• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Eight Years of Fake News

Thoreau72 said:
Osama died of disease/natural causes long before Barack claimed to have killed him.
Click to expand...

Nah. Didn't happen.
Several newspapers in that part of the world reported it in December 2001.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't.
Yes, Barack's claims were fake news, and yes, most americans bought into it.
Click to expand...

Newp.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Not to derail the thread, but besides having read stories in various regional newspapers (not western sources or papers) of the death of Osama back then, and mention of his death in 2001 by Benazir Bhutto just before she was assassinated, there are other facts that put the Legend Of Abbottabad into the same category as Gulf Of Tonkin or Jessica Lynch stories.
Click to expand...

Do you know what a fact is?
 
DamnYankee said:
Leftists invented fake news.
Click to expand...

I like watching the right wing get all overly defensive about "fake news". So bad that they try to project it away from themselves. :lol:
 
Mr Person said:
This belongs in the conspiracy forum, but I"m no mod, so I'll point out a few dreadfully obvious things:

1. December 2001 was a few months after September 11, 2001.

2. Al Queda attacked us on 9/11/01.

3. Osama Bin Laden lead Al Queda.

4. Osama Bin Laden planned that attack with the others.

5. That area of the world helped protect Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda.

6. That's why we invaded.

7. The inference that the newspaper accounts of his death are perfectly honest reporting by tribal rural Afghans has a probability of truthfulness somewhere between 0.00000000001 and 0.000000000000000000000000001% Same goes for Pakistanis or any source that might be sympathetic - by force or otherwise - to Al Queda.

8. The inference that these "newspaper" accounts were put out on Al Queda's command in a stuipid and silly but risk-free attempt to confuse American armed forces/intelligence is 100% (because I lied when I said there was any probability that they were real, see?).
Click to expand...

Items 2 through 6: so you've been told, so goes the story. Compare to any number of other stories told by DoD, including Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch. FYI, DoD thrives on Fake News, by their record.

Items 7 & 8: so you say. :peace The other possibility is that those regional newspapers and Benazir Bhutto were more informed about events in their area than you, and the reports were accurate.
 
Mr Person said:
Kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories tend to do that. Just FYI....
Click to expand...

And gullible americans just keep on ingesting the 'fake news', no questions asked. Even those with a JD after their name. :lol:
 
devildavid said:
Do you know what a fact is?
Click to expand...

I do. How about you?

More on topic, do you understand what deception is and how it's employed to manipulate the public perception? Hint: Woodrow Wilson hired Edward Bernays to help massage the public perception through what they called in the day "public relations". In 100 years of practice, the government has become very skilled in art of deception.

Somewhere between then and now, a philosopher correctly observed that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. :peace
 
Thoreau72 said:
Items 2 through 6: so you've been told,
Click to expand...

And you aren't repeating things that you have been "told"?

You were actually part of the conspiracy to carry out 9/11 and so you have personal knowledge?

:doh
 
Mr Person said:
And you aren't repeating things that you have been "told"?

You were actually part of the conspiracy to carry out 9/11 and so you have personal knowledge?

:doh
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm repeating what I've read, for sure, and to that extent "what I've been told".

Someday you may learn to "consider the source".

I will believe stories written in Pakistani and Indian newspapers LONG BEFORE I will believe what the US DoD says about almost anything.

Consider the source counselor. Someday it will pay off, maybe even in court. Placing faith in the statements of known liars as you do, is a sure recipe for disaster if one is seeking the truth.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I do. How about you?

More on topic, do you understand what deception is and how it's employed to manipulate the public perception? Hint: Woodrow Wilson hired Edward Bernays to help massage the public perception through what they called in the day "public relations". In 100 years of practice, the government has become very skilled in art of deception.

Somewhere between then and now, a philosopher correctly observed that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled. :peace
Click to expand...

But somehow you have access to the facts because? You know the only sources that are factual? And you are certain your souces aren't trying to deceive people? Were you there when it happened?
 
devildavid said:
But somehow you have access to the facts because? You know the only sources that are factual? And you are certain your souces aren't trying to deceive people? Were you there when it happened?
Click to expand...

No, please pardon my arrogance, but it seems I am a bit more perceptive than you, in this case. Maybe I possess more common sense than you? Maybe I am just better at detecting bull**** in the media than you?

I don't know, maybe all of the above. But what I do know is that the MSM has been effectively a lapdog for the government, especially the DoD, for decades. Judith Miller and her editor approved deceptions on the runup to war.

Today's western media is for all practical purposes the federal government's Ministry Of Propaganda. Long gone is Walter Cronkite and other responsible journalists. Now we have a slew of Scott Pelley and Brian Williams and David Muir and Rachel Maddow and other sycophants.

Maybe I'm able to perceive and understand that, while you are not?
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, please pardon my arrogance, but it seems I am a bit more perceptive than you, in this case. Maybe I possess more common sense than you? Maybe I am just better at detecting bull**** in the media than you?

I don't know, maybe all of the above. But what I do know is that the MSM has been effectively a lapdog for the government, especially the DoD, for decades. Judith Miller and her editor approved deceptions on the runup to war.

Today's western media is for all practical purposes the federal government's Ministry Of Propaganda. Long gone is Walter Cronkite and other responsible journalists. Now we have a slew of Scott Pelley and Brian Williams and David Muir and Rachel Maddow and other sycophants.

Maybe I'm able to perceive and understand that, while you are not?
Click to expand...

