WMD Attack Thwarted in Jordan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bountyhunter when you say Fox is 100% unreliable or 100% false you make yourself sound like an idiot. Even Bill Clinton wasn't 100% wrong.
Click to expand...
Ad Hominem, the ultimate refuge of the mentally unarmed.

So you say a news agency who reports MAJOR news stories as fact only to find they were duped..... never prints a retraction, simply makes those "naughty" archive pages disappear.... gets ridiculed by other news sources for their blind stupidity induced by rush to print anything complimentary to Bush...... is a good news source and I am an idiot?

Your post speaks for itself, as does FOX news and their complete lack of both objectivity and credibility in the matter of evaluating reports. Actually, they simply adopted the "Bush Model" of reality: He said to his people: "I know Hussein is behind Al Qaeda and 9/11, so bring me all the proof that fits this and do not confuse me with the facts." FOX's approach is: "We know Bush is right, so print anything complimentary to him and don't bother to check the facts."

Whatever floats your boat. You could get more reliable info from a ouija board.
 
Well then this story can't be true. So why wont Kerry release his records?
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight: the people who support the man who spent all of the Viet nam war drinking beer in Alabama.... who steadfastly refused many requests to answer questions about his alleged guard service...... who slanders Kerry as an anti-war peacenik..... is now pouncing on him for not turning over all of his military records?

I have to say one thing: conversing with Republicans is usually depressing, but it never fails to be entertaining.

Sorry for the interruption: please go back to your slandering of the man who was sneaky enough to go to Viet nam and earn three purple hearts just so he could lie about them in a political campaign 30 years into the future. I'll just listen and try not to laugh out loud.......
 
Purple Heart Awards:

"Besides the citations and certificates posted on the Internet, Kerry's campaign provided The Associated Press with declassified reports that briefly explain the injuries that led to Kerry's final two Purple Heart awards.

They show Kerry had shrapnel wounds in his left thigh after his boat came under intense fire on Feb. 20, 1969, and he suffered shrapnel wounds in his left buttock and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close to his boat on March 13, 1969."

Hit with shrapnel on two different occasions. What a faker. A real man could have just walked it off. If GWB were there, he wouldn't even have FELT the pain..... of course, that's because by his own admission, he was a heavy drinker in those days and would have probably been s--tfaced..
 
Wait a minute...bounty, are you actually arguing for Kerry as a gun owner?
Click to expand...
I actually appreciate the reply because even you can look at it and see what you wrote proves my point:

I simply downloaded a direct quote from FOX news (the Bush friendly center for all GOP-approved propoganda) and was immediately accused of campaigning for Kerry.

The truth is what it is, I just reprinted it. FOX quoted it off another site and it appears to be true... that's amazing in many respects, but even a blind hog stumbles across a truffle every now and then.

I am NOT campaigning for Kerry. I wish there was anybody else who had a chance of beating Bush. But the truth is what it is, and I just printed it. Not every person who speaks a truth which makes Bush look bad is automatically campaigning for Kerry: if so, he would have several billion campaign workers on his staff. I just think it is genuinely laughable that the campaign staff of a man who ducked war service (however you want to slice that one) is attacking a man who served because ONE of the THREE purple hearts he won may have been for a wound which was not serious.... meaning only two of his wounds were "legitimate".

step back and look, and even you will find that to be laughable, desperate, and pathetic in and of itself.
 
bountyhunter is KERRYLUUUVER!!!:neener:

Hey brother, it's the same thing with me: I wish anyone else besides Kerry was going against Bush and I don't know who to pick from as I see both choices as weak.
 
That is enough. Everybody shut up. Moderator hat on. I'm getting sick and tired of this BS thread drift. Go back to the point of this thread or I'm going to start busting heads. Got it?

I'm sick and tired of every single thread in L&P turning into a Bush vs. Kerry thread. The topic at hand is about terrorists in Jordan.
 
bountyhunter, slow down and think for a moment: If I tell you something that fits your worldview and you believe it's true, and then repeat what was said--and it turns out to have been false, are you, yourself, then a liar and 100% unreliable? If I had believed it at the time of my telling, would I have been a liar?

As a generality, the difference between Fox News and the others is that Fox is willing call their editorializing "opinion", as with O'Reilly and Hannity or others. They separate this from their straight news reporting, certainly at least most of the time. That's a heckuva lot better than CNN or the Big Three networks where the least that can be said that their slant is statist.

Separately, in the FWIW department, check out htp://www.fredoneverything.net and the current diatribe about the media. :D

Art
 
So, for the record (if you don't consider it rude)...you are NOT for Kerry?
Click to expand...
Here is what I have posted about John Kerry:

1) I believe the Democrats have managed to nominate the one man who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

2) I could walk on any city bus and find people I would rather make president than Kerry.

3) I think Kerry has no chance of winning.

4) I am going to hold my nose and vote for Kerry because I believe it is essential we get Bush out of the white house while this world still has a small chance of being salvaged. Kerry is a poor chice, but he is better than the disaster we have now.
 
