The Confession Backfired

[poncho]

It's thrilling to make your evening, Poncho, but facts are facts and news stories are news stories whether it's an old line or a new one!

Our news media just wants a story and whichever one plays the best is the one they'll publish.

So which is it, facts are facts or the media just wants a story they can publish?

Hint, the mass media for the most part only prints what the 'authorities' tell them or give them. They no longer seek the truth by getting their hands dirty digging for the facts or investigating like in the 'old days'. That's been left up to others. Best way to tell who's closest to the truth these days is to watch for the journalists and sources that get the most ridicule from the mainstream press and the 20 something percenters. The ones that get blasted the hardest and longest are the ones probably closest to getting at the truth.

 

[Petra-O IX]

It's thrilling to make your evening, Poncho, but facts are facts and news stories are news stories whether it's an old line or a new one!

Dragoon, I must congratulate you. You are not ashamed to be part of the 30 percenter crowd. Now if we could only persuade Carpro to come out of the closet . C'mon Carpro there is no shame in being a 30 Percenter.

 

[Dragoon68]

Dragoon, I must congratulate you. You are not ashamed to be part of the 30 percenter crowd. Now if we could only persuade Carpro to come out of the closet . C'mon Carpro there is no shame in being a 30 Percenter.

I don't think either one of us - Carpro or I - have been hiding anywhere lately!

 

[Dragoon68]

So which is it, facts are facts or the media just wants a story they can publish?

Facts are facts and news stories are news stories sometimes factual but more often incomplete and inaccurate at best.

How do I know this? I know it by extrapolation regarding most any news story about which I have personal knowledge of the subject matter. They're shallow stories at best and usually have some axe to grind. It's mostly gossip! That's what the public swallows up every single day.

Hint, the mass media for the most part only prints what the 'authorities' tell them or give them. They no longer seek the truth by getting their hands dirty digging for the facts or investigating like in the 'old days'. That's been left up to others. Best way to tell who's closest to the truth these days is to watch for the journalists and sources that get the most ridicule from the mainstream press and the 20 something percenters. The ones that get blasted the hardest and longest are the ones probably closest to getting at the truth.

Now, Poncho, I must say that's also a bit of a worn out line on your part.

Regardless, I can agree that they "no longer seek the truth" and do get "ridicule from the mainstream press". I don't agree the "authorties" tell the mass media what to print.

So now we have the "20 something percenters" to wonder about - not just the "30 percenters"?

 

[Petra-O IX]

I don't think either one of us - Carpro or I - have been hiding anywhere lately!

Are you sure Dragoon? I haven't heard from Carpro in at least 3&1/2 hours. Any ways I was just kidding about that.
what I was curious about was the statement you made:

How do I know this? I know it by extrapolation regarding most any news story about which I have personal knowledge of the subject matter. They're shallow stories at best and usually have some axe to grind. It's mostly gossip! That's what the public swallows up every single day.

Now are you just referring to the subject matter or is it because you have experienced this first hand.

 

[poncho]

Facts are facts and news stories are news stories sometimes factual but more often incomplete and inaccurate at best.

When we even get stories on important issues from the MSM. I look at most of what we get as 'info-tainment' not news. But yeah there are alot of inaccuracies passed off as facts. I might even agree that there are more liberal journalists that pass them of as facts but only because there seems to be more liberal journalists. But, if we include the right wing think tanks as news sources then from what I see they would win hands down in an inaccuracies flinging contest.

While we're on the subject of facts and inaccuracies, I have to wonder how factual the popular "anti war/detractors embolden our enemies" statement actually is. So, I'm starting a thread on it. Hope you'll join in as I'm having trouble finding facts either way.

How do I know this? I know it by extrapolation regarding most any news story about which I have personal knowledge of the subject matter. They're shallow stories at best and usually have some axe to grind. It's mostly gossip! That's what the public swallows up every single day.

Can't argue with that. I agree!

