How much do you know about Abu Ghraib?

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur
You've posted nothing in that thread. What am I supposed to be reading?

Ok, let me try this again since you seem to have trouble with comprehension today.

CLICK THE LINK IN MY FIRST POST.

Thanks.

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ok, so then I can assument that you will not even bother to read what I posted? I read what you posted? Do you not have the common courtesy to do likewise?

 

[conjur]

I read the link you posted, did you not read my post? FYI, it's the 2nd post in this thread.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ok Czar, let me rephrase:

If you believe the American interpretation is the incorrect one, then explain why it is incorrect, or at least post the actual document so that we may draw our own conclusions.

You cant just say something is an incorrect interpretation then leave it at that. Hell, if it were that simple I can uniformly say that anything posted that doesnt agree with my outlook is false.

where did I say it is incorrect in this thread?
The thing is the "experts" in the big world dont agree in the US interpretation, if its right or wrong.


the people on this forum generaly assume way too much regarding whats happening in the world and what other people post here, that is the main reason why we have so many pointless flames and arguments here

I apologize then for taking what you said out of context. And the problem with the "experts" is that too many of them have their own agendas. Unfortunately the days of good neutral research are over.....because good neutral research doesnt get you published or airtime.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur
I read the link you posted, did you not read my post? FYI, it's the 2nd post in this thread.

Ok so then we are back to square one then. You post something and it is fact, I post and it is "biased crap"

Gotcha.

At least I admit my post was biased in nature....while you cling to the religion of "unbiased fact" from the likes of the Washington Post and NYT.

Now, I addressed the material in your links. Do you not have the intellectual fortitude to respond to mine other than "OMG BIASED RIGHT WING GARBAGE"?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Centinel
Ok Czar, let me rephrase:

If you believe the American interpretation is the incorrect one, then explain why it is incorrect, or at least post the actual document so that we may draw our own conclusions.

You cant just say something is an incorrect interpretation then leave it at that. Hell, if it were that simple I can uniformly say that anything posted that doesnt agree with my outlook is false.

where did I say it is incorrect in this thread?
The thing is the "experts" in the big world dont agree in the US interpretation, if its right or wrong.


the people on this forum generaly assume way too much regarding whats happening in the world and what other people post here, that is the main reason why we have so many pointless flames and arguments here

I apologize then for taking what you said out of context. And the problem with the "experts" is that too many of them have their own agendas. Unfortunately the days of good neutral research are over.....because good neutral research doesnt get you published or airtime.

that is true, like the experts US utalized to reach their conclusion, everyone has their agenda

thats why the discussion about this particular topic will take alot of time and it is pointless to have a set conclusion already, that is except if you have an agenda

 

[Centinel]

Czar:

But what if my agenda is part of another agenda?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

typical leftist tactic? sorry but attacking the source is done on all sides frankly because the source is one of the most important part of getting an accurate view of the picture






Through out my time here on p&n and off topic discussing politics certain sources have always been kinda off limits to everyone of both sides. There is a simple reason why we dont see many people link to newsmax or democratic underground or other sites like that, it is just too obvios what you are trying to do when you use sources like that.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Centinel
Czar:

But what if my agenda is part of another agenda?

hehe doesnt really matter now does it

 

[Centinel]

Czar:

Another problem resolves around what we were just saying....

It's hard to find a source that isnt biased, because of what I said earlier.....unbiased wont get you published or airtime.

Media = attention whores

 

[Czar]

that is true, but some sources are less biased than others

or better to put it, some sources are more biased than others and frankly some sources have absolutely no credability, like those damn blog sites

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Czar

typical leftist tactic? sorry but attacking the source is done on all sides frankly because the source is one of the most important part of getting an accurate view of the picture

Through out my time here on p&n and off topic discussing politics certain sources have always been kinda off limits to everyone of both sides. There is a simple reason why we dont see many people link to newsmax or democratic underground or other sites like that, it is just too obvios what you are trying to do when you use sources like that.

Every single one of Greyhawk's links on the quiz leads to either a mainstream media source or source documentation. Needless to say, based on your typically shallow, "blame America first" drivel, I find it unsurprising that you could not read as far.

As usual Czar, you are dismissed.

 

[Centinel]

He does have a point Czar....

