UK Terror Plot Thwarted, Terror Threat Raised to Critical

[Surfrider]

 I have never heard you condemn muslims for ethnic cleansing; yet you correctly characterize the Jews' actions as ethnic cleansing.? I am glad some people understand what is going on in the world.

It is not a matter of "condemning" Muslims for ethnic cleansing. It is matter of me pointing it out. It has been going on in Bush's Iraq for a few years at this point, and I've been saying it the entire time (just as I point out Israel.) Israel has a huge lobby in America to make sure that the media report them in a completely different light then the remainder of the globe. The primary focus of this lobby is keeping reports of violence originating from Israel as sterile as possible. It works quite well, as most Americans are completely oblivious to their disregard for international law in that region .

I don't know what media you are watching or reading.? Everytime I sign on the internet there is a story about how many civilians Israel has killed for that particular day.? Yet, there is virtually no coverage of the havoc Hizbollah's indiscriminant targeting of civilians is having in Israel.? While most media outlets are Jewish owned, these are American-liberal-Jews.? From the start these people have condemned Israel's actions.? These outlets hardly represent, let alone are pawns for, the Jews in Israel.

Your comment that the Jews are "ethnic cleansing" speaks for itself.? That comment, more than any, is the clearest sign of who gets it and who does not.?

You want to know why they disregard the UN?? It's because people like you place their actions on the same moral level as the actions by Hizbollah and characterize their actions as "ethnic cleansing."? Unlike the United States, Israel's disagreement with the European Union or Russia doesn't just jeaopordize friendships, it jeopardizes Israel's survival.? Because there are countries and groups that border Israel that preach their death and destruction, I don't think Israel gives two shits about what the UN says.?

[Mal Brossard]

I can't believe somebody used Fox as their source.............

"The Washington Post reported the original surveillance was based on a tip from a member of Britain's Muslim community."

http://www.csmonitor.com/

Your original quote was:

That is not what was reported............

Well it was reported and I showed you. Should everyone laugh if people use sources/news links from CNN, the BBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, L.A. Times, etc., etc., etc.?? I guess alot people may not believe you used The Washington Post or any other news media as a source either. Maybe you should believe when I showed you you were incorrect.

Don't waste your time.  This guy has repeatedly stated that Al Jazeera is more accurate than the U.S. media.  Whatever media outlet reports what he wants to hear is the media outlet that is most accurate.  You proved him wrong; he is trying to wiggle his way out of it by discrediting your source.  He places a smilie face next to your citation of fox news, Yet I have seen him repreatedly cite to moveon.com or mediamatters.com.  There is just no breaking through.

Perhaps not more accurate, but Al-Jazeera is more balanced in showing multiple sides of a story than most of the U.S. media.

[Surfrider]

I can't believe somebody used Fox as their source.............

"The Washington Post reported the original surveillance was based on a tip from a member of Britain's Muslim community."

http://www.csmonitor.com/

Your original quote was:

That is not what was reported............

Well it was reported and I showed you. Should everyone laugh if people use sources/news links from CNN, the BBC, The NY Times, The Washington Post, L.A. Times, etc., etc., etc.?? I guess alot people may not believe you used The Washington Post or any other news media as a source either. Maybe you should believe when I showed you you were incorrect.

Don't waste your time.? This guy has repeatedly stated that Al Jazeera is more accurate than the U.S. media.? Whatever media outlet reports what he wants to hear is the media outlet that is most accurate.? You proved him wrong; he is trying to wiggle his way out of it by discrediting your source.? He places a smilie face next to your citation of fox news, Yet I have seen him repreatedly cite to moveon.com or mediamatters.com.? There is just no breaking through.

Perhaps not more accurate, but Al-Jazeera is more balanced in showing multiple sides of a story than most of the U.S. media.

And exactly what are these sides that aren't being shown by the US media?  Please don't say Israel's killing of civilans.  Everytime I turn on CNN that is all they talk about.

[Mal Brossard]

I'm saying in general, not this issue specifically.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'm saying in general, not this issue specifically.

I find this very difficult to believe since there are laws in place that restrict what Al-Jazerra can display.  The first Amendment doesn't exist over there.  So if by "more balanced" you mean more anti-american you may be right.  But if you mean conveying an argument that attacks Islam or portrays the arab world in a bad ligh, fraid not.

[SLCPUNK]

I don't know what media you are watching or reading.  Everytime I sign on the internet there is a story about how many civilians Israel has killed for that particular day.  Yet, there is virtually no coverage of the havoc Hizbollah's indiscriminant targeting of civilians is having in Israel.  While most media outlets are Jewish owned, these are American-liberal-Jews.  From the start these people have condemned Israel's actions.  These outlets hardly represent, let alone are pawns for, the Jews in Israel.

Your comment that the Jews are "ethnic cleansing" speaks for itself.  That comment, more than any, is the clearest sign of who gets it and who does not. 

You want to know why they disregard the UN?  It's because people like you place their actions on the same moral level as the actions by Hizbollah and characterize their actions as "ethnic cleansing."  Unlike the United States, Israel's disagreement with the European Union or Russia doesn't just jeaopordize friendships, it jeopardizes Israel's survival.  Because there are countries and groups that border Israel that preach their death and destruction, I don't think Israel gives two shits about what the UN says. 

Awe shucks, there you go again, with your left wing media bias. This time perpetrated by Lefty Jews who are so far left that they do their best to make Israel look like the bad guy. Yea right.........

Killing civilians, torturing civilians, imprisoning civilians, occupying another country, and ignoring the UN all falls under contempt for international  law. The end goal is to reduce the Arab population (see: Ethnic cleansing campaign above.) They ignore the UN because they can, knowing full well as America's client state there will be no consequences.

While you cling to the illusion of "left wing media" and focus on the usual personal attack techniques and strawmen, Israel is pumping millions upon millions of dollars into lobbying (more like bullying) the USA corporate whore media. All news outlets are guilty of this practice, and Israel's PR is intact because of it. They have been doing this for decades now.

I find this very difficult to believe since there are laws in place that restrict what Al-Jazerra can display.  The first Amendment doesn't exist over there.  So if by "more balanced" you mean more anti-american you may be right.  But if you mean conveying an argument that attacks Islam or portrays the arab world in a bad ligh, fraid not.

I'd like to see you present more evidence to back your claim..........

[Guns N RockMusic]

I'd like to see you present more evidence to back your claim..........

That there are very conservative restrictions in the middle east as to what they can say and do?  You want proof fo this.  I guess you want proof that the sky is blue or that Mars is the 4th planet.  Whatever SLC, you seem to be quite content in your dereanged lil world where Fox is biased and unreliable, but Moveon and Al Jazerra are beacons of jounralistic integrity.  I really think you might be suffering from a mental illness because you keep appearing more and more crazy.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

dereanged lil world where Fox is biased and unreliable, but Moveon and Al Jazerra are beacons of jounralistic integrity.

well fox is indeed biased and unreliable.
Moveon is too, but it is its role.
Al Jazerra is too, but again it is its role, a counter-weight to fox/etc ... propaganda.

[Sakib]

 I have never heard you condemn muslims for ethnic cleansing; yet you correctly characterize the Jews' actions as ethnic cleansing.? I am glad some people understand what is going on in the world.

It is not a matter of "condemning" Muslims for ethnic cleansing. It is matter of me pointing it out. It has been going on in Bush's Iraq for a few years at this point, and I've been saying it the entire time (just as I point out Israel.) Israel has a huge lobby in America to make sure that the media report them in a completely different light then the remainder of the globe. The primary focus of this lobby is keeping reports of violence originating from Israel as sterile as possible. It works quite well, as most Americans are completely oblivious to their disregard for international law in that region .

I don't know what media you are watching or reading.? Everytime I sign on the internet there is a story about how many civilians Israel has killed for that particular day.? Yet, there is virtually no coverage of the havoc Hizbollah's indiscriminant targeting of civilians is having in Israel.? While most media outlets are Jewish owned, these are American-liberal-Jews.? From the start these people have condemned Israel's actions.? These outlets hardly represent, let alone are pawns for, the Jews in Israel.

Your comment that the Jews are "ethnic cleansing" speaks for itself.? That comment, more than any, is the clearest sign of who gets it and who does not.?

You want to know why they disregard the UN?? It's because people like you place their actions on the same moral level as the actions by Hizbollah and characterize their actions as "ethnic cleansing."? Unlike the United States, Israel's disagreement with the European Union or Russia doesn't just jeaopordize friendships, it jeopardizes Israel's survival.? Because there are countries and groups that border Israel that preach their death and destruction, I don't think Israel gives two shits about what the UN says.?

