RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:According to Al Jazeera, who appear to be a trusted source.To you maybe For clarity, the use of chlorine gas against civilian areas is banned under international law - this is a clear war crime. Yes, no one disputes that. One of many committed by the Assad regime. I guess this is what the others dispute, and what I do not touch upon.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/s ... 51947.html

The thread has been dominated by the others disagreeing with the last point. I'd like to re-focus on the first sentence of Sandy's post. Should Al-Jazeera be regarded as a trusted source on this matter?

I say no for the following reasons:
a) It is state owned by Qatar. It is well established that Qatar is opposed to Assad. It is participating in the conflict. It is therefore not a neutral source.
b) It quotes a member of the 'White Helmets'. This group was founded by a hostile military agent and has been shown in the past to engage in disinformation against Assad. The organisation has also been shown to collaborate with terrorists - which is further demonstrated by the US gov revoking the visa of its leader. It is therefore also not neutral.

Sandy says yes because:
a) The story quoting only the same single biased source has been repeated in the Western media too.

I say that's not a good enough reason, because they are still relying on the same single biased discredited source.

Please, Sandy, I ask, do you still disregard these reasons that I raise?

There is no source that is totally neutral or objective. Hence the need for multiple source validation. If you care to read the articles, you can get a sense of who the original source is, if it's not specified clearly.

When you look at some of the blogs out there that I'm sure you would like, I think you might find that they often rely on one source, Hersh for example is quoted on over a dozen sites that a cursory search found.

I note previously that you regard the sources you use as being more accurate. That is incorrect.

Incidentally the use f barrel bombs and chemical weapons by the Syrian forces has been reported by multiple sources, not just the white helmets who seem to stir up such disagreeable opinion (I note none of their critics are running around in a war zone doing humanitarian work). It's perfectly possible for aNGO to do humanitarian work and try to influence the news, yet the spite directed at them it quite extraordinary.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/ ... -in-syria/

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/ ... -in-syria/

Superb article! That Counterpunch is a great site, runs some brilliant articles.

So what's the next step, I wonder? Bring in a female president by smokescreening her war crimes with a circus clown-like opponent, make a full-scale invasion of Syria, and then claim afterward that she had to do it, to prove as a woman she could be strong? She'll be just like Margaret Thatcher, lionized as an 'Iron Lady,' but of course just another hideous war criminal who happens to have a vagina. & if this triggers World War III with Russia and Iran, never mind. Nazi America will win eventually. Millions will die in the process, but since when has a 'little thing' like millions of lives stopped the US?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The thread has been dominated by the others disagreeing with the last point. I'd like to re-focus on the first sentence of Sandy's post. Should Al-Jazeera be regarded as a trusted source on this matter?

I say no for the following reasons:
a) It is state owned by Qatar. It is well established that Qatar is opposed to Assad. It is participating in the conflict. It is therefore not a neutral source.
b) It quotes a member of the 'White Helmets'. This group was founded by a hostile military agent and has been shown in the past to engage in disinformation against Assad. The organisation has also been shown to collaborate with terrorists - which is further demonstrated by the US gov revoking the visa of its leader. It is therefore also not neutral.

Sandy says yes because:
a) The story quoting only the same single biased source has been repeated in the Western media too.

I say that's not a good enough reason, because they are still relying on the same single biased discredited source.

Please, Sandy, I ask, do you still disregard these reasons that I raise?

There is no source that is totally neutral or objective. Hence the need for multiple source validation. If you care to read the articles, you can get a sense of who the original source is, if it's not specified clearly.

When you look at some of the blogs out there that I'm sure you would like, I think you might find that they often rely on one source, Hersh for example is quoted on over a dozen sites that a cursory search found.

I note previously that you regard the sources you use as being more accurate. That is incorrect.

Incidentally the use f barrel bombs and chemical weapons by the Syrian forces has been reported by multiple sources, not just the white helmets who seem to stir up such disagreeable opinion (I note none of their critics are running around in a war zone doing humanitarian work). It's perfectly possible for aNGO to do humanitarian work and try to influence the news, yet the spite directed at them it quite extraordinary.

You seem to have missed my point. Your 'multiple source validation' method is flawed if all your mutiple 'sources' are regurgitating the same story from the same source. The White Helmets are hardly an NGO given that they are funded primarily by the UK and US governments.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/ ... -in-syria/

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/03/ ... -in-syria/

The same website that uncritically ran Hersh's article decided to do a hatchet job on the Syrian opposition. Pity they don't use the same level of criticism on their own articles.

