|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 20, 2007 9:14:47 GMT -4
Have the UK and The US ever conspired to overthrow a democratically elected government with the aid of the MSM, namely the BBC?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2007 10:59:13 GMT -4
Sounds like a trick question to me.
|
|
|
Post by gorgonian on Mar 20, 2007 11:12:50 GMT -4
No there have never been any covert operations. Ever!
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Mar 20, 2007 12:23:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by antoniocc on Mar 20, 2007 12:23:44 GMT -4
I smell a rat here...
Chile? Costa Rica?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 20, 2007 15:48:56 GMT -4
With the help of the BBC? Are you kidding me?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Mar 20, 2007 17:02:39 GMT -4
I think the UK Government may have found out that US troops had landed on Grenada (a British dependent territory) via the BBC, but that's more of an anti-conspiracy, in that information was not passing between governments as it should have been.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 20, 2007 17:38:45 GMT -4
Sounds like a trick question to me. No, there is a right answer and a wrong answer, the "trick " is being honest enough to admit it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 20, 2007 21:00:55 GMT -4
What if I answer by saying "some democractically elected governments should be overthrown"? Hitler was elected, after all.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 20, 2007 21:14:47 GMT -4
Well I know that the British and French managed to con Israel into attacking Egypt, until the US told them to play nice.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 21, 2007 1:46:51 GMT -4
Operation Ajax is the piece of work I was thinking about, it has all the elements including the BBC. What is really incredible is the names of the players such as Roosevelt and Schwarzkopf as well as the reason for the regime change as seen by the British. These nations are the self appointed bastions of Democracy, just listen to Tony or W, when you here them speak of liberating people for freedom and democracy and think of BP. Because they sure as hell aren't thinking of the people in the nations they wish to plunder. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeghwww.fff.org/comment/com0501i.aspwww.worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj02-2/Zahrani.pdf
|
|
|
Post by antoniocc on Mar 21, 2007 6:22:48 GMT -4
Calling Mossadegh government democratically elected is a very big stretch, given the autocratic nature of the regime of the Shah. And that happened in the '50s, when the attitude toward friendly dictators by the US and the UK was pretty much "It's a bastard, but it's OUR bastard."
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 21, 2007 8:37:12 GMT -4
Yes, in the eyes of the west he's just a savage, what would he know from democracy. Iranians don't see it that way. www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/June/MM/index.htmlThe fact that the Anglo American coup which just happened to involve the death of hundreds of Iranians happened in the 50's, after the pieces were falling into place after ww2 is as far back as I wanted to go to describe the absolute stuff up these corporate sellout nations have created. It gets worse from then on.
|
|
|
Post by antoniocc on Mar 21, 2007 9:27:09 GMT -4
The bastard commentary was about dictators, not about Mossadegh. And you sound like you didn't knew anything about history, because this kind of things have always happened with one excuse or another.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 21, 2007 14:40:55 GMT -4
I haven't answered this question because I don't have enough information about the subject to make an informed choice.
It's an absolute statement: "Has the UK and the US ever..." (emphasis mine). Which means chances are that the answer is, in some sense, true. I.e., it's unlikely that something like what the question describes has never happened.
But in what sense is the question true? Another problem with the poll is that the question is somewhat ambiguous. Is the question whether these two governments conspired with the media? Or is the question whether these two governments have conspired with each other to use the media as an uwitting tool?
Also, what does the clause "... namely, the BBC" mean, in this context? Is the question whether these two governments conspired with (or to use) any media outlet--the BBC, for example? Or is the question whether these two governments have conspired with (or to use) the BBC specifically?
Personally, I consider it highly likely that these two governments, both singly and together, have in the past conspired to use media outlets as unwitting channels for all sorts of propaganda and counter-intelligence dissemination, including in support of conspiracies or open plans to overthrow democratically-elected governments (e.g., during World War 2).
I also consider it a known fact that these two governments have conspired, both singly and together, with media outlets to disseminate propaganda and counter-intelligence, notably during World War 2.
I also consider it a known fact that these two governments have openly planned and carried out such activities, as a separate case from their conspiracies to do so.
I also consider it a known fact that these two governments, both singly and together, have conspired to overthrow democratically-elected governments.
And, of course, I consider it a known fact that these two govenrments, both singly and together, have openly planned and carried out the overthrow of democratically-elected governments, notably during World War 2.
Finally, I consider the poll question to be too absolutist, too ambiguous, and too poorly-worded overall, to be worth answering as is. Given the context in which it is asked (this board and its recent thread topics), it also strikes me as simplistic and loaded. I would very much like to know 3onthetree's reasoning behind formulating the question the way he did, what information he expects to gain from the responses, and what interpretation he puts on that information.
|
|