Discussion:
How Fake News Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
Add Reply
mg
2018-03-10 15:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff

. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
the United States. According to the document:

In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests

PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
planned way before George W. Bush became President in 2001:

Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein

However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.

The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .

The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .

The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."




---------------------------------------
"It is startling to realize how much
unbelief is necessary to make belief
possible."
--Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
GLOBALIST
2018-03-10 18:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
---------------------------------------
"It is startling to realize how much
unbelief is necessary to make belief
possible."
--Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
The New York Times beat the drums of war and pushed
us into it based on lies but then Colin Powell's lying
charts in the United Nations added to it. And to
this day, he tries to act so innocent and knew damned
well what he was selling was a lie.
El Castor
2018-03-11 09:29:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/

Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon

Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky

If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
mg
2018-03-11 10:22:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-11 13:19:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
I don't see how anybody can deny, at this point, that
it was "fake news" that talked the American people
into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
Surreyman
2018-03-11 13:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
I don't see how anybody can deny, at this point, that
it was "fake news" that talked the American people
into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
No-one was talked into it unless they were idiots.
80% of Britons disbelieved the Bush/Blair trash, yet we were still sent into war - one of the most criminal governmental acts ever.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-11 17:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
Post by Surreyman
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I don't see how anybody can deny, at this point, that
it was "fake news" that talked the American people
into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
No-one was talked into it unless they were idiots.
80% of Britons disbelieved the Bush/Blair trash, yet we were still sent into war - one of the most criminal governmental acts ever.
It's another illustration that there's never any shortage of
idiots, including "educated idiots". Judging from this thread,
at least one of them is still trying to wriggle out of taking
responsibility for his support of the calamitous invasion.
El Castor
2018-03-11 18:57:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:45:06 -0700 (PDT), Surreyman
Post by Surreyman
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
I don't see how anybody can deny, at this point, that
it was "fake news" that talked the American people
into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
No-one was talked into it unless they were idiots.
80% of Britons disbelieved the Bush/Blair trash, yet we were still sent into war - one of the most criminal governmental acts ever.
Couldn't agree more, although I'm not sure we will ever know (or agree
on) what Bush was really trying to accomplish. There may have been
reason to believe in Saddam's WMDs, but nerve gas was not a legitimate
reason to invade. On the other hand, our earlier adventure, pushing
Saddam out of Kuwait, did make perfect sense.

On a more current note, North Korea's nuclear weapons might at some
point be shared with Iran. (Iranian scientists are present at all of
the North's nuke tests.) Those nukes could be put up for sale to the
highest bidder. What would be the appropriate response to that
development -- if and when it happens? More sanctions?
mg
2018-03-11 17:27:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
I don't see how anybody can deny, at this point, that
it was "fake news" that talked the American people
into supporting the invasion of Iraq.
We were there. We saw it happen. I imagine most of the people on this
newsgroup probably saw it happen and they should remember it. It
hasn't been that long ago.
El Castor
2018-03-11 18:41:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
mg
2018-03-12 02:33:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.

I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.

However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
El Castor
2018-03-12 09:16:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.

I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
mg
2018-03-12 10:14:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
Wikipedia article:

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]

However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-12 14:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 04:14:59 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
"Crooked Hillary" and "Pocahontas", e.g. People eat it up.
Even I found "Pocahontas" funny, though if I could appoint
Elizabeth Warren to the presidency, I would.

Maybe Trump shoud (ghost-)write another book:
"The Art of the Slur".
mg
2018-03-12 17:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
"Crooked Hillary" and "Pocahontas", e.g. People eat it up.
Even I found "Pocahontas" funny, though if I could appoint
Elizabeth Warren to the presidency, I would.
"The Art of the Slur".
The name-calling thing can be extremely entertaining sometimes and, as
a bonus, there doesn't seem to be any PC rules against it when it
comes to politics. :-)



--------------------------------------
You're not allowed to call them
dinosaurs any more," said Yo-less.
"You have to call them pre-petroleum
persons.
-- Terry Pratchett, Johnny and the Bomb
El Castor
2018-03-12 19:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.

The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
mg
2018-03-12 19:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:31:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.
The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
Some things are true and some things are not true and that applies to
conspiracy theories, also. Some conspiracy theories are undoubtedly
true and some conspiracy theories are undoubtedly not true. You can't
tell the difference by merely claiming that all of them are untrue.

As an example, I don't think that the opinion held by many
rightwingers that Global Warming is a conspiracy theory is true.

------------

"A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific
consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce
manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics
used in climate change denial to legitimize political and public
controversy disputing this consensus.[1] Global warming conspiracy
theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of
professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global
warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial
reasons, or both.[2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
El Castor
2018-03-13 01:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:31:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.
The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
Some things are true and some things are not true and that applies to
conspiracy theories, also. Some conspiracy theories are undoubtedly
true and some conspiracy theories are undoubtedly not true. You can't
tell the difference by merely claiming that all of them are untrue.
As an example, I don't think that the opinion held by many
rightwingers that Global Warming is a conspiracy theory is true.
------------
"A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific
consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce
manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics
used in climate change denial to legitimize political and public
controversy disputing this consensus.[1] Global warming conspiracy
theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of
professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global
warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial
reasons, or both.[2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
Nice try, but we are talking about the origin of your post -- you
know, the mystery site you didn't reference, and still haven't. The
two most likely sites are loaded with outrageous conspiracy BS. That
may mean nothing to you, but for me it's a red flag.
mg
2018-03-13 07:31:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:51 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 12:31:08 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.
The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
Some things are true and some things are not true and that applies to
conspiracy theories, also. Some conspiracy theories are undoubtedly
true and some conspiracy theories are undoubtedly not true. You can't
tell the difference by merely claiming that all of them are untrue.
As an example, I don't think that the opinion held by many
rightwingers that Global Warming is a conspiracy theory is true.
------------
"A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific
consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce
manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics
used in climate change denial to legitimize political and public
controversy disputing this consensus.[1] Global warming conspiracy
theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of
professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global
warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial
reasons, or both.[2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
Nice try, but we are talking about the origin of your post -- you
know, the mystery site you didn't reference, and still haven't. The
two most likely sites are loaded with outrageous conspiracy BS. That
may mean nothing to you, but for me it's a red flag.
My original post was about fake news and how it led to the invasion of
Iraq and then you changed the subject by "shooting the messenger"
which is an ad hominem and logical fallacy. Then, you went off on
another tangent about conspiracy theories. Now it appears that you
don't want to talk about conspiracy theories, anymore, but want to go
back to the ad hominem.

Instead of doing all of that illogical stuff, why don't you simply
indicate which parts of the article you disagree with and we'll go
from there.

My next post, incidentally, will probably be "Lie by Lie: A Timeline
of How We Got Into Iraq", by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/

Then, after that, I could go with "Iraq war 'waged on false
intelligence'" and "How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York Times",
etc., etc., etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-13 09:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:51 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by mg
My original post was about fake news and how it led to the invasion of
Iraq and then you changed the subject by "shooting the messenger"
which is an ad hominem and logical fallacy. Then, you went off on
another tangent about conspiracy theories. Now it appears that you
don't want to talk about conspiracy theories, anymore, but want to go
back to the ad hominem.
Instead of doing all of that illogical stuff, why don't you simply
indicate which parts of the article you disagree with and we'll go
from there.
My next post, incidentally, will probably be "Lie by Lie: A Timeline
of How We Got Into Iraq", by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
Then, after that, I could go with "Iraq war 'waged on false
intelligence'" and "How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York Times",
etc., etc., etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
Has he told you to go back to Liverpool yet?
mg
2018-03-13 17:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:51 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by mg
My original post was about fake news and how it led to the invasion of
Iraq and then you changed the subject by "shooting the messenger"
which is an ad hominem and logical fallacy. Then, you went off on
another tangent about conspiracy theories. Now it appears that you
don't want to talk about conspiracy theories, anymore, but want to go
back to the ad hominem.
Instead of doing all of that illogical stuff, why don't you simply
indicate which parts of the article you disagree with and we'll go
from there.
My next post, incidentally, will probably be "Lie by Lie: A Timeline
of How We Got Into Iraq", by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
Then, after that, I could go with "Iraq war 'waged on false
intelligence'" and "How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York Times",
etc., etc., etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
Has he told you to go back to Liverpool yet?
That's really funny, Rumple. You made my day, and in answer to your
question, no he hasn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if there won't be
some "love it or leave it" advice coming my way pretty soon. :-)
:-)
El Castor
2018-03-13 19:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:51 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by mg
My original post was about fake news and how it led to the invasion of
Iraq and then you changed the subject by "shooting the messenger"
which is an ad hominem and logical fallacy. Then, you went off on
another tangent about conspiracy theories. Now it appears that you
don't want to talk about conspiracy theories, anymore, but want to go
back to the ad hominem.
Instead of doing all of that illogical stuff, why don't you simply
indicate which parts of the article you disagree with and we'll go
from there.
My next post, incidentally, will probably be "Lie by Lie: A Timeline
of How We Got Into Iraq", by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
2006
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Then, after that, I could go with "Iraq war 'waged on false
intelligence'" and "How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York Times",
etc., etc., etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2
2004
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
Has he told you to go back to Liverpool yet?
That's really funny, Rumple. You made my day, and in answer to your
question, no he hasn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if there won't be
some "love it or leave it" advice coming my way pretty soon. :-)
:-)
Hmmm. You're already hunched up in Utah, nature's a-hole, so Liverpool
might be nice in the Spring. Seriously though, MG, The Iraq war, which
we can both agree was a f****d up mess, is behind us. Bush and Obama
are gone. Why waste time debating conspiracy theories when Trump is
about to sit down with Fat Boy and either make a tragic error that
precipitates WWIII and the end of humanity, or maybe he will achieve a
momentous agreement that will write his name in the pages of history.
(-8
mg
2018-03-30 16:10:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:53:34 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:11:51 -0700, El Castor
<snip>
Post by mg
My original post was about fake news and how it led to the invasion of
Iraq and then you changed the subject by "shooting the messenger"
which is an ad hominem and logical fallacy. Then, you went off on
another tangent about conspiracy theories. Now it appears that you
don't want to talk about conspiracy theories, anymore, but want to go
back to the ad hominem.
Instead of doing all of that illogical stuff, why don't you simply
indicate which parts of the article you disagree with and we'll go
from there.
My next post, incidentally, will probably be "Lie by Lie: A Timeline
of How We Got Into Iraq", by Jonathan Stein and Tim Dickinson.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/
2006
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Then, after that, I could go with "Iraq war 'waged on false
intelligence'" and "How The Iraq War Still Haunts New York Times",
etc., etc., etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/09/usa.iraq2
2004
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2014/07/01/how-the-iraq-war-still-haunts-new-york-times/199946
Has he told you to go back to Liverpool yet?
That's really funny, Rumple. You made my day, and in answer to your
question, no he hasn't, but I wouldn't be surprised if there won't be
some "love it or leave it" advice coming my way pretty soon. :-)
:-)
Hmmm. You're already hunched up in Utah, nature's a-hole, so Liverpool
might be nice in the Spring. Seriously though, MG, The Iraq war, which
we can both agree was a f****d up mess, is behind us. Bush and Obama
are gone. Why waste time debating conspiracy theories when Trump is
about to sit down with Fat Boy and either make a tragic error that
precipitates WWIII and the end of humanity, or maybe he will achieve a
momentous agreement that will write his name in the pages of history.
(-8
In regard to Fat Boy, with the emergence of hypersonic weaponry, I
think there's been a tectonic shift in nuclear war strategy and I
don't know where North Korea fits into the picture. My knee-jerk
opinion is that North Koreas missiles are very crude and primitive and
would be easy to shoot down with our anti-missile system and therefore
the defense establishment isn't very worried about them.