How often do you see news organisations running critical arguments against themselves?

Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Utter clown.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
The same website that uncritically ran Hersh's article decided to do a hatchet job on the Syrian opposition. Pity they don't use the same level of criticism on their own articles.

How often do you see news organisations running critical arguments against themselves?

Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Utter clown.

Still can prove your point, can you? UG smokescreen of abuse kicks in as is utterly predictable. Sad and pathetic.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

How often do you see news organisations running critical arguments against themselves?

Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Utter clown.

Still can prove your point, can you? UG smokescreen of abuse kicks in as is utterly predictable. Sad and pathetic.

What the fuck are you talking about?

You don't get to frame the debate here you dishonest hypocrite.

How often do you see news organisations running critical arguments against themselves?

Sandydragon wrote:A list of sme of the other chemical weapon attacks in Syria. I'm sure in every case the witness's lied or were browbeaten by CIA agents posing as medics

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... civil-war/

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:A list of sme of the other chemical weapon attacks in Syria. I'm sure in every case the witness's lied or were browbeaten by CIA agents posing as medics

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... civil-war/

Good old Bellendcat, eh?

Zhivago wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:A list of sme of the other chemical weapon attacks in Syria. I'm sure in every case the witness's lied or were browbeaten by CIA agents posing as medics

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/20 ... civil-war/

Good old Bellendcat, eh?

He has an affinity for biased sources, it must be said.

Zhivago wrote:
You seem to have missed my point. Your 'multiple source validation' method is flawed if all your mutiple 'sources' are regurgitating the same story from the same source. .

Zhivago wrote:
He has an affinity for biased sources, it must be said.

Donny osmond wrote:First there was this

Zhivago wrote:
You seem to have missed my point. Your 'multiple source validation' method is flawed if all your mutiple 'sources' are regurgitating the same story from the same source. .

But then there was this!!

Zhivago wrote:
He has an affinity for biased sources, it must be said.

I love student politicians

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:First there was this

Zhivago wrote:
You seem to have missed my point. Your 'multiple source validation' method is flawed if all your mutiple 'sources' are regurgitating the same story from the same source. .

But then there was this!!

Zhivago wrote:
He has an affinity for biased sources, it must be said.

I love student politicians

If you've got nothing useful to add, then please refrain from commenting, Donk.

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:First there was this





But then there was this!!



I love student politicians

If you've got nothing useful to add, then please refrain from commenting, Donk.

Hmmm, that's one option.

But then pointing out other people's hypocrisy is always useful, at least for entertainment purposes.

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
If you've got nothing useful to add, then please refrain from commenting, Donk.

Hmmm, that's one option.

But then pointing out other people's hypocrisy is always useful, at least for entertainment purposes.

Except I never advocated relying simply on quantity of sources, but rather on the quality of the sources. So your accusation of hypocrisy is an unfounded ad hominem attack, which adds nothing to the debate.

Sandydragon wrote:
And you seem to be missing, or ignoring, min about checking the original source. Unlike the blogs, including counterpunch which all blindly published the same flawed article.

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Hmmm, that's one option.

But then pointing out other people's hypocrisy is always useful, at least for entertainment purposes.

Except I never advocated relying simply on quantity of sources, but rather on the quality of the sources. So your accusation of hypocrisy is an unfounded ad hominem attack, which adds nothing to the debate.

Really? I notice Sandy's point remains conveniently ignored.

Sandydragon wrote:
And you seem to be missing, or ignoring, min about checking the original source. Unlike the blogs, including counterpunch which all blindly published the same flawed article.

Zhivago wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Except I never advocated relying simply on quantity of sources, but rather on the quality of the sources. So your accusation of hypocrisy is an unfounded ad hominem attack, which adds nothing to the debate.

Really? I notice Sandy's point remains conveniently ignored.

Sandydragon wrote:
And you seem to be missing, or ignoring, min about checking the original source. Unlike the blogs, including counterpunch which all blindly published the same flawed article.

Why should I reply to Sandy's post about checking sources when I clearly check my sources thoroughly?

rowan wrote:I doubt that very much, but the bottom line is Russia are there at the bequest of the government to fight the rebels and terrorists America and its allies sent in. & having Trump accuse Obama of 'founding ISIS' is just another transparent tactic to try and make the truth look ridiculous by having a circus clown stage-performer pronounce it.