h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can't find that article...

However, I can always count on Bill Bradley to lighten my day with some sidesplitting yucks....

"Now, that kind of image is tough to take, because even though I believe most Iraqis are decent people, there are far too many bad Iraqis. And America's losing fine soldiers trying to bring freedom to that country.

There's no question that we are the good guys in Iraq, just as we were in South Vietnam, Korea, and during World War II. All of those conflicts were fought to keep people free. But many ignorant people think we're the bad guys." No, really?!?

"we are the good guys in Iraq, just as we were in South Vietnam, Korea, and during World War II".

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122820,00.html

You mean Bill'O' Reilly.

Meanwhile the other firebrand John "My Word" Gibson, came unstuck yesterday when he was cenured by OFCOM for a tirade against the BBC in the wake of the hutton report.

Judge for yourself: the Guardian kept a transcript of the broadcast here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1141096,00.html

They also report on the censure here describing his reporting as "incendiary" :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1238901,00.html

and this was his reply...note how he emphasises it was only 24 complaints (sore losers) and supposes therefore the rest of the U.K supports Bush, de-facto the U.S and agree with him about the beeb. Incredible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122709,00.html

My 'favourte' (and it belongs in inverted commas because myself and several friends were stunned by the level of unrepentent xenophobia it contained).. John Gibson's "my word" of march 31st this year concerned his adventures in the New York subway, spotting a foreigner ("a saudi or an egyptian or something") taking photos of the world trae centre re-construction and tipping off security officers in the train station terminal 'because he might be a terrorist'

Can you say, "creating a cimate of fear"?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115716,00.html

*deep breaths* ---> Calm.

As for the "grapvine segment" you couldn't find, let me be more specific, maybe it'll help.

When you load up fox news, on the right hand side there is a red block, called "Fox News Access Video" which lists sub-categories "U.S & World" , "Politics" and "Opinion".

All Bill O'Reilys "memo's", John Gibson's "my word" and The GrapeVine are all under opinion. The video segments use either Real Player or Windows media Player so you'll need those to see the reports.

oh and I repeat fox news site fascinates me because of how totally I usually end up disagreeing with it. I go there periodically just to see how a story plays on the other side of the atlantic. I also have bookmarked the sites of CNN, CBS, The New York Times and The Washington Post for comparissons sake and I wander freely so get a fiarly even view of american news media alongside BBC I figured I could only go the Reuters to get my news more directly and unsullied by perspective and agendas.

Speaking of whihc: Fox news, in case you are interested, is owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Clive.

Blimey, it took them long enough to work out somethng which we already knew.

Although I am glad that Saddam has been ousted, as it got a bit much sometimes reading about his torture techniques on human rights watch. I just hope that it doesn't start again in someone elses name. Beheading a woman because she had the cheek to be a teacher, is just sick and thats one case in hundreds, maybe thousands. It would have been better to sniper Saddam though, and the sons and not involve the entire country in this war.

" It would have been better to sniper Saddam though,"


so, should we be planning to sniper George W.?

After all, he heads a regime that tortures prisoners http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/ and which argues that it is perfectly legitimate and legal to order the hiding of prisoners from the Red Cross http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122898,00.html

Plus, like Saddam, he invaded a sovereign country without provocation, and, unlike Saddam, he ordered assassinations of foriegn nationals on foreign soil (capital punishment without due process, violation of other nations' sovereignty)

The world community has more justification to oust George W. than George W. had to oust Saddam. Why is there still the suggestion that ousting Saddam was somehow sort of ok, even to the point of suggesting that some kind of violation of international law (sniping) would have been ok while so few seem to be arguing that intervention in the U.S., however difficult to actually perform, would be appropriate and justified?

As I see it, the only real differences between Saddam and Bush are that one was fairly honest and didn't have WMD and the other is a congenital liar who has more WMD than the rest of the world combined.

I wish the world would act accordingly and consistently.

'so, should we be planning to sniper George W.?'

I think it would make the world a better place yes.

This is not easy but if we can stop torture, mass murder etc etc, then I think we should. yes its difficult to define these things, I think Bush is as guilty as many of the people he goes for. he has certainly helped make the world a less stable place.

careful now. I think that might be treasonous or at the very least very illegal to declare an intent to kill the president of the united states.
Myself I'm hoping he chokes on another savoury food item.

anhaga I think the world is dealing with Bush accordingly. They are according all the freedom one might to a man who has the capability with his huge nuclear stock pile to go all postal worker and take us all down with him on his bible inspired end days fantasies.

The US government is already sheilding itself with "the commander in cheif is above US or international law" defence over ordering of torure so saying he broke the law by ordering executions without due process is spitting in the wind somewhat.

If I remeber rightly you are Canadian so it wouldnt be treason to suggest he would be a more fitting target for assasination but it might very easily land you on a list of people due a visit to the Guantanmo Hilton.

one love

but he's not the 'elected' president


* back*
OK, so I suppose declaring intent to hurt anyone is naughty, and I really didn't mean to belittle the topic...

Eek - simulpost with Blicky!

Silly moi! Yes, I meant O'Reilly....

Regarding dear 'ol Bill. A Globe and Mail article: http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040421/DOYLE21
"The people who support Fox News must be the most uncivil and foul-mouthed creatures on the planet. This is an informed opinion. They'd give English soccer hooligans a run for their money.

I lost count of the number of times I was called "an a**hole." It was at least 43 times, anyway. I was called "a pussy," "a wussy," "a pr**k," "a jerk," "a hack" and "a creep." A man in Cleveland not only called me "an a**hole" but also wished me a "f***ed-up day." A lady -- and I use the term advisedly -- in Colorado wrote to say that all Canadians are "a**holes" and thenordered me not to visit her state. I was also called a Canadian numerous times, as if that were an automatic and withering insult."

It's like the Daily Mail have got their own planet isn't it?

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/

Press release from the Danish Embassy: http://www.denmarkemb.org/oreilly.html

"I am utterly amazed that you call Bill O'Reilly biased! For decades, Americans have had no choice with their news coverage. We all have had to watch the increasingly liberal media. Thank God for Fox News and people like Bill O'Reilly. You must be jealous of their ever-increasing success. Listen, people know the truth when they hear it. I think you are the one that is brain-washed." http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/hatemail.htm


"Sometimes a guest who sticks to his or her guns can keep O’Reilly’s audience from being misinformed. When the host claimed (5/8/01) that the United States "give[s] far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else. . . . Nobody else even comes close to us," Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies was thankfully on hand to explain that U.S. contributions per capita were lower than those of any member of the European Union. "That’s not true," O’Reilly inaccurately responded. Actually, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2000 the U.S. gave only 0.1 percent of its Gross National Income as official development aid-- less than Italy, the least generous EU nation. Denmark gave 10 times as much on a per capita basis. Even in real terms, Japan in 2000 gave away a third more aid, even though its economy was less than half as large." http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/oh_really.html

Larry Flint on O'Reilly: http://www.larryflynt.com/national_prayer_day.html

O'Reilly admits he was wrong (Has Hell frozen over? Are pigs flying?): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3479703.stm "I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be...." Not going to touch THAT with a 10' pole.

I still can't see the link. I think it may have something to do with my Norton ad-blocker. I have searched the whole page. Not to worry.

"President Bush repeated his assertions Thursday that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had a relationship before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The president added that he did not infer that the two had a "collaborative relationship" on the attacks, a conclusion rejected by the commission investigating the intelligence failures that prevented the United States from warding off the attacks."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122956,00.html

Well, some of us never gave a toss whether Saddam was linked to bin Laden's lot or not since some of us thought the war was just a convenient way of getting rid of an evil murdering rightwing tyrant and giving his 20 million subjects the right to choose their own government.

So, not too ruffled in this camp.

"I think Bush is as guilty as many of the people he goes for. he has certainly helped make the world a less stable place."

Don't forget that that "stability" in the Middle East was on the understanding that millions of arabs had to suffer (as, indeed, many still do, including under "still necessary" stable systems like the absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia) under extremely repressive governments. Personally, as an internationalist, a humanist and something of a revolutionary when it comes to scumbags like Saddam, I say instability is good.

"I think it would make the world a better place yes.

This is not easy but if we can stop torture, mass murder etc etc, then I think we should."

Would you agree with Israel's policy of assassinating Hammas leaders, Kaz, since you've just repeated their philosophy in a nutshell?

No I wouldn't agree with their policy Zagreb.

And before you start to ask more clever questions, let me say now I don't have all the answers. Many great people have worked on these questions and have not found an easy answer, so don't expect me to either. Not today anyway.

"If I remeber rightly you are Canadian so it wouldn't be treason to suggest he would be a more fitting target for assasination but it might very easily land you on a list of people due a visit to the Guantanmo Hilton."

Yes, I am Canadian. And, yes the American government has no trouble sending Canadian citizens off to various places for torture if they see fit to do so. However, I never actually suggested that anyone was a fitting target for assassination. I'm sorry if that was misunderstood. The truth is that I don't feel that it is appropriate for anyone to decide that anyone is a fitting target for assassination. Assassination is a criminal act in pretty much any jurisdiction. I don't think attacking Iraq was the right thing to do; I don't think the world should all get together and invade the U. S.; I don't think a sniper should have been sent after Saddam and I haven't advocated it for George W. I was merely pointing out that advocating assassination is a slippery slope (as is justifying unilateral unprovoked invasion). I wasn't the one that advocated assassination of anyone; the only assassination that was advocated here was the sniping of Saddam and his sons.

If the rest of you are comfortable with vigilantes running around assassinating state leaders or invading countries as they see fit, then it's a pretty bloody sad world we're all living in. I realize the world is a pretty bloody sad place and I, for one, am definitely not happy about the vigilantes.

Very interesting indeed, Mudhooks... Yet more evidence, another nail in the coffin.