The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

kinda reminds me of someone's rant about bush cherrypicking intel and wmd's in iraq too

Well as you know, I'm of the opinion that he did - on the basis of several news stories that didn't receive much airtime in the US, but caused a huge scandal in Britain. But if you want to start another thread about that - be my guest.

I'm talking about a specific research study, which clearly outlines its limitations, and shortcomings (which is standard, accepted procedure when doing this kind of study) as well as a massive reference list.

i also suppose you think intel is just pulled outta thin air too

fact is, more time was spent gathering and analyzing that intel than probably every study put together that disputes it.

[GaryC 7]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

kinda reminds me of someone's rant about bush cherrypicking intel and wmd's in iraq too

Well as you know, I'm of the opinion that he did - on the basis of several news stories that didn't receive much airtime in the US, but caused a huge scandal in Britain. But if you want to start another thread about that - be my guest.

I'm talking about a specific research study, which clearly outlines its limitations, and shortcomings (which is standard, accepted procedure when doing this kind of study) as well as a massive reference list.

i also suppose you think intel is just pulled outta thin air too

fact is, more time was spent gathering and analyzing that intel than probably every study put together that disputes it.

I'm sure it was. But as I said, the authors of this specific article are upfront about their sources and limitations, exactly as they are supposed to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

No it doesn't. None of those people say "On the basis of.... I think... but I could be wrong". Moreover, those personalities really do editorialise, often without reference to any source whatsoever.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

At some point, somebody's got to provide something of substance. That burden lies with the Bush Administration. Otherwise, like you said, every sales pitch they make to the American public is nothing more than subjective assumptions. Thanks for playing.

[GaryC 7]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

At some point, somebody's got to provide something of substance. That burden lies with the Bush Administration. Otherwise, like you said, every sales pitch they make to the American public is nothing more than subjective assumptions. Thanks for playing.

Show me someone- anyone that has anything of substance. We are treated to a steady diet of negitive stories and subjective "studies" that prove nothing at all. You just want it all your way and will slam any source that says something different. Thank you for playing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

At some point, somebody's got to provide something of substance. That burden lies with the Bush Administration. Otherwise, like you said, every sales pitch they make to the American public is nothing more than subjective assumptions. Thanks for playing.

Show me someone- anyone that has anything of substance. We are treated to a steady diet of negitive stories and subjective "studies" that prove nothing at all. You just want it all your way and will slam any source that says something different. Thank you for playing.

If you really believe that why do you watch/read any news/current affairs source whatsoever. This is a public discourse - that implies subjectivity. That said, if you go out of your way to acknowledge that, and your limitations - you've done the best job you can...

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

At some point, somebody's got to provide something of substance. That burden lies with the Bush Administration. Otherwise, like you said, every sales pitch they make to the American public is nothing more than subjective assumptions. Thanks for playing.

Show me someone- anyone that has anything of substance. We are treated to a steady diet of negitive stories and subjective "studies" that prove nothing at all. You just want it all your way and will slam any source that says something different. Thank you for playing.

So why adhere to one specific opinion (the Bush Administration's as an example) while discounting others? I was hoping that at the very least you'd concede that the sales pitches by Bush about the war in Iraq are exactly what you've complained about - subjective assumptions. Allegiance to opinion shouldn't be determined merely by ideology, but because that opinion is rooted in rationale and has substance beyond mere opinion.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

It shows the bias of the media in general doesn't it? Why is Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hanity so vilified by the rest of the media? Because they do the same thing they do only with an opposing opinion. If PeeJay and Steven want to point to things like this to bolster their opinion then that is what they have a right to do. I also have the right to point out the inherent bias in stories like this.

At some point, somebody's got to provide something of substance. That burden lies with the Bush Administration. Otherwise, like you said, every sales pitch they make to the American public is nothing more than subjective assumptions. Thanks for playing.

Show me someone- anyone that has anything of substance. We are treated to a steady diet of negitive stories and subjective "studies" that prove nothing at all. You just want it all your way and will slam any source that says something different. Thank you for playing.

So why adhere to one specific opinion (the Bush Administration's as an example) while discounting others? I was hoping that at the very least you'd concede that the sales pitches by Bush about the war in Iraq are exactly what you've complained about - subjective assumptions. Allegiance to opinion shouldn't be determined merely by ideology, but because that opinion is rooted in rationale and has substance beyond mere opinion.

