Grasping at straws much? You know your desperate when you say handing Rome over to the barbarians is a Democratic thing to do.
You know, democracy. Allow the people to get their own way, pick and choose and try different parties until their country goes the right way.
You know democracy? Arm uneducated islamic fundamentalist tribes with guns so that they can impose their Sharia law on modern educated people and forcefully take the country back in time 150 years? Sure I know democracy
You do realize that Libyans couldn't even run right? No matter where they went on the world, Gaddaffi would send assassins to kill them if they dared to speak out. To be born a Libyan meant that you would never in your life be allowed to truly use your freedom of expression, even if you fled Libya.
Again completely false. During the quasi-legal NATO aggression against Libya there were almost daily gatherings of the Libyan diaspora showing their support for Gaddafi, 90% of Libyans living in Serbia (about a thousand live here) are pro-Gaddafi, have you been to their protests? have you talked with these people? If you had you would have known that everything you are saying is complete crap, if you had heard the pain in there voice while worrying whether some insane sand people were going to murder their family you wouldn't spout these lies. I have. I still have a green flag an old man gave to me while telling me about how fucked up these rebels are. Libya was hunting their citizens? Every country does that, what are you saying? abolish Interpol? If i had a dinar for every person the CIA/Mossad/MI6 assassinated (including their own citizens) I would be a very rich man.
If one were to look at this supposed 'news' coming out of Syria, what would one see? These words pop up an awful lot: -unconfirmed reports -unclear -not known -probably Apparently there is a 'media blackout' in Syria /rolls eyes Apparently NATO with their satellites that can look inside your window while you are sitting on the toilet have no proof of these 'mass killings', don't know where these 'mass graves' are, but its all true because 'a friend of a friend told me' 'eyewitnesses' accounts peddled to us by BBC World (financed by the British foreign office) and FOX News (Rupert Murdock) or CNN (owned by Time Warner who donated 1.6 million dollars to G.W Bushes campaign in 2000... here is an interesting article on Ted Turner ---> http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/) tell us so.
On March 06 2012 02:44 ahappystar wrote: Grasping at straws much? You know your desperate when you say handing Rome over to the barbarians is a Democratic thing to do.
You know democracy? Arm uneducated islamic fundamentalist tribes with guns so that they can impose their Sharia law on modern educated people and forcefully take the country back in time 150 years? Sure I know democracy.
Do you even read the posts? That is what you get when you allow these dictators to fester. You breed islamic fundamentalism.
Also, calling Libyans "sand people" and "barbarians," is more than a little insulting.
The assasination squads are, again, well documented.
During the quasi-legal NATO aggression against Libya
100% legal, sanctioned by the UN. The very definition of legal.
there were almost daily gatherings of the Libyan diaspora showing their support for Gaddafi, 90% of Libyans living in Serbia (about a thousand live here) are pro-Gaddafi, have you been to their protests? have you talked with these people? If you had you would have known that everything you are saying is complete crap, if you had heard the pain in there voice while worrying whether some insane sand people were going to murder their family you wouldn't spout these lies. I have. I still have a green flag an old man gave to me while telling me about how fucked up these rebels are.
90% of Libyans in Serbia support Gaddaffi? Perhaps you have even a single statistic for that?
As for your flag story, how about this:
Take a picture of the flag folded into a triangle, pointing towards the right. Left of this green flag triangle I want a piece of paper folded into a triangle with the text "Look Zalz, it is real." written on it. Should be easy to provide since you still have it.
Put a newspaper above it for good measure, so I can be sure the picture isn't stolen from the internet.
Libya was hunting their citizens? Every country does that, what are you saying? abolish Interpol? If i had a dinar for every person the CIA/Mossad/MI6 assassinated (including their own citizens) I would be a very rich man.
You can't tell the difference between a group like Interpol that catches criminals and a team of assasins that are sent out to murder people critical of the Libyan regime?
Can you honestly not tell the difference?
