Metropol

Phew! Thanks Scottish.
So may i ask you Johnnyboy, how can you pass judgement on a programme that has not been shown yet?

Marcus wrote:A good article by Matthew Paris. I agree with much of what he said. I don't believe he says it was an inside job though, unless I missed something.

I just can't take your arguments seriously when you complain the mainstream media covers everything up and site as your sources the mainstream media.

The Power of Nightmares was a BBC Production in case you have forgotton.

You have a real problem reading for content, don't you?

The main thrust of my argument/belief is that the media in general does a terrible job of covering bigger issues. It tends to narrow in on certain "facts" and not present them in a decent context. It also tends to make many mistakes, giving the lie to your absurd statement that the media "check and doublecheck" all facts.

However, occasionally it does present something different, something provocative, like "The Power Of Nightmares" and this piece by Matthew Parris. Anyone with any reading comprehension is able to see that these works are vastly different in scope and event framing to the rest of the dirge presented as "fact" (then often disproven and forgotten about).

The reason I placed that article for you to view, Marcus, was not as evidence that anything was an "inside job" - it was to present something akin to real journalism to you. Analysing the facts, looking at the motives of the parties involved, etc - not what appears to be your normal work of taking one source's information and not intellectually rigorising it.

If after what must be the 6th or 7th attempt to present this proposition you still don't get, you still can't see the point I am making (mentioned again above for the hard-of-comprehension), then there's little point continuing to discuss it with you.

As to "The New Al-Qaeda", you just have to read the synposis to see that the programme's assertion are intellectual weak and highly speculative.

johnnyboy wrote:As to "The New Al-Qaeda", you just have to read the synposis to see that the programme's assertion are intellectual weak and highly speculative.

But Johnny, all of your assertations relating to the recent events in London being some kind of 'cover up' are nothing but speculation.

Having met Peter Taylor, I know he's a journalist of excellent integrity who thoroughly researches his subjects over a long period. During the 80s and 90s, his documentaries on the IRA provided some of the deepest insights into the conflict of any journalist. The depth of his investigations have even led him to be blindfolded by IRA members and driven to a secret hideout in order to speak to senior members of the organisation. IIRC he was also the first journalist to uncover the secret talks between the government and the IRA. So we're not talking Tonight With Trevor McDonald style journalism here.

Perhaps you should wait til you see it before casting judgement.

johnnyboy wrote:

Marcus wrote:A good article by Matthew Paris. I agree with much of what he said. I don't believe he says it was an inside job though, unless I missed something.

I just can't take your arguments seriously when you complain the mainstream media covers everything up and site as your sources the mainstream media.

The Power of Nightmares was a BBC Production in case you have forgotton.

You have a real problem reading for content, don't you?

The main thrust of my argument/belief is that the media in general does a terrible job of covering bigger issues. It tends to narrow in on certain "facts" and not present them in a decent context. It also tends to make many mistakes, giving the lie to your absurd statement that the media "check and doublecheck" all facts.

However, occasionally it does present something different, something provocative, like "The Power Of Nightmares" and this piece by Matthew Parris. Anyone with any reading comprehension is able to see that these works are vastly different in scope and event framing to the rest of the dirge presented as "fact" (then often disproven and forgotten about).

The reason I placed that article for you to view, Marcus, was not as evidence that anything was an "inside job" - it was to present something akin to real journalism to you. Analysing the facts, looking at the motives of the parties involved, etc - not what appears to be your normal work of taking one source's information and not intellectually rigorising it.

If after what must be the 6th or 7th attempt to present this proposition you still don't get, you still can't see the point I am making (mentioned again above for the hard-of-comprehension), then there's little point continuing to discuss it with you.

As to "The New Al-Qaeda", you just have to read the synposis to see that the programme's assertion are intellectual weak and highly speculative.

Maybe you are watching the wrong media. Oh I forgot you watch all the output 24 hours a day.

Spencer For Hire wrote:But Johnny, all of your assertations relating to the recent events in London being some kind of 'cover up' are nothing but speculation.

I disagree that they are assertions, Spencer. I have repeatedly stated that I don't know what to believe and what not to believe. All I "know" is that there are some worrying inconsistencies throughout the whole thing, many of which have since been picked up by the mainstream media. (Of course, I am not claiming credit for that - my ego does have some limits!)

