Is it OK for NYT, CNN and squad members to report misinformation

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2023, 06:24 PM)pally Wrote: They got "tons" of publicity from right-wing media who want to push their ideas as though they are mainstream Democrats which they are not.  They hold no leadership position, they are not brought out to speak for the Democratic caucus, and they are not insiders with leadership.  When they say stupid stuff they are called out by their colleagues.  So yes, they are minor members of Congress

Please, they get tons of publicity from main stream media as well.  You can't really expect anyone to take this seriously can you?

[GMDino]

(10-19-2023, 06:24 PM)pally Wrote: They got "tons" of publicity from right-wing media who want to push their ideas as though they are mainstream Democrats which they are not.  They hold no leadership position, they are not brought out to speak for the Democratic caucus, and they are not insiders with leadership.  When they say stupid stuff they are called out by their colleagues.  So yes, they are minor members of Congress

Most of the time they are only in the news if FOX decides they are antisemitic or anti-America again.

OAC gets more press in general because she is more outspoken.

Of course there are people on the right who LOOK for them so they point out how bad they are...whether they are or not.

[Dill]

(10-19-2023, 02:22 PM)pally Wrote: if anything, the actual reporting was irrelevant to people's biases. It is not going to change anyone's mind or opinions.  The Arab world is not reading the New York Times for breaking news.  The NYT reported the story based on what was known at the time and even pointed out who claimed it. Subsequent reporting updated the story.  That's how breaking news works in this day and age.  

 Luvnit's point was mainstream media fanned the flames by deliberately lying and how dare they do that. 

Yeah, Luvint seemed, or wanted, to think that Tlaib was a cause of all that ME rioting.

I too am curious as to why the sudden outrage over "misinformation" which, unlike that on the most popular cable news show,
was quickly corrected. And why is someone who in the past has been so susceptible to it is suddenly choosing that hill to die on.
That's a question about how US politics are invested in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Within the US balance of political forces, why
does that conflict so often create such fear of tipped balance and/or a surge opportunistic propaganda?

Luvnit's post seems prompted by worry about Israel's "reputation," hence his inflating the possible damage thereto. 
On the most popular US cable channel, referencing the occupation isn't just anti-semitism; it is "supporting Hamas."

Absence of information, over decades, is a kind of disinformation as well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-19-2023, 09:12 PM)Dill Wrote: Yeah, Luvint seemed, or wanted, to think that Tlaib was a cause of all that ME rioting.

You really don't read anything before commenting on it, do you?  He said she helped, and continues to help spread and legitimize Hamas proaganda.  Which is a factual statement.

Quote:I too am curious as to why the sudden outrage over "misinformation" which, unlike that on the most popular cable news show,
was quickly corrected. And why is someone who in the past has been so susceptible to it is suddenly choosing that hill to die on.
That's a question about how US politics are invested in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Within the US balance of political forces, why
does that conflict so often create such fear of tipped balance and/or a surge opportunistic propaganda?

What is it about the far lefties on this board that they literally cannot address the point being made.  Like your pal Pally (see what I did there?) you turn it into a whatabout argument

Quote:Luvnit's post seems prompted by worry about Israel's "reputation," hence his inflating the possible damage thereto. 
On the most popular US cable channel, referencing the occupation isn't just anti-semitism; it is "supporting Hamas."

Absence of information, over decades, is a kind of disinformation as well.

Actually his main point is that the NYT, and others, helped spread Hamas propaganda.  This endangers US lives, threatens to widen the conflict, and will cause more loss of life as well as damage Israel's reputation.  So no, his concern is clearly not just with Israel's reputation.  I can safely say that because I actually read what he wrote.

[Luvnit2]

(10-20-2023, 01:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You really don't read anything before commenting on it, do you?  He said she helped, and continues to help spread and legitimize Hamas proaganda.  Which is a factual statement.



What is it about the far lefties on this board that they literally cannot address the point being made.  Like your pal Pally (see what I did there?) you turn it into a whatabout argument


Actually his main point is that the NYT, and others, helped spread Hamas propaganda.  This endangers US lives, threatens to widen the conflict, and will cause more loss of life as well as damage Israel's reputation.  So no, his concern is clearly not just with Israel's reputation.  I can safely say that because I actually read what he wrote.

