Google and Facebook Working to Fight the Spread of 'Fake News'

[0388631]

Fake news = False. Just plain lies. Refer to "Pizzagate," that is fake news.
CNN/FOX/NBC = News with a slant towards whatever polito-sphere the agency values. Also called slanted or biased news.
Fox viewer not agreeing with CNN = Not fake news. Doesn't agree with the liberal bias. And vice versa with CNN to FOX.

Just because it doesn't fit your personal agenda, it doesn't mean it's fake news. If it's intentionally misleading with nothing but lies, then you can call it fake news. Most news companies, even Fox or CNN, get their news from the "wire" which is run by larger agencies like the AP.

Journalism seems to be dead these days. Only Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalists should be listened to I'd say, and even then you gotta fact check them too!

Such as the journalists and newspapers Donald Trump slammed?

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-insults-pulitzer-winners-2017-4

 

[BuddyTronic]

Fake news = False. Just plain lies. Refer to "Pizzagate," that is fake news.
CNN/FOX/NBC = News with a slant towards whatever polito-sphere the agency values. Also called slanted or biased news.
Fox viewer not agreeing with CNN = Not fake news. Doesn't agree with the liberal bias. And vice versa with CNN to FOX.

Just because it doesn't fit your personal agenda, it doesn't mean it's fake news. If it's intentionally misleading with nothing but lies, then you can call it fake news. Most news companies, even Fox or CNN, get their news from the "wire" which is run by larger agencies like the AP.


Such as the journalists and newspapers Donald Trump slammed?

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-insults-pulitzer-winners-2017-4

Hate to get into this, but just as an example from recent news, take a look at this Syria issue.

Is it right to say Syria bombed with chemical weapons? Is that a fact? Syria denies it. Does anyone care to look at facts and proof? I'd say no. BBC and CNN and others talk about it as if it is a fact. Again - it is not facts they are reporting when they say that. Leaders of the world talk about it as if it is a fact, but is it? I mean, just a little bit of thought on that topic can get you wondering about it, and then you look for something factual about the tragic horrible events and you look at people rubber stamping more "non facts" about previous chemical weapons stories in Syria and if you check the opposite side of the story, it's really questionable what the real truth is. It's not a "Pizzagate" type of fake, but it is not an established fact that Syria bombed with Sarin gas recently. At least not at this point in time. Maybe it will be proven or disproven. Maybe they will find a chemical weapons dump was hit by the Syrian airplane conventional weapons. The UN states that they don't know whether the poison gas was dropped from the air, or was hit on the ground, or if it was deployed by some other means. There are some reports that possibly a chemical weapons depot was hit inadvertently to cause this horror, But CNN and BBC and the majority of what you see on TV is saying it happened, but it is not yet proven to be a fact, and it's quite suspicious to anyone with an open mind.

As far as Trump and that link you post about Trump insulting pulitzer winners - I didn't yet read it, but yeah for sure he probably is attacking some people who don't deserve it. I agree with you. Trump made mistakes with this Syria attack too. I'm a bit of a Trump fan, but I see him getting several things wrong. I just hope he changes his ignorant views on global warming and overcomes whatever blackmail/men behind the curtain/money conspiracies that caused him to do this lame missile attack on Syria. If Trump used Logic - he would not make the illogical assumption that "Assad attacked with chemical weapons" - but clearly there is something else out there trying to deceive people. It all relates to this Google Facebook Fake News stuff.

I can get a glimpse of what is most likely the real truth - I hope everyone out there does too - I am open to change my mind and be shown the real truth, I always seek it and question everything these days. The sad thing, is that we never seem to get the results of what the real truth is. You might only find out about the real truth years later - or never.

Someone is out there to deceive us - that's my main point.

 

[0388631]

Our government claimed there was a chemical attack on citizens. News agencies took them at their word. If they had said there was no such attack, people would still call it 'fake' news. This rings back to the Bush Administration that stated, as fact no less, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Every news agency went along with that, because that's what the head of the government stated. What happened was years down the road, we found out it was all a lie. I can understand people having a healthy amount of criticism and being wary of what the government says happened a half world away, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Our government claimed there was a chemical attack on citizens. News agencies took them at their word. If they had said there was no such attack, people would still call it 'fake' news. This rings back to the Bush Administration that stated, as fact no less, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Every news agency went along with that, because that's what the head of the government stated. What happened was years down the road, we found out it was all a lie. I can understand people having a healthy amount of criticism and being wary of what the government says happened a half world away, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

News agencies should not take our governments at their word

Talk about facts they talk about "without a doubt" Or "no doubt" Both parties in the USA are guilty of using this term of "no doubt"

I thought Trump would not do that but Trump is just as guilty as Obama when they say "no doubt"

Everything needs to be fact checked.

 

[0388631]

Everything needs to be fact checked.

You keep saying this, but nothing will ever satisfy anyone who wants facts. If a government entity states that it happened, you will say it needs to be fact-checked by a news agency. If a news agency says it, you say it must be fact-checked. Say it's fact-checked by a multitude of news agencies, it could be one big cabal and that they're lying or going with what the government tells them to tell the public to minimize anger and or panic. Unless you see it with your own eyes, you're going to critical of it. Not all of us want to be the next Walter Cronkite.

 

[BuddyTronic]

You keep saying this, but nothing will ever satisfy anyone who wants facts. If a government entity states that it happened, you will say it needs to be fact-checked by a news agency. If a news agency says it, you say it must be fact-checked. Say it's fact-checked by a multitude of news agencies, it could be one big cabal and that they're lying or going with what the government tells them to tell the public to minimize anger and or panic. Unless you see it with your own eyes, you're going to critical of it. Not all of us want to be the next Walter Cronkite.

OK - this comes back to "who do we trust to do the fact checking"

But - can we at least demand that people "show their work" when it comes to things like proof of facts, and evidence and "circumstantial evidence", or "highly suspicious". I think we can demand that the word "FACT" be reserved for real honest to goodness facts.

If CNN or some other propaganda media machine wants to say that they are highly suspicious and are 90% certain that aliens live on the dark side of the moon, that's fine with me if they say that. If they say it as if it were a fact - that's a totally different thing.

Don't be calling stuff "Facts" or "Truths" unless they are proven.

It means that nobody makes claims that are subject to dispute. They recognize that there could be 2 opposing views and opinions about something.

That's respect for logic - that's what we need.

That much we can demand from our news agencies I think - Right?

 

[maelstromr]

Hate to get into this, but just as an example from recent news, take a look at this Syria issue.

Is it right to say Syria bombed with chemical weapons? Is that a fact? Syria denies it. Does anyone care to look at facts and proof? I'd say no. BBC and CNN and others talk about it as if it is a fact. Again - it is not facts they are reporting when they say that. Leaders of the world talk about it as if it is a fact, but is it? I mean, just a little bit of thought on that topic can get you wondering about it, and then you look for something factual about the tragic horrible events and you look at people rubber stamping more "non facts" about previous chemical weapons stories in Syria and if you check the opposite side of the story, it's really questionable what the real truth is. It's not a "Pizzagate" type of fake, but it is not an established fact that Syria bombed with Sarin gas recently. At least not at this point in time. Maybe it will be proven or disproven. Maybe they will find a chemical weapons dump was hit by the Syrian airplane conventional weapons. The UN states that they don't know whether the poison gas was dropped from the air, or was hit on the ground, or if it was deployed by some other means. There are some reports that possibly a chemical weapons depot was hit inadvertently to cause this horror, But CNN and BBC and the majority of what you see on TV is saying it happened, but it is not yet proven to be a fact, and it's quite suspicious to anyone with an open mind.

As far as Trump and that link you post about Trump insulting pulitzer winners - I didn't yet read it, but yeah for sure he probably is attacking some people who don't deserve it. I agree with you. Trump made mistakes with this Syria attack too. I'm a bit of a Trump fan, but I see him getting several things wrong. I just hope he changes his ignorant views on global warming and overcomes whatever blackmail/men behind the curtain/money conspiracies that caused him to do this lame missile attack on Syria. If Trump used Logic - he would not make the illogical assumption that "Assad attacked with chemical weapons" - but clearly there is something else out there trying to deceive people. It all relates to this Google Facebook Fake News stuff.

I can get a glimpse of what is most likely the real truth - I hope everyone out there does too - I am open to change my mind and be shown the real truth, I always seek it and question everything these days. The sad thing, is that we never seem to get the results of what the real truth is. You might only find out about the real truth years later - or never.

Someone is out there to deceive us - that's my main point.

I wonder where you got your "news" about an "unconfirmed" sarin attack. It looks like it was maybe Russia? THIS is why we need filters on crazy conspiracy nonsense.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...2&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=78523460&te=1&_r=0

 

[Zombie Acorn]

Who decides who the fact checkers are and are they always correct?

Who cares? Which ads generate the most ad revenue?
[doublepost=1491995590][/doublepost]

Use duckduckgo.com instead of google

And who uses facebook for news?

Unfortunately a large segment of the populace gets its information from the garbage bin known as Facebook.

 

[BuddyTronic]

I wonder where you got your "news" about an "unconfirmed" sarin attack. It looks like it was maybe Russia? THIS is why we need filters on crazy conspiracy nonsense.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...2&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=78523460&te=1&_r=0

I did not yet read the New York Times article link you posted, but I will check it.

(OK I skimmed it just now - editing my post to note that - hey they say they have "confidence", they are "confident". OK take that "confidence" for what it is really worth....). (I'll read the whole article, but as soon as I see "assessment" or "confidence" I pretty much have suspicions it is most likely cooked up BS. I am skeptical, so prove something to me as a skeptic.)

Hey, I have no idea how to deploy a Sarin Poison Gas attack. Are you sure you drop it from a jet plane? Is this the way to do it? It seems like poison gas would need to be fogged as an aerosol - like mosquito spray or something. Dropping it from a jet? Nobody is even talking about that aspect of a "gas attack" ???

You do not think it is plausible that maybe a conventional air to ground bomb hit a weapons depot that had bottles of this Sarin poison there?

You think that Syria would want to use chemical weapons? Why would they do that now at this stage at this time? Isn't it a poor strategy for them to do that suddenly? I mean, isn't it a stupid strategy to do that now?

Here is a wacky theory that fits that could explain things better than what CNN says. How about the idea that Trump is being blackmailed by the men behind the curtain. Trump made a 180 degree change on Syria last week. Suddenly we have CNN cheering on Trump - he just became president - and all sorts of bloodthirsty statements from CNN reporters that the tomahawk misses were a "beautiful thing" and reminded the CNN reporter of a Leonard Cohen song (of all things!). Why would Trump do that? It remains to be seen. I think it will get straightened out and the 5 people Trump killed with Tomahawks are the pawns of the game. Trump will come back to support Assad, join up with the Ruskies and fight ISIS for real. OR maybe Trump is going to stick to his guns on this stuff? I dunno?

Think back to 2013 - Syria was accused of using chemical weapons back then. My take on it was that it was BS back then, and I think there is a lot of evidence that does say that the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons in 2013.

So what are you basing your armchair judgement on this story on? Think about it. Don't believe what you think or at least be cautious about what you think you know. I am cautious. Are you?

Hey I am not for crazy conspiracy nonsense, all I want is for our media to stop insisting that they are reporting "facts" when they clearly are NOT reporting "facts".

If the UN (United Nations) disagrees with the "facts" from CNN - this needs to be mentioned for goodness sakes.

 

[maelstromr]

I did not yet read the New York Times article link you posted, but I will check it.

Hey, I have no idea how to deploy a Sarin Poison Gas attack. Are you sure you drop it from a jet plane? Is this the way to do it?