Berkeley,  reason why Hizbollah destruction to israel hasnt been shown cuz everyone knows it was accidental deaths and none purposely attacked em unlike israel who are purpose terrorists tro destroyh any arab and muslim nation. feel sorry for israelis because they dont know what their government is up to the poor areas such as the north they ned war to carry on so they can get jobs to rebuild destroyed buildings.

[Guns N RockMusic]

dereanged lil world where Fox is biased and unreliable, but Moveon and Al Jazerra are beacons of jounralistic integrity.

well fox is indeed biased and unreliable.
Moveon is too, but it is its role.
Al Jazerra is too, but again it is its role, a counter-weight to fox/etc ... propaganda.

Then why do people post smiley faces when Fox (whom is just as reliable as any other American network, but I would dare say much more objective than MoveOn or Al Jazerra) is cited? ?If all three of the sources in questions are biased, why does it seem acceptable to post garbage from MoveOn? ?Likely Berkeley said earlier about SLC, most of the people here choose a news source that aligns with their political beliefs. ?There is no objectivity or rationality, just blind hatred for anything that questions their support system and doesn't toe the line.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Berkeley,? reason why Hizbollah destruction to israel hasnt been shown cuz everyone knows it was accidental deaths and none purposely attacked em unlike israel who are purpose terrorists tro destroyh any arab and muslim nation. feel sorry for israelis because they dont know what their government is up to the poor areas such as the north they ned war to carry on so they can get jobs to rebuild destroyed buildings.

Sakib, that just shows how blind you are to Islam and the ME that you would say something that dumb.  I don't think any intelligent person (hell, even the UN acknoledges Hezbollah as a terrorist group) could say that Hezbollah is not a terrorist group, but Israel is in the same sentence.  Do you even know the definition of a terrorist group?  Israel is a nation that is surrounded by nations with people who want nothing short of Israel's eradication.  Every treaty made by Israel is broken by some "terrorist group" while the host nation can plead ignorance.  I'm not naieve enought o say Israel doesn't have a lot to be blamed for and their share of responsibility, but the terrorist can't kill the Israeli military, so they aim for civilians.  Hezbollah places themselves in civilian areas so when there are unforrtunate deaths, people like you blaim Israel rather than the pieces of shit who endangered the civilians.  I challenge you this Sakib, cite me one example where an Israeli leader called and prayed for the genocide of all Muslims and their nation?  Cause I can give you a few where your muslim pals did.  For a peaceful religion, it's most loyal practicioners seem to have missed something.

[Mal Brossard]

Alright, here goes.  I wrote a paper on the American media vs. Al-Jazeera back in December for my last college paper.  Just a few statistics and bits of information from it.  If you want full citations on any of these for proof, feel free to ask.  Even if you want to read the whole paper (14.5 pages plus a 3-page bibliogrqaphy), shoot me a PM.

I'm breaking it down to two posts because it's too long.  Part One...

In the 2001 battles in Afghanistan, CNN reported on civilian deaths in Afghanistan.  Editors at CNN told news writers to say in every story about these civilian deaths that "the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed that it is trying to minimize civilian deaths," and "the Taliban regime continues to harbor terrorists who are connected to the September 11 attacks that claimed thousands of innocent lives in the U.S."  Why should both of these be mentioned in every single story?  It's basically saying "Well, yes, there were civilian deaths, but we didn't mean to.  And besides, these are evil people, so it's basically alright."

Fox News' Brit Hume and Michael Barone have gone so far as to ask why the media is even covering stories of civilian deaths.  Hume also told the New York Times "Look, neutrality as a general principle is an appropriate concept for journalists who are covering institutions of some comparable quality.  This is a conflict between the United States and murdering barbarians." While one of Fox News' slogans is "We Report, You Decide," these gentlemen seem to have no problem in defaming a party in a story, thereby influencing the viewers as to how they should feel.  The viewer no longer has a say in what he believes, but is rather overtly told what he should believe.

Journalist Alex Jones of Harvard-- "[The accusations of manipulation of stories] especially applies to American television coverage, which was largely pro-war, while the European television coverage was antiwar. European public opinion was very much against the war, and the coverage reflected that. An interesting thing to note is that while half the American public believed there was a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, an idea that has been debunked, it's also true that a quarter of the German public believes George Bush was responsible for the September 11th attacks. It makes me wonder who is more ill informed."

