Why is the anti-everything crowd so slow to post this kind of news?

[PaceAdvantage]

They would be SO QUICK to post this if it was an article detailing any kind of STRENGTHENING OF AL QAEDA, but they are MUM when it comes to articles which claim a WEAKENING of the terrorist network.....how odd! Perhaps this article was not included among the daily MoveOn.Org talking points.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pentagon.al.qaeda/index.html


Pentagon: Bin Laden deputy complains about money, Iraq tactics

U.S. says it obtained intercepted letter

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intercepted letter from Osama bin Laden's deputy to the al Qaeda leader in Iraq complains that the terrorist network is short of cash and faces defeat in Afghanistan, a Pentagon spokesman says.

[ljb]

Don't really know who you are talking about with the anti-everything crowd title. But just let me say I am very glad to see that al queda is running out of money.

[DJofSD]

Well, PA, you know that answer to that question.

The media is no longer a news reporting functionary. They're a propaganda machine. It's filled with people that are biased, lack objectivity and truly believe that the ends justifies the means.

It use to be 'only believe half of what you read.' That was when there was real reporting going on. Now that there is no longer any ethics or morallity guiding the news machines, it is never believe anything you read and raise serious questions about what is missing in the political so called new analysis. More often, as you posted, it is what is not showing up in the reporting that is important.

DJofSD

[DJofSD]

There was a short news item in the L. A. Times that Al Qaeda was to have posted a want ad on the internet to find some help maintaining their web site. But there wasn't any link or confirmation.

DJofSD

[Suff]

Well, PA, you know that answer to that question.

The media is no longer a news reporting functionary. They're a propaganda machine. It's filled with people that are biased, lack objectivity and truly believe that the ends justifies the means.
DJofSD

Any single piece of information , on any single subject your interested in , is available to you. In today's day and age of Satelite, Cable, and the Internet, no one can plausiably claim they are denied access to anything.


Your paragraph sounds puppeted, from a news source attemting to steer viewers to thier station. It's a marketing line. Anyone that thinks they are shortened by limited access to information is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

[DJofSD]

Suff, you right, there are any number of different avenues for ferreting out items. But you need to know what you're looking for to be able to find it. Would I at any given moment think to see if terrorist organizations are having cash flow problems? Probably not.

I'm not sure if I understand the "puppeted" comment. Here's an example of what I meant. The local newspaper in San Diego is the Union-Tribune. One of the big stories of the last two to three years is the fiancial collapse of the City of San Diego. The unfunded pension liability is over a billion, yes with a "B", dollars. Only until recently have the substantial facts been covered by the local reporters. I've been getting more information from the LA Times. Why is that?

DJofSD

[Suff]

.

I'm not sure if I understand the "puppeted" comment. Here's an example of what I meant. The local newspaper in San Diego is the Union-Tribune. One of the big stories of the last two to three years is the fiancial collapse of the City of San Diego. The unfunded pension liability is over a billion, yes with a "B", dollars. Only until recently have the substantial facts been covered by the local reporters. I've been getting more information from the LA Times. Why is that?

DJofSD

Growing up in Boston we had 7 daily news papers. Most of them had two editions per day.....morning and evening. Two of them, The Herald Traveler, and The Boston Globe had 3! Daily Editions. All The papers were bias'd to some degree. That is what Media is or was. Whoever told anyone the lie that News Papers were obligated to be all things to all people? Its a myth that ANY MEDIA is unbias'd. Nor are they obligated to be.

If anyone has any gripe with limited access to Media/News/Info it is with the FCC. They altered the Landscape that allowed Corporations to own multiple TV, Radio and print Publications in the Same Market. Previous rules in place limited Media ownership as to insure a variety of opinions on news.

One conservative theme I frequently hear is don't wait for Uncle Sam to do for you. I have that same mantra for news consumers. Do not sit back and wait for media to do for you. If your interested in your world, go seek out the information you need. Between your Local Library and C-span you'll get all the unbiased information you want. Anything else one requires can be found in an hour with Google.

