Edit: Pat: If you read my post correctly you would see that I put AlJazeera International. There are TWO news broadcasters, one of which as Lixy pointed out, is based in Doha.
Read this, it illustrates the difference between the two.
“There are clear differences between the two. While priding itself on following modern journalistic ethics of impartiality, the original al-Jazeera is unashamedly an Arab station. And this is most apparent in one distinguishing editorial policy: every Palestinian killed by Israeli troops is called shaheed, a martyr.”
Zap: I am not 14, no where near in fact. That accusation is just a pointless if not stupid claim.
Why would you think so? Because we have a difference in opinion? Maybe because you think I’m making unjustified claims? Tell me. I’m interested.
My point is simple; I believe that Fox news at times and in its manner is far more impartial than other broadcasters.
I am not saying what they say here is false, I merely suggest that the stories they sometimes cover can sometimes be incomplete if not twisted.
To present information that is correct (the tree study) but then twist it so that it seems that a major cause of global warming are trees and a possible solution would be to cut them down is just ludicrous. Or don’t you agree?
Sure, we can take this to a whole new level but I’m no conspiracy theorist.
Just saying, I don’t think Fox is as impartial as some people make it out to be.
People don’t seem to question the motives/direction of the organizations that bring them information anymore.
[quote]swissrugby67 wrote:
Edit: Pat: If you read my post correctly you would see that I put AlJazeera International. There are TWO news broadcasters, one of which as Lixy pointed out, is based in Doha.
Read this, it illustrates the difference between the two.
“There are clear differences between the two. While priding itself on following modern journalistic ethics of impartiality, the original al-Jazeera is unashamedly an Arab station. And this is most apparent in one distinguishing editorial policy: every Palestinian killed by Israeli troops is called shaheed, a martyr.”
Zap: I am not 14, no where near in fact. That accusation is just a pointless if not stupid claim.
Why would you think so? Because we have a difference in opinion? Maybe because you think I’m making unjustified claims? Tell me. I’m interested.
My point is simple; I believe that Fox news at times and in its manner is far more impartial than other broadcasters.
I am not saying what they say here is false, I merely suggest that the stories they sometimes cover can sometimes be incomplete if not twisted.
To present information that is correct (the tree study) but then twist it so that it seems that a major cause of global warming are trees and a possible solution would be to cut them down is just ludicrous. Or don’t you agree?
Sure, we can take this to a whole new level but I’m no conspiracy theorist.
Just saying, I don’t think Fox is as impartial as some people make it out to be.
People don’t seem to question the motives/direction of the organizations that bring them information anymore. [/quote]
The fact that a media slants is a fact of life. You cannot call out one with out calling out others. CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. all have obvious biases which has been debated many times.
If you have evidence that the facts in the story I posted are not true then bring it.
The youtube link you presented is an editorial from Fox News and an in itself an opinion piece about Fox news. The were being absurd to point out absurdity. Bring evidence that Fox News is knowingly and willfully reporting false news and I will help you draft the letter the the FCC. Until such point, that source is as good as any other.
To present information that is correct (the tree study) but then twist it so that it seems that a major cause of global warming are trees and a possible solution would be to cut them down is just ludicrous. Or don’t you agree?
…[/quote]
Here is a story on how the BBC caved into pressure to distort an article on GW.
[quote]pat wrote:
swissrugby67 wrote:
Edit: Pat: If you read my post correctly you would see that I put AlJazeera International. There are TWO news broadcasters, one of which as Lixy pointed out, is based in Doha.
Read this, it illustrates the difference between the two.
“There are clear differences between the two. While priding itself on following modern journalistic ethics of impartiality, the original al-Jazeera is unashamedly an Arab station. And this is most apparent in one distinguishing editorial policy: every Palestinian killed by Israeli troops is called shaheed, a martyr.”
Zap: I am not 14, no where near in fact. That accusation is just a pointless if not stupid claim.
Why would you think so? Because we have a difference in opinion? Maybe because you think I’m making unjustified claims? Tell me. I’m interested.
My point is simple; I believe that Fox news at times and in its manner is far more impartial than other broadcasters.
I am not saying what they say here is false, I merely suggest that the stories they sometimes cover can sometimes be incomplete if not twisted.
To present information that is correct (the tree study) but then twist it so that it seems that a major cause of global warming are trees and a possible solution would be to cut them down is just ludicrous. Or don’t you agree?
Sure, we can take this to a whole new level but I’m no conspiracy theorist.
Just saying, I don’t think Fox is as impartial as some people make it out to be.
People don’t seem to question the motives/direction of the organizations that bring them information anymore.
The fact that a media slants is a fact of life. You cannot call out one with out calling out others. CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. all have obvious biases which has been debated many times.
If you have evidence that the facts in the story I posted are not true then bring it.
The youtube link you presented is an editorial from Fox News and an in itself an opinion piece about Fox news. The were being absurd to point out absurdity. Bring evidence that Fox News is knowingly and willfully reporting false news and I will help you draft the letter the the FCC. Until such point, that source is as good as any other.[/quote]
Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. You know full well that comparing the level of integrity and ethics between Fox and the BBC or AP is risible.