Another possible US strategy would be with the US war hawks, in
Washington, willing to sacrifice a few cities on the west coast, in
order to justify a massive nuclear attack on North Korea and to
justify new, more extreme, action against other maverick countries,
especially maverick nuclear countries, like Iran, for instance.




---------------------------------
My suggestion is that there's no
way out of the human condition.
Sex, death, marriage, children,
parents, illness. There's no way
out. They're a misery, all of them.
-- James Hillman

islander
2018-03-13 15:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.
The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
<sigh>
Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being discussed
to exhaustion previously here. You did not attack Max personally. That
would have been an ad hominem attack. You questioned his source. That
is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It is not difficult to find
sources on the Internet to support whatever crazy position you want to
support. It is called confirmation bias. In scientific circles, it is
acceptable to question sources. That is an important part of searching
for truth. If you were to call Max an opinionated blowhard, that would
be an ad hominem attack.

But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-13 16:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:40:44 -0700, islander <***@priracy.com> wrote:
<snip>
Post by islander
But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
Maybe Max (and I) don't regard some institutions and
news outlets as credible as you do. Who do you think
poisoned the former Russian ex-spy and his daughter in
Salisbury lately, for example? For myself, I can't help
thinking the Russian government would have nothing to
gain and everything to lose by doing that, since of
course the Western press and governments would
immediately blame it on Russia, and of course the
Russian government could easily anticipate that.
I'll allow the possibility that a renegade Russian with
an axe to grind might have done it, but I know that if I,
as a person working independently, wanted to poison
somebody specific in a restaurant full of people, that
would be a formidable logistical task for me unless
I were the chef.

To lose one's faith surpasses
The loss of an estate,
Because estates can be
Replenished: Faith cannot.
...

-- Emily Dickinson
mg
2018-03-13 18:03:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
Maybe Max (and I) don't regard some institutions and
news outlets as credible as you do. Who do you think
poisoned the former Russian ex-spy and his daughter in
Salisbury lately, for example? For myself, I can't help
thinking the Russian government would have nothing to
gain and everything to lose by doing that, since of
course the Western press and governments would
immediately blame it on Russia, and of course the
Russian government could easily anticipate that.
I'll allow the possibility that a renegade Russian with
an axe to grind might have done it, but I know that if I,
as a person working independently, wanted to poison
somebody specific in a restaurant full of people, that
would be a formidable logistical task for me unless
I were the chef.
To lose one's faith surpasses
The loss of an estate,
Because estates can be
Replenished: Faith cannot.
...
-- Emily Dickinson
The Establishment media has the True Believers believing that they are
the only ones who are honest, when, in fact, they produce as much, or
even more, false news as anyone else.

The reality is, and one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to
understand this, one can't tell what is true, or untrue, simply by
knowing where the information came from. There are no shortcuts to the
truth. One has to find the truth the old fashioned way by doing his
own due diligence and research.



-----------------------------
If you can not answer a man's
argument, all is not lost; you
can still call him vile names.
-- Elbert Hubbard
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-13 18:13:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
The Establishment media has the True Believers believing that they are
the only ones who are honest, when, in fact, they produce as much, or
even more, false news as anyone else.
The reality is, and one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to
understand this, one can't tell what is true, or untrue, simply by
knowing where the information came from. There are no shortcuts to the
truth. One has to find the truth the old fashioned way by doing his
own due diligence and research.
Where is your due diligence and research to support your claim that it
is a fact that the "Establishment media" (whatever that is) produces as
much, or even more, false news as anyone else?
wolfbat359
2018-03-13 18:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
Maybe Max (and I) don't regard some institutions and
news outlets as credible as you do. Who do you think
poisoned the former Russian ex-spy and his daughter in
Salisbury lately, for example? For myself, I can't help
thinking the Russian government would have nothing to
gain and everything to lose by doing that, since of
course the Western press and governments would
immediately blame it on Russia, and of course the
Russian government could easily anticipate that.
I'll allow the possibility that a renegade Russian with
an axe to grind might have done it, but I know that if I,
as a person working independently, wanted to poison
somebody specific in a restaurant full of people, that
would be a formidable logistical task for me unless
I were the chef.
What has the Russian Government to lose in such an action! Apparently RT watchers are enthralled with Russia. In fact the only candidate against Putin can't run!
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-13 18:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:13:23 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359
Post by wolfbat359
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
Maybe Max (and I) don't regard some institutions and
news outlets as credible as you do. Who do you think
poisoned the former Russian ex-spy and his daughter in
Salisbury lately, for example? For myself, I can't help
thinking the Russian government would have nothing to
gain and everything to lose by doing that, since of
course the Western press and governments would
immediately blame it on Russia, and of course the
Russian government could easily anticipate that.
I'll allow the possibility that a renegade Russian with
an axe to grind might have done it, but I know that if I,
as a person working independently, wanted to poison
somebody specific in a restaurant full of people, that
would be a formidable logistical task for me unless
I were the chef.
What has the Russian Government to lose in such an action! Apparently RT watchers are enthralled with Russia. In fact the only candidate against Putin can't run!
International respect, what little of it Russia has.
There's no plus, except revenge, for poisoning an
"ex"-spy. There is a lot of propaganda benefit to
those who want to diminish Russia's reputation
by blaming it on Russia though. It all hinges on
how much you trust Russia and how much you
trust the covert enemies who are motivated to
diminish Russia in the public Western eye. That,
for me, is too hard to call.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-13 17:20:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 3/13/2018 8:40 AM, islander wrote:

{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here. You did not attack Max
personally. That would have been an ad hominem attack. You
questioned his source. That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support. It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources. That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times. And, we still haven't gotten
it right. A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.

An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant. If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem. If I said you were wrong because your
source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.

On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem. For example, if I say that
George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad hominem is,
that's a nasty personal attack. But, it isn't an ad hominen because it
isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem is. Instead, it's a
conclusion I draw based on George always getting it wrong.

Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them giving
false information, but do not outright reject your argument, then that's
not an ad hominen either. I'm guessing that is what Jeff did in this
thread. But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he also outright
rejected the argument based on the source. If he did that, he committed
an ad hominem fallacy.
islander
2018-03-13 19:15:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because your
source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say that
George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad hominem is,
that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad hominen because it
isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem is.  Instead, it's a
conclusion I draw based on George always getting it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them giving
false information, but do not outright reject your argument, then that's
not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff did in this
thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he also outright
rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did that, he committed
an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree. The reputation of a source in propagating false information
is legitimate information in considering a position. If you know, for
example, that certain individuals or organizations take a specific
position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question their
qualifications to settle an argument?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-14 01:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false information
is legitimate information in considering a position.  If you know, for
example, that certain individuals or organizations take a specific
position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question their
qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree. *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine. Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.

For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report. It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
islander
2018-03-14 14:23:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.

In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-14 14:47:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because
you are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong
because your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad
hominem is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George
always getting it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what
Jeff did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the
source, he also outright rejected the argument based on the source.
If he did that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do
with the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the
authenticity of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright
reject the report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost.  I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem.  I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source.  I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
I agree with you on all of these examples except I don't think accusing
someone else of being naive in citing RT is an ad hominem either.

