1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Glenn Beck claims to know something about a Saudi National involved in the Boston Bombing investigation, and wants the President to come clean about it before Beck releases the info on monday.

    http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/19...have-learned-this-week-im-a-changed-person-”/

    The Saudi man seems to be Abdulrahman Al-Harbi (or Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi) , who was injured in the bombing

    http://www.arabnews.com/news/448780

    There are also claims that he is being deported on national security grounds. But nothing really to back it up.
     
  2. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

  3. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    This reporting of the rumors by Todd Starnes seems to have been removed:

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarne...ioned-in-boston-was-on-terror-watch-list.html
    Cached version:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ioned-in-boston-was-on-terror-watch-list.html
    Again, seems like a load of unsubstantiated speculation and rumor.
     
  6. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    He said more will be coming he just wants to check all his info first . [h=1]Saudi National Questioned in Boston Attack was on Terror Watch List so should we just let him go home ?[/h]
     
  7. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He's probably realized it's a non-story.

    Has ANY of it been verified? Is he being deported? Is he on any watch list?

    The problem is that even if it turns out to be entirely bogus, the story is going to become accepted fact in the conspiracy community.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    And I heard that the one first questioned and the one to be deported are two different people.

    I'm willing to wait but I'm not expecting much. Beck and Hannity both tend to go off the deep end.
     
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm sure that "questions" will remain, to save face.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The latest from Beck:
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/04/22...lated-grounds-have-files-in-their-possession/

    Interesting he notes that Starnes' report has been removed.

    Seems like Jeff Duncan is the person who is keeping the story alive.
     
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    OT, but this is in the middle of the above linked story:



    That is literally "shilling". The link leads to a multi-level-marketing scam.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  12. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    What? No ad for gold? Glenn been doing this for ages. Not surprised. Kinda put this in the same category with people expounding on their latest CT and then saying "Buy my book...."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Drew

    Drew Active Member

    It seems like this part of the right recognizes how much useful mileage (or at least, useful in their minds) came out of the whole Benghazi controversy, and would be delighted to write a similar storyline here.
     
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's just pandering to their base though. Is it going to win elections?
     
  16. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    No but it pisses off those of us who think that we might have tried something to relieve them. I find it hard to believe we couldn't have had some assets in the air before the end.

    Ah, here's a CT for you Mick. Why did we withdraw our carrier battle group from the Med before Benghazi? Was it a government conspiracy or just a sinister governmental plot? Perhaps Alex and Glenn can present the REAL facts....,,
     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Are those my options? :)
     
  18. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    So does Beck's scoop depend on confusing the injured Saudi with the one in custody, or has he addressed this?
     
  19. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Benghazi controversy? Really ? Or Fast And furious ?Thats right in both cases they were illegally running guns . Yet we still have no answers and because Bozo is in the whitehouse the media wont ask ? If that other bozo (Bush ) theyde be all over it .
    and what the hell is that supposed to mean ?
     
  20. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    Obviously! It was either a conspiracy or a plot!

    Here's a fun read about conspiracies.

    Complexity

    "Osama Bin Ladin, sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, could never have pulled off something of this complexity."What complexity? You put 19 guys on four airliners on the same day armed with box cutters, after first giving a few of them enough flight training to allow them to perform some rudimentary maneuvers. Any travel agent who couldn't book 19 people on four separate flights on the same day needs a new job. The complex part would have been gaining and keeping control of the passengers and crew once the hijacks were in progress.If Bin Ladin had known what would happen, he would certainly have had the hijackers hit the buildings lower. That would have trapped far more people while increasing the load on the heated steel, resulting in faster collapse. So if it wasn't Bin Ladin, why didn't the alleged conspirators do it? More outrage, more backing for the War on Terror. Why did they miss such an obvious opportunity?

