Why Aren't "Isolated" Domestic Terrorism Incidents

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
"Alyona Minkovski from RT's The Alyona Show joins us live to discuss why we are seeing almost no coverage of the now regularly-happening "isolated incidents" of domestic terrorism. The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman."

 

Mongo53

New Member
:killingme:killingme Don't waste your time watching nhboy's video, they spend the whole time suggesting whats going on without any evidence or facts, and are so myopic, they don't realize they are using exactly the same tactics they are accusing others of using.

They bring up one example of a guy who firebombed an Planned Parenthood Abortion clinic.

They simply claim it is systemic, but never mention what or how it is systemic, nor examine it anyway.

Oh, and RT news, have you've ever watched a segment of RT news? Its MediaMatters.org with pretty girls hosting, trying to make you think its somehow an actual news program.

Its simply the old the tactic of the left, the exception is the rule and the rule is the exception. BUT, even worse, they are so shameless to claim without any suporting evidence, that muslim domestic terrorism is truly the exception and NON-systemic in anyway, while christian domestic terrorism is worse and systemic. They ignore the emphasis that people place on NOT catagorizing all muslims, but claim people are doing that and then malign law enforcement by taking training out of context.

nhboy, what are trying to prove? That once again the left is totally shameless in their attempts to manipulate the ingorant into believing something other than the truth. -OR- are you so ignorant you were fooled by the crap you just posted?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
:nhboy, what are trying to prove? That once again the left is totally shameless in their attempts to manipulate the ingorant into believing something other than the truth. -OR- are you so ignorant you were fooled by the crap you just posted?
ooo ooo ..I know..I know. The second answer..
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Oh, and RT news, have you've ever watched a segment of RT news? Its MediaMatters.org with pretty girls hosting, trying to make you think its somehow an actual news program.
Not totally. It used to be Russia Today. It's Russian. I try to keep up with Russian news, but one thing that hasn't changed in Russia since the Soviet Union ended is, they like to portray the U.S. in a bad light, typically on news items plaguing their own news cycle.

My guess is that Russian terrorism is emerging and they need to demonstrate that it's bad here.
 

Mongo53

New Member
Not totally. It used to be Russia Today. It's Russian. I try to keep up with Russian news, but one thing that hasn't changed in Russia since the Soviet Union ended is, they like to portray the U.S. in a bad light, typically on news items plaguing their own news cycle.

My guess is that Russian terrorism is emerging and they need to demonstrate that it's bad here.
Old habits die hard, I guess the traditions of Pravada are still alive. I'll yield to your vaster experience, I have only seen several snippets online of RT and it looked American and extroidinarily leftist.

Note: I "think" Pravada is now re-used as a name for a new internet news sight in Russia, that is actually one of their better news sources and NOT the actual state run propaganda rag it used to be, thats dead.

But, this brings up another question? So our liberal commentator wants to do a news segment examining Domestic Terrorism in the U.S. and he interviews Russian News Organization anchors?
 
Last edited:

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
So our liberal commentator wants to do a news segment examining Domestic Terrorism in the U.S. and he interviews Russian News Organization anchors?
It's RT. We do the same thing. We ask some Russian expert who happens to be American.

Or if you're Hillary, you ask some one to look up "reset" in Russian and get it wrong, when all you really needed to do was ask a Russian.
 

Mongo53

New Member
It's RT. We do the same thing. We ask some Russian expert who happens to be American.
You've lost me? I understand the trading interviews thing, I understand the wanting of a different perspective when available, BUT;

If I was reporting on Russian Issues for an American Audience, I agree a great source would be an American living in Russia regardless of who they work for.

If I was Russian reporting on Russian Issues for a Russian Audience, I disagree, why would an American living in Russia be credible regardless of who they work for?

What am I missing? is this David Packman show russian or for Russia? Why does he bring in a Russian or maybe American working for Russian News to enlighten us on American Issues for an American Audience? I don't remember him prefacing this as some sort of Russian perspective?

BTW, just out of curiosity, is Alyona Minkovski Russian living in America? Right down to speach patterns and mannerisms, she seems American borne and raised. Is that true? or is she just that skilled in english and interacting with Americans?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
She's a Russian raised here as a kid. It's a Russian network, so they're getting a Russian telling them about the United States.