The blog may be biased, what what he links to is MSM (which some on here *cough* conjur *cough* seem to think is the holy bible when it comes to sources). He also uses direct quotes from the individuals themselves.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Czar

typical leftist tactic? sorry but attacking the source is done on all sides frankly because the source is one of the most important part of getting an accurate view of the picture

Through out my time here on p&n and off topic discussing politics certain sources have always been kinda off limits to everyone of both sides. There is a simple reason why we dont see many people link to newsmax or democratic underground or other sites like that, it is just too obvios what you are trying to do when you use sources like that.

Every single one of Greyhawk's links on the quiz leads to either a mainstream media source or source documentation. Needless to say, based on your typically shallow, "blame America first" drivel, I find it unsurprising that you could not read as far.

As usual Czar, you are dismissed.

but like I said before, they dont show the whole story that is out right now and the full story isnt even out, how can they reach a conclusion?

This is the thing, if the news story fits a set agenda then those who agree with it are very quick to say here look this is exactly like I thought it was while those who disagree with it say hold on a minute this and this is still not right and so on. This is in a sense a balance that we need before the final conclusion can be reached.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur
I read the link you posted, did you not read my post? FYI, it's the 2nd post in this thread.

Ok so then we are back to square one then. You post something and it is fact, I post and it is "biased crap"

Gotcha.

At least I admit my post was biased in nature....while you cling to the religion of "unbiased fact" from the likes of the Washington Post and NYT.

Now, I addressed the material in your links. Do you not have the intellectual fortitude to respond to mine other than "OMG BIASED RIGHT WING GARBAGE"?

That Mudville whatever site offers nothing on the topic. That one page is simply to suit someone's agenda to try and sling mud at the media over its coverage of Abu Ghraib.

None of that changes the FACT that abuses and torture occurred at Abu Ghraib and other places for months on end. To ignore that is ridiculous. To try and explain it away is apologist.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

He posted a link to a blog for crying out loud!

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

He posted a link to a blog for crying out loud!

And the article within the blog is linked to news sources.

Your point?

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

He posted a link to a blog for crying out loud!

. . . . . . that raises issues, BACKED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA REPORTS, regarding various fallacies perpetrated by the left concerning the Abu Ghraib situation.

If you would place even 1/100th as much emphasis on those Islamofacists who DECAPITATE and EXECUTE prisoners instead of bleeding-heart sniveling about American troops making isolated, poorly-supervised errors, then you might regain a small amount of respect around here.

 

[Centinel]

burnedout:

Unfortunately I think we are the ones that lack respect around here man.

We seem to be in the minority by quite a bit.

That's why I like posting here.....I like getting in the trenches with the enemy and duking it out

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

He posted a link to a blog for crying out loud!

And the article within the blog is linked to news sources.

Your point?

<ahem>

washingtonpost.com > Opinion > Columnists > Anne Applebaum

It's an Op/Ed piece, not a news article.

Let's keep the facts straight, shall we?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

If it's just a blog then it should be full of fallacies and errors, or at least that seems to be the implication.

Tear it up. Demonstrate where it is factually incorrect. After, it's a BLOG!

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Centinel

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

You merely posted a link to a highly biased site. Want me post some links to some *real* leftist sits like Mother Jones or wsws.org?

Get real.

Ah yes, the typically sorry leftist tactic of attacking the source. Exhibiting shortcomings relevant to classical logic nowadays, are we? Now, address the points made in the quiz. Begin.

He posted a link to a blog for crying out loud!

And the article within the blog is linked to news sources.

Your point?

<ahem>

washingtonpost.com > Opinion > Columnists > Anne Applebaum

It's an Op/Ed piece, not a news article.

Let's keep the facts straight, shall we?

I'm going to file this little gem away thanks. Be careful what you wish for.

Now, I addressed your articles, you address mine....not the sources, but the MATERIAL PRESENTED.

Thanks. If you cant do it, just say so and i'll drop the matter.

 

[Centinel]

So conjur, you going to respond the material presented in the article?

I responded to yours.

 

[conjur]

Why should I? There's nothing of worthy of my time in either the blog you posted or the WaPo Op/Ed referenced therein. I thought I made that clear.

 

[Centinel]

Originally posted by: conjur
Why should I? There's nothing of worthy of my time in either the blog you posted or the WaPo Op/Ed referenced therein. I thought I made that clear.

Thank you....you responded just as I thought you would. The old "i'm not going to respond because it's beneath me" line.

Cute.

At least some of the people here have the testicular fortitude to back their mouth up.....learn from them will you?