SilverNRed Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Allegations. ALLEGATIONS. Unsubstantiated and unconfirmed allegations, not facts, are what Newsweek and their liberal ilk are reporting and it's irresponsible, no matter how you try to spin it. 339359[/snapback] Of course, we've also found Al Qaeda training manuals that instruct the "mujahadeen" to claim prison abuses as soon as they're released regardless of whether it happened or not. They understand our media will take any opportunity to smear our military and they understand that there is a large segment of America's population that will buy it - hook, line, and sinker.
Alaska Darin Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Of course, we've also found Al Qaeda training manuals that instruct the "mujahadeen" to claim prison abuses as soon as they're released regardless of whether it happened or not. They understand our media will take any opportunity to smear our military and they understand that there is a large segment of America's population that will buy it - hook, line, and sinker. 339414[/snapback] Gee, that really happens?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 18, 2005 Author Posted May 18, 2005 Gee, that really happens? 339432[/snapback] I"m not a cheerleader for the government by any stretch. But I really do believe that the media has an out and out vendetta with this administration and will do whatever they can to change the focus of the American public to suit their agenda.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 The FBI reported previously about abuses at Gitmo, and a former soldier stationed there has described seeing tactics used to shame Muslims, especially by female soldiers, so the latest claim just fits the pattern. Now go ahead with the pattern here and attack the messenger because you don't like the message. 339341[/snapback] Dumbass. I was honestly inquiring whether or not you were confusing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, as it wasn't clear if you were confusing the two or using Abu Ghraib as an analogy. So don't jump down my !@#$ing throat and B word about ad hominem attacks because I politely ask you to clarify a point so I can make a reasonable attempt at responding to it. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
PastaJoe Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Dumbass. I was honestly inquiring whether or not you were confusing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, as it wasn't clear if you were confusing the two or using Abu Ghraib as an analogy. So don't jump down my !@#$ing throat and B word about ad hominem attacks because I politely ask you to clarify a point so I can make a reasonable attempt at responding to it. :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 339497[/snapback] A civilized conversation. How refreshing.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 A civilized conversation. How refreshing. 339549[/snapback] Well, then next time someone asks you to clarify a point so they can discuss something with you, don't rip their !@#$ing head off, you idiot.
PastaJoe Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Now go ahead with the pattern here and attack the messenger because you don't like the message. If you think this generic statement was "jumping down your throat", then I apologize. I was prepared to be attacked for using a "stupid analogy" or "lahjikal" leaps of faith, as often happens to people here who disagree. But I think your excessive use of namecalling was uncalled for.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 But I think your excessive use of namecalling was uncalled for. 340114[/snapback] Conversely, I think you're a brain-dead idiot who jumps to conclusions so quickly and is so ready to assume insult that you're not even capable of having a rational discussion on any topic without degenerating it to some overly rhetorical equivalent of "Yo' mama!" So we'll just have to agree to disagree...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Follow with me class. You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you. It is called CREDIBILITY. To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions. Unfortunately, people aren't buying. But, feel free to whine about Newsweek. We made our bed a long time ago. Seems we are being profiled? Right now America's credibility is low. Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place? I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good! Sign me up for some of that lemonade! Talk about signing Kumbaya?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Follow with me class. You do something bad somewhere else... It follows with you. It is called CREDIBILITY. To build that CREDIBILITY up you have to be ACCOUNTABLE for your actions. Unfortunately, people aren't buying. But, feel free to whine about Newsweek. We made our bed a long time ago. Seems we are being profiled? Right now America's credibility is low. Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place? I know a lot of you out there wake up every morning thinking it is a "brand new day"... So what if yesterday was a bad... By God, we will have a better day today... It is all good! Sign me up for some of that lemonade! Talk about signing Kumbaya? 340398[/snapback] I whine about Newsweek because they ran a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investigation into its veracity. Just like people whine about the administration going to war over a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investingation into its veracity. Why is it okay when Newsweek does it, but not the government? And don't give me that "because people died when the government did it" line, either. People died over Newsweek's bull sh--.
