Where in the hell...

[Michael]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Perhaps the evidence of "planted" stories isn't as "ample" as was claimed?

Perhaps I'm not interested in feeding trolls.

Btw, your comments about Soros in another thread suggest to me that you are not here to engage in meaningful discussion. You are free to post what you like, but no one is required to take you seriously or reply to your posts.

[The_Dot]

Originally Posted by Michael

Perhaps I'm not interested in feeding trolls.

Seriously, how is being asked to support an assertion you made "feeding trolls"?

I was trying to have a discussion with you on the topic. I was not in any way trolling.

Is there only room for one viewpoint here, and anything else is "trolling"?

[Michael]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Seriously, how is being asked to support an assertion you made "feeding trolls"?

I was trying to have a discussion with you on the topic. I was not in any way trolling.

Is there only room for one viewpoint here, and anything else is "trolling"?

Not at all. There is room for lots of viewpoints here and we welcome people to share them.

However, the 'troll' characterization was established with your initial post in this thread and in another thread as well. Both follow the troll pattern and subsequent posts confirm it.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Unfortunately, al-Sadr isn't in the Hague, answering for the brutal ethnic cleansing campaign performed by his militia......

Thats how one could best "do justice" to him.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

I wonder if you found billionaire George Soros' backing of various leftist outfits similarly concerning?

Those posts are classic trolling - they are inflammatory, unsourced and entirely designed to invoke a partisan reaction. There is no attempt being made to actually engage either topic in any meaningful way.

So if you act like a troll, I will treat you like one (as I have been doing so).

[The_Dot]

So, how does one get removed from your "troll" list?

Perhaps I was wrong about al-Sadr. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but it is hard to discuss the issue when you make a claim, and then get the hump when asked about it.

As for Soros, I was interested in seeing what WFCY thought of him in that context. Thus, I politely asked a question.

I must admit, I'm a bit confused here. You make assertions, and refuse to back them up, preferring instead to call me names. What is the point of that?

[Michael]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

So, how does one get removed from your "troll" list?

Funny question that. You were on it with your very first post here. I foolishly replied to that troll post, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your subsequent posts proved my initial assessment - I shouldn't have bothered to reply to the first inflammatory troll-post. I fed the troll and several pages later, here we are.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Perhaps I was wrong about al-Sadr. I'm certainly open to the possibility, but it is hard to discuss the issue when you make a claim, and then get the hump when asked about it.

If you act like a troll, you will be treated like one.

This topic here is about Sadr or Iraqi politics. I don't believe you've addressed that topic at all other than to spout some vintage 2006 Bush Admin propaganda in the most inflammatory way as possible. That's trolling.

I've dismissed that TIME article as bullshit propaganda that has no source, no evidence and no proof. Indeed, the article itself states that it has no evidence and no proof - just an unsourced allegation. I also followed that up with a rational assessment about the lack of probability of the 'truthfulness' of the allegation.

But you just keep demanding that I justify my assertion about Bush Admin lies. That's a notorious rightwing troll-topic and one I'm not going to get into - especially with one whom I consider to be trolling in the first place.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

As for Soros, I was interested in seeing what WFCY thought of him in that context. Thus, I politely asked a question.

The quoted article of the OP clearly stated that the kind of funding Soros does is categorically different than that done by the Koch brothers (or Murdoch).

Your post there infers that what Soros does is identical to what the Koch brothers do. That's another very common rightwing troll-topic.

Originally Posted by The_Dot

I must admit, I'm a bit confused here. You make assertions, and refuse to back them up, preferring instead to call me names. What is the point of that?

That's how I deal with trolling behaviour when I don't outright ignore it.

Bottom line is if you don't want to be treated like a troll, don't act like a troll, repeat troll arguments or go phishing with notorious troll-topics.

This forum is quite unlike most other discussion forums out there. Here you generally will find people who are quite knowledgeable about the topics they post about.

People who just want to stir up 'partisan pissing matches' because it is fun are not welcome here. People who have reasonable and rational arguments, regardless of ideology, will be engaged with meaningful discussion. It really is that simple.

The choice is yours. You can whine about my responses to you all you like, but I don't think that is going to get you anywhere or win you any friends. All you are doing is wearing out my patience. I prefer to discuss topics, not people and/or their hurt feelings.

[The_Dot]

Originally Posted by Michael

But you just keep demanding that I justify my assertion about Bush Admin lies. That's a notorious rightwing troll-topic and one I'm not going to get into - especially with one whom I consider to be trolling in the first place.

Did the Bush administration pump out loads of BS? Of course they did.

But that's not what I've asked you about. You made a very specific claim about "planted articles".

When I asked you about that, you claimed you didn't want to open that "rabbit hole" - despite having been the one who opened it.

Bottom line - if you cannot provide any substantiation for your claim, that's fine. You could have just admitted that rather than stoop to name-calling, though.

Clearly, there is no further point in trying to engage you in any manner of discussion - you make wild claims, then get pissy when asked to back them up.

I'll leave you to your intellectually incestuous "discussions" with your sycophants.

[Michael]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

Did the Bush administration pump out loads of BS? Of course they did.

But that's not what I've asked you about. You made a very specific claim about "planted articles".

When I asked you about that, you claimed you didn't want to open that "rabbit hole" - despite having been the one who opened it.

Bottom line - if you cannot provide any substantiation for your claim, that's fine. You could have just admitted that rather than stoop to name-calling, though.

