Faced with mounting international pressure over the Falkland Islands territorial dispute, the British government enlisted its spy service, including a highly secretive unit known for using “dirty tricks,” to covertly launch offensive cyberoperations to prevent Argentina from taking the islands.
A shadowy unit of the British spy agency Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had been preparing a bold, covert plan called “Operation QUITO” since at least 2009. Documents provided to The Intercept by National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden, published in partnership with Argentine news site Todo Notícias, refer to the mission as a “long-running, large scale, pioneering effects operation.”
At the heart of this operation was the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group, known by the acronym JTRIG, a secretive unit that has been involved in spreading misinformation.
The British government, which has continuously administered the Falkland Islands — also known as the Malvinas — since 1833, has rejected Argentine and international calls to open negotiations on territorial sovereignty. Worried that Argentina, emboldened by international opinion, may attempt to retake the islands diplomatically or militarily, JTRIG and other GCHQ divisions were tasked “to support FCO’s [Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s] goals relating to Argentina and the Falkland Islands.” A subsequent document suggests the main FCO goal was to “[prevent] Argentina from taking over the Falkland Islands” and that new offensive cyberoperations were underway in 2011 to further that end.
Tensions between the two nations, which fought a war over the small archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean in 1982, reached a boil in 2010 with the British discovery of large, offshore oil and gas reserves potentially worth billions of dollars.
The British government frames the issue as one of residents’ self-determination. Prime Minister David Cameron maintains that the islands will remain British as long as that was the will of their inhabitants, “full stop, end of story.”
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, known for her provocative, left-leaning foreign policy since taking office in 2007, rallied regional and international leaders to pass resolutions in international bodies supportive of Argentina’s claim to the islands and stand against what she called the U.K.’s “downright colonialism.”
Even the United States, Britain’s closest ally, declined to support the U.K. position, instead offering to mediate a resolution between the two sides in 2010. Prime Minister Cameron rejected the proposal, calling it “disappointing.”
GCHQ’s efforts on Argentina and the Falklands between 2008 and 2011, the time period the documents cover, were broad and not limited solely to JTRIG. Surveillance of Argentine “military and Leadership” communications on various platforms was a “high priority” task. Despite the Obama administration’s unwillingness to publicly back their ally, NSA assistance was ongoing as of 2010. According to an NSA “Extended Enterprise Report” dated June 2008, based on NSA officials’ meetings with GCHQ representatives, Argentina was “GCHQ’s primary interest in the region.”
While the full extent of JTRIG’s tactics used in the Falklands mission is unclear, the scope of JTRIG’s approved capabilities offers an idea of what may have been done. The group, first revealed last year by NBC News and The Intercept, has developed various techniques — including “false flag” operations, sexual “honey traps,” and implanting computer viruses — to collect intelligence, plant propaganda and diminish or discredit opponents. As reported in The Intercept last year, JTRIG “has developed covert tools to seed the internet with false information, including the ability to manipulate the results of online polls, artificially inflate pageview counts on web sites, ‘amplif[y]’ sanctioned messages on YouTube,” and plant false Facebook wall posts for “entire countries.” According to a study of the group by the U.K.’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), “the language of JTRIG’s operations is characterized by terms such as ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’ ‘denigrate/degrade,’ and ‘deter.’”
The unit’s activities generally break down into two symbiotic categories: online Human Intelligence, or HUMINT, and “effects operations.” Online HUMINT is the collection of information on human targets through passive tracking or overt interaction with a target through an alias. These operations may sometimes be in support of, or in conjunction with, covert MI-6 agents on the ground.
Effects operations are used to disseminate deception and disruption online. A full catalog of JTRIG’s capabilities as of 2012 can be seen here.
Operation QUITO, the group’s operation to support the Foreign Office’s “goals relating to Argentina and the Falkland Islands” is called a “pioneering effects operation.” That operation, still in the planning stages, had undergone “a significant amount of prep work” and was “almost complete” as of 2009.
The DSTL study of JTRIG, published in March 2011, states that one of the unit’s aims was “preventing Argentina from taking over the Falkland Islands by conducting online HUMINT.” The study, which provides anecdotal references to missions, is by no means a comprehensive list of the group’s activities. It makes no mention of the scope of online HUMINT or of any related effects operations.
A GCHQ Network Analysis Centre document from later that year boasts that “Network Analysis in support of Offensive Cyber operations” in Argentina has progressed from “RED” to “GREEN” — or inactive to active — during that quarter, providing clear evidence of ongoing operational development in Argentina as of late 2011.
GCHQ’s mission regarding the Falkland Islands also appears to extend beyond just Argentina and involve regional leaders and attitudes. A November 2011 workshop on “Mission Driven Access” gathered staff to “build on pioneering work already done” and tried to develop new ideas for real world scenarios. One such scenario: “GCHQ has consistently underperformed on Brazil, with growing concerns that [South] American attitudes on the Falklands are swinging behind Argentina. A forthcoming Ministerial visit to Chile provides an opportunity to counter the trend. The Foreign Office are looking for advice.”
In February 2012, Mercopress reported that Chile had received official notification of a possible visit by British Foreign Secretary William Hague. The visit eventually took place in November of 2012.
In 2013, with an eye to international opinion, the British government carried out a self-determination referendum in the Falklands in which all but four Falklands inhabitants voted to retain “their status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.”
The dispute between the U.K. and Argentina remains unresolved and relations have worsened recently. Last week, British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon announced a £280m ($414m) plan to bolster the islands’ military presence after allegations emerged that Argentina was in negotiations with Russia to lease 12 Soviet-era long-range bombers. Speaking to the BBC, Fallon said the move was to protect Falkland residents’ “right to remain British.” Senior Argentine and Russian officials have both denied that any discussions have taken place. Argentina’s Defense Minister called the idea of an Argentine military assault on the Falklands “crazy.”
Argentine officials from the offices of the president, the minister of foreign relations, and the secretary of state for Malvinas affairs refused to comment unless they were first provided with copies of the documents.
Asked to describe their role in British policy in the South Atlantic, GCHQ told The Intercept, “It is long standing policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters.” The NSA did not respond to a request for comment.
———
Documents published with this article:
———
Photo: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images


inglaterra no tiene derecho a espiarnos,pues no tenemos conflictos y ni tampoco ,,,,,estamos en guerra,
gracias a la ayuda de estados unidos.y otra cosa las mailvinas son nuestras,no de ustedes ingleses.
ya suficiente con robar en los años 20 y 60 con nuestras carnes ,aparte de hacer bancos privados .en argentina periodo desde 1920 hasta 1960.
y en si volviendo al espionaje. no tienen verguenza,,,,,,,,,,lo unico que buscan es generar conflicto.para una guerra………..”salvo que la cancilleria argentina haga algo”y la de ustedes tambien ………….desde esta una opinion desde aca ,argentina,,,,,,,no tengo problema con socidead inglesa.pero si el gobierno ingles manipula a la poblacion como hacen aca,por el espionaje,,,,,,,,saludos y gracias!
A sovereignty claim without a case can only be described as an illegitimate claim and worthless.
https://www.academia.edu/10490336/Argentinas_Illegitimate_Sovereignty_Claims
Don’t know why another set of ethnic Europeans, Argentinians, should have any more claim than any other. Given that the inhabitants are a different set of Europeans, and there’s no aboriginal peoples to consider, the wishes of the inhabitants themselves are definitive. Probably given past aggression, this is a legitimate use of GCHQ, to keep the conflict as Spy Vs. Spy, instead of allowing escalation into more killing. The beleaguered Argentina military junta launched its preemptive invasion and occupation in 1982 to distract from intractable domestic issues; as we have learned, democratic trappings don’t prevent politicians threatened with loss of power to do just the same thing.
Don’t know if Carloz Tevez or Mercedes Sosa be considered “Ethnic Europeans”. What do you think? Do you know the names of the tribes of “aboriginal” indians mixed in with the Spanish/Italian? Hence why the natural resources belong to them (not Cristina), to decide whether if should be dug up to damage the environment; probably not. This should not obstruct the ‘British way of life” of the Europeans on the islands. This won’t escalate in to more killing thank goodness – although you might think that if you glean your info from British tabloids…
“The beleaguered Argentina military junta launched its preemptive invasion and occupation in 1982 to distract from intractable domestic issues; as we have learned, democratic trappings don’t prevent politicians threatened with loss of power to do just the same thing.”
– Come on it’s absurd to think the current government would try and pull that off. This is 2015! They have just declassified the documents. It even says in their constitution to attempt to recover them through peaceful means. Beefing up the security on the islands must surely be due to other reasons?
“as we have learned, democratic trappings don’t prevent politicians threatened with loss of power to do just the same thing.”
– Cameron?
” to distract from intractable domestic issues”
– Protesting against the excavation of oil they consider theirs, speculated to be more than Scotland’s North Sea oil (which is running out btw) so they can help amend their economic woes – caused in great part by previous governments, falling commodity prices and American vultures? Terrible isn’t it.
Finally, Edward Snowden and John Oliver expose the issue most important to Americans regarding spying and the NSA: Can The NSA See My Dick Pics?
“If you sacrifice your values because you’re afraid, you don’t care about those values very much.”
Or
“If you sacrifice your dick pics because you’re afraid, you don’t care about those dick pics very much.”
Mine are hardly the most embarrassing dick pics though, right BritBob/Stephan Potts? Daresay I hope you are not trying to pass of mine as your own when some girl in Brazil (Argentina’s ally, yes, even still after you sent Prince Harry to dance some carnival for the cameras) asks to see your bits…
Craig:
Sillyputty has asked you a salient question to which you have yet to respond, to wit:
Well?
Sorry Mona. I have answered that question a hundred times – and I’m not playing his game. Sillyputty lied and he knows it – so there is nothing for me to respond to. I never expected any answers by sillyputty anyway. As in the past, he will have plenty of opportunity to enter into our future discussions about the Jewish state which he has entirely avoided. It’s also fairly clear that while sillyputty has not explicitly endorsed your bigotry, he implicitly endorses it. He is just a little cagier about hiding his positions – but they have been fairly clear for a long time (and they are more clearly exposed now). It really is quite simple to sniff out the far left Mona. Quite simple.
Thanks Mona.
Calling DocHollywood. Calling DocHollywood.
” I have answered that question a hundred times – and I’m not playing his game…there is nothing for me to respond to.” – CraigSummers
I call bullshit. This is entire reply, among other things, is just another ‘poisoning the well‘ fallacy:
“This sort of “reasoning” involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person.”
It is also a “take the ball and go home” fallacy. An excerpt from “How To Negotiate Like a Child“:
“It’s simple. You don’t like the way negotiations are going and you just take your toy and walk away. Kid’s don’t hesitate using this ploy. Even more strategically, while children will sometimes announce in advance, “If you don’t let my little sister play, too, I’m going to take my train home,” they’re just as likely to pick up their possessions and walk away.”
Just like you, CraigSummers.
People have consistently mentioned your repeated fallacies, CraigSummers, yet you continue. This is called ‘willful blindness,’ and is just another method you use to avoid having to answer direct questions directly – because you simply are incapable of doing so without all of the ad hominem labeling, pigeonholing and obfuscating.
sillyputty
I have discussed the IP conflict time after time with Mona – and you declined to enter the discussion. That was by choice sillyputty. Mona and I have probably each written 30 typed pages on the subject at the Intercept. You have had ample opportunity to join in the discussion – and you are always welcome. However, when you make a false statement, you are required to back it up which you cannot (because you are wrong). You are simply one of the more pathetic posters I have discussed the issues with sillyputty. Plain and simple.
So shit or get off of the pot.
“……People have consistently mentioned your repeated fallacies…..”
Ha!. You mean fringe leftist like yourself? Nothing political there at all. Again, you are pathetic (and a fucking liar).
Calling DocHollywood. Calling DocHollywood.
“So shit or get off of the pot.” – CraigSummers
I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.
I’ve shat this several times. Your answer?