[Suff]

They would be SO QUICK to post this if it was an article detailing any kind of STRENGTHENING OF AL QAEDA, but they are MUM when it comes to articles which claim a WEAKENING of the terrorist network.....how odd! Perhaps this article was not included among the daily MoveOn.Org talking points.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pentagon.al.qaeda/index.html

[size=4]



I'm puzzled why you use your Poltical adversaries platform to launch your posts.

Are you suggesting that Pace Advantage users that Post news that leans in one direction are under some sort of obligation to post news leaning the other way when they find it? Are you lobbying for socialistic Posting rules?

I read this piece. If its accurate, its great news. However, I had what I think is a reasonable question. If we intercepted a letter that we know the Originator, and the Destination, then would'nt that indicate we know where both people are? Or potentially now do?. If we are sure sure it came from A and was going to B........ that raises that point.

[kenwoodallpromos]

On the surface it sounds like good news, but I will study it slowly and post a proper response sometime later.

[Tom]

Coincidence that Walter Cronkite just said the the American people are basically to stupid to elect the right candicates and he was worried about our future.

What a dirt bag! What a POS! What a totally irelevant, out-dated, biased geezer. I thought he was dead, and here he is verbally farting on TV still.
Walter, you dipstick, With all the republicans winning every election, and dems looking like idiots at every turn no wonder an ancient idiot like you would think that. No one listens to the usless news readers anymore. We have outgrown the likes of you, you lying little weasel. You had your day and we wised up. Dan Rather can tell you all about it in the nursing home, where you can go park your walker and wait to assume room temperature, you disgusting jerk.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm puzzled why you use your Poltical adversaries platform to launch your posts.

Are you suggesting that Pace Advantage users that Post news that leans in one direction are under some sort of obligation to post news leaning the other way when they find it? Are you lobbying for socialistic Posting rules?

Not at all. They can continue to post anyway they damn well please, provided they follow the basic rule of the land, which is spelled out in the user agreement presented upon registration.

I was just presenting my own personal observations and thoughts for consumption by the masses.

[NoDayJob]

Coincidence that Walter Cronkite just said the the American people are basically too stupid to elect the right candicates and he was worried about our future. No one listens to the usless news readers anymore. We have outgrown the likes of you, you lying little weasel. You had your day and we wised up. Dan Rather can tell you all about it in the nursing home, where you can go park your walker and wait to assume room temperature, you disgusting jerk.

:D Walter Crankcase has been running three quarts low for years. Wally, it's time to change your oil, your filter and lubricate your brain before it freezes up. :D

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

[boxcar]

Any single piece of information , on any single subject your interested in , is available to you. In today's day and age of Satelite, Cable, and the Internet, no one can plausiably claim they are denied access to anything.


Your paragraph sounds puppeted, from a news source attemting to steer viewers to thier station. It's a marketing line. Anyone that thinks they are shortened by limited access to information is intellectually dishonest and lazy.

This kind of explanation truly begs the question, though. In fact, it's a downright lame excuse for not only the media shirking its responsibility to the public, but at the same time such an explanation attempts to justify
the media's lies by omission -- its cover-ups.

While it is true that we live in the "information age", and that just about any "single piece of information or any single subject" can be found on the internet (assuming one has access to the web, which most poor people do not), why does the public have the responsibility for unearthing its own news -- things of particular interest to us? Threre was a time when the news media (especially the printed type) would present us with the news. The media would do all the legwork, searching and digging and then present the public with what they thought were newsworthy items. But that era is gone -- probably for good.

Your argument also assumes that the public is clairvoyant and knows just what specific pieces of news are out there; otherwise how would we be able to conduct intelligent, efficient and effective searches on the web? Merely conducting a broad search for all Al Queda- related news items, for example, would not represent an efficient and time-effective way of digging out this particular story. One could spend hours searching before coming across a story like this -- if at all!

The induspatable fact is that the mainstream media is truly in the propaganda biz. It will and often does present slanted news, even fabricate its own news, and conceal news to advance its own agenda. The news media is much more in the business of manipulating and shaping public opinion than it is in reporting hard news, i.e. facts.

