November 27, 2006
Bogus Source Cited in NBC 'Civil War' Decision
A transcript posted at lefty blog Think Progress quotes NBC as factoring in a story from now-discredited source Jamil Hussein about Sunni worshippers being burned alive as a major factor in NBC's decision to declare a "civil war" in Iraq [emphasis added]:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
The news from Iraq is becoming grimmer every day. Over the long holiday weekend bombings killed more than 200 people in a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad. And six Sunni men were doused with kerosene and burned alive. Shiite muslims are the majority, but Sunnis like Saddam Hussein ruled that country until the war. Now, the battle between Shiites and Sunnis has created a civil war in Iraq. Beginning this morning, MSNBC will refer to the fighting in Iraq as a civil war — a phrase the White House continues to resist. But after careful thought, MSNBC and NBC News decided over the weekend, the terminology is appropriate, as armed militarized factions fight for their own political agendas. We’ll have a lots more on the situation in Iraq and the decision to use the phrase, civil war.It's too bad that NBC and the rest of the mainstream media apparently haven't put much thought into validating sources and confirming their stories.
It's not just NBC. Since the Adnan Hajj/Reutersgate/fauxtography scandal during the Israeli/Hezbollah war led to grave questions about the current state of Western journalism, it has become increasingly obvious that there is something basically wrong with the way the major media companies are covering events in the Middle East.
Via Curt at Flopping Aces who has been continuously updating the story.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:33 PM
| Comments (24)
| Add Comment
Post contains 268 words, total size 2 kb.
1
It seems that none of the antique MSM outlets get their own 'news' nor do the verify anything. Everything you have read of heard from the MSM in the past three years is suspect at best and most likely total lies. They get their made up news from the enemy.
I don't see how anyone can trust anything that comes from the A (associated with terrorists) P, Roto Reuters (spend all of their time in the sewer) and certainly nothing that comes from or through the BBC. I now check the source on everything before I waste my time reading it. I cancelled my subscription to the Media General rag put out in this area. They print lies, get caught, but never print a correction.
Time to get rid of all of the phony news outlets and get some contacts in country or read a few dependable blogs if you want the truth.
I don't see how anyone can trust anything that comes from the A (associated with terrorists) P, Roto Reuters (spend all of their time in the sewer) and certainly nothing that comes from or through the BBC. I now check the source on everything before I waste my time reading it. I cancelled my subscription to the Media General rag put out in this area. They print lies, get caught, but never print a correction.
Time to get rid of all of the phony news outlets and get some contacts in country or read a few dependable blogs if you want the truth.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 27, 2006 11:43 PM (XXEg4)
Posted by: Speaking for the Choir at November 27, 2006 11:52 PM (HSkSw)
3
It's exactly as if the MSM had gotten all their news directly from Joseph Goebbels during WWII.
We're apparently going to have to make a decision soon about if freedom of the press should include allowing our MSM to sprew misleading and false information from made up or enemy sources?
Should we allow the so called news media to say absolutely anything they want and then refuse to name the source of that information?
Should spies against our own nation be able to use the NYTimes as a public dead drop for any secret that might cost American lives ans assist our enemies?
We're apparently going to have to make a decision soon about if freedom of the press should include allowing our MSM to sprew misleading and false information from made up or enemy sources?
Should we allow the so called news media to say absolutely anything they want and then refuse to name the source of that information?
Should spies against our own nation be able to use the NYTimes as a public dead drop for any secret that might cost American lives ans assist our enemies?
Posted by: Buzzy at November 28, 2006 12:58 AM (+sYX1)
4
"It's exactly as if the MSM had gotten all their news directly from Joseph Goebbels during WWII."
But isn't Rusty Shackleford the new Joseph Goebbles?
But isn't Rusty Shackleford the new Joseph Goebbles?
Posted by: salaam-alaikum at November 28, 2006 01:58 AM (NzayJ)
5
Yes, the situation will improve if the liberal media would just stop calling it a "civil war", even though the definition has been met for calling it that.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 28, 2006 06:47 AM (nohEa)
6
If you don't like how the news is being reported, change the channel.
Just watch the real "fair and balanced" news on Fox to get the real story.
Keep watching for the happy Iraq stories.
The situation is getting better every day, isn't it?
Why doesn't the MSM report it that way.
Must be because they have a liberal bias and want President Moron to fail, in Iraq, huh?
Just watch the real "fair and balanced" news on Fox to get the real story.
Keep watching for the happy Iraq stories.
The situation is getting better every day, isn't it?
Why doesn't the MSM report it that way.
Must be because they have a liberal bias and want President Moron to fail, in Iraq, huh?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 28, 2006 06:51 AM (nohEa)
7
Wow...how surprising. Puddledick
supports fake stories as long as they support his terrorist heroes.
Your not even a good troll anymore Pud. Your too predictable.
supports fake stories as long as they support his terrorist heroes.
