Moonbat alert: Chomksy condemns Bin Laden kill.

Stokes, eglsim,

Informationclearinghouse and infoshop respectively are about as reliable as prison planet.

jiggeryqua,

You do remember the protests comparing bush to hitler and chomsky comparing Iraq 2003 to Poland 1939 as well as George Galloway? The left would have believed it if someone had said that the US was forcing Iraqis to march across minefields at gunpoint, and many were also truthers.

Here's a link: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
stokes,

informationclearinghouse is one of the LEAST reliable sources of information on the internet.
Click to expand...

Sure. But it isn't an opinion piece by information clearing house, it's a discussion of the findings of a pair of academics studying global jihadism. You're welcome to tell me why it is wrong if you believe it is, but i'd suggest reading this article before dismissing the findings out of hand.
 
non-sequitur WRT the Guardian article. And the ICH article assumes that Iraq is the SOLE reason for terrorist attacks since 2003. If that were the case, then why have they not targeted the US, but rather other muslims?

And the original lancet article suggested that the US was slaughtering Iraqis out of hand (there's no other way for the death toll to have gotten that high).
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
egslim,

Infoshop isn't a good source either.
Click to expand...
Oh, put up or shut up.

The article refers to a study from one of the schools of Columbia University.

If you find a flaw in their research, fine, then you might have a point.

But if all you can do is whine about a website that merely referred to their study, just shut up.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
non-sequitur WRT the Guardian article.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a "yes-sequitur"(TM) until you point out a flaw in the academic study, at which point we can discuss whether or not the study is useful or not. Or, if you weren't actually dismissing the article because it disagreed with your world view as discussed in the guardian article, then it is in fact your post that was a non-sequitur.

NWO Sentryman said:
And the ICH article assumes that Iraq is the SOLE reason for terrorist attacks since 2003. If that were the case, then why have they not targeted the US, but rather other muslims?
Click to expand...

That's not my claim, and I wasn't making the argument that my source backs up that idea. I don't care about the opinions of a partisan blog here. I was citing academics who claim that the invasion of iraq increased global jihadism sevenfold.
 
egslim,

Referring to a study does NOT make everything in the article to be absolutely true. And unfortunately, the URL is down ATM, so i can't analyse the article further.

And stokes.

It's a tenuous claim that Iraq increased jihadism. If that were the case, then why is mot terrorist violence directed at muslims?

What i'm getting at is that extreme bias (like Infoshop or worldnetdaily) makes an article unreliable because of the extremely subjective nature.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
It's a tenuous claim that Iraq increased jihadism. If that were the case, then why is mot terrorist violence directed at muslims?
Click to expand...

Because those muslims are seen as pawns of the west, I assume. Specifically the afghan and iraqi governments. Random attacks on civilians are most likely attempts to destabilise the country to force out western armies and pro-western governments.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
What i'm getting at is that extreme bias (like Infoshop or worldnetdaily) makes an article unreliable because of the extremely subjective nature.
Click to expand...

If you believe that, then follow the article to it's source, and come back and say either that the source itself is flawed, or that it doesn't say what the article claims it does. Until then you're not providing a useful criticism.
 
I'm happy to agree that there has been a significant amount of civilian deaths in Iraq egslim, maybe more than what was collated in the IBC, but it's quite a stretch to say that it's 5x what the IBC recorded.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
egslim,

Referring to a study does NOT make everything in the article to be absolutely true. And unfortunately, the URL is down ATM, so i can't analyse the article further.
Click to expand...
Try this link: http://www.newsfrommiddleeast.com/?new=75579. In addition to the article it includes two research papers.

Copies of the article are easy to find if you google "Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health wikileaks study".
 
stokes234 said:
If you believe that, then follow the article to it's source, and come back and say either that the source itself is flawed, or that it doesn't say what the article claims it does. Until then you're not providing a useful criticism.
Click to expand...

Facts are facts, but it's how people interpret those facts that really makes the difference.

The article does not have any footnotes for readers to follow, which are really important in ascertaining a source's reliability.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I'm happy to agree that there has been a significant amount of civilian deaths in Iraq egslim, maybe more than what was collated in the IBC, but it's quite a stretch to say that it's 5x what the IBC recorded.
Click to expand...
We know the initial IBC-count was much too low, since after the wikileaks-report was released they upped it by about 50%.

We also know the wikileaks-report was even worse, since it counted only 66,000 of the 150,000 from the revised IBC-count.

It's extremely unlikely for two such massively incomplete* counts taken together to be anywhere near complete.

So as I said, we really don't know the true figure. But it's almost certain to be a lot higher than IBC's revised count of 150,000. How much higher, there's no way of knowing.

* IBC missed 81% of the deaths in the Wikileaks count, so Wikileaks missed 88% pf the deaths counted by IBC.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Stokes, eglsim,

Informationclearinghouse and infoshop respectively are about as reliable as prison planet.

jiggeryqua,

You do remember the protests comparing bush to hitler and chomsky comparing Iraq 2003 to Poland 1939 as well as George Galloway? The left would have believed it if someone had said that the US was forcing Iraqis to march across minefields at gunpoint, and many were also truthers.

Here's a link: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
Click to expand...

This 'zomblog' of yours, how reliable is it compared to informationclearinghouse, infoshop and prisonplanet? I don't mean IYHO, I mean quantatively, with sources. I'd take as a rough measure the number of times in the last year a serving politician or statesman or noteworthy academic or national newspaper of any first world nation or anyone else who matters a damn has referenced 'zomblog'.

I don't, as it happens, 'remember' protests comparing Bush to Hitler, though I assume there are nutters on both sides of your political divide. I don't 'remember' Chomsky comparing anything to anything, I'm only barely aware of his existence. I do remember Galloway, but mostly for his disturbing performance in the UK's Celebrity Big Brother. Oh, and his very respectable performance in the US senate. What was it you were hoping I'd remember?

When you say "the left would have believed", do you mean every socialist, or just whichever nutters did believe (matched by the bizarre delusions of the nutters on the right)? Or do you claim insanity is a left-wing preserve? Or truthism, for that matter?
 
zomblog doesn't claim to be academic, but usually takes photographs of demonstrations.

Chomsky, in the OP, compared Bush to Hitler, and by extension, the US military in Iraq to the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.

George galloway's numerous appearances at demonstrations and his diatribes.

As for my statements about the left, i was talking about groups like World Can't Wait, or Code Pink etc. during the Bush Derangement Syndrome years.
 
Last edited:
yeah, the Internet does have a tendency to make people forget divisions in society when they talk about abstracts like left and right.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
Chomsky, in the OP, compared Bush to Hitler, and by extension, the US military in Iraq to the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.
Click to expand...
Chomsky writes: [Bush is] uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

I'm no fan of Chomsky, but he does not compare the US military in Iraq to the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.

Anyway, I'm still interested in your analysis of the article and papers I linked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom