Osama Bin Laden is dead

[eFestivals]

So the person performing for the cameras still performs without the camera? You need a viewer to enact a performance Neil.

1. yes, a person performing for the camera still performs when there's no viewer of that performance. It's called what gets filmed but never shown.

2. yes, a person performing still performs without the camera. Within art forms it's often referred to as 'art for art's sake', but it's no different outside of art forms.

Where you're going wrong is in believing that the show is of more importance than the action itself. That's an idea based in the stupidity of the idea that no one tackles a threat unless they're able to make a show of having beaten that threat.

I'm not saying that events don't occur, I'm saying that to perform they have to fit in with a media narrative.

But not everyone is of the daft belief that the show of the actions is of greater importance than the action itself.

So if the media are not in sole control of what we see, then who is? Western capital interest perhaps?

My eyes are in sole control of what I see. If you manage to open your own eyes, you'll discover that's the case for you too.

The media is the presentation and - apart from with the very dumb - not the interpretation.... as the posts in this thread get to demonstrate.

[Gre]

Since no-one else has done this joke yet, i'll take the fall;

Also I reckon it was massively illegal, Osama was probably just sat there playing Xbox Playstation,I'm sure they could have taken him alive but it made more sense to them to kill him. But like others have stated its far from the end of terrorism, and its significance is fairly limited. Whilst it could be seen as a blessing to Obama, it could haunt him if the US believes the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is over now, yet they remain.

[llcoolphil]

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that it's more than just me which has that effect

[llcoolphil]

Is it just Neil, or do other people here honestly believe that the global news isn't a construction?

[eFestivals]

Now regarding Bin laden. Are you sticking with the fact that he was armed and firing at people or are you going with the new story that he was unarmed?

who cares? It makes no difference to the important point of this story.

Are you going with the original story that it was filmed and watched in live feed at the White House or that it wasn't?

who cares? It makes no difference to the important point of this story.

And whichever story you're going with, why do you think the alternative version was given as the truth at the time it was publicised? You can call it conspiracy theory if you like, but in 48 hours we have been given totally different versions of events.

yep, there's been different reports on the finer details of what went on.

But the point is, where did the first set of reports come from? It's certainly the case that not all of them came from 'official' sources, and while some of them might have done, who's to say that someone wasn't speaking out of place for whatever reason? It's not like people posting here don't manage to do that on occasion, so why do you think that all other humans are different to the humans that post here?

Id say that was a justifiable reason to doubt much of what we have been told about these events.

There's reason to doubt various parts of it, but very little reason outside of baseless conspiracy theories to doubt the central point. It's certainly the case that the organisation with about the most to gain by claiming Bin Laden is still alive is not - now (they did at first) - denying that he's been killed.

As gets demonstrated in loads of the threads around here, there's often little agreement about the most simple and straightforwards of facts. Unless you're admitting the existence of a super-race waaaaay above your own abilities, why do you expect better of the media or govt employees? It's not like our own media or govt employees are known for a rigid adherence to every fact in - or not in - their possession, is it?

I tend to find that applying the more normal human traits to such things gets way nearer the facts than going with the most inventive conspiracy theories that people can muster. It might not always turn out to be the case but in the vast majority of cases it is.

[llcoolphil]

who cares? It makes no difference to the important point of this story.

[eFestivals]

There is more than one important point to this story. The summary execution of a man being one of them.

if that's actually what happened of course. It might just be a not-hugely-unusual case of his death being caused by trigger-happy yanks. These were the exact same people who recently managed to kill the aid worker they went to rescue, don't forget.

But anyway, if it's actually that (and my presumption is that it is), while I'm not entirely comfortable with that, there's the other side of things to be considered: what good would his capture actually do?

It's not like putting him on trial achieves anything worthwhile. It creates a whole heap of new problems, with no better answers than the confusion you currently have with what actually happened.

After all, you're expressing your complete distrust of anything the USA says or does, and none of that changes within a court room. So ultimately going the legal route does nothing more for the doubters than there is by killing him straight off, just as releasing photos of him dead would convince no one who has already decided that their doubts are primary.

But of course, if the conspiracy is all as big as your assuming, then you need to be taking into account the differences in versions of what happened. They could have left it as "he was shot because he was armed-resisting" and be done with it - and so the different versions come to undermine your conspiratorial view and not reinforce it.

[llcoolphil]

if that's actually what happened of course. It might just be a not-hugely-unusual case of his death being caused by trigger-happy yanks. These were the exact same people who recently managed to kill the aid worker they went to rescue, don't forget.

But anyway, if it's actually that (and my presumption is that it is), while I'm not entirely comfortable with that, there's the other side of things to be considered: what good would his capture actually do?

It's not like putting him on trial achieves anything worthwhile. It creates a whole heap of new problems, with no better answers than the confusion you currently have with what actually happened.

After all, you're expressing your complete distrust of anything the USA says or does, and none of that changes within a court room. So ultimately going the legal route does nothing more for the doubters than there is by killing him straight off, just as releasing photos of him dead would convince no one who has already decided that their doubts are primary.

But of course, if the conspiracy is all as big as your assuming, then you need to be taking into account the differences in versions of what happened. They could have left it as "he was shot because he was armed-resisting" and be done with it - and so the different versions come to undermine your conspiratorial view and not reinforce it.

Edited May 4, 2011 by llcoolphil

[Kowalski]

So the single greatest story a US President could have announced to America got a bit confused in the 'fog of war'? It's just an accident that they said he was armed and then realised he wasn't? Just an accident they said the president watched it and then he didn't? The most media savvy government with the biggest story to tell got facts completely wrong when they made the initial announcement? You're having a laugh

[llcoolphil]

What have the States gained by saying he wasn't armed after all?

[philthee]

Entirely a construction. Events and news are very much not the same thing. I did some stuff on news programme running orders too at university. Interesting stuff how the construction within a story is cemented by its place in the order. Anyone that doesn't think so should go and look up the Glasgow Media Group for an absolute wealth of information on the subject

So the single greatest story a US President could have announced to America got a bit confused in the 'fog of war'? It's just an accident that they said he was armed and then realised he wasn't? Just an accident they said the president watched it and then he didn't? The most media savvy government with the biggest story to tell got facts completely wrong when they made the initial announcement? You're having a laugh

[eFestivals]

The problem with summary execution is that it legitimises it for everyone, not just those the west think deserving of it.

it only legitimises it to those who believe it legitimises it. Your words are self-fulfilling.

The more discerning can see that the issues around Bin Laden are not replicated in many others.

The problem with having one story is that everyone has to stick with it to the letter or it is easily exposed.

yet as we see with the mostly simple things we discuss here, there's never just one version of anything. It's far more likely that a one-version story is a lie than a multi-version story, thus demonstrating what you say here as wrong (and I've just demonstrated it again ).

If you take control of creating the confusion, it becomes much easier to control the story - it puts enough doubt in enough people's minds that the truth is easy to hide.

or, for those with a better grasp of everyone's everyday reality, it merely shows that we all carry the same traits (apart from the conspiracy theorists of course ).

re the confusion thing - it's exactly what the Met did over the Ian Tomlinson affair and if the New York banker bloke hadn't divied up his phone recording to The Guardian, they'd have got away with it. They did get away with it over de Menezes. They do it all the time with 'anti terror raids' - publicise the raids massively, create fear and confusion and then forget to mention they all get released without charge

and of course, you yourself step forwards immediately, and publicise your own errors yourself.

Or perhaps not, thus showing that you operate no differently to that you condemn.

[eFestivals]

Confusion

yep, it's certainly confused the conspiracy theorists.

They've already had to amend their theories. If they were a little smarter then perhaps they'd grasp that they've got things fundamentally wrong from the off. Having to tweak the theory to make it 'right' would in a sharper mind have them considering the whole basis of their position.

[eFestivals]

Main Stream Media attempts time and again to restrict the background and discussion of the events they are reporting on, to be a very narrow analysis that is in the interests of the ruling elite.

or, alternatively, mainstream media has the experience and knowledge to filter out the baseless crap of uninformed amateurs.

Social media theory says we should have long ago abandoned record companies to now discover such things for ourselves. There's very good reason why that's not happened, yet the theory hasn't changed. Think about it!

[llcoolphil]

I dont think neil has ever displayed his complete lack of understanding of a subject as he has here. Reviewing the thread he hasn't actually added anything beyond emoticons. His grasp of stats was funny in the cancer farrago and his grasp of economics on interest rates amusing. His lies about the Browne report were actually funny. But you dont actually understand what 'news' is. Still, if you republish press releases and label them as news, its no great surprise.

