Discussion:
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
(too old to reply)
MattB
2014-08-29 20:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/29/laptop-reportedly-seized-from-isis-hideout-hints-at-biological-weapons/

A laptop reportedly recovered from an Islamic State jihadist contained
a hidden trove of secret plans, including weaponizing the bubonic
plague, and lessons on disguise, bomb-making and stealing cars.

A man identified by ForeignPolicy.com as Abu Ali, a commander of a
moderate Syrian rebel group in northern Syria, told the publication
the black laptop was seized earlier this year in a raid on an ISIS
hideout in the Syrian province of Idlib, close to the border with
Turkey, and belonged to a Tunisian jihadist.

"We found the laptop and the power cord in a room," Ali told
ForeignPolicy.com. "I took it with me."

Initially, it appeared the computer had been scrubbed, but on closer
inspection, thousands of secret files were discovered on the hard
drive, which was not password protected, Ali said.

"The advantage of biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of
money, while the human casualties can be huge."
- Document found hidden on ISIS fighter's laptop
ForeignPolicy.com was permitted to copy of thousands of files, which
were in French, English, and Arabic. The information included videos
of Usama bin Laden, ideological justifications for jihad and tutorials
on how to carry out the Islamic State's deadly campaigns.

But most chilling were files that indicated the computer's owner,
identified as a Tunisian national named Muhammed S. who joined ISIS in
Syria after studying chemistry and physics at two universities in
Tunisia, was teaching himself how to manufacture biological weapons,
in preparation for a potential attack that could have been
catastrophic on a global scale. A 19-page document in Arabic included
instructions on how to develop biological weapons and how to weaponize
the bubonic plague from infected animals.

"The advantage of biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of
money, while the human casualties can be huge," the document states.

The document includes instructions for testing the weaponized plague
before using it to attack.

"When the microbe is injected in small mice, the symptoms of the
disease should start to appear within 24 hours," the document says.

While some Islamic scholars have said the use of weapons of mass
destruction is prohibited, the material on the seized computer
included a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, permitting it.

"If Muslims cannot defeat the kafir [unbelievers] in a different way,
it is permissible to use weapons of mass destruction," states the
fatwa by Saudi jihadi cleric Nasir al-Fahd, who is currently
imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. "Even if it kills all of them and wipes
them and their descendants off the face of the Earth."

Foreign Policy verified that the computer's owner had indeed attended
a Tunisian university and studied chemistry and physics there until
some time in 2011.

Thousands of Tunisians have gone to Syria to join Islamic State,
according to an estimate from Tunisia's government.

Foreign Policy noted that the information on the laptop does not
indicate that Islamic State possess biological weapons. But it does
show they are seeking them.

"The real difficulty in all of these weapons ... [is] to actually have
a workable distribution system that will kill a lot of people," Magnus
Ranstorp, research director of the Center for Asymmetric Threat
Studies at the Swedish National Defence College, told the publication.
"But to produce quite scary weapons is certainly within [the Islamic
State's] capabilities."
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-30 03:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?

"reportedly" is not a proven claim

The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.

It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
MattB
2014-08-30 03:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.
It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
See the comic relief of Gary Roselles

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seized-isis-laptop-syria-contains-plans-bubonic-plague-weapons-1463121

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198636/posts


****

So again without evidence one way or the other you automatically
defend the terror group.

Sad so sad.

So you have anything to debate?
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-30 15:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.
It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
See the comic relief of Gary Roselles
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seized-isis-laptop-syria-contains-plans-bubonic-plague-weapons-1463121
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198636/posts
****
So again without evidence one way or the other you automatically
defend the terror group.
"Defendingi" has nothing to do with me beating you over the head, you
moron

In the cites you posted----the words "alleged", "reportedly" are used
as a predicate---then the articles continue on AS IF there was proof
of the claims were evidenced.

You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.

The entire article depends on that "alleged"/"reportedly" computer
being what if is---and NO evidence is included that it is.

