ralphwiggum

Do I need to lock the thread and ban some people here? Stay on topic, no politics.

Thread is reopened. Again, this thread is for discussing the issue about wiretapping by News Coro, not about politics.

I see no reason to keep this thread going now that we are completely off the subject on hand. Those who want to add the relevant news instead of political bickering may contact me via PM.

The problem that the Parliament query wants to deal with is whethere there was a coverup or anything condones by the company itself. right now it's investigation, and seems like some people just can't stand that it is under the microscope. There are plenty of criminals who claim they are innocent, but investigation showed otherwise. The reality is that breaking into a phone is illegal activity in itself. I find it extrememly disturbing that you are brushing off this by saying 'so what'. There is a line that is drawn and perpetraitors already passed it knowingly and even ended up possibly hampering investigation. To say this is something minor is just plain abhorrable. If a company knew and did not do reasonable action to prevent such from happening, then the company is condoning the illegal activity. That's what the question is right now. How much did Murdoch knew about this and what did he do if he knew it. And yet, you have no problem taking Murdoch's side while belittling other side. ---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ---------- Yet, you don't have history of defending 'liberal' media, IIRC. In fact, you complain about how Fox network is treated, but not how 'liberal' media is being treated. Don't take this off topic. I've not explicitly said it last time, but I will this time. This is about illegal activity of News Corp., not about economic battle of companies. Again, you show your true self as Fox network lover. You tried to stay neutral to the question I asked above, but you just can't help it. If you are truly objective, you'd see that FOX is no more of saint then those whom they criticize.

What surprised me was how fast he resigned. I know that this is the biggest stoy in UK right now, but his resignation is something I'm quite surprised of. Murdoch is right now under investigation, not trial, so yes, your point is partially right. However, as I mentioned earlier, Murdoch showing up in front of the parliament is not just because there are others who are trying to get him, but the gravity required some less than common measure. I'm wondering what evidence you have that shows that Murdoch is innocent. When there is smoke, there could be a fire, and that is what is happening. It seems like there is more than what has been previously known and investigation has to be done, and probably will not be haphazardly done like last time. You, as well as BF2-Trooper, seems to view this as some sort of witch hunt. Try running this scenario. If a liberal news organization has done the same thing, would you be fine with the head of that news organizatoin treated this way?

And is it too much to think that the free holidays by the Chief probably had something to do with running a poor investigation? The reason why Murdochs appeared on TV and parliament is because the gravity of the situation. With something as big as this, you can bet anyone will end up on TV. Just look at Casey Anthony's case. She doesn't have power of Murdoch but there were cameras following every moment of the trial. Furthermore, what BF2-Trooper suggested was economical repurcussion on Fox network instead of one's wealth being the conduit for more attention. From page 2 I hope you are not complaining about treatment Murdoch is getting. Murdoch made all the right enemies and this might be the crime(if it is) that will land him in jail.

And that's why News Corp. is being investigated. Unfortunately for Fox network , they are a part of News Corp. and it is really difficult for them to say that they are detached from this mess.

Plenty of evidence. Police chief of UK's police had to resign since he didn't fully investigate back when this all happened. Had it been done back then, we probably would not be talking about this in 2011. So no, it is not an outrageous speculation. FBI is investigating this side, UK's parliament summoned Murdoch and his son. That doesn't seem to so outrageous.

Here's another question: Without investigation, how do you know who was involved in perpetraiting and/or condoning such activities?

The 'outrageous' speculations may not be so outrageous. That's why people are asking for more investigations. With more information coming out, the scope of illegal activities seems to be larger than originally thought. Even FBI is investigating if 9-11 victim's voicemails were hacked. With such broad disregard for legal stuff, I think calling the speculations outrageous is more outrageous than raising suspicions. No, I'm giving you clear unadulterated fact about the whole situation. Anytime a corporation is investigated, subsidiaries do get investigated. That's why I said, 'Fox network is part of News Corp, and they are not immune from criticism.' That statement alone is true whether you replace Fox with CNN or just about any others. But you seem to be stuck in us-vs-them and try to put me in to category of people who want Fox demolished.

When in the course of this discussion did I say I want Fox to be destroyed?

Then why are you so bent on defending them? You don't seem to have much opinion about the whole wiretapping and bribery, but you just jumped in to the thread with discussion about Fox. Many people thought the current scandal/incident was something that was limited to celebs(although it should have been more thoroughly investigated even at the time). Do you have proof that Fox is innocent of using illegla tactics to get information? Until then, the suspicion is waranted. Wishing the other media outlet dead isn't monopolized by one side of politics. It is not about money, but possible illegal activities. Just because someone has money and power doesn't mean they are above the law. If you want to act like a petulant child, go ahead. I will treat you like one and any consequence will be yours. So now you agree that wiretapping is wrong, do you also believe that those who condoned it should be punished?

You don't have problem calling others liberals in a wide brush either. That's also a simplistic view, isn't it?

The biggest problem is that 1. when the phone hacking initially came to light there were no, if any serious review, to see if the News of the World had systematic problem. 2. The scope of wiretapping was so wide and methods to get them, including bribery, is illigal. 3. How much did Murdoch know about it? When did he know about it? What did he do after to punish those who broke the law? It is very naive to think that the owner's attitude and view will not affect the operations of a company. So that's why Fox network is part of criticism. Fox news is not some golden standard of journalism if you haven't noticed. It is possible that Murdoch could be this era's William Hearst. I don't see you criticizing wiretapping either.

You seem to be ignorant of the influence News Corp. had on British politics and the backlash that is now growing. Fox network is part of News Corp, and they are not immune from criticism.

If you want to get personal instead of sticking with the topic, I will make sure it doesn't happen.

IIRC, the book isn't just about what it is like in the team. Don't expect the book to spell it out for all to see. As for Insid Delta Force, a lot of information seems to be outdated.

ok, rapture is over.

I see no reason for this kind of thread here.

finally, I can run around in pink uniform!;)

Not the way the conversation was going. Also, I told you to stay out of the thread. Perhaps you can use 1 week too.

I've had enough of idiotic remarks, and the above 3 decided to take a stand, and got what was coming to them. Perhaps you could use one too? My post was clear. This is thread about Osama's death, not civilization.

congratulations, mrmoon. You got 1 week vacation for that little rant of yours. ---------- Post added at 05:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ---------- You got yourself a nice 1week vacation too.

I'm gonna make it clear here. Osama is dead. Even Al Qaeda confirmed it. Don't bring conspiracy theories here. I am sick and tired of it. edit: Minuteman, jblackrupert, mrcash2009, maturin. Leave the thread.

As Second pointed out, there is a bit of difference between 5.56 and .223. .223 is not the 'civillian' version of 5.56