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Right now America's credibility is low. Is there any doubt that this incident DIDN'T take place? 340398[/snapback] Gee, that's not mostly because of the way our unbalanced media reports things to the lemmings and the corresponding inability to understand anything beyond the possibility that "The Amazing Race" may have been fixed...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Gee, that's not mostly because of the way our unbalanced media reports things to the lemmings and the corresponding inability to understand anything beyond the possibility that "The Amazing Race" may have been fixed... 340441[/snapback] Did you ever stop and think the problem is in your thinking? "Naaaaa... It is always someone else's fault. All fine here." AD=Right, Everybody else=Bad!
Reuben Gant Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 I whine about Newsweek because they ran a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investigation into its veracity. Just like people whine about the administration going to war over a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investingation into its veracity. Why is it okay when Newsweek does it, but not the government? And don't give me that "because people died when the government did it" line, either. People died over Newsweek's bull sh--. 340430[/snapback] I think it goes something like this: Newsweek is accountable only to its readers. The government is acountable to you and me. I don't read Newsweek. But wasn't something like this inevitable? If it wasn't Newsweek, don't you think there would have been some other justification. I tend to think that people would have gotten killed anyway, because there are people organizing these type of things that are looking for trigger events to incite violence. The fact it was Newsweek, apart from being poor journalism, is, I think indifferent to the total state of affairs.
PastaJoe Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 I whine about Newsweek because they ran a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investigation into its veracity. Just like people whine about the administration going to war over a single-sourced story without doing any meaningful investingation into its veracity. Why is it okay when Newsweek does it, but not the government? And don't give me that "because people died when the government did it" line, either. People died over Newsweek's bull sh--. 340430[/snapback] The Newsweek story was the equivilent of throwing another log on an already burning bonfire. It didn't start the fire, it just added some fuel. The administration is acting like everything was going great before Newsweek screwed it up. Pot meet kettle.
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Did you ever stop and think the problem is in your thinking? "Naaaaa... It is always someone else's fault. All fine here." 340445[/snapback] Yeah, that's always been my contention. [/sarcasm] Now start another post as if you're capable of actually teaching other people something.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 Yeah, that's always been my contention. [/sarcasm] Now start another post as if you're capable of actually teaching other people something. 340461[/snapback] You still don't get it?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 The Newsweek story was the equivilent of throwing another log on an already burning bonfire. It didn't start the fire, it just added some fuel. The administration is acting like everything was going great before Newsweek screwed it up. Pot meet kettle. 340451[/snapback] The Newsweek story was irresponsible journalism, by Newsweek's own admission. I can't believe so many people are willing to say "Well, that's okay, because they were reporting on something that's related to something else that's fundamentally !@#$ed up, anyway." Is Newsweek REALLY that blameless for their own piss-poor reporting?
SilverNRed Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 The Newsweek story was the equivilent of throwing another log on an already burning bonfire. It didn't start the fire, it just added some fuel. The administration is acting like everything was going great before Newsweek screwed it up. Pot meet kettle. 340451[/snapback] The "already burning bonfire" of our wonderful mainstream media giving more credence to the words of terrorists than our own military and government? You're right, what *is* the big deal? They do this all the time anyway! They'll be doing it again next week. Now would be a good time for all of us to get used to it. I don't remember the NYT, LA Times, Newsweek, CBS, ABC, CNN, or NBC lining up to shine the light on the incredibly faulty methodology behind the 'study' released last November that claimed 100,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the start of the Iraq War. They just let that one slide and we still have idiots - including people on this message board and even that nutty Scot George Galloway just this week - who cite that study as Gospel. Anything that negative towards this administration and towards our military must be true - and if it isn't, it's "fake but accurate" (our media's new rallying cry).
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 You still don't get it? 340479[/snapback] You'll have to excuse me for not being able to read the cube in that magic 8 ball head of yours. I'm not fluent in babbling dufus.
Alaska Darin Posted May 19, 2005 Posted May 19, 2005 The "already burning bonfire" of our wonderful mainstream media giving more credence to the words of terrorists than our own military and government? 340524[/snapback] They're just "supporting the troops" in their own special way. Buy a bumper sticker! Step right up!
Recommended Posts