The issue is YOU and the wingnuts you share "echos" with are only
using "Looks like" crap---and it makes you a dumb asshole
MattB
2014-08-30 19:01:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.
It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
See the comic relief of Gary Roselles
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seized-isis-laptop-syria-contains-plans-bubonic-plague-weapons-1463121
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198636/posts
****
So again without evidence one way or the other you automatically
defend the terror group.
"Defendingi" has nothing to do with me beating you over the head, you
moron
In the cites you posted----the words "alleged", "reportedly" are used
as a predicate---then the articles continue on AS IF there was proof
of the claims were evidenced.
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
The entire article depends on that "alleged"/"reportedly" computer
being what if is---and NO evidence is included that it is.
The issue is YOU and the wingnuts you share "echos" with are only
using "Looks like" crap---and it makes you a dumb asshole
Unless you direct alleged as proof about a white cop.

Liberals so 2 faced.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2014-08-30 20:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.




Just how do you go from "Before Christ" to "After Death" in just one
year?
-Calendar Expert Deep Dudu
August 12, 2014
MattB
2014-08-30 21:03:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:52:04 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.
Getting Gary to think is like trying to start a fire with green wood.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Just how do you go from "Before Christ" to "After Death" in just one
year?
-Calendar Expert Deep Dudu
August 12, 2014
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 01:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:52:04 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.
Getting Gary to think is like trying to start a fire with green wood.
How is that batless belfry gonna come up with an explanation of why
that's an example of a "fallacy claim"?

No evidence has been shown to prove the Laptop is what is claimed.

By continuing the argument/discussion AS IF it were fact (instead of
producing the evidence it is)---then you are "begging the
question"---demanding that it be accepted as "fact".

No opposing side can produce any argument that it is not what is
claimed---IOW, no one can prove a negative.

The Proof MUST be provided that the claim is factual---instead of
being "alleged" as true.

You're simply too stupid to do much of anything, MATTLOON
MattB
2014-08-31 03:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:52:04 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.
Getting Gary to think is like trying to start a fire with green wood.
How is that batless belfry gonna come up with an explanation of why
that's an example of a "fallacy claim"?
No evidence has been shown to prove the Laptop is what is claimed.
By continuing the argument/discussion AS IF it were fact (instead of
producing the evidence it is)---then you are "begging the
question"---demanding that it be accepted as "fact".
No opposing side can produce any argument that it is not what is
claimed---IOW, no one can prove a negative.
The Proof MUST be provided that the claim is factual---instead of
being "alleged" as true.
You're simply too stupid to do much of anything, MATTLOON
No proof has been shown a cop in Ferguson was a racist.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 06:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:52:04 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.
Getting Gary to think is like trying to start a fire with green wood.
How is that batless belfry gonna come up with an explanation of why
that's an example of a "fallacy claim"?
No evidence has been shown to prove the Laptop is what is claimed.
By continuing the argument/discussion AS IF it were fact (instead of
producing the evidence it is)---then you are "begging the
question"---demanding that it be accepted as "fact".
No opposing side can produce any argument that it is not what is
claimed---IOW, no one can prove a negative.
The Proof MUST be provided that the claim is factual---instead of
being "alleged" as true.
You're simply too stupid to do much of anything, MATTLOON
No proof has been shown a cop in Ferguson was a racist.
Sure there is

The publicly aired stats on stops, arrests, and cases clearly show a
bias and racism of that city. As a part of that force, he has been
"exemplary" in carrying out policy that's racist.

Even the makeup of the government, police force and all entities
running the county are proof that blacks are set on and given unfair
and harsh(er) treatment.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 01:37:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:52:04 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.
Did

You didn't think because it's called "fallacy" argument.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2014-08-31 10:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 13:52:04 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
Of course you can. Try thinking, Gary.
Did
Didn't work. Try rebooting.
Post by MattB
You didn't think because it's called "fallacy" argument.
Um, no, it's not. Try again.




Just how do you go from "Before Christ" to "After Death" in just one
year?
-Calendar Expert Deep Dudu
August 12, 2014
unknown
2014-08-31 02:04:15 UTC
Permalink
On 8/30/2014 1:52 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
benj
2014-08-31 02:27:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Stupid Spammer forgot the group can.politics
Scout
2014-08-31 02:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Yes, you are, so why don't you stop?
Charlie Haden
2014-08-31 13:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Yes, you are, so why don't you stop?