This whole weird thread started off by my finding some interesting information and presenting it to you guys. Some of you agree with me that there are some questions out there that need to be answered, some of you do not. That's healthy debate.

Spencer For Hire wrote:Having met Peter Taylor, I know he's a journalist of excellent integrity who thoroughly researches his subjects over a long period. During the 80s and 90s, his documentaries on the IRA provided some of the deepest insights into the conflict of any journalist. The depth of his investigations have even led him to be blindfolded by IRA members and driven to a secret hideout in order to speak to senior members of the organisation. IIRC he was also the first journalist to uncover the secret talks between the government and the IRA. So we're not talking Tonight With Trevor McDonald style journalism here.

Perhaps you should wait til you see it before casting judgement.

Perhaps, but the synposis of the programme is no different to the many other investigations about "Al Qeada", which, in my opinion, are flawed logically.

I hope he brings some scepticism to the subject, however, from the trailers, I may be hoping in vain.

Marcus wrote:Maybe you are watching the wrong media. Oh I forgot you watch all the output 24 hours a day.

If that's the best you can do, I think we should simply agree to differ, Marcus. This is getting neither of us anywhere particularly fast.

Other people seem to want to continue the discussion, so, your and my flame war aside and over, let's just keep it rolling.

Some very good research there, I have been reading on from some of the links that were from the pages that you posted the links to in your first post and I answered all of my doubts from that.

johnnyboy wrote:
Perhaps, but the synopsis of the programme is no different to the many other investigations about "Al Qeada", which, in my opinion, are flawed logically.

I hope he brings some scepticism to the subject, however, from the trailers, I may be hoping in vain.

Now that's what I call an open mind. Condemning the whole programme in advance because the listings indicate the programme doesn't fall into your own view of the world.

Marcus wrote:Now that's what I call an open mind. Condemning the whole programme in advance because the listings indicate the programme doesn't fall into your own view of the world.

Haha! You have the gall to talk of my inability to see the points of others when you dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your own somewhat blinkered view of the world.

It's an interesting programme - I am watching it now. However, as predicted, it's not actually saying anything new or necessarily cogent, i.e. we've all heard it all before.

Turns out the synopsis was correct. Therefore my prediction was correct. And this, my dear friend, should teach you the value of reading for content.

Out of interest, what is it you do? Are you a journo or researcher or something else? Of course, don't put in any potentially self-identifying information if you don't want - just curious.

P.S. Marcus, second and final time, are we going to call a truce? It's fairly obvious that we view the world in many different ways and have vastly different curiosity levels into things. We will never convince each other of each other's point of view - I'm having difficulty getting you to understand mine. Maybe that's my fault, maybe it's yours, maybe it's somewhere in the middle - who knows? Otherwise, this'll drag on forever otherwise.

johnnyboy wrote:

Marcus wrote:Now that's what I call an open mind. Condemning the whole programme in advance because the listings indicate the programme doesn't fall into your own view of the world.

Haha! You have the gall to talk of my inability to see the points of others when you dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your own somewhat blinkered view of the world.

It's an interesting programme - I am watching it now. However, as predicted, it's not actually saying anything new or necessarily cogent, i.e. we've all heard it all before.

Turns out the synopsis was correct. Therefore my prediction was correct. And this, my dear friend, should teach you the value of reading for content.

Out of interest, what is it you do? Are you a journo or researcher or something else? Of course, don't put in any potentially self-identifying information if you don't want - just curious.

P.S. Marcus, second and final time, are we going to call a truce? It's fairly obvious that we view the world in many different ways and have vastly different curiosity levels into things. We will never convince each other of each other's point of view - I'm having difficulty getting you to understand mine. Maybe that's my fault, maybe it's yours, maybe it's somewhere in the middle - who knows? Otherwise, this'll drag on forever otherwise.

Fair enough. I think we probably agree on many things. I just wish you would accept that the is a possibility that such intelligent and well researched journalists like Frank Gardner and Peter Taylor do actually know what they are talking about.

Marcus wrote:Fair enough. I think we probably agree on many things. I just wish you would accept that the is a possibility that such intelligent and well researched journalists like Frank Gardner and Peter Taylor do actually know what they are talking about.

Nice one. I'm becoming a cynical and over-analytical bugger as I get older, Marcus - it may be connected with that! And I apologise for the name-calling earlier on - I'm pretty mature most of the time and I should know better.

*offers hand*