Trump Orders Strike Killing Top Iranian General Qassim Suleimani in Baghdad

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What makes either of these sites credible enough to pay attention to? Given that you started your last post directed at me with "don't believe what you read in mainstream media", why are these two credible and worth believing?

Not being flippant, by the way. I'm genuinly curious.

What I am saying is that the story by the Iranians is plausible - not that either of these sites offer 100% proof. Just further to elaborate on the possibility.

(note that ZH is 90% BS, but occasionally they have an article that has some good questions)

The general public would laugh at 'my missiles were hacked and launched themselves' statement - because they have no idea of the actual capabilities of the military.

All we know is that a 737 was shot down with missiles.

- Why this 737?

- Was there someone on board the Iranians are keeping quiet about?

- Was the plane carrying cargo that was secret? (should be destroyed?)

- Why was the crash site scraped clean with a bulldozer days after the crash?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Taking a whole plane down to kill one person is nothing new, but personally I just think this was wrong place/wrong time in a state of heightened tensions and a bad call was made. We'll never know the truth so it's almost pointless to debate haha.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What makes either of these sites credible enough to pay attention to? Given that you started your last post directed at me with "don't believe what you read in mainstream media", why are these two credible and worth believing?

Not being flippant, by the way. I'm genuinly curious.

Zerohedge is one of the main sources used by the alt righties (or whatever they identify as now) on r/the_donald so that should tell you which side it leans. Also any "news" site that doesn't have real names attached to the articles should be a red flag. Everything is posted by a guy named Tyler Durden with an avatar that looks like Brad Pitt from fight club so there's that. Maybe he's scared of being killaried Or realistically, afraid of being sued for libel.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Zerohedge is one of the main sources used by the alt righties (or whatever they identify as now) on r/the_donald so that should tell you which side it leans. Also any "news" site that doesn't have real names attached to the articles should be a red flag. Everything is posted by a guy named Tyler Durden with an avatar that looks like Brad Pitt from fight club so there's that. Maybe he's scared of being killaried Or realistically, afraid of being sued for libel.

I would assign ZH and mass media the same amount of credibility IN AGGREGATE - however each will, on occasion, have something that stands out alone. Also ZH has turnip man-bashing articles, though not to the extent of the clown news network.

Question the MSM narrative that Iran shot down a ship in their own skies by their own hand. It can certainly be done by others.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Zerohedge is one of the main sources used by the alt righties (or whatever they identify as now) on r/the_donald so that should tell you which side it leans. Also any "news" site that doesn't have real names attached to the articles should be a red flag. Everything is posted by a guy named Tyler Durden with an avatar that looks like Brad Pitt from fight club so there's that. Maybe he's scared of being killaried Or realistically, afraid of being sued for libel.

ZH is an entertainment site for finance people. But basically your analysis here is pretty much incorrect on all fronts - claiming that it isn't valid because it is quoted by a reddit sub is just bad logic. Although it is much less interesting after the original TD sold it a few years back. Still, the articles by TD are the most interesting ones. The "sponsored" ones written and submitted by other websites are usually the ones that are off the rails. Like anything, you need to consume any such content with a skeptical eye.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

ZH is an entertainment site for finance people. But basically your analysis here is pretty much incorrect on all fronts - claiming that it isn't valid because it is quoted by a reddit sub is just bad logic. Although it is much less interesting after the original TD sold it a few years back. Still, the articles by TD are the most interesting ones. The "sponsored" ones written and submitted by other websites are usually the ones that are off the rails. Like anything, you need to consume any such content with a skeptical eye.

Not a finance guy so i don't have the history behind the site nor do i care about it. I only ever see it because i browse the_donald here and there (believe it or not - i do read stuff on there because I like to understand where the other is coming from on issues).

The claim that it's invalid is not because it is referenced by alt right people (although that will tell you which way it leans), i implied that because no human will put their real name behind the articles. At least mainstream news articles have real people's names behind them so it gives them and the editors motivation to be truthful. These sites with fake names, they can write whatever they want without any repercussions of being sued and that is a problem IMO.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle, but i am ALWAYS less inclined to believe a site with anonymous authors. If you don't then that's great, you do you.

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

At least mainstream news articles have real people's names behind them so it gives them and the editors motivation to be truthful.

Thats some good delusion right there. Just because some clown signs their name in an article has zero bearing with regards to whether or not the article is legit or not.

Are you not aware of something called the corporate media? Clicks = profits, whether its ZH or CNN.

What we need to do is develop questions about any narrative that is being pushed - and the more pushing, the more questions that need to be asked by us.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thats some good delusion right there. Just because some clown signs their name in an article has zero bearing with regards to whether or not the article is legit or not.

Are you not aware of something called the corporate media? Clicks = profits, whether its ZH or CNN.

What we need to do is develop questions about any narrative that is being pushed - and the more pushing, the more questions that need to be asked by us.

So, again you aren't really wrong re: your sentiment about questioning narratives, but to imply that authors owning their work does not influence its credibility is also delusional. There are laws tied to media, and by presenting themselves as owners of the media they create, they also accept liability and accountability of its accuracy- something an anonymous source cannot do.

How does that not increase its credibility?

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not a finance guy so i don't have the history behind the site nor do i care about it. I only ever see it because i browse the_donald here and there (believe it or not - i do read stuff on there because I like to understand where the other is coming from on issues).

