the impression that most of what is written about political / philosophy or most other social sciences was based on opinion. But maybe some opinions are more "factual" than others?

That's true of anything really, isn't it?:) History is written by the victors, as the saying goes, but I think it's become a case of history being written by anybody who takes the time to do so. In this age of anyone, informed or otherwise, being able to churn out a book, film, document or - especially - website on the topic of their choosing, one person's opinion quickly becomes adopted as fact. You only have to take a look around this site to see how certain people use, shall we say, 'questionable' sources to back up whatever argument they're trying to get across. Even when it's a long-standing source of ideas like, for example, the bible. It's so open to interpretation, it can often cause as many problems as it removes.

That's just my opinion, of course.

Hurray!!! A debate on this forum that has not digressed in to squabbling among the UK and Us!!!. :D :p

SShhhh... no-one's noticed yet all the children are sitting quietly :p

Firstly I picked up a lot that a lot of people don't trust their respective governments (me included!) I was curious if people felt this was a more modern trend or we are just more open about our feelings about government.

I would argue definitely. When monarchies held power, the monarch was seen as being closer to God than his/her subjects. So not trusting in your monarch was like saying not trusting in God's judgement. As the monarch was seen as being appointed by the Almighty. "God bless the Queen" and all that.

Republics remove that figure-head and thus you don't have to denounce God to denounce your leader. Some still attempt to play this card but nowadays I don't believe it has much influence. In the US, for example, any deification is placed on the country itself, not the actual leader.


The second things was with regard to the use of a film/document to support an argument. I was under the impression that most of what is written about political / philosophy or most other social sciences was based on opinion. But maybe some opinions are more "factual" than others?

I think this is laziness on our part. Pictures are so much easier than words and there seems to be a demand on our parts that we be entertained whilst learning. The recent release of that 9/11 hijacking movie is a classic example of this. Historical documents aren't enough anymore because nobody would bother to read them but make a movie with appropriate special effects and music then people will consume it. Unfortunately the authenticity of the document usually suffers under the weight of consumer demand.

Hurray!!! A debate on this forum that has not digressed in to squabbling among the UK and Us!!!.

You're right, this makes a pleasant change.

How about a heartfelt request to all contributors to this thread - just this one, that's all;) - not to rise to any deliberately-phrased attempts to turn it into another slanging match?

Thanks for the replies :)

First is it true that Ontario, Canada was formerly Cardiff, Wales. WOW you learn something new every day!!!!:D

Secondly; I was thinking in more modern times as a comparison. I think we can all agree that however you felt about a ruling group a few hundred years ago it was better not to say too much!!! But what if we were to compare say 1940s to present day. I'm sure (rightly or wrongly) their were groups in the UK who were not "happy" about our role in WWII, did they speak out in the same way? or was their lack of national attention due more to a lack of access to communication links rather than a sense of loyalty??

I'm sure (rightly or wrongly) their were groups in the UK who were not "happy" about our role in WWII, did they speak out in the same way? or was their lack of national attention due more to a lack of access to communication links rather than a sense of loyalty??

I would say there was little difference. What of Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists? They were making their extreme views perfectly clear until they were clamped down on by the UK government.

How about a heartfelt request to all contributors to this thread - just this one, that's all;) - not to rise to any deliberately-phrased attempts to turn it into another slanging match?

Oh yes please, as now I have mentioned it it could be technically my fault :(

I would say there was little difference. What of Sir Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists? They were making their extreme views perfectly clear until they were clamped down on by the UK government.

Quite true......

First is it true that Ontario, Canada was formerly Cardiff, Wales. WOW you learn something new every day

Yep, although if you visit the old site (just left of the Severn Bridge) you can see they've done a pretty good job of rebuilding. You can hardly see the join :D

Yep, although if you visit the old site (just left of the Severn Bridge) you can see they've done a pretty good job of rebuilding. You can hardly see the join :D


So the world really is getting smaller ;)

Oh by the way what happened to all my posts??? I know I have been away a while but I'm pretty sure it was not 175!!!!

"The CIA laid out several scenarios and said life could be lousy, life could be OK, life could be better, and they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like....We stand for things."

I like it :D

I note that Bush and Chenny accused the Washington Post of treason and aiding terrorism by divulging the truth.
So much for freedom of the press:rolleyes:

I think this is deliberate on the administration's part, done to protect us. We've heard hundreds of times that the U.S. is a terrorist target because "they hate us for our freedom." So their approach seems to be to wittle away at those freedoms and rights until they are all gone, then the terrorists will have no reason to hate us anymore! :)

This is absolutely insane. This administration feels they can get away with everything by playing on terrorism.

Here's the thing - so far they are right. They can do anything they want and if they are questioned, all they have to do is spout "911! War on terror! Dissention is treason!" And the sheep are (apparently) right back on board. What will it take to get this man impeached? How many laws does he have to break? How many blunders costing American lives?

Here's the thing - so far they are right. They can do anything they want and if they are questioned, all they have to do is spout "911! War on terror! Dissention is treason!" And the sheep are (apparently) right back on board. What will it take to get this man impeached? How many laws does he have to break? How many blunders costing American lives?