If one were to look at this supposed 'news' coming out of Syria, what would one see? These words pop up an awful lot: -unconfirmed reports -unclear -not known -probably Apparently there is a 'media blackout' in Syria /rolls eyes Apparently NATO with their satellites that can look inside your window while you are sitting on the toilet have no proof of these 'mass killings', don't know where these 'mass graves' are, but its all true because 'a friend of a friend told me' 'eyewitnesses' accounts peddled to us by BBC World (financed by the British foreign office) and FOX News (Rupert Murdock) or CNN (owned by Time Warner who donated 1.6 million dollars to G.W Bushes campaign in 2000... here is an interesting article on Ted Turner ---> http://www.natvan.com/who-rules-america/) tell us so.
I live in a dorm, i apologize for not carrying a flimsy plastic flag with me everywhere i go. Show me a certificate that you are mentally well, i have serious concerns about your delusions 'put a newspaper above it for good measure, so I can be sure the picture isn't stolen from the internet' As for your sensationalist 100% true blogs 'facts'...
Mohamed Eljahmi is co-founder and a former board member of the American Libyan Freedom Alliance.
Your shittin' me right? You can't be serious? Your whole satellite imagery article is full of 'probable' and 'appears to be' sentences, and doesn't report but 'interprets' what 'we are seeing'
On March 06 2012 04:51 ahappystar wrote: I live in a dorm, i apologize for not carrying a flimsy plastic flag with me everywhere i go. Show me a certificate that you are mentally well, i have serious concerns about your delusions 'put a newspaper above it for good measure, so I can be sure the picture isn't stolen from the internet'
Then we will conclude that your mythical flag does not exist. At the very least you lied to everyone in the topic by claiming that you still carried it with you.
I still have a green flag
No. No you do not.
You don't even have a green flag, let alone some mythical green flag granted to you by a weeping old man.
As for your sensationalist 100% true blogs 'facts'.. Your shittin' me right? You can't be serious?
Everything is well documented. Even if they are biased, this doesn't change the well documented nature of the assassination squads.
I really don't understand your desperate desire to clear Gaddaffi's name. At first it was about him being the lesser evil, but now you just seem to be trying to clear him of even the most well documented of evils. Do facts mean absolutely nothing to you?
Even when I provide sources you simply exclaim that it must all be fake. There is a reason Gaddaffi was portrayed as a monster. It was because he was and his wicked deeds were well documented.
You should have picked your battles better. There is too much evidence for Gaddaffi's acts to hide or deny. You only seem like some fanatical Gaddaffi adherent when you deny the obvious.
Your whole satellite imagery article is full of 'probable' and 'appears to be' sentences, and doesn't report but 'interprets' what 'we are seeing'
Do you understand what a satelite image is?
You don't seem to understand what it is. A satelite can't go down to ground level and walk around and talk to people. It takes pictures. From above. It does this because it is a great distance above the ground.
But have you honestly fallen so far that you are denying the damage done to Homs?
Even people on your side are starting to question your sanity when you reject even the most established of facts. If you could try to remain slightly grounded in reality, the discussion would be made a great deal easier.
I get it, you support these dictatorships, but why the need to rewrite reality? Seems a bit fanatical.
There is so much wrong in Syria. Syria is governed by a sensless powerhunngry dumb dictator who has to be executed. His whole staff and family has to be executed and everyone that stands with him.
Baschar al-Assad is wrong and evil and should be cleansed from the surface of this planet and if I had the power I would do it without hesitation and I would make him suffer and display it so that every tyrant trembles in the wake of his suffering.
You can not let him suffer enough to equal the suffering that this man has brought upon people.
He needs to die and all of his followers and familes with him if they do not turn immediatly.
On March 06 2012 05:12 Holy_AT wrote: There is so much wrong in Syria. Syria is governed by a sensless powerhunngry dumb dictator who has to be executed. His whole staff and family has to be executed and everyone that stands with him.