You do not think it is plausible that maybe a conventional air to ground bomb hit a weapons depot that had bottles of this Sarin poison there?

You think that Syria would want to use chemical weapons? Why would they do that now? Isn't it a poor strategy for them to do that suddenly? I mean, isn't it a stupid strategy to do that now?

Think back to 2013 - Syria was accused of using chemical weapons back then. My take on it was that it was BS back then, and I think there is a lot of evidence that does say that the Syrian government did not use chemical weapons in 2013.

So what are you basing your armchair judgement on this story on? Think about it. Don't believe what you think or at least be cautious about what you think you know. I am cautious. Are you?

Hey I am not for crazy conspiracy nonsense, all I want is for our media to stop insisting that they are reporting "facts" when they clearly are NOT reporting "facts".

If the UN (United Nations) disagrees with the "facts" from CNN - this needs to be mentioned for goodness sakes.

WHEN you read the article, you will see a pretty comprehensive set of information. There were also reports from Turkish doctors treating sarin injuries. There have been multiple other reports from first hand sources. The Syrians have done this before. The Russians seem to have known about it before hand. The concerns you raise: "how was it deployed, what do we KNOW, maybe it was just sitting there" - seem to be from the Russian counter info campaign. I wonder where you first got those concerns? If you came up with them yourself, ok, but I suspect you read them somewhere and I am curious what the source was.

I am aware of no real debate as to what happened in 2013 at this point. 1400 people dead. Significant, unanimous international condemnation and sanctions. As to why they did it, there are many sources discussing this: a lack of real consequences (still none really, the airfield is working just fine), a message to his people, a message to his neighbors. If you have a crazy guy with his hand on the button, it might make you WANT to get him more...but you're definitely going to be very, very cautious about it.

All of what I am saying is available through respected, cited sources that compliment each other. That said, there is always "room for doubt." The question is not whether there is absolute, God-given certainty (which he hasn't deigned to provide, ever), but whether there are reasonable questions and challenges. So far, there simply are not.
I don't "simply" trust mainstream media. I read what they say (the whole article), then I read what their competition says (the whole article), I look to see what their sources are then I decide whether something is true, likely true, kinda true, kinda false, mostly false, false or you-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-yourself lie. It's not HARD to do, but it does take effort, and why a policy/procedure to make it easier to identify these elements is controversial is beyond me.
[doublepost=1492004382][/doublepost]

WHEN you read the article, you will see a pretty comprehensive set of information. There were also reports from Turkish doctors treating sarin injuries. There have been multiple other reports from first hand sources. The Syrians have done this before. The Russians seem to have known about it before hand. The concerns you raise: "how was it deployed, what do we KNOW, maybe it was just sitting there" - seem to be from the Russian counter info campaign. I wonder where you first got those concerns? If you came up with them yourself, ok, but I suspect you read them somewhere and I am curious what the source was.

I am aware of no real debate as to what happened in 2013 at this point. 1400 people dead. Significant, unanimous international condemnation and sanctions. As to why they did it, there are many sources discussing this: a lack of real consequences (still none really, the airfield is working just fine), a message to his people, a message to his neighbors. If you have a crazy guy with his hand on the button, it might make you WANT to get him more...but you're definitely going to be very, very cautious about it.

All of what I am saying is available through respected, cited sources that compliment each other. That said, there is always "room for doubt." The question is not whether there is absolute, God-given certainty (which he hasn't deigned to provide, ever), but whether there are reasonable questions and challenges. So far, there simply are not.
I don't "simply" trust mainstream media. I read what they say (the whole article), then I read what their competition says (the whole article), I look to see what their sources are then I decide whether something is true, likely true, kinda true, kinda false, mostly false, false or you-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-yourself lie. It's not HARD to do, but it does take effort, and why a policy/procedure to make it easier to identify these elements is controversial is beyond me.

And an addendum to the above: I trust sources that reliably land on the "true-mostly true" spectrum significantly more frequently more than unknown sources or sources that reliably lie their faces off. Part of this is evaluating sources that honestly and clearly post retractions or corrections when needed. The irony when people point to a retraction or correction as exposing "fake news" is staggering.

That is why the NYT, WashPo, etc are real sources to be trusted and Breitbart and Infowars should be purged from all responsible discussion. I know I will get some "coastal liberal media spin", but I also know that they will reliably, consistently, faithfully conduct their work and check it as well as is possible. I also know that certain others do everything they can to avoid that kind of ethical journalism, and I know the kind of people that enjoy and embrace it.

 

[BuddyTronic]

WHEN you read the article, you will see a pretty comprehensive set of information. There were also reports from Turkish doctors treating sarin injuries. There have been multiple other reports from first hand sources. The Syrians have done this before. The Russians seem to have known about it before hand. The concerns you raise: "how was it deployed, what do we KNOW, maybe it was just sitting there" - seem to be from the Russian counter info campaign. I wonder where you first got those concerns? If you came up with them yourself, ok, but I suspect you read them somewhere and I am curious what the source was.

I am aware of no real debate as to what happened in 2013 at this point. 1400 people dead. Significant, unanimous international condemnation and sanctions. As to why they did it, there are many sources discussing this: a lack of real consequences (still none really, the airfield is working just fine), a message to his people, a message to his neighbors. If you have a crazy guy with his hand on the button, it might make you WANT to get him more...but you're definitely going to be very, very cautious about it.

All of what I am saying is available through respected, cited sources that compliment each other. That said, there is always "room for doubt." The question is not whether there is absolute, God-given certainty (which he hasn't deigned to provide, ever), but whether there are reasonable questions and challenges. So far, there simply are not.
I don't "simply" trust mainstream media. I read what they say (the whole article), then I read what their competition says (the whole article), I look to see what their sources are then I decide whether something is true, likely true, kinda true, kinda false, mostly false, false or you-ought-to-be-ashamed-of-yourself lie. It's not HARD to do, but it does take effort, and why a policy/procedure to make it easier to identify these elements is controversial is beyond me.