For you to say that is disengenous at best. You have not posted anything but anti-war anti-bush opinion pieces since you got here. Look in the mirror buddy!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still wondering what the argument against this article is - apart from that its part of some 'anti-bush malaise'.

Still its amazing that you can even be up front with what your sources and limitations are and still have people accuse you of dishonesty and bias.

Keeping the focus on this specific article would be a good way to go to avoiding the partisan flag-waving that the thread title inevitably inspires.

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

I'm still wondering what the argument against this article is - apart from that its part of some 'anti-bush malaise'.

Still its amazing that you can even be up front with what your sources and limitations are people still accuse you of dishonesty and bias.

Keeping the focus on this specific article would be a good way to go to avoiding the partisan flag-waving that the thread title inevitably inspires.

I refer you to the title of this thread. " The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide"

It is stating an absolute when it is nothing of the sort. This is these peoples opinions and not facts. If this isn't bias then nothing is.

ETA.

Ok, after I started my reply I see you thought the same thing I did, good for you. But it also shows my point. If it's opinion then let it state that. If it is meant to show fact then stick to the facts and leave the editorials out of it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm still wondering what the argument against this article is - apart from that its part of some 'anti-bush malaise'.

Still its amazing that you can even be up front with what your sources and limitations are people still accuse you of dishonesty and bias.

Keeping the focus on this specific article would be a good way to go to avoiding the partisan flag-waving that the thread title inevitably inspires.

I refer you to the title of this thread. " The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide"

It is stating an absolute when it is nothing of the sort. This is these peoples opinions and not facts. If this isn't bias then nothing is.

ETA.

Ok, after I started my reply I see you thought the same thing I did, good for you. But it also shows my point. If it's opinion then let it state that. If it is meant to show fact then stick to the facts and leave the editorials out of it.

Gary... the thread title summarises what these people found as a result of their limited study. What are they supposed to call it....? If you're going to challenge their conclusions (and indeed their assumptions), it would be a little more convincing IMO to actually challenge the facts they present, rather than just making a general claim "that they are just wrong".

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

I'm still wondering what the argument against this article is - apart from that its part of some 'anti-bush malaise'.

Still its amazing that you can even be up front with what your sources and limitations are people still accuse you of dishonesty and bias.

Keeping the focus on this specific article would be a good way to go to avoiding the partisan flag-waving that the thread title inevitably inspires.

I refer you to the title of this thread. " The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide"

It is stating an absolute when it is nothing of the sort. This is these peoples opinions and not facts. If this isn't bias then nothing is.

ETA.

Ok, after I started my reply I see you thought the same thing I did, good for you. But it also shows my point. If it's opinion then let it state that. If it is meant to show fact then stick to the facts and leave the editorials out of it.

Gary... the thread title summarises what these people found as a result of their limited study. What are they supposed to call it....? If you're going to challenge their conclusions (and indeed their assumptions), it would be a little more convincing IMO to actually challenge the facts they present, rather than just making a general claim "that they are just wrong".

As you well know this persons "facts" can vastly differ from another persons "facts" Their stats may or may not be right. I don't know. But when they put them together in such a way that gives creadence to their pre-conseved notions then it isn't facts at all! It is their opinion! When the title the story "The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide" then it goes beyond an opinion piece and falls into the catagory of propaganda disguised as news. That is what I object to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As you well know this persons "facts" can vastly differ from another persons "facts" Their stats may or may not be right. I don't know. But when they put them together in such a way that gives creadence to their pre-conseved notions then it isn't facts at all! It is their opinion! When the title the story "The Iraq Effect: War has increased terrorism sevenfold worldwide" then it goes beyond an opinion piece and falls into the catagory of propaganda disguised as news. That is what I object to.

Sorry I don't buy it - right or wrong they've been up front about what they were doing and how they went about it.

So propaganda? Hardly... Propaganda, after all doesn't leave any leeway for (mis)interpretation.

Also, how is it disguised as news?

Edited February 23, 2007 by erekose

[Cassie 8]

The beauty of a study like this is that their sources of information are clearly articulated for anyone to search, authenticate, and replicate the study if they so desire. Unlike an opinion piece, where people can rant and rave and not have to prove a dang thing.