One more time, the ad hominem is claiming what RT concludes is
*necessarily* wrong because the source is RT.
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper.  As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument.
It may not be acceptable, but it's not an ad hominem.
A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication.  Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals.  Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-14 14:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
islander
2018-03-19 14:32:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.

In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/

Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.

There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-19 15:09:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria?
It's been reported in the American press.
https://tinyurl.com/yczlrao7
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-19 15:35:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria?
It's been reported in the American press.
https://tinyurl.com/yczlrao7
Your article says American-supplied weapons unintentionally ended up in
ISIS hands. That is a far cry from the claim that the US employed ISIS
warriors.
El Castor
2018-03-19 20:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.
In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/
Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.
There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
More than just rumors -- common knowledge. Of course we were involved
in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels as early as 2012. Congress would
not appropriate funds to purchase those weapons, so Qatar and Saudi
Arabia funded the purchase, or weapons were obtained from the defunct
Libyan government stockpile, then shipped to Turkey, where the CIA
worked with the Turks to supply weapons to Syrian Sunni rebels who
were attempting (and still are) to overthrow the Iranian supported
Assad government. Not surprisingly, many of those weapons wound up in
the hands of Syrian Sunni ISIS fighters who were also in opposition to
the Assad government. On one thing we can agree, our overthrow of
Saddam turned loose the Sunnis of Iraq -- many of whom went on to
found, or fight for, ISIS. For that we can thank George W. Bush.

"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly
in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition
fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian
government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html

"Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from
Libya
Sheera Frenkel
September 14 2012, 1:02am, The Times"
"A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria
since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is
making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7
surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the
rebels."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/syrian-rebels-squabble-over-weapons-as-biggest-shipload-arrives-from-libya-pr2rmxkpg8d

''The CIA has been arming Syrian rebels for years. Nobody should be
surprised that the US’s newest effort was revealed an abject failure"
"the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program
since at least 2012."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/19/us-weapons-to-syria-repeats-historical-mistake

"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
islander
2018-03-20 15:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.
In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/
Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.
There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
More than just rumors -- common knowledge. Of course we were involved
in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels as early as 2012. Congress would
not appropriate funds to purchase those weapons, so Qatar and Saudi
Arabia funded the purchase, or weapons were obtained from the defunct
Libyan government stockpile, then shipped to Turkey, where the CIA
worked with the Turks to supply weapons to Syrian Sunni rebels who
were attempting (and still are) to overthrow the Iranian supported
Assad government. Not surprisingly, many of those weapons wound up in
the hands of Syrian Sunni ISIS fighters who were also in opposition to
the Assad government. On one thing we can agree, our overthrow of
Saddam turned loose the Sunnis of Iraq -- many of whom went on to
found, or fight for, ISIS. For that we can thank George W. Bush.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly
in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition
fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian
government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from
Libya
Sheera Frenkel
September 14 2012, 1:02am, The Times"
"A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria
since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is
making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7
surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the
rebels."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/syrian-rebels-squabble-over-weapons-as-biggest-shipload-arrives-from-libya-pr2rmxkpg8d
''The CIA has been arming Syrian rebels for years. Nobody should be
surprised that the US’s newest effort was revealed an abject failure"
"the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program
since at least 2012."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/19/us-weapons-to-syria-repeats-historical-mistake
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
You seem to be conflating efforts on the part of Qatar and Saudi Arabia
to ship arms to rebels in Syria with an intent on our part to arm ISIS
and are mixing in CIA activity in Benghazi. If you recall, there was a
lot of criticism of our lack of intelligence about Libya at the time and
it seems reasonable to me that the CIA activity in Benghazi was an
attempt to change that. But, there is a big difference between trying
to figure out what is going on and playing an active role in moving
Libyan arms to Syria. You may also recall that there was a lot of
pressure from Republican hawks in Congress for us to use military force
in Syria.

So, what is true? We know that the money was coming from Qatar and
Saudi Arabia and that money was buying arms in the black market. We
even know who some of the black market dealers were. It is a bit
presumptuous to conclude that the US was orchestrating this, but then
there are lots of conspiracy stories about the US causing everything.

Looking at news reports in 2012, there is some evidence to suggest that
we were working with Turkey to attempt to control who got those arms
which seems to me to be a smart thing to do, given that we couldn't
prevent it.

Still, any suggestion that the US was intentionally providing arms to
ISIS is not supported by what we know. Perhaps the whole story will
eventually come out. It usually does.
El Castor
2018-03-20 20:44:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.
In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/
Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.
There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
More than just rumors -- common knowledge. Of course we were involved
in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels as early as 2012. Congress would
not appropriate funds to purchase those weapons, so Qatar and Saudi
Arabia funded the purchase, or weapons were obtained from the defunct
Libyan government stockpile, then shipped to Turkey, where the CIA
worked with the Turks to supply weapons to Syrian Sunni rebels who
were attempting (and still are) to overthrow the Iranian supported
Assad government. Not surprisingly, many of those weapons wound up in
the hands of Syrian Sunni ISIS fighters who were also in opposition to
the Assad government. On one thing we can agree, our overthrow of
Saddam turned loose the Sunnis of Iraq -- many of whom went on to
found, or fight for, ISIS. For that we can thank George W. Bush.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly
in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition
fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian
government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from
Libya
Sheera Frenkel
September 14 2012, 1:02am, The Times"
"A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria
since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is
making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7
surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the
rebels."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/syrian-rebels-squabble-over-weapons-as-biggest-shipload-arrives-from-libya-pr2rmxkpg8d
''The CIA has been arming Syrian rebels for years. Nobody should be
surprised that the US’s newest effort was revealed an abject failure"
"the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program
since at least 2012."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/19/us-weapons-to-syria-repeats-historical-mistake
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
You seem to be conflating efforts on the part of Qatar and Saudi Arabia
to ship arms to rebels in Syria with an intent on our part to arm ISIS
Stop right there! Please do not confuse me with anyone else in this
group! I have offered ample proof that we began working with our Sunni
allies to aid Syrian Sunni rebels in 2012. Why? Because Assad, is a
member of a small and ancient Shiite sect, and an ally of Iran. In
case you hadn't noticed, there is a hot and cold war going on in the
Middle East -- Iran and it's allies on one side, and our allies, the
Sunni states and Israel on the other. Yemen is another current hot
spot -- the Iran supported Houthii rebels on one side -- and the
government of Yemen, and it's Saudi ally on the other.
Post by islander
and are mixing in CIA activity in Benghazi. If you recall, there was a
lot of criticism of our lack of intelligence about Libya at the time and
it seems reasonable to me that the CIA activity in Benghazi was an
attempt to change that. But, there is a big difference between trying
to figure out what is going on and playing an active role in moving
Libyan arms to Syria. You may also recall that there was a lot of
pressure from Republican hawks in Congress for us to use military force
in Syria.
So, what is true? We know that the money was coming from Qatar and
Saudi Arabia and that money was buying arms in the black market. We
even know who some of the black market dealers were. It is a bit
presumptuous to conclude that the US was orchestrating this, but then
there are lots of conspiracy stories about the US causing everything.
Looking at news reports in 2012, there is some evidence to suggest that
we were working with Turkey to attempt to control who got those arms
which seems to me to be a smart thing to do, given that we couldn't
prevent it.
Still, any suggestion that the US was intentionally providing arms to
ISIS is not supported by what we know. Perhaps the whole story will
eventually come out. It usually does.
I repeat! I DID NOT say the US INTENTIONALLY supplied arms to ISIS,
however we were, and are, (until Trump halted it) supporting Sunni
rebels actively engaged in an attempt to oust Assad, a member of an
ancient Shiite sect, and ally of Iran. Did some of those armaments,
unintentionally on our part, wind up in the wrong hands? Yes, they
did.

Further proof ...

"WASHINGTON — Sophisticated weapons the U.S. military secretly
provided to Syrian rebels quickly fell into the hands of the Islamic
State, a study released Thursday disclosed. The report said the
Islamic State’s possession of these weapons remains a threat to the
U.S.-led coalition still operating against the terror group in Iraq
and Syria."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/14/u-s-bought-weapons-syrian-rebels-and-some-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/

"Western, Gulf Weapons Supplied to Syria Rebels Leaked to Islamic
State"
https://www.voanews.com/a/western-gulf-weapons-supplied-to-syria-rebels-leaked-to-islamic-state/4163148.html

"Weapons the United States originally supplied to Syrian rebels have
ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
according to a study released Thursday.
A 200-paged report by Conflict Armament Research analyzed more than
40,000 weapons retrieved from ISIS in the past three years, finding
cases in which the weapons were originally supplied by the United
States, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya.
“In summary, evidence collected by [Conflict Armament Research]
indicates that the United States has repeatedly diverted
EU-manufactured weapons and ammunition to opposition forces in the
Syrian conflict,” the report says. “[ISIS] forces rapidly gained
custody of significant quantities? of this materiel.” "
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands

Of course we never intentionally provided weapons to ISIS, but when we
supplied weapons to anti-Assad rebels, we were simply unable to
control what happened to them next. Sold, captured, or we were simply
deceived in the first place. The Middle East is a complicated place.
islander
2018-03-20 21:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.
In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/
Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.
There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
More than just rumors -- common knowledge. Of course we were involved
in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels as early as 2012. Congress would
not appropriate funds to purchase those weapons, so Qatar and Saudi
Arabia funded the purchase, or weapons were obtained from the defunct
Libyan government stockpile, then shipped to Turkey, where the CIA
worked with the Turks to supply weapons to Syrian Sunni rebels who
were attempting (and still are) to overthrow the Iranian supported
Assad government. Not surprisingly, many of those weapons wound up in
the hands of Syrian Sunni ISIS fighters who were also in opposition to
the Assad government. On one thing we can agree, our overthrow of
Saddam turned loose the Sunnis of Iraq -- many of whom went on to
found, or fight for, ISIS. For that we can thank George W. Bush.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly
in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition
fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian
government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from
Libya
Sheera Frenkel
September 14 2012, 1:02am, The Times"
"A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria
since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is
making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7
surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the
rebels."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/syrian-rebels-squabble-over-weapons-as-biggest-shipload-arrives-from-libya-pr2rmxkpg8d
''The CIA has been arming Syrian rebels for years. Nobody should be
surprised that the US’s newest effort was revealed an abject failure"
"the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program
since at least 2012."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/19/us-weapons-to-syria-repeats-historical-mistake
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
You seem to be conflating efforts on the part of Qatar and Saudi Arabia
to ship arms to rebels in Syria with an intent on our part to arm ISIS
Stop right there! Please do not confuse me with anyone else in this
group! I have offered ample proof that we began working with our Sunni
allies to aid Syrian Sunni rebels in 2012. Why? Because Assad, is a
member of a small and ancient Shiite sect, and an ally of Iran. In
case you hadn't noticed, there is a hot and cold war going on in the
Middle East -- Iran and it's allies on one side, and our allies, the
Sunni states and Israel on the other. Yemen is another current hot
spot -- the Iran supported Houthii rebels on one side -- and the
government of Yemen, and it's Saudi ally on the other.
Post by islander
and are mixing in CIA activity in Benghazi. If you recall, there was a
lot of criticism of our lack of intelligence about Libya at the time and
it seems reasonable to me that the CIA activity in Benghazi was an
attempt to change that. But, there is a big difference between trying
to figure out what is going on and playing an active role in moving
Libyan arms to Syria. You may also recall that there was a lot of
pressure from Republican hawks in Congress for us to use military force
in Syria.
So, what is true? We know that the money was coming from Qatar and
Saudi Arabia and that money was buying arms in the black market. We
even know who some of the black market dealers were. It is a bit
presumptuous to conclude that the US was orchestrating this, but then
there are lots of conspiracy stories about the US causing everything.
Looking at news reports in 2012, there is some evidence to suggest that
we were working with Turkey to attempt to control who got those arms
which seems to me to be a smart thing to do, given that we couldn't
prevent it.
Still, any suggestion that the US was intentionally providing arms to
ISIS is not supported by what we know. Perhaps the whole story will
eventually come out. It usually does.
I repeat! I DID NOT say the US INTENTIONALLY supplied arms to ISIS,
however we were, and are, (until Trump halted it) supporting Sunni
rebels actively engaged in an attempt to oust Assad, a member of an
ancient Shiite sect, and ally of Iran. Did some of those armaments,
unintentionally on our part, wind up in the wrong hands? Yes, they
did.
Further proof ...
"WASHINGTON — Sophisticated weapons the U.S. military secretly
provided to Syrian rebels quickly fell into the hands of the Islamic
State, a study released Thursday disclosed. The report said the
Islamic State’s possession of these weapons remains a threat to the
U.S.-led coalition still operating against the terror group in Iraq
and Syria."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/14/u-s-bought-weapons-syrian-rebels-and-some-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/
"Western, Gulf Weapons Supplied to Syria Rebels Leaked to Islamic
State"
https://www.voanews.com/a/western-gulf-weapons-supplied-to-syria-rebels-leaked-to-islamic-state/4163148.html
"Weapons the United States originally supplied to Syrian rebels have
ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
according to a study released Thursday.
A 200-paged report by Conflict Armament Research analyzed more than
40,000 weapons retrieved from ISIS in the past three years, finding
cases in which the weapons were originally supplied by the United
States, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya.
“In summary, evidence collected by [Conflict Armament Research]
indicates that the United States has repeatedly diverted
EU-manufactured weapons and ammunition to opposition forces in the
Syrian conflict,” the report says. “[ISIS] forces rapidly gained
custody of significant quantities? of this materiel.” "
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands
Of course we never intentionally provided weapons to ISIS, but when we
supplied weapons to anti-Assad rebels, we were simply unable to
control what happened to them next. Sold, captured, or we were simply
deceived in the first place. The Middle East is a complicated place.
I agree that the Middle East is a complicated place. I would also
assert that it is a region awash in weapons. Where did they come from?
Even your citation says that the weapons were manufactured in Europe.
Some also came from Russia and China. We can probably also agree that
there are individuals who are profiting from the chaos in the Middle
East and that some of those people are Americans.
El Castor
2018-03-21 07:18:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.
In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/
Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.
There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
More than just rumors -- common knowledge. Of course we were involved
in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels as early as 2012. Congress would
not appropriate funds to purchase those weapons, so Qatar and Saudi
Arabia funded the purchase, or weapons were obtained from the defunct
Libyan government stockpile, then shipped to Turkey, where the CIA
worked with the Turks to supply weapons to Syrian Sunni rebels who
were attempting (and still are) to overthrow the Iranian supported
Assad government. Not surprisingly, many of those weapons wound up in
the hands of Syrian Sunni ISIS fighters who were also in opposition to
the Assad government. On one thing we can agree, our overthrow of
Saddam turned loose the Sunnis of Iraq -- many of whom went on to
found, or fight for, ISIS. For that we can thank George W. Bush.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly
in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition
fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian
government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from
Libya
Sheera Frenkel
September 14 2012, 1:02am, The Times"
"A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria
since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is
making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7
surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the
rebels."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/syrian-rebels-squabble-over-weapons-as-biggest-shipload-arrives-from-libya-pr2rmxkpg8d
''The CIA has been arming Syrian rebels for years. Nobody should be
surprised that the US’s newest effort was revealed an abject failure"
"the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program
since at least 2012."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/19/us-weapons-to-syria-repeats-historical-mistake
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
You seem to be conflating efforts on the part of Qatar and Saudi Arabia
to ship arms to rebels in Syria with an intent on our part to arm ISIS
Stop right there! Please do not confuse me with anyone else in this
group! I have offered ample proof that we began working with our Sunni
allies to aid Syrian Sunni rebels in 2012. Why? Because Assad, is a
member of a small and ancient Shiite sect, and an ally of Iran. In
case you hadn't noticed, there is a hot and cold war going on in the
Middle East -- Iran and it's allies on one side, and our allies, the
Sunni states and Israel on the other. Yemen is another current hot
spot -- the Iran supported Houthii rebels on one side -- and the
government of Yemen, and it's Saudi ally on the other.
Post by islander
and are mixing in CIA activity in Benghazi. If you recall, there was a
lot of criticism of our lack of intelligence about Libya at the time and
it seems reasonable to me that the CIA activity in Benghazi was an
attempt to change that. But, there is a big difference between trying
to figure out what is going on and playing an active role in moving
Libyan arms to Syria. You may also recall that there was a lot of
pressure from Republican hawks in Congress for us to use military force
in Syria.
So, what is true? We know that the money was coming from Qatar and
Saudi Arabia and that money was buying arms in the black market. We
even know who some of the black market dealers were. It is a bit
presumptuous to conclude that the US was orchestrating this, but then
there are lots of conspiracy stories about the US causing everything.
Looking at news reports in 2012, there is some evidence to suggest that
we were working with Turkey to attempt to control who got those arms
which seems to me to be a smart thing to do, given that we couldn't
prevent it.
Still, any suggestion that the US was intentionally providing arms to
ISIS is not supported by what we know. Perhaps the whole story will
eventually come out. It usually does.
I repeat! I DID NOT say the US INTENTIONALLY supplied arms to ISIS,
however we were, and are, (until Trump halted it) supporting Sunni
rebels actively engaged in an attempt to oust Assad, a member of an
ancient Shiite sect, and ally of Iran. Did some of those armaments,
unintentionally on our part, wind up in the wrong hands? Yes, they
did.
Further proof ...
"WASHINGTON — Sophisticated weapons the U.S. military secretly
provided to Syrian rebels quickly fell into the hands of the Islamic
State, a study released Thursday disclosed. The report said the
Islamic State’s possession of these weapons remains a threat to the
U.S.-led coalition still operating against the terror group in Iraq
and Syria."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/14/u-s-bought-weapons-syrian-rebels-and-some-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/
"Western, Gulf Weapons Supplied to Syria Rebels Leaked to Islamic
State"
https://www.voanews.com/a/western-gulf-weapons-supplied-to-syria-rebels-leaked-to-islamic-state/4163148.html
"Weapons the United States originally supplied to Syrian rebels have
ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
according to a study released Thursday.
A 200-paged report by Conflict Armament Research analyzed more than
40,000 weapons retrieved from ISIS in the past three years, finding
cases in which the weapons were originally supplied by the United
States, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya.
“In summary, evidence collected by [Conflict Armament Research]
indicates that the United States has repeatedly diverted
EU-manufactured weapons and ammunition to opposition forces in the
Syrian conflict,” the report says. “[ISIS] forces rapidly gained
custody of significant quantities? of this materiel.” "
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands
Of course we never intentionally provided weapons to ISIS, but when we
supplied weapons to anti-Assad rebels, we were simply unable to
control what happened to them next. Sold, captured, or we were simply
deceived in the first place. The Middle East is a complicated place.
I agree that the Middle East is a complicated place. I would also
assert that it is a region awash in weapons. Where did they come from?
Even your citation says that the weapons were manufactured in Europe.
Some also came from Russia and China. We can probably also agree that
there are individuals who are profiting from the chaos in the Middle
East and that some of those people are Americans.
Are you still implying that the US government and its CIA did not have
a hand in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels? We certainly did!