I read a lot of RT.com

You should read it too - unless of course you are not interested in reading the opposing viewpoint. If you are closed minded, stick to CNN and BBC - they jive together nicely. But RT tells you something different. Larry King is on there once in a blue moon, and they have some good viewpoints.


If you are not aware of 2013 gas attack "whodunnit" then I suggest you Google it! Then you will be aware of it. Lots of American news sources point out that it was unlikely to be from Assad. USA got it wrong right from the start with Syria. ALSO with the "Arab Spring" ALSO with Libya. on and on. USA got almost everything wrong for the last 30 years! That's why I was/am a Trump fan. But we shall see.... When CNN starts cheering for Trump, you know something is wrong

Check out Assad on "60 Minutes TV program" - the guy seems pretty smart and not a nutcase. Please do that.

Anyway - just trying to enlighten you a bit.


As far as what you say about Mainstream Media. I am not the only person who is deeply insulted daily by the BS coming from CBC, BBC, CNN, maybe even CNBC. They talk about "Facts" that are NOT facts. If they just would change one or two words, I would let it go and not be so concerned, but I am certain that millions of people see the same thing I see which is a Progagandized mainstream media that tells lies, and certainly does NOT use the "best practices" of investigative journalism. It's an information war for your brains. I am not stupid. I don't buy it. I can see through the crap. If they said "it appears as if though" something happened, I could let it slide. But NO - they insist on telling YOU it's a "FACT" and it's not a fact - it rarely is a fact.

Yes it is a shame that babies died from Sarin. Do you really think it is likely that it was dropped from Syrian Jets?

Proof please! Not "confident assessment" I hope they do investigate it with the UN. I trust the UN. Let the UN look into it and tell us. Anything else is just pawns in a game to sell and produce more weapons for $$$.

 

[maelstromr]

I read a lot of RT.com

You should read it too - unless of course you are not interested in reading the opposing viewpoint. If you are closed minded, stick to CNN and BBC - they jive together nicely. But RT tells you something different. Larry King is on there once in a blue moon, and they have some good viewpoints.


If you are not aware of 2013 gas attack "whodunnit" then I suggest you Google it! Then you will be aware of it. Lots of American news sources point out that it was unlikely to be from Assad. USA got it wrong right from the start with Syria. ALSO with the "Arab Spring" ALSO with Libya. on and on. USA got almost everything wrong for the last 30 years! That's why I was/am a Trump fan. But we shall see.... When CNN starts cheering for Trump, you know something is wrong

Check out Assad on "60 Minutes TV program" - the guy seems pretty smart and not a nutcase. Please do that.

Anyway - just trying to enlighten you a bit.


As far as what you say about Mainstream Media. I am not the only person who is deeply insulted daily by the BS coming from CBC, BBC, CNN, maybe even CNBC. They talk about "Facts" that are NOT facts. If they just would change one or two words, I would let it go and not be so concerned, but I am certain that millions of people see the same thing I see which is a Progagandized mainstream media that tells lies, and certainly does NOT use the "best practices" of investigative journalism. It's an information war for your brains. I am not stupid. I don't buy it. I can see through the crap. If they said "it appears as if though" something happened, I could let it slide. But NO - they insist on telling YOU it's a "FACT" and it's not a fact - it rarely is a fact.

Yes it is a shame that babies died from Sarin. Do you really think it is likely that it was dropped from Syrian Jets?

Proof please! Not "confident assessment" I hope they do investigate it with the UN. I trust the UN. Let the UN look into it and tell us. Anything else is just pawns in a game to sell and produce more weapons for $$$.

So, and I see the pit we are driving into, but for the record...what exactly would YOU need to "prove" this issue within a reasonable realm of certainty? What qualifies as truth for you? Something fed to you by RT, a source you like hearing from?

 

[BuddyTronic]

I wonder where you got your "news" about an "unconfirmed" sarin attack. It looks like it was maybe Russia? THIS is why we need filters on crazy conspiracy nonsense.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...2&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=78523460&te=1&_r=0

OK I went through the Whitehouse article.

It's full of holes right? You can pick it apart in 2 seconds. It says almost nothing right?

Can you pin the article down on anything at all? I mean it's full of "probably", "most likely" and other terms like that can be ambiguous.

I guess it was good enough of an article to violate the borders of another sovereign country (again) though.


Sickening really.

Double sickening now that my "hero" Trump is doing the same damned thing as Obama! What a world. I really thought Trump was showing that his foreign policy world view was 85% correct.

The only mistakes I thought Trump was making was global warming and Iran. Let's see how it all really turns out. I'll still give him a chance. 5 dead at the Syrian airport are just pawns (sadly, but true probably). The airport still works fine apparently. Maybe it was just a missile show to scare N Korea and wrile up the Chinese president?

 

[maelstromr]

I read a lot of RT.com

You should read it too - unless of course you are not interested in reading the opposing viewpoint. If you are closed minded, stick to CNN and BBC - they jive together nicely. But RT tells you something different. Larry King is on there once in a blue moon, and they have some good viewpoints.


If you are not aware of 2013 gas attack "whodunnit" then I suggest you Google it! Then you will be aware of it. Lots of American news sources point out that it was unlikely to be from Assad. USA got it wrong right from the start with Syria. ALSO with the "Arab Spring" ALSO with Libya. on and on. USA got almost everything wrong for the last 30 years! That's why I was/am a Trump fan. But we shall see.... When CNN starts cheering for Trump, you know something is wrong

Check out Assad on "60 Minutes TV program" - the guy seems pretty smart and not a nutcase. Please do that.

Anyway - just trying to enlighten you a bit.