Now, Poncho, I must say that's also a bit of a worn out line on your part.

True, but on the other hand like our president says..."you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda".

Regardless, I can agree that they "no longer seek the truth" and do get "ridicule from the mainstream press". I don't agree the "authorties" tell the mass media what to print.

Then we are in agreement. The authorities don't tell them what to print. The authorities just make statements and the media prints it as fact without fact checking.

So now we have the "20 something percenters" to wonder about - not just the "30 percenters"?

No, the 20 something percenters are the 30 percenters but their numbers keep slipping as more facts are revealed about this administration and all their factual inaccuracies or Foxed facts come out.

 

[carpro]

You don't really have anything to say do ya.
I think the new desired result was to get you to ask inane questions.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If that is true, it's largely the result of an inane thread title and topic.

This is a concocted, and in my view, cockeyed way to look at the natural result of any "confession". Ask any cop how they treat any confession.

 

[poncho]

This is a concocted, and in my view, cockeyed way to look at the natural result of any "confession".

There is a lot of skepticism about the truthfullness of confessions obtained through "enhanced interrogation techniques". Khalid's degree of guilt will always be under a cloud of uncertainty because of these tactics of the Bush administration. Reasonable people can explore and discuss the pros and cons of the issue, while apologists and neocons will never allow any doubt about their leader to pollute their devotion. SOURCE

 

[carpro]

There is a lot of skepticism about the truthfullness of confessions obtained through "enhanced interrogation techniques".

Strange, isn't it that there is also a lot of skepticism about volunteer or unsolicited confessions?

 

[James_Newman]

We only torture people that we know are guilty, therefore there is no reason to not believe them when they finally confess to what we already know they did. Right?

 

[poncho]

They're all guilty, they were arrested and shiped off Gitmo and other CIA prisons throughout the world weren't they? That proves their guilt right there!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

We only torture people that we know are guilty, therefore there is no reason to not believe them when they finally confess to what we already know they did. Right?

You must have been reading Bush's mind!

 

[Petra-O IX]

QUOTE=Terry_Herrington]You must have been reading Bush's mind![/QUOTE]

Is that even possible and what's it like to see inside Bush's head?

 

[Terry_Herrington]

QUOTE=Terry_Herrington]You must have been reading Bush's mind!

Is that even possible and what's it like to see inside Bush's head?[/quote]

I would imagine that if it were possible, it would be a short read! All you would probably find is a link to Rove's brain. :laugh:

 

[carpro]

We only torture people that we know are guilty, therefore there is no reason to not believe them when they finally confess to what we already know they did. Right?

:laugh:

Of course. And the only people that confess are innocent.

 

[James_Newman]

:laugh:

Of course. And the only people that confess are innocent.

That wouldn't make sense, brother, because we don't torture innocent people.

 

[poncho]

“Americans don't mind torture, they really don’t.”

I was in the audience February 12, 2007 during the Washington, DC screening of the new HBO documentary “The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.” After watching the documentary, panelists Senators Lindsey Graham and Ted Kennedy discussed prisoner abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib.

To the amazement of the audience, Graham said, with a twinkle in his eye, that “Americans don't mind torture, they really don’t.” Then he smiled broadly, almost gleefully, and said that the US had used certain interrogation techniques on “Shaikh Mohammed, one of the "high value" targets,” techniques that "you really don't want to know about, but they got really good results."

CIA Torture and Khalid Sheik Mohammed

Torture gets results, and results look good in press releases!

This case represents an important milestone in the War on Terror. It was apparent to us that KSM wanted to use the tribunal process to detail his role in 9/11 and many other terror plots and to record for history the part he has played in a war that he has unabashedly waged. It was apparent that KSM views himself as a warrior, motivated by religious teachings, and seeks his place in history.Lindsey Graham

PS, HBO filmed the Senator’s remarks. Please watch the HBO video and see his comments for yourself. Craig Murray