11/26 http://csua.org/u/k2n (Washington Times)
Islamic terrorists target Army base -- in Arizona
"Fort officials changed security measures after sources warned that
possibly 60 Afghan and Iraqi terrorists were to be smuggled into the
U.S. through underground tunnels with high-powered weapons to attack
the Arizona Army base, according to multiple confidential law
enforcement documents obtained by The Washington Times."
\_ It's also possible an army of elephant commandos has been training
in the amazon for generations to wipe humanity off the face of
the earth and get back at us for those damn pianos. (Hint, the
Washington Times is one step removed from The Star but with More
Moonie.)
\_ I've been reading Sara Carter's stuff since before she was with
the times. She's a good reporter. And while I might accuse a
major paper of spin (I'm looking at you NYTimes), I wouldn't
reject it as a basic record of fact. I'm sorry you reject news
sources that don't fit your agenda. -op
\_ You just accused the New York Times of spin. It's had some
pretty blatant failures of editorial control, e.g. Jason
Blair, Judith Miller, and it is not without bias, but to
claim that it spins stories is stretching it a bit, don't you
think? -dans
\_ No. Not at all. PP was kind to the NYT. --someone else
\_ How so? Care to cite an example of egregious spin in a
news story on the part of the NYT? -dans
\_ Pick up a copy. They used to have the news pages
read reasonably straight and kept the editorials to
the op/ed page. No more and not for many years.
IMO it changed sometime in the mid 90s. Now the
NYT is unreadable. I used to read it cover to cover
every day.
\_ If it's so bad, it should be easy to provide one
example. Please cite one. -dans
\_ It is, and if it was anyone else asking, I'd
provide examples.
\_ The Plaintiff rests. -dans
\_ Are you the same guy asking for proof that the
Washington Times is biased?
\_ No. All newspapers are biased. I don't need
proof of that.
\_ Everything is biased. An interesting
question to ponder is what would lack of
bias even look like. -- ilyas
\_ Do you read Front Page Mag and NewsMax and consider them
"sources of fact" as well?
\_ I get all my truth from Kos and DU.
\_ UPI picked it up--do you distrust them too?
\_ UPI and Washington Times have the same owner, dumbfuck.
\_ Didn't know that, pottymouth.
\_ Then we can safely ignore your opinion on media sources.
\_ Do you have any evidence at all that the owner has
had a negative influence on the truthfulness of the
stories they publish? Or you just hate the owner
and assume?
\_ "Fifteen years ago, when the world was
adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold
War, I established The Washington Times
to fulfill God's desperate desire to save
this world." --Rev Sun Yung Moon
\_ That's nice. Do you have any evidence that
the owner has had a negative influence at all
or you just hate the owner?
\_ That quote is evidence. Do you have any
counterevidence. Don't be disingenuous, it
defeats the purpose of discussion. Hint:
the goal is not to win the argument, the
goal is to maybe learn something. -dans, !pp
\_ A quote is not evidence that the owner
has had any effect. Hint: the goal is
not to win the argument, the goal is to
maybe learn something. I'm still
waiting for any evidence, not innuendo,
that their news is negatively influenced
by their owner no matter how nutty he
may be.
\_ Evidence: They're reporting complete
nonsense about immigrant terrorists.
And they report complete nonsense
all the time. And their owner
says so. Why would the Moonies
be dumping billions of dollars
into this paper if not to push
their own agenda? The prima
facie evidence is that it's a paper
run by nutjobs with an agenda. -tom
\_ Several papers have been busted
in recent years publishing flat
out incorrect stories or even lies.
This is the only one moonie owned.
Correlation != causation and all
that.
\_ I'm not sure how you parse intent as
innuendo. Intent is not rock-solid,
slam-dunk evidence, but it is,
nonetheless, evidence. Seriously,
quit being a douche. -dans
\_ Thank you for bringing this
discussion to a new low. It is
responses like this that turn me
off from bothering to try to give
you researched respones to your
queries such as the NYT one above
because you're just not mature
enough to have this sort of
discussion. You called me a
douche, because you got frustrated
that I wouldn't just back down
because you're pushy and unwilling
to support your claims in any real
way. This isn't HS or a freshman
dorm chat. "Douche", indeed.
\_ Blah blah blah, wah, wah. Let
me translate pp's post for the
audience at home: "I can't argue
my point on merit so I'll
politely dodge the issue,
refuse to provide evidence for
my points, and say my
opponent's evidence 'doesn't
count', all while pretending to
participate in the discussion
in good faith. But if the
opposition bluntly calls me on
my shit, and points out that I
am being a disingenuous
fuckhead, then the opposition
is being juvenile." -dans
\_ "The Washington Times will become the
instrument in spreading the truth about
God to the world." --ibid
\_ As above, same question.
\_ Other than that they have about 50 people total
staff, no original reporting, and mainly put out
short summaries of stories from other "sources"
that are nearly always, dunh da dunh, the
Washington Times? Nope. You suck at this game.
\_ No original reporting? Sara Carter has done
some of the best investigative reporting I've
seen.
\_ I was clearly speaking specifically about
UPI. You really really suck at this game.
\_ Clear to who? It wasn't clear to me. -!pp
\_ Then you're an idiot too, but I doubt
you're !pp.
\_ Oh, you're crazy, that explains a
lot.
\_ Crystal clear to me. Do you read? Can
you read? Do you have thumbs? SHOW ME
YOUR THUMBS!!! -dans
\_ Can you give me some specific examples? Now
I am curious, what a motd-rightwinger thinks
is an example of good reporting. -!pp
I am curious to see what a motd-rightwinger
thinks is an example of good reporting. -!pp
\_ Let's just say that if the Washington Times is the originating
source they have a pretty high burden of proof. That article
had absolutly nothing to back itself up. I'll wait till I see
something real before giving it any cred whatsoever.
\_ What media sources do you give 'cred' to when they publish
poorly sourced stories?
\_ The Economist, the IHT, maybe WashPo, WSJ news pages before
it became a Murdoch tool. -!pp
\_ The Economist, the IHT, maybe WashPo, WSJ news pages
before it became a Murdoch tool. -!pp
before it became a Murdoch tool. How about you? -!pp
\_ You give 'cred' to the WaPo? Wow....
\_ What do you give 'cred' to? WashPo is the largest
source of unsourced articles, because of the way
Washington DC works. Often you cannot get good
inside the beltway news any other way. WashPo is
also politically moderate, more or less. I am not
saying it is perfect, but it is a much better than
average newspaper. Not in the same league as the
others I listed though.
\_ I don't give free 'cred' to any media source.
If you're not sourced you're no better than
Drudge. I read Drudge. I find him amusing.
He sometimes even gets a story right. That
doesn't mean he has any credibility.
\_ All of those sources have a better track
\_ All of those papers have a better track
record then Drudge.
\_ I'm not a regular WSJ reader, but I generally respect
the news pages. I'm not ready to write it off just
because Murdoch purchased it, but am definitely
waiting to see what happens. My list also includes
the New York Times, The Economist, and the Christian
Science Monitor. -dans
\- if you are going to bother to infiltrate the US, isnt it kind of
odd to go after a "hard target" like an AZ army base.
\_ Not if it has intel info you want. Sounds like a better
target than Walmart, dont you think? And better PR value, too.
\_ http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/213456.php
"FBI: Widely reported terrorist threat to Fort Huachuca unfounded"
As noted, the Washington Times has zero credibility. -tom
\_ Oh, so you trust the FBI more than the Times? Okay then.
\_ Yeah, the FBI has real incentive to downplay terrorist
threats, because, uh, well, no they don't. -tom |
http://csua.com/feed/