MMFA misleads again (shocker!)
MMFA claims that it "...works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims...." Hmm..interesting.
So if you happened to read this item filed on Friday (2/16), they try (and the keep word being try) to rebut Michael Savage's claim that no one is covering the religious connection of the Salt Lake City Mall Shooter because he is a Muslim. Their resources to rebut this included the following:
In fact, a number of media outlets identified Talovic as a Muslim. The Associated Press quoted FBI agent Patrick Kiernan saying that the bureau has no reason to believe Talovic "was motivated by religious extremism" or intended "an act of terrorism."
Notice that they don't actually list or link or give any examples of media outlets that identified Talovic as a Muslim. Also, the AP article they link to (on the NY Times website nonetheless) doesn't contain the quote attributed to the FBI agent. They have no source provided for this quote either. Presumably it appeared somewhere in an AP article. But not in the one that they cite.
So if you happened to read this item filed on Friday (2/16), they try (and the keep word being try) to rebut Michael Savage's claim that no one is covering the religious connection of the Salt Lake City Mall Shooter because he is a Muslim. Their resources to rebut this included the following:
In fact, a number of media outlets identified Talovic as a Muslim. The Associated Press quoted FBI agent Patrick Kiernan saying that the bureau has no reason to believe Talovic "was motivated by religious extremism" or intended "an act of terrorism."
Notice that they don't actually list or link or give any examples of media outlets that identified Talovic as a Muslim. Also, the AP article they link to (on the NY Times website nonetheless) doesn't contain the quote attributed to the FBI agent. They have no source provided for this quote either. Presumably it appeared somewhere in an AP article. But not in the one that they cite.
posted by Truth Matters at 2:44 PM
3 Comments:
From MMFA.org
GRHino said: "Kos was referring to civilian contractors. Not any member of the armed forces, but civilian contractors stationed in Iraq who drive trucks and complete other "non-killing tasks". Yes, I would gladly question your patriotism."
TheRick replied: "Grhino--First, you have no credibility to question MY patriotism while cheerleading for this war which is killing our boys and girls at a rate of 100+ each month.
Second, You know damned well that I wasn't talking about truck drivers and construction workers. I was talking about MERCINARIES. I wrote: "Mercinaries ARE there to kill people for big bucks!... contracted murderers." I made sure that this was crystal clear because that's what important when one is dealing with knee jerking knuckle draggers.
So that you know that I had no confusion about the difference between contractors and mercinaries--I AM A CONTRACTOR. I have been remodeling and building homes over 30 years. We don't carry guns, and we have yet to kill someone, although I must admit we have never worked in Iraq. By the way, a plumber who used to do a lot of my work went to Iraq a year ago for the big plumbing bucks. He re-upped for another year recently, and he told me that he doesn't carry a gun, nor has he killed anyone.
Nice try. I especially enjoyed the way you twisted what I said so you could paint me as unpatriotic. You guys wouldn't have to do this if you could admit that you've been wrong every step of the way."
Now, I understand that all comments must be aproved by the blog author, so show some guts.
TheRick,
First of all, when I have been "cheerleading for this war". You have any statements, blog posts, essays, or other evidence of where I was a "cheerleader" for the war. Didn't think so.
Second, you refer to our soldiers as "boys and girls". Interesting. Seeing as how they are 18 years and older, men and women is usually the common accepted term for adults who are of legal age.
Third, I guess I'm not quite clear on who exactly you are referring to as mercenaries. See the 4 contractors who were killed and hung from a bridge for which Kos feels no sympathy, were delivering meals. Yea, going around killing people while delivering fresh meals.
Who are the mercenaries??? The American troops? Are you talking about security forces working for Blackstone and other companies which are there to protect things. Because there is a huge difference between a security guard and someone like an armed services member/law enforcement member. A security guard is there to protect and secure some sort of good or service. Will they shoot/kill someone?? Sure, if someone attacks them and tries to take whatever good it is they are protecting, I'm sure that they've injured people or killed people. So I guess I'm confused about what YOUR definition of "Mercinaries" describes.
See the people that Kos referred to were delivering meals for troops and etc..Also, a WashPo military analyst referred directly to the troops (the armed forces) as "mercenaries". So is your definition the same as theirs or different??
Wow. Please accept my sarcastic thank you for taking my entire post out of context, then posting your answer here (instead of MediaMatters) where I was just lucky to find it after a google about this coversation.
You also added the following to make it look like part of my quote even though I never said this: 'Now, I understand that all comments must be aproved by the blog author, so show some guts.'
I have little more to say to someone who will doctor my post, or not post it at all. You are typical of the dishonest right wing game players and have proved it twice: At MMFA when I mentioned that I didn't feel sorry for mercinaries, you called me "a disgusting and truly repulsive human being," then went on to make others believe I was talking about our troops instead of mercinaries. The other is noted above.
Post a Comment
<< Home