Thanks, you captured my thoughts 100%. Some just want to argue and support the actions of Talib and others with bias towards Jews. I would think major newspapers and news stations would do research prior to taking the word of Hamas. They literally used Hamas propaganda as fact knowing they are not a trusted source.

All of them triggered a response from Iran and the Arab world immediately leading to protests here and abroad. These sources and people like Talib poured gasoline on the fire igniting hate filled protests against foreign embassies.

Talib doubled down and ignited a riot in the capitol building that lead to police officers being assaulted and 300 arrests. She spoke to this group outside the capital and repeated the lies Israel bombed a hospital in Gaza.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2023, 05:32 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Thanks, you captured my thoughts 100%. Some just want to argue and support the actions of Talib and others with bias towards Jews. I would think major newspapers and news stations would do research prior to taking the word of Hamas. They literally used Hamas propaganda as fact knowing they are not a trusted source.

All of them triggered a response from Iran and the Arab world immediately leading to protests here and abroad. These sources and people like Talib poured gasoline on the fire igniting hate filled protests against foreign embassies.

Talib doubled down and ignited a riot in the capitol building that lead to police officers being assaulted and 300 arrests. She spoke to this group outside the capital and repeated the lies Israel bombed a hospital in Gaza.

You're welcome.  We don't agree on a whole lot but fair is fair.  I loathe people's arguments being deliberately twisted and misconstrued.  It was very clear what you were saying if you bothered reading your post.  

[Dill]

(10-20-2023, 01:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Yeah, Luvint seemed, or wanted, to think that Tlaib was a cause of all that ME rioting.
You really don't read anything before commenting on it, do you?  He said she helped, and continues to help spread and legitimize Hamas proaganda.  Which is a factual statement.
What is it about the far lefties on this board that they literally cannot address the point being made.  Like your pal Pally (see what I did there?) you turn it into a whatabout argument

He also said (your emphasis):

Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. 
We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation.

Which is not all that "factual."   So I also said in response, post #32:

It is very unlikely that crowds protesting before US embassies throughout the Middle East are reacting to Tlaib and the NYT. 
And, of course, that Tlaib was a cause of all that rioting.

Which is all "addressing the point being made," just refusing to buy into the hyperbole.
In Arab countries, full of people who don't read English, their press went with the story as quickly as the NYT.  So Occam's Razor. 
Pally was quite right. The Times report probably moved the needle for no one, especially after the retraction. 
So ME rioting, sure. Caused by Tlaib, HIGHLY doubtful.

And unless someone can show otherwise, time to stop stirring up that tempest in a teapot and focus on actions which
will actually have the impact you falsely attribute to a retracted news story.

(10-20-2023, 01:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually his main point is that the NYT, and others, helped spread Hamas propaganda.  This endangers US lives, threatens to widen the conflict, and will cause more loss of life as well as damage Israel's reputation.  So no, his concern is clearly not just with Israel's reputation.  I can safely say that because I actually read what he wrote.

Yeah, the very "main point" which I read and disputed. And no one said his concern was "just with" Israel's reputation. I raised the question of how US politics are inflected with Israel's, to that point that Israel's reputation can upset a balance of forces in our politics. That's why I think he is concerned with Israel's reputation; you are more concerned the NYT's reputation.

For the moment, the more direct threat to US lives appears to be the irrational hype of Palestinian "evil" in right wing media, which apparently led to the stabbing death of a Palestinian child in Chicago. That's the first casualty on US soil. 

What threatens to widen the conflict, and endanger US lives over the long term, is the US coming down hard on the Israeli side, after winking at their "end around" the Palestinian question.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2023, 06:09 PM)Dill Wrote: He also said (your emphasis):

Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. 
We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation.

Which is not all that "factual."   So I also said in response, post #32:

Yes, her repeating it, even after it was debunked was, is and will continue to cause harm.  This is factual.  Just as people repeating the "big lie" were, are and will continue to cause harm. I will concede that we can't know for sure that Tlaib is an antisemite, but if she's not she's doing an awfully good job of imitating one.

Quote:It is very unlikely that crowds protesting before US embassies throughout the Middle East are reacting to Tlaib and the NYT. 
And, of course, that Tlaib was a cause of all that rioting.

He didn't say she was the cause of the rioting.  He said her spreading Hamas propaganda was contributing to it.  Why do you lie about things so easily debunked?

Quote:Which is all "addressing the point being made," just refusing to buy into the hyperbole.
In Arab countries, full of people who don't read English, their press went with the story as quickly as the NYT.  So Occam's Razor. 

Of course they did, they'd blame Israel even if Hamas flat out claimed responsibility.  This surprises no one.

Quote:Pally was quite right. The Times report probably moved the needle for no one, especially after the retraction. 
So ME rioting, sure. Caused by Tlaib, HIGHLY doubtful.

At this point I must reiterate that you clearly don't read posts before responding to them.  I've addressed this disingenuous assertion from you already.  Again, why do you repeat lies that are so easily disproven by simply reading the posts in this thread?  Do you think people are that stupid?

Quote:And unless someone can show otherwise, time to stop stirring up that tempest in a teapot and focus on actions which
will actually have the impact you falsely attribute to a retracted news story.

The NYT and Tlaib repeating and reinforcing terrorist propaganda is indisputably a boon to Hamas and their terrorist cause.  As already stated, it didn't create the fire, it just threw gasoline on it.

Quote:Yeah, the very "main point" which I read and disputed. And no one said his concern was "just with" Israel's reputation. I raised the question of how US politics are inflected with Israel's, to that point that Israel's reputation can upset a balance of forces in our politics. That's why I think he is concerned with Israel's reputation; you are more concerned the NYT's reputation.

Another comprehension fail.  I'm concerned with how this will assist a terrorist organization to spread its vile message and widen a conflict already in danger of spreading.  That the NYT and Tlaib are assisting in this endeavor certainly caused us to comment on them.

Quote:For the moment, the more direct threat to US lives appears to be the irrational hype of Palestinian "evil" in right wing media, which apparently led to the stabbing death of a Palestinian child in Chicago. That's the first casualty on US soil. 

Dear god, you are far more of a rigid ideologue than I ever suspected.

Quote:What threatens to widen the conflict, and endanger US lives over the long term, is the US coming down hard on the Israeli side, after winking at their "end around" the Palestinian question.

One of the most fascinating things about this conflict is how much the mask is slipping off some people's faces.  You've literally shown that arguing with you on the topic of Israel, or Islam in general, is like trying to convince a Klan member that racism is bad.  You come off as an ideological extremist, or you're doing an awfully good job of imitating one.

[GMDino]

(10-20-2023, 06:09 PM)Dill Wrote: He also said (your emphasis):

Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. 
We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation.

Which is not all that "factual."   So I also said in response, post #32:

It is very unlikely that crowds protesting before US embassies throughout the Middle East are reacting to Tlaib and the NYT. 
And, of course, that Tlaib was a cause of all that rioting.

Which is all "addressing the point being made," just refusing to buy into the hyperbole.
In Arab countries, full of people who don't read English, their press went with the story as quickly as the NYT.  So Occam's Razor. 
Pally was quite right. The Times report probably moved the needle for no one, especially after the retraction. 
So ME rioting, sure. Caused by Tlaib, HIGHLY doubtful.

And unless someone can show otherwise, time to stop stirring up that tempest in a teapot and focus on actions which
will actually have the impact you falsely attribute to a retracted news story.


Yeah, the very "main point" which I read and disputed. And no one said his concern was "just with" Israel's reputation. I raised the question of how US politics are inflected with Israel's, to that point that Israel's reputation can upset a balance of forces in our politics. That's why I think he is concerned with Israel's reputation; you are more concerned the NYT's reputation.

For the moment, the more direct threat to US lives appears to be the irrational hype of Palestinian "evil" in right wing media, which apparently led to the stabbing death of a Palestinian child in Chicago. That's the first casualty on US soil. 

What threatens to widen the conflict, and endanger US lives over the long term, is the US coming down hard on the Israeli side, after winking at their "end around" the Palestinian question.

