Well, well, well, looks like Charles is about to launch himself headfirst into another Qanaa fiasco (remember the massacre of Lebanese civilians Charles claimed had been 'staged', but which turned out _ inconveniently for him and the victims _ to have actually taken place?).
This time Charles focuses his eagle eyes tens of thousands of miles across the Atlantic onto a 'fake' Iraqi police officer, one Jamil Hussein (Arabs in the audience will be laughing now at the assertion that there is "no Jamil Hussein in the Baghdad police").
While we wait and see how this story developes, it's important to remember what the purpose of Charles' and Co's latest little campaign is: they want to discredit anyone who calls the situation in Iraq a civil war.
So they attack one blurry incident, using the combined might of Google and an allied Command Center that has spent the last 4 years unsuccessfully coming to grips with an insurgency/civil war in Iraq. Way. To. Go.
Just keep one thing in mind when you read LGF over the next few days: this is the blog that regularly ignores the mass killing of Iraqis by Iraqis (see 160 killed last week, which got not one word on LGf); the blog that doesn't deem it worth mentioning when US soldiers are found guilty of rape and murder in Iraq; and the blog that has kept stumm on the fact that Washington's man in Iraq is turning to ... the anti-Christ in Tehran for help because America has failed him.
Then ask yourself: who are you more prepared to trust when it comes to news from Iraq: Charles Johnson, whose primary source of information seems to be his morning stool, or journalists with years of experience working in the country?
Little Green Footballs
Monday, November 27, 2006
LGF: Getting the news out of its own arse
Posted by X at 22:59
1 comment:
"Who are you more prepared to trust when it comes to news from Iraq: Charles Johnson, whose primary source of information seems to be his morning stool, or journalists with years of experience working in the country?"
False dichotomy much? Maybe I could trust some of the reporters and not others. Maybe I could trust some of them on some things and all of them on all things.
Even Wong, the reporter, seems to doubt the veracity of the story. Or at least he admits that what should have happened, if the incident occurred, didn't.
"it's important to remember what the purpose of Charles' and Co's latest little campaign is: they want to discredit anyone who calls the situation in Iraq a civil war."
Hmmmm, sounds like an ad hominem to me. Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but their motives should be irrelevant to your assessment of the facts.
You make a worthy display of standard leftist pathology. Anyone who disagrees with you must be doing so for reasons of dishonesty or stupidity. You can't fathom that others might have some reason (not necessarily sufficient, or complete) for disagreeing with you.
[By the way, don't bother to accuse me of hypocrisy. I've disputed your claims with reference to the evidence, or lack thereof. Now I'm considering the evidence your behavior reveals.]
Here's a question: what form and amount of evidence would be necessary to convince you that certain contemporary religious beliefs tend to influence their carriers toward violent acts more than other religious beliefs? Is there any such evidence, or is your belief in the peaceful nature of certain religions unfalsifiable?
This comment makes what.. 20 or so comments on this blog-for-losers?
Post a Comment