[eFestivals]

I dont think neil has ever displayed his complete lack of understanding of a subject as he has here. Reviewing the thread he hasn't actually added anything beyond emoticons. His grasp of stats was funny in the cancer farrago and his grasp of economics on interest rates amusing. His lies about the Browne report were actually funny. But you dont actually understand what 'news' is. Still, if you republish press releases and label them as news, its no great surprise.

Brilliant. More free fruitcake.

Phil, I never realised you were such a contortionist. It's damn clever just how much you've crawled up your own arse.

But hey, the world and everyone in it acts and thinks just as you say. Except the fact that I don't proves you've got things entirely wrong.

If you were just 20% as clever as you think you are, then you'd be able to address what I say with something sensible rather than resort to empty and worethless bluster.

Edited May 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

Brilliant. More free fruitcake.

Phil, I never realised you were such a contortionist. It's damn clever just how much you've crawled up your own arse.

But hey, the world and everyone in it acts and thinks just as you say. Except the fact that I don't proves you've got things entirely wrong.

If you were just 20% as clever as you think you are, then you'd be able to address what I say with something sensible rather than resort to empty and worethless bluster.

[eFestivals]

You're a funny guy, bless that fragile ego.

If I had a fragile ego, I'd run scared of bullies. The fact that I don't gets to prove you wrong yet again. lol

I keep giving you links to esteemed and established sources. You can lead a horse to water

esteemed and established sources? PMSL

You've given just two links in this thread. One is to a joke site (http://newsthump.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-left-hugely-disappointed-by-quality-of-virgins/), and the other is to a page (http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/guy-aitchison/political-policing-in-britain-ahead-of-big-day?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=Nightly_2011-04-30+05%3A30) which is naff all t6o do with Bin Laden.

There's no bullshit too great for you tho, eh? I guess your need to lie and pretend you're right comes from your own fragile ego.

[llcoolphil]

If I had a fragile ego, I'd run scared of bullies. The fact that I don't gets to prove you wrong yet again. lol

esteemed and established sources? PMSL

You've given just two links in this thread. One is to a joke site (http://newsthump.com/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-left-hugely-disappointed-by-quality-of-virgins/), and the other is to a page (http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/guy-aitchison/political-policing-in-britain-ahead-of-big-day?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=Nightly_2011-04-30+05%3A30) which is naff all t6o do with Bin Laden.

There's no bullshit too great for you tho, eh? I guess your need to lie and pretend you're right comes from your own fragile ego.

[eFestivals]

I was talking generally but in this thread ive recommended work by the most cited living academic.(Chomsky) and also one of the leading media analysis organisations in the world the Glasgow Media Group. You've cited emoticons. Anything else you'd like correcting?

In this thread I've cited my opinions - something you've so far been unable to address with any substance, only bluster.

Anything else you'd like correcting? Perhaps I could also help you remove your head from your arse?

As for Chomsky, that's just one man's opinions - and opinions that are dis-respected by more people than they're respected. That's not me saying he's always wrong, that's me saying he's not always right.

What's gone on with the 'news' of Bin Laden's death can be many things, but the one you refuse to consider is cock-up. Yet the facts of life get to show that cock-up is responsible for far more than the totally contrived.

[llcoolphil]

Oh and re the bullying . If id been found to be posting malicious lies with the express purpose of undermining a board user id be embarrassed. If id been caught doing it several times id be too embarrassed to post again. I guess its tricky when you own the boards.

[eFestivals]

Oh and re the bullying . If id been found to be posting malicious lies with the express purpose of undermining a board user id be embarrassed. If id been caught doing it several times id be too embarrassed to post again. I guess its tricky when you own the boards.

You'd be right if you were right. As you've admitted, you've found nothing.

As for what I've said on the subject of Bin Laden, I see you have nothing to say in answer.

Edited May 5, 2011 by eFestivals

[worm]

or, alternatively, mainstream media has the experience and knowledge to filter out the baseless crap of uninformed amateurs.

[eFestivals]

nope, just a true fact for the vast majority of occasions.

[llcoolphil]

In this thread I've cited my opinions - something you've so far been unable to address with any substance, only bluster.