    Suppose It Was A Conspiracy


    What was the intent? If it was to bring down the Towers, why demolish from the top down? That's not how any other controlled demolitions are done. Why not strike low, maximizing the number of casualties and more fully galvanizing the country for war?If the intent was to collapse only part of the Towers, keeping casualties limited but providing a pretext for war, then the total collapse was unanticipated. Or maybe the intent was simply to crash planes into the Towers and produce casualties but not cause building collapse at all. In either case, if the building collapses were unexpected, they happened through structural weakening and gravitational collapse and all the alleged "evidence" for sequential explosive charges and so on becomes worthless.Why use planes at all? Why not simply stage a bigger and better remake of the 1993 attack? Why not claim the terrorists detonated a large truck load of explosives at the central core of the building, or smuggled explosives into the core? Instead of passenger planes, why not have the terrorists steal a FedEx or UPS cargo plane and fill it with explosives?Why have a time gap between the plane crashes and building collapse, and why did the South Tower, which was hit later, fall first? That makes perfect sense in the conventional scenario, because the South Tower was hit lower and thus the load on the damaged structural members was greater. It makes no sense at all from the standpoint of a conspiracy.Like all conspiracy theories, the 9-11 conspiracy idea suffers from the fatal flaw of having the conspirators engage in a complicated Rube Goldberg process to do something a rational person could do more effectively in a much simpler way.

    Since a lot of people have begun to catch on to conspiracy theories, 9-11 theorists have begun putting their own spin on the term. Just like creationists have begun using the word "pseudoscience" to brand evolution and blur the distinction between their own ideas and those of science, 9-11 conspiracy theorists have begun using the term "conspiracy theory" to label the conventional view of 9-11. So you get 19 guys, give some of them rudimentary flight training, they board airliners, hijack them, and fly them into buildings. Yup, that's a conspiracy all right. So the term "conspiracy theory" is entirely accurate.On the other hand, government operatives spent days planting explosive charges in the towers, then crashed the airliners or flew them to a secret location, brainwashed, imprisoned, or killed the passengers and crew, and that's not a conspiracy theory? Or the videos of the airliner crashes are all fake and some exotic particle beam or energy weapon disintegrated the towers into dust and that's not a conspiracy theory, either?Well, they're both conspiracy theories, so they're both on the same plane, so you get to pick whichever one you like. This is the classic relativism of the pseudoscientist.Fortunately, there's a way to sort through the conflicting claims. Which of the two is more consistent with well known facts? Do Middle Eastern terrorists hijack airplanes? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists target civilians? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists deliberately cause mass casualties? Check. There's absolutely nothing in the standard picture of 9-11 that conflicts with these facts. Number of previous cases where U.S. government operatives have hijacked airliners? None known. Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of innocent people? None known (apart from artillery or bombing in war). Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of its own citizens? None known. So one conspiracy theory has a host of historical precedents, and the other has none at all.Fascinating, isn't it, that the fact that no steel frame skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire is touted as ironclad proof that planes couldn't have brought down the World Trade Center, but the total absence of historical precedent for the government doing it counts for nothing?
     
    • Like Like x 4
  21. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Benghazi was a vastly overblown story, a simplification and false focus on a few aspects of a very complex story, but because the people who watch Fox News are inclined to believe the anti-Obama spin, then it was quite effective in stirring up the right-wing base. Beck seems to be doing something similar here, but with even less to go by.
     
  22. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Wow Mick Really 4 dead and blaming a video which was clearly a diversion till after the election was Overblown ? It was the way they handled it . We still dont know the truth of why he was there in the first place ? They were IMO moving arms to Syria . No its the main stream media is not doing their job . No I want the truth as I did with the last idiot Bush .
     
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Overblown does not mean nothing, there was plenty of quite valid criticism.

    Even people who work at Fox think it was overblown:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
     
    • Like Like x 2
  24. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    Just focusing on that night, the sixth fleet might have sent assets or Helis fom Rota might have been used for support and / or exfiltration. A little known fact is that a seven-man team actually flew into Benghazi from Tripoli but due to a most amazing bit of beaureaucratc bs they took much longer to get to the scene than they should have. By that time the Ambassador was dead but had they even moved out from Bengahzi earlier they might have saved at least two others. Complex? Maybe. Overblown? Four people died. Somehow I don't call that overblown.
     