Tell me about it!

Vassago,

Your right I can't say that I "know" anything about the movie, that's way I said I've heard enough about it to know I wouldn't come close to agreeing so I haven't watched it. If it would make you feel more comfortable about me commenting on it then I'll rent it and just have detailed reasons why I wouldn't agree with it. Michael Moore is a screen writer, not a documentor, with a left wing axe to grind, why would I want to listen to that? Same reason I would not go watch Al Gores new movie or read a book by Hillery. I want to be open minded but I can't see why I would need to read anything or watch anything from extreme views. Left or right.

You just said KNOW again!!! My point was, how can you know you will not agree with it if you have not seen it?

You just said KNOW again!!! My point was, how can you know you will not agree with it if you have not seen it?

Keep my "KNOW" is context. I said that I have heard enough to "know" I would not agree. Not that I "know" all about the movie. I also said if you would feel better about whether I would "know" whether I agreed with it or not, then I would rent it and watch it, if I wanted to make a comment on it. I have heard clips of it played on the radio and can tell by the dialog that it would be something that I would not go along with. I'm really having a hard time understanding why this would be something that would cause a reaction out of you like this. I don't know everything about Bennie Henn, but I have heard enough from him to know I would not agree with him, so why waste my time? I view this in the same manner. I have heard Michael Moore enough to know we do not see eye to eye so why would I want to watch some thing he produced?

I'm not really reacting at all. ;)

I was just pointing out that you are still saying you "KNOW" because of what you have heard about it. Don't listen to what others tell you and watch it. The movie isn't just one sided. How can you understand the other point of view about our government without trying to understand it? That's the only way you can really discredit it.

Anyway, hope I didn't offend. I'm not one that really cares much and I hate political debates.

I'm not really reacting at all. ;)

I was just pointing out that you are still saying you "KNOW" because of what you have heard about it. Don't listen to what others tell you and watch it. The movie isn't just one sided. How can you understand the other point of view about our government without trying to understand it? That's the only way you can really discredit it.

Anyway, hope I didn't offend. I'm not one that really cares much and I hate political debates.

Hey Vassago,

No, you have not offended me. I do listen to both sides. My job makes me drive all over the metroplex so I listen to the radio a lot, so I try flipping back and forth between a couple of stations. Ones liberal the other is conservative. It's frustrating to me cause people look at the same situation and have all these "supposed" facts about how it happened. Who did what. Who's being truthful and who isn't, but seldom do they come close to agreeing. I'm starting to think that facts are like beauty. It's in the eye of the beholder.:rolleyes:

or the beerholder. :)

or the beerholder. :)

That was good come back. I like it.

Hey Vassago,

Who's being truthful and who isn't, but seldom do they come close to agreeing.

Bush wanted a war in Iraq before he got elected, how anyone can dispute that fact is beyond belief.
He was and still is a warmonger:mad:

Bush wanted a war in Iraq before he got elected, how anyone can dispute that fact is beyond belief.
He was and still is a warmonger:mad:

Thank you helping me prove my point.

Thank you helping me prove my point.
I wasn't doing anything of the sort, just supplying the facts that can be supported

I wasn't doing anything of the sort, just supplying the facts that can be supported

To me that's the problem with "facts." People decide where they are getting these "facts" from are a creditable source or don't believe the "facts" from a source that they have determined is not a creditable source. Common folk, like you and I, are not privy to real information that would give us facts nor are we there to see it for ourselves. We are only able to get our "facts" from the media and from there we make a decision on who's telling it like it is and who has a slant to it. Then from there, one guy says the source is creditable and another guy says the same source has an agenda. One guys truth is a smear compaign to another. To me it's pretty much like a dog chasing is tail.

BTW this is not responding to defending Bush. I'm just not one to jump into all that I read and then turn around a state it as a "fact." I know a "fact" when I'm able to see if for myself.

I'm just not one to jump into all that I read and then turn around a state it as a "fact." I know a "fact" when I'm able to see if for myself.
Do some research Shane.

Fact 1 - both the US and UK government thought there was WMD in Iraq

Fact 2 - The USA and the UK invaded Iraq

Fact 3 - 25,000+ civilians now dead, 2,500+ US soldiers dead, 120 UK soldiers dead

Fact 4 - Iraq is now in civil war and terrorism is much worse since the invasion.

Presumably you'll disagree
Col

Fact 1 - both the US and UK government thought there was WMD in Iraq

Col
I have to say that WMD was just an excuse to try and get the UN on board, Bush wanted a regime change in Iraq right from the start.
The reason, pure and simple OIL!

I am by no means a patriotic , my country right or wrong sort of American. Usually if I am told something by a politician I either take it with a ocean-load of salt or dismiss it entirely...However, even I thought that Iraq had SOME weapons of mass destruction. Heck, I thought everyone had them. Not that I thought Iraq was about to use them on us...but still it is creepy the amount of misinformation out there, and our tendency to believe whatever we are told :(

Sidenote: Do you realize how nastily easy it is to kill large amounts of people? Anyone with an IQ over 99 could learn how. Apparently napalm is very easy to make, and does anyone remember that guy who built a cruise missile for $5000 is his garage, and then put the instructions on the internet? He lived in New Zealand, as I recall.

psst!! We all know Iraq had WMD...they were trucked across the border into Syria when the invasion began.

