Posted 9/7/2011 4:38 pm
Well you can't call a bluff called yet on that because they made a point to let her see them take the pictures and she knows they have them so just because they have not surfaced is a big fact. She the journalist knows that they are out there and it still plays on her mind and leaves doubt. Or as most would say "Mind games". The journalist is made to see that the pictures are being taken and the people taking them make it clear that they are taking pictures so that the victim knows pictures exist. Then the pictures are put in that persons folder on the computer and when and if they ever try anything or speak ill of what ever group is running the show then they can put them out there. It is kind of like a marker if you will. An unspoken agreement with that person the victim and the secret police that we have this and will and can humiliate you when ever we want so you better be good. Kind of like Santas good list.
Posted 9/7/2011 4:44 pm
no actually they have better cell phones and internet then we do because they buy what our governments wont allow us to. Its like the cell phone which did not really start to make its rounds in the states until mid 90's. A lot of 3rd world countries not only had them prior but also wireless internet before us too. The big companies that run the government determine what we have and it is based off rather or not they have made all they can off a product before they introduce the next big thing. The maker of the next big thing is not going to wait and will then sale said items to other countries. If you look back to the start of the arab spring and egypt cut off the internet to the country and what happened to a subway protest in sanfrancisco a few weeks ago both are similar but one was a whole country while one was a small area of town.
Yes but that´s it! These are ONLY mindgames. Bluffs. These are not serious attempts to release the footage. There is no plan for it i believe. It´s only mindgames and the best part is: Whenever they try to call the bluff they will only hurt and humiliate themselves because then it will be clear (professional footage) that members of the security apparatus were indeed responsible for this outrage. It´s like a chess game. I think the egyptian reporter in 2003 understood that somehow. That´s why she called the bluff and nothing really happened.
Its only really hard to THINK THAT THROUGH when you are a victim because your mind is already severly bleeding pain all over the place. That´s why you need people to help you think this through.
Posted 9/7/2011 8:00 pm
See the thing is there is always the possibility that they will release it so it weighs on the victim more then if they just release them because it is like waiting for the other shoe to drop. Most security forces know this and use that more then showing the images because it leaves doubt in the journalist or protestor on when the images will surface. Its a trick that was created during the cold war to blackmail people in working for other spy groups. It has been refined over the years to the state it is today where they have a file of you doing something or in a humiliated position and use that to keep you under wraps. No matter if they release them or not the fact that they have them always weighs on the person and over time it does not weigh as much as minutes, days or months after but it is a way to curtail the activities of a person.
Posted 9/7/2011 8:07 pm
As for any other images or video that may have been taken from the crowds the funny thing is when those people would post them or attempt to post them they then would collect them and block them in order to keep it under wraps. They would even go as far as send the secret police to the house or isp of the person posting to collect all materials from that person regarding the post and then place that in the file of the victim. This way they can say it was not us but we have stopped the images and video on are end and are still looking for the people responsible. If they are ever pressed they would pick several people that they feel are a threat like protestors and haul them in for the reason of the attack. Kills two birds with one stone. It also gives way to the fact that they can also deliver the material if ever needed to the web and humiliate that person at will. Most security police groups will keep those files in a seperate area with others that they have humiliating stuff on mostly high ranking politicians and government people and even famous people or journalist. Gives them a marker if you will for anything they may need in the future.
They can´t get everybody. Some will not post them online from egypt but from somewhere else. There are countless methods of tricking the police i believe. >But nontheless your argument strikes a cord. I can believe the police will at least try to do that what you suggested. It is only logical.
It´s psychological torture of the most extreme degree. I don´t know the best way would be to point that out somehow. To prepare the public for it. I mean some would still whack off in sin at the images and videos but the broad public will mass behind the humiliated rape victim. I believe the correct strategy here is offense and not waiting and being on the defense.
Posted 9/7/2011 9:38 pm
"And when my clothes gave way I remember looking up and seeing them take pictures with their cell phones.The flashes of their cell phone cameras".I wonder who has these particular pictures/footage of the start of the vicious stripping of Lara,she was her own eyewitness.At this point she was stripped almost completely naked by the mob.Other photos shows us the Egyptian mob/crowd had a extremely large amount of cameras/cell phones.No one attempted to stop the stripping/rape,and no one attempted to stop them from taking pictures/filming.It's out there.