“Get off the pot” – CraigSummers
craigsummers
Would you like DocHollywood provide the specifics and bullet points on your behalf?
Whilst assuming others positions (or ‘non’ positions) you are also assuming that your own position is clear. As there are 30 typed pages could you whittle it down to answer the question your self?
It doesn’t have to read like Craig’s roadmap to peace..
The 30 typed pages are not that easily accessible for any that I missed and I would really like to know your ‘position’. I think the question was asked in good faith.. You also have quite a boisterous/have all the answers stance on the subject and it is a bit like saying:
“I could answer this question but because it was posed by a lying coward I will not answer it. I do not see the merits of this question because over the last year or so I have covered each of the proposed ‘bullet points’ separately. I do not think it helpful to summarise information and view all the points in one place that only I and perhaps Mona remember… You know how I feel about this!”
Like it or not it is a good question. You have harangued Sillyputty in to a debate from which you now have withdrawn (The debate with the ‘long odds’ remember where he could get sniffed out as an AntiSemitic fringe leftist). He does not need to supply a position of his own to ask you to clarify one you have purportedly already stated.
Also in his case I expect he cannot have a position on “maintaing a Jewish state” as it is the term which you have applied to what you want other than ‘maintaing the status quo’. Is israel not already a Jewish State… A Jewish State in need of Maintenance?
It is not cowardly in any way to not want to discuss Israel/Palestine with you or anyone else for that matter. Nor Brave of you to imply ‘ know it all’ status on the subject but hold back on the juice.
“……..Economic sanctions will eventually force Israel to deal rightly with the Palestinians……”
“………As I have stated numerous times in the past, you cannot promote your own self-determination while denying the Palestinians their rights as well…..”
Finally to the sanctions… How crippling do you think the sanctions ought to be to force Israel to deal rightly with the Palestinians?
Can only sanctions end Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights?
“……..Economic sanctions will eventually force Israel to deal rightly with the Palestinians……”
“………As I have stated numerous times in the past, you cannot promote your own self-determination while denying the Palestinians their rights as well…..”
These two statements you offered make “stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians” quite pertinent in Sillyputty’s ‘salient’ question (in response to same comment no less)
If the (state of) Israel are not dealing rightly with the Palestinians how should they? and which rights are being denied the Palestinians?
You have hand picked two semi positive statements which work very well on their own, you even sound pro Palestinian.
Without the rest that usually goes with it about how Israel is justified to not deal rightly with Palestinians while denying them their rights.
sillyputty
“…..The “nothing’s changed – nothing” idea is something folks like CraigSummers wishes were still true…..”
You are a total liar, sillyputty. I’m not interested in maintaining the status quo. I’m interested in maintaining a Jewish state. These are two statements I made from previous articles at the Intercept:
“……..Economic sanctions will eventually force Israel to deal rightly with the Palestinians……”
“………As I have stated numerous times in the past, you cannot promote your own self-determination while denying the Palestinians their rights as well…..”
” I’m not interested in maintaining the status quo. I’m interested in maintaining a Jewish state.” – CraigSummers
Maintaining a Jewish state at this time is maintaining the status quo. Your two statements are contradictory to this. If by saying these things you mean that Israel will have to give up the de facto apartheid status that exists now, then that is a step in the right direction.
Not only that, but the right to self-determination is not coterminous with the right of a nation-state to exist. States do not have a right to exist. The whole notion is preposterous.
” I’m interested in maintaining a Jewish state” – CraigSummers
I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.
Apologies, Mona. I replied to the wrong one. This comment was intended for CraigSummers. That said, if you like, feel free to chime in (like you need permission). ;-}
Contained within the ‘status quo’ apart from anything else is the detestable treatment of Palestinian children.
‘Prominent Israeli lawyer Gaby Lasky, who specialises in cases of Palestinian children before Israel’s military court, said as part of intelligence gathering the Israeli army had begun “mapping” children.’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-10/israeli-security-forces-accused-of-using-palestinian-children-/5248378
Israelis torturing non-Jewish children. 2014 Australian documentary film. Viewer discretion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqL048x4msM
“……Maintaining a Jewish state at this time is maintaining the status quo…..”
Stick your neck out a little bit sillyputty. What the fuck do you mean by that? You know how I feel about it, but I am clueless where you stand because you are such a gutless little bastard.
“What the fuck do you mean by that? You know how I feel about it… – CraigSummers
As you are an avowed torture-monger, I don’t care about your feelings, so I’ll simply repeat the question:
I’d be interested to hear just what you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.
He did stick his neck out ‘a little bit’…
Sillyputty:’If by saying these things you mean that Israel will have to give up the de facto apartheid status that exists now, then that is a step in the right direction.’
You could imply (although you regard as a vague description) that ‘to give up the de facto apartheid status that exists now’ is more ‘neck’ than:
‘I don’t care’ which is all you got on Sillyputty’s position as to whether Israel ‘is’ an apartheid state ‘or not’
I knew you were a coward sillyputty. You really haven’t a clue. Here is what you are really good at:
“…….There’s the obfuscating, pigeonholing, labeling, sociopathic commentary now…..”
“…….“The problem you keep having…….is that by insisting that every person has to be labeled, pigeonholed, stereotyped and categorized, you keep committing the most blatant ad hominem fallacies….your arguments are guilty on a regular basis of this:”…..”
“……I told you from the beginning that this would happen to you. Labeling, stereotyping and pigeonholing, while they seem like an effective shorthand when trying to make a point, does nothing more than highlight the intrinsic tribalism and very poor communication skills of those who use it……”
“…….but almost always about misdirecting (straw-man fallacy), labeling, pigeonholing, and other assorted ad hominems……”
“…….I told you very early on that this would happen. You simply cannot continue to give everyone a label and then try and stuff their ideas into your notion of where they belong and expect any kind of meaningful dialog…….”
“……By the way, the SHOUTING is simply the latter stages of label-itis……”
@Mona – will you please just get into that pigeonhole……..crafted for you?
“I knew you were a coward sillyputty. You really haven’t a clue. Here is what you are really good at:” – CraigSummers
I already know that I can point out your logical fallacies. What I want to know is if you can answer this specific question:
“…just what do you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.”
If you don’t want to answer, just say so.
The birthday problem
The birthday problem asks, for a set of n randomly chosen people, what is the probability that some pair of them will have the same birthday. By the pigeonhole principle, if there are 367 people in the room, we know that there is at least one pair who share the same birthday, as there are only 366 possible birthdays to choose from (including February 29, if present). The birthday “paradox” refers to the surprising result that, even if the group is as small as consisting of only 23 individuals, there will still be a pair of people with the same birthday with a 50% probability.
Being pigeonholed with Craig is highly unlikely Sillyputty but you could share birthdays.
I knew he was brave… Lol
perhaps that’s what will ‘separate’ you both in the end:
At the final pigeon hole: Are you a man or a mouse? (with the same birthday OR NOT?)
“…….There’s the obfuscating, pigeonholing, labeling, sociopathic commentary now…..”
“…….“The problem you keep having…….is that by insisting that every person has to be labeled, pigeonholed, stereotyped and categorized, you keep committing the most blatant ad hominem fallacies….your arguments are guilty on a regular basis of this:”…..”
“……I told you from the beginning that this would happen to you. Labeling, stereotyping and pigeonholing, while they seem like an effective shorthand when trying to make a point, does nothing more than highlight the intrinsic tribalism and very poor communication skills of those who use it……”
“…….but almost always about misdirecting (straw-man fallacy), labeling, pigeonholing, and other assorted ad hominems……”
“…….I told you very early on that this would happen. You simply cannot continue to give everyone a label and then try and stuff their ideas into your notion of where they belong and expect any kind of meaningful dialog…….”
“……By the way, the SHOUTING is simply the latter stages of label-itis……”
@Mona – will you please just get into that pigeonhole……..crafted for you?
Hi Craig, I must admit I’m a little confused how every one of Glenn Greenwald article’s comments somehow become focussed on the Israel/America relationship. I have a particular problem. I was forced to leave the United States due to horrific torture and harassment. I am now in a Catholic country and being being blasted with Directed Energy Weapons on EASTER, which as you might know Craig is one of our holiest days. I’m in horrific pain and cannot sleep. I wonder who is free and available on Easter to torture people???
I could go into EXACTLY who showed up when I was first targeted, but I believe there are some good people in Israel and at the Pentagon. I would appreciate if the weapons were turned off on MY HOLY DAY. Thank you!
I’ll see what I can do.
Mona
“….You are a troll, and a repetitive one at that…….”
Yet again (C/O sillyputty),
“…….There’s the obfuscating, pigeonholing, labeling, sociopathic commentary now…..”
“…….“The problem you keep having…….is that by insisting that every person has to be labeled, pigeonholed, stereotyped and categorized, you keep committing the most blatant ad hominem fallacies….your arguments are guilty on a regular basis of this:”…..”
“……I told you from the beginning that this would happen to you. Labeling, stereotyping and pigeonholing, while they seem like an effective shorthand when trying to make a point, does nothing more than highlight the intrinsic tribalism and very poor communication skills of those who use it……”
“…….but almost always about misdirecting (straw-man fallacy), labeling, pigeonholing, and other assorted ad hominems……”
“…….I told you very early on that this would happen. You simply cannot continue to give everyone a label and then try and stuff their ideas into your notion of where they belong and expect any kind of meaningful dialog…….”
“……By the way, the SHOUTING is simply the latter stages of label-itis……”
@Mona – will you please just get into that pigeonhole……..crafted for you?
Craig, what’s with all the new standalones? It doesn’t alter the meritlessness of your offerings.
You miss the point Mona. The “meritlessness” belongs to sillyputty who posted everyone of those quoted on a single thread. I’m just posting for him and applying it to your labeling, pigeon-holing and obfuscating (even while committing the most obvious blatant ad hominem fallacies).
Enjoy your Sunday
Ah, another one who does not understand what constitutes an ad hominem fallacy . An ad hom, Craig, is offered for the purpose of arguing something about the person renders their claim untrue.
By contrast, a proposed set of criteria for “anti-American” can be neither true nor false; this is a subjective matter of opinion. No, I offered the information on the Zionist Mr. Joffe to shed light as to why he’d propose such an especially tendentious set of criteria. Not to argue whether said criteria were true or false.
“…..No, I offered the information on the Zionist Mr. Joffe to shed light as to why he’d propose such an especially tendentious set of criteria….”
You also called him a right winger Mona just as I refer to you as an extreme left winger (and this is where sillyputty has gone bonkers) – so you are lying (or worse – have no idea what you said). Isn’t it amazing how lawyers love to twist the debate??
Craig you moron, it doesn’t matter whether in addition to citing Mr. Joffe as a Zionist, I also called him a rightwinger…or if I’d added that he was ugly, old and fat. Not for purposes of whether I committed the ad hominem fallacy; you were and are simply wrong in that acusation.
I didn’t observe anything about Mr. Joffe the person in order to support a claim about the truth of his (tendentious) criteria.
Sorry Mona. You “labeled” Joffe:
“…….There’s the obfuscating, pigeonholing, labeling, sociopathic commentary now…..”
“…….“The problem you keep having…….is that by insisting that every person has to be labeled, pigeonholed, stereotyped and categorized, you keep committing the most blatant ad hominem fallacies….your arguments are guilty on a regular basis of this:”…..”
“……I told you from the beginning that this would happen to you. Labeling, stereotyping and pigeonholing, while they seem like an effective shorthand when trying to make a point, does nothing more than highlight the intrinsic tribalism and very poor communication skills of those who use it……”
“…….but almost always about misdirecting (straw-man fallacy), labeling, pigeonholing, and other assorted ad hominems……”
“…….I told you very early on that this would happen. You simply cannot continue to give everyone a label and then try and stuff their ideas into your notion of where they belong and expect any kind of meaningful dialog…….”
“……By the way, the SHOUTING is simply the latter stages of label-itis……”
@Mona – will you please just get into that pigeonhole……..crafted for you?
