Enemies of the People? Trump's Assault on the Press

[conon394]

Alex Jones has at times better points than the mainstream media

Really name one

[Kyriakos]

Really name one

That is actually easy (to find "one") :

"Stay out of Syria".

[Gaidin]

That is actually easy (to find "one") :

"Stay out of Syria".

Your "Stay out of Syria" hero only doxes the parents of school shooting victims to the point they can sue him for defamation. They've had to move more than five times since Sandy Hook occurred.

[Kyriakos]

Your "Stay out of Syria" hero only doxes the parents of school shooting victims to the point they can sue him for defamation. They've had to move more than five times since Sandy Hook occurred.

You lack reading skills; i was asked to name "one" thing where he is better than mainstream media, not to argue that he is anything good.
When even Alex Jones betters you, it means your situation is pathetic; and that was my point.

[Gaidin]

You lack reading skills; i was asked to name "one" thing where he is better than mainstream media, not to argue that he is anything good.
When even Alex Jones betters you, it means your situation is pathetic; and that was my point.

Dude, do you know how hard it is to sue someone for defamation in the US?

[conon394]

That is actually easy (to find "one") :

"Stay out of Syria".

In what context? In any you hardly have to go to The internet wing nuts find plenty of News analysis that would argue the same.

[fkizz]

Alex Jones was the only US mass media outlet that made a front against US re-entering deep in Syria.. it was ironically the only Anti-War outlet. The politically correct others rooted for more war in Syria.

So choose your priority: Political Correctness, or preventing people from getting butchered en mass, both soldiers and civilians alike, which is more important?

[conon394]

Alex Jones was the only US mass media outlet that made a front against US re-entering deep in Syria.. it was ironically the only Anti-War outlet. The politically correct others rooted for more war in Syria.

So choose your priority: Political Correctness, or preventing people from getting butchered en mass, both soldiers and civilians alike, which is more important?

Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban.../#76cea87340c8

Foreign Policy for 2012

https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/05/stay-out-of-syria/

WP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.010240798d9a


Sorry Fkizz its easy to find lots of MSM opinion that the US should not get more involved (or older involved at all). You don't A Jones for that. However the US does face did always face a quandary. I mean you could say we (say USA) could have just ignored a very real and not unsurprising revolt against a Dictator. But of course the optics of that are bad. But hey go all Kissinger as say real politic we could get along with a secular dictator in Arab world. Umm except the Israel problem. Oh and than once ISIS was established there that kind became and issue for us in Iraq - you know the place Bush broke. So than you do sort need to intervene to deal not allow safe haven while fighting ISIS in Iraq (see Pakistan and Taliban). We could just walk away from ISIS in Iraq but that would abandoning the Kurds again,, and handing it over to Iran. Which I though we were worried about, Iran and all that. Than Assad had to go and use chemical weapons, nice that puts the US in a position to have to defend norms as old as the end of WW2.

On balance we did stay are out of Syria and I don't see much drum beat for more intervention. But unless the US is willing to unravel a lot of other policy positions, just saying stay out of Syria is not that easy. But I see no partial voices calling for a nation building adventure.

[Heathen Hammer]

Your "Stay out of Syria" hero only doxes the parents of school shooting victims to the point they can sue him for defamation. They've had to move more than five times since Sandy Hook occurred.

I also do recall CNN harassing and stalking teenage redditor who made Trump WWE .gif. Thing is, outlets like CNN or MSNBC are just equal extremes to infowars, just different perspectives of such extremes.

Sorry Fkizz its easy to find lots of MSM opinion that the US should not get more involved (or older involved at all). You don't A Jones for that. However the US does face did always face a quandary. I mean you could say we (say USA) could have just ignored a very real and not unsurprising revolt against a Dictator. But of course the optics of that are bad. But hey go all Kissinger as say real politic we could get along with a secular dictator in Arab world. Umm except the Israel problem. Oh and than once ISIS was established there that kind became and issue for us in Iraq - you know the place Bush broke. So than you do sort need to intervene to deal not allow safe haven while fighting ISIS in Iraq (see Pakistan and Taliban). We could just walk away from ISIS in Iraq but that would abandoning the Kurds again,, and handing it over to Iran. Which I though we were worried about, Iran and all that. Than Assad had to go and use chemical weapons, nice that puts the US in a position to have to defend norms as old as the end of WW2.