<eyes dart quickly back and forth...cold sweat on brow...slowly rocks in corner>

Do some research Shane.

Fact 1 - both the US and UK government thought there was WMD in Iraq

Fact 2 - The USA and the UK invaded Iraq

Fact 3 - 25,000+ civilians now dead, 2,500+ US soldiers dead, 120 UK soldiers dead

Fact 4 - Iraq is now in civil war and terrorism is much worse since the invasion.

Presumably you'll disagree
Col

My statement was a general one. Not a specific one. The only point I was trying to make is that (I personally) do not trust the media enough to believe everything they are telling me is a fact, because of that, it puts me in a position of what to believe and what not to believe. At that point I have no where else to go but to form an opinion cause I haven't seen/heard it for myself.

As far as "do some research." Your assuming I haven't. My guess would be your assuming that because I haven't said anything that comes similar to agreeing with your research. However, I really haven't said anything that disagrees either. (at least not strong disagreements) I don't repeat what I find as "facts" because I'm not comfortable enough with, whatever report I'm reading, to call it a "fact." I also do not just read one side of the issue either. I read an article recently, that is stating, as "facts", that America knew what was going to happen on 9/11 and may have even had a hand in causing the events to happen, so I'm not staying in an isolated bubble and only reading one side of the story. The only thing I'm not doing is repeating what I have read as a fact.

Originally Posted by Rich
The reason, pure and simple OIL!

We got oil??? Man this $3 dollar gas helps me out :P
If US took the oil, why is our deficit still high?

We got oil??? Man this $3 dollar gas helps me out :P
If US took the oil, why is our deficit still high? Because events which transpire in the Richiverse do not have a corresponding event in normal space-time.:cool:

We got oil??? Man this $3 dollar gas helps me out :P
If US took the oil, why is our deficit still high?
'Cause Bush's plan backfired, like those who had anything resembling a brain in their head said it would

Or was it just cool to say?

where is your james bond to save us?


sorry woke up on the wrong side of the bed

If US took the oil, why is our deficit still high?

Oh dear this looks horribly like I'm backing Rich up which is not my intention at all.

One of the irritating actions of Saddam Hussein to the Bush administration was to switch the currency he traded his oil from the US dollar to the euro.

After the Iraq war, this action was, not surprisingly reversed. This was in total disregard to the fact of the weak dollar against the euro. There ensues your increased prices...

psst!! We all know Iraq had WMD...they were trucked across the border into Syria when the invasion began.


If that's the case why weren't they aimed at the invading forces? :rolleyes:

The only point I was trying to make is that (I personally) do not trust the media enough to believe everything they are telling me is a fact. . .
Neither would I in the USA, I've seen your CNN on satellite, its heavily biased to glorifying the USA's "successes".:rolleyes: There's 3 words alien to US media, 'independent', 'factual', 'uncensored';)

Col

Oh dear this looks horribly like I'm backing Rich up which is not my intention at all.
...

Why not, what are you afraid of, the truth ? :eek:

Neither would I in the USA, I've seen your CNN on satellite, its heavily biased to glorifying the USA's "successes".:rolleyes: There's 3 words alien to US media, 'independent', 'factual', 'uncensored';)

Col

Sadly, I have to agree with you. The news here in the US has become just another entertainment source. But don't you guys have Naked News? Do those strippers/reporters deliver an unbiased report on relevant political topics? If so, it would seem to be the best of both worlds.

Why not, what are you afraid of, the truth ? :eek:

I fear that accepting the gospel according to Rich would blow my mind, literally ... :D

I fear that accepting the gospel according to Rich would blow my mind, literally ... :D
limited capacity you have? :confused: :p

But don't you guys have Naked News? .

We also used to have Rusty, the bouncing weather dwarf (on a trampoline), and a woman who read out the financial news whilst stripping to her underwear. Both done very tongue-in-cheek, of course ;)

We also used to have Rusty, the bouncing weather dwarf (on a trampoline), and a woman who read out the financial news whilst stripping to her underwear. Both done very tongue-in-cheek, of course ;)
I don't think women are even allowed to show their ankles on tv in the States, are they?:confused: :D

I don't think women are even allowed to show their ankles on tv in the States, are they?:confused: :D

Are you complaining? Aren't we all overweight slobs anyway? Who would want to see the cankles on American women?

Aren't we all overweight slobs anyway?

I think it's mainly the men and mostly Texans, isn't it ? :D

But don't you guys have Naked News? Do those strippers/reporters deliver an unbiased report on relevant political topics? If so, it would seem to be the best of both worlds.
Naked news is / was on satellite TV here in the UK. As it's a Canadian broadcast, the 'news' is very US orientated to say how wonderful the USA is - so obviously it should be clarified by a reputable source like the BBC.:D

The Naked News sport focuses on ice-hockey, US football and other meaningless non-european sports.

However, there is something surreal about seeing the female news presenter standing totally naked in full frontal shots, going on about 'today in Iraq' or whatever:D

Col