Additionally Mona
“……Joffe is a right-winger……”
That is an ‘appeal to common belief’ or ‘just because’ fallacy.
Calling DocHollywood. Calling DocHollywood.
” The “meritlessness” belongs to sillyputty who posted everyone of those quoted on a single thread.” – CraigSummers
Pointing out fallacies in arguments has merit when it is done as I did with you, CraigSummers. It becomes meritless when you then attempt to use those same points taken from another discussion and use them as legitimate points in furthering a separate discussion.
Speaking of furthering the discussion; I’ve asked you several times to answer a specific question. Perhaps you’ll do so now:
“…just what do you consider “a Jewish State” to be, specifically. Bullet points, stating what human rights and determinations are to be allowed the Palestinians, in particular, will work nicely here.”
In the end well see whether you enjoy it more continuing to label others liars and cowards; or whether you’ll actually back up what you say, sans all of the fallaciousness, especially this:
CraigSummers favorite mode of obfuscation.
h/t To my Aunt Sally…
*Apologies if this double-posts. The first went out several hours ago. Typo on an email address, perhaps.
Mona
“…….Joffe is a right-winger and hardcore Zionist……”
Sillyputty and I believe you are falling into a trap by labeling Joffe:
“…….There’s the obfuscating, pigeonholing, labeling, sociopathic commentary now…..”
“…….“The problem you keep having…….is that by insisting that every person has to be labeled, pigeonholed, stereotyped and categorized, you keep committing the most blatant ad hominem fallacies….your arguments are guilty on a regular basis of this:”…..”
“……I told you from the beginning that this would happen to you. Labeling, stereotyping and pigeonholing, while they seem like an effective shorthand when trying to make a point, does nothing more than highlight the intrinsic tribalism and very poor communication skills of those who use it……”
“…….but almost always about misdirecting (straw-man fallacy), labeling, pigeonholing, and other assorted ad hominems……”
“…….I told you very early on that this would happen. You simply cannot continue to give everyone a label and then try and stuff their ideas into your notion of where they belong and expect any kind of meaningful dialog…….”
“……By the way, the SHOUTING is simply the latter stages of label-itis……”
@Mona – will you please just get into that pigeonhole……..crafted for you?
Finally,
“…….In short, your entire discourse here is predominantly a ‘poison the well’ fallacy……”
Thanks Mona
I’m not labeling Joffe anything he doesn’t proudly embrace. It’s not as if he doesn’t trumpet his fairy tale Zionism.
Mona
“……You are a troll, and a repetitive one at that…..[Alpha browns]”
Even if a “troll” is paid by a government or by an anti-government group to “disrupt” the conversation, at least they provide a political opinion and engage in a political debate. For you to call anyone a troll is ridiculous (and hypocritical). What you call trolling is simply in the eyes of the beholder – and no one has anymore political motivation than you. This is the last I’m going to say about this subject because no one has any control over what is posted anyway. If posters want to engage in a debate, then let them. If personal attacks and irrelevant conversation is what they wish to post, then ignore them. I’m going to continue to take issue with Greenwald without regard to what is posted back to me.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Craig, you are a vile, vitiated and depraved authoritarian, torture-loving Zionist, but not a troll. Alpha brown is a troll.
Thanks Mona. Always a pleasure.
Some interesting links:
http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/%E2%80%98thatcher%E2%80%99s-torpedo%E2%80%99
may be linked to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7chmzc0-GE&feature=youtu.be
and
http://www.nickdavies.net/1994/03/01/the-mysterious-death-of-hilda-murrell/
http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/seven-lies
Investigate and decide for yourselves.
“Craig, when someone points out their own foibles and shortcomings to themselves, it doesn’t mean that they are “anti-themselves,” it means that they are scrutinizing their own behavior under the light of honest self-examination. This is actually self-loving. So Greenwald is actually an America-lover, could you but see it.
But you and Alpha only want to see him as altogether wrong, which denies him the nuanced view that some of your posts (rightly) demand.” Cindy
Obviously I cannot speak for Craig. You have described what a patriotic American should be in your first paragraph: find America’s problems and try to fix them. I do not believe Greenwald falls in that category. I believe he uses America’s problems to maintain his popularity among his followers or among the anti American crowd around the world. Why? Just read his articles. We all agree that the current US government and US administrations in the past have committed crimes in the Middle East, but to insinuate that the US bombs countries just because of they are predominantly Muslims is completely ridiculous. Greenwald can always simplify international politics by using Saudi Arabia or Egypt to state that US foreign policy has nothing to do with human rights. But why would he disregard US sanctions placed against Uganda specifically targeting an anti gay, lesbian law? US military intervention in the Balkans specifically responding to extreme human rights violations against minorities? US sanctions against Russian individuals involved in the Magnitsky case? Why he does not mention human rights violations from the Venezuelan officials who have been targeted by US sanctions? There is a very important difference between stating that human rights are irrelevant to US foreign policy, and stating the US is not consistent in its response to human rights violations. Facts that Greenwald always disregards prove the first statement is false. But any reasonable individuals living on earth know the second statement is correct.
Any reasonable individual who believes in fairness would agree that Israel has seriously violated Palestinians human rights and the US does not pressure Israel to stop that unsustainable conflict. However, human rights apply to humans, not just to Americans, or Palestinians, but also to Israelis and Argentines as well. Greenwald consistently disregards human rights violations of Palestinian groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah against Israelis civilians (and Americans) describing them as groups solely “devoted to protecting their citizens against the state of Israel”. Why would he blame the US government for classifying groups that have killed American citizens, bomb night clubs packed with teenagers, hijack civilian airplanes, bomb community centers packed with civilians as terrorists?
Journalists do have a responsibility to question governments so the people can decide whether officials are abusing their power. However, journalists as any other human being can easily be corrupted by power. Popularity and access to highly classified information constitute power that Greenwald may easily abuse. For instance, this article reveals the UK strategy against the Argentine government that invaded a British territory. The GCHQ activities here are quite normal and even expected, but Greenwald used the information he has to help Argentina and others bash the UK the government maybe because of his own vendetta with that government.
It is also very interesting to notice that his reaction to tough questions is somehow similar to government officials’ reactions. He qualifies those who ask him tough questions as being propagandized or naive, the same description given to him by officials who are abusing their power. Of course, his supporters here go further by calling me and others, trolls, propagandists and all kinds of vulgar epithets.
Thanks for the honest response. I don’t feel like gainsaying any of your points, because I like the fresh air.
In many ways I appreciate Greenwald like I do artists, or musicians, who can create an atmosphere through their art that makes me feel…something…hard to describe, but related to a context to life that empowers me and my idealist emotional tendencies. He has an appeal beyond what he writes, at least for me, even though his personal agendas can indeed clutter up this appeal when conflicting with his broader moral dynamism.
For me, he sides with the oppressed more than the oppressors, in just about every situation. This is very meaningful to me, but possibly laughable to you.
“For me, he sides with the oppressed more than the oppressors, in just about every situation. This is very meaningful to me, but possibly laughable to you.” – Cindy
This. That said, Glenn, like many other progressives, does need to work on his outreach methodology a bit more. It is improving, though, much to his credit.
You are a troll, and a repetitive one at that.
Nice response Mona
Two questions:
1) What’s your deal with the “browns”
2) Do you not understand the word “Reply,” and how to actually use the “Reply” function?
Only a fucking left winger gets hung up on someone’s moniker. He wrote 500 words and that’s the best you can do for a question??
“Only a fucking left winger…” – CraigSummers
This is an ‘appeal to common belief’ or ‘just because’ fallacy.
Is that the best you can do for a comment? <— That's called a rhetorical question.
Among Craig’s many inane declarations, the idea that one must be a “fucking left-winger” to wonder why the troll has two accounts — one with an “S” on the end of his name — is on the short list for most dumb.
but not most bigoted…….
Sorry, your questions are definitely too sophisticated for me. I see that you remain one of the most intelligent and impressive analyst here.
What does it mean to be “anti-France,” “anti-Italy,” “anti-Monaco,” or….”anti-American?”
“These are empty epithets thrown around by jingoistic authoritarians who haven’t a clue how valuable and precious the values reflected in our Bill of Rights actually are.” Mona
The Bill of Rights also allow others to respond to those who unfairly blame America for major problems around the world. I do not think anti-France is an empty epithet. You may ask AQAP ( the organization responsible for the Charlie Hebdo massacre and of which Anwar Al Awlaki was a member).
Anti Americanism? Josef Joffe answered that question
” five classic marks of anti-Americanism: reducing Americans to stereotypes, believing the United States to have an irremediably evil nature, ascribing to the U.S. establishment a vast conspiratorial power aimed at utterly dominating the globe, holding the United States responsible for all the evils in the world, and seeking to limit the influence of the United States by destroying it or by cutting oneself and one’s society off from its polluting products and practices.”
Well, there you go.
“…believing the United States to have an irremediably evil nature” – Greenwald appeals to the innate goodness of Americans. A lot.
“…ascribing to the U.S. establishment a vast conspiratorial power aimed at utterly dominating the globe” – I’ve never seen Greenwald do this. You?
“…holding the United States responsible for all the evils in the world” – Greenwald criticizes various countries that promote intolerance, emphasizing the US and its hypocrisy in supporting such sovereignties only because he is American and has a right to ameliorate his own nation.
“…seeking to limit the influence of the United States by destroying it or by cutting oneself and one’s society off from its polluting products and practices” – Greenwald (and Snowden) have been (annoyingly to some) keen on modifying the system rather than urging restoration by destroying it.
So, Greenwald is not anti-American, as you claim, at least by Josef Joffe’s standards, which you promote.
1) Evil nature: “The constant orgy of condemnation aimed at this group (ISIS) seems to have little purpose other than tribal self-affirmation: no matter how many awful acts our government engages in, at least we don’t do something like that, at least we’re not as bad as them.”
2) Dominating the globe: ” Empires (USA) bomb who they want, when they want for whatever reason” “There is a massive apparatus within the United States government that with complete secrecy has been building this enormous structure that has only one goal, and that is to destroy privacy and anonymity, not just in the United States, but around the world.”
3)Evils of the world: “Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a feature, not a bug. It is what justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable and power-vesting machine of Endless War.”
4)Limit the influence of the USA…. What are Grennwald’s proposed solutions to ISIL? Syria civil war? the Taliban? Al Qaeda operations in Somalia, Yemen, North Africa? He consistently blames US foreign policies regarding those issues without providing any solutions. NONE! So the US should not intervene , then we let ISIL commit genocide? Is that the solution? The use of drones in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan has caused civilian deaths, so Greenwald thinks it should stop. Ok, that is fine. So, how do we apprehend a terrorist who is in the tribal areas of Yemen planning terrorist attacks in Paris? How do we present an arrest warrant to a terrorist in Somalia responsible for killing hundreds of civilians in Kenya? Where are the solutions?
On the topic of anti-Americanism, the descriptions fit Greenwald to various degrees. The most interesting is the first stated as “reducing Americans to stereotypes” which at first glance didn’t seem to fit. However, statements by Greenwald seem to conform to this idea:
“….. It likely won’t be in the form that has received the most media attention: the type of large Predator or Reaper drones that shoot Hellfire missiles which destroy homes and cars in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and multiple other countries aimed at Muslims…..”
“….I’m most certainly not suggesting that anyone who supports Awlaki’s killing is driven by racism or anti-Muslim bigotry. I am suggesting that the belief that Muslims are somehow less American, or even less human, is widespread….”
“…..Every war – particularly protracted ones like the “War on Terror” – demands sustained dehumanization campaigns……..applied almost exclusively to Muslims…..It is worse than that: it is based on the implicit, and sometimes overtly stated, premise that Muslims generally, even those guilty of nothing, deserve what the US does to them……”
In general, besides the “widespread” American belief that Muslims are less human, we simply believe that even innocent Muslims deserve to be droned.
Cindy countered Joffe’s anti-American theorem very well. It’s absolutely no wonder now as to why anyone who believes that criteria can draw such wrong conclusions.