Baschar al-Assad is wrong and evil and should be cleansed from the surface of this planet and if I had the power I would do it without hesitation and I would make him suffer and display it so that every tyrant trembles in the wake of his suffering.
You can not let him suffer enough to equal the suffering that this man has brought upon people.
He needs to die and all of his followers and familes with him if they do not turn immediatly.
Hang on.
People should suffer the punishment for their crimes.
You can't throw a person in jail because he is related to a criminal, that is cruell. Any family member that helped his regime should be persecuted for their part in it, but you can't go around killing his family just out of revenge.
Each person is responsible for his own actions, not the actions of others, unless they had some part in it (like commanding it to be done).
What the hell are you talking about? You claim he did something, I prove you wrong. You claim he did something else, I prove you wrong again yet you completely ignore everything and freely interpret everything I say. It's a little flag from the news article i edited in, i still have it. EVERYBODY is wrong, that's my point, Gaddafi was far less wrong than the criminals in power now. Well let see in court whether Gaddafi was as evil as you paint him to be, wa~~ He was torched and executed hours after he was 'taken into custody', too bad he can't prove his innocence now
On March 06 2012 05:21 ahappystar wrote: What the hell are you talking about? You claim he did something, I prove you wrong. You claim he did something else, I prove you wrong again yet you completely ignore everything and freely interpret everything I say. It's a little flag from the news article i edited in, i still have it. EVERYBODY is wrong, that's my point, Gaddafi was far less wrong than the criminals in power now. Well let see in court whether Gaddafi was as evil as you paint him to be, wa~~ He was torched and executed hours after he was 'taken into custody', too bad he can't prove his innocence now
You haven't proven a single thing wrong...
Do you honestly believe that you prove something wrong by screaming that it isn't real?
That is supported by more than 40 earmarks that support any and all claims made in the article. And you think you can discredit that by screaming that it isn't real?
Are you seriously delusional? Do you have any idea how a discussion works?
You are deeply dellusional if you really think that you managed to prove anything wrong by simply screaming like a child that it isn't true or can't be true. You refuse to even read anything that I bring forth. You simply scream that it isn't real because it paints a different picture of the godsend Gaddaffi that you have in mind.
For whatever reason, the very thought that the mainstream had it right about Gaddaffi, is a thought that you do not even appear capable of having.
I have backed up every claim I made. All you do is scream that it isn't true, and you seriously believe you disproved it...
Don't mind statements that are backed up by hundred page long documents that are established with journalistic integrity. You scream that it isn't true, so surely that rejects over 40 earmarks of evidence.
I believe I likened this conversation to talking to a wall. I believe I owe the wall an apology.
Hey if you can sleep well at night knowing that you are spitting on international law, approve of islamic fundamentalism, encourage terrorism and promote tribalism as the pinical of democracy than good for you, what do I know... I'm just a screaming child. Bravo *slow clap*
On March 06 2012 05:37 ahappystar wrote: Hey if you can sleep well at night knowing that you are spitting on international law, approve of islamic fundamentalism, encourage terrorism and promote tribalism as the pinical of democracy than good for you, what do I know... I'm just a screaming child. Bravo *slow clap*
For the last few posts you have been reducing the ammount of your post that is actually dedicated to replying to the discussion. Meanwhile, the parts where you throw cheap shots and personal insults has expanded.
At this point you have completely stopped replying to the actual content, simply responding with insults and making claims that have no support at all.
It worries me that you choose to shut down like this. This knee-jerk reaction in which you essentially put your fingers in your ear and scream "not hearing you!" is disturbing.
Have you ever questioned where such an attitude will get you in life? You refuse to accept sources that are well documented, on the sole basis that they conflict with your view of reality.
Your reality is not based on documentation and facts but rather how you want it to be. You shape a fake-reality in your mind and begin to reject all facts and documents that reject it.