All good points Dill, but what's the point in trying?

You will be told YOU don't understand and are being "disingenuous" (possibly deliberately so) and if you had any reading comprehension skills you'd see why they are right and you are wrong.  Again.

And how could anyone else understand the TRUE reasons behind what the media posts and Tlaib says?!?!

Obviously no one with a background such as yours could possibly be able to break down posts by the absolute least partisan posters! 

All seriousness aside they are as bad with Tlaib as others are with P01135809 only they have wait and search for her do something while he does something every day.

[GMDino]

Meanwhile Musk continues to make X as bad as possible.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2023/10/20/NewsGuard-report-X-verified-accounts-spread-misinformation-Israel-Hamas-war/2601697796230/

Quote:U.S. watchdog: Verified X accounts are main source of misinformation about Israel-Hamas war
NewsGuard takes issue with the platform's Blue-Checked account verification process
By A.L. Lee

 [/url]  

A scathing report published by the social media watchdog NewsGuard condemns X's account verification process for failing to prevent "superspreaders of misinformation" about the Israel-Hamas war. File Photo by Ismael Mohamad/ UPI | [url=https://www.upi.com/News_Photos/lp/45297f3f23948f4cff978da52b62704a/]License Photo

Oct. 20 (UPI) -- Verified accounts on the social media platform X are responsible for spreading the bulk of misinformation on the site about the Israel-Hamas war, according to an analysis by the U.S.-based content moderation watchdog, NewsGuard.



The report, titled "Pay to Play," accuses the social media giant of enabling its verified users to generate 74% of the platform's most widely shared false or unsubstantiated claims about the continuing conflict.

The report condemns the platform's account verification process, which is designed to authenticate the account owner as a real person or entity, saying the protocol has done "nothing" to prevent "superspreaders of misinformation about the conflict."


The company's billionaire owner Elon Musk overhauled the platform's verification system in March after taking over as CEO in Oct. 2022, when he purchased the platform for $44 billion. Under Musk's system, users can pay $8 a month to display a blue checkmark on their profiles, which elevates their visibility on the site, while adding a layer of credibility with a vast audience.

"This means that they appear higher, with greater prominence, in users' feeds," the report states. "That decision turned out to be a boon for bad actors sharing misinformation" about the war.


During the first full week of the war, NewsGuard collected the 250 most-engaged posts -- including likes, reposts, replies, and bookmarks -- and found 186 of these were from verified accounts that promoted false or unsubstantiated claims about the war.


The report lists nearly a dozen instances of disinformation circulating on the platform unchecked, including false claims that would serve to incite the public, such as: Ukraine sold weapons to Hamas, Israel killed 33,000 Palestinian children since 2008, or that the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7 was a false flag event launched by Israel and the West.


The analysis also said fake videos were circulating on the site that purportedly showed things like Israeli senior officials captured by Hamas and Palestinian children in cages.


"Collectively, posts advancing these myths received 1,349,979 engagements and were cumulatively viewed by more than 100 million times globally in just one week," the report said.


The report takes issue with Musk's strategy for crowdsourced fact-checking through a feature called "Community Notes," which flagged only 79 of the 250 false posts identified in the study by NewsGuard.

"X's reliance on crowdsourced fact-checking through Community Notes, rather than by professional fact-checkers or other independent journalistic efforts, has been a hallmark of Musk's time as owner of X," the report states, adding that X's methods had failed so far to counter the most prominent viral myths emerging from the conflict.


NewsGuard also looked into misinformation circulating on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Telegram, and elsewhere, but took a deeper dive into Twitter as Musk has been vocal about cutting moderation efforts to promote freedom of speech on the platform.


On Oct. 13, the European Commission sought more information from X as part of an investigation into whether the platform was taking genuine steps to remove disinformation about the war.


Previously, the global body gave the company 24 hours to respond to demands for bolder actions to curtail persistent falsehoods on the site or face massive fines.


In response, X CEO Linda Yaccarino sent an email to the EU, saying the company planned to fully cooperate with European laws and had already removed hundreds of Hamas-affiliated accounts from the platform while "actively working" to address the incendiary content that remained.


