Credibility of Al-Jazeera

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-26 11:29pm

jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Don't be an ass jegs, you did post an opinion, I called you on it asking you to provide proof. And then you tried to pass off your opinion as that proof. Now you are claiming you did no such thing.
Eh, what? Okay, you seem to be talking yourself in circles. Let me expain... ah nevermind. Sure, you win. You're right. Go pat yourself on the back and give yourself a cookie.

jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Strombringer and jegs2

Darth Wong wrote:It would appear that everyone thinks they don't, since any information coming from Al-Jazeera is automatically ignored. So could anyone please present the evidence showing that Al-Jazeera habitually fabricates information?
Answer the man's question.
We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

And I will keep posting that until you get it through your considerably dense cerebrum that you intentionally lied in a vain effort to appease your ego.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 11:29pm

By interviewing a victim of the attack and letting him air his opinion? You're working pretty hard to justify your claim of factually inaccurate reporting.

No, their reporter portrayed it as a US attack. They did that while allowed the interviewee to say the same.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 11:30pm

Stormbringer wrote:
By interviewing a victim of the attack and letting him air his opinion? You're working pretty hard to justify your claim of factually inaccurate reporting.
No, their reporter portrayed it as a US attack. They did that while allowed the interviewee to say the same.

Please quote the words the reporter used in order to state that it was definitely deliberate.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:31pm

jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Don't be an ass jegs, you did post an opinion, I called you on it asking you to provide proof. And then you tried to pass off your opinion as that proof. Now you are claiming you did no such thing.
Eh, what? Okay, you seem to be talking yourself in circles. Let me expain... ah nevermind. Sure, you win. You're right. Go pat yourself on the back and give yourself a cookie.

Don't be so bitter, everyone loses a point every now and then. Everyone also has their points trodden into the dirt repeatedly as well. A select few even have their points smashed into the pavement by an angry mob.

I can proudly claim that all of these have happened to me. Deal with it and move on.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 11:31pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
By interviewing a victim of the attack and letting him air his opinion? You're working pretty hard to justify your claim of factually inaccurate reporting.
No, their reporter portrayed it as a US attack. They did that while allowed the interviewee to say the same.
Please quote the words the reporter used in order to state that it was definitely deliberate.

"US missle attack"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 11:33pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Please quote the words the reporter used in order to state that it was definitely deliberate.
"US missle attack"

In other words, it was not stated to be deliberate at all, and since it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that a US missile did the damage, you have failed to meet the criteria and attempted to substitute with an evasion and a nice dollop of sophistry. Better luck next time.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-26 11:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:In other words, it was not stated to be deliberate at all, and since it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that a US missile did the damage, you have failed to meet the criteria and attempted to substitute with an evasion and a nice dollop of sophistry. Better luck next time.

No, the rest of the peice established that. I'm hardly going to quote a whole TV peice word for word to you. If I had a tape I'd mail it to you but I don't.

Clearly you want to beleive the best of Al-Jezeera, fine. I'm not going to fight with you forever over it.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 11:42pm

weemadando wrote:Don't be so bitter, everyone loses a point every now and then. Everyone also has their points trodden into the dirt repeatedly as well. A select few even have their points smashed into the pavement by an angry mob.

Bitter? no. I had to do PT (that's "Physical Training" for you civilian types), and I ran a pretty good clip -- about a seven-minute mile -- and I wasn' t going to continue trying to beat my point into your head. But, you did earn that cookie, so you should go for it, but I'd recommend you conduct some PT afterward, so you don't transform into a "disgusting fatbody."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-26 11:51pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:In other words, it was not stated to be deliberate at all, and since it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion that a US missile did the damage, you have failed to meet the criteria and attempted to substitute with an evasion and a nice dollop of sophistry. Better luck next time.
No, the rest of the peice established that. I'm hardly going to quote a whole TV peice word for word to you. If I had a tape I'd mail it to you but I don't.

Yes, and the cheque is in the mail

Clearly you want to beleive the best of Al-Jezeera, fine. I'm not going to fight with you forever over it.

I had no idea that simply refraining from dismissing everything they say out of hand is "believing the best" of them.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-26 11:53pm

jegs2 wrote: Bitter? no. I had to do PT (that's "Physical Training" for you civilian types), and I ran a pretty good clip -- about a seven-minute mile -- and I wasn' t going to continue trying to beat my point into your head. But, you did earn that cookie, so you should go for it, but I'd recommend you conduct some PT afterward, so you don't transform into a "disgusting fatbody."

All too glad to, but unfortunately I sprained my AC joint at a rugby training last week.

Its good to see that you are so happy to resort to ad hominem attacks though.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-26 11:59pm

weemadando wrote:Its good to see that you are so happy to resort to ad hominem attacks though.

Well, if you see it that way, then fine. The point is that I stand by what I said, which was never in contention with Mike's question. But then you can lead a horse to water...

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-27 12:02am

jegs2 wrote:
weemadando wrote:Its good to see that you are so happy to resort to ad hominem attacks though.
Well, if you see it that way, then fine. The point is that I stand by what I said, which was never in contention with Mike's question. But then you can lead a horse to water...

Yes you can lead a horse to water, but you can also make a totally uncalled for attack on someone who is offering you a hand up.