Except that there was no real evidence presented that Assad did this, and even if he did, who is US to accuse him of anything? US is the reason for majority of geopolitical problems in the world. US is backing states like Saudi Arabia and Israel, which is the biggest source of instability in Middle East. US invaded Iraq, paving way for groups like ISIS, and funded and supported jihadists in Libya and Syria with pretty much everyone but Jones painting child-killing women-oppressing thugs as "freedom fighters". US leads a pointless and expensive mini-cold war against Russia and Iran. No, US is not some kind of beacon of freedom, while mainstream media in US spreading pro-war propaganda, again with exception of "evil conspiracy theorists" like Jones are pretty much the only voices of sanity.

[conon394]

I also do recall CNN harassing and stalking teenage redditor who made Trump WWE .gif. Thing is, outlets like CNN or MSNBC are just equal extremes to infowars, just different perspectives of such extremes.


Except that there was no real evidence presented that Assad did this, and even if he did, who is US to accuse him of anything? US is the reason for majority of geopolitical problems in the world. US is backing states like Saudi Arabia and Israel, which is the biggest source of instability in Middle East. US invaded Iraq, paving way for groups like ISIS, and funded and supported jihadists in Libya and Syria with pretty much everyone but Jones painting child-killing women-oppressing thugs as "freedom fighters". US leads a pointless and expensive mini-cold war against Russia and Iran. No, US is not some kind of beacon of freedom, while mainstream media in US spreading pro-war propaganda, again with exception of "evil conspiracy theorists" like Jones are pretty much the only voices of sanity.

Whatever. Of course nobody else in the world has agency it all the US fault. Russia does seem to rather want a cold war and they are feeling a bit possive of other peoples stuff.

Except that there was no real evidence presented that Assad did this,

The french seemed rather confident on the early and significant attack Ghouta

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/p..._Programme.pdf

But of course they are total US lackeys just ask Dean Rusk.

and Israel

Perhaps, I do think the US call to heel Israel more often. But hey Egypt could show some brotherhood and simply announce they will accept the Gaza strip as a state and give them citizenship and start rebuilding the place - same for Jordan and the West Bank. Hell just Give Israel Jerusalem and they be happy to see the Bank go to Jordan (although that did go so well last time).


----------------

It would be impossible to defend the view that all the main media were against war in Syria (US getting involved). Ergo, A.J. at least had a better position from some major media regarding that. And that is "one" point.

I didn't say that what I said was it was reasonable easy to find significant anti intervention in the MSM. I did not say that was some unanimous opinion.

A mass air campaign against Syria was US gov policy -remember Kerry's issues which led to Putin intervening back when he wasn't seen as Satan?

A mass air campaign predicated only on the chemical weapons. One the was also predicated on at minimum UK support and Congressional support. Lacking that the option fizzed. That was all well reported. Opinions were varied. I see no need to turn Jones for the one word of truth.

I mean a broken clock is right twice a day. The morass that his is spew, that he come up no Syria invasion is hardly a recommendation of even occasional common sense. Take is pic meld own over Trump (pointless) attack of Assad - he melted down saying among other things "And the Russians were the good guys, battling ISIS and al Qaeda.. Interesting because their boy assad is not just as the US military back in 2008ish


https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...toryId=4670939
https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2...aq-insurgency/
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/w...1.7781943.html

Everyone like a jihadist when he shooting somebody else. The Russians and Syria have systemically ignored ISIS. Oh sure they will do them at the end. But of course cynically the longer ISIS was in Syria the longer the US was distracted in Iraq and the harder and more costly it would be.