If they have somehow managed to hide the information from the entire internet world then that does have great implications. I'd like to know how it was done. I'm thinking crazy stuff now like they are swapping packets from the real internet for those from a simulated one running on a server somewhere and keeping the two synchronized at the data level. It is crazy to think that they could do that.
Is it less crazy to think that option 1 is true? That it didn't happen and this is some kind of fantastic hoax? Why take such a risk? The damage to her career from being involved in a hoax would dwarf that from having any images exposed on the net. It would be crazy to do that.
She was attacked by the police at a rally in 2005 or 2006 and they photographed her nude while detained and threatened to ruin her political career by releasing the images. Her name was mentioned way back in the thread. No images have surfaced so far to my knowledge. Of course, this could reflect the fact that she has been successfully blackmailed.
Before you start rambling like MORPHEUS in Matrix think again. There may still be the option THAT SIMPLY NOTHING WAS RELEASED by now. But that could change every hour. I propose to call the moment the footage hits the web Hour X. Hour X could be everywhen.
And no it is NOT a hoax at all. It was the result of a) a terrible sexual assault that may include unwatchable variations of rape and sexual degradation b) it was badly managed at CBS and c) egypt ist still a country under martial law. All that led to a wildly inconsistent media mess that doesn´t make sense at all. It was simply too much in a too short time to handle by the participants involved.
Your statements, taken together, seem contradictory. You have said, in effect, that the images will eventually be put on the internet for distribution, but you have also said that a huge majority of sites will remove content of that nature if they know it is real. So you are saying that the material must eventually come out but no one will host it. So how is that going to work?
They are contradictory because i see the whole incident of footage releasing as a PHASE. A PROCESS. Something that goes from A to Z. It is NOT something fixed in time. It is not something that does not change. What do i mean with it? Again: I take the story of the 16year old swedish girl who got gangraped at the rave party as example. The story of assault footage happened like thus: First the images hit the facebook accounts. Then it got distributed along facebook and beyond facebook. Then the material disappeared from the web.
So we have THREE MAJOR PHASES.
1. Initiation phase of Footage (Images hit the web for example at a site like this thread or facebook or whatnot)
2. Viral phase of footage (Images get distributed quickly and widely - many sites host it)
3. Lockdown phase of footage (Police and public opinion begin to pressure sites - many sites are ethical and put down the footage by themselves without pressure - sites that do not want to do this are threatened with legal action or are branded as pariahs in front of their advertisement partners)
The Footage thus goes from A (Initiation phase) to Z (Lockdown Phase)
The contradictions are therefore examples of different phases in a timeline. The Three Phases Theory assumes a flow of information or communication. Everyone else assumes a fix state a happening that is in effect static: Footage hits the web and stays there and nothing will ever change. I think that is an incorrect dated theory.
She already has voiced that she is not going to return to the near east/northern africa any time soon. It´s difficult to extract what she exactly meant with that and what the reasons are. Is it just classic Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or is it blackmail?
That´s why i would advise her to go to he offense in some way because this thing just shuts her down as a reporter in the long term i am afraid.
Dissidents managed to get images out of totalitarian states prior to the advent of the internet. They don't have to leave a trail for the authorities to trace back to them. What they lack is a reason for taking the risk. The casual observer has no such reason so they won't get involved.
I believe it was a rally for the rights of women. The year might have been 2003, also. She was a potential candidate for political office. In the article while they took the pictures the police said "try running for office when we show these photos...". That is what I remember reading. Clearly, blackmail was the intent.
Posted 9/7/2011 11:17 pm
There's probably is a warehouse in Egypt fill up with boxes of DVDS of the Lara Logan assault/rape.This would by-pass the internet first,and once out in the public,it's automatic viral.The way the internet is blocked,they might have a better chance to package as DVDS and move out simular to narcotics.
I understand that she did a piece on Syria several weeks ago. This was mentioned in a thread comment. I don't know if she went there physically. I think the blackmail theory would require her to not deal with Egypt or any other country in that area at all, either in a physical visit or simply commenting on current events as observed from afar. If she is reporting on Syria then she is dealing with events in that area of the world. Either the blackmail theory is false or the threat is specifically for Egypt.