Again I ask: where will that get you in life? You will be taken in and tricked again and again, utterly unable to distinguish truth from fiction by being mentally unable to accept facts.
Tinfoil blogs will play you for a fool and you will find yourself constantly on the wrong side, the side of dictators and others that spin poorly constructed lies. You have bought into the Gaddaffi lies that even his own people didn't believe. How gullible are you?
This might not stick, like most facts didn't stick with you, but I hope a few years down the road you might reflect and wonder if such fanaticism that leads you to reject facts in favour of fiction, is truly a healthy state of mind.
You may respond and I will reply if it is still relevant to the discussion, but I won't be engaging in any other personal posts.
On March 06 2012 05:37 ahappystar wrote: Hey if you can sleep well at night knowing that you are spitting on international law, approve of islamic fundamentalism, encourage terrorism and promote tribalism as the pinical of democracy than good for you, what do I know... I'm just a screaming child. Bravo *slow clap*
In an age where the secular republics forged in the Mideast in the 50s are regressing to Islamic extremism with the US and Co. directly aiding in establishing regimes with varying degrees of Islamism (eg. Libya, Iraq) or indirectly through doing things that reinstating dictatorship with no redeeming factors (most famously, Iran; overthrowing Mossadeq), I think it's terribly stupid even from our standpoint. A more Islamified Mideast just means more troubles for us in the long-term, and for the Israelis we have to babysit thanks to AIPAC. Sure in the short term it makes sense since govts. independent of our control existing especially in such a key strategic area is a bad thing for our hegemony, but the instability and 'people's cause' allows Islamists to make gains as we've seen already in other countries, which will just cause more trouble in the future not just for the Mideast, but for the US and other countries. But it seems we just look at the short-term and want compliant regimes for the time being.
And oh god, with increasing Islamist influence in Egypt, if Egypt falls under the grip of the Muslim Brotherhood, ggnore. Egypt is so incredibly influential among Arab countries and in the Mideast overall, you can kiss any secularism in the Mideast goodbye.
In regards to Syria, let's face it. We don't really give a damn that Assad is suppressing revolt and oppressing people or whatever. What we care about is we have a thorn in our side in one of the most important strategic regions in the world to US interests and we have an opportunity to justify removing him. That's what matters.
Meanwhile, easily one of the top 3 most barbaric countries in the world socially, politically, and legally and the bulwark of Islamofascism and extremism in the world is Saudi Arabia, but since they are loyal dogs to us, we don't give a fuck what they do. Bahraini and Saudi soldiers had no issue massacring and "vanishing" nonviolent Bahraini protesters, DESPITE the fact the US has a military force IN Bahrain many times exponentially more powerful than the Bahraini and all the other tiny Gulf countries (Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar) combined. That's the way politics works, boys XD.
My god you are annoying, it doesn't matter if I write a long-winding post or a short post your answer will be the same. Same old completely ignore everything in front of your nose and make a long-ass babbling post, I've stated before: I seriously feel sorry for you, it must be exhausting to be around you. I don't feel like writing a longer post because the end is always the same for you: attack-attack-hate-hate Maybe in a few years when you are all alone and when this NATO blood-lust has taken far too many innocent lives you will realize how wrong you were. Your right, from now on i will completely ignore you, you have just lost the only person that was listening to your babbling. It's for the best
Well I stumbled upon some videos which I think are quite interesting for this thread: First up is British-Syrian Danny Abdul Dayem, one of the popular heroes of the so-called Syrian Revolution
When this story leaks through Syrian TV CNN is quick to jump to their lackeys defense:
Here's another clip I found interesting:
Anyway, I was pleasantly surprised by how much material and evidence there is of blatant lying by western/eastern media outlets on the internet, but whatever, sheep will be sheep I guess.
After this an interesting article to read would be this one from RT:
Al Jazeera exodus: Channel losing staff over ‘bias’ Key staff from Al Jazeera’s Beirut Bureau have resigned citing “bias” in the channel’s stance on the conflict in Syria.