Fox is notorious for its bias. If you’ve never heard of the infamous “internal memos” then I suggest you start digging a bit. Start here.
CNN is biased too. And anyone who watched the channel in the run-up to the war on Iraq would tell you that.
The BBC, while far from perfect, pales in comparison to the “traditionally corporate” media bias-wise. So, no, not all news sources are created equal. And if you think the editorial staff of the BBC is currently pushing some particular agenda other than “Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation”, then feel free to show us actual instances of BBC newscast that come close to matching kind of blatant propaganda Fox is pushing onto its viewer base.
Otherwise, please spare us your little “I watch Fox and I’m proud of it” show. It makes you look like a total dork who’s completely out of touch with reality.
[quote]
The fact that a media slants is a fact of life. You cannot call out one with out calling out others. CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. all have obvious biases which has been debated many times.
If you have evidence that the facts in the story I posted are not true then bring it.
The youtube link you presented is an editorial from Fox News and an in itself an opinion piece about Fox news. The were being absurd to point out absurdity. Bring evidence that Fox News is knowingly and willfully reporting false news and I will help you draft the letter the the FCC. Until such point, that source is as good as any other.[/quote]
OK. Let me reformulate;
Fox news is not to my knowledge reporting “false news”.
I do not have any information that would render the article you presented as factually incorrect.
I was and am stating that in my experience, the stories that Fox News chose to cover do not provide viewers with a particularly large “scope” of information (Be it factual or opinion wise).
Sure, you can say the same thing about any broadcaster and SO I feel that it is essential for any man or woman who wants the whole story to have various sources.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
swissrugby67 wrote:
Edit: Pat: If you read my post correctly you would see that I put AlJazeera International. There are TWO news broadcasters, one of which as Lixy pointed out, is based in Doha.
Read this, it illustrates the difference between the two.
“There are clear differences between the two. While priding itself on following modern journalistic ethics of impartiality, the original al-Jazeera is unashamedly an Arab station. And this is most apparent in one distinguishing editorial policy: every Palestinian killed by Israeli troops is called shaheed, a martyr.”
Zap: I am not 14, no where near in fact. That accusation is just a pointless if not stupid claim.
Why would you think so? Because we have a difference in opinion? Maybe because you think I’m making unjustified claims? Tell me. I’m interested.
My point is simple; I believe that Fox news at times and in its manner is far more impartial than other broadcasters.
I am not saying what they say here is false, I merely suggest that the stories they sometimes cover can sometimes be incomplete if not twisted.
To present information that is correct (the tree study) but then twist it so that it seems that a major cause of global warming are trees and a possible solution would be to cut them down is just ludicrous. Or don’t you agree?
Sure, we can take this to a whole new level but I’m no conspiracy theorist.
Just saying, I don’t think Fox is as impartial as some people make it out to be.
People don’t seem to question the motives/direction of the organizations that bring them information anymore.
The fact that a media slants is a fact of life. You cannot call out one with out calling out others. CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. all have obvious biases which has been debated many times.
If you have evidence that the facts in the story I posted are not true then bring it.
The youtube link you presented is an editorial from Fox News and an in itself an opinion piece about Fox news. The were being absurd to point out absurdity. Bring evidence that Fox News is knowingly and willfully reporting false news and I will help you draft the letter the the FCC. Until such point, that source is as good as any other.
Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse. You know full well that comparing the level of integrity and ethics between Fox and the BBC or AP is risible.
Fox is notorious for its bias. If you’ve never heard of the infamous “internal memos” then I suggest you start digging a bit. Start here.
CNN is biased too. And anyone who watched the channel in the run-up to the war on Iraq would tell you that.
The BBC, while far from perfect, pales in comparison to the “traditionally corporate” media bias-wise. So, no, not all news sources are created equal. And if you think the editorial staff of the BBC is currently pushing some particular agenda other than “Nation Shall Speak Peace Unto Nation”, then feel free to show us actual instances of BBC newscast that come close to matching kind of blatant propaganda Fox is pushing onto its viewer base.
Otherwise, please spare us your little “I watch Fox and I’m proud of it” show. It makes you look like a total dork who’s completely out of touch with reality.[/quote]
I do not watch news on television at all. I read it because I can go to different sources and skip all the Britney Spears bullshit with out being forced to watch it.
Again if you have evidence that Fox’s news is deliberately false then let’s have it. Can you verify that the link I provided has false information or not? That is the only question here.
The fact that a media slants is a fact of life. You cannot call out one with out calling out others. CNN, AP, Reuters, BBC, etc. all have obvious biases which has been debated many times.
If you have evidence that the facts in the story I posted are not true then bring it.
The youtube link you presented is an editorial from Fox News and an in itself an opinion piece about Fox news. The were being absurd to point out absurdity. Bring evidence that Fox News is knowingly and willfully reporting false news and I will help you draft the letter the the FCC. Until such point, that source is as good as any other.
OK. Let me reformulate;
Fox news is not to my knowledge reporting “false news”.