"Obama Requests $500 Million for 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels
President Barack Obama wants to increase the U.S.'s involvement in the
Syrian conflict by asking Congress to approve $500 million in funding
to train and arm "moderate" Syrian rebel forces."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obama-requests-500-million-for-moderate-syrian-rebels/373565/

"Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels"
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218248-senate-approves-obama-request-to-arm-train-syrian-rebels

And before that half billion was appropriated, the CIA was actively
coordinating with Turkey, and a variety of Sunni states, the shipment
and delivery of weapons paid for with Sunni funding.
islander
2018-03-21 13:31:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here.  You did not attack Max
personally.  That would have been an ad hominem attack.  You
questioned his source.  That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support.  It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources.  That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times.  And, we still haven't gotten
it right.  A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant.  If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem.  If I said you were wrong because
your source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem.  For example, if I say
that George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad
hominem is, that's a nasty personal attack.  But, it isn't an ad
hominen because it isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem
is.  Instead, it's a conclusion I draw based on George always getting
it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them
giving false information, but do not outright reject your argument,
then that's not an ad hominen either.  I'm guessing that is what Jeff
did in this thread.  But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he
also outright rejected the argument based on the source.  If he did
that, he committed an ad hominem fallacy.
I disagree.  The reputation of a source in propagating false
information is legitimate information in considering a position.  If
you know, for example, that certain individuals or organizations take
a specific position on an issue, is it not legitimate to question
their qualifications to settle an argument?
I don't think we disagree.  *Questioning* a source based on past
performance is fine.  Outright rejecting an argument because a
questionable source was used is not fine.
For example, if RT reports the Russian government had nothing to do with
the 13 indicted Russians, it is legitimate to question the authenticity
of the report.  It is however not legitimate to outright reject the
report's conclusion based solely on the fact it came from RT.
Almost. I can personally reject the source as my opinion of their
qualifications without it being ad hominem. I can personally reject RT
as a qualified source of information based on their conflict of
interest, but I am crossing the line when/if I accuse someone of being
naive in citing it as a source. I can, however, point out RTs conflict
of interest without it being ad hominem.
Are you suggesting that the USA doesn't have a conflict of
interest, when it invades other countries or employs ISIS
warriors against Assad in Syria, for example?
Are you saying that RT reported that the US employs ISIS warriors
against Assad in Syria? If so, I would say that as a news organization
that is funded by the Russian government which is an ally of Assad there
is an obvious conflict of interest. But, there is no evidence that I am
aware of that the US employed ISIS warriors or assisted them in any way,
so, yes, on this specific topic I think that you are being naive if you
believe RT without checking out alternative sources.
In this highly fragmented resistance to the Assad government, the US has
primarily backed the Kurds who seem to be the only effective fighting
force in northern Syria. Since the IS attempt to build a regional
Levant force in January 2014, however, the US has been fighting against,
not with ISIS. Sadly, the rise of ISIS can probably be attributed to
the GW Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent political
repression of the Sunni population. The disbanding of the Iraqi army in
2003 was an especially foolish move. It put more than a half million
trained troops out of work. Worse, they kept their arms. They ended up
being prime recruits for the IS incursion into Iraq.
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/29/isis-iraq-war-islamic-state-blowback/
Prior to 2014, there were a few attempts to provide non-lethal
assistance to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which consisted primarily of
defectors from the Assad military. It is reported that specific leaders
of this group received arms from the US, but our support was primarily
in the form of intelligence and later air support when they fought
against ISIS. While the FSA had some initial successes in guerilla
warfare against Assad, they were ultimately disbanded due to poor
discipline, infighting, and lack of support from the west.
There was a lot of anti-Hillary propaganda which accused her of being
complicit in shipping arms to Syria, especially around the time of the
attack in Benghazi in 2012. After years of investigations by the
Republican dominated committees, no proof of US complicity was found.
Still the rumors persist and the Republicans are still attempting to
peddle this bit of slime.
More than just rumors -- common knowledge. Of course we were involved
in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels as early as 2012. Congress would
not appropriate funds to purchase those weapons, so Qatar and Saudi
Arabia funded the purchase, or weapons were obtained from the defunct
Libyan government stockpile, then shipped to Turkey, where the CIA
worked with the Turks to supply weapons to Syrian Sunni rebels who
were attempting (and still are) to overthrow the Iranian supported
Assad government. Not surprisingly, many of those weapons wound up in
the hands of Syrian Sunni ISIS fighters who were also in opposition to
the Assad government. On one thing we can agree, our overthrow of
Saddam turned loose the Sunnis of Iraq -- many of whom went on to
found, or fight for, ISIS. For that we can thank George W. Bush.
"C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition
By ERIC SCHMITTJUNE 21, 2012
WASHINGTON — A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly
in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition
fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian
government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence
officers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html
"Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from
Libya
Sheera Frenkel
September 14 2012, 1:02am, The Times"
"A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria
since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is
making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.
Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7
surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades
(RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the
rebels."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/syrian-rebels-squabble-over-weapons-as-biggest-shipload-arrives-from-libya-pr2rmxkpg8d
''The CIA has been arming Syrian rebels for years. Nobody should be
surprised that the US’s newest effort was revealed an abject failure"
"the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program
since at least 2012."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/19/us-weapons-to-syria-repeats-historical-mistake
"CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was
attacked'"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
In reviewing scientific papers, it is perfectly acceptable to question a
cited source based on their reputation (or lack thereof) as it pertains
to supporting the hypothesis being advanced in the paper. As you say,
however, it is not acceptable to call the author of the paper an idiot
for believing that the source is relevant to their argument. A paper
that is critically supported by a citation that is not reliable or
subject to conflict of interest is probably going to be rejected for
publication. Drug companies are notorious for attempting to promote
their products in scientific journals. Sales pitches are routinely
rejected.
You seem to be conflating efforts on the part of Qatar and Saudi Arabia
to ship arms to rebels in Syria with an intent on our part to arm ISIS
Stop right there! Please do not confuse me with anyone else in this
group! I have offered ample proof that we began working with our Sunni
allies to aid Syrian Sunni rebels in 2012. Why? Because Assad, is a
member of a small and ancient Shiite sect, and an ally of Iran. In
case you hadn't noticed, there is a hot and cold war going on in the
Middle East -- Iran and it's allies on one side, and our allies, the
Sunni states and Israel on the other. Yemen is another current hot
spot -- the Iran supported Houthii rebels on one side -- and the
government of Yemen, and it's Saudi ally on the other.
Post by islander
and are mixing in CIA activity in Benghazi. If you recall, there was a
lot of criticism of our lack of intelligence about Libya at the time and
it seems reasonable to me that the CIA activity in Benghazi was an
attempt to change that. But, there is a big difference between trying
to figure out what is going on and playing an active role in moving
Libyan arms to Syria. You may also recall that there was a lot of
pressure from Republican hawks in Congress for us to use military force
in Syria.
So, what is true? We know that the money was coming from Qatar and
Saudi Arabia and that money was buying arms in the black market. We
even know who some of the black market dealers were. It is a bit
presumptuous to conclude that the US was orchestrating this, but then
there are lots of conspiracy stories about the US causing everything.
Looking at news reports in 2012, there is some evidence to suggest that
we were working with Turkey to attempt to control who got those arms
which seems to me to be a smart thing to do, given that we couldn't
prevent it.
Still, any suggestion that the US was intentionally providing arms to
ISIS is not supported by what we know. Perhaps the whole story will
eventually come out. It usually does.
I repeat! I DID NOT say the US INTENTIONALLY supplied arms to ISIS,
however we were, and are, (until Trump halted it) supporting Sunni
rebels actively engaged in an attempt to oust Assad, a member of an
ancient Shiite sect, and ally of Iran. Did some of those armaments,
unintentionally on our part, wind up in the wrong hands? Yes, they
did.
Further proof ...
"WASHINGTON — Sophisticated weapons the U.S. military secretly
provided to Syrian rebels quickly fell into the hands of the Islamic
State, a study released Thursday disclosed. The report said the
Islamic State’s possession of these weapons remains a threat to the
U.S.-led coalition still operating against the terror group in Iraq
and Syria."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/12/14/u-s-bought-weapons-syrian-rebels-and-some-wound-up-hands-isis-terrorists/949209001/
"Western, Gulf Weapons Supplied to Syria Rebels Leaked to Islamic
State"
https://www.voanews.com/a/western-gulf-weapons-supplied-to-syria-rebels-leaked-to-islamic-state/4163148.html
"Weapons the United States originally supplied to Syrian rebels have
ended up in the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
according to a study released Thursday.
A 200-paged report by Conflict Armament Research analyzed more than
40,000 weapons retrieved from ISIS in the past three years, finding
cases in which the weapons were originally supplied by the United
States, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Libya.
“In summary, evidence collected by [Conflict Armament Research]
indicates that the United States has repeatedly diverted
EU-manufactured weapons and ammunition to opposition forces in the
Syrian conflict,” the report says. “[ISIS] forces rapidly gained
custody of significant quantities? of this materiel.” "
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/364917-study-shows-us-weapons-given-to-syrian-rebels-ended-up-in-isiss-hands
Of course we never intentionally provided weapons to ISIS, but when we
supplied weapons to anti-Assad rebels, we were simply unable to
control what happened to them next. Sold, captured, or we were simply
deceived in the first place. The Middle East is a complicated place.
I agree that the Middle East is a complicated place. I would also
assert that it is a region awash in weapons. Where did they come from?
Even your citation says that the weapons were manufactured in Europe.
Some also came from Russia and China. We can probably also agree that
there are individuals who are profiting from the chaos in the Middle
East and that some of those people are Americans.
Are you still implying that the US government and its CIA did not have
a hand in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels? We certainly did!
"Obama Requests $500 Million for 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels
President Barack Obama wants to increase the U.S.'s involvement in the
Syrian conflict by asking Congress to approve $500 million in funding
to train and arm "moderate" Syrian rebel forces."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obama-requests-500-million-for-moderate-syrian-rebels/373565/
"Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels"
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218248-senate-approves-obama-request-to-arm-train-syrian-rebels
And before that half billion was appropriated, the CIA was actively
coordinating with Turkey, and a variety of Sunni states, the shipment
and delivery of weapons paid for with Sunni funding.
My only objection is to the implication that we intentionally supplied
arms to ISIS. If that was not your argument, then I'm OK with that.