Keeping in mind, also, that Alpha is a troll. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/#comment-120794
Joffe is a right-winger and hardcore Zionist. Writing in Haaretz:
Of course he’s going to draft absurd definitions of “anti-Americanism.” He’s protecting Israel’s cash cow and diplomatic toady.
And of course a “right winger” and “Zionist” (basically everybody you disagree with) cannot be right.
Of course Joffe’s going to draft absurd definitions of “anti-Americanism.” He’s protecting Israel’s cash cow and diplomatic toady.
Personally, I’m anti-Lichtenstein. The five classic marks of anti-Lichtensteinism: reducing Lichtensteinians to stereotypes, believing Lichtenstein to have an irremediably evil nature, ascribing to the Lichtenstein establishment a vast conspiratorial power aimed at utterly dominating the globe, holding Lichtenstein responsible for all the evils in the world, and seeking to limit the influence of Lichtenstein by destroying it or by cutting oneself and one’s society off from its polluting products and practices.
Yup, anti-Lichtenstein. All the way down.
Are you sure you mean Lichtenstein and not Israel?
Troll. Still. You.
NYT reports how israel Lobby has bought the GOP:
In the last several years, mainstream coverage of the Lobby has happened more and more. BDS is a virtual avalanche in academia and on campus, especially with the campaign performance and reelection of Netanyahu.
Zionists can take heart, however, that on a national level the pro-Palestine/Israel-critical momentum will be on hold for 8 years of Hillary. But after that…
Nothing has changed in the United States relationship with Israel. Nothing. I’m surprised you believe the Democrats’ theater, since the GOP’s doesn’t deceive you.
“I’m surprised you believe the Democrats’ theater, since the GOP’s doesn’t deceive you.” – Cindy
I’m surprised at your implication that there’s much daylight between either party’s theater; unless I’ve misread the gist of your previous comments, they are essentially one-and-the-same.
The “nothing’s changed – nothing” idea is something folks like CraigSummers wishes were still true; but I agree with many others: that the tide is turning in the public’s opinion worldwide on the notion of continuing to allow Israel’s (and the United States) hypocritical stance when it comes to human rights abuses and supporting de facto apartheid conditions in any nation that purports democracy – much less one that receives billions of dollars in international aid every year, while other nations (and indeed, US citizens) see nothing even close to this – particularly on a per-capita basis.
If something tangible changes in the official relations between the US and Israel, then change has occurred. If not, it hasn’t. In my opinion.
And also, Alpha is a troll.
<blockquote.Nothing has changed in the United States relationship with Israel. Nothing.
Oh yes it has. Obama has negotiated a preliminary deal with Iran to lift sanctions. Netanyahu and most Zionists are beside themselves. There’s never been such a chill between the U.S. and Israel as exists now.
But, all will be well again when Hillary ascends to the throne.
“Netanyahu and most Zionists are beside themselves.” This is a good thing?
The “chill” means nothing, tangibly. The climate is only more polarized than ever. You are believing an appearance carefully designed to quieten your activism and arouse anger in others, in my opinion. Where you are seeing promise, others are seeing reason to be more aggressive, and all this agitation of opposites was unnecessary (sanctions should never have happened) to begin with. Accepting a framework of humiliation (whether Israel’s or Iran’s, Republicans’ or Democrats’) is not really conducive to peace. It is the appeal of the theater.
Hillary Clinton being president is not a done deal, but some corporatist, militarist, Zionist-friendly dingbat will certainly glide right in if no one points out loudly that the Establishment Emperor has no clothes.
Terrific article Mona. Did the NYT point out any ILLEGAL contributions, Mona? Indeed, the Republicans have been strong supporters of Israel for decades. In addition, Obama just reached a tentative agreement with Iran on their nuclear program – over the objections of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Bush turned down a joint venture to bomb Iran at the end of his second term. Despite your beliefs, the lobby does not run US foreign policy or control the Republican Party. The letter sent by the Republicans had zero affect on the negotiations. Indeed, Pelosi visited Syria over the objections of the Republicans and screwed up a message to Syria from Israel. Nobody runs US foreign policy but the US – in ther interests of the US. Even the great far left winger Chomski doesn’t believe that Mona.
Take care
Foreign policy is affected greatly but not entirely by Zionism, and neither Democrats nor Republicans oppose it. The theater provided to the American people and world audience is unrelated to this in any real sense.
More of the NYT piece:
“It is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands, when you have spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment.”
(Margaret Thatcher on the Falklands War. 26/05/1982)
A horrifyingly honest admission from a democratically elected political leader (psychopath) of a civilized nation on what truly gets them off. It is also prescient in admitting the complete disdain for the vastly more important issue of the environment; something that does have existential significance for all of humanity – not just for those on a once mighty island nation and those several thousand vassals left over from it’s crumbling colonialism, hugging a remote island half a world away from them.
Looking at old footage, in my view she is a ridiculous persona, a sort of caricature of corpse-like British snobbery and deception that Britain should have outgrown years ago.
Just like America should have long outgrown thinking itself God’s choice as the world’s “top dog,” but never has.
“Glenn does not cover the doings of Hezbollah or its operatives. (Anything about Hezbollah would be incidental to it being implicated in another topic he does cover.)” Mona
Maybe Greenwald’s lack of coverage of Hezbollah might explain his belief that Hezbollah is not “devoted to harming Americans” it is devoted to “protecting their citizens against the state of Israel”
US Embassy bombing in Beirut, April 18, 1983 : 63 dead
Beirut Barracks Bombing, October, 1983: 299 dead
U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth said the suicide truck bombing was carried out by the terrorist group Hezbollah with the approval and funding of senior Iranian officials. USA Today May 30, 2003
“Based on the evidence presented by the expert witnesses at trial, the court finds that it is beyond question that Hezbollah and its agents received massive material and technical support from the Iranian government,” US District Court Royce Lamberth
Hijacking of TWA 1985
US Court indicted three Hezbollah operatives: Ali Atwa, Hasan Izz-al-din and Imad Fayez Mugniyah
Khobar Tower Bombing, 1996: 17 Dead
Lamberth said the leading experts on Hezbollah, a Shiite militant group based in Lebanon, presented “overwhelming” evidence that the Iranian military worked with Saudi Hezbollah members to execute the attack, and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security provided money, plans and maps to help carry out the bombing. Six Hezbollah members captured after the attacks implicated Iranian officials. Washington Post, December 2006
Should I write about the AMIA bombing in Argentina? NO, most of the dead were Argentines not Americans. It would not be accurate to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization just for harming Argentines! Apparently, Greenwald cares more about the Argentines’ right to privacy than their right to life!
You, Alpha brown, are the quintessential troll and pseudo-inquirer. You are not here to engage in good faith exchange of views, but rather, to post a lot of your sham inquiries into Greenwald’s views and writing, as well as the views of some commenters. Or, perhaps you are a fake inquirer. Sham or fake, really, both apply:
(Rest: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_scientism_and_anti-science_in_the_age_of_preposterism)
You, Alpha brown, are concerned, not to find out how things really are vis-a-vis Glenn’s views or his writing, or the views of his fans here in comments, but rather, you are concerned to make a case for your immovably-held, negative preconceived convictions about them. Your pronouncements and questions are all evidence- and argument-proof. You nearly always refuse to examine any contrary evidence or argument too closely, but when you do you play down its importance or impugn its relevance — you contort yourself trying to explain it away.
You are a troll.
I only read the first paragraph. The other parts seem boring. In a free world you may assume I am a “troll, a “hand waving squirrel”, Madonna, Obama…I do not really care. People express their opinion and I express mine.
You are a troll.
“Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression”
http://www.brasscheck.com/martin.html
I am sure you are familiar with all of them Liera.
No. I had to familiarize myself with the likes of you CraigSummers.
This is none of your business so fuck-off now.
Really? An internet political site with a comment section is none of my business? And this is the business of exactly who, Lyra?
I don’t believe that I initiated any interaction with you CraigSummers to elicit that snide comment intending to slander my character.
That is however; typical of your usual comment character which is generally directed around issues(circuitously) but actually ends up with a clear attempt to malign people when you falsely engage them in discussion. As I have told you before, I believe at least twice in the past, we are diametrically opposed in intent and I find you to be obnoxious. Since I am sure the feeling is mutual I do not make comments to you. I ignore you. Completely. I like it that way.
BTW I disagree somewhat with Mona. Although you are a propaganda artist you use this in your expert trolling of Mr. Greenwald’s articles. The following article is much more suited to your technique of operation:
“Propaganda and Debating Techniques”
https://anonymissexpress.cyberguerrilla.org/?p=2295
Oh I take full responsibility for initiating our “discussion”.
Thanks.
Craig, you have no moral authority to step into discussions of trolling. Unlike Alpha, I wouldn’t characterize you as a troll. No, you are a wild-eyed rabid Zionist for whom truth is irrelevant. You are a propagandist.
What you share with trolls is a complete disinterest in — except when you have an aversion to — the truth of almost any matter remotely touching on the concerns Greenwald addresses.
“……You are a propagandist…..”
Aren’t we all, Mona? Didn’t you just move the goal post on comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa? Now it is
de facto” apartheid? No political group spreads lies and propaganda any faster than the extreme left Mona.
“……What you share with trolls is a complete disinterest in — except when you have an aversion to — the truth of almost any matter remotely touching on the concerns Greenwald addresses…..”
Concerns? Greenwald’s concerns are his opposition to American policies even if it means supporting an illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and an illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.
Your definition of a troll doesn’t interest me either, Mona – but thanks. Personally, I don’t think there are any trolls on this site, but even if there are, so what? Just deal with their arguments. After all, even a paid troll has a political point of view.
Craig, when someone points out their own foibles and shortcomings to themselves, it doesn’t mean that they are “anti-themselves,” it means that they are scrutinizing their own behavior under the light of honest self-examination. This is actually self-loving. So Greenwald is actually an America-lover, could you but see it.
But you and Alpha only want to see him as altogether wrong, which denies him the nuanced view that some of your posts (rightly) demand.
Cindy
“……But you and Alpha only want to see him as altogether wrong…..”
For you to say Greenwald’s perpetual criticism of American policies actually makes him an American lover is equivalent for me to say that my perpetual criticism of Greenwald makes me a Greenwald lover. I’m not willing to give him that. American policies deserve criticism. No one can deny that, but currently, there are other countries in the world that deserve as much or more criticism based on their policies. Greenwald is way over the top – as any honest person should notice after the article about the Ukrainian fascist. If the Intercept was at least focusing some attention and resources toward exposing the poor policies of other countries (like Russia, Iran, Syria, Argentina) then I would be more inclined to support the work of the Intercept – or at least the writers with a more honest view of the world.
But that is what makes Greenwald who he is. He gave up a career as a constitutional lawyer (civil liberties) to write about politics, specifically American policies which include allies (as Mona said).
I think you are a good person Cindy. Thanks.
Me about Craig: “……You are a propagandist…..”
Craig replies: “Aren’t we all, Mona?”
I answer: “No.”
“For you to say Greenwald’s perpetual criticism of American policies actually makes him an American lover is equivalent for me to say that my perpetual criticism of Greenwald makes me a Greenwald lover. (Craig Summers)
I don’t think so, unless you want to say that you are being as dishonest and lacking perspective as you claim Greenwald to be.
Criticism should be in the light of honesty, not in the darkness of an agenda. This is not to say Greenwald doesn’t have an agenda, nor that he is always right or perfect, but it is to say that his ‘bias’ is in my opinion not anti-American but quintessentially American.
But I truly appreciate your tone in this post, and I know you are doing what you consider good to be.
“For you to say Greenwald’s perpetual criticism of American policies actually makes him an American lover is equivalent for me to say that my perpetual criticism of Greenwald makes me a Greenwald lover.” – CraigSummers
That is a ‘false comparison’ fallacy.
“but currently, there are other countries in the world that deserve as much or more criticism based on their policies” – CraigSummers
This is a ‘relative privation’, ‘appeal to bigger problems’, aka “whataboutery” fallacy.