"Since the terrorist attack on Israel, we have taken action to remove or label tens of thousands of pieces of content, while Community Notes are visible on thousands of posts, generating millions of impressions," Yaccarino wrote. "There is no place on X for terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups and we continue to remove such accounts in real time."

X has also begun testing a new $1 annual fee in New Zealand and the Philippines for new users to post content in an effort to combat non-human accounts or "bots."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2023, 06:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: All good points Dill, but what's the point in trying?

You're quite correct, you'll parrot whatever he says, so trying is unnecessary. 

[Dill]

(10-20-2023, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

It is very unlikely that crowds protesting before US embassies throughout the Middle East are reacting to Tlaib and the NYT. 
And, of course, that Tlaib was a cause of all that rioting.

He didn't say she was the cause of the rioting.  He said her spreading Hamas propaganda was contributing to it.  Why do you lie about things so easily debunked? . . .
Pally was quite right. The Times report probably moved the needle for no one, especially after the retraction. 
So ME rioting, sure. Caused by Tlaib, HIGHLY doubtful.
At this point I must reiterate that you clearly don't read posts before responding to them.  I've addressed this disingenuous assertion from you already.  Again, why do you repeat lies that are so easily disproven by simply reading the posts in this thread?  Do you think people are that stupid?

LOL So THAT'S how you "easily debunk" a "lie"?  First of all, I said "a" cause, not "the." But let's take a closer look at those posts I "clearly don't read." In post #1 Luvnit said "the squad" used their bad reporting and CAUSED a "ton of harm." 

"Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation." 

Why would he use the term "caused" if he meant "influenced"?  But I'm "LYING" If I say he said "caused" because he said "caused"?

In his post #17, he says people think Israel attacked the hospital BECAUSE of what a "US Congress woman" said. That's asserting a causal relation, not "influence."

"My guess is they still think Israel attacked the hospital because CNN and NYT said they did as well as a US Congress Woman."

On the home front, he doesn't say she "influenced" rioting here in post #45. He says she IGNITED it. That's a CAUSAL relation, different from "pouring gas" on a fire ignited  by someone else. Whenever he talks about Tlaib, he positions her as a cause.

So again, I am quoting the posts you say I don't read before responding. That's called SUPPORT or PROOF. And PROOF is not "easily disproven." What you call "addressing disingenuous assertion" is just bald assertion without support or proof. So not "addressing" anything. 

Final note--for the argument I was making, it was immaterial whether Luvnit said Tlaib "caused" or "influenced" rioting. My point was that her effect was exaggerated, first by him, now by you. Yet on that immaterial distinction you pile your usual UNSUPPORTED accusations that I lie and am "disingenuous." As if all that had been actually established in some previous post and now you are put out by having to repeat it. This is a tactic you've used on a number of threads. Examples provided upon request.

[Dill]

(10-20-2023, 06:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, the very "main point" which I read and disputed. And no one said his concern was "just with" Israel's reputation. I raised the question of how US politics are inflected with Israel's, to that point that Israel's reputation can upset a balance of forces in our politics. That's why I think he is concerned with Israel's reputation; you are more concerned the NYT's reputation.
Another comprehension fail.  I'm concerned with how this will assist a terrorist organization to spread its vile message and widen a conflict already in danger of spreading.  That the NYT and Tlaib are assisting in this endeavor certainly caused us to comment on them.

For the moment, the more direct threat to US lives appears to be the irrational hype of Palestinian "evil" in right wing media, which apparently led to the stabbing death of a Palestinian child in Chicago. That's the first casualty on US soil. 

Dear god, you are far more of a rigid ideologue than I ever suspected.

What threatens to widen the conflict, and endanger US lives over the long term, is the US coming down hard on the Israeli side, after winking at their "end around" the Palestinian question.

One of the most fascinating things about this conflict is how much the mask is slipping off some people's faces.  You've literally shown that arguing with you on the topic of Israel, or Islam in general, is like trying to convince a Klan member that racism is bad.  You come off as an ideological extremist, or you're doing an awfully good job of imitating one.