Assuming this is a truthful article, why would the mainstream media "overlook" a story like this? Is it it because it's not newsworthy? Or is it because the story smacks of too much good news for the "war on terror"? That the story (at least by implication) would have to give too much credit to the Bush adminsistration for winning the war? The mainstream media would be loathe to publish anything that would contribute to these kinds of public conclusions.
The media, therefore, would not heistate to cover up a story like this.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Growing up in Boston we had 7 daily news papers. Most of them had two editions per day.....morning and evening. Two of them, The Herald Traveler, and The Boston Globe had 3! Daily Editions. All The papers were bias'd to some degree. That is what Media is or was. Whoever told anyone the lie that News Papers were obligated to be all things to all people? Its a myth that ANY MEDIA is unbias'd. Nor are they obligated to be.

I believe the media itself believes it's not obligated to present news truthfully or factually. But I betcha this isn't what students are taught in their journalistic ethics classes. (Or has that course been dropped from the curriculum?)

But I'm glad to see that you're in agreement with me that the media is in the propaganda business, and that's it primary goal is to manipulate and shape public opinion.

Boxcar

[Tom]

:D Walter Crankcase has been running three quarts low for years. Wally, it's time to change your oil, your filter and lubricate your brain before it freezes up. :D

NDJ [AKA Troll #1]

If they ever re-make the Wizzard of Oz, he could play the scarecrow (If only I had a brain!)

[DJofSD]

Now that we have the scarecrow, who else will play the other characters?

Don't forget the farmhands.

DJofSD

[PaceAdvantage]

Assuming this is a truthful article, why would the mainstream media "overlook" a story like this?

The mainstream media DIDN'T overlook this story...certain folks on this board DID! Folks who LOVE to post articles about the war in Iraq and the war on terror, OVERLOOKED this story! That was my point.

This story was on the front page of CNN.COM, and I assume, reported on CNN TV. They are considered mainstream media, are they not?

[kingfin66]

Don't really know who you are talking about with the anti-everything crowd title. But just let me say I am very glad to see that al queda is running out of money.

Now if only they could run out of martyrs too!

[Bubbles]

.

I believe the media itself believes it's not obligated to present news truthfully or factually. But I betcha this isn't what students are taught in their journalistic ethics classes. (Or has that course been dropped from the curriculum?)

But I'm glad to see that you're in agreement with me that the media is in the propaganda business, and that's it primary goal is to manipulate and shape public opinion.

Boxcar

Darned right it isn't what we learn, lol. Although I doubt it is the PRIMARY goal. Every news organization's job is to report news. Nothing beyond that. What they do BEYOND reporting news, like what you're saying, that's secondary. Granted, this is a high school senior talking, but that's a key principle learned in our studio every morning.

[46zilzal]

Did you know that the Tin Woodsman was originally the good good old Beverly Hillbilly Buddy Ebsen (spelling?) for the first few weeks of production until he came out with a terrible allergy to the silver make-up and had to be replaced with Jack Hailey?

[DJofSD]

Every news organization's job is to report news.

Nope. Their job is to generate advertizing revenue - bucks.

DJofSD

[Tom]

Now that we have the scarecrow, who else will play the other characters?

Don't forget the farmhands.

DJofSD

Dorothy - George Bush
Toto - Barney
The guy at the gate of the Emerald City - Gilbert Godfried
Wicked Witch of the Wast - Hillary
Wicked Witch of the East - Helen Thomas
Lollypop Kids - Kerry/Kennedy
Mayor of Munchkinville - Chris Mathews
The Wizzard (Big One) - The Great Eye - Suaron
The man behind the curtain - Karl Rove
The monkey who said "You Killed her!" - ME!
The cowardly Lion - Jacques Chirac
The Tin Man - John kerry in a dual role

[highnote]

Coincidence that Walter Cronkite just said the the American people are basically to stupid to elect the right candicates and he was worried about our future.


He may have a point. Who was the last really good president we elected? Eisenhower? Lincoln? Jefferson?Washington?

I'm not saying these were the best. I'm just asking who was the last really great one.