Canadians are stupid.
Scout
2014-08-31 14:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by unknown
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Yes, you are, so why don't you stop?
Canadians are stupid.
That one certainly is.
Thomas Paine
2014-08-31 00:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.
It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
See the comic relief of Gary Roselles
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seized-isis-laptop-syria-contains-plans-bubonic-
plague-weapons-1463121
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198636/posts
****
So again without evidence one way or the other you automatically
defend the terror group.
"Defendingi" has nothing to do with me beating you over the head, you
moron
Try that with me and I'll let you hold a few.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
In the cites you posted----the words "alleged", "reportedly" are used
as a predicate---then the articles continue on AS IF there was proof
of the claims were evidenced.
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
The entire article depends on that "alleged"/"reportedly" computer
being what if is---and NO evidence is included that it is.
The issue is YOU and the wingnuts you share "echos" with are only
using "Looks like" crap---and it makes you a dumb asshole
Let's discuss your alleged humanity.
--
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 01:44:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:11:53 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.
It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
See the comic relief of Gary Roselles
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/seized-isis-laptop-syria-contains-plans-bubonic-
plague-weapons-1463121
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3198636/posts
****
So again without evidence one way or the other you automatically
defend the terror group.
"Defendingi" has nothing to do with me beating you over the head, you
moron
Try that with me and I'll let you hold a few.
(whatever that means, I'm sure is relevant in some addled universe of
wingnuts)
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
In the cites you posted----the words "alleged", "reportedly" are used
as a predicate---then the articles continue on AS IF there was proof
of the claims were evidenced.
You cannot "seize a laptop." that is ALLEGED to be from
somewhere---then argue as if it were factual that it was what you
claim.
The entire article depends on that "alleged"/"reportedly" computer
being what if is---and NO evidence is included that it is.
The issue is YOU and the wingnuts you share "echos" with are only
using "Looks like" crap---and it makes you a dumb asshole
Let's discuss your alleged humanity.
You provided the factual evidence that you cannot: a) argue the
points, b) understand the points, or c) need further time.
unknown
2014-08-31 02:04:55 UTC
Permalink
On 8/30/2014 5:11 PM, Thomas Paine wrote:

==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
unknown
2014-08-31 02:19:50 UTC
Permalink
On 8/30/2014 5:11 PM, Thomas Paine wrote:

==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================


Path: not-for-mail
From: Thomas Paine <***@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
can.politics,alt.society.liberalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.law-enforcement,alt.true-crime
Subject: Re: Laptop reportedly seized confuses MATT-DE-LOON
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Sender: ***@pool-173-73-14-100.washdc.fios.verizon.net
Message-ID: <***@78.46.70.116>
References: <***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
<***@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:11:53 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="1ff9952694c0e2d2c40f85cb6e53c483";
logging-data="13296"; mail-complaints-to="***@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+kwnhm9buJTL9aFWRJF8mqHeT9qX4mmjM="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NJRVqfjIXbiXIYpQgVNCgACKg5o=
X-Received-Bytes: 3102
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2464790666
benj
2014-08-31 02:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Stupid Spammer forgot the group can.politics

Finding caps lock key would raise your IQ by 3 points.
Scout
2014-08-31 02:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by unknown
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Yes, you are, so why don't you stop?
MattB
2014-08-30 20:19:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
The purpose is to lead you down a propaganda path----and you're too
dumb to figure it out.
It's "faux snooze" for chrissakes.
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good source
of information?
What liberals like Gary want is total control of information like what
Putin has. A Internet controlled like China.

Then add to that Obama's 1984 attitude of spying on every citizen they
think they'd be in control.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/08/28/cable-news-ratings-for-
wednesday-august-27-2014/297369/
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 00:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
What liberals like Gary want is total control of information like what
Putin has.
You stupid halfwit

Putin is the quintessential CONSERVATIVE

Conservatives control media----that's exactly what faux snooze
does---the owner hires people to do that.

