again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
It never did. Ever. News was never intended to be unbiased. That's all a myth. In the early days of the US, political parties had their own newspaper organs to advance their cause. Look at how we got into the Spanish-American war.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
that is simply not true ... if amnesty posts a story about syrian prisons ... you can read the footnotes to see their methodology ... you can see that it is very weak reporting ... when the same people jump on assad gassing his own people like they did in 2013 even though that was debunked - there is precedent and history ...
eventually the truth comes out ... this war has been going on for 6+ years ... so many accusations against assad have been factually proven to be false ... the whole white helmets thing ... the 7-year old twitter girl ... all those stories can be researched with objectivity ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
That's hopelessly naive to believe that bias doesn't infiltrate reporting and there was a time when that was more generally true. So Amnesty posts its methodology and you think it is weak. But then some other source posts theirs and you think it's more solid. How do you know the more solid one is intellectually honest? Maybe the 'weaker' one is the more accurate because they are more transparent?
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
That's hopelessly naive to believe that bias doesn't infiltrate reporting and there was a time when that was more generally true. So Amnesty posts its methodology and you think it is weak. But then some other source posts theirs and you think it's more solid. How do you know the more solid one is intellectually honest? Maybe the 'weaker' one is the more accurate because they are more transparent?
it's the definition of critical thinking ... it's how I know global warming is real and not ... by your accounts - no one knows if global is warming is real because no matter where you go there are biases ... that's simply not the case ... if that was true - there would be no such thing as truths ...
in your example - i would tell which is more believable based on the information provided me ... as objectively as possible ... i was a donor to amnesty for a good 20 years up until recently ... i emailed everyone and called them about their reporting on syria and i got nothing back ... so, it's not like I refuted amnesty's claims because it posted something I didn't like ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
The thing is people are reading about the topic, you just don't like their sources. It's fair to say try and find alternative news sources, but I think its pretty belittling to claim those reading about it on as you call it, MSM, are just lazy and pathetic.
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
It doesn't make sense that Tillerson would be saying, just earlier this week, that Syria should choose its leader AND regime change isn't in the cards. And then for the US later that week orchestrate a chemical attack. First, it's lunacy. Second, they are too incompetent to pull that off and third, the Tillerson comments make them appear to be unable to read the situation properly.
no one is implying the US orchestrated the chemical attack ... that isn't the case at all ... the US is supporting regime change in the area through funding of terrorist groups ... i'm not suggesting the US orchestrated the attack ... this is most likely a chemical weapons depot for al qaeda ...
I have a question that doesn't require any news publications or government statements:
If Al Qaeda has chemical weapons, why haven't they used chemical weapons in the past? Based on your knowledge of Al Qaeda and their brutal past, what would stop them from using a WMD?
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
The thing is people are reading about the topic, you just don't like their sources. It's fair to say try and find alternative news sources, but I think its pretty belittling to claim those reading about it on as you call it, MSM, are just lazy and pathetic.
do you also believe that there is no such thing as truth?
also ... i called using the excuse that there is no truth in reporting anywhere lazy and pathetic ... it's the basis of critical thinking ...
It doesn't make sense that Tillerson would be saying, just earlier this week, that Syria should choose its leader AND regime change isn't in the cards. And then for the US later that week orchestrate a chemical attack. First, it's lunacy. Second, they are too incompetent to pull that off and third, the Tillerson comments make them appear to be unable to read the situation properly.
no one is implying the US orchestrated the chemical attack ... that isn't the case at all ... the US is supporting regime change in the area through funding of terrorist groups ... i'm not suggesting the US orchestrated the attack ... this is most likely a chemical weapons depot for al qaeda ...
I have a question that doesn't require any news publications or government statements:
If Al Qaeda has chemical weapons, why haven't they used chemical weapons in the past? Based on your knowledge of Al Qaeda and their brutal past, what would stop them from using a WMD?
al qaeda AND ISIS have used chemical weapons ... but reporting that doesn't support regime change ... look up ISIS and chemical weapons in Syria ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Because maybe they were not "finally winning the war". The Arab states have banded together and have been pushing back against the Syrian/Iranian axis. Iran has spent a lot of money (Obama money) and lost a lot of fighters during this battle. The US has begun to back up the Arab states and Syria/Iran will run out of time.
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
That's hopelessly naive to believe that bias doesn't infiltrate reporting and there was a time when that was more generally true. So Amnesty posts its methodology and you think it is weak. But then some other source posts theirs and you think it's more solid. How do you know the more solid one is intellectually honest? Maybe the 'weaker' one is the more accurate because they are more transparent?
it's the definition of critical thinking ... it's how I know global warming is real and not ... by your accounts - no one knows if global is warming is real because no matter where you go there are biases ... that's simply not the case ... if that was true - there would be no such thing as truths ...
in your example - i would tell which is more believable based on the information provided me ... as objectively as possible ... i was a donor to amnesty for a good 20 years up until recently ... i emailed everyone and called them about their reporting on syria and i got nothing back ... so, it's not like I refuted amnesty's claims because it posted something I didn't like ...
I know you're mad about Amnesty not returning your complaints, but the fact that they didn't care about your money doesn't mean they are nefarious. It means it wasn't important to the the person that got the message.
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Because maybe they were not "finally winning the war". The Arab states have banded together and have been pushing back against the Syrian/Iranian axis. Iran has spent a lot of money (Obama money) and lost a lot of fighters during this battle. The US has begun to back up the Arab states and Syria/Iran will run out of time.
do you even know who syria the syrian gov't is fighting?