Bureau Managing Director Hassan Shaaban reportedly quit last week, after his correspondent and producer had walked out in protest.
A source told the Lebanese paper Al Akhbar that Al Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent Ali Hashem had quit over the channel’s stance on covering events in Syria. "… his position [which] changed after the station refused to show photos he had taken of armed fighters clashing with the Syrian Army in Wadi Khaled. Instead [Al Jazeera] lambasted him as a shabeeh [implying a regime loyalist],” a source told Lebanese press.
Ali Hashem was also infuriated by Al Jazeera’s refusal to cover a crackdown by the King of Bahrain while twisting its Syria angle. “[In Bahrain], we were seeing pictures of a people being butchered by the 'Gulf's oppression machine', and for Al Jazeera, silence was the name of the game,” he said.
The Beirut bureau’s producer also quit claiming Al Jazeera had totally ignored Syria’s constitutional reform referendum, which saw a 57% turnout with 90% voting for change.
Ghassan Ben Jeddo, who had been the head of the Beirut Bureau before resigning almost a year ago, said that Al Jazeera was biased in covering the Arab Spring, especially in Syria and Bahrain.
“I do believe that Al Jazeera and other channels were not balanced in dealing with the events,” he said. “For instance, with respect to the events in Syria and Bahrain, we started to invite guests from America who only criticize the regime in Syria and support the regime in Bahrain and persons who justify NATO intervention. This is unacceptable.”
Journalist and author Afshin Rattansi, who worked for Al Jazeera, told RT that, “sadly”, the channel had become one-sided voice for the Qatari government’s stance against Bashar al-Assad, having begun as the region’s revolutionary broadcaster.
“It is very disturbing to hear how Al Jazeera is now becoming this regional player for foreign policy in a way that some would arguably say the BBC and others have been for decades,” he said. “If Al Jazeera Arabic is going to take a war-like stance after [the] Qatari government, this would be very ill.”
“There is the courage of these journalists, however, in saying ‘Look, this is not the way we should be covering this. There are elements of Al-Qaeda in there,’” Rattansi concluded. “The way Al Jazeera Arabic has covered the story of Syria is completely one-sided.”
Journalists and anti-war activist Don Debar, who has also had Al Jazeera experience, confirmed that the station has been heavily guided by the Qatari government in its policies.
“That has been ongoing since last April of 2011,” Debar told RT. “The head of the bureau in Beirut quit, many other people quit because of the biased coverage and outright hand of the government in dictating editorial policy over Libya, and now Syria.”
‘There's a chill, they're controlling things more at Al Jazeera’
Former Al Jazeera English-language blogger Ted Rall recounted his own story of quitting the job. He said his blogs and columns were being rejected on a regular basis.
“For a long time I ascribed it to incompetence on their part because they weren’t very good at getting back very quickly, but over time I came to learn through various people there that the politics of the channel were changing,” he told RT. What he found out was that leftist and progressive voices such as his were not welcome anymore and that he no longer needed to submit anything.
Rall noted that this change in policy only took place recently.
“After September 11, Al Jazeera became a channel that could be counted upon for openness and transparency, certainly compared to most corporate broadcast media in the West, particularly related to the Middle East and Central Asia and South Asia but that has really changed in the last year or so,” he said “There’s a chill, they’re controlling things more.”
When Rall first went to work at Al Jazeera, he says he was surprised that it was actually owned by the Qatari government. He compared their past hands-off policy to that of Rupert Murdoch when he owned the Village Voice of New York City. But now, the “Qataris have decided to shape the picture of the news a little more than they used to.”
While he rejected the notion of objectivity, Rall did note that the media could try to present a more balanced view.