W is certainly not at the top of the list. If not for his family being in politics for the 50 or 100 years, would he have been elected? I seriously doubt it.
Clinton -- definately not one of the best. But he did it on his own.
W sr. - couldn't even beat an unknown Clinton for re-election.
Reagan -- Good looks and the ability to read a teleprompter got him elected.
Carter -- couldn't get re-elected
Ford -- president by default
Nixon - Brilliant, but a crook
Johnson -- didn't run for re-election
Kennedy -- didn't get a chance to prove himself
Ike -- maybe the last good one?

These are the presidents of my lifetime. So I'm not too familiar with any before these.

Thoughts?

[Tom]

John, the recent presients represent more the low intelligence of the two parities that of the voters. We only get two, maybe three selections that have any real chance. If the best of those is a drooling idiot, it is not my fault.

I am against political parties as I see no benefits whatsoever from them. They are a breeding grounds for corruption and incompetance. The worst thing you could ever call me is either a democrate or a republican. Two sides of the same conterfiet coin, IMHYOCO.:rolleyes:

[highnote]

John, the recent presients represent more the low intelligence of the two parities that of the voters. We only get two, maybe three selections that have any real chance. If the best of those is a drooling idiot, it is not my fault.

I am against political parties as I see no benefits whatsoever from them. They are a breeding grounds for corruption and incompetance. The worst thing you could ever call me is either a democrate or a republican. Two sides of the same conterfiet coin, IMHYOCO.:rolleyes:

I hear what you're saying and agree. I should probably be registered as an independent and I might. My views are closer to the Pope John Paul than with either party. The Pope would probably be an independent, too. But that's another thread.

Ross Perot probably would have won had he not withdrawn and then re-entered the race. I still don't know why he withdrew. Maybe it was fear of success?

The American people were probably right to make Perot the front-runner. We ended up dumping Bush Sr. and got Clinton instead. So the American voters are smart enough to elect the right candidate based on the available information. The problem is, the available information is not always the complete set of information and it is not always correct or true information.

If American's have one fault, it is that they are willing to trust the information put before them. American's are honest and expect the same from their politicians. Problem is, politicians would rather lie and decieve than lose an election.

That's the problem with the human race. We don't live long enough to learn from experience. So each generation keeps making the same mistakes.

DISCLAIMER: I'm thinking out loud, so you can take this all with a grain of salt.

[46zilzal]

Nixon - Brilliant, but a crook
Johnson -- didn't run for re-election
Kennedy -- didn't get a chance to prove himself
Ike -- maybe the last good one?

Brilliant?? Milhous?? He HELD the record for WORST a long time ahead of Warren G. Harding but there is a NEW successor to that title out there working HARD to become number one.

[highnote]

OK. So maybe "brilliant" was an overstatement. But not too much. Nixon was obviously a very intelligent individual. Just like Clinton is very intelligent.

I'm not a Nixon fan and certainly didn't agree with his politics. But at least he had some brains between his ears.

Like other brilliant people, brilliant presidents are still human. Humans sometimes make really dumb decisions and do really stupid things. Or maybe it's not that they do stupid things... it's that they get caught. Perhaps some of the things they do that seem stupid after the fact, actually make sense on some level at the time they do it.

I mean, if you're the president then getting caught getting head in the oval office is much worse than actually getting head in the oval office. You know, really, who gives a shit except a bunch of uptight envious old men?

In fact, this quote from H.G. Wells makes a lot of sense, "Righteous indignation can be traced to envy."

[46zilzal]

By Firouz Sedarat / Reuters

Al Qaeda's wing in Iraq on Thursday rejected as a fabrication a letter by a top group leader that was issued by U.S. officials and suggested deep internal rifts among militants.

According to the letter, released this week by U.S. intelligence officials, al Qaeda's second in command Ayman al-Zawahri urged the group's leader in Iraq to prepare for an Islamic government to take over when U.S. forces leave.

The letter warns Zarqawi the killing of Shi'ite civilians and hostages risked alienating Sunnis at a time when al Qaeda in Iraq should be seeking support for a religious state.

[PaceAdvantage]

So then, which side is guilty of deliberate misinformation?

[46zilzal]

So then, which side is guilty of deliberate misinformation?
No idea