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
That's hopelessly naive to believe that bias doesn't infiltrate reporting and there was a time when that was more generally true. So Amnesty posts its methodology and you think it is weak. But then some other source posts theirs and you think it's more solid. How do you know the more solid one is intellectually honest? Maybe the 'weaker' one is the more accurate because they are more transparent?
it's the definition of critical thinking ... it's how I know global warming is real and not ... by your accounts - no one knows if global is warming is real because no matter where you go there are biases ... that's simply not the case ... if that was true - there would be no such thing as truths ...
in your example - i would tell which is more believable based on the information provided me ... as objectively as possible ... i was a donor to amnesty for a good 20 years up until recently ... i emailed everyone and called them about their reporting on syria and i got nothing back ... so, it's not like I refuted amnesty's claims because it posted something I didn't like ...
I know you're mad about Amnesty not returning your complaints, but the fact that they didn't care about your money doesn't mean they are nefarious. It means it wasn't important to the the person that got the message.
maybe ... that's possible ... it's just another piece that I use to come to my conclusions ... along with reading independent reports ... which despite what you may think, do exist ...
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
"Watch interviews of Assad"? Wow.
why wow? ... please explain ... can't wait to hear this ...
again ... why don't y'all spend the weekend and do some research and figure this thing out on your own ... read from all the sources ... see which ones have more evidence and facts to back up the claims ...
The problem here is that both sides will spin whatever evidence they have to make their point. There are zero publications you can read to achieve what you are advocating here. It all comes down to which sources you believe to be more accurate (which unfortunately is usually confirmation bias). The only way to know is to be on the ground. I know that I never believe jack shit about what a Russian publication says.
I was just about to say pretty much the same thing. everything has a source. everyone has their opinions on what sources are credible and which aren't, and it runs the gamut. everything is owned by someone, nothing is independent or non-partisan. it just doesn't exist anymore.
this is sad ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
gee, thanks. have a wonderful fucking day.
i'm sorry ... but what's going on in syria are massive crimes against humanity ... so, when I ask people to do a little bit of research so that they better understand the issue - all I get is that there is no way of finding out the truth there because everyone is biased .... do you know how frustrating that is to hear? ... the fucking terrorists groups there (al qaeda, isis, etc..) are using children in propoganda campaigns ... and no one is reporting the truth in western media ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
you didn't "strike a nerve". god I hate that passive agressive shit.
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
If all the past chemical attacks were done by the terrorists / rebels in hopes of pullling the west into action and the all failed .... why would the terrorists / rebels try doing it again after the White House indicated they were not going to interfere with Syria.
You would have to be a pretty stupid terrorist / rebel to think that would work.
But if your a brutal dictator that maybe didn't turn over all of your chemical weapons and just heard the White House say they were going to be hands off, I'd think that would be a good time to go shooting some chemical weapons.
uhhh ... this doesn't make any sense ... chemical attack just happened = US intervention ... so, your theory holds absolutely no water ...
Assad was testing a new leader and how Trump would respond. One week after Trump Administration say hands off and we have a chemical weapons attack. It makes sense. Water held.
you got to be kidding me ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
Once the body count goes past 400K, I don't think being endeared by your people is near the top of your to-do list. He has Russia backing him, ready to lie. Just tell the people he has under control that terrorist did it (like he is), so he isn't losing any shame to them.
if he's fighting al qaeda and isis - the last thing he needs is having his people turn on him ... gassing his own people is not only impossible because he has no chemical weapons - it is totally illogical ... watch interviews of assad - he is not some raging dictator lunatic trope ...
"Watch interviews of Assad"? Wow.
why wow? ... please explain ... can't wait to hear this ...
No. You please explain how you can fall for the refined talk of a lying murderous thug.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
eventually the truth comes out ... this war has been going on for 6+ years ... so many accusations against assad have been factually proven to be false ... the whole white helmets thing ... the 7-year old twitter girl ... all those stories can be researched with objectivity ...
so ... there is no such thing as truth anymore to anyone because so many people are willing to distort it for their own beliefs? ...
honestly, if you don't really care what's going on there and you don't want to take the time ... just say so ... but pulling this shit is pathetic ...
www.headstonesband.com
in your example - i would tell which is more believable based on the information provided me ... as objectively as possible ... i was a donor to amnesty for a good 20 years up until recently ... i emailed everyone and called them about their reporting on syria and i got nothing back ... so, it's not like I refuted amnesty's claims because it posted something I didn't like ...
so, i'm sorry if i struck a nerve with you but I say if you don't want to do a little research on a topic - then just say so ... but don't use biases as a reason for not ...
syria is finally winning the war, they even have a US congresswoman supporting them, trump has stated that they don't want to intervene ... so, the smart thing to do is then gas your own people!?? ... c'mon ... this is not thinking critically ... what does assad gain? ... does he endear himself to his people - no ... does he garner more international support - no ... international support he desperately needs because he is fighting fucking al qaeda AND ISIS ...
If Al Qaeda has chemical weapons, why haven't they used chemical weapons in the past? Based on your knowledge of Al Qaeda and their brutal past, what would stop them from using a WMD?
also ... i called using the excuse that there is no truth in reporting anywhere lazy and pathetic ... it's the basis of critical thinking ...
I just have zero patience for the tower-dwellers who constantly shout down to the idiots "do your research!" then say "but only my sources, yours are wrong!"
I never said I didn't want to do research. that is an incorrect assumption you made. what I said was that all sources have SOME bias, whether you want to believe that or not is your issue.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com