Frankly, I did not approve of arming any of the rebels in Syria and
agreed with Obama's initial policy of only providing humanitarian aid.
It is too bad that he finally acceded to the demands of the Republican
hawks to do so. Of course, the Republicans still refused to give him a
declaration of war and preferred to snipe from the sidelines.

The $500M allocated to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels was an
abysmal failure and was not something that I supported.

Otherwise, yes, the Obama administration was attempting to coordinate
with Turkey in how arms from the black market were flowing into Syria.
Would you have preferred that we simply ignored what was happening?
Like it or not, Turkey is a member of NATO and the relationship between
Turkey and the Kurds is complicated. You seem to be implying some
complicity in the arms shipments on our part.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-21 16:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Are you still implying that the US government and its CIA did not have
a hand in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels? We certainly did!
"Obama Requests $500 Million for 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels
President Barack Obama wants to increase the U.S.'s involvement in the
Syrian conflict by asking Congress to approve $500 million in funding
to train and arm "moderate" Syrian rebel forces."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obama-requests-500-million-for-moderate-syrian-rebels/373565/
"Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels"
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218248-senate-approves-obama-request-to-arm-train-syrian-rebels
And before that half billion was appropriated, the CIA was actively
coordinating with Turkey, and a variety of Sunni states, the shipment
and delivery of weapons paid for with Sunni funding.
My only objection is to the implication that we intentionally supplied
arms to ISIS. If that was not your argument, then I'm OK with that.
That sounds a lot like Stormy Daniels, on junk news lately, saying
that she was surprised that the National Enquirer never published
the book about Trump that they paid her handsomely for, and that
she believed the lawyeristic hype the lawyers were feeding her that
it would lead to a successful literary career. I'm not saying she
might not actually have believed them, just that she was
manipulated by the lawyers into getting herself silenced, or so the
lawyers thought but it is all coming out on junk news now.

We knew that a lot of the opposition to Assad was ISIS, or
Taliban or Mujihadeen who are essentially the same people in
different clothes, though ISIS is perhaps the most vicious.

"Islam is far worse than any brand of Christianity"
-- Richard Dawkins

I should note though that 600 years ago, when Christianity was
the same age that Islam is now, Christianity was just as awful
and frightful and murderous. I've often said here that Christianity
is not as bad now only because it's fading away. As my son said
when he was last here, "Nobody really believes in God anymore."
Post by islander
Frankly, I did not approve of arming any of the rebels in Syria and
agreed with Obama's initial policy of only providing humanitarian aid.
It is too bad that he finally acceded to the demands of the Republican
hawks to do so. Of course, the Republicans still refused to give him a
declaration of war and preferred to snipe from the sidelines.
The $500M allocated to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels was an
abysmal failure and was not something that I supported.
Otherwise, yes, the Obama administration was attempting to coordinate
with Turkey in how arms from the black market were flowing into Syria.
Would you have preferred that we simply ignored what was happening?
Like it or not, Turkey is a member of NATO and the relationship between
Turkey and the Kurds is complicated. You seem to be implying some
complicity in the arms shipments on our part.
islander
2018-03-21 17:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Are you still implying that the US government and its CIA did not have
a hand in supplying weapons to Syrian rebels? We certainly did!
"Obama Requests $500 Million for 'Moderate' Syrian Rebels
President Barack Obama wants to increase the U.S.'s involvement in the
Syrian conflict by asking Congress to approve $500 million in funding
to train and arm "moderate" Syrian rebel forces."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/obama-requests-500-million-for-moderate-syrian-rebels/373565/
"Senate approves Obama request to arm, train Syrian rebels"
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218248-senate-approves-obama-request-to-arm-train-syrian-rebels
And before that half billion was appropriated, the CIA was actively
coordinating with Turkey, and a variety of Sunni states, the shipment
and delivery of weapons paid for with Sunni funding.
My only objection is to the implication that we intentionally supplied
arms to ISIS. If that was not your argument, then I'm OK with that.
That sounds a lot like Stormy Daniels, on junk news lately, saying
that she was surprised that the National Enquirer never published
the book about Trump that they paid her handsomely for, and that
she believed the lawyeristic hype the lawyers were feeding her that
it would lead to a successful literary career. I'm not saying she
might not actually have believed them, just that she was
manipulated by the lawyers into getting herself silenced, or so the
lawyers thought but it is all coming out on junk news now.
Actually that was not Stormy Daniels, but another woman who is
attempting to get out from under a non-disclosure agreement. In the
case of Stormy Daniels, this was a blatant attempt to silence her with a
bribe of $130K with a penalty of $1M for every instance of disclosure on
her part. Turns out that Trump did not sign the agreement, so she may
have a case. The second of what now looks like more cases is Karen
McDougal, a 1998 Playboy playmate of the year. She sold her story to
National Enquirer for $150K and promises to help her career.
Unbeknownst to her, Michael Cohen bought rights to the story from the
parent company of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc. in order to
prevent its publication. Needless to say, none of the agreements that
McDougal thought that she had were honored. Now more women are stepping
forward.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
We knew that a lot of the opposition to Assad was ISIS, or
Taliban or Mujihadeen who are essentially the same people in
different clothes, though ISIS is perhaps the most vicious.
One of the problems with the opposition to the Assad regime was that
they were highly fragmented. ISIS came out of that fragmentation, but
was opposed by other opposition groups, most especially the Kurds. It
would be a mistake to lump them all under the same umbrella, be that
Islam or Sunni. Don't forget that Assad is Muslim and while he is not
Sunni, he is also not Shiite despite his more recent alliance with Iran.

Of course, it is all motivated by exploitation of religious beliefs by
politicians who seek power and money. Russia heads that list!
Post by rumpelstiltskin
"Islam is far worse than any brand of Christianity"
-- Richard Dawkins
I should note though that 600 years ago, when Christianity was
the same age that Islam is now, Christianity was just as awful
and frightful and murderous. I've often said here that Christianity
is not as bad now only because it's fading away. As my son said
when he was last here, "Nobody really believes in God anymore."
Post by islander
Frankly, I did not approve of arming any of the rebels in Syria and
agreed with Obama's initial policy of only providing humanitarian aid.
It is too bad that he finally acceded to the demands of the Republican
hawks to do so. Of course, the Republicans still refused to give him a
declaration of war and preferred to snipe from the sidelines.
The $500M allocated to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels was an
abysmal failure and was not something that I supported.
Otherwise, yes, the Obama administration was attempting to coordinate
with Turkey in how arms from the black market were flowing into Syria.
Would you have preferred that we simply ignored what was happening?
Like it or not, Turkey is a member of NATO and the relationship between
Turkey and the Kurds is complicated. You seem to be implying some
complicity in the arms shipments on our part.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-03-21 22:40:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
My only objection is to the implication that we intentionally supplied
arms to ISIS. If that was not your argument, then I'm OK with that.
That sounds a lot like Stormy Daniels, on junk news lately, saying
that she was surprised that the National Enquirer never published
the book about Trump that they paid her handsomely for, and that
she believed the lawyeristic hype the lawyers were feeding her that
it would lead to a successful literary career. I'm not saying she
might not actually have believed them, just that she was
manipulated by the lawyers into getting herself silenced, or so the
lawyers thought but it is all coming out on junk news now.
Actually that was not Stormy Daniels, but another woman who is
attempting to get out from under a non-disclosure agreement. In the
case of Stormy Daniels, this was a blatant attempt to silence her with a
bribe of $130K with a penalty of $1M for every instance of disclosure on
her part. Turns out that Trump did not sign the agreement, so she may
have a case. The second of what now looks like more cases is Karen
McDougal, a 1998 Playboy playmate of the year. She sold her story to
National Enquirer for $150K and promises to help her career.
Unbeknownst to her, Michael Cohen bought rights to the story from the
parent company of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc. in order to
prevent its publication. Needless to say, none of the agreements that
McDougal thought that she had were honored. Now more women are stepping
forward.
Ah, Sorry. Trump has so many misadventures that it's hard
to keep them straight.
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
We knew that a lot of the opposition to Assad was ISIS, or
Taliban or Mujihadeen who are essentially the same people in
different clothes, though ISIS is perhaps the most vicious.
One of the problems with the opposition to the Assad regime was that
they were highly fragmented. ISIS came out of that fragmentation, but
was opposed by other opposition groups, most especially the Kurds. It
would be a mistake to lump them all under the same umbrella, be that
Islam or Sunni. Don't forget that Assad is Muslim and while he is not
Sunni, he is also not Shiite despite his more recent alliance with Iran.
I don't understand why we felt it was so necessary to attack Libya
or Iraq, and now Syria, or why we're still fighting in Afghanistan.
Is it all about Israel? If I were religious, I'd pray that we didn't
attack Iran next. And why the heck are we supporting Saudi
Arabia in its campaign against little Yemen? Yemen is the El
Salvador of the Middle East - a nasty piece of work to be sure -
but Saudi Arabia is pretty horrible too. In that case I know the
reason we're supporting Saudi Arabia: to keep up congenial
relations because our billionaires make so much money off
Saudi oil, and also Saudi Arabia is one of the few Arab states
that isn't overtly threatening Israel.

https://tinyurl.com/ybwjmz5c
Post by islander
Of course, it is all motivated by exploitation of religious beliefs by
politicians who seek power and money. Russia heads that list!
Everybody exploits religious beliefs. Look how our presidents
sucked up to that colossal bigot Billy Graham because the
Republicans know that most fundamentalist religious people
vote Republican. Even Obama had to suck up to Billy Graham
though, so as not to lose what little support he had from that
contingent.