Clearly, there is no further point in trying to engage you in any manner of discussion - you make wild claims, then get pissy when asked to back them up.

I'll leave you to your intellectually incestuous "discussions" with your sycophants.

This is getting tiresome. I really think it is silly when people demand that I do Google searches for them.

Bush Administration Broke Propaganda Rules, GAO Says

Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration broke anti- propaganda rules by using tax dollars to pay a columnist and create news video to promote the president's education policies, the investigative arm of Congress said.

The Government Accountability Office issued two reports yesterday examining Department of Education contracts with a public relations firm, Ketchum Inc. Ketchum prepared a video for use in television news programs, checked news stories to see how the Republican Party's view on education was reported and contracted with commentator Armstrong Williams, the report said.

The education department took these steps to promote President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind law, which established new testing requirements for public schools, the report said. The news video does not say the federal government is the source of the material, nor did Williams reveal the government's connection to his comment, the report said.

Source

Bush administration payment of columnists

The Bush administration payment of columnists refers to the payment of public funds to right-wing media commentators by several U.S. executive departments under Cabinet officials to promote various policies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to at least three commentators to promote Bush administration policies.

Source

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

Published: October 1, 2005

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

Source

Bush Shows No Remorse for Fake Newscasts

NEW YORK -- Despite a rising chorus of condemnation from journalists and media critics, the George W. Bush administration shows no signs of abandoning its distribution of taxpayer-funded news to U.S. newspapers, radio and television stations.

Free press advocates are up in arms about what they say is the covert dissemination of propaganda by government agencies.

Source

Bush administration propaganda efforts come under increased scrutiny

The controversy over the Bush administration's use of secret government-funded propaganda to promote its policy positions raged on this week, amid new disclosures about payments to Armstrong Williams and for fake television "news reports."

Source

Bush administration defends use of covert propaganda in US

17 March 2005

The Bush administration last week instructed US government agencies to ignore a ruling by the comptroller general of the United States barring the dissemination of “covert propaganda.”

The phrase—generally associated with police-state dictatorships—was used by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of the US Congress, in describing the proliferation of video news releases produced by the Pentagon, State Department and at least 18 other US agencies. The GAO ordered a halt to the dissemination of such videos on the grounds that they “conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials.”

In a front-page article published Sunday, the New York Times detailed the government’s increasing use of the videos, which simulate genuine television news segments. They include the use of public relations employees posing as on-the-spot reporters and “interviews” with government officials that have been scripted and rehearsed.

Source

50 False News Stories By Bush Propaganda Machine
A Strategy of Lies: How the White House Fed the Public a Steady Diet of Falsehoods

The 56-page investigation was assembled by USAF Colonel (Ret.) Sam Gardiner. "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" identifies more than 50 stories about the Iraq war that were faked by government propaganda artists in a covert campaign to "market" the military invasion of Iraq.

Gardiner has credentials. He has taught at the National War College, the Air War College and the Naval Warfare College and was a visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College.

According to Gardiner, "It was not bad intelligence" that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, "It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war" that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner's research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant "stories of strategic influence" that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a "meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein."

Source

There are lots more such articles out there. These are just a few examples of "propaganda" where actual evidence is available. I think the pattern is pretty clear.

And I am not going to get into a discussion about the relative credibility of any given source listed here. These quotes are meant to be illustrative of the Bush Administration's media behavior, not an exhaustive catalog of sins.

[The_Dot]

Well and good, but none of that demonstrates that the articles I posted regarding the ethnic cleansing were "planted".

It is entirely possible al-Sadr did not direct the ethnic cleansing program. I certainly have no first hand knowledge.

But is it not all possible that there was a Beckett approval? "Will no one rid me of these troublesome Sunni?"

It seems odd, at least to me, that this could go on his his own back yard without his knowledge and perhaps tacit approval.

[dilettante]

Originally Posted by The_Dot

It is entirely possible al-Sadr did not direct the ethnic cleansing program. I certainly have no first hand knowledge.

But is it not all possible that there was a Beckett approval? "Will no one rid me of these troublesome Sunni?"

It seems odd, at least to me, that this could go on his his own back yard without his knowledge and perhaps tacit approval.

Anything is possible I suppose, though what comments Sadr might nor might not have made in the presence of his own immediate followers isn't something we're like to ever be sure about. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to know whether Sadr ever condemned such violence or not, or if the culture is such that a lack of condemnation is interpreted as approval.

All things considered, I'd say that trying to judge Sadr and his motives definitively (for good or ill) is risky business and the whole thing is muddled with misinformation from various sources. Personally, I look warily on any sectarian religious political figure, especially those who are closely associated with armed militia groups.

[Americano]

Originally Posted by dilettante

Anything is possible I suppose, though what comments Sadr might nor might not have made in the presence of his own immediate followers isn't something we're like to ever be sure about. I'm not familiar enough with the issue to know whether Sadr ever condemned such violence or not, or if the culture is such that a lack of condemnation is interpreted as approval.

All things considered, I'd say that trying to judge Sadr and his motives definitively (for good or ill) is risky business and the whole thing is muddled with misinformation from various sources. Personally, I look warily on any sectarian religious political figure, especially those who are closely associated with armed militia groups.

Somewhat like recent Christian peer group bigotry at the US Air Force Academy?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ap...acad-a30.shtml