On 3 Aug 2002 at 8:29, Casey wrote:
>
> <snip>
> [Joe Dees] Tu quoque. You are doing exactly that, no matter how
> vehemently you deny it; your sources themselves share your biases, and
> that is my point. Ther is only one root estimate to which you are
> referring, by amnesty international, and a whole bunch of cross-post
> copycats of it.
>
> [Hermit] I am with Mr Jenkins (infra). This is indeed becoming
> surreal. First you assert that individual deaths can be accounted for.
> When I ask for your list - or at least its source, you assert that all
> of the following sources - including eye-witnesses - derived their
> information from Amnesty International. Count them:
>
> H.J. Chien
> Pakistan Observer
> The Guardian
> Times of India
> CommonDreams
> Los Angeles Times
> The Boston Globe
> The Washington Post
> The Independent
> workingforchange.com
> The Frontier Post [Peshawar]
> BBC News Online
> Agence France Press
> Dawn
>
> <snip>
> [Joe Dees]
> Apparently you were right on this one; Amnesty International was
> quoting your agenda-driven meta-study, too.
>
>
> <snip>
> [Hermit referreed to]
> Gulf War II - How a War With Iraq Will Change the World
> It's not if but when. Here are the consequences.
> Source: FORTUNE
> (http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_i
> d=208461) Authors: Bill Powell Dated: 2002-07-08
>
> [Joe Dees]
> <snip Hermit's cross-posted propaganda>
>
> [Casey]
> Joe, am I to understand that the aforementioned organization and media
> sources are biased and propagandastic?
>
> That's quite a list if you consider that they are well-known to cover
> a broad range on the political spectrum.
>
> I can hardly imagine that, for example, Amnesty International, BBC
> News Online, the Washington Post, and Fortune Magazine are conspiring
> together to undermine the US position in the Middle East through a
> media disinformation campaign.
>
> I'm not attempting to trivialize your argument, nor anyone's on this
> list. I'm still undecided about what action the US should take, if
> any at all.
>
> So, if anyone on the list has undeniable proof that the new sources
> they use are completely unbiased please forward me the names of the
> sources. I want a clear head going into this. And I don't need some
> dove or hawk tweaking with my brain.
>
I am claiming that the common source they are all referencing has its
own political agenda (something confirmed by Hermit when he
mentioned that that source's self-appointed mission was to bring the
voices of those whom they in their personal judgment considered
marginalized to the front and center of the media).
>
> Thank you! tongue2
> Casey
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Casey to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=25860>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT