Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

But enforcer, you can't possibly use an ongoing lawsuit for proof positive. Your little paragraph source said nothing about it being true or not. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

At 8/10/04 02:47 PM, Skvnk wrote: Anybody can sue anyone for anything.

I cited the article 3 or 4 posts ago.

At 8/10/04 02:57 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: I cited the article 3 or 4 posts ago.

I know you cited it. All it said was that a guy was suing Al-Jazeera.

I could sue Al-Jazeera if I wanted, and make some bogus claims.

At 8/10/04 03:09 PM, Skvnk wrote: I could sue Al-Jazeera if I wanted, and make some bogus claims.

What do you want from me? A video recording of the actual events that transpired?

I wasn't there and neither were you. You can discount that article all you want. A court will decide whether it happened or not. I personally think that it happened, if you don't good for you. You can't just say "there is no proof" and move on. A man said that Al Jazeera willing came in order to videotape his demise, I don't believe that is so far fetched ESPECIALLY after reading Al Jazeera as often as I do.

At 8/10/04 03:15 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: What do you want from me?

I was thinking an actual news story from a reputable source showing connections between the upper tiers of Al-Jazeera management and a terrorist organization.

A court will decide whether it happened or not.

You keep me updated on that.

A man said that Al Jazeera willing came in order to videotape his demise, I don't believe that is so far fetched ESPECIALLY after reading Al Jazeera as often as I do.

Hmm. I think it is far-fetched, especially considering how much I read Al-Jazeera.

Your case isn't very good Enforcer. I'd suggest more sources in the future, and of a more credible nature. Ongoing trials don't prove anything - call me old-fashioned but I believe in the old "innocent until proven guilty".

At 8/10/04 03:26 PM, Skvnk wrote:

Ongoing trials don't prove anything - call me old-fashioned but I believe in the old "innocent until proven guilty".

You're free to think that by all means. Automatically discounting something just because its a pending trial is intellectual dishonest and that is what you insist on doing.

Plus you didn't even comment about my chain of command example compared to your argument of "you can't blame an organization because of a few individiuals"

Also, you never addressed the fact that the NY Times looked poorly because of the Jayson Blair scandal in contrast to your view point.

At 8/11/04 01:57 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: You're free to think that by all means. Automatically discounting something just because its a pending trial is intellectual dishonest and that is what you insist on doing.

You are basing your entire argument around a single pending trial. That's intellectual dishonesty, because it's basely apparent that you made up an opinion going into the debate, and then googled for any back-up information you could find. And you found.... none.

Plus you didn't even comment about my chain of command example compared to your argument of "you can't blame an organization because of a few individiuals"

I'm not going to debate hypotheticals with you. And the NYT scandal is dffierent than your alleged scandal.

At 8/11/04 07:59 PM, Skvnk wrote:

At 8/11/04 01:57 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: You're free to think that by all means. Automatically discounting something just because its a pending trial is intellectual dishonest and that is what you insist on doing.

You are basing your entire argument around a single pending trial. That's intellectual dishonesty, because it's basely apparent that you made up an opinion going into the debate, and then googled for any back-up information you could find. And you found.... none.

Too much, or too little, is being read into this article.

If the details are indeed true, then the al-Jazeera reporter would seem to have an existing relationship with this group. If this were an 'invitation' to a beheading, the moral implications are obvious. And it probably breaks some journalistic canons as well, as this reporter's editors and/or supervisors are probably aware of this connection, but I'll leave that judgment to the experts.

What is doesn't show is that al-Jazeera defintively supports terrorism in an active fashion. The phone call could indicate that the reporters' (and editors') morals were compromised by the ready access they had to the kidnappers. As no phone call to the authorities was made alerting them to the location of the hostage. If it's a policy not to call the police when information like this is received, then it could exist thoroughout the entire network. And if it does, it shows that they're sleazy as hell for valuing the story and access above all else.

If you buy the 'with us or against us' theory, then this is enough to show al-Jazeera supports terrorists.

But what proof is there that al-Jazeera has altered, omitted or changed their broadcast material to suit the aims of the terrorists? For example, if they were given information on a raid by the police on a terror cell, with the promise that they do not broadcast it until the raid is carried out, and they break that promise by airing the story prematurely, therein would lie a positive proof.

The above example is extreme, but without that evidence, less subtle examples can be misconstrued or made into something they're not.

Is the broadcasting of American soldiers killed in firefights with terrorist groups a co-ordinated strategy to diminish American morale, an objective decision that the pictures, though graphic, are newsworthy, or the execution [no pun intended] of the 'if it bleeds, it leads' dictum, done by editors & reporters with really bad taste?

The article cited, if followed up with more information, can show that al-Jazeera needs a flea collar after lying down with those dogs regularly, but you need more to show it's an orchestrated effort to boost the terrorists.

At 8/11/04 07:59 PM, Skvnk wrote: I'm not going to debate hypotheticals with you. And the NYT scandal is dffierent than your alleged scandal.

Actually the Jayson Blair scandal has everything to do with our discussion of whether an entire organization is responsible for it's individual members. The fact that you don't wish to speak about it reinforces my point because you can't refute it.

Also the fact that you aren't even willing to entertain the idea that Al Jazeera went to film a beheading at the request of terrorists shows that you are unwilling to debate. I thought Ithaca College was a good school but if the open minds they produce are similiar to yours I fear for that colleges reputation.

If you came here to debate, then do so. Otherwise there is no reason for you to post.

At 8/12/04 03:26 PM, The_Enforcer wrote: Actually the Jayson Blair scandal has everything to do with our discussion of whether an entire organization is responsible for it's individual members. The fact that you don't wish to speak about it reinforces my point because you can't refute it.

Blair was spreading fallacies. Your alleged Al-Jazeera reporters had ties to a terrorist. The circumstances are different.

Al-Jazeera can't account for their reporters' political beliefs. And if this had happened, Al-Jazeera would be in the position to reprimand the reporters, if they indeed did not call the police, or such. But this is a non-issue, because it is not a verifiable instance. It's an ongoing lawsuit. You are simply going off on a tangent, trying to redirect the issue.

Also the fact that you aren't even willing to entertain the idea that Al Jazeera went to film a beheading at the request of terrorists shows that you are unwilling to debate.

I'm entertaining it myself. I'm watching out for future updates on the story. I'm not willing to let you base your entire claim around it.

I thought Ithaca College was a good school but if the open minds they produce are similiar to yours I fear for that colleges reputation.

Real mature. Is this the point we start throwing poop at each other, and grunting aggressively?

If you came here to debate, then do so. Otherwise there is no reason for you to post.

I'm still waiting for you to provide proof of your claim that Al-Jazeera is a terrorist organization. Or, at the very least, unduely supports terrorism.

I suggest you drop this google link, and find something else to substantiate your claims.

At 8/12/04 03:48 PM, Skvnk wrote: stuff

I'm done with you skvnk. It's apparent you are a college liberal pseudo-intellectual that is frightened by things you can't refute. So this "debate" is over.

If you ever decide to have an honest open debate where you allow materials and facts into the conversation I'll be waiting.

Anyone else think it's kinda funny that the Yanks went in to remove a Dictator, then installed a set of Dictators, and claimed the Iraquis had democracy, and then the Dictators they installed shut down one of the biggest Media Stations because they don't like what it says?

<3 Freedom of Speech

I love how I'm suppose to refute an ongoing trial. Grow up enforcer.