As far as what you say about Mainstream Media. I am not the only person who is deeply insulted daily by the BS coming from CBC, BBC, CNN, maybe even CNBC. They talk about "Facts" that are NOT facts. If they just would change one or two words, I would let it go and not be so concerned, but I am certain that millions of people see the same thing I see which is a Progagandized mainstream media that tells lies, and certainly does NOT use the "best practices" of investigative journalism. It's an information war for your brains. I am not stupid. I don't buy it. I can see through the crap. If they said "it appears as if though" something happened, I could let it slide. But NO - they insist on telling YOU it's a "FACT" and it's not a fact - it rarely is a fact.

Yes it is a shame that babies died from Sarin. Do you really think it is likely that it was dropped from Syrian Jets?

Proof please! Not "confident assessment" I hope they do investigate it with the UN. I trust the UN. Let the UN look into it and tell us. Anything else is just pawns in a game to sell and produce more weapons for $$$.

PS - thanks for confirming your source was the Russians.

 

[BuddyTronic]

So, and I see the pit we are driving into, but for the record...what exactly would YOU need to "prove" this issue within a reasonable realm of certainty? What qualifies as truth for you? Something fed to you by RT, a source you like hearing from?

OK

I am curious as to how you deploy Sarin gas as a weapon? Can it be dropped from a jet plane? Let's see CNN show me something about that. Are you curious about that? I mean - what if it is a windy day? Gas attacks are stupid to stupid just for the reason of this thing called "wind".


I would get UN blue helmets to parachute to where the babies were killed with Sarin and see if they can find any evidence of weapons. Can they find air dropped canisters of Sarin? Can they find a weapons depot with a big explosion that did it? They can find out probably right? If it's air dropped, fine - let the chips fall where they may. It would be extremely surprising if that were to be found to be the case, but if the UN says so - yeah I'll believe it for sure - absolutely!

I would get the UN blue helmets to go to the Syrian airport and check out if they have any Sarin or traces of Sarin.

(which brings me to another point of logic - if USA thought Syria launched Sarin attacks from this airport, was it wise to bomb it??? Surely there should be traces of Sarin from 59 cruise missile tomahawks on that friggin airport! right? - Yet CNN doesn't mention this basic logic. Hell I could be Anderson Cooper right here. Too bad Wof Blitzer or Anderson Cooper never had a thought to ask the questions I want answered eh?)


Probably there are other things to investigate - Let those who are into that game figure it out.


Yay or Nay - let the UN tell us. I have ZERO skin in the game. I don't care. Just sick of all my (can I say foolish?) friends buying into the propaganda - maybe you included.
[doublepost=1492006344][/doublepost]

PS - thanks for confirming your source was the Russians.

No problem. Hope you read RT.com. It's no secret it is sponsored by the Russian Government. The question is - will you read it, or ignore it because it is sponsored by the Russian Government? Me? I don't care - I just like to see honest news. CBC is sponsored by the Canadian Government, and BBC is probably sponsored by the British Government - so what. I read all I can and decide what for myself. What is shocking though is how little coverage of Wikileaks you get on CNN. Lots of weird stuff like that

 

[maelstromr]

OK

I am curious as to how you deploy Sarin gas as a weapon? Can it be dropped from a jet plane? Let's see CNN show me something about that. Are you curious about that? I mean - what if it is a windy day? Gas attacks are stupid to stupid just for the reason of this thing called "wind".


I would get UN blue helmets to parachute to where the babies were killed with Sarin and see if they can find any evidence of weapons.

I would get the UN blue helmets to go to the Syrian airport and check out if they have any Sarin or traces of Sarin.

(which brings me to another point of logic - if USA thought Syria launched Sarin attacks from this airport, was it wise to bomb it??? Surely there should be traces of Sarin from 59 cruise missile tomahawks on that friggin airport! right? - Yet CNN doesn't mention this basic logic. Hell I could be Anderson Cooper right here. Too bad Wof Blitzer or Anderson Cooper never had a thought to ask the questions I want answered eh?)


Probably there are other things to investigate - Let those who are into that game figure it out.


Yay or Nay - let the UN tell us. I have ZERO skin in the game. I don't care. Just sick of all my (can I say foolish?) friends buying into the propaganda - maybe you included.
[doublepost=1492006344][/doublepost]

No problem. Hope you read RT.com. It's no secret it is sponsored by the Russian Government

Glad that's a conspiracy you are happy to indulge in.

We're not supposed to do this per forum rules, but YOU CAN GOOGLE most of your "questions" about the feasibility of the attack. Wikipedia itself has several sources listed for sarin bombs being used in air attacks.

And you are still not answering the question. What reporting do YOU NEED to believe something contrary to the convenient "truths" your friends the Russians are telling you? The answer is apparently not your own research given your purported questions.

Turns out, the answer is probably that there is nothing in the universe that could convince you, because you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe. And therein lies the real disease - it's not that the truth isn't out there to be found, it's that it is so easy to live a life that doesn't require you confronting uncomfortable things backed by logic, ethics, knowledge and experience. Now you can subscribe to Russian state TV, and just buy what they want to sell you, and feel good about it in the process. Now all that stuff the dang liberal elite have been saying has a counterpoint, and you are free to not believe it because someone on the internet agrees with you.

We need a crackdown on misinformation more than ever.

 

[BuddyTronic]

OK

I am curious as to how you deploy Sarin gas as a weapon? Can it be dropped from a jet plane? Let's see CNN show me something about that. Are you curious about that? I mean - what if it is a windy day? Gas attacks are stupid to stupid just for the reason of this thing called "wind".


I would get UN blue helmets to parachute to where the babies were killed with Sarin and see if they can find any evidence of weapons.

I would get the UN blue helmets to go to the Syrian airport and check out if they have any Sarin or traces of Sarin.

(which brings me to another point of logic - if USA thought Syria launched Sarin attacks from this airport, was it wise to bomb it??? Surely there should be traces of Sarin from 59 cruise missile tomahawks on that friggin airport! right? - Yet CNN doesn't mention this basic logic. Hell I could be Anderson Cooper right here. Too bad Wof Blitzer or Anderson Cooper never had a thought to ask the questions I want answered eh?)


