member of Israeli sleeper cell warns about Iranian sleeper cells
Anyone named Wolf Blitzer is 100% trustworthy and definitely not evil
He migbt be recruitable friend in a Sega jrpg you never know.
This guy?
Iranian Sleeper Cell: it’s just a regular Iranian dude who is asleep
Who’s up for a 20 minute highlight reel of Wolf fucking up every journalistic aspect of the Iraq II invasion.
Cue even more violence towards anyone looking vaguely middle-eastern…
Cue a false flag attack.
Didn’t he also play against a comedian and get crushed by him?
It’s true but I prefer my criticisms without ad hominems
Where’s the source for discrediting the statement?
How do you prove “hidden” groups don’t exist?
Come onnnnnn. If that were the case, then there’d be no God, peace be upon It.
Fair point. Could be a quote from a relevant expert saying “I think it’s bullshit” maybe?
I guess he is a relevant expert? And I think his tone suggests his judgement on the matter’s bullshitosity.
Alan MacLeod is Senior Staff Writer for MintPress News. He completed his PhD in 2017 and has since authored two acclaimed books: Bad News From Venezuela: Twenty Years of Fake News and Misreporting and Propaganda in the Information Age: Still Manufacturing Consent, as well as a number of academic articles. He has also contributed to FAIR.org, The Guardian, Salon, The Grayzone, Jacobin Magazine, and Common Dreams.
OK thanks for the context. The post is overly elliptic.
I say I think it’s Bullshit
Guess I, a random dude on the Internet, should have more credibility than this fraud
How is this an ad hominem? If he’s being accused of pushing Israeli propaganda, the fact that he formerly worked for an Israeli lobby is 100% relevant.
It’s true but I prefer my criticisms without ad hominems
Saying a person spreading Israeli propaganda. Openly worked for an Israeli propaganda organization seems relevant to me…
https://theintercept.com/2024/03/03/wolf-blitzer-aipac-israel-si-kenan-cnn/
Like, I think you don’t know what an “ad hominem” is if you believe this is one
Mmh… Somebody could hypothetically have worked for AIPAC in the past and become a staunch opponent of Israel’s policy
For me, not specifically knowing the guy in question, using the shortcut “has worked for AIPAC” -> “is a mouthpiece of Israel” isn’t a really solid argument
So, thanks for the link, this is what I missed
Somebody could hypothetically have worked for AIPAC in the past and become a staunch opponent of Israel’s policy
I’d be surprised if you could find a single example…
AIPAC uses bribes as the carrot, then if you go against them, the being up past carrots (bribes) and use the disclosure of them as “the stick”.
Like, do you not understand how state back propaganda works? AIPAC works hand in hand with Israeli intelligence and their administration.
Literally the only reason AIPAC exists is because it’s predessor had to register as a foreign agent, so AIPAC replaced it and immediately bribed the people who decide who has to register as a foreign agent…
For me,
This isn’t a one off specific issue you missed …
You seem completely unaware what AIPAC actually is and what they do…
But still feel the need to weigh in. Why?
Why not spend 15 minutes reading up on AIPAC?
Sorry I’m not an American! FFS
That’s fine…
I’m not saying you need to be an expert on everything.
I’m just asking you to at least familiarize yourself with things you want to discuss, before making assumptions and defending genocidal religious extremists.
because lots of people view genocide as a serious topic…
I was asking about some context and everyone gets rabid. Super cool.
How am I supposed to know who the twitter guy is? You really research everyone you hear about on this community?
because lots of people view genocide as a serious topic…
Astounding.
“Can you prove Iran doesn’t have nukes? Because Israeli intelligence told me they do!”
I get it but you could apply it to the post itself.
“Can you prove Wolf Blitzer isn’t Israel’s mouthpiece? Because somebody on the internet told me so!”
I don’t see why asking for sources is mocked.
Because when provided with positive evidence of obvious bias, you demanded proof of a negative which is ranges from prohibitively difficult to impossible. This is not a valid form of reasoning. The inability to disprove something is not a valid reason to believe in it.
Let me put it another way, I don’t converse with paedophiles so I’m going to need proof that you’ve never diddled kids before we can continue.
It was hardly evidence. It was a quip.
Let me put it another way, I don’t converse with paedophiles so I’m going to need proof that you’ve never diddled kids before we can continue.
Here we go. Amazing and terribly clever.
Damn, no evidence provided.
Pedophile confirmed.