Moving on now to Al-Jazeera: legitimate and credible news organization or "mouthpiece for al-Qaeda?"

Al-Jazeera is one of the few stations willing to show images of POW's, dead soldiers, and bombed civilians, both Arab and American.  American Lieutenant Joshua Rushing witnessed Al-Jazeera's coverage of the war dead, and found it disturbing: "It was powerful, because [the American media] won't show those kinds of images. It made me sick to my stomach. I just saw people on the other side, and those people in the Al-Jazeera offices must have felt the way I was feeling that night, and it upset me on a profound level that I wasn't bothered as much the night before."  He went on to add, "It makes me hate war, but it doesn't make me believe that we're in a world that can live without war yet."  Al-Jazeera seems to be simply reporting what has happened in the war-- they choose to show civilian and military deaths, not just include death tolls in a spoken or graphical number.  While this may incite viewers to fight back, it is simply showing the truth of what is happening.  Fox News reporters have called the people that the United States is fighting "murdering barbarians," while Al-Jazeera has not used any such slurs against Americans in statements made by their reporters.

Al-Jazeera has come under fire from many sides during the war-- the American people, the American government, and even people of the Middle East have criticized Al-Jazeera's news coverage.  "Detroit residents attacked an Al-Jazeera correspondent because they believed the network's coverage to be too anti-American... [Some Arab-Americans] believe Al-Jazeera is in cahoots with the American and Israeli governments, airing Osama bin Laden videos at moments beneficial to U.S. interests. Still, even those who are critical of it continue to watch."  In March of 2003, the United States military stormed Baghdad, and the video of a statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled was shown for weeks on end in the American media.  Most stations showed this to be a heroic act by the military, going off with no problem.  Al-Jazeera painted a different picture: "Al-Jazeera even made sure to show a picture of an Iraqi man celebrating by waving a picture of Dick Cheney. But it also showed the anguish of Iraqi civilians: images from Basra of a wounded boy, his face partially burned off."  The American media covered up the perceived negatives of the story, while Al-Jazeera showed all the pieces.  Other Arab-Americans have said that unlike the American media, Al-Jazeera is not Jewish-controlled, and therefore more trustworthy.

According to research from the Pew Research Center, only 25% of Americans trust Fox News' credibility.  The station has been accused of being consistently Republican-leaning on many issues in America.  Add in the fact they promote themselves as the most watched news station in America, and other American news agencies will follow them on their rightward drift.  When one factors in their issues of credibility with the issue of other news agencies trying to imitate them to be successful, the final result is an untrustworthy press.

Al-Jazeera also has been criticized and viewed with distrust in the Middle East.  The station has had correspondents banned from several Middle Eastern countries because of their criticisms of authoritarian regimes.  The Committee to Protect Journalists also says Al-Jazeera's journalists are constant targets of threats of violence.  If anything, this criticism from the Middle Eastern governments has increased its popularity.  Al-Jazeera's audience is used to massive censorship and bias from within their governments' news releases, in the rare events that the government actually ever tells what is happening.  An independent press agency is a welcome and refreshing change for these people.  Al-Jazeera is occasionally a target of protest from the public.  This was seen on December 14, 2005, when it was reported that a group of Shiite Muslims protested against the comments of Al-Jazeera contributor Fadel al-Rubaie, an exiled Sunni Muslim from Iraq.  Al-Rubaie made comments telling Shiite clerics to stay out of politics in Iraq.  The demonstrators demanded an apology and requested the government do something about Rubaie.  Little can be done however, as the station has been banned from broadcasting from Iraq.

The aforementioned host of Fox News' Special Report, Brit Hume, is one of the worst offenders of right-wing bias in selecting guests on his show.  According to a study published in Extra! Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting, 71% of all guests on Hume's show in 2001 were "Conservative," while the other 29% were classified as "Non-Conservative."  The latter classification included people of many different political ideologies-- Democrat, Green, Libertarian, and more.  Fox calls Special Report its "signature show."  The fact that 71% of guests on the show come from one political ideology is troubling, especially when it is mentioned that the station calls itself "fair and balanced."  In 2004, a similar study was performed, looking at the guests of Special Report, and classifying them as conservative, centrist, progressive, or non-ideological.  The final breakdown of these guests was 57%, 12%, 11%, and 20%, respectively.  Once again, conservatives dominated the numbers, but not as egregiously as they had in 2001.  Additionally, the guests were primarily white males.  In the 2004 report, women represented only 7% of guests, while nonwhite people made only 11% of all guests.  None of the women or nonwhite guests were classified as progressives.  While the station has attempted to be more "fair and balanced," it appears they have a long way to go before living up to their slogan.

