Heavy Metal 0 Posted March 2, 2003 Ok, Now the Observer is saying they 'standarized' the text for a British audience: "· Footnote: This email was originally transcribed with English spellings standardised for a British audience. Following enquiries about this, we have reverted to the original US-spelling as in the document leaked to The Observer." [churchlady]How convenient!!!![/churchlady] I guess they figured their own readership would have a total mental blank and prove totallly incapable of divining the true meaning of the words without that slight anglization and might misconstrue the meaning of the whole document! No, we can't dare copy and paste the (alleged) email in one fell swoop! Just how stupid do they think people are?!? They are now trying to piss down peoples backs and tell them that it is merely raining! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted March 2, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Heavy Metal @ Mar. 02 2003,21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, Now the Observer is saying they 'standarized' the text for a British audience: "· Footnote: This email was originally transcribed with English spellings standardised for a British audience. Following enquiries about this, we have reverted to the original US-spelling as in the document leaked to The Observer." [churchlady]How convenient!!!![/churchlady] I guess they figured their own readership would have a total mental blank and prove totallly incapable of divining the true meaning of the words without that slight anglization and might misconstrue the meaning of the whole document!  No, we can't dare copy and paste the (alleged) email in one fell swoop! Just how stupid do they think people are?!? They are now trying to piss down peoples backs and tell them that it is merely raining!<span id='postcolor'> Actually, if they use spell checking in their editing office, it's quite likely that the software would have reverted the 'mis-spelled' words. I know I had to go into office and set it up to stop 'correcting' all of my proper english spellings to the American versions. So why is it strange that their software doesnt correct the american mis-spellings? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted March 2, 2003 Cause it is biased...if you use a reference..or a piece of evidence then it must be authentic!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 02 2003,20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Look at the spellings. Â They're all the british english spellings, not american english. Â FAVOURABLE", "RECOGNISE" AND "EMPHASISE. Â Not in my country. <span id='postcolor'> LOL hilarious Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Snrub 0 Posted March 3, 2003 A bit disturbing, but hardly surprising. The US has been eavesdropping on foreign diplomats for decades. The fact that the United Nations headquarters are located on American soil - which was lobbied for so hard by the US in the 40s - allows organisations such as the NSA to easily intercept Sigint from diplomats to their home countries, and vice versa. Any other country, given the same advantages as the US, would do the same thing - i'm not condoning this sort of activity, but if a country has a chance to gain an advantage (unfair or not), we have to expect it to do so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 3, 2003 Has anyone noticed this being reported and taken seriously by any of the major news services? So far, other than the UK's Observer being parroted by the UK's Guardian, this doesn't seem to be given credibility at this point by anyone else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Snrub 0 Posted March 3, 2003 7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 02 2003,207)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And some people are surprised that the amount of US haters have been growing lately... I can tell you one thing, i'm not surprised, basically cuz i'm feeling the urge to become one of them too.<span id='postcolor'> I hope you differentiate the United States as a whole from current Bush administration policies - the "U.S." constitutes American political & economic systems, culture & society ... if you really do hate all of these things, then I suppose you're justified to say that you hate the U.S. I would say that I am frustrated with Bush's foreign policy of late - even to the extent of saying I hate them every now and then - but I certainly wouldn't say I hate the United States. The US is such a diverse country, with many different points of view. I would even say that the media around the globe has unfortunately perpetuated a stereotypical view of Americans. I can understand where your frustration is coming from, but try and remember that the government of a country, no matter how democratic and by its very definition of being democratic, does not represent the views of all (or even most) of its citizens. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted March 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Mar. 02 2003,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Mar. 02 2003,20<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And some people are surprised that the amount of US haters have been growing lately... I can tell you one thing, i'm not surprised, basically cuz i'm feeling the urge to become one of them too.<span id='postcolor'> I hope you differentiate the United States as a whole from current Bush administration policies - the "U.S." constitutes American political & economic systems, culture & society ... if you really do hate all of these things, then I suppose you're justified to say that you hate the U.S. I would say that I am frustrated with Bush's foreign policy of late - even to the extent of saying I hate them every now and then - but I certainly wouldn't say I hate the United States. The US is such a diverse country, with many different points of view. I would even say that the media around the globe has unfortunately perpetuated a stereotypical view of Americans. I can understand where your frustration is coming from, but try and remember that the government of a country, no matter how democratic and by its very definition of being democratic, does not represent the views of all (or even most) of its citizens.<span id='postcolor'> Yes i know, i actually was talking about the government, not really the people... well... of course also some of the people but that's normal, you can't like everyone When i was a bit younger i always wanted to go to the US cuz it was such a 'weird' country, totally different from Europe... But the way it's going right now, i don't really feel like going there anymore. It seems to me that the government has made my respect to the US a lot smaller while the US itself probable hasn't changed a lot... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted March 3, 2003 We all know that everyone does these sort of things, but the Yank always get caught! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Othin 0 Posted March 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 03 2003,07:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We all know that everyone does these sort of things, but the Yank always get caught! <span id='postcolor'> Maybe it's possible that when we "yanks" catch someone, we don't publicize it. The point being that if someone dosen't know they're caught, you can feed them whatever you want. The more you know... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 03 2003,21:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We all know that everyone does these sort of things, but the Yank always get caught! <span id='postcolor'> But if we don't get caught nobody knows about it! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pukko 0 Posted March 3, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 02 2003,15:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it an opportunity that any country would take?  Yes.  That's part of the game of politics.  If anything this is a tame example of espionage. And those of you getting up in a fluff, I wouldn't start pointing fingers as many of your vaunted governments use the same methods of the U.S.  Much like an arms race, you have to do a certain amount to stay relevent.  France, Germany, England, Isreal, Australia, China, and Russia all invest large amounts of money in their intelligence agencies.<span id='postcolor'> What is interesting in this discussion (Othis quote is only one of several similar) is that everyone seems to agree that the USA has great national interests in a war against Iraq - in this case by manipulating the security council with the help of intelligence spying, that for some reason is 'obvious' when one deal with an organisation like the UN. It does not matter much whether the pm is actually genuine or not in this case. What USA:s national interests really are in a war with Iraq is certainly not as easy as 'its all about oil', if one take in considerations as the war-industry, Israeli lobby and many other parts, it may have more substance though. Personally I believe that a major factor is the need for the USA to unite against an external enemy (moreover an American national addiction, since there always have been external enemies around - would the USA survive without one? ). An example of why this is relevant is one of the main messages in a American produced documentary (The faces of the enemy (late 80's) - about how nations produced stereotyped images of their enemies in the 20:th century, and the effects of that) that I saw at my University the other day: "Its so easy to live when one are at war". Our entire 'human world' is nothing but categorisations - that is our languages. Just make an external group into a evil category (stereotyping), and productivity, health and happyness increases big time. It is proved to work with both for organisations and nations. If one can get it by going to war with an 'low-risk enemy' like Iraq (is in it self), that is as easy to beat as crushing an ant - why not? Its the governments damn responsibility to make the nation prosper, right? Not to mention: It will create 'terrorist-enemies' for generations to come, talk about a good deal! One may argue that all this would only be about taking focus of current national problems, but this is much more than just that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted March 3, 2003 Memo Questioned </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Â Â The newspaper said that it had shown the memo to three former intelligence operatives, whom it also did not identify, who judged its "language and content" as authentic. The newspaper also said it had confirmed that a man named Frank Koza does work for the NSA at a senior post in the "Regional Targets" division of the organization. Â Â Â Â Â The memo's authenticity was questioned by Internet reporter Matt Drudge, who cited several misspellings including the name of the memo's author on the document as published by the Observer, and an incorrect version of the agency's "top secret" stamp.<span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 4, 2003 Question. if the US is a permanent member of the UN security council, why would we want to eavesdrop on the delegations? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Benze 0 Posted March 4, 2003 The "Independant" is objective? About as much as...something...that's not objective... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted March 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 03 2003,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it's possible that when we "yanks" catch someone, we don't publicize it.<span id='postcolor'> Not a chance in hell, whenever the Americans have the slightest victory it's all over the world. I can't really be bothered giving examples as i have work tomorrow etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Warin 0 Posted March 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 04 2003,01:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Question. Â if the US is a permanent member of the UN security council, why would we want to eavesdrop on the delegations?<span id='postcolor'> Because you'll say things to your own people, when you are expecting them to be private, that you wont say on the floor of the Security Council meetings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 4, 2003 Unless, of course, it's covert. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Othin 0 Posted March 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Mar. 03 2003,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 03 2003,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Maybe it's possible that when we "yanks" catch someone, we don't publicize it.<span id='postcolor'> Not a chance in hell, whenever the Americans have the slightest victory it's all over the world. I can't really be bothered giving examples as i have work tomorrow etc.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure if you misunderstood my post, or chose to get what you wanted out of it. Before I reply let me quote myself (in whole) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Maybe it's possible that when we "yanks" catch someone, we don't publicize it. The point being that if someone dosen't know they're caught, you can feed them whatever you want. <span id='postcolor'> In my post I was making reference to espionage. More correctly, counter-espionage. As an aside, in espionage the media is a third party that normally is considered an enemy to all parties involved (unless the media is being used to put out false intelligence). If a government catches a spy, the first thing they do is try to figure out if they can use the spy themselves. If not then they announce to the world that they've caught a spy. +Political gain. If they can use the spy, they don't announce it to the papers. They put the spy to work double crossing the other government, or feed the spy false information to mislead the other government. +Intelligence/Scientific/Economic Gain The same thing goes for electronic espionage. If it is discovered they ask themselves if they can use it as a tool to mislead the other government. My point (as it was in the other post in about a 1/4th of the words) is that it's not much use to announce that you've caught a spy, or discovered a bug unless it is of no use to you. You use it to your advantage. As far as not giving examples... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted March 4, 2003 I just want to emphasise that the US government wouldn't give the terrorists any conditions favourable to the conditions that they would realise that they were about to be caught. Fancy my humour? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
