- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Wheels on the bus go round and round: Benghazi
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:32 am to WheelRoute
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:32 am to WheelRoute
quote:I don't think the NYT has much credibility. NYT admits to liberal bias
I don't think anyone would claim the NYT is infallible, but to just dismiss anything they say as propaganda w/o a shred of evidence seems radical and unserious.
Why are you so willing to believe what they write? Is it because you want to believe?
1
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:33 am to dante
quote:
It wouldn't be the first time. NYT admits to pushing fabricated evidence.....
NYT bases a LOT of their articles on speculation and supposition
From Dec 2013 about this:
quote:
The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters.
And how would they know that exactly? Does the NYT have a terrorist dial-in number?
quote:
Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests.
quote:
Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.
There is a lot more to the timing of this arrest IMO. Does the CIA share any blame in this situation? I would think so to a certain extent.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:37 am to John McClane
An ongoing investigation indicates that there are negotiations currently going on to release Ahmed Abu Khattala in exchange for a bag of Doritos and a Kit Kat
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:41 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:40 am to Broke
quote:
...a bag of Doritos and a Kit Kat
Wait a second!
What kind of Doritos? And what size? Family size or Grab Bag?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:41 am to Scruffy
quote:
Their only evidence involves the term "reportedly" and unsubstantiated claims that this man supposedly said it was about the video.
"Reportedly" is the word used by the TPM reporter who is excerpting the story, not the NYT reporter. The NYT reporter says he has info from sources that say Khattala was motivated by the video. He balances that information by saying Khattala himself declined to point to the video as motivation in a subsequent interview following the attacks. This is solid reporting.
quote:
Why must I prove them wrong?
If you take issue w/ the report, you should explain yourself. You're disparaging someone's work: own up to it.
quote:
The second one most likely.
Most likely? What makes one more likely than the other? What makes either "likely" at all?
quote:
My beef is that I don't trust the government in many situations. Why should I trust them on this when their only evidence is "well, he told us that when we captured him"?
The government is not the one saying he told them this. That was independent reporting that the Times corroborated (edit: or it may be from their original story).
quote:
I've never seen you on this board before. Maybe you read it a good bit, I don't know, but it seems that you know nothing about my personal opinions in regards to this administration and our media in general.
Who cares? That information is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:43 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:42 am to Wolfhound45
Family size or Grab Bag?
Fun size.
Fun size.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:43 am to idlewatcher
wag the freakin dog! yay
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:44 am to Scruffy
quote:
To make claims that consist solely of "they said that he said" and assume that they are automatically true is naive at best.
The NYT isn't saying it's true! They're simply reporting the story! That's the information they were able to dig up. And there are very strict ethical and company-wide procedures in place for publishing quotes on background, from anonymous sources, etc.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:46 am to idlewatcher
quote:I can believe that the attack was planned and the video was used to rustle up some locals to provide a distraction / cover. If he told some locals that they were going to the consulate to protest the videos it doesn't really change anything.
But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video,
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:47 am to themunch
quote:
Fun size.
Bergdahled again.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:48 am to WheelRoute
quote:What sources? Who are they? Where did he meet them? How are they connected to this guy?
The NYT reporter says he has info from sources that say Khattala was motivated by the video.
quote:I'm taking issue with the concept of accepting a "a person told me that he said" statement as fact. Reporting it as fact without substantiating the claim is the issue.
If you take issue w/ the report, you should explain yourself. You're disparaging someone's work: own up to it.
Are we to automatically assume that all printed articles are true?
quote:I don't know this reporter personally, nor do I know his politics, so I won't jump to the position that he is using his column as an area to further his own personal agenda.
Most likely? What makes one more likely than the other? What makes either "likely" at all?
Now, due to the actions of this administration in regards to making statements which are occasionally untrue or releasing information all for the purpose of political gain, the idea that they are making a statement that cannot be disproven by us should be considered highly possible.
quote:So why did you bring it up initially by claiming that my personal opinion of the NYTs or Obama was affecting my judgement? I didn't bring up the apparently irrelevant information. You did.
Who cares? That information is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:51 am to dante
quote:
I don't think the NYT has much credibility. NYT admits to liberal bias
I find it somewhat hilarious that right after saying the NYT has little credibility you posted an inflammatory article in which your news organization of choice took a quote entirely out of context to create a clickbait headline.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:54 am to Wolfhound45
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:55 am to WheelRoute
Well, I just went and read the NT Times article. I'll admit that I was likely wrong in my assumptions.
The article posted by the OP is a crock of shite and the NYT article makes none of the claims stated.
I should do my research before I open my mouth.
The article posted by the OP is a crock of shite and the NYT article makes none of the claims stated.
I should do my research before I open my mouth.
quote:The only reference to the video. It is actually a very well written article.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 10:56 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:55 am to WheelRoute
quote:LINK
there are very strict ethical and company-wide procedures in place for publishing quotes on background, from anonymous sources, etc.
quote:Doesn't sound the NYT is following its own advice.
The committee’s 2004 report followed two damaging episodes at The Times: the flawed reporting in the run-up to the Iraq war and the dishonesty of the rogue reporter Jayson Blair. That report reminded journalists to use anonymous sources sparingly. The current stylebook puts it this way: “Anonymity is a last resort.”
quote:
After all, people don’t talk to The Times out of the goodness of their hearts; usually, they have an agenda.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 10:56 am to WheelRoute
Who invited the new guy?
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding
He told the people there why they were fighting. after the fact. ok
He was interviewed by whom and if so why the swat team has a secret mission to go get him? news flash WE GOT HIM. oh, and the reason HE did it all is the video or maybe not.
Do we turn him back over to the Libya government when the ploy is over.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding
quote:fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video,
a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told
quote:
according to people who heard him.
quote:
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador.
He told the people there why they were fighting. after the fact. ok
He was interviewed by whom and if so why the swat team has a secret mission to go get him? news flash WE GOT HIM. oh, and the reason HE did it all is the video or maybe not.
Do we turn him back over to the Libya government when the ploy is over.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 11:04 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:00 am to WheelRoute
quote:CNN did the interview with NYT editor. In the interview she admitted the NYT was liberal.
little credibility you posted an inflammatory article in which your news organization of choice took a quote entirely out of context to create a clickbait headline.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:00 am to Scruffy
quote:
The only reference to the video.
NYT Editor gonna NYT Editor.
Love these inflammatory headlines (which is all that is remembered) and then nothing (NADA) in the article that even remotely references the headline.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:01 am to Scruffy
quote:
What sources? Who are they? Where did he meet them? How are they connected to this guy?
So what you're basically saying is you have very little familiarity with reporting. I get it now.
quote:
I'm taking issue with the concept of accepting a "a person told me that he said" statement as fact
IT IS NOT BEING REPORTED AS FACT. The article clearly states "according to people who heard him." The only factual statement is that the reporter heard this story from other people. It is NOT that what these people said is the unvarnished truth. And the reporter goes on to say that Khattala has not corroborated those claims. How are you not understanding this?
quote:
I don't know this reporter personally, nor do I know his politics, so I won't jump to the position that he is using his column as an area to further his own personal agenda.
This is not how reporting works, Jesus Christ, man. You think an NYT reporter has free reign to say whatever the hell he wants in print w/ no oversight and no consequences, just b/c he votes a certain way?
quote:
the idea that they are making a statement that cannot be disproven by us should be considered highly possible.
What statement is the ADMINISTRATION making in this article? What information that is being reported comes directly from an administration source?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:02 am to themunch
quote:
Who invited the new guy?
Relax bro. He brought Doritos. Family size bag.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News