This rightward bias is not only found in Fox News.  The remainder of the nightly network newscasts favored conservatives when it came to partisan sources.  ABC, NBC, and CBS newscasts all featured more than 70% of partisan sources being conservative-leaning in 2001.  Even National Public Radio, often called "liberal radio" by its detractors, had conservatives outnumbering progressives by almost a three to two ratio.

[Mal Brossard]

Part Two...

Al-Jazeera shows multiple sides of every issue they report on in the Middle East and abroad.  The only criticism of Al-Jazeera not being fair or balanced comes from their decision to show wounded soldiers and civilians and to broadcast tapes of terrorist leaders speaking.  They attempt to cover all sides of a story, not just the perspective of one side.  As previously mentioned, this has been a problem for the station.  Posted to a blog were the paraphrased comments of Hafez Al-Mirazi, the Washington Bureau Chief for Al-Jazeera.  He said that trying to remain neutral has made them appear to be terrorist sympathizers.  "In a world in which you are either 'with us or with the terrorists,' displaying any material not favorable to the US is not simply seen as anti-America, but also pro-terrorist. Because of this view, Al-Jazeera's is often accused of bias when they are, like any other news channel, informing their audience of relevant events."  So every side feels alienated.  Americans feel Al-Jazeera sympathizes with terrorists, while Middle Easterners see it as having too much influence coming from the West.  However, the station continues to cover every side of the story, no matter what story it is reporting.  Neutrality is important to Al-Jazeera.  Apparently it is also important to viewers, as on an average day, Al-Jazeera's news station has over 35 million viewers in the Middle East.  Compare this to Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC who each have a million or fewer viewers in America on an average day.

So, we've seen the views of America and the Middle East on the whole Al-Jazeera vs. American media war.  What does the rest of the world think?

Canada has been a major battleground in the Fox News/CNN vs. Al-Jazeera news war.  In July 2004, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, their equivalent of the United States' Federal Communications Commission, approved Al-Jazeera to be broadcast into Canada.  At the time, Fox News was unavailable to Canadians except through illegal satellite connections.  In November 2004, the CRTC finally chose to approve Fox News for broadcast in Canada.

Several other countries, including the United Kingdom, have ties to Al-Jazeera.  In October 2005, famed British broadcaster Sir David Frost joined the ranks of Al-Jazeera from their London branch.  In addition to Frost, numerous other reporters and correspondents for Al-Jazeera have worked for the BBC.  Some Al-Jazeera employees have made comments in the past to the effect of saying that if you work for Al-Jazeera, you probably used to work for the BBC.  In early 2006, a former executive from New Zealand's TVNZ, Paul Yurisich, will be taking a position with Al-Jazeera International as their program editor.  Al-Jazeera is more open to having journalists on its staff who have come from, and worked in, different countries before joining Al-Jazeera-- more open to the idea than the American news media appears to be.  This could be what affects their coverage.  An American-born and bred news reporter would have a more pro-American bias, whether intended or not.  By taking journalists from all over the world to work in their ranks, Al-Jazeera is able to provide a more diverse opinion that is less biased toward one particular side.

Overall, it appears that despite the moniker of "Fair and Balanced" news belonging to America's Fox News, Al-Jazeera is much more fair and balanced.  Al-Jazeera does not cover up news stories it does not wish to see aired.  They are more graphic in what images they show and at times may show too much; but it is better to show too much than too little.  By showing more than the West would consider necessary, it allows the news viewers of the world to get as much information as they can.  This way a news viewer is smarter and better informed about the world around them.  As previously stated, "The danger is that [the media] hide the truth.  People are falsely assuming that they are making an informed decision.  The 'truth,' as an informed decision, cannot be made when facts are arbitrarily hidden."  They have a wider range of broadcasters coming from many different backgrounds instead of one national background.  Al-Jazeera's coverage of domestic issues does not concentrate primarily on one view (e.g. Fox News' conservative white males), but rather tries to represent a broader spectrum of views.

It is an unfortunate state of affairs that something as simple as information as to what is happening in the world is now a commodity to be bought and sold.  For as long as there is money to be made, the unethical practices will continue.  Information and media have become a business, with profits to be made.  As long as some stations will go past the rhetoric and truly be "fair and balanced," then the media will still have an upside in spite of profiteering.  The will of the people and what they want is always changing and because of this, the news media will be constantly evolving.  When the people of the world open their eyes and finally decide they want a truly free press rather than one agency parroting what the others say, it will happen.  It is just a matter of when it happens and who will do it.

[Guns N RockMusic]

Very interesting read Duffman.

[Surfrider]

 I have never heard you condemn muslims for ethnic cleansing; yet you correctly characterize the Jews' actions as ethnic cleansing.? I am glad some people understand what is going on in the world.

It is not a matter of "condemning" Muslims for ethnic cleansing. It is matter of me pointing it out. It has been going on in Bush's Iraq for a few years at this point, and I've been saying it the entire time (just as I point out Israel.) Israel has a huge lobby in America to make sure that the media report them in a completely different light then the remainder of the globe. The primary focus of this lobby is keeping reports of violence originating from Israel as sterile as possible. It works quite well, as most Americans are completely oblivious to their disregard for international law in that region .

I don't know what media you are watching or reading.? Everytime I sign on the internet there is a story about how many civilians Israel has killed for that particular day.? Yet, there is virtually no coverage of the havoc Hizbollah's indiscriminant targeting of civilians is having in Israel.? While most media outlets are Jewish owned, these are American-liberal-Jews.? From the start these people have condemned Israel's actions.? These outlets hardly represent, let alone are pawns for, the Jews in Israel.

Your comment that the Jews are "ethnic cleansing" speaks for itself.? That comment, more than any, is the clearest sign of who gets it and who does not.?

You want to know why they disregard the UN?? It's because people like you place their actions on the same moral level as the actions by Hizbollah and characterize their actions as "ethnic cleansing."? Unlike the United States, Israel's disagreement with the European Union or Russia doesn't just jeaopordize friendships, it jeopardizes Israel's survival.? Because there are countries and groups that border Israel that preach their death and destruction, I don't think Israel gives two shits about what the UN says.?

Berkeley,? reason why Hizbollah destruction to israel hasnt been shown cuz everyone knows it was accidental deaths and none purposely attacked em unlike israel who are purpose terrorists tro destroyh any arab and muslim nation. feel sorry for israelis because they dont know what their government is up to the poor areas such as the north they ned war to carry on so they can get jobs to rebuild destroyed buildings.

Please tell me you are joking around with this post.  If not, I am not really sure what to say to you. 

[jameslofton29]

Sakib never jokes. He falls for al jazeera propoganda hook, line, and sinker.

[Mal Brossard]

al jazeera propoganda

Wow.  My post went over someone's head.

[SLCPUNK]

I'd like to see you present more evidence to back your claim..........

That there are very conservative restrictions in the middle east as to what they can say and do?  You want proof fo this.  I guess you want proof that the sky is blue or that Mars is the 4th planet.  Whatever SLC, you seem to be quite content in your dereanged lil world where Fox is biased and unreliable, but Moveon and Al Jazerra are beacons of jounralistic integrity.  I really think you might be suffering from a mental illness because you keep appearing more and more crazy.

And you wonder why politics are banned...........

I asked you a simple question. In return you created a false argument and then attacked me personally.

[SLCPUNK]

  Likely Berkeley said earlier about SLC, most of the people here choose a news source that aligns with their political beliefs.  There is no objectivity or rationality, just blind hatred for anything that questions their support system and doesn't toe the line.

First of all this is false and always has been about me. It is a weak argument you all use when you no longer have a leg to stand on. Brody tried this tired lie on my forum and I posted all my sources, just as I have done here in the past.

You also left something out that was very important in the above post. BR claimed that, and then I gave him my source (in relation to the topic we were discussing), which was a right wing owned and operated news corporation. He quit replying at that point and then slunk away from the thread. Not only was he wrong, but he couldn't even stick around to admit it, or offer an apology. Yet, here you are ignoring that and repeating a half truth.
 
Talk about rational............

[jameslofton29]

al jazeera propoganda

Wow.  My post went over someone's head.

Maybe because your post was way the hell off topic.