His corporation is dedicated to promoting a political agenda of a
conservative (near fascist) political party (as of late)

You simply aren't capable of doing much in the way of thinking, are
youMATTLOON?
MattB
2014-08-31 03:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
What liberals like Gary want is total control of information like what
Putin has.
You stupid halfwit
Putin is the quintessential CONSERVATIVE
Your quite insane. I should go have a talk about you with the lady in
120 when I get back into Deadwood tomorrow.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Conservatives control media----that's exactly what faux snooze
does---the owner hires people to do that.
His corporation is dedicated to promoting a political agenda of a
conservative (near fascist) political party (as of late)
You simply aren't capable of doing much in the way of thinking, are
youMATTLOON?
Thomas Paine
2014-08-31 03:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
What liberals like Gary want is total control of information like what
Putin has.
You stupid halfwit
Putin is the quintessential CONSERVATIVE
Conservatives control media----that's exactly what faux snooze
does---the owner hires people to do that.
His corporation is dedicated to promoting a political agenda of a
conservative (near fascist) political party (as of late)
You simply aren't capable of doing much in the way of thinking, are
youMATTLOON?
You are quite out of your mind.
--
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.
unknown
2014-08-30 20:57:31 UTC
Permalink
On 8/30/2014 7:28 AM, Thomas Paine wrote:

==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 00:50:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 04:17:34 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
Here YOU go numbnuts

FIRST words, FIRST SENTENCE

Quote:

"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis"

If it's ALLEGEDLY ....from Isis----then it's not "truth" until it's
proven to actually that.

RIGHT?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2014-08-31 10:12:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 04:17:34 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Post by MattB
Laptop reportedly seized from ISIS hideout hints at bio weapons attack
http://www.foxnews
Do you see the comic relief there, MATTLOON?
"reportedly" is not a proven claim
Here YOU go numbnuts
FIRST words, FIRST SENTENCE
"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis"
There is no question there is a laptop.

And you ignored the other news link I posted, so you could continue
your fantasy about how the story can't be true since it was REPORTED
by Fox.
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
If it's ALLEGEDLY ...[..]
If you ALLEGEDLY had two brain cells to rub together.....

[chuckle]




Just how do you go from "Before Christ" to "After Death" in just one
year?
-Calendar Expert Deep Dudu
August 12, 2014
Y***@Jurgis.net
2014-08-31 00:54:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good source
of information?
No---only the Ones (one) that does NOT have any corporate
rules/regulations to only publish/air truth.

Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)

As for "other" media (mainstream)---THEY have written codes of
journalistic ethics they enforce. Air a false claim---you get fired,
reprimanded, or prosecuted.

See?

Second, (and important)

The FIRST line of the FIRST paragraph qualifies the condition of the
"Claim"......

Quote:

"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis...."

The producer of that article cannot tell you with any
certainty----that it is authentic.

See?
benj
2014-08-31 02:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good source
of information?
No---only the Ones (one) that does NOT have any corporate
rules/regulations to only publish/air truth.
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
As for "other" media (mainstream)---THEY have written codes of
journalistic ethics they enforce. Air a false claim---you get fired,
reprimanded, or prosecuted.
See?
Gary you live in SUCH A fantasy world! "enforce" my ass! They only fire
a person if they think they might get sued for their lies. They are so
funny they stand right there in front of the evidence they are lying
their asses off and think that nobody will look behind them and see they
are lying! You libs are so arrogant and stupid!

At Least Fox is honest about what "journalists" do for a living.
Lib media is NEVER honest about anything (like Gary)!
Post by MattB
Second, (and important)
The FIRST line of the FIRST paragraph qualifies the condition of the
"Claim"......
"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis...."
The producer of that article cannot tell you with any
certainty----that it is authentic.
See?
If your fantasy says we are all safe, Gary then I guess that means
nobody need ever worry until their brain dribbles out of their ear...
Thomas Paine
2014-08-31 03:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good
source of information?
No---only the Ones (one) that does NOT have any corporate
rules/regulations to only publish/air truth.
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
As for "other" media (mainstream)---THEY have written codes of
journalistic ethics they enforce. Air a false claim---you get fired,
reprimanded, or prosecuted.
See?
Second, (and important)
The FIRST line of the FIRST paragraph qualifies the condition of the
"Claim"......
"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis...."
The producer of that article cannot tell you with any
certainty----that it is authentic.
See?
Gee I guess they have a lot of people fooled. Maybe we should repeal the
first amendment and let youdecide what's news.
--
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.
Lerm
2014-08-31 05:18:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good
source of information?
No---only the Ones (one) that does NOT have any corporate
rules/regulations to only publish/air truth.
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
As for "other" media (mainstream)---THEY have written codes of
journalistic ethics they enforce. Air a false claim---you get fired,
reprimanded, or prosecuted.
See?
Second, (and important)
The FIRST line of the FIRST paragraph qualifies the condition of the
"Claim"......
"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis...."
The producer of that article cannot tell you with any
certainty----that it is authentic.
See?
Gee I guess they have a lot of people fooled. Maybe we should repeal the
first amendment and let youdecide what's news.
Fox was citing a report in Foreign Policy*, a well-respected
publication. Since Fox has such a bad reputation, in the rare instances
where it reports what sounds like a true, undistorted, story, I find it
best to search for the original source.