“…any honest person should notice” – CraigSummers
This is an ‘appeal to common belief’, ‘just because’ fallacy.
“If the Intercept was at least focusing some attention…” – CraigSummers
More ‘relative privation’, ‘appeal to bigger problems’, aka “whataboutery” fallaciousness.
“..then I would be more inclined to support the work of the Intercept – or at least the writers with a more honest view of the world” – CraigSummers
This is a ‘speculative fallacy’, ‘relative privation’, ‘appeal to bigger problems’, aka “whataboutery” and and an ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy.
For someone who accuses others here for saying so little yet speaking so much, CraigSummers, you certainly do foul the waters.
In short, your entire discourse here is predominantly a ‘poison the well’ fallacy.
I can’t see what Greenwald’s motivation is for this piece.
This is what intelligence services SHOULD be doing; “Surveillance of Argentine “military and Leadership” communications” in order to prevent a military invasion of a territory! Perhaps Glen would rather it be sorted out militarily afterall, supports the use of war to solve disputes?
Or perhaps he would support the use of intelligence/surveilance of governments and their military to prevent war?
The rest is all speculation with no evidence, something which Greenwald regularly ralies against if his tweets are anything to go by. i.e :
“While the full extent of JTRIG’s tactics used in the Falklands mission is unclear, the scope of JTRIG’s approved capabilities offers an idea of what may have been done. ”
That paragraph is surely irresponsible reporting to make suggestions of what might have been done with no evidence – it stirs up a hornets nest without justification, perhaps for the sake of his personal standing in his adopted home in Brazil and the wider South Americas? Who knows – it’s out of character.
(apologies for the double post – I clicked on “add comment” yet it filled in another reply box to a previous post)
Glenn Greenwald does seem to be guilty of connecting the dots. He provides a document describing JTRIG disinformation campaigns and another document stating such a campaign has been launched against Argentina. He then has the audacity to speculate that the Falklands mission launched by JTRIG might be a JTRIG style disinformation campaign.
For example, consider yesterday’s report of a hack on Falkland Islands websites which played the Argentinian national anthem. Was that hack more likely launched by a lone wolf, the Argentinian government, or JTRIG hoping to stir up fear among the Falkland Islanders about Argentina’s evil intentions?
I assume you will favor the latter explanation, since you state that ‘is what intelligence services SHOULD be doing’. I also generally support duplicity by intelligence agencies, but don’t believe it’s a good idea to do it too transparently.
This article is much ado about nothing. It certainly has nothing to do with the civil liberties of Americans, which was the alleged primary motivation for the release of US intelligence documents by Edward Snowden (at least in selling his criminal act). When Russia illegally invaded and annexed the Crimean Peninsula, the Guardian reported that their comment threads had an unusually high amount of pro-Russian comments (“The readers’ editor on… pro-Russia trolling below the line on Ukraine stories”, May 14, 2014):
“……On 7 February 2012 the Guardian reported: “A pro-Kremlin group runs a network of internet trolls, seeks to buy flattering coverage of Vladimir Putin and hatches plans to discredit opposition activists and media, according to private emails allegedly hacked by a group calling itself the Russian arm of Anonymous……”
International opinion is an important component of foreign policy. Certainly, the Chinese and Russia governments covertly seek to influence international opinion. The Palestinians and Israel have taken their grievances internationally for a long time. Indeed an article by Glenn Greenwald just last week promoted Ukrainian “fascist” propaganda to undermine US support for Ukrainian independence. Misleading information is not just a technique limited to governments.
In 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands initiating a war with Britain. The occupiers were rightly expelled by the British. The 3000 residents are overwhelmingly of European heritage and are British citizens. Almost all of the residents prefer to remain a part of the colonial British Empire. The discovery of oil and gas reserves in 2010 has nothing to do with the long running dispute other than to make any settlement between the governments a little more difficult.
Craig continues with his baseless falsehoods:
On June 17, 2013, during a Q&A at the Guardian I asked Ed snowden a question, and his answer to me was as follows:
This was the first, but by no means the last, of times Edward Snowden would make abundantly clear that he did not release the documents only to assist Americans. Snowden believes the privacy rights of all people are important, including, presumably, those of Argentines.
Yes, this article reveals a lot about the mass surveillance of Argentines by the GCHQ!
Troll. You.
I haven’t read enough of Snowden to understand all of his motivations, but he seems sincere in his reasons for exposing the NSA. Of course, he may have other reasons. I don’t know. I would have to go back and reread Greenwald’s early articles, but I believe I remember right that he framed his initial arguments around the violation of American civil liberties spreading to more politically divisive articles about China and Brazil (protecting Snowden from his return to the US – and possibly trying to piss off the Brazilian government enough so that they might offer a refuge for Snowden). It only makes sense from a political point of view to frame the argument in a way that seeks change of NSA tactics although civil liberties doesn’t seem to be his main motivation (IMO).
We seen from many of his articles concerning the NSA, the political motivation is most apparent (US-Israel cooperation in intelligence, US intelligence leery of Israel spying, exposing the monitoring of Merkel etc. etc.). He certainly is using the NSA documents to politically drive a wedge between allies – in part. Isn’t today’s article another good example? Does anyone really believe that Greenwald cares one iota about the Falklands – or the people of Argentina? And of course, we never want to forget Greenwald’s sudden interest in the Ukrainian fascists when it comes to political motivation. That was a stunningly revealing article.
Finally, it was the Argentina government which was implicated by the prosecutor for covering up the role of Iran in the murder of the Argentina Jews by Hezbollah operatives/terrorists. That is a huge story in Argentina – ignored by Greenwald for political reasons.
Thanks Mona.
Craig remains in orbit around Planet Whataboutery:
Glenn does not cover Argentina — neither stories big, nor small. The above story is about Argentina solely because of the NSA/GCHQ link. Glenn does cover the NSA and GCHQ, as you may have heard.
Glenn does not cover the doings of Hezbollah or its operatives. (Anything about Hezbollah would be incidental to it being implicated in another topic he does cover.)
You know all this.
But because you are Craig — and Craig regularly talks out of his ass — you opined (erroneously) as if you have.
Mona
“…..Glenn does not cover Argentina — neither stories big, nor small. The above story is about Argentina solely because of the NSA/GCHQ link. Glenn does cover the NSA and GCHQ, as you may have heard…..”
That’s getting somewhat old Mona. What about Ukraine? Glenn does do articles about Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Israel, Ukraine, Britain and of course, the US. The reasons are not always related to the NSA documents obviously. In fact, Greenwald didn’t start commenting because he was handed the criminally obtained NSA documents. He had a long history of writing (about America/Israel) before he ever knew Snowden – so spare me the BS about the GCHQ and the NSA.
The NSA documents simply add to Greenwald’s politically motivated anti-American articles – and his selective use of intelligence for political reasons. Because Greenwald (and the Intercept, in general) ignores civil liberties, human rights and the civil rights of people everywhere else in the world is for political reasons. The alleged murder of the Argentina prosecutor is a huge story covered by real journalists. The story simply does not fit into the narrow political view of Greenwald……well except for Russia’s determined fight against Ukrainian fascists.
By the way, despite wealthy Jewish donors pushing for war with Iran and despite AIPAC running our foreign policy and the Republican Party, the Obama Administration has agreed in principle to a nuclear arms deal with Iran over opposition from Israel and the Arab nations (at least some of them).
Thanks.
<blockquote. Glenn does do articles about Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Israel, Ukraine, Britain and of course, the US.
Those are U.S. allies or are strongly implicated in U.S. policy. It’s always, at bottom, about the U.S.
Yes, Obama has lifted a finger to Netanyahu and the Lobby. But don’t worry, Hillary will return us to sycophantic approval for everything Israel and the Lobby wants and does.
“…..It’s always, at bottom, about the U.S…..”
Anti-Americanism. At some point, even for really intelligent people, it consumes them.
What does it mean to be “anti-France,” “anti-Italy,” “anti-Monaco,” or….”anti-American?”
These are empty epithets thrown around by jingoistic authoritarians who haven’t a clue how valuable and precious the values reflected in our Bill of Rights actually are.
As does opposition to the one Jewish state in the world, Mona.
Interesting article. But it is a bit misleading when it says the UK “has rejected Argentine and international calls to open negotiations on territorial sovereignty.” The UK has said it will have negotiations as long as representatives from the Falklands are present. But Argentina won’t have such negotiations with Falkland Islanders present. So it is Argentina who won’t open negotiations.
Absolutely. Argentina also flattly refused negotiations in the decades before the 1982 war.
“The British government, which has continuously administered the Falkland Islands — also known as the Malvinas — since 1833″ – Quite a crucial point considering Republic of Argentina was formed between 1856 – 1861. And that ignores the fact that Britain laid claim to the islands in 1765 and were present on them a fair while before that too, first landing in 1690.
I can’t see what Greenwald’s motivation is for this piece.
This is what intelligence services SHOULD be doing; “Surveillance of Argentine “military and Leadership” communications” in order to prevent a military invasion of a territory! Perhaps Glen would rather it be sorted out militarily afterall, supports the use of war to solve disputes?
Or perhaps he would support the use of intelligence/surveilance of governments and their military to prevent war?
The rest is all speculation with no evidence, something which Greenwald regularly ralies against if his tweets are anything to go by. i.e :
“While the full extent of JTRIG’s tactics used in the Falklands mission is unclear, the scope of JTRIG’s approved capabilities offers an idea of what may have been done. ”
That paragraph is surely irresponsible reporting to make suggestions of what might have been done with no evidence – it stirs up a hornets nest without justification, perhaps for the sake of his personal standing in his adopted home in Brazil and the wider South Americas? Who knows – it’s out of character.
“……Who knows – it’s out of character……”
I agreed with you until this point. It’s completely in character for his anti-colonialist politics.
Anti-colonialist politics are a very good thing.
This is not meant as criticism. It’s interesting that the Intercept has partnered with TN as it is probably the most right wing press outlet in Argentina.
The job, of course, is to get the story out as widely as possible and if the Neoliberal/fanciest elements in Argentina will do it then I guess they should be used.
Never-the-less it should be made clear that Clarine group owned by an Argentine oligarch family is seriously right wing.
“Never-the-less it should be made clear that Clarine group owned by an Argentine oligarch family is seriously right wing” – blueba
Why, specifically? It’s not like this is some form of journalistic parallel-construction where the authors are trying to conceal the sources of their information.
The burden of responsibility for determining the legality and efficacy of this type of behavior belongs to the agencies that are doing it, and is to be judged by their constituency and the global community as to whether it meets the existing laws and/or is a legitimate and beneficial use of the taxpayers money.
In other words, it’s not the messenger but the message that matters.
More importantly, I think a a recurring theme here is in asking the question: do we as a global community want our governments continually involved in secretly manipulating the international discourse in this way, or would we rather see more open diplomacy (as in the recent Iran nuclear talks) so that we can be the judge of our governments actions before, rather than after the fact?
“When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything—you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” – Robert A. Heinlein, If This Goes On, 1940
Glenn Greenwald talked to the theatrical chameleon Glenn Beck yesterday, laughing and joking on the radio. I mean, what is the world coming to?
Ive spoken with people from both ends of the political discourse who are angry and fed up with this two-faced government and their secret dealings that are becoming too apparent to ignore. There are honest people in all political parties, and these people, some of whom with which we disagree on many issues, are repulsed by the way our government policies are being handled. It is surreal though Cindy when such disparate people are in agreement.
I meant my comment to sound lighthearted (although I’m serious about Beck being a chameleon). I’m concerned about what appears on The Intercept itself much more than who Greenwald talks to outside it.
Suppose, I worked for JTRIG. And suppose I was asked to create a political climate where negotiation on the future of Falkland Islands was less likely.
I would create a provocative incident involving a BBC crew and a license plate celebrating the Falklands war, play it up on Argentinian social media, and then watch while the BBC crew was run out of the country by angry rioters. That would polarize things nicely, and help cement the status quo by making it more difficult for either country to concede anything in negotiations.
