A lie a minute.
consortiumnews.com/2015/04/20/a-fact-resistant-group-think-on-syria/
You decide.
consortiumnews.com/2015/04/20/a-fact-resistant-group-think-on-syria/
You decide.
"60 Minutes" or "60 Lies"?
- Thread starter RelativeBearing
- Start date
- May 29, 2012
- 41,108
- 24,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
How about "50 Posts", the number one must achieve in order to link within a post.
Upvote
0
nightflight
Veteran
- Mar 13, 2006
- 9,221
- 2,655
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
How about "50 Posts", the number one must achieve in order to link within a post.
I'm willing to forgive him.
Upvote
0
Let's not underestimate the evil that is accomplished when people are lied to and deceived by news organizations and their own government. Christians have a responsibility to help others discern the difference between lies and the truth.
Upvote
0
- May 29, 2012
- 41,108
- 24,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Which is why so many evangelicals trot out FoxRepublican News, Breitbart, et al..... to rigorously search for truth and the American way.
Upvote
0
- May 29, 2012
- 41,108
- 24,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
OK, now making me feel bad.
That said, the site is a new one to me and the article is quite in-depth. A site with some people that are actual journalists? Be still, my beating heart.
There are no good actors in Syria (the first "lie"), so lying is a relative term, I suppose. I haven't watched 60 minutes in years, so i don't have a dog in the fight on these allegations.
So, dear posters, my apology to RB and stand rightfully chastised.
Upvote
0
Which is why so many evangelicals trot out FoxRepublican News, Breitbart, et al..... to rigorously search for truth and the American way.
Christ did not teach us that all who claim to be his disciples are indeed his disciples. He taught the exact opposite. It seems you imagine that all who claim to be Christian are indeed Christian? If so, how so?
Upvote
0
OK, now making me feel bad.
That said, the site is a new one to me and the article is quite in-depth. A site with some people that are actual journalists? Be still, my beating heart.
There are no good actors in Syria (the first "lie"), so lying is a relative term, I suppose. I haven't watched 60 minutes in years, so i don't have a dog in the fight on these allegations.
So, dear posters, my apology to RB and stand rightfully chastised.
OK, no problem.
Yes, it is a site that presents quite a different slant on the news, and to me the perspectives often seem to be well researched and presented by highly reputable people.
Upvote
0
By the way, I used to watch "60 Minutes". The last show I watched was the one cited in the article that included Scott Pelley's piece on Sadam Hussein in 2008. I just about threw my shoe through the television set. I could hardly believe that he could get away with such a brazen lie on national TV. I have never watched "60 Minutes" since then. If I can't trust them to speak the truth on issues I know about, I most certainly will not provide them the opportunity to convince me lies are truth with regard to things I know little or nothing about.
Upvote
0
I was a regular 60 minutes viewer until they did a blatant hit piece on Ross Perot in 1992.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- May 29, 2012
- 41,108
- 24,128
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It would seem the consortium theory is that they shill for power brokers (like whichever administration occupies the White House). Given that Obama operates his foreign policy like a neocon, it makes sense.
Upvote
0
What a disgusting article.
They'd do anything to discredit the rebels and make Assad seem not so bad. Please stop insulting the Syrian Sunnis by saying they did this to themselves. Just stop.
Here is an article from last year which refutes many of the points the article in the OP from yesterday brings up:
Syria Special: Dissecting Hersh’s “Insurgents Did Chemical Weapons Attacks” — A Sequel | EA WorldView
They'd do anything to discredit the rebels and make Assad seem not so bad. Please stop insulting the Syrian Sunnis by saying they did this to themselves. Just stop.
Here is an article from last year which refutes many of the points the article in the OP from yesterday brings up:
Syria Special: Dissecting Hersh’s “Insurgents Did Chemical Weapons Attacks” — A Sequel | EA WorldView
Upvote
0
sdmsanjose
Regular Member
For me this boils down to who has the most credibility in news stories. We have CBS 60 minutes then we have consortiumnews.com.
consortiumnews.com.
With the consortiumnews.com. We have a news service that has n been in existence since 1995, beginning 20 years ago. This news service failed to attract enough funding and forced the founder, Robert Perry to take a part time job with Bloomberg news but quit in 2004. The consortium news has not been picked up by any major television source and is not considered a major news source in radio. Consortiumnews.com has not received any awards from major industries.
60-Minutes
60 minutes has received so many accolades by the news industry that I cannot list them all. I will give below just a few:
Although the 60-minutes news is not perfect, the comparison in credibility with 60-minutes and Consortiumnews.com is enormous! Consortium news is not even in the same universe of credibility as 60 minutes!
Upvote
0
So, we are now to decide who is telling the truth and who is not based on a popularity contest?
If that is how truth is discerned, then we can assume that the crowds were correct in demanding the release of Barabas and the crucifixion of Jesus?
Or if truth is determined by who has the most money then isn't it true that "might makes right"?
The issue here, folks, is that Scott Pelley deceived the public in 2008 regarding Sadam Hussein's actions with regard to US charges that he had weapons of mass destruction, and the producers of "60 Minutes" broadcast that deception.
Here's the relevant snippet from the article.
*****************
Pelley has built a highly successful CBS career by always parroting the official line of the U.S. government no matter how obviously false it is. For instance, in 2008, he conducted an interview with FBI interrogator George Piro who had questioned Iraq’s Saddam Hussein before his execution.
Pelley wondered why Hussein had kept pretending that he had weapons of mass destruction when a simple acknowledgement that they had been destroyed would have spared his country the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
“For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking,” Pelley said in introducing the segment on the interrogation of Hussein about his WMD stockpiles. “Why did he choose war with the United States?”
The segment never mentioned the fact that Hussein’s government did disclose that it had eliminated its WMD, including a 12,000-page submission to the UN on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining how its WMD stockpiles had been destroyed. In fall 2002, Hussein’s government also allowed teams of UN inspectors into Iraq and gave them free rein to examine any site of their choosing.
******************
With regard to the use of sarin, it is extremely difficult to discern the truth of the matter of who was responsible for the attack. Never-the-less, some war mongers are trying to stampede the US into committing the greatest of all war crimes (as described by the Nuremberg tribunal), a war of aggression against Syria, based on a determination that is at best highly doubtful (just as Sadam Hussein's WMD were highly doubtful).
"60 Minutes" latest forrey into support for endless war will disgust all who are diligent seekers of truth and justice.
If that is how truth is discerned, then we can assume that the crowds were correct in demanding the release of Barabas and the crucifixion of Jesus?
Or if truth is determined by who has the most money then isn't it true that "might makes right"?
The issue here, folks, is that Scott Pelley deceived the public in 2008 regarding Sadam Hussein's actions with regard to US charges that he had weapons of mass destruction, and the producers of "60 Minutes" broadcast that deception.
Here's the relevant snippet from the article.
*****************
Pelley has built a highly successful CBS career by always parroting the official line of the U.S. government no matter how obviously false it is. For instance, in 2008, he conducted an interview with FBI interrogator George Piro who had questioned Iraq’s Saddam Hussein before his execution.
Pelley wondered why Hussein had kept pretending that he had weapons of mass destruction when a simple acknowledgement that they had been destroyed would have spared his country the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
“For a man who drew America into two wars and countless military engagements, we never knew what Saddam Hussein was thinking,” Pelley said in introducing the segment on the interrogation of Hussein about his WMD stockpiles. “Why did he choose war with the United States?”
The segment never mentioned the fact that Hussein’s government did disclose that it had eliminated its WMD, including a 12,000-page submission to the UN on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining how its WMD stockpiles had been destroyed. In fall 2002, Hussein’s government also allowed teams of UN inspectors into Iraq and gave them free rein to examine any site of their choosing.
******************
With regard to the use of sarin, it is extremely difficult to discern the truth of the matter of who was responsible for the attack. Never-the-less, some war mongers are trying to stampede the US into committing the greatest of all war crimes (as described by the Nuremberg tribunal), a war of aggression against Syria, based on a determination that is at best highly doubtful (just as Sadam Hussein's WMD were highly doubtful).
"60 Minutes" latest forrey into support for endless war will disgust all who are diligent seekers of truth and justice.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I spent just a few minutes researching some of the claims made in the article and I can already show you the holes in this attempt to exonerate Assad of his chemical weapon strikes.
The article in the OP says:
"Nor does Pelley note that UN laboratories also found no sarin or other chemical agents on the one missile that the inspectors recovered from Moadamiya."
but then says:
"The two labs did have a dispute over whether trace elements of some chemicals found in Moadamiya might have been degraded sarin."
The author calls it a disputed positive and says it makes no sense because the sarin in other places was not degraded. But on top of the two labs that indicated what they found was degraded sarin, here is this bit of pesky information:
"One lab returned results from urine samples. Of the samples from Moadamiyah, the rate was 100% positive for sarin."
UN inspectors in Syria: under fire, in record time, sarin is confirmed | World news | The Guardian
The whole "possible false flag" portion from the OP article is refuted in this excerpt:
"Then there is the quantity of sarin gas required for the attack. Hersh seems to start out by saying that Turkey was training the rebels to make sarin inside Syria. But the time and facilities required to make the quantity of gas used on Aug. 21 are inconceivable. Dan Kaszeta, a former U.S. Army Chemical Corps officer has calculated that the attack at Ghouta required at least a ton of sarin gas, which even in a large and well-equipped laboratory (hard to imagine in rebel-held Syria) is produced 2 gallons at a time.
Later, Hersh says Turkey provided the sarin and the training required to move and use it. That is certainly possible, although Turkey is not known to possess a chemical weapons program. Hersh doesn't mention Turkey's lack of a known program or discuss from where it might have sourced the sarin."
"...it is a big leap to show that Turkey got hold of large quantities of sarin gas and provided it to the rebels, who then got rockets and launchers from the Syrian military, successfully built and installed the warheads, and secretly fired them from near Syrian positions."
Who Trusts Russian Spies on Syria? - Bloomberg View
They also bring up the point about how that "former senior intelligence official" looks to be Hersh's only source for much of this information.
I will continue responding to this article later, God-willing.
The article in the OP says:
"Nor does Pelley note that UN laboratories also found no sarin or other chemical agents on the one missile that the inspectors recovered from Moadamiya."
but then says:
"The two labs did have a dispute over whether trace elements of some chemicals found in Moadamiya might have been degraded sarin."
The author calls it a disputed positive and says it makes no sense because the sarin in other places was not degraded. But on top of the two labs that indicated what they found was degraded sarin, here is this bit of pesky information:
"One lab returned results from urine samples. Of the samples from Moadamiyah, the rate was 100% positive for sarin."
UN inspectors in Syria: under fire, in record time, sarin is confirmed | World news | The Guardian
The whole "possible false flag" portion from the OP article is refuted in this excerpt:
"Then there is the quantity of sarin gas required for the attack. Hersh seems to start out by saying that Turkey was training the rebels to make sarin inside Syria. But the time and facilities required to make the quantity of gas used on Aug. 21 are inconceivable. Dan Kaszeta, a former U.S. Army Chemical Corps officer has calculated that the attack at Ghouta required at least a ton of sarin gas, which even in a large and well-equipped laboratory (hard to imagine in rebel-held Syria) is produced 2 gallons at a time.
Later, Hersh says Turkey provided the sarin and the training required to move and use it. That is certainly possible, although Turkey is not known to possess a chemical weapons program. Hersh doesn't mention Turkey's lack of a known program or discuss from where it might have sourced the sarin."
"...it is a big leap to show that Turkey got hold of large quantities of sarin gas and provided it to the rebels, who then got rockets and launchers from the Syrian military, successfully built and installed the warheads, and secretly fired them from near Syrian positions."
Who Trusts Russian Spies on Syria? - Bloomberg View
They also bring up the point about how that "former senior intelligence official" looks to be Hersh's only source for much of this information.
I will continue responding to this article later, God-willing.
Upvote
0
I'll suggest you start your own thread if you want to debate who used sarin in Syria. That's not what this thread is about. In point of fact all of us who have not personally done the investigation are taking someone else's word for it.
This thread is about the blatant distortion of the truth perpetrated by "60 Minutes" and Scott Pelley in their apparent attempt to stampede the American public into demanding the US once again commit the supreme international war crime - a war of aggression - this time by invading Syria. Pelley and "60 Minutes" are pushing the false notion that the truth regarding who launched the sarin attack is knowable, that it was the Syrian government, and by extension they are attempting to force Obama to act on his threat to invade Syria if the chemical weapon "red line" was crossed. We all owe Putin a tremendous debt of gratitude for defusing this ugly situation.
The abysmal history of the US in these matters should be very clear and very fresh in our minds. Despite the investigations by international teams that turned up NO WMD in Iraq, the US used the WMD ruse as an excuse for the commission of the most egregious of war crimes, the invasion of another country. By the most recent and authoritative accounts that invasion resulted in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis, not to mention the horrendous physical destruction of an entire country, its infrastructure and its cities, and the looting of its historic artifacts.
I guess there are those who want to see a repetition of that criminal disaster.
Count me out.