Probably there are other things to investigate - Let those who are into that game figure it out.


Yay or Nay - let the UN tell us. I have ZERO skin in the game. I don't care. Just sick of all my (can I say foolish?) friends buying into the propaganda - maybe you included.
[doublepost=1492006344][/doublepost]

No problem. Hope you read RT.com. It's no secret it is sponsored by the Russian Government

Glad that's a conspiracy you are happy to indulge in.

We're not supposed to do this per forum rules, but YOU CAN GOOGLE most of your "questions" about the feasibility of the attack. Wikipedia itself has several sources listed for sarin bombs being used in air attacks.

And you are still not answering the question. What reporting do YOU NEED to believe something contrary to the convenient "truths" your friends the Russians are telling you? The answer is apparently not your own research given your purported questions.

Turns out, the answer is probably that there is nothing in the universe that could convince you, because you don't want to believe what you don't want to believe. And therein lies the real disease - it's not that the truth isn't out there to be found, it's that it is so easy to live a life that doesn't require you confronting uncomfortable things backed by logic, ethics, knowledge and experience. Now you can subscribe to Russian state TV, and just buy what they want to sell you, and feel good about it in the process. Now all that stuff the dang liberal elite have been saying has a counterpoint, and you are free to not believe it because someone on the internet agrees with you.

We need a crackdown on misinformation more than ever.

To answer your question - I think if the UN says something, I have to believe it. But let's say they get something wrong too. It can happen - so what then? I tried to say that our news reporters and "journalists" just need to be extra cautious and make sure they do not over-reach basic logic. If something is being disputed, then acknoledge that there is a dispute, do not pick a side and call something a fact or a non-fact - state that it is not yet known if it is a fact. That solves most of the problems I think. Don't insist something is a fact, when it might not be. That's all really.

You want to talk about whether it's cool to invade sovereign countries now?

(PS - I am detecting from you a negative tone towards me just because I told you I read RT.com - I resent that a bit and I thought you should know how I feel about that).

 

[maelstromr]

To answer your question - I think if the UN says something, I have to believe it. But let's say they get something wrong too. It can happen - so what then? I tried to say that our news reporters and "journalists" just need to be extra cautious and make sure they do not over-reach basic logic. If something is being disputed, then acknoledge that there is a dispute, do not pick a side and call something a fact or a non-fact - state that it is not yet known if it is a fact. That solves most of the problems I think. Don't insist something is a fact, when it might not be. That's all really.

You want to talk about whether it's cool to invade sovereign countries now?

(PS - I am detecting from you a negative tone towards me just because I told you I read RT.com - I resent that a bit and I thought you should know how I feel about that).

Ok: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.WO47_PnyuUk

So do we all agree about 2013 now? Frankly, it infuriates me that you spent so much time denying or "questioning" the 2013 attack when under your own rubric the question was firmly answered years ago. You questioned it because the Russians told you it was questionable.

I'll wait for the report from 2017, and we can agree then.

As to RT.com - I am appalled that you accept the Russian state's version of events apparently wholeheartedly and yet repeatedly disparage and ignore the verifiable, independent, competitive, subject to peer review, corrected, academic reporting of all major western news agencies. It demonstrates the resistance to established and agreed upon reporting standards that has been the hallmark of the last year and a half, and throughout your objections you have failed to provide a single concrete example justifying your distrust of the west and embrace of a known purveyor of false news and Russian propaganda.

But, luckily for all of us, our president has inured me to most of the shock and despair I would feel over it. Sigh.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Ok: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.WO47_PnyuUk

So do we all agree about 2013 now? Frankly, it infuriates me that you spent so much time denying or "questioning" the 2013 attack when under your own rubric the question was firmly answered years ago. You questioned it because the Russians told you it was questionable.

I'll wait for the report from 2017, and we can agree then.

As to RT.com - I am appalled that you accept the Russian state's version of events apparently wholeheartedly and yet repeatedly disparage and ignore the verifiable, independent, competitive, subject to peer review, corrected, academic reporting of all major western news agencies. It demonstrates the resistance to established and agreed upon reporting standards that has been the hallmark of the last year and a half, and throughout your objections you have failed to provide a single concrete example justifying your distrust of the west and embrace of a known purveyor of false news and Russian propaganda.

But, luckily for all of us, our president has inured me to most of the shock and despair I would feel over it. Sigh.

I will check the UN article - thanks for the work on your part to find it for me. It's not like I am an expert like I am with AAPL stock or other stuff, so if you are "infuriated" - get real. Who knows, maybe this is one of the times where the UN could be wrong too - I'll check it.

I do not distrust the "West" - haha - I am a Canadian from the midwest, not a "commie" - just a human being nerd with good common sense.

What justifies my distrust has something to do with "WMD's from Iraq" in 2003 and lies about AAPL stock for the last 15 years! Apple is going broke! The Russians did it! . Lots and Lots of BS daily. That's the seed of my distrust I guess.

Russian Propaganda? - BS - the whole reason I even bother to post about this stuff is that I have come to realize that our Western Propaganda is the real problem and probably the messed up world view needs to be fixed.

I think we just need to demand that news agencies speak using logical terms. If they want to call something a fact, there better be something backing it up.

No More Lies - People know what facts are most of the time - we are not stupid!

So if Facebook and Google are going to check on facts, good luck to them. I think all they need to do is just say that most things are tough to call a "fact" - even though people die over such things and countries have borders violated over such things.

 

[satcomer]

I just define most of the news today is repeating the news of the early 1900s Yellow Jouralism!

 

[BuddyTronic]

Ok: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.WO47_PnyuUk

So do we all agree about 2013 now? Frankly, it infuriates me that you spent so much time denying or "questioning" the 2013 attack when under your own rubric the question was firmly answered years ago. You questioned it because the Russians told you it was questionable.

I'll wait for the report from 2017, and we can agree then.

