1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Amnesty International Declares War on US

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ravinraven, May 26, 2005.

  1. ravinraven

    ravinraven Well-Known Member

    I heard on O'Reilly a while ago that Amesty International is threatening our leaders with kidnapping should they enter a foreign country. This will encourage people in other countries to assassinate or otherwise harm our folks if they go to some places.

    I have a few non-THR activities in mind for these RED bastids.

    What say you?

  2. steveno

    steveno Well-Known Member

    give the Secret Service some extra ammo
  3. ravinraven

    ravinraven Well-Known Member

    Funny. I had that same thought.

    And an additional thought. If these arsewholes are at war with us, aren't their members in this country enemy combatants and need a ride to Gitma??

  4. slowworm

    slowworm Well-Known Member

    Why not check out the Amnesty site to see what they actually say instead of relying on some dope of a commentator?

    Getting accurate news from O'Reilly is like getting gun literature from VPC or sex education literature from NAMBLA.

    Oh, and just to point out that I don't particularly like Amnesty either. But I would rather slam them from their own statements rather than from some half baked commentator who is about as objective as NPR. Same problem, different side.
  5. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Not having my copies of Janes Defense Weekly on hand, I cannot say for sure, but I think we can take 'em.

    Mike ;)
  6. mete

    mete Well-Known Member

    Amnesty Int is a group that has on a number of occasions made up stories .They are not credible but unfortunately the media gives them lots of coverage.
  7. slowworm

    slowworm Well-Known Member

    Which really gets down to the heart of the problem at the end - the death of critical thinking in this country.

    I don't believe anything I hear until I can verify it from a number of different sources. If the media says such and such State Dept Report said blah blah blah I'll go and find the report and read it if it's important enough.

    So, hands up who researched the Amnesty site to confirm what O'Reilly said?

    How about hands up those who took O"Reilly at his word?

    How do you now O'Reilly didn't make it up?

    How about those who think Fox news is not biased and NPR is? Well, heres a news flash folks, they are both heavily biased towards different ends of the political spectrum. Just cos they say what you want to hear does not make them unbiased nor does it make them right.

    It's like the old joke about knowing a politician is lying because his lips are moving. If they are on the Media in any way on any side the same thing applies.
  8. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    No fan of Amnesty International, but if you think that you can trust O'Reilly for any sort of honest news or commentary you are sadly mistaken.
  9. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Excuse me? Please separate out the conservative commentary provided on Fox News channel from the news reported by Fox News. Comparing news to news, Fox News is about as unbiased as you can get. NPR mixes in commentary, spin or slant in what they present as "news." I have no problem with NPR (or other main stream media) presenting liberal or otherwise biased commentary, if it is delineated from "news." The problem I have with NPR is my forsed subsidy of it.
  10. slowworm

    slowworm Well-Known Member


    I agree with much of the seniment you express. Yes, NPR is in many ways worse than Fox, but then Fox is not innocent either since they are still expressing political viewpoints in the very news that they choose to cover (or ignore) in the first place regardless of the commentary surrounding it.

    When I see a shot of a reporter on TV and the back of the interviewees head as he speaks I know that there has been a cut and edit in the sequence to join 2 disconnected statements together.

    The audio is seemless and the cut to the reporter is used to hide the edit since it would be obvious if the cut included the interviewee. Why not show the cut and see that the 2 statements are seperate? Why do they need to hide this?

    It is to make it appear that something was said that in reality was spoken at different times with the preceding and following context cut out. Fox uses this technique so Fox is also obfuscating its reporting and removing what in all likelyhood is important context.

    It is, after all, all about ratings and eyeballs not about objectivity and impartiality.

    To me it is like saying Fox is better than NPR is like sying my daughter in high school is a little bit pregnant but your daughter is very pregnant making you a worse father than me. They are both still pregnant and the better/worse senitiment counts for little when you strip away the preconceptions and labels.