Or maybe you are more paranoid than I am. Maybe you are more gullible and tend to believe any anti-government conspiracy theories. Just because the govenment may lie does not mean the lies are outlandish. Maybe they just don't give us some of the behind the scenes details that might make them look bad. But to totally fabricate stories that only a handful of people know the "truth" about is a tad far-fetched. If they are so good at being secretive why is the internet teeming with people like you who "know the truth"? And why is it that those people can't even agree on what the "truth" really is?
 
devildavid said:
Or maybe you are more paranoid than I am. Maybe you are more gullible and tend to believe any anti-government conspiracy theories. Just because the govenment may lie does not mean the lies are outlandish. Maybe they just don't give us some of the behind the scenes details that might make them look bad. But to totally fabricate stories that only a handful of people know the "truth" about is a tad far-fetched. If they are so good at being secretive why is the internet teeming with people like you who "know the truth"? And why is it that those people can't even agree on what the "truth" really is?
Click to expand...

It's really very simple, the truth. The truth in too many cases is that the government deceives. From 911 to Benghazi, the government deceives. Elegantly simple.

Paranoid? What am I paranoid about? I am merely judging what I read and see in the media by the standard that government deceives on a regular basis. It's not rocket science friend, just human behavior established over a long period of time.

Maybe in addition to being arrogant and more perceptive than you, I am more into human behavior than you?
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, please pardon my arrogance, but it seems I am a bit more perceptive than you, in this case. Maybe I possess more common sense than you? Maybe I am just better at detecting bull**** in the media than you?

I don't know, maybe all of the above. But what I do know is that the MSM has been effectively a lapdog for the government, especially the DoD, for decades. Judith Miller and her editor approved deceptions on the runup to war.

Today's western media is for all practical purposes the federal government's Ministry Of Propaganda. Long gone is Walter Cronkite and other responsible journalists. Now we have a slew of Scott Pelley and Brian Williams and David Muir and Rachel Maddow and other sycophants.

Maybe I'm able to perceive and understand that, while you are not?
Click to expand...

So you bought into the fake "alternative" news...
 
Thoreau72 said:
It's really very simple, the truth. The truth in too many cases is that the government deceives. From 911 to Benghazi, the government deceives. Elegantly simple.

Paranoid? What am I paranoid about? I am merely judging what I read and see in the media by the standard that government deceives on a regular basis. It's not rocket science friend, just human behavior established over a long period of time.

Maybe in addition to being arrogant and more perceptive than you, I am more into human behavior than you?
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that some phony story floating around the internet about Bin Laden dying in 2001 is true. A story put out by the same human beings whose behavior you claim to have great insight into. The simplistic apprach you take that everything is a conspiracy/hoax/lie doesn't get you the truth at all. It gets you delusional paranoia.
 
devildavid said:
That doesn't mean that some phony story floating around the internet about Bin Laden dying in 2001 is true. A story put out by the same human beings whose behavior you claim to have great insight into. The simplistic apprach you take that everything is a conspiracy/hoax/lie doesn't get you the truth at all. It gets you delusional paranoia.
Click to expand...

Dude

It wasn't "floating around the internet". It was being reported by news sources in the region. You know, old fashioned newspapers and TV. Recall that OBL was not a healthy individual. Marfan's Syndrome most likely, and also kidney disease. He require kidney dialysis, and people in that situation become dependent upon dialysis machines.

Old fashioned newspapers and TV are quite able to lie and fabricate, I know. But they are also capable of sometimes telling the truth.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Dude

It wasn't "floating around the internet". It was being reported by news sources in the region. You know, old fashioned newspapers and TV. Recall that OBL was not a healthy individual. Marfan's Syndrome most likely, and also kidney disease. He require kidney dialysis, and people in that situation become dependent upon dialysis machines.

Old fashioned newspapers and TV are quite able to lie and fabricate, I know. But they are also capable of sometimes telling the truth.
Click to expand...

And you are so perceptive you always can distinguish facts from lies? Or are you pre-disposed to believe what fits your world view?
 
devildavid said:
And you are so perceptive you always can distinguish facts from lies? Or are you pre-disposed to believe what fits your world view?
Click to expand...

In trying separate the wheat from the chaff, the facts from the lies, one should always consider the source.

Statements from those known to be truth tellers receive more weight in a rational analysis.

Statements from those known to be almost pathological liars are given much less weight, if any weight at all.

Rational analysis is demanding. Believing everything one is told without question is NOT rational analysis.
 
Thoreau72 said:
In trying separate the wheat from the chaff, the facts from the lies, one should always consider the source.

Statements from those known to be truth tellers receive more weight in a rational analysis.

Statements from those known to be almost pathological liars are given much less weight, if any weight at all.

Rational analysis is demanding. Believing everything one is told without question is NOT rational analysis.
Click to expand...

Automatically rejecting all news from all sources because you think that the government has absolute control over them is not rational. Thinking that you know who the liars are and who the truth tellers are is not rational. You can't know what is true just by always assuming that you know who is lying. Your analysis is based largely on assumption and emotion, not rationality.
 
devildavid said:
Automatically rejecting all news from all sources because you think that the government has absolute control over them is not rational. Thinking that you know who the liars are and who the truth tellers are is not rational. You can't know what is true just by always assuming that you know who is lying. Your analysis is based largely on assumption and emotion, not rationality.
Click to expand...

Sorry David, I will live my life and you will live yours. :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom