"60 Minutes" or "60 Lies"?

[RelativeBearing]

I'm for obeying the commandments of Jesus to love and do good to our enemies. Those who have studied and practiced war the most have eventually learned these truths.

"We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.... The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." -- 5 star US General Omar Bradley

See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI3lckqaSk0

 

[sdmsanjose]

By RelativeBearing

"60 Minutes" or "60 Lies"?
A lie a minute.
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.

For me this boils down to who has the most credibility in news stories. We have CBS 60 minutes then we have consortiumnews.com.

By RelativeBearing
So, we are now to decide who is telling the truth and who is not based on a popularity contest?

You and I both have to depend on CREDIBLE news agencies for much of International events. I am not choosing who is telling the truth by popularity, I am using CREDIBILITY. I am sure that 60-Minutes has not got the monopoly on infallibility but your news source is not more credible than 60-minutes

By RelativeBearing
If that is how truth is discerned, then we can assume that the crowds were correct in demanding the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus?

You are using the crowds demanding the release of Barabbas to discredit 60-minutes? That seems like a disconnected stretch. First, I am using credibility with your news agency and your comments not just popularity. The 60-Minutes program has been under scrutiny by its competitors for over 40 YEARS! The program has been found to be more credible and professional than the news agency you are using to try and make your points.

By RelativeBearing
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.
I'm for obeying the commandments of Jesus to love and do good to our enemies. Those who have studied and practiced war the most have eventually learned these truths.

LoveBeingMuslim has given you point by point on your posts and asked you several pertinent questions. Instead of you answering him point by point you quote Jesus to love and do good to our enemies. I am not about to argue against Jesus but Jesus was not talking to world governments nor was he quoting Consortiumnews.com to make His point. Are you going to answer LoveBengMuslim?

Now your point about the U.S. Government and their “ rather the ongoing program of "regime change" sponsored by the US government” is interesting and some history and facts can be convincing. However, attacking 60-Minutes and using Consortiumnews.com as the credible source is not

 

[RelativeBearing]

Now wait a minute here!

There is absolutely no question that Scott Pelley distorted the truth about Sadam's reaction to being charged with having WMD by Pelley's failure to mention the fact that Sadam produced 12,000 pages of documentation refuting the WMD charges. But instead Pelley wondered on "60 Minutes" why Sadam did not deny the charges.

Now, no serious person can claim that Pelley was not spinning the truth!

So, either you are not in possession of the facts here, or you also are trying to spin the truth!

I would take investigative reporter Robert Parry's word over Scott Pelley's in a heartbeat. But that is not based on personal preferences but instead on Scott Pelley's track record of lies versus Robert Parry's track record of speaking truth to power.

And the principles involved that I demonstrated with my comparisons to Christ are indeed valid. Truth is not determined by popular vote.

 

[sdmsanjose]

By RelativeBearing
I would take investigative reporter Robert Parry's word over Scott Pelley's in a heartbeat. But that is not based on personal preferences but instead on Scott Pelley's track record of lies versus Robert Parry's track record of speaking truth to power.

Scott Pelley is not the reason that I would choose CBS-60-mintes over some .com guy. Your .com guy, Robert Parry, has not been able to become a major news source for two decades and his non-profit company cannot get enough support to be an important news agency or financially sound. His news company did so poorly he had to go to work for another news source.


Scott Pelley has a lot of CBS superiors that cannot afford to have a reporter do what you claim. CBS is one of the most respected news networks in the world and they fired Dan Rather and he had the most important position in CBS, he was the anchor. Rather got fired for reporting something about President Bush during his younger days which was less important than what you are claiming about Pelley. CBS is not about to allow a reported to ruin their reputation without taking action like they did against Rather.


I have already alluded to the fact that even 60-minutes can make mistakes but CBS-60 minutes is still a more credible source of news that your .com man. This debate can go on forever so let us just leave it that you think that your .com man is more credible and I think that CBS-60 minutes is.


I noticed that you have failed to answer LoveBeinMuslim for the second time. Is there a reason that you are avoiding answering his questions?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I will continue responding to this article later, God-willing.

Continuing where I left off, the article makes a big deal about short-range rockets and how the government positions were too far away to have conducted those strikes according to a few people. Well:

"Hersh refers to the work of Ted Postol and Richard Lloyd who believe the range of the rockets is about 2km. But this range issue isn't the problem Hersh appears to think.

Video footage from both sides of the conflict has allowed researchers to accurately find the positions of government controlled areas on 21 August.

The Russian-language news site ANNA News posted two dozen videos showing "Operation al-Qaboun", a Syrian government military operation running from June to August 2013. Embedded with Syrian forces, they were able to film the progress of the operation to clear positions between Jobar and Qaboun, a strip of land about 2km away from the 21 August impact sites.

Videos from opposition groups show the other side of the fighting, including attacks on checkpoints and government movements. Based on this information it appears that the front lines were about 2km away from the furthest impact sites of rockets used on 21 August. Only two rockets landed at the 2km maximum range described by Lloyd and Postol, with the reported impact sites of the remaining rockets being between 1.5km-1.8km away."

It's clear that Turkey was not involved in the chemical attack on Syria | Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta | Comment is free | The Guardian

The entire article is excellent and pretty much destroys the article posted by the OP

Their takeaway: "Taken cumulatively, all these points add up to a very high degree of improbability. Isn't it more probable that the Sarin came from the people who confessed to having a Sarin factory, fired from areas controlled by the government 2km away from the impact sites, in munitions the government had been using since 2012?"

As for the rest of the article from the first post of this thread, it's all emotional fear-mongering and appealing to authority and has no need to be rebutted.

More articles if anyone is still not convinced that all evidence assure most people who are not bent on defending Assad's regime that it was Assad who unleashed chemical weapons:

Brown Moses Blog: Seymour Hersh's Volcano Problem

Dan Kaszeta’s Articles | Strongpoint Security Limited

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/men...gust-21st-sarin-attacks-continue-one-year-on/