Personal attack
Read the posting policy
Wow H, all the respect I had building for you just flew out the window. No wonder the world is against you.
HELLO
I DONT WANT TO BE MEAN OR MAKE YOU CRY BUT IRAN DIDNT LOST THE COLDWAR OF THE LEBENON AMERICA DID.
ISRAEL PULLED OUT ITS TROOPES (YOU GUYS LOST AGAIN WITH ALL THAT EUROPIAN SUPPORT WOW SURRY IT SEEMS LIKE AMERICA CANT EVEN TAKE CARE OF A 50000 HEZBOLLAH TROOPS) WHAT A JOKE!!!!!!!! (I AM FROM IRAN AND IF YOU WANT TO TALK TO ME MORE OPEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO LET YOU KNOW MORE//)
are you saying foreign policy has consequences? I don't think people can handle the truth yet. Let the masses concentrate on important stuff...like Paris Hilton...Ms Spears...Jon Benet...
Wow Job
I haven't expressed an opinion yet and already your pseudo respect has flown out the window 
Do you believe that I should not publish articles that hold a different point of view to yours ?
The title of the article is clearly asking a question. Your opinion on the question is welcome. The article merely presents the flip side of an argument that has often been used by the American right wing media against Al- Jazeera.
One (Fox News) example of many...
"Under present wartime circumstances, though, the United States has the ability -- and, indeed, an urgent responsibility -- to take more comprehensive action against Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Unless the two networks adjust their behavior so as no longer to act as the propaganda arm of our enemies, they should be taken off the air, one way or another."
The reason for the article is to show the hypocricy of those that would target News networks such as Al-Jazeera. If you would rather judge me then you have clearly missed the point.
Those that would be happy to bomb Arab TV stations (and often have) should realise that the argument they created could be used both ways.
I do not support the taking of hostages by anybody. There is a reporter from Al-Jazeera still being held at Gitmo. Would those who see the fox News reporters as Hostages also call the Al-Jazeera prisoner a hostage ?
I doubt it.
Btw the world is against me ? really ?
EIA
very true it seems .
Funny H how u deleted my post AGAIN. Because I had a point that u didnt want anyone else to hear...personal attack maybe then again u have said that 2 wrongs make a right so why wouldnt it be ok with u ...thanks once again for making me laugh.
I have only ever deleted one of your posts . Your comment was fine . The personal attack was not.The rules are not complex . You can read them from the top of every thread. Nobody has ever posted anything in line with our posting policy that I didn't want others to read. Please don't assume your points are that profound.
If you want to make the same post again without the personal attack then you are welcome.
PS , where did I ever say that two wrongs make a right ?
Deleted personal attack
The source has removed the article with the message "This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author". It would be presumptuous to suggest that this was done because of inaccurate statements and/or invalid assumptions made by the author, Mike Whitney. I do not wish to question Whitney's credibility nor his objective enlightenment. This is for the reader alone to determine based on his or her research. That research may include his article in which Whitney prophesized that the American economy is in the final few months of a catastrophic doomsday. He pointed out this alarming fact in August of last year.
Interesting read.
I hope the Daily Show staff is safe!
Eyes open says that there is a war going on and that nobody knows it yet. I think that everybody does know that there is a war going on. I think that the problems is that many disagree with the war.
My government has for decades implemented policies in the middle east that create anger and anomosity.
The US continues to blindly support Isreal whatever it does. Given that Israel has committed unspeakable crimes against it's neighbors while the US government continues to offer moral and financial support it is only logical that the wronged neighbors hate the US.
I read about the Al Jazeera reporter being held for trumped up charges and about the US targeting Al Jazeera studios with bombs. Given that the US behaves this way against media agencies that they see as their enemies it does not seem logical that we expect other governments and revolutionaries not to do the same to our media.
When I was a small child my mother summed it all up by saying "what goes around, comes around."
,,,,,,,
The source has removed the article with the message "This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author".
Probably copyright , my souce was not the original.
Whitney prophesized that the American economy is in the final few months of a catastrophic doomsday.
sounds a little like being told that the Insurgency was in it's 'last throws' by a certain Dick (I shoot people in the face) Cheney
Attacking the author (regardless of how gently) does not have any impact on the points raised in the article
Your rebuke - "Attacking the author does not have any impact on the points raised in the article" is essentially true. For if you refer to 'point' as the idea, argument, or essential part of the author's concept (as opposed to fact) any attack on the authors credibility will obviously have no impact on his opinion. However, those who read the article will consider his points and (hopefully) assess their validity before agreeing or disagreeing with them. A logical way to make that judgment is to consider past statements made by the author to determine his credibility. N'est-ce pas?
Your satirical comeback "sounds a little like ... a certain Dick (I shoot people in the face) Cheney" sounds a little like deflection, although I must admit it was funny enough not to be flagged as off topic.
To paraphrase your rebuke: Cheney's inaccurate (and stupid) comments do not have any impact on Whitney's inaccurate and stupid comments. N'est-ce pas?
Anonymous.
A logical way to make that judgment is to consider past statements made by the author to determine his credibility.
That is not logical , I may have in the past made asinine (or not) comments about pastry , That in no way has any logical bearing on any future point I make on a different subject.
As a reader you should take the article as it is presented. If you feel the article is innaccurate or stupid then you have every right to point your belief out.
You have decided so far not to point out a single thing with the article that you diagree with. Merely to point out your concerns with the author.
A non sequitur. N'est-ce pas?
I write: A logical way to make that judgment is to consider past statements made by the author to determine his credibility.
_H_ responds: That is not logical , I may have in the past made asinine (or not) comments about pastry , That in no way has any logical bearing on any future point I make on a different subject.
Your critique on the taste of an éclair (asinine or not) does not detract from the points you make on global terror (or any other subject). However, If you are on record as claiming (falsely) that éclairs are stealing your luggage and now insist that pastry chefs are in league with the devil and should be executed, I would not only question the validity of your latest assertion but any future point on a any different subject that you make as well. This is natural deductive logic ( The Rule of Double Negation).
An illogical statement would be something like "It would be hard, if not impossible to draw a line of separation between the US military and FOX News". Where the premise is " the US military wages an unjust war"; the axiom is "FOX News does not report it as unjust"; and the conclusion is " FOX news is the same as the US military" therefore their reporters should be considered prisoners of war. How absurd. Can Whitney's piece (or any of his articles) be considered remotely "fair and balanced"?
No more from me on this subject. It is fruitless and detracts from my original post which merely asks of the reader - judge the credibility of the source. If the Chicken Littles chose not to do this, fine ... and the sky is falling.
Your critique on the taste of an éclair (asinine or not) does not detract from the points you make on global terror (or any other subject). However, If you are on record as claiming (falsely) that éclairs are stealing your luggage and now insist that pastry chefs are in league with the devil and should be executed, I would not only question the validity of your latest assertion but any future point on a any different subject that you make as well. This is natural deductive logic ( The Rule of Double Negation).
But you claimed Whitney prophesized that the American economy is in the final few months of a catastrophic doomsday not that the US was in any way the 'devil' . Has he ever claimed that 
?
Anyway, The reasoning is not the same and the relationship is zero . Unless you wish to claim that anyone who makes an error in the prediction of the US economy is not allowed to make any assumptions about the relationship between Fox news and the US govenrment ? IE Because hitler was a Nazi should I allow that to twist my understanding of the fact he was a vegetarian ?
Each article should be judged on it's merits (or faults )alone .. using straw man attacks on the author is simply attempting to play propaganda without substance.
An illogical statement would be something like "It would be hard, if not impossible to draw a line of separation between the US military and FOX News". Where the premise is " the US military wages an unjust war"; the axiom is "FOX News does not report it as unjust"; and the conclusion is " FOX news is the same as the US military" therefore their reporters should be considered prisoners of war. How absurd. Can Whitney's piece (or any of his articles) be considered remotely "fair and balanced"?
It would be illogical to take that conclusion from the article... It is not about whether the war is or is not just . It is about representing points of view that are not those of the white house. Most news stations will divide about 50% of their coverage to the point of view of the government and about 50% to those that dissent. Fox Ignores dissenting views. It is not a news station per say , It is a propaganda arm of government.
Why do you think the author picked fox and not CNN or the BBC or any other western network (whom have had their staff kidnapped in the past)?
It is simply showing exactly the same 'fair and balanced' attitude that Fox news does itself. I do not support the concept of Journalists being valid targets in war ,However Fox news often does.....
quote
"Under present wartime circumstances, though, the United States has the ability -- and, indeed, an urgent responsibility -- to take more comprehensive action against Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. Unless the two networks adjust their behavior so as no longer to act as the propaganda arm of our enemies, they should be taken off the air, one way or another."
Now from this article we have....
If FOX is an essential part of the state propaganda-system which facilitates the war, then how can we absolve their employees from accountability?
The difference is ???
I suppose this article should be declared more 'fair and balanced' than Fox for it at least includes a question mark. Fox do not seem to bother with any such line between opinion and fact. I feel you are missing the point of the article anonymous . It is simply using the very same logic that Fox uses in it's broadcasts.
If you are unhappy with the so claimed logic in this article (and you have every right to be) then you would also be equally unhappy with the originator of such pseudo logic in reporting (Fox news)
The point of posting this article is to highlight the hypocricy of Fox news. Not to suggest that press should be clasified as soldiers. As the US has done in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Israel has done in Lebanon) and is always supported by fox news.
It is simply fish bait .. For many that would argue against this article would not realise that they support such sickening actions when it is about 'other' journalists and not their own.
I fear your focus on the author has distracted you from the larger point being made. It is merely a reflective look in the mirror for those who would support the sickening propaganda of networks such as fox news.
SO, I think CNN should be called the Crescent News Network.
I do NOT side with fascist religious death cults.
And how any freedom loving liberal can side with ANY Islamic run country over America and what WE stand for, just boggles my mind!
I do NOT side with fascist religious death cults.
I assume you didn't vote for Bush then
Just curious here, but what is it that you think that America stands for, Michelle? (I love that good, solid French given name, btw. C'est bon!)
Commenting by HaloScan