How the hell else am I going to interpret the comment you made?

Anybody?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-27 12:02am

jegs2 wrote:
weemadando wrote:Its good to see that you are so happy to resort to ad hominem attacks though.
Well, if you see it that way, then fine. The point is that I stand by what I said, which was never in contention with Mike's question. But then you can lead a horse to water...

Denial, denial, denial.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 12:03am

Darth Wong wrote:Yes, and the cheque is in the mail

Yup. Good in 3003. I've provided the best evidence I can at the moment.

I had no idea that simply refraining from dismissing everything they say out of hand is "believing the best" of them.

No, but you sure have stretched my words to the breaking point to do that.

I've said I wouldn't dismiss everything they've said, a missle did hit that market place, but there bias leads them to air stories that are wrong. Treat 'em like FOX News I say, find back up for anything they say.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 12:03am

weemadando wrote: How the hell else am I going to interpret the comment you made?

Anybody?

What was so difficult to interpret? Do you just enjoy picking fights?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 12:03am

Crown wrote:Denial, denial, denial.

Who pulled your string? Pipe down, you.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-27 12:05am

jegs2 wrote:
weemadando wrote: How the hell else am I going to interpret the comment you made?

Anybody?
What was so difficult to interpret? Do you just enjoy picking fights?

It certainly would appear that you do.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-27 12:06am

jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Denial, denial, denial.
Who pulled your string? Pipe down, you.

I told you jegs, the more you persist in this eroneous endeavour, the more of an idiot you will appear to be. Admit that you posted an opinion, tried to pass it off as a fact, and that it was wrong to do so. Hell stick by your opinion if you want, I don't care. But what grates me is dishonesty.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 12:07am

jegs2 wrote: I will agree with Stormbringer in that Al-Jazeera places a pro-Arab slant on their news, omiting some facts that fit their agenda, and including facts and reports that support their agenda. It is no secret that the majority of the Arab world is anti-American, and so that bias will be reflected in reports by Al-Jazeera. Yes, the same can be said of US news agencies, especially in time of war, though to a lesser degree. Moreover, Al-Jazeera is allowed to freely roam Iraqi-held cities, and Iraqi officials lead them to show things that Iraqi officials want them to see, so their reporting will necessarily be through the Saddamite lens to some degree.

For the two who don't get it, that was my original post on this thread. Where was it that I said that they never report factual information. Read it carefully. I said that they skew their facts. Feel stupid now? Really, I did try to bow out gracefully, but you two just don't know when to quit...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-27 12:07am

Stormbringer wrote:No, but you sure have stretched my words to the breaking point to do that.

I've said I wouldn't dismiss everything they've said, a missle did hit that market place, but there bias leads them to air stories that are wrong. Treat 'em like FOX News I say, find back up for anything they say.

And when challenged to provide an example of one of these stories that is factually wrong, the best you could do was claim that the phrase "US missile attack" meant "the Americans deliberately targeted this marketplace".

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 12:08am

Crown wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Denial, denial, denial.
Who pulled your string? Pipe down, you.
I told you jegs, the more you persist in this eroneous endeavour, the more of an idiot you will appear to be. Admit that you posted an opinion, tried to pass it off as a fact, and that it was wrong to do so. Hell stick by your opinion if you want, I don't care. But what grates me is dishonesty.

See my last post -- I await your apology.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-27 12:11am

Darth Wong wrote:And when challenged to provide an example of one of these stories that is factually wrong, the best you could do was claim that the phrase "US missile attack" meant "the Americans deliberately targeted this marketplace".

No. I'm saying the entire peice which I can't quote word for word did that. And the fact is the US has denied firing any missles that could possibly have hit there.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-27 12:11am

jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Strombringer and jegs2

Darth Wong wrote:It would appear that everyone thinks they don't, since any information coming from Al-Jazeera is automatically ignored. So could anyone please present the evidence showing that Al-Jazeera habitually fabricates information?
Answer the man's question.
We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

jegs2 wrote:See my last post -- I await your apology.

Keep waiting.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-03-27 12:22am

so......... I get to post again:

Crown wrote:
jegs2 wrote:We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

jegs2 wrote:See my last post -- I await your apology.
Keep waiting.

Ah, you made my point nicely. Good work!

Heh, a nice aside to the lack of an edit button is that I can just keep posting the same thing until all formatting errors are eliminated, thus increasing the all-important post-count...

Eh eh eh. No

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-03-27 12:22am

Jegs, Mike asked for evidence, for the past two pages you have been vehemently arguing that all you posted was opinion (something lacking evidence), so now that I call you on the fact that you tried to pass it off as evidence here;

jegs2 wrote:
Crown wrote:Strombringer and jegs2

Darth Wong wrote:It would appear that everyone thinks they don't, since any information coming from Al-Jazeera is automatically ignored. So could anyone please present the evidence showing that Al-Jazeera habitually fabricates information?
Answer the man's question.
We both did. The facts are skewed to fit a political agenda. Therefore, they are not objective facts, but subjective propaganda. Which part of that didn't you understand?

Then you later issue a denial of ever doing any such thing. And now you are again claiming that your opinion is evidence. Make up your mind.