Your not even a good troll anymore Pud. Your too predictable.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 08:37 AM (Sal3J)
8
civil , shmivel........... who cares? As
I recall, America had a civil war at least once, fought over righteous causes. Would puddlelick then say America failed, and was(is) doomed?
He(she) would, I would not. Sometimes wars within a sovereign nation are unavoidable and, in the end, bring peace. I say let all the vermin in Iraq kill each other. Then we can get somewhere.
I recall, America had a civil war at least once, fought over righteous causes. Would puddlelick then say America failed, and was(is) doomed?
He(she) would, I would not. Sometimes wars within a sovereign nation are unavoidable and, in the end, bring peace. I say let all the vermin in Iraq kill each other. Then we can get somewhere.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 28, 2006 09:31 AM (mRXax)
9
Why would someone know about www.gayrussianriver.com unless he had an interest in it? My interest is Bohemian club, Russian river. Only a few miles from your favorite place ( Fife's). Once again you wouldn't be allowed in the door. Check it out. Prick.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 28, 2006 09:37 AM (EZW8A)
10
even though the definition has been met for calling it that.
Oh give it up with the Leftwing propaganda.. The election is over already. Sectarian violence does not equal civil war as long as there is one government.
Oh give it up with the Leftwing propaganda.. The election is over already. Sectarian violence does not equal civil war as long as there is one government.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 28, 2006 10:54 AM (yJKSD)
11
Sectarian violence does not equal civil war as long as there is one government.
WEB Definition:
A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
============
It seem to me they can handle this one their own. Time to go home.
WEB Definition:
A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations.
============
It seem to me they can handle this one their own. Time to go home.
Posted by: No Fear at November 28, 2006 01:16 PM (ZQepB)
12
Sectarian violence does not equal civil war as long as there is one government.
WEB Definition:
A
war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for
international recognition of this status: the contestants must control
territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign
recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in
major military operations.
_____________________________________________
Seems to me (and I may be mistaken), that Iraq only fits two, at most, of these criteria.
Can someone else confirm this for me?
WEB Definition:
A
war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for
international recognition of this status: the contestants must control
territory, have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign
recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in
major military operations.
_____________________________________________
Seems to me (and I may be mistaken), that Iraq only fits two, at most, of these criteria.
Can someone else confirm this for me?
Posted by: Kelly at November 28, 2006 02:02 PM (2wtXk)
13
By control territory it means control it all the time. The terrorist
don't do this as they only control an area for a while until the Army
shows up.
They don't have a functioning government
Even Iran and Syria officially recognize the current Iraqi government
They only possess irregular forces that dress as civilians.
They rarely engage in major operations but have done so before.
don't do this as they only control an area for a while until the Army
shows up.
They don't have a functioning government
Even Iran and Syria officially recognize the current Iraqi government
They only possess irregular forces that dress as civilians.
They rarely engage in major operations but have done so before.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 04:46 PM (Sal3J)
14
There is no war in Iraq, civil or otherwise. Only a lying idiot would claim otherwise.
The closest thing to a war there is the Establishment Media's war against the mission in Iraq--which is also a war against the truth. All good leftists aid the war effort by disseminating the Big Lies as often as possible. Eventually, a lot of people come to believe them.
This is how the so called MsM put the Dhimmiecrats in office.
As uncle Vladimir used to say, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
The closest thing to a war there is the Establishment Media's war against the mission in Iraq--which is also a war against the truth. All good leftists aid the war effort by disseminating the Big Lies as often as possible. Eventually, a lot of people come to believe them.
This is how the so called MsM put the Dhimmiecrats in office.
As uncle Vladimir used to say, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 08:32 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Double Dees at November 28, 2006 09:54 PM (HSkSw)
16
Civil war in France:
"Stoned, beaten and insulted, their vehicles torched by crowds of
hostile youths, French police say they face an urban guerrilla war when
they enter the run-down neighborhoods that ring the major cities."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061127/lf_nm/france_police_dc
"Stoned, beaten and insulted, their vehicles torched by crowds of
hostile youths, French police say they face an urban guerrilla war when
they enter the run-down neighborhoods that ring the major cities."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061127/lf_nm/france_police_dc
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 28, 2006 11:06 PM (yJKSD)
17
Training Bra:
What do my "SERIOUS psychological issues" have to do with NBC citing a bogus source to validate its war on the truth?
Why do you use the width of your smelly feet as a screen name?
How much Kool-Aid did you drink today?
What do my "SERIOUS psychological issues" have to do with NBC citing a bogus source to validate its war on the truth?
Why do you use the width of your smelly feet as a screen name?
How much Kool-Aid did you drink today?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 11:44 PM (bLPT+)
18
"civil , shmivel........... who cares? As
I recall, America had a civil war at least once, fought over righteous causes. Would puddlelick then say America failed, and was(is) doomed?
He(she) would, I would not. Sometimes wars within a sovereign nation are unavoidable and, in the end, bring peace. I say let all the vermin in Iraq kill each other. Then we can get somewhere.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 28, 2006 09:31 AM"
And what, do tell, were the American civil war(s) and what were the noble causes for the American civil war(s)?
