´óÏó´«Ã½

IN WWII OUR GOVERNMENT LIED TO US.

Governments feel they can lie WHEN AT WAR.
In WWII we bombed our allies (and V-bombs fell on my bit of Surrey apparently, lured there, to save London). In short, our leaders felt moved to kill some of 'us' in the interests of the rest of 'us'.
Newsnight writes: "Tonight, seven years on from Al Qaeda's attacks on America" and in ask: "Are you sure you have that right, and that no one is lying IN THIS WAR?" A growing number of good minds would take issue with you:

DES BROWNE

DES BROWNE - ANOTHER LAWYER

Whilst I have a lot of time for justice, it seems to have little genuine connection with the amorality of 'Law'. The practice of Law is about WINNING, even when justice is, thereby, ill-served. Small wonder that party politics, also about winning (while the country at large is ill-served) seems populated by lawyers. We have all heard: "Those who can, do and those who can't, teach". In the Law profession, do they say: " . . .those who can't, go into Parliament" - I wonder?
I have tried to find a breakdown of MPs (is that a collective noun?) by educational/career choice, but failed. Might Newsnight look into this?

The term 'war on terror' is a concept that can never be truly pinned down as to who or what it means or belongs. As a consequence, it can never be won. Meanwhile the actions taken to fight it only create more terrorists or freedom fighters depending on one's reference point.
Remember that today's terrorist leader is, in many instances, tomorrows president, prime minister or legislature leader whether it be Israel, Northern Ireland, South Africa, etc.

The Americans have only calmed Sunni resistance with dollars. What will happen when the money stream goes dry?

No one since. nor even the Moguls, have been able to subdue and gain continuous control over the peoples living on the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan. Negotiation is essential.

Is it any wonder that so many people

War on Terror ?
discuss this then...

Fire in the tunnel - Euro trains stopped.
I am in Paris booked on the first train out Friday (tomorrow) morning. I am coming back to London for last night of the Proms.

So, I will go down to Gare du Nord at 5 am as planned to see what they can do for me... But my reason for contacting you is to ask the question: What is the point of all us passengers going through airport luggage style checks for bombs (presumably)at the railway stations yet Lorries go through this tunnel willy nilly it seems.

Would a bomb be detected on a lorry?????? - and with toxic cargos too according to the report- there being such a vehicle next to the lorry on fire!!!!!!!! Where's the integrity/safety in that?

Also, please ask the question of the Chair of this enterprise why Eurostar trains are not sealed off from this dodgy lorry tunnel section? So that they are not disrupted.

The Eurostar train seems very vunerable - (true or false) and an easy target therefore - notwithstanding the checks at St Pancras etc... don't you think?

As all problems so far with this link appear to be caused by the lorry freight trains (am I right)? Perhaps a rethink is necessary - Can you ask someone if perhaps freight should go by sea only leaving more room in the tunnel for the passenger trains and of course managable SAFETY situation for all. Old addage: If it can happen it will happen!!!!!!If people can be trafficked through in lorries despite checks then so can bombs... and that would be the end of the thing (the tunnel I mean) I should think. regards

tel:0033 06 69 16 59 02
War on Terror ?
discuss this then...

Fire in the tunnel - Euro trains stopped.
I am in Paris booked on the first train out Friday (tomorrow) morning. I am coming back to London for last night of the Proms.

So, I will go down to Gare du Nord at 5 am as planned to see what they can do for me... But my reason for contacting you is to ask the question: What is the point of all us passengers going through airport luggage style checks for bombs (presumably)at the railway stations yet Lorries go through this tunnel willy nilly it seems.

Would a bomb be detected on a lorry?????? - and with toxic cargos too according to the report- there being such a vehicle next to the lorry on fire!!!!!!!! Where's the integrity/safety in that?

Also, please ask the question of the Chair of this enterprise why Eurostar trains are not sealed off from this dodgy lorry tunnel section? So that they are not disrupted.

The Eurostar train seems very vunerable - (true or false) and an easy target therefore - notwithstanding the checks at St Pancras etc... don't you think?