    The really sad thing is that with the age of the internet it is so easy to go and get other viewpoints and often get to original source documents and press releases to find out what was actually said.
  11. ravinraven

    ravinraven Well-Known Member

    Sorry, folks

    I didn't realize that O'Reilly made this whole thing up. I've just been so lost for a reliable news source since Dan Rather departed, that I fell for him.

    I wonder what it cost him to get those two guys to talk about it on his show, And how in the world did he get it onto Boortz. Boortz hates him.

    I do love to mention O'Reilly and see how many immediately drop the topic and start bashing Sweet Old Bill. S.O.B. does mean Sweet Old Bill, doesn't it?

    Thanks for helping me get my jollies for the day. There ain't a lot going on around here and it's too cold to mow the lawn.

  12. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

  13. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    true. All news reporting has some bias. Some media outlets, however, go out of their way to insert bias. Fox makes an effort to reduce it.

    Maybe, maybe not. Some interviews (higher budget) are shot with 2 or more cameras.
  14. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Amazing how FOX is biased because they are less leftist than the competition. I suppose this does indiate they are biased AND I suppose it does indicate their bias is somewhat less than, say, NPR. They lean only slightly left, as opposed to requiring a prop to keep from falling over...
  15. roscoe

    roscoe Well-Known Member

    Ha ha ha! You think Amnesty International has a crack suicide squad for just such tasks? Holy cow, you really gotta employ better critical faculties than that.

    Yeah, I can just see the Amnesty International tactical kidnapping squad pulling balaclavas on, adjusting night-vision goggles, sharpening their Cold Steel RRK knives, filling the magazines of their MP5s, while they listen to Terri Gross on NPR.
  16. Waitone

    Waitone Well-Known Member

    No, but I can see Interpol working with other international LE groups to pull our guys into the World Court. . . . .kinda like they threatened with Rumsfeld.
  17. Gung-Ho

    Gung-Ho member

    What you have to understand is the fact that the "Thin Blue Line" here is just going through withdrawals over losing Dan Rather. :D Personally after watching network news for years and seeing how they needed to be propped up to keep from falling to the left, O'Rielly is like a fresh breeze.
  18. slowworm

    slowworm Well-Known Member

    Depends if you want accurate news or entertainment.
  19. HankB

    HankB Well-Known Member

    It burns me up when a biased source like Fox is regarded as "news."

    Don't any of you Fox defenders remember late last year when their prime-time news anchor was using forged documents from a dead man in his attempt to influence a presidential election? Or the time their main news anchor ran stories about exploding GM pickup trucks, while neatly omitting mention of the bomb the network's testers had rigged the truck with? Back in '94, the same anchor ran stories - repeatedly! - about the semi-auto ban, while showing film of machineguns being fired. And then after the Dems lost 50+ seats in the House, the Canuck anchoring the news went on the air and chided the voters for behaving like children throwing a tantrum.

    No network that tolerates this ought to be dignified with the word "news" in its programming.

    (Eh . .. what's that? These stories weren't on Fox, but came from CBS, NBC, and ABC with Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings respectively? Mmmm . . . that's very different.)

    Never mind.

    +1 on that.
  20. Rebar

    Rebar member

    O'Rielly is correct:

    To call America's prisons the "the gulag of our time" is utterly rediculous. There are real gulags in the world, like in China and North Korea, where hundreds of thousands are unjustly imprisoned and worked to death:
    They both execute thousands each year, for the most trivial reasons. Or no reason, the North Koreans imprison everyone in a family, out to three generations, for a supposed crime by one member, and very few survive their terms.

    For Amnesty International to accuse America of this level of abuse and murder, destroys their credibility. It's an obvious ploy by the left-wing moonbats running it to smear Bush and his policies. It also gives a propaganda coup to the islamofacists, which in turn will increase the danger to our servicepeople, and to Iraqi and Afgani civilians.

    So yes, I would say that Amnesty International has indeed declared war on America.

Share This Page