I'm not saying it's intelligent to just ask a perceived expert who isn't from that country. I'm saying that kind of stuff happens all the time. A commentator wants to report on the Tea Party, they interview someone who's never been a Tea Party member, is biased against the Tea Party but may have talked to someone at a rally and thinks they know all about it.

And you listen to all the BS and think "wouldn't it have been easier to just get a real Tea Party member than this crap?". Of course it would. But it runs the risk of portraying the news in a light other than the one intended.

Anyway, the original post fails to make the case that there is anything resembling domestic terrorism occurring with regularity. You have to go to a venue known to be biased which reports very little themselves.
 

Mongo53

New Member
Alyona Minkovski :hot: :hot: :hot: :drool: :drool: :drool: :drool:
But then she starts talking and :barf:

Thanks Sam, understand what you mean now, they had a friendly point of view, NOT a credible point of view, but like we see with liberals, its NOT about what is the truth, its about controling the message.
 

DipStick

Keep Calm and Don't Care!
But then she starts talking and :barf:

Thanks Sam, understand what you mean now, they had a friendly point of view, NOT a credible point of view, but like we see with most people in general, its NOT about what is the truth, its about controling the message.
Can't try to pin that only on liberals when you have plenty of conservatives on this forum who only get their news from Rush and Glenn Beck and spout what they say as fact (even if it's not).

Evidence: just read half of EmptyTimCup's threads.

"TEACHERS ARE GOING TO MONITOR YOUR KIDS' FACEBOOK BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TOLD THEM TO DO SO". That story was passed as fact by Glenn Beck, citing his own "news organization" (propaganda outlet)... and people on this forum believe it even though 100% of that "news story" has been debunked.

Glenn Beck doesn't care if his story's not true. All he has to do is create a "news organization" and hire bloggers to post news stories on there and, viola, it suddenly becomes fact. And Glenn Beck's audience doesn't care if the story is not true... it's a story that makes their current #1 target (educators) look bad so they're going to push it anyways.

Believing something you want to be the truth (even though it's not) goes both ways. It's not a liberal or conservative, right or wrong thing. It's simply a thing where many Americans don't care what the facts are -- they just want to be pissed off at Obama or Palin!

And it's gotten worse because of the internet. Now, if you want to promote a bull #### story as fact, all you have to do is create a $10 website on GoDaddy.com, give it a snappy name like "Global News Online", write your phony BS in accordance with the AP Stylebook and, BAM, it's a fact because "Global News Online" reported it as fact!
 
Last edited:

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Now, if you want to promote a bull #### story as fact, all you have to do is create a $10 website on GoDaddy.com, give it a snappy name like "Global News Online", write your phony BS in accordance with the AP Stylebook and, BAM, it's a fact because "Global News Online" reported it as fact!
"MediaMatters" has a kinda credible sound to it to...:killingme
 

Mongo53

New Member
"World Net Daily"

Do you really want to play this game? :popcorn:
:killingme Do you really want to play this game.

You've got Tim with one article that turned out NOT to stand up to standards, compared to the thousands of posts of garbage nhboy/nonno posts, dozens everyday. Devoid of fact, passing off opinions as facts, totally out of context manipulations and hyperbole?

Please, watch 10 minutes of MSNBC and 10 minutes of Fox News and tell me they are same thing, just different sides of the coin?:killingme

Again, proportion and degree matter.

Your playing the liberal game of "the exception is the rule and the rule is the exception".

You've got one example of a conservative over reacting to an article, and thinks its now the equilavelent of the bias and slant of the overwhelming majority of news organization, the special interest groups that gin up stories and purposededly take things out of context in an attempt to discredit people that oppose them politically.

Conservative commentators are at the point where on their show, they will say "MediaMatters.org Listen to me, this is exactly what I am saying, this is exactly what I mean", they will spend 5 minutes laughing about how what they said will be taken out of context by MediaMatters.org and predict exactly what they will say the next day. And guess what, in MediaMatters.org they will print exactly what was predicted. Because its easy to predict what someone will do when you know exactly what their motives are. MediaMatters doesn't get things so wrong because they make mistakes, because the over react, they get it wrong, because they don't care whats right or what the truth is, they care about ginning up opposition and outrage and discrediting the opposition to their agenda.