As all problems so far with this link appear to be caused by the lorry freight trains (am I right)? Perhaps a rethink is necessary - Can you ask someone if perhaps freight should go by sea only leaving more room in the tunnel for the passenger trains and of course managable SAFETY situation for all. Old addage: If it can happen it will happen!!!!!!If people can be trafficked through in lorries despite checks then so can bombs... and that would be the end of the thing (the tunnel I mean) I should think. regards

WELL PAST 'BEYOND'

By the time we are old enough to blog on the Newsnight site, we have already adjusted our self-belief in the interest of survival - what Andy White termed the expedient of "going mad to stay sane". It is immediately obvious that this is self defeating if we wish to move to a more authentic mind-set. Fear of change has been likened to the over-caution of the soft-bodied Hermit Crab, who has to make a transition from a shell that is now too tight to a roomier one in which it can grow; in the process, exposing its vulnerability. Consequently we are inclined to stay put and espouse the untenable - defending the indefensible. Mankind as a whole is caught in this bind. It makes for a manipulable mass who respond to advertising, media, and politics; a mass who even believe in democracy. Out of this reservoir of untalent, arise incompetent leaders of strange motivation, to lead sections of the world into the next nihilistic war. The fault is, indeed, in ourselves; doubly so, in that we don't want to know.

on pbs frontline is a very good film about the taliban. why don't we get such good documentaries. has british tv [obsessed with celebrity] forgotten how? or are they just crippled by political correctness and a low opinion of the public.

The politicians make it up (the war on terror) and the journos trot it out parrot style, as if it has true meaning.

What we are seeing is not a war against terrorism, but a strong military push to secure strategic land and resources.

I do wish the ´óÏó´«Ã½ would have the integrity to call these things what they are.

oops the more recent links are here. the taliban one was from 2006. the more recent one is Bush's War

Can Newsnight define what the structure of Al Qaeda actually is, or what sort of organization it is now? Does it propose operations or sponsor them? It's an important question when assessing the 'war on terror', since the status of Al Qaeda tells us if this is a new type of war, or is just a continuation of challenges to the British state (from the IRA to David Copeland, the nail bomber). The scale of 911 and the word 'suicide' can provoke irrational reactions to this foe, so we need to be clear if that's possible?

I still have no idea of the structure or reach of this organization, or if you are using the term as a signifier meaning 'Islamists', or people sympathetic to the aims of what the west calls Al Qaeda?

I'm guessing the whole 10.30am cut-off is over now, or are we only discussing 'The Waronterr' for ever more?

In case anyone gets out of that oh-so productive, sparkling bunker, how's about this:

--------

"Fuel help 'may end up on bills'



Gordon Brown announces energy-saving measures

The government has admitted that it is powerless to stop energy firms passing on the cost on its fuel assistance package onto customers."

--------

The government is forcing extra costs on commercial entities (mostly non-UK ones, non? Nicht war?) with shareholders, that... 'it is powerless to prevent being passed on.'

Got to love that 'may'.

Bless.

LETS GET PERSONAL

Who flogged the utilities? The simple answer is Thatcher - with or without prompting from others. Some of us could see the error at the time; in the light of today's events (dear boy) hindsight is catching up.

We recently watched dark forces in Tony's basement drive him to extremes that affected us all (and the world). Now Gordon is in the grip of HIS demons, and going to take us to some unconducive destination.

If we fail to recognise that ONE ABERRANT MIND CAN MESS UP THE WORLD, then we will also fail to INSPECT before we elevate.
When a vote is cast for some political cipher,
whom you hardly know, on account of the rosette they carry, that sin of omission can result in anything from cold pensioners to nuked foreigners.

That high-street twit rosette-stand, you voted for ends up with five years of unstoppable, megalomaniac freedom. And it just keeps on happening.

having watched PBS Frontline's Bush's War one comes to the conclusion USA foreign policy is not based on reason but merely USA administration political in fighting writ large upon the world.

and the person running the white house/wot/Iran etc is cheney.

the PBS show gives a comical interpretation of Blairs role in Iraq. Words like 'naive' and 'intoxicated with power at the false idea they could influence the outcome' are used.

The WOT will be over when those who believe in it are no longer dominant in the the USA administration and not related to anything military. As the usa guest said for him there is no end to fighting 'islamicists'. But there will be an end for the rest of us when that clique leaves the usa administration.

Kirsty - you kept on talking to Des Browne most of the night and he was the most boring and mundane speaker who did not have anything enlightening to say. Feith is a brainwashed non entity and the other guests who were the most interesting Hasan and Stewart you virtually ignored- why? What is your brief before you start the interview? It seems to be pre planed so that you get the response that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ want to portray - if a speaker offers a point that REALLY is relevant but off the 'party line' then it is ignored or you allow the other speakers to drown that voice out so that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ becomes a mouthpiece for the government - I have never seen propaganda on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ so obviously portrayed. Kirsty, like Paxman and others simply become 'newspeak'.