As to RT.com - I am appalled that you accept the Russian state's version of events apparently wholeheartedly and yet repeatedly disparage and ignore the verifiable, independent, competitive, subject to peer review, corrected, academic reporting of all major western news agencies. It demonstrates the resistance to established and agreed upon reporting standards that has been the hallmark of the last year and a half, and throughout your objections you have failed to provide a single concrete example justifying your distrust of the west and embrace of a known purveyor of false news and Russian propaganda.

But, luckily for all of us, our president has inured me to most of the shock and despair I would feel over it. Sigh.

Hey! I call BS on the UN article used to support your argument here! It says that definitely chemical weapons were used in 2013 in Syria, but it does NOT say that Assad's Regime deployed them!

Here is the quote from the article:

"Responding to questions, the Secretary-General said Dr. Sellström’s team had been able to determine objectively that Sarin was used on a relatively large scale. It was the team’s job to determine whether and to what extent chemical weapons were used, not who used them."

Just in case you missed the key verbiage in that quote. "NOT WHO USED THEM" is the key there dude. That means they UN proved chemical weapons were used in 2013 in Syria, but they did not determine who deployed the chemical weapons. Back to you: "So do we all agree about 2013 now?"

So yeah, the UN speaks Truth. What the heck were you trying to say about it - Sheesh - and you are "infuriated" about it? Come on. I can read. The UN did NOT say that Assad's Regime used chemical weapons in 2013.

 

[maelstromr]

Hey! I call BS on the UN article used to support your argument here! It says that definitely chemical weapons were used in 2013 in Syria, but it does NOT say that Assad's Regime deployed them!

Here is the quote from the article:

"Responding to questions, the Secretary-General said Dr. Sellström’s team had been able to determine objectively that Sarin was used on a relatively large scale. It was the team’s job to determine whether and to what extent chemical weapons were used, not who used them."

Just in case you missed the key verbiage in that quote. "NOT WHO USED THEM" is the key there dude. That means they UN proved chemical weapons were used in 2013 in Syria, but they did not determine who deployed the chemical weapons. Back to you: "So do we all agree about 2013 now?"

So yeah, the UN speaks Truth. What the heck were you trying to say about it - Sheesh - and you are "infuriated" about it? Come on. I can read. The UN did NOT say that Assad's Regime used chemical weapons in 2013.

Sorry - I misunderstood which part you didn't believe. You are right, the UN never said "Assad definitely did it." They DID say whoever did had access to SYRIAN MILITARY STOCKPILES and the technical expertise and machinery needed to use said stockpiles. Ironically, your standard of proof (UN determination) relies in part on the Russians agreeing because if they don't they won't allow it to proceed.

All other nations who looked into it - France, Britain, US - agreed it was the Syrian military. Syria's ally, Russia, said it was not.

Human Rights Watch demonstrated based on the angles of impact and the types of rockets used (in 2013) that the origin of the launches was a major Syrian military base.

There is extensive analysis available online showing the types of canisters used and the type of (Russian provided) launchers used to fire them, all of which is in the Assad regime's control.

All of this is easily found with a few simple searches and some reading...

But, alas, I guess we will never know.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Sorry - I misunderstood which part you didn't believe. You are right, the UN never said "Assad definitely did it." They DID say whoever did had access to SYRIAN MILITARY STOCKPILES and the technical expertise and machinery needed to use said stockpiles. Ironically, your standard of proof (UN determination) relies in part on the Russians agreeing because if they don't they won't allow it to proceed.

All other nations who looked into it - France, Britain, US - agreed it was the Syrian military. Syria's ally, Russia, said it was not.

Human Rights Watch demonstrated based on the angles of impact and the types of rockets used (in 2013) that the origin of the launches was a major Syrian military base.

There is extensive analysis available online showing the types of canisters used and the type of (Russian provided) launchers used to fire them, all of which is in the Assad regime's control.

All of this is easily found with a few simple searches and some reading...

But, alas, I guess we will never know.

Thanks for the apology

It is an example of how we humans can be part of the mis-information - if I let that UN article slide by without bothering to check it, some other person could read this lame thread we have created and "rubber stamp" the idea that you appeared to espouse - that the UN confirmed Assad did the 2013 Chemical attacks - when the UN did not state that in the article.

Keep digging - if you can find all those guys agreeing with your viewpoint, please take a little time and have a look at the views against - you might get closer to the truth in all matters.

I see a lot of nonsense used to deceive the average Joe out there, It used to be that you could trust the news and trust world leaders to know what is what - it isn't the case anymore, and I can discern this just by using common sense and reading both sides of these foreign policy blunders. I felt it was important enough to talk about it on this thread about "Fake News" - your UN article citation and usage and tone of the words used is actually an example of how to create fake news - lol.

 

[maelstromr]

Thanks for the apology

It is an example of how we humans can be part of the mis-information - if I let that UN article slide by without bothering to check it, some other person could read this lame thread we have created and "rubber stamp" the idea that you appeared to espouse - that the UN confirmed Assad did the 2013 Chemical attacks - when the UN did not state that in the article.

Keep digging - if you can find all those guys agreeing with your viewpoint, please take a little time and have a look at the views against - you might get closer to the truth in all matters.

I see a lot of nonsense used to deceive the average Joe out there, It used to be that you could trust the news and trust world leaders to know what is what - it isn't the case anymore, and I can discern this just by using common sense and reading both sides of these foreign policy blunders. I felt it was important enough to talk about it on this thread about "Fake News" - your UN article citation and usage and tone of the words used is actually an example of how to create fake news - lol.

I mean, I understand what you are saying, but the point is that verifiable, checked and counter checked by other foriegn agency sources say "Assad's regime did it." The UN said, "this looks like Assad's regime..." but stopped at clearly assigning blame because it is nearly impossible to tell with certainty (and Russia did/would block any attempt to do otherwise because it would implicate Russia in clear human rights/WMD violations.) Russia (and therefore RT.com) has an explicit interest in backing the Assad version of the story. WHY IN THE WORLD would US, France, Britain lie/tip the scale/make it up when it probably would have been MORE useful to scare everyone into thinking ISIS did it?