You were asked to SHOW that the NYT's corrected misreporting and Tlaib's repetition of it have the effect in the ME that you and Luvnit claim for it. That would mean showing how an English language report and Tlaib made a difference in an Arab media environment already saturated with the Hospital story. Your response is that it just "indisputibly" does. So you've SHOWN nothing.

When I suggest US support for Israeli policies ignoring the Palestinian question will pose a greater threat to US lives and interests in the long run than Tlaib and the corrected report, you don't bother offering evidence to the contrary. Dismissing my invitations to offer reasons, you trot out a Klan analogy to explain why I can't be reasoned with. How's that not just policing for ideological conformity--and a dodge?

And if I refuse to jump on the hate bandwagon that lead to a child's death, that cements my "rigid ideologue" status. 

In your world, it's the guy reasoning from and asking for evidence who "comes off as an ideological extremist." 

So I don't see a real concern about damage to the US in all this or how what might actually be moving events in the ME. You've rejected two chances to substantively discuss that in favor of a Klan analogy and personal attacks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2023, 09:47 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL So THAT'S how you "easily debunk" a "lie"?  First of all, I said "a" cause, not "the." But let's take a closer look at those posts I "clearly don't read." In post #1 Luvnit said "the squad" used their bad reporting and CAUSED a "ton of harm." 

"Then the squad used their bad reporting and caused a ton of harm, not only in the US, but the world. We know Talib hates Jewish people so know her motivation." 

Why would he use the term "caused" if he meant "influenced"?  But I'm "LYING" If I say he said "caused" because he said "caused"?

In his post #17, he says people think Israel attacked the hospital BECAUSE of what a "US Congress woman" said. That's asserting a causal relation, not "influence."

"My guess is they still think Israel attacked the hospital because CNN and NYT said they did as well as a US Congress Woman."

On the home front, he doesn't say she "influenced" rioting here in post #45. He says she IGNITED it. That's a CAUSAL relation, different from "pouring gas" on a fire ignited  by someone else. Whenever he talks about Tlaib, he positions her as a cause.

So again, I am quoting the posts you say I don't read before responding. That's called SUPPORT or PROOF. And PROOF is not "easily disproven." What you call "addressing disingenuous assertion" is just bald assertion without support or proof. So not "addressing" anything. 

Final note--for the argument I was making, it was immaterial whether Luvnit said Tlaib "caused" or "influenced" rioting. My point was that her effect was exaggerated, first by him, now by you. Yet on that immaterial distinction you pile your usual UNSUPPORTED accusations that I lie and am "disingenuous." As if all that had been actually established in some previous post and now you are put out by having to repeat it. This is a tactic you've used on a number of threads. Examples provided upon request.

(10-21-2023, 09:50 AM)Dill Wrote: You were asked to SHOW that the NYT's corrected misreporting and Tlaib's repetition of it have the effect in the ME that you and Luvnit claim for it. That would mean showing how an English language report and Tlaib made a difference in an Arab media environment already saturated with the Hospital story. Your response is that it just "indisputibly" does. So you've SHOWN nothing.

When I suggest US support for Israeli policies ignoring the Palestinian question will pose a greater threat to US lives and interests in the long run than Tlaib and the corrected report, you don't bother offering evidence to the contrary. Dismissing my invitations to offer reasons, you trot out a Klan analogy to explain why I can't be reasoned with. How's that not just policing for ideological conformity--and a dodge?

And if I refuse to jump on the hate bandwagon that lead to a child's death, that cements my "rigid ideologue" status. 

In your world, it's the guy reasoning from and asking for evidence who "comes off as an ideological extremist." 

So I don't see a real concern about damage to the US in all this or how what might actually be moving events in the ME. You've rejected two chances to substantively discuss that in favor of a Klan analogy and personal attacks.

Do you really think I'm going to continue to address things already addressed that you repeat again and again and again?  As is always the case with you, you get answers, twist them and repeat your question.

Here are some indisputable facts.  The NYT repeated Hamas propaganda.  Tlaib continues to repeat Hamas propaganda, despite it being debunked by US intelligence.  Neither of these facts can be disputed.  You disagree as to the extent of the damage done by this.  Fine.  You think a major US paper and a sitting congressperson who gets tons of publicity laundering Hamas propaganda does no damage to US interests and doesn't put US lives in danger.  Fine.  I find that that to be so obviously untrue that only a pure ideologue would think otherwise.  At the end of the day that is the crux of this discussion.  Given your posting history I dare say no one is surprised by your position on this.  At all.

