FOX NEWS SAYS: Wall Street Loves Torture!
Fox News are furious that certain candidates for the Republican ticket won't specifically endorse waterboarding. But they are sure of one thing, Wall Street and the American people love candidates who advocate the use of advanced interrogation techniques.
One of them even brings up the ticking clock/hidden bomb scenario and asks what should be done? He then answers himself - "Waterboard them!"
Here's an example of the kind of torture that these guys are defending. The US have admitted privately that they arrested El-Masri by mistake but have refused to acknowledge this in court. Indeed, the case has been dismissed as, the US government have claimed that, even for the case to be heard, "would be a risk to national security". Hard to believe that this is happening in the United States rather than Uzbekistan.
And here's what that little sleazebag Gonzales didn't have to say about why the US sent a Canadian citizen to Syria...
18 comments:
Misleading as usual... First, there is no indication that "Fox News" is "furious that certain candidates for the Republican ticket won't specifically endorse waterboarding". Just plain ridiculous misinformation. What you have here is a roundtable discussion between a Fox Host (the woman, can't remember her name) and a group of panelists from other organizations. Of course, your clip doesn't show which organizations these people are from, so it fits the propaganda that "Fox News" is "furious" and advocating a certain position.
I've caught bits of that show before, I think it's their Bulls & Bears Market Watch (or something like that) and it is not as you represent it. You cannot ascribe Fox News (or any other news organization hosting one of these panel discussions) a position based on the opinions of these third parties. That's just ridiculous.
I forgot to add, Fox News does not claim in the piece that Wall St loves torture. So once again, you are being misleading.
Well Fox News audience is certainly being told that Wall Street want candidates who will engage in advanced interrogation techniques. She asks the guest, "Is this the message that Wall Street and the elecorate want to hear?" and the guest replies, "Absolutely yes".
So according to the message that is being passed to the viewer, Wall Street and, indeed, the electorate want candidates who will be willing use waterboarding. That's the message that comes across loud and clear.
You've got to be kidding.
I know you refused to watch "Outfoxed" and dismissed it as propaganda without even having seen it. Had you done so you would know that Fox News works very hard at establishing their message of the day and invite on only guests who will propagate the view that they wish to see expressed.
It appears to me that the message that day was that Wall Street and Americans want a Republican candidate who will do "whatever it takes" to makes America safe, especially if that includes waterboarding.
That was clearly the message. I know you would argue that this is merely the opinion of one of their guests, but I would argue that they only invite on guests who are going to say things that fit in with their message of the day.
It appears to me that the message that day was that Wall Street and Americans want a Republican candidate who will do "whatever it takes" to makes America safe, especially if that includes waterboarding.
Let's assume for a minute that there is some "message of the day" or whatever that Fox tries to distribute. Even given that, there is no evidence from this clip (that is a portion of one show that is a small portion of their daily program) with which any rational person could draw the conclusion that you have asserted above. It's just frankly impossible to examine an isolated three-minute clip and make some determination on some supposed "message of the day".
That was clearly the message.
As I said.
but I would argue that they only invite on guests who are going to say things that fit in with their message of the day
You can try to argue that, but it's baseless. As I said, you cannot in any way make such a claim from a three minute clip.
Face it, you've badly overreached in your zeal to advance a particular viewpoint. You first apparently assumed that the one person on a panel discussion making the claim which you found so preposterous was a Fox employee (or else there was no basis for your claim). When your error was pointed out, you instead go reaching for some nutty conspiracy theory which cannot be supported given a three minute clip.
Why not just admit what should be clear to anyone which is that while your post makes the claim that "Fox News say Wall St loves torture", no such claim exists, you made it up and in no way can you back up that statement. That would be the responsible thing to do.
That would not be the responsible thing to do, that would be a lie.
Fox has invited two people to discuss this and they don't even get two people with opposing points of view. Both of their guests are tumbling over each other to say that waterboarding should be used in interrogation.
As you've decided to work on the assumption that they do have a message of the day, would you think it coincidental that both guests expressed the exact same viewpoint?
The underlying message here is that people who oppose torture (i.e. Democrats) are dangerous wimps. And they are claiming that the Republicans need to elect someone strong (i.e. A supporter of torture)
And you make much of the fact that this is a three minute clip. Leaving aside the fact that you don't usually watch anything on here that asks for a serious time committment, do you imagine that they became more reasonable later on? I mean once you've heard a commentator saying something like, "Lets gas the Ukrainians!" how much more do you need to hear?
As you've decided to work on the assumption that they do have a message of the day, would you think it coincidental that both guests expressed the exact same viewpoint?