Quite often such a search will return a "circular" citation: Fox cites
WND which cites Breitbart which cites Fox -- then you know for sure the
story is bogus. Sometimes the circle is larger, bouncing the story
round those three plus a number of other right-wing outlets, but the
story is still bogus. But sometimes credible media outlets are
reporting the story, and Fox has to keep up with the Joneses, so it
jumps on the bandwagon and reports the same thing. This does not
automatically make it false, as Yoorghis believes.

Here is the original story that Yoorghis desperately wants to disbelieve:

*
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/28/found_the_islamic_state_terror_laptop_of_doom_bubonic_plague_weapons_of_mass_destruction_exclusive
Thomas Paine
2014-08-31 06:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lerm
Post by Thomas Paine
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good
source of information?
No---only the Ones (one) that does NOT have any corporate
rules/regulations to only publish/air truth.
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
As for "other" media (mainstream)---THEY have written codes of
journalistic ethics they enforce. Air a false claim---you get fired,
reprimanded, or prosecuted.
See?
Second, (and important)
The FIRST line of the FIRST paragraph qualifies the condition of the
"Claim"......
"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis...."
The producer of that article cannot tell you with any
certainty----that it is authentic.
See?
Gee I guess they have a lot of people fooled. Maybe we should repeal
the first amendment and let youdecide what's news.
Fox was citing a report in Foreign Policy*, a well-respected
publication. Since Fox has such a bad reputation, in the rare instances
where it reports what sounds like a true, undistorted, story, I find it
best to search for the original source.
Quite often such a search will return a "circular" citation: Fox cites
WND which cites Breitbart which cites Fox -- then you know for sure the
story is bogus. Sometimes the circle is larger, bouncing the story
round those three plus a number of other right-wing outlets, but the
story is still bogus. But sometimes credible media outlets are
reporting the story, and Fox has to keep up with the Joneses, so it
jumps on the bandwagon and reports the same thing. This does not
automatically make it false, as Yoorghis believes.
Here is the original story that Yoorghis desperately wants to
*
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/28/found_the_islamic_state_
terror_laptop_of_doom_bubonic_plague_weapons_of_mass_destruction_exclusiv
e
Yet so many more people trust Fox news. Now why doyou think that is?

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/08/28/cable-news-ratings-for-
wednesday-august-27-2014/297369/
--
When the government is no longer constrained by the laws of the land, then
neither are the people.
unknown
2014-09-01 20:44:16 UTC
Permalink
On 8/30/2014 8:53 PM, Thomas Paine wrote:

==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
unknown
2014-09-01 20:44:31 UTC
Permalink
On 8/30/2014 8:53 PM, Thomas Paine wrote:

==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
Post by Y***@Jurgis.net
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
Lerm
2014-08-31 05:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:28:36 +0000 (UTC), Thomas Paine
So youaresaying that the most watched cable new shows are not a good source
of information?
No---only the Ones (one) that does NOT have any corporate
rules/regulations to only publish/air truth.
Faux snooze's parent corporation has NO corporate or internal codes of
ethics that preclude anyone from distorting, slanting, or deliberately
adding/leaving out information. Their corporation does not fire
anyone for distorted or false information. (didn't you know this?)
As for "other" media (mainstream)---THEY have written codes of
journalistic ethics they enforce. Air a false claim---you get fired,
reprimanded, or prosecuted.
See?
Second, (and important)
The FIRST line of the FIRST paragraph qualifies the condition of the
"Claim"......
"laptop allegedly seized from an Isis...."
The producer of that article cannot tell you with any
certainty----that it is authentic.
See?
The original story reported by Foreign Policy* mentions that among other
things, including the laptop owner's name and exam papers he had written
on chemistry and physics while enrolled at a Tunisian university, was a
fatwa by a Saudi cleric named Nasir al-Fahd justifying the use of WMDs:

http://www.jihadica.com/nasir-al-fahds-ruling-on-wmd/

Nasir al-Fahd’s Ruling on WMD
Posted: 5th June 2008 by Will McCants in WMD

Nasir al-Fahd’s May 2003 ruling on WMD has been making the rounds on
Ekhlaas as part of the general hubbub surrounding the nuke video. It’s
worth a review since Jihadis refer to it often not only to justify their
quest for WMD, but to justify indiscriminate killing of noncombatants in
general.

Fahd, a Saudi cleric who was put in jail soon after writing this ruling,
argues that Jihadis can use WMD if they have no other way to repel the
evil of their enemies. The scriptural proofs for this position are of
two types:

The first type of scriptural proof (mainly from the Qur’an) says that
you can strike your enemy with what they use to strike you. There is no
need for other proof in this situation. Since the infidel enemy has
killed ten million Muslims through direct and indirect means, then
Muslims can kill ten million of them. This is a non sequitur (if we
didn’t kill them with WMD, then how does this fall under Fahd’s
principle of tit-for-tat weaponry?), but there it is.

The second type of scriptural proof are hadith (words and deeds of the
Prophet not found in the Qur’an) that indicate it is legitimate to use
WMD, even if the enemy hasn’t used them against you. These proofs are of
three kinds:

Hadith which demonstrate that killing noncombatant women and
children unintentionally is acceptable

Hadith that justify burning the land and homes of your enemy

Hadith that justify the use of a mangonel (a type of catapult),
since it causes indiscriminate damage

Fahd then cites rulings from the four Sunni law schools on the
legitimacy of the medieval versions of WMD, like poisoning a water supply.

Finally, Fahd goes through the anticipated objections to his ruling:

Muslims are prohibited from killing women and children
Rebuttal: you can do it if it is impossible to distinguish
between them.

Muslims cannot commit evil
Rebuttal: you can if you are preventing a greater evil, like
allowing the infidel to live and spread his unbelief

WMD will inevitably kill some Muslims
Rebuttal: the potential of killing Muslims cannot delay a jihad
if it is necessary. Also, if the enemy is hiding behind some Muslims,
using them as human shields, they can be killed if necessary.

[Ruling in the original Arabic]

http://www.jihadica.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/nasir-al-fahd-ruling-on-wmd.doc


*
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/08/28/found_the_islamic_state_terror_laptop_of_doom_bubonic_plague_weapons_of_mass_destruction_exclusive

"When contacted by phone, a staff member at a Tunisian university listed
on Muhammed's exam papers confirmed that he indeed studied chemistry and
physics there. She said the university lost track of him after 2011,
however."

"Out of the blue, she asked: 'Did you find his papers inside Syria?'
Asked why she would think that Muhammed's belongings would have ended up
in Syria, she answered, 'For further questions about him, you better ask
state security.'"
unknown
2014-08-31 02:03:29 UTC
Permalink
==================================================================
I'M REALLY A STUPID SPAMMER, AREN'T I ?
I CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHICH NEWSGROUPS ARE PERTINENT TO A TOPIC
==================================================================
MattB
2014-08-31 03:35:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 19:34:00 -0700 (PDT), Rafael Cruz
It's time for another series of Bush era Yellow Alerts.
Remember those? They went to Yellow when politically inconvenient shit happened, to take your sorry asshole minds off of shit that Bush or the GOP did.
They ended when Dick Cheney left.
Governments been using one excuse after another. Remember the BS they
did for the war on Drugs, Then it was to protect our kids, then like
you said. Last 2 decades politicians and media been working well
together.

Lesson if a politician says something good chance it is a lie. In
both parties.
Loading...