I’m not claiming JTRIG would do any such thing, only presenting my own proclivities. Of course, even I wouldn’t attempt to inflame feelings by announcing a major oil discovery in the Falklands on the anniversary of the war, as occurred yesterday. That was surely just a coincidence.
People underestimate the UK’s ability to successfully manipulate politics in foreign lands; even supposed friendly ones. For example, this was not the first time that the Top Gear gambit was used internationally by GCHQ. In 1997, not fully understanding that even a Democratic US presidency would leave much of the I-Spy warmongering apparatus unscathed, the BBC infiltrated the southern United States and were successful in derailing an almost certain Presidential bid by Hillary Clinton.
With Top Gear now on indefinite suspension, one wonders what new (or previously successful) propaganda programme the GCHQ will pull out of their hat next.
Worzel Gummidge, anyone?
People underestimate the UK’s ability to successfully manipulate politics in foreign lands; even supposed friendly ones. For example, this was not the first time that the Top Gear gambit was used internationally by GCHQ. In 1997, not fully understanding that a Democratic US presidency would leave much of the I-Spy warmongering apparatus unscathed, the BBC infiltrated the southern United States and were successful in derailing an almost certain Presidential bid by Hillary Clinton.
With Top Gear now on indefinite suspension, one wonders what new (or previously successful) propaganda programme the GCHQ will pull out of their hat next.
Worzel Gummidge, anyone?
The Scarecrow Hop:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEbThXI1ZY&list=PLB34223D55B56A4D7&index=99
Benito, I believe the BBC just arrived in Argentina……
People underestimate the UK’s ability to successfully manipulate politics in foreign lands; even supposed friendly ones. For example, this was not the first time that the Top Gear gambit was used internationally by GCHQ. In 2007, not fully understanding that a Democratic US presidency would leave much of the I-Spy warmongering apparatus unscathed, the BBC infiltrated the southern United States and were successful in derailing an almost certain Presidential bid by Hillary Clinton.
With Top Gear now on indefinite suspension, one wonders what new (or previously successful) propaganda programme the GCHQ will pull out of their hat next.
Worzel Gummidge, anyone?
Quick GCHQ, send a Female Asian BBC reporter to talk about cleaning nasty Argentinian land-mines to occupy the Falklands news/mature debate, whilst you twiddle your thumbs thinking of something to answer SillyPutties challenge of bettering the H982FLK thing (that was genius, credit due where credit due).
What is a sovereignty claim worth without a case? – pretty worthless. Google: ‘Argentina’s Illegitimate Sovereignty Claims’ and find out why.
What is a sovereignty claim worth with a case? – pretty worthwhile. Google: ‘Argentina’s legitimate Sovereignty Claims’ and find out why.
Why has GCHQ hijacked my account to spread these propaganda comments like the above all over the Falklands news stories across Google News through a bot ;)
I have long been a campaigner stating along the lines of – “Let’s stop kidding ourselves, it really is not our oil, it belongs to South America”. Look at the author info for blog post also – it’s a stitch up.
So whilst we have your attention, what happened to the Yahoo News article stating the car seller who sold the H1982 FLK numberplate received a gagging order from the BBC, and then Yahoo a D-Notice to take the article down? What happened to all the news articles that appeared at the very start of the oil controversy where there was some governor who gleefully reported in the Telegraph “We chose to run the risk of raising tensions with Argentina through drilling for oil because we knew the profits were potentially high”. (Something along those words… please correct me if wrong) – he was boasting essentially, that he was prepared to try and get rich due to Britain’s military might. Murdoch’s dominance over the press, which serves to constantly remind you this sort of behaviour is good, proper and correct, may not last forever of course.
The world is now listening. You can reply here, correct me if I’m wrong, etc:
No sure whether this is an April Fool article.
If not it seems misconceived. Presumably intended to turn British people against Greenwald and the Intercept. Don’t understand why you would want to do that, especially with an insubstantial article.
“I think the only reason for this article is that Greenwald is still pissed at the UK for detaining David Miranda at Heathrow two years ago, and he wants to stir up an issue where none exists. The UK (and US) intelligence services do plenty of evil things, but frankly this is not among them.” Laird
That is a pure assumption. However, there is a very serious element in this article. It is more about helping the Argentine government than providing anything substantial to the public. The authors provided details of the UK intelligence services’ operations toward a hostile nation. Isn’t it what intelligence services supposed to do, target hostile nations? Greenwald does not use the information he has just to tell the public the truth so voters can decide what to do with their leaders. He also uses it to help his anti Western beliefs.
The people rightfully question governments, public officials to keep an eye on their lust for power. The people in western democracy can vote public officials out if the voters believe those people have abused their power. What about an individual who abuses his/her power? Greenwald even stated journalists should not investigate other journalists who question government officials. Nobody elected Greenwald and gave him the right to decide what is secret and what is in the interest of national security. We just trust him to reveal the illegal activities of our government. What if he goes beyond that mandate? What can the public do? He may decide to release information regarding illegal activities of our government or just information to help other governments that share his views or even omit crucial information that could tarnish governments that he supports. Unfortunately, we can only question his motives. We cannot vote him out. Remember whenever we question the government we are treated as unpatriotic, naive, etc so, be ready to be treated as a propagandist, an ignorant… whenever you question Greenwald. His strategy is not that much different from the people he attacks. He just does not have a police force or an army to back it up.
You are a troll.
Indeed.
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/18/military-sock-puppets-nsa-trolls-cia-shills/
So then, the Intercept decided to partner with TN which is part of the Clarine Group owned by one of Argentina’s most prominent oligarchs and the most Neoliberal/right wing press outlet in the nation. This is proof positive of GG’s anti Western views?
I am not well informed about this particular partnership, so I cannot speculate on this. However, if you want proofs of Greenwald’s anti Western views, just read his articles. He has a history of omitting crucial information, disregarding contexts, accusing officials without evidence and simplifying the world of international politics. He quickly blames those who question him as being propagandized by Western governments. This is not to weaken the idea that the people should be very suspicious of Western governments policies. I simply suggest that the people should be very cautious as well when dealing with journalists who have access to exclusive information, which is an element of power that can easily corrupt a human being. Only Greenwald can answer why he has anti Western views. He might strongly believe that Westerners are destroying mankind or he might just be playing a game to maintain his popularity among his followers. Remember he signed deals with companies he accused of pro government propaganda.
“The Secret Playbook of Internet Trolls”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/trolls-whats-confusing-nature-game.html
“How to Spot – and Defeat – Disruption on the Internet”
http://dprogram.net/2012/08/13/how-to-spot-and-defeat-disruption-on-the-internet/
The average bloke is paying a dear price to sustain a “British lifestyle” for the privileged few who have established their national traditions on stolen land. oh the taxman… woah oh oh taxman, yeah. This is why our elite intelligence agencies our so important. They are not protecting us, they are protecting themselves from us.
If war goes down again in the Falklands, watch BP to lease an aircraft carrier for the UK Navy so they can fight once
again! They currently have no operational carriers
If Argentina was smart, they would take the Malvinas now as the UK has no operational aircraft carriers, nor long range bombers.
Their window of opportunity will close once the first of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers enters service in 2017
Argentina has no interest in taking the Falklands through military means – not least because it’s in their constitution not to. This military enemy exists only in your head, inspired by Murdoch influenced media and goodness knows what else.
The world would not accept Argentina attempting to retake the Malvinas by force. It is simply reminding the UK very politely that the UN is asking for both sides to sit down at a table, grow up, and sort out a peaceful solution. The REAL threat for the UK regarding the Malvinas are as follows:
1) Say, the UK, really was bonkers enough to drill holes across South America’s part of the Atlantic and profit from oil, once the more progressive world order which is emerging from the BRIC countries in control (and Murdoch’s press is a laughing point in a dodgy dark age), the UK may finally be convinced to attend the International Courts of Justice with Argentina to sort out the Malvinas. Should they lose (it could go 50/50, hence why neither side is scared to try their luck), they may need to repay all oil profits back to Argentina or South America/Mercosur.
2) The world’s press picking up on this story after multiple attempts to press by _______ : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7chmzc0-GE
Falklands/Malvinas is simple to sort. Remove flags, remove oil aspirations. Continue to have only scientific centres and a few villages. Control immigration from Argentina until they calm down so to not upset the community. Allow them to continue living their simples, and that should not need involve all that flag waving and nationalist stuff. Or something else, but not silly solutions including nukes and submarines yeh?
Isn’t it great that the world has an organization in the UN where nations can openly negotiate disputes, so the people of the world see how civilized and altruistic our world leaders are? Where trust and mutual cooperation reign supreme to solve the vital issues we all face in these trying times. If only.
When I read stories like this and see once again how duplicitously foreign policy is truly carried out, initially hopelessness and helplessness overwhelm me, and after a bit of wallowing in them, I’m able to turn those feelings into anger. Everything I was taught about the character of a man like honor, integrity, courage, are just qualities the government uses against us, knowing we want to believe that our leaders possess these attributes only makes us susceptible to their carefully constructed illusion of a democratic society. All the while they’re telling us one thing they’re doing something totally underhanded. Thanks for the story Mr. Fishman and Mr. Greenwald. Either we get angry and work for change or we roll over and take it like cattle, just waiting for slaughter. We have a choice.
“Tensions between the two nations, which fought a war over the small archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean in 1982, reached a boil in 2010 with the British discovery of large, offshore oil and gas reserves potentially worth billions of dollars.”
So…the Empire continues to play their very old game of colonization for the acquisition of perceived material land and energy assets which transfer immediately into the controlling hands of the International Central Bankers. To frame this any other way would be a distinct departure from the truth.
I posted this article once before in the comments section of TI somewhere but it is worth posting again due to the relevant concise information provided within.
The whole planet is in a state of controlled chaos and this is by design to further the goals of the “Empire”. This struggle between free will and self-determination of individuals has been going on, as documented in historical records etched in stone, since the times of Sumeria. Presently…it would be impossible to form a clear impression of conflicting world events without some examination of the concept of empire in more modern times — say the past 1000 years.
‘Three Corporations run the world: City of London, Washington DC and Vatican City”
http://www.sinhalanet.net/three-corporations-run-the-world-city-of-london-washington-dc-and-vatican-city
Snip: [“World events most of which are ‘engineered’ leave a trail that leads to the architects. We next discover that there are 3 cities on earth that come under no national authority, they have separate laws, they pay no taxes, they have their own police force and even possess their own flag of ‘independence’. These 3 cities control the economy, military onslaughts and the spiritual beings of those in powers. The 3 cities are actually corporations and they are the City of London, District of Columbia and the Vatican. Together they control politicians, the courts, educational institutions, food supply, natural resources, foreign policies, economies, media, and the money flow of most nations as well as 80% of the world’s entire wealth. Their ultimate aim is to build a totalitarian rule on a global scale where people will be divided into rulers and the ruled after they have depopulated the world to numbers they wish to rule over. What we need to understand is that the world does not work according to what we have been led to believe. We are drowning in misinformation.”]
[“City of London directly and indirectly controls all mayors, councils, regional councils, multi-national and trans-national banks, corporations, judicial systems (through Old Bailey, Temple Bar and the Royal Courts of Justice in London), the IMF, World Bank, Vatican Bank (through N. M. Rothschild & Sons London Italian subsidiary Torlonia), European Central Bank, United States Federal Reserve (which is privately owned and secretly controlled by eight British-controlled shareholding banks), the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland (which is also British-controlled and oversees all of the Reserve Banks around the world including our own) and the European Union and the United Nations Organization. The Crown controls the global financial system and runs the governments of all Commonwealth countries, and many non-Commonwealth ‘Western’ nations as well (like Greece). The Crown traces back to the Vatican, which is headed by the Pope (who owns American Express) In essence the City of London Corporation would become the “One World Earth Corporation” and would privately own the world.”]