[Dill]

(10-21-2023, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you really think I'm going to continue to address things already addressed that you repeat again and again and again?  As is always the case with you, you get answers, twist them and repeat your question.

Here are some indisputable facts.  The NYT repeated Hamas propaganda.  Tlaib continues to repeat Hamas propaganda, despite it being debunked by US intelligence.  Neither of these facts can be disputed.  You disagree as to the extent of the damage done by this.  Fine.  You think a major US paper and a sitting congressperson who gets tons of publicity laundering Hamas propaganda does no damage to US interests and doesn't put US lives in danger.  Fine.  I find that that to be so obviously untrue that only a pure ideologue would think otherwise.  At the end of the day that is the crux of this discussion.  Given your posting history I dare say no one is surprised by your position on this.  At all.

I think you won't continue to claim that I "lied" when I said Luvnit said Tlaib CAUSED ME unrest. So no, you won't continue accusing me of failure to read what he actually wrote and not "addressing points actually made." You will continue to make unsupported claims about issues and then call them "already addressed" when asked for evidence. That is a tactic.

Since no one disputes that Tlaib repeated the erroneous claim about the hospital strike. Or that she continued to repeat it afterwards. Maybe you no longer need to keep claiming that is a "fact" and "indisputable" as if someone were disputing it.  

You finally got the bolded right. But then you have to add that I claim "no damage to US interests" etc. I guess you put those words in my mouth so you could find them "obviously untrue." If you are not an ideologue, then stop this insistent misrepresentation of my arguments.

US interests and lives ARE going to be in danger, given that the US has not only sided with Israel, but is sending material support and troops to aid it as well. Given that, it's very hard to see any coming damage as somehow directly attributable to Tlaib and NYT story, which was also reported in the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/media/confusion-over-gaza-hospital-blast-shows-challenge-for-journalists-covering-israel-hamas-conflict-238922b9. What reason is there to believe otherwise? If you don't have a reason, and US security is really your concern, then why keep banging the Times rather than addressing policies which have actually elevated the threat? 
The "tons of publicity" you reference are going to be in this country, NOT in the ME. Though that doesn't mean some guy in Egypt who reads English wasn't pushed to throw a rock at the US embassy because of Tlaib. But if he reads Al Aribiya too, how can we tell which really motivated him?

What IS going to draw fire down on US interests is US support for Israeli's attempt to go around the Palestinian question. If and when that trouble does come, I won't be surprised if right-leaning members of this forum blame it on the Times and Tlaib. If so, it will be more deflection from the real causes of the current conflict, with the goal of keeping intact a rightwing perspective on domestic and foreign policy.

No reason to believe Luvnit has a clue to what those causes are, or interest in learning about them, but you do have a clue, given my "posting history" of deploying Israeli historians and news sources to counter disinformation about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You cannot label your way out of that by calling me the "pure ideologue." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2023, 01:51 PM)Dill Wrote: I think you won't continue to claim that I "lied" when I said Luvnit said Tlaib CAUSED ME unrest. So no, you won't continue accusing me of failure to read what he actually wrote and not "addressing points actually made." You will continue to make unsupported claims about issues and then call them "already addressed" when asked for evidence. That is a tactic.

Since no one disputes that Tlaib repeated the erroneous claim about the hospital strike. Or that she continued to repeat it afterwards. Maybe you no longer need to keep claiming that is a "fact" and "indisputable" as if someone were disputing it.  

You finally got the bolded right. But then you have to add that I claim "no damage to US interests" etc. I guess you put those words in my mouth so you could find them "obviously untrue." If you are not an ideologue, then stop this insistent misrepresentation of my arguments.