I do not have any information that would render the article you presented as factually incorrect.
I was and am stating that in my experience, the stories that Fox News chose to cover do not provide viewers with a particularly large “scope” of information (Be it factual or opinion wise).
Sure, you can say the same thing about any broadcaster and SO I feel that it is essential for any man or woman who wants the whole story to have various sources.
That is all.
Surely we can agree on that point.
[/quote]
Of course, feel free to cross reference the information in the link I presented. I am sure it will stand up…Can we discuss the substance now?
The holocast caused about 5,754,400 jew deaths.
. . .
For 2,751 deaths, all muslims were “attacked” while for almost 6 million jewish deaths, christianity wasnt.[/quote]
Hitler killed the Jews to further National Socalism, not to further Christianity. He also had plans to exterminate the Catholics next. Some Christian, huh?
-he killed the Jews not because of their religion, but because he thought they were subhuman, thus unfit for life. Evidence for this is in the fact that conversion to Christianity did not save the Jews during WWII.
[quote]
-he killed the Jews not because of their religion, but because he thought they were subhuman, thus unfit for life. Evidence for this is in the fact that conversion to Christianity did not save the Jews during WWII.[/quote]
It is true that during this period there existed a strong sentiment of what we would call “Survival of the Fittest” (Especially since Ernst Haeckel). Eugenics was indeed a hotly debated subject but think you’ll find that your response doesn’t cover the entirety of the case Hitler had against the Jews.
Yes, his “doctors” produced a profile of typical features that many Jews may have which could make any conversion useless but the main reason for his antisemitism lies elsewhere; (However it is known that he referred to the Gypsies and mentally handicapped population as sub human).
During World War I, communism was on the rise. Lenin’s Revolution had forced Russia out of the war. The German Army at times faced near rebellion among their own troops. This contributed to Germany being forced to sue for peace. Since some socialist/communist leaders were Jewish this was exploited as another reason for Germans to hate Jews. Hitler often spoke of Bolshevik (communist) Jewry. There is still a strong association in people’s minds between Jews and leftist.
Not to forget Hitler was rejected twice from his “dream” school. He later found out that 4 out of 7 of the board who rejected him were Jewish. This contributed to him blaming them.
Also, some Jews were successful and held influential positions in Austria and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s. At the same time, the world was suffering in the Great Depression. For various reasons, including war reparations for World War I, Germany was being hit the hardest by the worldwide economic depression. Successful Jews were envied and blamed for “taking German jobs.”
Extract from one of his speaches in March 1922. “His is no master people; he is an exploiter: the Jews are a people of robbers. He has never founded any civilization, though he has destroyed civilizations by the hundred…everything he has stolen. Foreign people, foreign workmen build him his temples, it is foreigners who create and work for him, it is foreigners who shed their blood for him.”
These are just a few related causes. It’s possible to go into a 10’000 word essay discussing his real sentiments but that’s not the point.
It is clear that his persecution of the Jews stemmed from a feeling of resentment and anger, not just a question of survival of the fittest.
I was going to make one big long post about judging ppl as individuals and not lumping ppl together as “Americans” or “Muslims” or “Christians” b/c politics is ugly business and for all I know, on a personal level, Lixy could be an ok person even if I dont agree with he/she/shem politically or not. But that would be like poring water into a bucket full of holes.
But to the subject matter. The Bible, Karon and Torah along with all or most religious text is written in blood. And every one was written by Man.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Himora22 wrote:
…for all I know, on a personal level, Lixy could be an ok person even if I dont agree with he/she/shem politically or not.
He he. Stick around a while, my friend.[/quote]
O I know already, but like I said politics is ugly business. Hell the Baldwins dont even agree on politics.
[quote]Himora22 wrote:
Swiss that last post was a great one.
I was going to make one big long post about judging ppl as individuals and not lumping ppl together as “Americans” or “Muslims” or “Christians” b/c politics is ugly business and for all I know, on a personal level, Lixy could be an ok person even if I dont agree with he/she/shem politically or not. But that would be like poring water into a bucket full of holes.
But to the subject matter. The Bible, Karon and Torah along with all or most religious text is written in blood. And every one was written by Man.[/quote]
The Qu’ran and Torah maybe but I’m pretty sure my friend Bubba told me that the Bible was the word of god and is no way distorted from years of being translated and put through various political agendas.
That’s precisely what Samir Khan is doing. He quotes often from the 'Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler), which is an orthodox understanding of Sunni Islam. His writings contain orthodox Sunni Qur’anic exegesis. His favorite is 14th century Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyya, though.
Can any of the Muslims here give us an orthodox understanding of Surahs 9:5 and 9:29, either Sunni or Shi’a, or are they going to continue to discuss Christianity and various other non sequiturs? When I read in the Qur’an:
[quote]Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
[/quote]
How is this understood? I already know the answer, but this is the issue: do Muslims themselves understand these passages to be a call for warfare against non-believers?
I don’t care if every religion has bad people. What does this particular religion teach? I want to discuss the truth claims of the religion itself, not the people.