Further indication that you are so completely off base here. There were five people besides the commentator (one possibly British man, two American men, and a brunette woman). Two of them appeared to be for aggressive interrogation (the Brit and the younger man), three of them didn't appear to be. I guess that pretty much totaly sinks your argument.
Where's the link to this? And why haven't you provided it?
Umm... The link is your video. Maybe you should watch the whole thing.
Sorry, I haven't watched this since I posted it.
I will concede that the brunette did argue against torture although Walter was arguing against it's effectiveness and did concede that Wall Street wanted aggressive interrogation to be used, so he was hardly condemning it and he was saying that Wall Street wants this which is what I thought was the message. The British guy, far from condemning torture argued that he thought they were simply "talking tough" and that Wall Street more spending. Again, hardly a condemnation.
So one against and four insisting that Wall Street want to see more aggressive interrogation techniques used.
Damn I responded to this in the morning but it seems to have vanished into the ether. The Brit and one younger American were pro-aggressive interrogation. Two older American males and a brunette American woman appeared to be personally against aggressive-interrogation. That's called a balanced panel.
If four of them believed that Wall St as a whole reacts better when aggressive techniques are used to protect it, that's called analysis and giving how the markets seem to react sounds quite reasonable. Because four of five experts on the markets hold a similar opinion on how the markets will react in certain situations doesn't make it a conspiracy. That's why they're experts.
If four of them believed that Wall St as a whole reacts better when aggressive techniques are used to protect it, that's called analysis and giving how the markets seem to react sounds quite reasonable.
And so four out of the five agreed with the Fox News message of the day: Wall Street want candidates who will engage in advanced interrogation techniques.
So Americans shouldn't worry about Republican candidates falling over themselves promising to torture people, it's actually what the market wants!
And so four out of the five agreed with the Fox News message of the day: Wall Street want candidates who will engage in advanced interrogation techniques.
I see your imagined message of the day has changed. But even still, we would have to first agree that there was a message of the day, and then agree that the message of the day was whatever seems to suit your argument at any given time.
This goes back to my earlier assertion that even if we can assume for the sake of argument that there is some mysterious motd, you cannot possibly make the determination that it is what you have claimed it to be from an isolated three-minute clip from 24 hours of programming. Your own clip clearly shows that the panelists hold differing opinions and is balanced on this issue, so even that's not in dispute. Further, you have never watched this show (I have) and have never watched the network, so again you would seem to lack the basis with which to even draw anything resembling a difinitive conclusion.
Also, I know full well that what many Europeans consider harsh treatment is not what most Americans would consider harsh treatment. So given a lack of agreed upon definition for "torture", using the term obscurse clarity and is done so mostly for the sake of hyperbole and to make a political statement.
I know both you guys have probably exhausted this one.
Jason, I have just one question.
If the US/Fox/Bush and the Far Right maintain that what they are doing is not 'torture', not harsh treatment- comparable to simply making someone uncomfortable... Surely that would be ineffective in itself as a technique- if it's not torture (i.e. not effective for extracting confessions) then why are these techniques being used at all?
BTW I loved the Gonzales smackdown by Leahy!
I see your imagined message of the day has changed. But even still, we would have to first agree that there was a message of the day, and then agree that the message of the day was whatever seems to suit your argument at any given time.
Erm, lets see. By scrolling up I find this:
"It appears to me that the message that day was that Wall Street and Americans want a Republican candidate who will do "whatever it takes" to makes America safe, especially if that includes waterboarding."
I concluded at the end of my last comment that the message was, "Wall Street want candidates who will engage in advanced interrogation techniques."
Do you really see a substantive difference between those two statements? I will willingly admit I paraphrased but have I actually changed the gist of what I thought the message was? You're being slightly duplicitous, Jason.
Also, I know full well that what many Europeans consider harsh treatment is not what most Americans would consider harsh treatment.
That's why Americans don't get to decide what constitutes torture and why this is actually defined under international law by legislation such as the 1984 United Nations Convention Against Torture to which your country is a signatory.
So the question is not how to define torture, your country has already agreed to the definitions of that. The question is whether or not your country, under the present administration, is going to abide by her international commitments or whether she is going to behave like a pariah state.
And I see you've totally tried to avoid the point that your title for this thread is blatantly false and misleading.
Is that what your objection has been to? The title? The title's not even mine! That was what it was entitled by whoever loaded it up to Youtube.
Granted I could easily have changed it, but I usually simply cut and paste the titles.
I thought we were debating the substance rather than the title.
Post a Comment