[“Washington DC is not part of the USA. District of Columbia is located on 10sq miles of land. DC has its own flag and own independent constitution. This constitution operates under a tyrannical Roman law known as Lex Fori. DC constitution has nothing to do with the American Constitution. The Act of 1871 passed by Congress created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES & corporate government for the District of Columbia. Thus DC acts as a Corporation through the Act. The flag of Washington’s District of Columbia has 3 red stars (the 3 stars denoting DC, Vatican City and City of London).”]
[“The Vatican City is not part of Italy or Rome. The Vatican is the last true remnant of the Roman Empire. The State of Israel is also said to be a Roman outpost. The Vatican’s wealth includes investments with the Rothschilds in Britain, France and US and with oil and weapons corporations as well. The Vatican’s billions are said to be in Rothschild controlled ‘Bank of England’ and US Federal Reserve Bank. The money possessed by the Vatican is more than banks, corporations or even some Governments and questions why the wealth is not used to elevate at least the Christian poor when it preaches about giving?”]
So…does the “Empire” have a right to colonize the Falklands and use the “Five Eyes” (Crown Colonies or Corporate Entity) national security assets to advance their conquests?
Not if it is time for the people of the Earth to claim their birthright of free choice and self-determination. That is…rise and strike back against the absolute economic, military, and spiritual control of the “Empire” which violates even the most basic elements of individual autonomy —- body and soul.
“Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose….and nothing ain’t work nothing honey (un) less it’s free.” —— from “Me and Bobby Mcgee” as sung by Janis Joplin circa 1969 at Woodstock Music Festival
Interesting. So the 1982 war was fought at the instigation of the international bankers because oil would be discovered there decades later.
Lol lol lol lol lol
Troll elsewhere.
Just in case innocent readers are fooled by your covert massive efforts Mr. Brown, I feel that it is necessary to re-post this article:
“The Troll’s Guide to Internet Disruption”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/trolls-guide-internet-disruption.html
Poor little Alpha Brown is a dying troll and he is taking his buddies with him.
No. The Falkland Islands are part of the Crown Empire’s land acquisitions and the history of which can easily be found on any search engine. It is presently a British OverseasTerritory (Crown Colony under self-governance) since 1981 for the City of London which Argentina disputed in 1982 based on prior nation state claims by Spain.
“Falkland Islands”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
“Oil exploration, licensed by the Falkland Islands Government, remains controversial as a result of maritime disputes with Argentina.”
I think you knew that Mike Sulzer. Maybe you have an interest in protecting the Roman Empire which I do not share.
lol lol lol lol lol
Got a new one up especially for you today Alpha asshole.
“How to Beat Internet Trolls”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/beat-internet-trolls.html
Just because TI doesn’t appear to mind your trolling does not mean that I will tolerate your antics.
I have no part in your vendetta against this publication and have no qualms with exposing you for what you are.
Go play your games with somebody else.
Stay away from me or I will assume that you are engaged in behavior which resembles a form of antagonistic stalking.
No threats asshole…it’s a promise.
“Making comments on The Intercept is not worth my time or effort particularly when they have no anti-troll policies.”
Sharing your opinion should not depend on whether you believe readers of your comments are trolls, assholes, professionals…etc…Nobody here is using laws or weapons to silence you. In fact, only The Intercept may silence you here. If you decide to stop commenting or to change your views simply because a reader thinks your opinions are hilarious, then that is not even funny anymore, that is just stupid as you have the capability to ignore whomever you want. However, you must understand nobody has to ignore your views specially when you write them on a public site accessible by millions of people. You have called me troll, asshole, others have called me worse and some even sent me very vulgar pics. Yet, I am here. I have never even suggested that those who call me those names should leave and I do not use my brain cells to find vulgar words or pics to reply them.
Apparently you were unable to get your last word in the proper location.
Just making good on my promise.
“America’s Make Believe Democracy – Subversion from Within”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/06/21/americas-make-believe-democracy-subversion-from-within/
Lol lol lol In a free world you may assume whatever you want. I think you should immediately report to the police that a commentator who reads the comments that YOU POSTED ONLINE for the world to read is stalking you because that commentator thinks your PUBLIC comments are hilarious!
Alpha Asshole you are most definitely a troll with a vendetta for The Intercept but I haven’t figured out if it is personal(unpaid) or professional(paid).
However, I’ve decided that you are right about something. Making comments on The Intercept is not worth my time or effort particularly when they have no anti-troll policies. For that reason, I will have to confine the bulk of my comments to your threads.
If they use such dirty tricks in South America, I bet they used them in the Scottish referendum too. That wouldn’t be far off. Years ago you would have been called paranoid to think a government would use such disgusting tactics.
This is common knowledge now amongst those under 35 in Scotland who aren’t so brainwashed by mainstream media as the older vote.
You could try this video to start you off, and do your own investigations: “Tommy Sheridan Sticks it to BBC over Bias Coverage” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekWWfUAtcMY
Nationalism is ugly, but many people around the world believe that a better world is possible, and it would have started wit Scotland, hence even some English in Scotland supporting the SNP. Something that got me really thinking if George Robertson saying something about “The forces of evil would take advantage of an independent Scotland”. Now there is really something to mull over.
From today’s Buenos Aires Herald
It’s long been apparent that Iran has its eye on the Falklands. While Britain and Argentina are waging their propaganda war, Iran could easily slip in and seize control. Therefore the US should pro-actively launch a humanitarian mission to take over the Falklands and thwart this Iranian act of aggression.
“It’s long been apparent that Iran has its eye on the Falklands. While Britain and Argentina are waging their propaganda war, Iran could easily slip in and seize control.” – Benito
Just as Germany would not be put off beginning the Second World War for your convenience, neither shall their fascist resurgence from the depths of South America be frustrated by the likes of the Iranians:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLdY-GbFRDo
‘Location, location, location.’ *bah’s guide to Real Estate
*note. Geographically, if the Falklands and Argentina can be extrapolated as located next to each other here * and … here * , the UK, USA and Iran would be locate ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………….. here * and …………………………………..here * and ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. here *
Why is this an issue? The UK is using its intelligence services to gain information and/or affect public opinion with respect to what is essentially a hostile nation. What country doesn’t do this, and why would any rational person consider it objectionable? The Falklands are not part of Argentina and have never been a part of Argentina. They have been a UK territory for nearly 200 years, because in1833 Argentina had zero interest in them. Even today its inhabitants are almost 100% in favor of remaining part of the UK. This should be a no-brainer for anyone except an expansionist-minded Argentinian.
I think the only reason for this article is that Greenwald is still pissed at the UK for detaining David Miranda at Heathrow two years ago, and he wants to stir up an issue where none exists. The UK (and US) intelligence services do plenty of evil things, but frankly this is not among them.
The US doesn’t really have an interest one way or the other in the Falklands. Both the UK and Argentina are our allies. To my knowledge (I am not a historian), I concur that the Falkland Islands have always been British. It seems like in 1982, Argentina felt like if they took it by force the British wouldn’t fight a war over it. They were proven wrong on that count very quickly. Although Argentina did put up a little bit of a fight since they had modern (by 1982 standards) American weapons that we sold them. I think the point of the article though isn’t about the Falkland islands, but about modern western intelligence agencies using very slimy practices to influence public opinion. Of course, this is the British. I would like to learn about / see exposed how the US government has engaged in similar tactics because in my eyes this would be / should be / is unconstitutional in the USA. England does not have our American constitution.
Even if he is, I don’t care. In fact, I approve. As a matter of balance of power politics.
Eventually, thanks to the internet, everything that was ever said will be credited to Mark Twain.
For example, this piece traces that back to a book in 1964 associating it with Charles Brownsen, an Indianapolis Republican. But there’s no point crediting someone hardly anyone would recognize. And he probably appropriated it from someone else anyway. So any memorable saying eventually gets passed on as: ‘someone, I think it may have been Mark Twain, said …’ and it becomes forever re-attributed.
Thank you, Il Duce! I shall file that away as yet another quote the Internet has taught me either was never said until someone manufactured it for false attribution, or it originated with someone else.
For example, I wish Lincoln had said this, but he almost certainly didn’t:
http://www.unclemikesresearch.com/abraham-lincoln/
I thought that saying about “…who by ink by the barrel” was attributed to some famous tattoo artist.
“Be careful — with quotations, you can damn anything.” – André Malraux
My favorite quote of his (Lincoln’s) is:
“The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never be sure if they are genuine.”
@wahoo
HAHAHA Good one.
‘Sounds like plagiarism, but it probably wasn’t’ *Mark Twain
“Even if he is, I don’t care. In fact, I approve. As a matter of balance of power politics.” Mona
Of course you don’t care. He is your Great Leader. Even if he would place his personal feelings above a whole nation that is designing a strategy to protect its territorial integrity that would not matter for you. The Great Leader is always right!
You are a troll, as anyone can see from your comments these last months, but especially by this thread: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/19/us-threatened-germany-snowden-vice-chancellor-says/#comment-118273
quote”Of course you don’t care. He is your Great Leader. Even if he would place his personal feelings above a whole nation that is designing a strategy to protect its territorial integrity that would not matter for you. The Great Leader is always right!”unquote
“When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.”
? Will Rogers
Per Wiki “First Law of Holes”
“The Gentleperson’s Guide To Forum Spies”
http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
The distance from England to The Malvinas, also known as The Falkland Islands is 7,950 miles, and the distance between mainland Argentina and The Malvinas is 300 miles.
Which nation, should there ever be a need for disaster assistance on The Malvinas, would be in the most able position to assist the people living on The Malvinas ??
Flight time from England would be around 10 to 12 hours, as opposed to 2 hours tops, from Argentina, plus aid by sea would be there weeks before the Brits could get their act together.
There is one reason only, why England has any interest in The Malvinas, and that is simply OIL; to suggest anything else is silly.
Right you are, Mel Farrell
(from the article): “Tensions between the two nations, which fought a war over the small archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean in 1982, reached a boil in 2010 with the British discovery of large, offshore oil and gas reserves potentially worth billions of dollars.”
Gee, who would have thought – fighting and spying for economic interests?
“There is one reason only, why England has any interest in The Malvinas, and that is simply OIL”
Obviously false, since the 1982 Falklands war took place before the discovery of oil nearby.
The only people who should have any say in which country administers the Falklands are the people who live there.
You acknowledge in your article that “the full extent of JTRIG’s tactics used in the Falklands mission is unclear” and that one of the documents (DSTL study) “makes no mention of the scope of online HUMINT or of any related effects operations.”
If you know nothing about the operational tactics and scope, how did you conclude that “Britain Used Spy Team to Shape Latin American Public Opinion”? Capability does not equal reality.
Without providing information on the “effects operations” tools used, you cannot determine the extent of manipulation of public opinion or if it even occurred at all.
Nate – Care to kindly share how much involvement GCHQ has with Mercopress? It’s nice to be able to distinguish between real news and propaganda, public opinion manipulating. They have so many unusual articles no one else writes about, and it has a VERY high Google News ranking for a WordPress style news site – how is that achieved?
Why is the address and the people behind it so obscure. Your department says they don’t ‘talk about blah blah… ” but you seem to have done a bit of denying this and that over here.. can you try some admitting also? Peace x
A sovereignty claim without a case can only mean that it is an illegitimate claim and worthless.
https://www.academia.edu/10490336/Argentinas_Illegitimate_Sovereignty_Claims
BritBob, I keep seeing your name across every single Falklands new post which appears in Google news… VERY quickly after they are published. You seem have a 1 track mind and too much time. Your drone style comments even seem to even verge on bot behaviour. Are you sure you aren’t an inefficient pluky faced clerk at GCHQ tasked with ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’ ‘denigrate/degrade’ internet opinion because you can’t handle nuanced points to handle other jobs over there?
Occassionaly you drop in the odd “we must remember, we are dealing with Argentina, which is not a normal country” to keep it interesting.