The claim that it's invalid is not because it is referenced by alt right people (although that will tell you which way it leans), i implied that because no human will put their real name behind the articles. At least mainstream news articles have real people's names behind them so it gives them and the editors motivation to be truthful. These sites with fake names, they can write whatever they want without any repercussions of being sued and that is a problem IMO.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle, but i am ALWAYS less inclined to believe a site with anonymous authors. If you don't then that's great, you do you.

The most interesting thing on ZH are the articles written by TD which are data driven analyses, rather than just opinion pieces. You can judge data and analysis for yourself and even find the sources usually.

As for anonymous news articles - go read most newspapers, especially the world section. You'll find most articles don't list authors, but rather say "AP" or "Bloomberg News", etc. You don't trust the AP?

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thats some good delusion right there. Just because some clown signs their name in an article has zero bearing with regards to whether or not the article is legit or not.

Are you not aware of something called the corporate media? Clicks = profits, whether its ZH or CNN.

What we need to do is develop questions about any narrative that is being pushed - and the more pushing, the more questions that need to be asked by us.

It doesn’t automatically make an article legit, but it means there is a higher probability that they didn’t make shit up or blatantly misreport. Accountability is a big deal especially when you and your company can be sued. There is a reason hannity doesn’t run a segment called “Clintons killed Seth rich” even though his viewers would absolutely eat it up.

Here’s a recent example where the news site everyone loves to hate on got screwed for reporting that the kid was racist:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.foxn...settlement.amp

With ZH, they report on things they found on the internet including troll sites like 4chan and don’t have the same accountability as real people/news orgs.

Anyways I know I’m not going to convince you guys so I’ll stop derailing. If you think ZH is generally a reputable source then enjoy it.

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The most interesting thing on ZH are the articles written by TD which are data driven analyses, rather than just opinion pieces. You can judge data and analysis for yourself and even find the sources usually.

As for anonymous news articles - go read most newspapers, especially the world section. You'll find most articles don't list authors, but rather say "AP" or "Bloomberg News", etc. You don't trust the AP?

When AP or Reuters articles are reposted they do just say the org name, but if you go to the actual sources they almost always have authors. Either way it’s not black and white - having an author doesn’t automatically make it legit, it’s just one factor I consider especially if I don’t recognize the agency. If it comes from AP/Reuters/axios I generally don’t dig into the authors and sources because they have a good reputation.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When AP or Reuters articles are reposted they do just say the org name, but if you go to the actual sources they almost always have authors. Either way it’s not black and white - having an author doesn’t automatically make it legit, it’s just one factor I consider especially if I don’t recognize the agency. If it comes from AP/Reuters/axios I generally don’t dig into the authors and sources because they have a good reputation.

Anything without an author name should be ignored immediately. If you won't stand behind your content, it's not worth consuming.

[JRSC00LUDE]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anything without an author name should be ignored immediately. If you won't stand behind your content, it's not worth consuming.

I endorse this position.

Scott

[revelations]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anything without an author name should be ignored immediately. If you won't stand behind your content, it's not worth consuming.

I cant believe some are assigning a name this much credibility. Anyone ever heard of a pseudonym?

How many times has the mass media been shown to be a) 100% wrong (even after the facts have been out, still pushing the wrong message) b) controlled by corporate profits c) controlled by military/intelligence motives?

Regardless, the narrative/message/agenda is what is the most important part - whether its CNN or ZH (both produce a lot of crap). ZH sometimes is very pro-Putin, to the point of assigning him god-like status (ugh).

For eg, the Rebel Media relies on negative hyperbole to bring its message across, when in fact the government, on occasion, does something that is common sense.
The RM would likely twist the news to make the government look bad.

However, sometimes the site also highlights the virtue signalling dumbfuckery thats is so common with the elite, but flies against common sense for the average tax payer.

Take ALL available information in aggregate and then question the motives and narrative behind the message (eg. Syria is EVIL and must be liberated - when the Americans just wanted more oil for themselves).

I believe we should always question all sides of government and corporate intentions. Governments are out to get re-elected and large corporations generally only give a shit about share holders.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Also any "news" site that doesn't have real names attached to the articles should be a red flag.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If it comes from AP/Reuters/axios I generally don’t dig into the authors and sources because they have a good reputation.

interesting.

[ThePenIsMightier]

$3MM bounty on Trump's head placed by a member of Iranian Parliament?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/...160535164.html

[AndyL]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If it comes from AP/Reuters/axios I generally don’t dig into the authors and sources because they have a good reputation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1Z72Q7

So ignore the news story saying not shot about 12 hours before Iran admitted to shooting it down?

[sabad66]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

interesting.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

When AP or Reuters articles are reposted they do just say the org name, but if you go to the actual sources they almost always have authors. Either way it’s not black and white - having an author doesn’t automatically make it legit, it’s just one factor I consider especially if I don’t recognize the agency. If it comes from AP/Reuters/axios I generally don’t dig into the authors and sources because they have a good reputation.

Selective quoting without context is indeed interesting. As I stated, the underlying articles always have authors listed. If regional news reposts AP and just mentions “from AP” I don’t need to go find the original article on AP’s website just to see if they listed authors because a) I trust that they do have authors listed and b) because they are reputable agencies

However if someone posts a link to a shitty conspiracy website like ZH or something I’ve never heard of, then I will dig into it including an automatic red flag if everything is posted anonymously

[rage2]

Reuters is hit and miss. I have 5 people reporting under me that are ex-Reuters employees in India, so I know the gong show behind the curtains.

[killramos]

Sources are super important, unless the story fits my narrative then who cares.