<snip>
islander
2018-03-22 19:28:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
My only objection is to the implication that we intentionally supplied
arms to ISIS. If that was not your argument, then I'm OK with that.
That sounds a lot like Stormy Daniels, on junk news lately, saying
that she was surprised that the National Enquirer never published
the book about Trump that they paid her handsomely for, and that
she believed the lawyeristic hype the lawyers were feeding her that
it would lead to a successful literary career. I'm not saying she
might not actually have believed them, just that she was
manipulated by the lawyers into getting herself silenced, or so the
lawyers thought but it is all coming out on junk news now.
Actually that was not Stormy Daniels, but another woman who is
attempting to get out from under a non-disclosure agreement. In the
case of Stormy Daniels, this was a blatant attempt to silence her with a
bribe of $130K with a penalty of $1M for every instance of disclosure on
her part. Turns out that Trump did not sign the agreement, so she may
have a case. The second of what now looks like more cases is Karen
McDougal, a 1998 Playboy playmate of the year. She sold her story to
National Enquirer for $150K and promises to help her career.
Unbeknownst to her, Michael Cohen bought rights to the story from the
parent company of the National Enquirer, American Media Inc. in order to
prevent its publication. Needless to say, none of the agreements that
McDougal thought that she had were honored. Now more women are stepping
forward.
Ah, Sorry. Trump has so many misadventures that it's hard
to keep them straight.
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
We knew that a lot of the opposition to Assad was ISIS, or
Taliban or Mujihadeen who are essentially the same people in
different clothes, though ISIS is perhaps the most vicious.
One of the problems with the opposition to the Assad regime was that
they were highly fragmented. ISIS came out of that fragmentation, but
was opposed by other opposition groups, most especially the Kurds. It
would be a mistake to lump them all under the same umbrella, be that
Islam or Sunni. Don't forget that Assad is Muslim and while he is not
Sunni, he is also not Shiite despite his more recent alliance with Iran.
I don't understand why we felt it was so necessary to attack Libya
or Iraq, and now Syria, or why we're still fighting in Afghanistan.
Is it all about Israel? If I were religious, I'd pray that we didn't
attack Iran next. And why the heck are we supporting Saudi
Arabia in its campaign against little Yemen? Yemen is the El
Salvador of the Middle East - a nasty piece of work to be sure -
but Saudi Arabia is pretty horrible too. In that case I know the
reason we're supporting Saudi Arabia: to keep up congenial
relations because our billionaires make so much money off
Saudi oil, and also Saudi Arabia is one of the few Arab states
that isn't overtly threatening Israel.
https://tinyurl.com/ybwjmz5c
The attack on Iraq was uncalled for and a mixture of GW Bush opportunism
and an interest in controlling the oil supply. There is a lot of
history on this and it was strongly instrumental in increasing the chaos
in the Middle East.

Libya is a different issue. This happened primarily because we are part
of NATO and have obligations to the nations of Europe who are highly
dependent upon imported oil, including that coming from Libya. So that
comes down to oil again.

Syria is again different since there was no sympathy in the US for
getting engaged in another ground war in the Middle East (with the
exception of Republican hawks in Congress). Obama tried to stay out of
it, but agreed to bombing and then putting observers on the ground to
assist in the bombing. That was a mistake. The ISIS incursion into
Iraq increased the pressure to get involved and now Trump is putting
even more troops in Iraq and Syria.

Saudi Arabia? Oil dependence again or perhaps I should say still. That
and the experience that tells us that failed states tend to provide a
haven for extremists. We haven't figured out how to prevent that.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Of course, it is all motivated by exploitation of religious beliefs by
politicians who seek power and money. Russia heads that list!
Everybody exploits religious beliefs. Look how our presidents
sucked up to that colossal bigot Billy Graham because the
Republicans know that most fundamentalist religious people
vote Republican. Even Obama had to suck up to Billy Graham
though, so as not to lose what little support he had from that
contingent.
A great failing of the human species that is distressingly persistent.
Kurt Andersen puts much of the blame for our current problems on
religion in his book, *Fantasyland* which I recently completed. He
claims that Americans are especially susceptible to fantasy and traces
that back to the Reformation and the proliferation of Protestant sects
in the US. He doesn't have anything good to say about Billy Graham or
other evangelists of the period.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
El Castor
2018-03-13 20:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:20:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here. You did not attack Max
personally. That would have been an ad hominem attack. You
questioned his source. That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support. It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources. That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times. And, we still haven't gotten
it right. A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant. If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem. If I said you were wrong because your
source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem. For example, if I say that
George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad hominem is,
that's a nasty personal attack. But, it isn't an ad hominen because it
isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem is. Instead, it's a
conclusion I draw based on George always getting it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them giving
false information, but do not outright reject your argument, then that's
not an ad hominen either. I'm guessing that is what Jeff did in this
thread. But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he also outright
rejected the argument based on the source. If he did that, he committed
an ad hominem fallacy.
Sigh. Perhaps I am rigid and closed minded, but right or wrong,
fallacy or falsehood, I am unwilling to read, accept, reject, or even
consider claims posted on web sites that feast on stories like
these...
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/?s=chemtrails
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/?s=vaccines
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/international-red-cross-report-confirms-holocaust-six-million-jews-hoax/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=chemtrails&x=0&y=0
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=vaccines&x=16&y=6
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=9%2F11+coverup&x=0&y=0
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-03-14 01:39:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 10:20:33 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
<sigh> Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being
discussed to exhaustion previously here. You did not attack Max
personally. That would have been an ad hominem attack. You
questioned his source. That is a perfectly legitimate challenge. It
is not difficult to find sources on the Internet to support whatever
crazy position you want to support. It is called confirmation bias.
In scientific circles, it is acceptable to question sources. That is
an important part of searching for truth. If you were to call Max an
opinionated blowhard, that would be an ad hominem attack.
Indeed, we've been over this many times. And, we still haven't gotten
it right. A personal attack may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
Questioning the source may or may not be an ad hominem fallacy.
An ad hominem fallacy occurs when you conclude a claim is wrong because
of the identity of the claimant. If I said you are wrong because you
are stupid, that's an ad hominem. If I said you were wrong because your
source is Fox News, that's an ad hominem too.
On the other hand, if I insult you but don't use that insult in my
counter argument, that's not an ad hominem. For example, if I say that
George is an idiot when it comes to understanding what an ad hominem is,
that's a nasty personal attack. But, it isn't an ad hominen because it
isn't part of my argument as to what an ad hominem is. Instead, it's a
conclusion I draw based on George always getting it wrong.
Additionally, if I reject your source based on a history of them giving
false information, but do not outright reject your argument, then that's
not an ad hominen either. I'm guessing that is what Jeff did in this
thread. But perhaps he not only rejected the source, he also outright
rejected the argument based on the source. If he did that, he committed
an ad hominem fallacy.
Sigh. Perhaps I am rigid and closed minded, but right or wrong,
fallacy or falsehood, I am unwilling to read, accept, reject, or even
consider claims posted on web sites that feast on stories like
these...
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/?s=chemtrails
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/?s=vaccines
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/international-red-cross-report-confirms-holocaust-six-million-jews-hoax/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=chemtrails&x=0&y=0
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=vaccines&x=16&y=6
https://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=9%2F11+coverup&x=0&y=0
Your stance of ignoring these sources is just fine.
mg
2018-03-13 17:35:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.
The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
<sigh>
Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being discussed
to exhaustion previously here. You did not attack Max personally. That
would have been an ad hominem attack. You questioned his source. That
is a perfectly legitimate challenge.
Once again, Islander, you are posting without providing a reference.
When you do that, the only thing that you are providing is your
personal opinion, which I know that you value a lot, but I, for one,
do not. In fact, I consider you to be one of the biggest liars on this
newsgroup.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:

"Shooting the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical
fallacy.[1] . . .