Anything else you’d like to add to add some variety? How about.. “We must remember, we are dealing with Argentinians, who are infact, not normal humans, they have indigenous moon blood and don’t even speak English – a dirty Latin American country full of subhumans who want to remind us the sun will set on the British Empire.”
Not serious doc.
Gran Bretaña la concha de tu madre! Encima de Imperio en decadencia su gobierno no va a soltar nuestras MALVINAS no sòlo por el petróleo (NUESTRO PETRÓLERO), sino que por el orgullo de saberse victoriosos de un suelo que esta a millones de kilómetros. Las MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS. Devuelvanlas y punto. QUE MUERA EL MALDITO COLONIALISMO, ARRIBA LA HORA DE LOS PUEBLOS. Que se cojan a la corona!
Falkland Islands will be very useful when we focus our attention on the potential terrorist folks in the Southern Hemisphere after dealing with all the confirmed terrorists in the Middle East and parts of Europe.
On another topic, the sudden aversion to data sharing that Google has developed recently is the main reason for the Germanwings crash; otherwise, we could have easily intercepted the co-pilot who we now know was google-researching suicide methods online. Google and GCHQ must not become shy as a result of Mr Snowden’s revelations or else the world will become very unsafe.
Haha! What a rediculous assertion!
Do you realise how many billions of searches are made on google every week? Do you think mass surveillance would pick up this minute needle in a haystack? Nope. Mass surveillance is only effective after the fact and cannot be used successfully for prevention. That is why the move to mass surveillance from individual targetted surveillance is dangerous.
Yet why would any intelligence service be monitoring the personal mental heath of the world’s 7 billion people, or even the mental health of the hundreds of thousands of the world’s pilots? Not even the NSA is interested in using surveillance for such general matters of public protection. Perhaps you’re suggesting that anyone with the slightest sign of mental health problems should be surveilled? Let’s save time and not take risks and just throw them all into a gulag? You want to live in a state like North Korea then perhaps?
What will make the world more unsafe is fear in the population such as you express.
“the language of JTRIG’s operations is characterized by terms such as ‘discredit,’ promote ‘distrust,’ ‘dissuade,’ ‘deceive,’ ‘disrupt,’ ‘delay,’ ‘deny,’ ‘denigrate/degrade,’ and ‘deter.’”
…terms reminiscent of COINTELPRO: “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate” (or neutralize, according to some sources)
At least COINTELPRO used language that celebrates the diverse natural of the alphabet …
Seems to have been posted a day late. Lots of speculation and propaganda, barely offset by the belated admission that EVERYONE in the Falklands wants to remain British. Does GG seriously want to do a West Bank on them?
Hoping for a return to the great factual news stories.
How weird. The U.S. population needed little convincing to support Britain in a territorial dispute. I mean, not merely does it date back to 1829, but it was the USS Lexington that basically handed the island to the British in the first place. I don’t know if this means JTRIG is so weak that they only get involved when they know they can win without having any effect, or if they are so pervasive that there is literally no issue they won’t touch. Nor do I remember some weird pushy force behind basically alien news stories like when Diana died, or the 9/11 “truthers” – does that mean they’re so subtle we can’t feel their interference, or just so weak they don’t make an impact? The British claim on the Falklands is still billions and billions of times more reasonable than the U.S. claim on Guantanamo Bay.
Given its conduct @ Diego Garcia, the UK is plain unworthy of occupying the Malvinas / Falkland Isles. Were the geopolitics in Latin America to shift in such a way that the US might seek opportunistically, or in desperation, to gain the upper hand, then the UK would certainly have no qualms about allowing, if not inviting, the US to establish an air force (and naval) base there — this as per the abomination of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. So it is to be hoped that Argentina will ardently continue to press its legitimate enough claims for a reoccupation before the tides might turn.
One might get the impression that The Intercept is a foreign publication since it seems to concentrate on affairs of other countries. The US government surely must be doing a very good job of frightening Greenwald et al. Too bad for the Americans.
One might get the impression that The Intercept is a foreign publication since it seems to concentrate on affairs of other countries.
A cursory perusal of Greenwald articles over the past month includes these stories of particular interest to Americans:
March 31 – Obama Personally Tells the Egyptian Dictator that U.S. Will Again Send Weapons (and Cash) to his Regime
March 26 – Court Accepts DOJ’s ‘State Secrets’ Claim to Protect Shadowy Neocons: a New Low
March 25 – Netanyahu’s Spying Denials Contradicted by Secret NSA Documents
March 19 – US Threatened Germany Over Snowden, Vice Chancellor Says
March 11 – Maybe Obama’s Sanctions on Venezuela are Not Really About His “Deep Concern” Over Suppression of Political Rights
March 10 – The Parties’ Role Reversal on “Interfering” with the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy
March 4 – The “Snowden is Ready to Come Home!” Story: a Case Study in Typical Media Deceit
Are you really General Smedley Butler, or are you really a miffed Brit in twisted knickers?
One might get the impression after reading this that USA is pro South America, and I thought I should mention that USA had re-activated their 4th fleet for central and South America since a few years back, something that boggles my mind, because what I find annoying (being an European btw), is the cynical notion of such a fleet perhaps being activated to support political ambitions of USA for South America. Maybe someone knowledgable have a less cynical explanation for the re-activation of the 4th fleet.
Also, I felt like mentioning that oil interests might be a thing for the Falkland Islands area, some piece of news I read ago. I have since forgotten the details. I wonder how big of a part, any oil interests is for that area. Would be bad if keeping “oil interests” away from other nations nearby I think. Presumably, Argentina might already have some kind of petrolium industry going.
I want to point out that with the mentioning of ‘political ambitions’ above, I meant war, or just warfare. I would think that high ranking military officers are involved in how a nation wages war on others, but an escalation of violence probably takes time and the notion of such an escalation just seems to me to be like a trademark of sorts of USA and its military. US politics seem to me to be just a preamble for military violence everywhere on the planet, and I don’t like it.
Those with an interest in what’s presented in this excellent article, might want to take a look at the following book:
A Thorn In Their Side, by Robert Green
Amazon description:
“In 1984, at the age of 78, world-renowned rose grower Hilda Murrell was found brutally murdered in the Shropshire countryside. She had just gained approval to testify on the unsolved problems of radioactive waste at the first British planning inquiry into a new nuclear power plant at Sizewell, Suffolk. The police theory that a lone, panicking burglar robbed and abducted Hilda in her own car for petty cash erupted into a sensational political conspiracy involving prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s plans for British nuclear energy and the controversial sinking of the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano in the 1982 Falklands War. The West Mercia police took until 2005 to secure the conviction of Andrew George as Hilda’s unlikely murderer—in 1984 he was a 16-year-old truant from a local foster home who could not drive. The case spawned numerous books, plays and TV programmes as it became one of the most baffling British murders of the 20th century. Now, Hilda’s nephew Robert Green—a former Royal Navy Commander who operated nuclear weapons before holding a key position in Naval Intelligence during the Falklands War—tells the story of his extraordinary pursuit of the truth. Believing that Hilda was abducted by those who wanted to find out what she knew about the Falklands conflict and problems in the Sizewell nuclear power plant, and undeterred by ongoing harassment, Green exposes the implausibility of the police theory and uncovers explosive new evidence that should have acquitted Andrew George. This is the incredible true story of Hilda Murrell—and one man’s quest to find out how and why his beloved aunt met such a violent and bizarre death.”
Robert Green – The Assassination of Hilda Murrell (and the Brutish Empire)
https://youtu.be/s7chmzc0-GE
“Robert Green – former high ranking Royal Navy intelligence officer – speaks about the Assassination of Hilda Murrell (his aunt) by the British State in 1984. The event was held by Veterans For Peace- UK, on the 9 April 2012, London, UK.
“Hilda was the aunt of Commander Robert Green, Royal Navy (Retired), a former naval intelligence officer who was wrongly said to have passed the order for the sinking of the Argentine ship the Belgrano by the nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror during the 1982 Falklands War.”
As Commander Robert Green notes, this was more than a murder — it was an assassination. In his book, he describes the “dirty tricks” that were used against him and numerous others who were interested in his aunt’s death.
http://www.nickdavies.net/1994/03/01/the-mysterious-death-of-hilda-murrell/
its kind of ironic that Argentina is using anti-colonial rhetoric to justify its own colonial expansionist desires.
The fact is that European countries still have small colonies in South America, and this is ridiculous. We’re in the 21st century. The only reason why I think the UK can be given a pass is humanitarian: The colonists are English and the forced relocation of human beings is immoral.
Its really a question of self-determination rather than geographic proximity. The colonists in Argentina decided that they wanted to be independent. The colonists in the Falklands decided that they wanted to be associated with Great Britain. Argentina’s only claim is “its near so, so it should be ours.”
Straight out of the Cameroon textbook – well done Steve. Any commentator on The Sun or Daily Express would be proud at your linguistic mastery to transcribe what you hear in the pub.
Why?
This article will only increase the likelihood of another war which will undoubtedly lead to deaths.
I’ve so far supported a lot of the work you’ve published regarding mass surveillance but I don’t see the public interest here for Argentinians, Brits, or any other nationality.
Seems more like an attempt at getting page views than responsible journalism.
I fail to see how. The article mentioned the 2010 discovery of oil, but that is old news. A new discovery was announced today (on the anniversary of the 1982 war; the British are good at flourishes like that), which does increase the likelihood of another war (not too many wars have been waged for control of sheep). However, Argentina is currently broke, so unfortunately the British will have to remain satisfied with the wars in the Middle East for the time being.
If you have ever commented — including when Glenn was at the Guardian — on a single article authored or co-authored by Glenn that you’ve “supported,” please link to your comment. I’ve noticed that it’s quite common for someone who chimes in with the cliche, using one phrasing or another, about how they have long supported Glenn’s work as their preface before airing their oh so “serious concerns” about the article they are commenting on have never once commented before. I consider that to be suspect at the very least. To be perfectly honest, I’m calling you out as a liar and a fraud. You are welcome to try and prove yourself to be something other than that.
Also, page views don’t count for shit on a website that has no sponsors. Oh, and one more poke at your pattern of cliche robotic writing: “Responsible journalism.” How many damned more times will you fraud clowns use that phrase when posting your fraudulent, “serious concerns” comments?
Stealing South America’s natural resources (The Oil belongs to South American natives across South America obviously) on the backs of a few settlers with British passport, a pub, and a red postbox on a rock down there, and saying “these people have the right to develop their economy” – whilst ensuring the oil exploration companies are AIM listed – might be just a touch farfetched?
Maybe the patriotic British thing to do is to NOT support oil exploration, that way we can continue good trade with the sleeping giant of South America for years to come, and focus on our vibrant digital economy industry, or something else modern, instead of non-existent military threats and listening to ageing sea lords like Lord West with a world mentality from a bygone area – this is 2015 and not 1910 after all..
South America should leave the oil under the sea also – it’s bad for the environment.
The US and UK governments just refuse to use anything but lying, cheating and bombing to get what they want. It seems like they simply can’t or won’t use any other means to achieve their goals. It’s a sad state of affairs when honesty is never seen as the best policy.
Effective diplomacy seems all but dead these days; we’re left with this cold war-esque mindset worldwide that thinks the best policies are the ones nobody knows about but the politicians.
I don’t see there is evidence for what you’re saying in this peice. It seems your comment is a cut and paste one from somewhere else?
The US tried to help with bringing negotiations closer to reality as stated above. The UK was willing to negotiate as long as those whom the decisions would effect would be included in talks, the inhabitants of the islands. Argentina wanted to negotiate but only if the inhabitants were excluded from talks.
And the background of negotiations is that the UK and US offered talks and to facilitate talks respectively from about 1965 onwards up to the invasion by Argentina in 1982, but Argentina refused and not surprising really considering the terrible authoritarian regimes in place in Argentina back then.
It was Argentina which resorted to bombing and a land invasion instead to achieve a goal, that goal probably being to distract the people of Argentina at the time from the failings of the regime in power, which collapsed pretty much as soon as it lost that invasion.