“What you really want to see is a broad marketplace of ideas, where lots of different ideas and stories are being told,” he summed up. When it was first set up, Al Jazeera English was intended to be a softer version of its Arabic counterpart. Since then, the situation has changed drastically, Middle East analyst Tariq Ali told RT. “The channel I think, was largely set up to please the west and its coverage showed that very clearly. There were few critical programs, compared to Arabic Al Jazeera, but it seems now both are working in tandem.”
this is bad now , our media got control so bad :S , only 1% will know the truths the rest will be blinded by mass media. sigh , hope middle east can restore peace soon with so many thing happen within 10 years.
When Saddam was busy naming off all the people in the room that had to be excuted, people jumped up screaming how much they loved Saddam and how he was their dear leader whilst he was condeming nearly half the room to death.
Whilst the names were still being read, people exclaimed their love for the great leader, anything to avoid being murdered.
But of course people living in the bulwark of the Syrian dictatorship, one of the most all encompasing in the world, are bound to be very trustworthy.
Conspiracy freaks will be conspiracy freaks I suppose. Perhaps you should attend a single history class on validating sources. I think you are allowed to take the class whilst keeping on the tin foil.
Good thing I'm ignoring you, but its laughable how what you talk about has nothing to do with the problem, at least it shows that you acknowledge that you are wrong if you are avoiding the subject. I'm just surprised you didn't mention the holocaust, Tibet, Genghis Khan and of course how can we forget... Sweden
On March 14 2012 21:30 ahappystar wrote: Good thing I'm ignoring you, but its laughable how what you talk about has nothing to do with the problem, at least it shows that you acknowledge that you are wrong if you are avoiding the subject. I'm just surprised you didn't mention the holocaust, Tibet, Genghis Khan and of course how can we forget... Sweden
Humans will do whatever it takes to stay alive. It is upon that very simple foundation that these dictatorships rest.
What I was doing was explaining why 1 man who seems almost brainwashed (EVERYONE LOVES ASSAD!) isn't a reliable source, especially when you remember that he lives in Damascus.
Had that same clip been online and he had said that he didn't like Assad, the police would have him in some torture chamber by now. Or maybe just an old fashioned execution.
Like I said, it would help if you had a few lessons in history so that you would be taught the basics of learning to value a source. For example, a man at the mercy of a dictatorial government is not a very good source. North-Korean state TV is not a good source. Russian Today is not a good source.
But you seem to be missing even this baseline of knowledge that you need to really be able to properly engage in a discussion so you are left with just spouting whatever news you manage to find that fits in your worldview.
You aren't special in that regard, in fact, most conspiracy nutjobs do exactly that.
You lack the ability to value the validity of a source, thus you are completly at the mercy of whatever propaganda is thrown your way. You can't understand that a man who will be killed for speaking a different opinion might be considered an unreliable source of information, you can't grasp that.
So you deliver a piece of evidence that shows CNN actually questions its own sources and admits when they are unreliable and a man that knows that he needs to keep his opinions to himself or face execution by Assad's forces.
Somewhere along the road you translate that into somehow being proof of all your insanities, like Homs being perfectly fine.
But like I stated earlier, the problem is that you lack the ability to value sources, thus you just fall for whatever you want to be true, not what actually is true.
On March 14 2012 21:30 ahappystar wrote: Good thing I'm ignoring you, but its laughable how what you talk about has nothing to do with the problem, at least it shows that you acknowledge that you are wrong if you are avoiding the subject. I'm just surprised you didn't mention the holocaust, Tibet, Genghis Khan and of course how can we forget... Sweden
Humans will do whatever it takes to stay alive. It is upon that very simple foundation that these dictatorships rest.
What I was doing was explaining why 1 man who seems almost brainwashed (EVERYONE LOVES ASSAD!) isn't a reliable source, especially when you remember that he lives in Damascus.
Had that same clip been online and he had said that he didn't like Assad, the police would have him in some torture chamber by now. Or maybe just an old fashioned execution.