Almost nothing in the world can be "proven" if that means 100% certainty. That's why we don't even require it to put people to death. We certainly don't require it to convince us to go along with vaccinations or not pumping industrial waste into the local reservoir. Similarly, almost nothing in the UN that is contrary to US or Russian interests is "settled" 100% because of the committee structures and the veto powers.

You, and others in this post agreeing with your point of view, seem to think there is some conspiracy on the part of established western media to promote falsehood, and in its place you put Russian national TV and things like Breitbart and Infowars. You seem to imply their failures are balanced by failures in western media/governments, but so far you haven't offered one concrete example of such a failure. Those offered by others above have fallen apart on closer examination.

All of this is in apparent opposition to sources like politifact being used by Google and Facebook to flag suspicious or outright inaccurate news. These sources are open, they are cited, they are checked, and they are corrected when an inaccuracy is found. This is simply not true of RT.com, or the others mentioned. Nonetheless, FB and Google STILL ALLOW you to see the falsehood and search out your own truth.

You repeatedly above talk about being mislead and not being able to trust traditional media...you repeatedly beg us all to just be more thoughtful about the information we consume, but all you do is deny anything as truth that hasn't been proven in a forum that probably can't ever prove it. Does that just mean there is no truth for you any more?

And even if you won't accept it yourself, what is the problem with additional information being offered to consumers? Perhaps the real concern is that your viewpoint doesn't stand up well in the face of verified fact and logical, ethical reporting?
[doublepost=1492026349][/doublepost]

I mean, I understand what you are saying, but the point is that verifiable, checked and counter checked by other foriegn agency sources say "Assad's regime did it." The UN said, "this looks like Assad's regime..." but stopped at clearly assigning blame because it is nearly impossible to tell with certainty (and Russia did/would block any attempt to do otherwise because it would implicate Russia in clear human rights/WMD violations.) Russia (and therefore RT.com) has an explicit interest in backing the Assad version of the story. WHY IN THE WORLD would US, France, Britain lie/tip the scale/make it up when it probably would have been MORE useful to scare everyone into thinking ISIS did it?

Almost nothing in the world can be "proven" if that means 100% certainty. That's why we don't even require it to put people to death. We certainly don't require it to convince us to go along with vaccinations or not pumping industrial waste into the local reservoir. Similarly, almost nothing in the UN that is contrary to US or Russian interests is "settled" 100% because of the committee structures and the veto powers.

You, and others in this post agreeing with your point of view, seem to think there is some conspiracy on the part of established western media to promote falsehood, and in its place you put Russian national TV and things like Breitbart and Infowars. You seem to imply their failures are balanced by failures in western media/governments, but so far you haven't offered one concrete example of such a failure. Those offered by others above have fallen apart on closer examination.

All of this is in apparent opposition to sources like politifact being used by Google and Facebook to flag suspicious or outright inaccurate news. These sources are open, they are cited, they are checked, and they are corrected when an inaccuracy is found. This is simply not true of RT.com, or the others mentioned. Nonetheless, FB and Google STILL ALLOW you to see the falsehood and search out your own truth.

You repeatedly above talk about being mislead and not being able to trust traditional media...you repeatedly beg us all to just be more thoughtful about the information we consume, but all you do is deny anything as truth that hasn't been proven in a forum that probably can't ever prove it. Does that just mean there is no truth for you any more?

And even if you won't accept it yourself, what is the problem with additional information being offered to consumers? Perhaps the real concern is that your viewpoint doesn't stand up well in the face of verified fact and logical, ethical reporting?

PS - Breaking news is that Russia just laid down its EIGHTH UN VETO on a measure to force Assad's regime to cooperate with an investigation into chemical weapon use. What truth do you think you're going to get from the UN now?

 

[BuddyTronic]

IPS - Breaking news is that Russia just laid down its EIGHTH UN VETO on a measure to force Assad's regime to cooperate with an investigation into chemical weapon use. What truth do you think you're going to get from the UN now?

I think it was Veto'd because the same British "investigator" that rubber stamped the idea of "WMD's" in Iraq back in 2003 will be used by the UN investigation team - he was dead wrong and probably dishonest back in 2003, so why the heck would anyone want him to be involved in such a team today?

It's like the Veto against the UN MH-117 (airplane shoot-down) investigation team.

An indépendant investigation is wanted, but for some reason they keep putting together biased investigators, and it leads to a deadlock. I agree with you that the logic of Russia asking for an investigation and then veto'ing an investigation in the UN makes it sound pretty bad right? But there are reasons for it. I'm glad you noticed this and I hope you dig to find out why in the world Russia who was asking for investigations ends up VETO'ing. Amazing right? Find out why!


Anyway - I don't want to dominate this thread. I come here for Apple News, and so does everyone else.

If you want to talk politics, I have time for it - show me a place to continue our discussions, maybe I can change your mind and open your eyes a bit - maybe not. I have lots of time overseas right at the moment, and it interests me.

Over the last 20+ years I made many many dollars with AAPL shares by being a bit of a contrarian to the Lies and Deception put out by paid market shills - I have to tell you that I have made a ton of money by calling BS when I see it, and it's the exact same thing these days in the "news" we see on TV - it's mostly cooked up lies.

You want to make a play on some investments and bet on what you believe - be my guest. I'll be doing the same and profiting from the obvious lies and deception and "Fake News". It's the only way to get satisfaction actually. I don't want to pick your paragraphs apart to point out where you are wrong.

These days the liberal hippies are cheering for missile launches, it's a funny world in which a lot of things are upside down.

Probably if you follow the money, it can eventually be found what is the actual rationale for such misinformation and deception from BBC and CNN and others - it's amazing to see it. Your dollars and your "clicks" and your complacency are the targets perhaps.