You just might want to go back and recheck your history (just don't use your history book from high school, assuming that you went to high school).
This should be interesting.
"Wow...how surprising. Puddledick
supports fake stories as long as they support his terrorist heroes.
Your not even a good troll anymore Pud. Your too predictable.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 08:37 AM "
Where are fake stories? You mean the ones that say that things are getting worse in Iraq?
Keep your TV tuned to Fox News and keep drinking the Kool-aide.
I recall, America had a civil war at least once, fought over righteous causes. Would puddlelick then say America failed, and was(is) doomed?
He(she) would, I would not. Sometimes wars within a sovereign nation are unavoidable and, in the end, bring peace. I say let all the vermin in Iraq kill each other. Then we can get somewhere.
Posted by: n.a. palm at November 28, 2006 09:31 AM"
And what, do tell, were the American civil war(s) and what were the noble causes for the American civil war(s)?
You just might want to go back and recheck your history (just don't use your history book from high school, assuming that you went to high school).
This should be interesting.
"Wow...how surprising. Puddledick
supports fake stories as long as they support his terrorist heroes.
Your not even a good troll anymore Pud. Your too predictable.
Posted by: Randman at November 28, 2006 08:37 AM "
Where are fake stories? You mean the ones that say that things are getting worse in Iraq?
Keep your TV tuned to Fox News and keep drinking the Kool-aide.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:39 PM (eLvC2)
19
Yep, there is no war in Iraq, civil or otherwise, because President Moron said so.
And he's never lied to us before, has he??
So what do you call the situation, in Iraq, that President Moron owns?
And he's never lied to us before, has he??
So what do you call the situation, in Iraq, that President Moron owns?
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 06:45 PM (eLvC2)
20
Since you don't like No Fear's definition of civil war, maybe you'll like this one better.
"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area.
Political scientists use two criteria:
1. the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy.
2. at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
Do you agree with this assessment, or would you like to argue with most political scientests that do?
So now we are all in agreement, huh?
Good. Next topic.
"A civil war is a war in which parties within the same culture, society or nationality fight for political power or control of an area.
Political scientists use two criteria:
1. the warring groups must be from the same country and fighting for control of the political center, control over a separatist state or to force a major change in policy.
2. at least 1,000 people must have been killed in total, with at least 100 from each side."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
Do you agree with this assessment, or would you like to argue with most political scientests that do?
So now we are all in agreement, huh?
Good. Next topic.
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 07:18 PM (2uSUl)
Posted by: PuddleDuck at November 29, 2006 07:22 PM (2uSUl)
22
The fighting in America can now officially be referred to as a civil war. NBC and the rest of the left are at war with the elected government and the truth.
On the local front, PiddleDork continues his barrage of lies against America and President Bush, but is soundly thrashed by Jawanese forces. According to sources close to Piddle, he earned his name when he accidentally emasculated himself while planting a faulty IED at Republican National Headquarters. He currently sings in an all girl choir, and spends weekends listening to Clay Aiken albums.
On the local front, PiddleDork continues his barrage of lies against America and President Bush, but is soundly thrashed by Jawanese forces. According to sources close to Piddle, he earned his name when he accidentally emasculated himself while planting a faulty IED at Republican National Headquarters. He currently sings in an all girl choir, and spends weekends listening to Clay Aiken albums.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 08:09 PM (bLPT+)
23
Jeff Bargholz
We are so close to a civil war in the US. By the standards accepted in the media, it wouldn't take much. There are lots of people who were ready to start something six years ago.
I actually have no idea how to prevent it at this point. I'm very depressed at this exact moment. Bringing home the troops in any dishonorable manner will only add to the tension.
It just seems to me that even the smart people are wasting their energy on distractions.
We really don't want civil war here. Who would such a conflict serve? Not America.
I overhear enough to believe this isn't just a paranoia thing.
Look at US history for more indications. Examine the period in politics, just prior to 'the war between the states'.
I'm done on this thread.
USA all the way!
We are so close to a civil war in the US. By the standards accepted in the media, it wouldn't take much. There are lots of people who were ready to start something six years ago.
I actually have no idea how to prevent it at this point. I'm very depressed at this exact moment. Bringing home the troops in any dishonorable manner will only add to the tension.
It just seems to me that even the smart people are wasting their energy on distractions.
We really don't want civil war here. Who would such a conflict serve? Not America.
I overhear enough to believe this isn't just a paranoia thing.
Look at US history for more indications. Examine the period in politics, just prior to 'the war between the states'.
I'm done on this thread.
USA all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at November 30, 2006 04:48 PM (2OHpj)
24
The sunnis should put the NBC peacock on thier fatwa or their menu
Posted by: sandpiper at December 03, 2006 11:53 PM (as4nC)
44kb generated in CPU 0.2229, elapsed 0.4945 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.4237 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.4237 seconds, 179 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