MM knows exactly what they mean on those tapes and videos, they edit them, selectively report on them, in attempt to make it look like something other than the truth for their own purposes.
 
Last edited:

Mongo53

New Member
Can't try to pin that only on liberals when you have plenty of conservatives on this forum who only get their news from Rush and Glenn Beck and spout what they say as fact (even if it's not).

Evidence: just read half of EmptyTimCup's threads.

"TEACHERS ARE GOING TO MONITOR YOUR KIDS' FACEBOOK BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TOLD THEM TO DO SO". That story was passed as fact by Glenn Beck, citing his own "news organization" (propaganda outlet)... and people on this forum believe it even though 100% of that "news story" has been debunked.
Ummm, the Daily Caller is the source of the news article?
Glenn Beck reported it in two different sites, linking all of them together to see.

There is a problem, because their is little collaberation and some credible comment that the Daily Caller article is over reacting to a fairly benighn letter.

BUT, its definitely NOT the malphesiance that your accussing.

Glenn Beck doesn't care if his story's not true. All he has to do is create a "news organization" and hire bloggers to post news stories on there and, viola, it suddenly becomes fact. And Glenn Beck's audience doesn't care if the story is not true... it's a story that makes their current #1 target (educators) look bad so they're going to push it anyways.
I disagree, you'll find Glenn Beck admits when he is wrong and try's to correct it and his audience calls him on it when he is wrong.

I won't disagree that he has overeacted a few times are got dupped by a story that ended up being an over reaction. BUT, I dare you to compare his record against the MSM which does the same thing, and more often.

Believing something you want to be the truth (even though it's not) goes both ways. It's not a liberal or conservative, right or wrong thing. It's simply a thing where many Americans don't care what the facts are -- they just want to be pissed off at Obama or Palin!

And it's gotten worse because of the internet. Now, if you want to promote a bull #### story as fact, all you have to do is create a $10 website on GoDaddy.com, give it a snappy name like "Global News Online", write your phony BS in accordance with the AP Stylebook and, BAM, it's a fact because "Global News Online" reported it as fact!
Proportion and Degree matter, a few cases on one side, do make the equilavelence of many cases to greater degree and intentional exploitation on the other.

And you can have George Soros fund an entire staff with equipment for you, to record and review everything said by political opponents, then cleverly parse the recordings and take it out of context and report it as he said something totally different. Even though the next second on the tape, the guy is saying, "Oh Geez, guess what you'll see in MediaMatters.org tomorrow, their going to take that statment and make it look like I said, "x", Mediamatter.org, you have me on tape, you are now listening to mean explain to you the context and what I meant". And of course MM, just ignores that and reports what they want to.
 
E

EmptyTimCup

Guest
:killingme Do you really want to play this game.

You've got Tim with one article that turned out NOT to stand up to standards, compared to the thousands of posts of garbage nhboy/nonno posts, dozens everyday. Devoid of fact, passing off opinions as facts, totally out of context manipulations and hyperbole?


I really don't see where Andrew proved anything ...... GB does not pass himself off as a Journalist


I saw the article as an OPINION piece, someone read about Dept of Ed "new" interpenetration of existing law / FED Rules .... and said look where this could go .... FED Suing School systems for not policing Facebook and Twitter
 

theHypocrite

taking chances
"Alyona Minkovski from RT's The Alyona Show joins us live to discuss why we are seeing almost no coverage of the now regularly-happening "isolated incidents" of domestic terrorism. The David Pakman Show is an internationally syndicated talk radio and television program hosted by David Pakman."

the reason is simple.

the true definition of terrorism is the threat to use violence or the use of violence upon civilians.

if we use this definition then America is the leading terrorist nation. (something MLK spoke about)

this definition cannot be used for obvious reasons. therefore the political definition is used and that is terrorism is something that only Arabs or Islamist do

side note --- even those in Northern Ireland were not truly recognized as terrorist by the US government
 
Top