From Moderator Correia:
That is enough. Everybody shut up. Moderator hat on. I'm getting sick and tired of this BS thread drift. Go back to the point of this thread or I'm going to start busting heads. Got it?
Click to expand...

From moderator Art Eatman:
If I tell you something that fits your worldview and you believe it's true, and then repeat what was said--and it turns out to have been false, are you, yourself, then a liar and 100% unreliable?
Click to expand...
OK, I'll respond to the second moderator even though it contradicts the first modertor because I was asked a direct question by the second moderator which was specifically addressed to me:

If a person repeats in good faith something they believe is true, they are not a liar. A news agency is held to a higher standard because millions of people use them as a source for information. They are supposed to take steps to verify stories and the one in question would have been easy to sniff out as BS. A major nuclear development facility discovered in Iraq is lierally front page news the world over... it's not a minor story. And when a legitimate agency inadvertently prints false information, they rectify it by printing a correction.... they don't just pretend it never happened. My point was that FOX has a track record for posting stories which, if true, would be front page news and yet nobody else is printing them... and the reason is, they were bogus stories.

Period.

And, FYI: I remember the fake nuclear facility story vividly because the local gang of Bushniks at Glock talk sounded the trumpets for it, administered "I told You So's" all around, specifically calling out people by name for special humiliation for having the nerve to question the truth of Iraq's "nuclear program" (I took countless salvos of incoming artillery)..... and then the story caved in. When that story evaporated and blew away as a total fabrication, some of them were so embarrassed, they never came back.......
 
The topic at hand is about terrorists in Jordan.
Click to expand...

Not anymore. It turns out that Fox broke the story, thus making it untrue. I understand that in Fox news reports from Jordan, the sky appeared to be blue. Because this aired on Fox, it cannot be so. It seems that the sky really is purple, not only where bountyhunter lives, but in Jordan as well.

:evil:
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The topic at hand is about terrorists in Jordan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not anymore. It turns out that Fox broke the story, thus making it untrue. I understand that in Fox news reports from Jordan, the sky appeared to be blue. Because this aired on Fox, it cannot be so. It seems that the sky really is purple, not only where bountyhunter lives, but in Jordan as well.
Click to expand...
You seem to have fallen back to the position of absurd ridicule because your gun is empty, so perhaps you can break with tradition and make a statement to point:

If the story is true, why are no other news carriers running it?

Are we to believe that a story about discovering the location of WMD's the administration has been searching for this entire year would not be a story of interest?

Are we to accept that my statement (and accompanying proof) that FOX has run other "smoking gun" stories in the past which were not carried by any other major agencies for the simple reason they were without substance should be dismissed because of some idiotic statement about purple sky?

Please answer the question: IF THE STORY IS TRUE, WHY HAS NO ONE ELSE GIVEN IT EVEN FIVE SECONDS OF COVERAGE?

If your answer has something in it about the rings of Saturn or the moons of Jupiter, please adjust your tinfoil hat and carry on.
 
This thread is about Jordan, not about Fox News. That Fox has coverage is incidental. The BBC, a week ago, ran a story about the arrests which averted the terrorists' proposed act.
Click to expand...
I thought the question about the TRUTHFULLNESS of the story itself was certainly relevant to the discussion, since if it is fake, then the story is worthless. The FOX news information is relevant to it's credibility (lack thereof), but the overall question remains: how come this is not in our news?

I appreciate you printing the link to the BBC, but it does not answer the question: if this is a true story, why has it received no coverage by any major news carrier?

This is an important question becauseof the single nebulous reference in the article:

"Al-Qaeda suspicions

The king did not specify the name of the group involved. But the US state department attributes the plot to al-Qaeda."

Has actually been blown full of hot air and pumped up to be used as proof that Saddam's WMD's were transported into Syria, then provided to Al qaeda, which "proves" Iraq supported Al Qaeda, blah, blah, blah.

The story doesn't say anything like that, and I again ask the question:

If there is anything to this story, it certainly is interesting that no one in the White House has even mentioned that they have found WMD's in the hands of Al Qaeda. Since that is what Bush said the war in Iraq was necessary to stop.....
 
bountyhunter, use your own nickel and call up ABC et al and ask. I just really doubt anybody here has the first sign of a clue about the "why" of your question.

Nuff.

Lights out.

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Hussein Supporting Al Qaida
Replies
1
Views
368
Betty
B
T
  • Locked
Associate of Al Qaeda-Linked Fugitive Caught in Baghdad
Replies
0
Views
276
TheeBadOne
T
M
  • Locked
10 Terrorist plots thwarted by US
Replies
23
Views
750
ravencon
R
Master Blaster
  • Locked
Columbia Busts Middle easterners making fake passports
Replies
0
Views
308
Master Blaster
Master Blaster
R
  • Locked
Putin lied too?!?!?!?!?
Replies
3
Views
482
SIGarmed
S
Back
Top