Like I said, it would help if you had a few lessons in history so that you would be taught the basics of learning to value a source. For example, a man at the mercy of a dictatorial government is not a very good source. North-Korean state TV is not a good source. Russian Today is not a good source.
But you seem to be missing even this baseline of knowledge that you need to really be able to properly engage in a discussion so you are left with just spouting whatever news you manage to find that fits in your worldview.
You aren't special in that regard, in fact, most conspiracy nutjobs do exactly that.
You lack the ability to value the validity of a source, thus you are completly at the mercy of whatever propaganda is thrown your way. You can't understand that a man who will be killed for speaking a different opinion might be considered an unreliable source of information, you can't grasp that.
So you deliver a piece of evidence that shows CNN actually questions its own sources and admits when they are unreliable and a man that knows that he needs to keep his opinions to himself or face execution by Assad's forces.
Somewhere along the road you translate that into somehow being proof of all your insanities, like Homs being perfectly fine.
But like I stated earlier, the problem is that you lack the ability to value sources, thus you just fall for whatever you want to be true, not what actually is true.
Are you 14? Or did you just never graduate high school? I don't know why you even post in threads like this all you ever contribute is anecdotal evidence and personal attacks. You contribute nothing... ever.
I throw up in my mouth a little bit whenever I see a post with your name above it. Everytime I visit a thread such as this I have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that you are in the discussion and I am going to have to wade through your same garbage rhetoric. You are completely incapable of thinking critically about anything that does not fit your narrow and foolishly naive worldview.
On March 14 2012 21:30 ahappystar wrote: Good thing I'm ignoring you, but its laughable how what you talk about has nothing to do with the problem, at least it shows that you acknowledge that you are wrong if you are avoiding the subject. I'm just surprised you didn't mention the holocaust, Tibet, Genghis Khan and of course how can we forget... Sweden
Humans will do whatever it takes to stay alive. It is upon that very simple foundation that these dictatorships rest.
What I was doing was explaining why 1 man who seems almost brainwashed (EVERYONE LOVES ASSAD!) isn't a reliable source, especially when you remember that he lives in Damascus.
Had that same clip been online and he had said that he didn't like Assad, the police would have him in some torture chamber by now. Or maybe just an old fashioned execution.
Like I said, it would help if you had a few lessons in history so that you would be taught the basics of learning to value a source. For example, a man at the mercy of a dictatorial government is not a very good source. North-Korean state TV is not a good source. Russian Today is not a good source.
But you seem to be missing even this baseline of knowledge that you need to really be able to properly engage in a discussion so you are left with just spouting whatever news you manage to find that fits in your worldview.
You aren't special in that regard, in fact, most conspiracy nutjobs do exactly that.
You lack the ability to value the validity of a source, thus you are completly at the mercy of whatever propaganda is thrown your way. You can't understand that a man who will be killed for speaking a different opinion might be considered an unreliable source of information, you can't grasp that.
So you deliver a piece of evidence that shows CNN actually questions its own sources and admits when they are unreliable and a man that knows that he needs to keep his opinions to himself or face execution by Assad's forces.
Somewhere along the road you translate that into somehow being proof of all your insanities, like Homs being perfectly fine.
But like I stated earlier, the problem is that you lack the ability to value sources, thus you just fall for whatever you want to be true, not what actually is true.
Are you 14? Or did you just never graduate high school? I don't know why you even post in threads like this all you ever contribute is anecdotal evidence and personal attacks. You contribute nothing... ever.
I throw up in my mouth a little bit whenever I see a post with your name above it. Everytime I visit a thread such as this I have a nagging feeling in the back of my mind that you are in the discussion and I am going to have to wade through your same garbage rhetoric. You are completely incapable of thinking critically about anything that does not fit your narrow and foolishly naive worldview.
I disagree with you, I think his posts are contributing. Seeing people with different views on an issue go at it can be educational. I do find it kind of funny that you accuse him of not contributing to anything by coming to this thread and posting something that contributes nothing at all to the topic.
EPT