[Heathen Hammer]

Whatever. Of course nobody else in the world has agency it all the US fault. Russia does seem to rather want a cold war and they are feeling a bit possive of other peoples stuff.

I guess we can say that Russia adopted same foreign policy that US had for decades. Except that Russia tends to fix things instead of breaking them, hence the example of Russia saving Syria.

The french seemed rather confident on the early and significant attack Ghouta

https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/p..._Programme.pdf

But of course they are total US lackeys just ask Dean Rusk.

French had an old colonial bone to pick, same as Libya.

Perhaps, I do think the US call to heel Israel more often. But hey Egypt could show some brotherhood and simply announce they will accept the Gaza strip as a state and give them citizenship and start rebuilding the place - same for Jordan and the West Bank. Hell just Give Israel Jerusalem and they be happy to see the Bank go to Jordan (although that did go so well last time).

Doesn't change the fact that US is tip-toeing around Israel, while it could have yanked the leash a few times since that state relies on US aid rather heavily.

I didn't say that what I said was it was reasonable easy to find significant anti intervention in the MSM. I did not say that was some unanimous opinion.

For major media outlets it was, with few exception. Which again, brings us back to the fact that on many issues IW is far more reasonable then CNN. They may have unorthodox ways to explain frog sexuality, but at least they won't cheer on WW3 like CNN or BBC would.

A mass air campaign predicated only on the chemical weapons. One the was also predicated on At minimum UK support and Congressional support. Lacking that the option fizzed. That was all well reported. Opinions were varied. I see no need to turn Jones for the one word of truth.

We all know how "minor interventions" are used as foot in the door for US/NATO acting as air support for jihadists, i.e. Libya.

[TheDarkKnight]

I also do recall CNN harassing and stalking teenage redditor who made Trump WWE .gif. Thing is, outlets like CNN or MSNBC are just equal extremes to infowars, just different perspectives of such extremes.

It's kind of disgusting and sad that you are equating THAT situation to Alex Jones, whose actions have made life difficult for an entire community following a mass shooting. Not to mention that questioning THAT shooting has led to many idiots further harassing the families of victims in subsequent shootings.

Really dude..You really need some perspective.

[Heathen Hammer]

It's kind of disgusting and sad that you are equating THAT situation to Alex Jones, whose actions have made life difficult for an entire community following a mass shooting. Not to mention that questioning THAT shooting has led to many idiots further harassing the families of victims in subsequent shootings.

Really dude..You really need some perspective.

And major media is doing the same thing, but on a larger scale. I'll take Jones outrageous claims about chemtrails over "free press" being cheerleaders for armed conflicts that kill thousands.

[fkizz]

Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban.../#76cea87340c8
Foreign Policy for 2012
https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/06/05/stay-out-of-syria/
WP
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.010240798d9a

A few piece articles does not disprove that most of polite and politically correct mass media was pro-war, while alex jones was anti war. Plus it was mostly refering to the recent events. Point being not if Alex Jones is this or that, but rather it's suspicious the only anti-war in syria voice is seen as a bad thing.

Would you rather a polite butcher, or a foul mouthed anti-war? The choice is yours.

Sorry Fkizz its easy to find lots of MSM opinion that the US should not get more involved (or older involved at all). You don't A Jones for that. However the US does face did always face a quandary. I mean you could say we (say USA) could have just ignored a very real and not unsurprising revolt against a Dictator. But of course the optics of that are bad. But hey go all Kissinger as say real politic we could get along with a secular dictator in Arab world. Umm except the Israel problem. Oh and than once ISIS was established there that kind became and issue for us in Iraq - you know the place Bush broke. So than you do sort need to intervene to deal not allow safe haven while fighting ISIS in Iraq (see Pakistan and Taliban). We could just walk away from ISIS in Iraq but that would abandoning the Kurds again,, and handing it over to Iran. Which I though we were worried about, Iran and all that. Than Assad had to go and use chemical weapons, nice that puts the US in a position to have to defend norms as old as the end of WW2.