A modern version of "shooting the messenger" can be perceived when
someone blames the media for presenting bad news about a favored
cause, person, organization, etc. "Shooting the messenger" may be a
time-honored emotional response to unwanted news, but it is not a very
effective method of remaining well-informed."[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
Post by islander
It is not difficult to find
sources on the Internet to support whatever crazy position you want to
support. It is called confirmation bias. In scientific circles, it is
acceptable to question sources. That is an important part of searching
for truth. If you were to call Max an opinionated blowhard, that would
be an ad hominem attack.
But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
islander
2018-03-13 19:20:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 02:16:46 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 11:41:05 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 01:29:36 -0800, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Hmmm. You're at it again. You don't provide a link, so I don't know
where you got it, but this piece appears to be taken from The Liberty
Beacon.
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-msm-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/
Here is what Rational Wiki has to say about that ...
"The Liberty Beacon (TLB) is a fringe online news source that promotes
vaccine hysteria,[1][2] chemtrail conspiracy theories,[1][3] the FEMA
concentration camps conspiracy theory,[4] hysterical GMO woo[5] and
other far-right survivalist bullshit."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Liberty_Beacon
Then again, the same piece can be found on the Global Research website
-- an organ of the Centre For Research On Globalization
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-lie-of-the-21st-century-how-mainstream-media-fake-news-led-to-the-u-s-invasion-of-iraq/5558813
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about that ...
"Michel Chossudovsky (born 1946) is a Canadian economist, author and
conspiracy theorist.[1][2] He is professor emeritus of economics at
the University of Ottawa[3][4] and the president and director of the
Centre for Research on Globalization, which publishes conspiracy
theories.[5][6][7][8] Chossudovsky has written that the September 11
attacks were not committed by Islamic terrorists, and that the attacks
were a pretext for war in the Middle East.[9][10][11][12]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by NATO
information warfare specialists of playing a key role in the spread of
pro-Russian propaganda."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
If you want to find it, it's out there. Here's another site that
reveals a great truth that the oligarchs and their corrupt, bought and
paid for politicians, have been hiding from us ...
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php
Attacking the messenger isn't logical. I don't know what kind of
schools you went to, but you would have flunked the English 112 class
that I took at BYU many years ago.
So, what is the origin of the piece you posted?
I have a habit of always providing a cite when I copy internet
articles. The reason that I do this isn't so that the reader can
attack the messenger. I do it mostly as a matter of courtesy and to
prove that someone else wrote it besides me and to provide a link to
click on to read the rest of the article since I don't usually quote
an entire article.
I've noticed that some people on this news group don't routinely
provide an origin or reference for what they post. If memory servers
Islander doesn't usually provide that information, for instance. There
is perhaps some advantage to not providing the information since some
articles are copyrighted.
However, in this particular case, I merely forgot to include it when I
copy/pasted the article and I don't remember where I got it. I did
provide the name of the author of the article, though, and that's
obviously important. For example, wouldn't an article written by Paul
Ryan be just as valid if it appeared on the Fox News website as it
would be if it appeared on the MSNBC website?
I always try to include a link, but I may have forgotten once or
twice. Anyhow, for me the origin is more important than the content.
As the old saying goes -- consider the source. For instance, seemingly
convincing arguments can be made for all sorts of conspiracies
surrounding 9/11 -- the Jews were behind it, the Jews didn't go to
work, it was a plot by Bush to give him an excuse to go to war,
building #3 was brought down by demolition charges, all 3 were
demolition jobs, etc.
I take CNN, Fox, and MSNBC with a grain of salt, but they are not
nearly as over the top as fringe sites that post ridiculous conspiracy
theories about 9/11, vaccines, and chem trails. Please visit the
Liberty Beacon and Global Research web sites and do a search on Chem
Trails or Vaccines. Yikes!!! That's all I need to know.
There is no easy way to find the truth and merely trying to determine
the truth, by finding out where the information came from is a lazy
man's shortcut that doesn't work. The only way to determine the truth
is with good-old fashioned research. Here's an excerpt from a
"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for
argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby
an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other
attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated
with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument
itself.[2]
However, its original meaning was an argument "calculated to appeal to
the person addressed more than to impartial reason".[3]
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal
fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a eugenic fallacy, a subcategory
of fallacies of irrelevance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hmmmm. No thanks. Now, get over to those favorite web sites of yours
and post some stuff (well documented, of course) about chem trails, or
the vaccine conspiracy.
The world is full of conspiracy theories. Don't be one of the suckers
foolish enough to buy into it. But if you are, here's a great item for
the wall ...
https://www.amazon.com/FILES-Believe-Mulders-Office-Poster/dp/B016TW4M38/ref=lp_8454523011_1_1?srs=8454523011&ie=UTF8&qid=1520882976&sr=8-1
<sigh>
Max doesn't understand "ad hominem" attacks despite this being discussed
to exhaustion previously here. You did not attack Max personally. That
would have been an ad hominem attack. You questioned his source. That
is a perfectly legitimate challenge.
Once again, Islander, you are posting without providing a reference.
When you do that, the only thing that you are providing is your
personal opinion, which I know that you value a lot, but I, for one,
do not. In fact, I consider you to be one of the biggest liars on this
newsgroup.
Now that is an ad hominem attack.
Post by mg
"Shooting the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical
fallacy.[1] . . .
A modern version of "shooting the messenger" can be perceived when
someone blames the media for presenting bad news about a favored
cause, person, organization, etc. "Shooting the messenger" may be a
time-honored emotional response to unwanted news, but it is not a very
effective method of remaining well-informed."[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
Then again, our trust in a free pres is fundamental to our form of
government. In the current situation, the free press seems to be
driving the investigation of the Trump administration, something that
the Republicans seem to be reluctant to pursue for political purposes.
Post by mg
Post by islander
It is not difficult to find
sources on the Internet to support whatever crazy position you want to
support. It is called confirmation bias. In scientific circles, it is
acceptable to question sources. That is an important part of searching
for truth. If you were to call Max an opinionated blowhard, that would
be an ad hominem attack.
But then, we seem to be living in a world where every crackpot idea
deserves the opportunity to be argued as if it had credibility. This is
the weakness in our culture that the Russians exploited in 2016 and
continue to exploit. It is part of the discrediting and increasing
distrust of reputable sources and reputable institutions.
wolfbat359
2018-03-11 15:10:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
All this has been known for a long time!
D***@teikyopost.edu
2018-03-13 02:18:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
As referenced at

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22Generalissimo$20w%22$20boston$20globe/alt.politics/IPwCX9XaPHk/wsD__J8hIa0J

Generalissimo W. was already formulating a war against Saddam Hussain
in 1999.
m***@my-deja.com
2018-03-14 01:57:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"The Lie of the 21st Century: How Mainstream Media "Fake
News" Led to the U.S. Invasion of Iraq
By Timothy Alexander Guzman
August 4, 2017, TLB Staff
. . . After the September 11th attacks, the George W. Bush
administration made a false accusation that the Iraq government had
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) which led to a U.S. invasion
eventually toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The U.S. led war
turned out to be a calculated plan by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank who wrote the secretive
blueprint called 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces
And Resources For A New Century' to remove Saddam Hussein and the
Ba'ath party from power. The blueprint was originally written for the
neocon lunatics who served under then-President George W. Bush
including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld to establish an "international Security order" dominated by
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the
defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department
in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense
Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992
provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence,
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the
international security order in line with American
principles and interests
PNAC was founded by neoconservatives William Kristol, a
political analyst, media commentator (Fox News, ABC News)
and the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and Robert
Kagan, an author, columnist, and foreign-policy commentator
who is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR)
and a fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kagan is also the
husband of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs appointed by President
Obama who helped orchestrate a coup against the Ukrainian
government of the democratically elected President Viktor
Yanukovych. The blueprint for regime change in Iraq was
Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play
a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the
unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of
Saddam Hussein
However, Judith Miller (who is currently an adjunct fellow
at the Manhattan Institute) and The New York Times played a
crucial role for the Bush administration. Miller wrote one
of the main articles on Iraq's "WMDs" that justified the
Bush administration's agenda to topple Saddam Hussein and
the Ba'ath party. The article was not just "fake" news
telling a lie that deceived the public, it destroyed a
sovereign nation. The U.S. war against Iraq killed more than
1.4 million Iraqis (according to www.justforeignpolicy.org
estimates) and more than 4,400 U.S. troops and tens of
thousands permanently injured. The Iraq War also displaced
millions of Iraqis thus creating a refugee crisis in
neighboring countries including Syria. The destabilization
of Iraq has also created a terrorist recruiting base that
has spread throughout the Middle East including Syria.
The New York Times published Miller's article on April 21st,
2003 'AFTER EFFECTS: PROHIBITED WEAPONS; Illicit Arms Kept
Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert' which
claimed that an Iraqi scientist confirmed that the Iraqi
government had WMDs . . .
The problem with Miller's assertion that Iraq had WMDs is that it
relied on an Iraqi exile named Ahmed Chalabi . . .
The New York Times admittance that their journalistic
principals had failed was too little and too late. The MSM
in particular The New York Times relied on "fake" evidence
from Ahmad Chalabi for years (since 1991 to be exact). The
MSM failed the Iraqi people who suffered enormously under a
pack of lies that destroyed their country. When Washington
uses "propaganda" or fake news reports against a sovereign
nation, the outcome is always "regime change" that sometimes
leads to an all-out war. The MSM has time and time again
been guilty of perpetrating fake news stories to assist in
Washington's Imperial agenda. The Iraq War was the biggest
lie of the 21st century. What other fake news stories will
appear on the MSM websites and newspapers in the future
regarding Syria, Russia, China, Iran, the Palestinians,
Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and even the U.S.
President-elect, Donald Trump? To answer that, we just don't
know, but it is up to the alternative media to decipher the
"fake" stories and bring out the truth. . . ."
Was Ahmed Chalabi the one that said US forces would
be welcomed by the people of Iraq with "fresh cut flowers
and chocolates"?
Loading...