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    See above. I know there are valid criticisms of what went on. But I'm talking specifically about the Fox News coverage (and the alternative media to the right of Fox News), where they basically tried to make it into Pearl Harbor combined with Watergate.
     
  26. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    That funny because I dont watch Fox news ? What did MSNBC do ? They protected the Obama administration from criticism . They shilled for Obama and Hillary . But as Hilary said "What difference does it make "? Was never a movie that was a big fat lie and Obama knew it .
     
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Would you say though that you watch/listen to the alternative media to the right of Fox? Like Glenn Beck?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    Well you have to admit that the circumstances leading up to the actual battle as well as what went on during and the reaction and inaction of State and the Executive Branch are open to question. As well what else would you expect from any news organization whose political leanings are "validated" in such a dramatic way? At least Ed Henry had the presence of mind to question it on air.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    Yes I would say that , and other alternative media . I dont trust Msnbc at all they are the worse . apparently by their ratings none else does either . Its funny however that Fox news has the highest ratings ? doesnt mean i always agree with them . You get your news from a Comedian as well dont you ? :)
     
  30. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    highest ratings simply because restaurant, bars and bushiness owners keep it rolling for god knows why on all their screens in the background. ive never understood why that shits always on.


    My comedians know and openly say they are comedians. something yours do not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

  32. Joe

    Joe Senior Member

    He calls himself a rodeo clown ? sounds like a comedian ? Id rather a little humor with my bad news :) I dont really know where they get their ratings from . Bill O is the highest rated and I think he sucks .
     
  33. F4Jock

    F4Jock Active Member

    Stuart I like. Colbert is a schnook. Problem is, I wonder how many of their audience realize they are comedians even though they say it openly.

    Frankly I like Imus and Fox Buisness. Humor, news and finances all in one. Could use more legs though.....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  34. lotek

    lotek Active Member

    i find tv a bad format for the communication of any news and donot use it as a source for such, ever.

    radio, yes, only if it is approached in an indepth and exhaustive manner in the ways normally held to by members of PRI and related groups.
     
  35. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I get my news from the internet: basically CNN, NBC News (formerly MSNBC), and Fox News, occasionally BBC News, and then whatever links I happen to see.

    I watch John Steward a day or two after on the DVR, not really for news, but he's great at exposing hypocrisy.

    I don't think ratings equals trust. It equals entertainment.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  36. Met Watch

    Met Watch Moderator

    Colbert purposely plays a conservative idiot, who wants to do good, but sees things in a 1-D world.

    Stewart is still a comedian, but lately he's actually been becoming a nightly critic of the media and the government (on both sides, although the Republicans seem to give him more material). His guest list is impressive, though - he's had Obama (twice), Biden, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Vicente Fox, King Abdullah II, Bob Dole, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, John McCain, Bob Dole, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, etc...I could go on. I know it's a comedy show, but the number of influential guests he's had on the show lately has been telling about the show's path.
     
  37. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Beautiful work.
     
  38. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I get my news from a variety of sources, I do watch ABC news, news shows on other reg channels, PBS (don't always agree with some of their documentaries---Politico's involvement always makes me nervous about a very liberal bias---I may watch but I will double check their sources and conclusions before I accept any of them). NPR and the BBC are 2 other of my sources. The rest are various internet sources, from conservative to the Huffington Post (it is another source that has to be verified). My local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News--it is not a chain newspaper. (It is owned by the Belo family and it is moderate conservative). And I read--a LOT, everything from science to history and nature and politics to business and novels including SF/fantasy/ mysteries and in my equivalent of junk food, romance novels, especially those with cowboys in them.
     
  39. Drew

    Drew Active Member

  40. Joe

    Joe Senior Member