US interests and lives ARE going to be in danger, given that the US has not only sided with Israel, but is sending material support and troops to aid it as well. Given that, it's very hard to see any coming damage as somehow directly attributable to Tlaib and NYT story, which was also reported in the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/media/confusion-over-gaza-hospital-blast-shows-challenge-for-journalists-covering-israel-hamas-conflict-238922b9. What reason is there to believe otherwise? If you don't have a reason, and US security is really your concern, then why keep banging the Times rather than addressing policies which have actually elevated the threat? 
The "tons of publicity" you reference are going to be in this country, NOT in the ME. Though that doesn't mean some guy in Egypt who reads English wasn't pushed to throw a rock at the US embassy because of Tlaib. But if he reads Al Aribiya too, how can we tell which really motivated him?

What IS going to draw fire down on US interests is US support for Israeli's attempt to go around the Palestinian question. If and when that trouble does come, I won't be surprised if right-leaning members of this forum blame it on the Times and Tlaib. If so, it will be more deflection from the real causes of the current conflict, with the goal of keeping intact a rightwing perspective on domestic and foreign policy.

No reason to believe Luvnit has a clue to what those causes are, or interest in learning about them, but you do have a clue, given my "posting history" of deploying Israeli historians and news sources to counter disinformation about the Arab-Israeli conflict. You cannot label your way out of that by calling me the "pure ideologue." 

You're really incapable of not blowing anything into a doctoral dissertation are you?  You're position is wrong on its face, you don't think a US congressperson spreading terrorist propaganda is harmful to US interests or endangers US lives.  Maybe it's because you doubt Hamas is a terrorist organization?

So, I'll ask point blank, as it's rather germane.  Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization?

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-jewish-synagogue-president-samantha-woll-found-dead-outside-detroit-home


Michigan Jewish synagogue president Samantha Woll found dead outside Detroit home

She was stabbed to death.

Isn't the lunatic Jew hater Talaib from Michigan.

I ams sure she is celebrating just as she did on October 7 when Hamas beheaded civilians including babies, raped women and dragged then naked through the streets and burned some alive.

Talaib incited murders like this, she incites hate crimes against Jewish people.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-21-2023, 07:04 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Isn't the lunatic Jew hater Talaib from Michigan.

Speaking of politics/partisanship, didn't the GOP just decline to censor Tlaib?  Obviously they want her continuing to spew her brand of hatred because they think it will gain them some votes.

I continue to be shocked that Libertarians can't break even 5% in any election.  I just cannot believe people keep voting for these self-interested jackasses in Washington.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-20-2023, 06:09 PM)Dill Wrote: For the moment, the more direct threat to US lives appears to be the irrational hype of Palestinian "evil" in right wing media, which apparently led to the stabbing death of a Palestinian child in Chicago. That's the first casualty on US soil. 

I really dislike the waiving of the bloody shirt tactic.  But I'll make an exception to use your own BS against you.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2023/10/21/detroit-synagogue-president-found-dead-at-home-police-say/71272065007/

A Rabbi was stabbed to death in Tlaib's district today.  We have as much proof it was motivated by Tlaib's rhetoric as you had for blaming the right wing media for the death of a Palestinian child in deep red Chicago, so I have no doubt you'll be consistent and blame Tlaib for this woman's death.  Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-21-2023, 07:04 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-jewish-synagogue-president-samantha-woll-found-dead-outside-detroit-home


Michigan Jewish synagogue president Samantha Woll found dead outside Detroit home

She was stabbed to death.

Isn't the lunatic Jew hater Talaib from Michigan.

I ams sure she is celebrating just as she did on October 7 when Hamas beheaded civilians including babies, raped women and dragged then naked through the streets and burned some alive.

Talaib incited murders like this, she incites hate crimes against Jewish people.

Forgive me, I didn't see you'd already posted about this.  In the interest of fairness I don't think you can say Tlaib "celebrated" the rapes and murders of 10/07/23.  She certainly hasn't condemned it, and she has repeatedly reinforced debunked Hamas propaganda, but saying she celebrated the events of 10/07 is a bridge too far.

I will she has failed to condemn them, and using the left's own values a failure to condemn something is tantamount to endorsing it.  But I don't agree with that foolishness.  Using the far left's standards "silence equals violence" so Tlaib is actually guilty of violence against Israelis for her failure to speak out against those atrocities.  But I don't believe in amplifying the beliefs of extremists, unlike others.