This thread is about the blatant distortion of the truth perpetrated by "60 Minutes" and Scott Pelley in their apparent attempt to stampede the American public into demanding the US once again commit the supreme international war crime - a war of aggression - this time by invading Syria. Pelley and "60 Minutes" are pushing the false notion that the truth regarding who launched the sarin attack is knowable, that it was the Syrian government, and by extension they are attempting to force Obama to act on his threat to invade Syria if the chemical weapon "red line" was crossed. We all owe Putin a tremendous debt of gratitude for defusing this ugly situation.
The abysmal history of the US in these matters should be very clear and very fresh in our minds. Despite the investigations by international teams that turned up NO WMD in Iraq, the US used the WMD ruse as an excuse for the commission of the most egregious of war crimes, the invasion of another country. By the most recent and authoritative accounts that invasion resulted in the deaths of more than one million Iraqis, not to mention the horrendous physical destruction of an entire country, its infrastructure and its cities, and the looting of its historic artifacts.
I guess there are those who want to see a repetition of that criminal disaster.
Count me out.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
"This thread is about the blatant distortion of the truth perpetrated by "60 Minutes" "
Right, and my posts here are about the blatant distortion of the truth perpetrated by the article you posted. In this case, it shows that the 60 Minutes segment was not lying about Assad and his chemical weapon attacks. So I'd say my posts were highly relevant (since they are point-by-point replies to the article you posted and apparently believe).
I don't even really want western intervention in Syria (though I can see why some would). Of course, my opinion doesn't matter all that much and it is what the persecuted Syrians want that matters, but from the outside I can see the wisdom behind God's plans thus far. The abandonment of the Syrians by the international community has forced them to rely even more on God. So fine, be against the US fighting in Syria. But please stop blaming the victims. Don't insult the Sunni Syrians who have been killed in these chemical weapon strikes by Assad by saying that they did this to themselves.
Anyway, will come back soon to reply to the rest of the atrocious article.
Right, and my posts here are about the blatant distortion of the truth perpetrated by the article you posted. In this case, it shows that the 60 Minutes segment was not lying about Assad and his chemical weapon attacks. So I'd say my posts were highly relevant (since they are point-by-point replies to the article you posted and apparently believe).
I don't even really want western intervention in Syria (though I can see why some would). Of course, my opinion doesn't matter all that much and it is what the persecuted Syrians want that matters, but from the outside I can see the wisdom behind God's plans thus far. The abandonment of the Syrians by the international community has forced them to rely even more on God. So fine, be against the US fighting in Syria. But please stop blaming the victims. Don't insult the Sunni Syrians who have been killed in these chemical weapon strikes by Assad by saying that they did this to themselves.
Anyway, will come back soon to reply to the rest of the atrocious article.
Upvote
0
It is not the "abandonment" of the Syrians by the international community that was/is the problem, but rather the ongoing program of "regime change" sponsored by the US government. Like Iraq, Syria before "regime change" had its problems, but at least it was a functioning society. Now, like Iraq, it's a wasteland.
Thanks to the US government and its entrenched war mongers and neocons.
Thanks to the US government and its entrenched war mongers and neocons.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I'm curious, are you against US involvement in Iraq right now against ISIS as well?
There has been no regime change so far, unfortunately, and the US is not helping the majority of the rebels, especially not with weapons. In fact, the only people it has harmed directly in Syria besides ISIS are rebel groups (and civilians though I think this is unintentional). They haven't even enforced no-fly zones (i.e. they haven't prevented Assad from harming the civilian population with chemical weapons or barrel bombs). Assad's regime has been unscathed by the US.
How was Syria a functioning society? Do you call killing peaceful protesters for months on end a functioning society? Do you think they were protesting for no reason at all? Hafez al-Assad came to power by force and stayed by force and his son has been even more ruthless in the past 4 years alone, killing at least 220,000 Sunnis.
There has been no regime change so far, unfortunately, and the US is not helping the majority of the rebels, especially not with weapons. In fact, the only people it has harmed directly in Syria besides ISIS are rebel groups (and civilians though I think this is unintentional). They haven't even enforced no-fly zones (i.e. they haven't prevented Assad from harming the civilian population with chemical weapons or barrel bombs). Assad's regime has been unscathed by the US.
How was Syria a functioning society? Do you call killing peaceful protesters for months on end a functioning society? Do you think they were protesting for no reason at all? Hafez al-Assad came to power by force and stayed by force and his son has been even more ruthless in the past 4 years alone, killing at least 220,000 Sunnis.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