On balance we did stay are out of Syria and I don't see much drum beat for more intervention. But unless the US is willing to unravel a lot of other policy positions, just saying stay out of Syria is not that easy. But I see no partial voices calling for a nation building adventure.

Very well then. If you want to play by the rules of the book, that's it how it is mostly played anyway, so you can rejoice.

However going by "might makes right", Assad is undefeated after all this years, while the West gets a lot of negative spillover, refugee crisis, financial fatigue and war fatigue. Problems from Syria civil war are spilling over creating all sorts of political tensions in both US and US allies, which plays in Assad's advantage, to the detriment of his perceived would be agressors. Meaning a war of attrition is in Assad's favour.

Not to mention plenty of Assad's enemies are anti-West and anti-US too. If Assad loses, the rebels replacing him won't be exactly your friends, and will hate you, meaning you may need to prepare for a new war after this one without rest period to your armed forces.

Is all this hassle really worth it?

[conon394]

You lack reading skills; i was asked to name "one" thing where he is better than mainstream media, not to argue that he is anything good.
When even Alex Jones betters you, it means your situation is pathetic; and that was my point.

The point remains I can't recall much desire to get in Syria in the MSM. There was quite a bit demand for a harsh response to the original chemical attacks. My sense was that there support for harsh punishment stroke quite apart from intervening the civil war per say. Rather as if the CSA had decided to reestablish a slave trade. The UK would almost certainly have stopped that, that would aid the Union but would not getting the US civil war. Also of course the fact of ISIS spilling across the boarder necessitated some intervention. I just pointed MSM opinions on no Syria - he was not some loan voice against a tide demanding boots on the ground.

[Kyriakos]

The point remains I can't recall much desire to get in Syria in the MSM.

That isn't so; particularly if we aren't just talking about these last two years. A mass air campaign against Syria was US gov policy -remember Kerry's issues which led to Putin intervening back when he wasn't seen as Satan?
Pretty sure that even now a lot of MSM (both republican and democrat) are pro war in Syria, in whatever way (limited campaign, bigger campaign, arming the other side etc).

It would be impossible to defend the view that all the main media were against war in Syria (US getting involved). Ergo, A.J. at least had a better position from some major media regarding that. And that is "one" point.

[Aexodus]

Sure some outlets like Forbes might have been against the strikes last april, but what about BBC, CNN, Fox, NBC etc

[Vanoi]

Alex Jones always made me laugh. Going to miss his outrageous rants.

[RandomPerson2000]

That's irrelevant and subjective. Objectively, mass media that promotes literal war is far worse then what Jones is saying. We either take same standards and if Alex should be responsible for affecting those families, then we should hold BBC and CNN responsible for promoting war. Otherwise it sounds like just another witch hunt, kinda like Satanic Panic of the 80s.

So far what you want is to hold one standard for mass media, and another for IW. That's not how it works.
If you hold Jones in check, then apply same principle to other media as well. If you argue that Jones influenced some families negatively, then same should be applied to civilians that got bombed by US following warhawk propaganda from BBC/CNN/FOX, etc. Of course, in this case people with relevant involvement are either dead or are struggling to survive in failed states that were created by "liberation" that was cheered for by the above-mentioned mass media. But it doesn't change the fact that objectively mass media is far worse then Jones, he is just an easier target for the current witch-hunt.

That is quite a flawed comparison. To put it simply the news organisations that promoted war are not directly responsible for the deaths of civilians by the US, instead it's mainly due to the military, government and local instability and politics to a very large extent. Alex Jones on the other hand through his coverage of events like the Sandy Hook shooting is directly responsible even if partially for inspiring many of his viewers to harass innocent people whether intentionally or not. Although I do agree that the media should held to greater accountability, there are better examples out there to compare to what Alex Jones has done like excessive news coverage on mass murderers inspiring copycats.

[Aexodus]

Personally I think coverage of ordinary people as fascists and Nazis, and legitimizing terror groups like antifa makes them partially responsible for harassment too, but that’s just me.