Iran Renders Verdict on US Hikers.

[earth_as_one]

Like your delusions of grandeur CB, its all in your mind.

 

[DaSleeper]

You won't get both sides of the story by listening to one side. I pay attention to Fox and Sun and just like Fars, Pravda, Xinhua, I consider the source.

I spotted your disclaimer:lol:
Which meant you're not realy paying attention to what they have to say..

For journalistic integrity I'd rate al Jazeera as similar to the BBC and the radio version of CBC news and documentaries. Al Jazeera's coverage of the events in Tahrir Square during the Egyptian uprising was second to none for real time accuracy. Even Barak Obama followed the revolt on al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera On Obama White House TV

It was the only Source for a while CNN and others were getting their reporters thrown in jail or beaten up.

Back on subject... The US now has to either cut a deal with the Iranians to release these Americans or let them continue living as guests of the Iranian penal system. My money is riding on a deal with a year.

More speculation...:roll:

 

[CDNBear]

Like your delusions of grandeur CB, its all in your mind.

So you're saying I didn't correct your easy to refute inaccuracies?

 

[earth_as_one]

I spotted your disclaimer:lol:
Which meant you're not realy paying attention to what they have to say...

If you believe considering the source is the same as not really paying attention, then you obviously know little about using critical thought and that explains much about your alleged opinions. Alleged, because if you don't understand what news is, then you don't have an opinion. You have someone else's opinion and that explains much about your posts...

Let me give you a basic intro into how to read the news:

Who?
Consider who wrote the piece.

• What do you know about this individual’s background?
• What is his or her age and socio-economic standing?
• How about level of education [which you may not want to assess simply using degree level but also the person’s body of work]?
• In what part of the world or country does she live?
• Is she regarded as an expert on this particular topic?
• Is she a widely regarded BS-artist (seriously)?

What?
Figure out what the writer is saying—and what she isn’t saying.

• Does she want someone to change something?
• Start something?
• Does she argue for the status quo?
• How far-reaching are her suggestions: do they apply to every situation or is she flexible in the application of her ideas?
• Does she address counter arguments in her own work?
• Is she writing from personal experience or synthesizing ideas from other people?
• [While this isn’t applicable to blogs, usually, you may also want to consider who the intended audience is… is this a letter? Was it published post-mortem? Etc.]

When you’re considering the “what” of a piece of writing, you’ll have to consider what you know about the topic as well, which colors your ability to assess it. You’ll need to ask yourself:

• What is my own level of expertise in this subject?
• Is this something that hits close to home for me?
• Is my own personal experience/research affecting the way that I am hearing/reading this argument?
• …and the zinger: Am I hearing only what I expect this person to be saying, or am I being objective enough to see the true argument.

Where?
Context is so important; you’ll need to consider it.

• Where is this work published? WSJ? NY Times? Homemade newspaper from the Midwest/Southern California/Salt Lake City/Miami?
• Who is sponsoring the site? Might the sponsors of the site be influencing the apparent viewpoint of the author?
• Is this the author’s personal website or a site used to promote a business?

When?
Addressing the “when” of the post goes beyond “oh, that was written in 1997.” Looking into when means looking at the political and economic time frame of the argument, both on a national level and in the writer’s personal life. This can cover everything from “well, the stock market had just crashed so everyone was extremely worried and fiscally conservative at this time” to “he wrote this three months before/after he became a father for the first time/ lost his job/ got a new job/ killed that guy/ saved that whale/ got his legislation passed.” The when for the author can color the argument.

• Does the political climate affect the writer’s intentions?
• Does he or she have something to gain or lose because of the timing of this post?
• Would she be saying the same thing at a different time?

Why?
What prompted the whole thing, anyway?

• Is what you’re reading for artistic purposes?
• Is it to entertain or educate?
• Does it seem that the author wants you to change your viewpoint?
• What is her call to action?
• Is she hurt or outraged by something or, alternately, elated and supporting something she believes in?
• What does she have to gain from sharing these ideas?
• What does she have to lose?
• Why might that be “worth it” to her?

How?
How did this piece of work get into your hands anyway? Was it intended for you?
Is the author married to editor of the paper? Did she make a considerable donation to some charity who now feels obligated to let her say her piece? Does she “know someone” or was this vetted by objective third parties? Is she writing in her own space where she has clearance to say whatever she likes without consequences [as if that were possible!]? Did she likely write this for free or is she making a large chunk of change for it?

 

[CDNBear]

Did you miss this post EAO?

So you're saying I didn't correct your easy to refute inaccuracies?

If you believe considering the source is the same as not really paying attention, then you obviously know little about using critical thought and that explains much about your alleged opinions. Alleged, because if you don't understand what news is, then you don't have an opinion. You have someone else's opinion and that explains much about your posts...

Says the king of cut and paste...

Let me give you a basic intro into how to read the news:

This should be good.

Who?
Consider who wrote the piece.

• What do you know about this individual’s background?
• What is his or her age and socio-economic standing?
• How about level of education [which you may not want to assess simply using degree level but also the person’s body of work]?
• In what part of the world or country does she live?
• Is she regarded as an expert on this particular topic?
• Is she a widely regarded BS-artist (seriously)?

Mostly irrelevant, unless we're talking about the Op/Ed you use. Since most people prone to critical thought, look for traceable, verifiable news.

What?
Figure out what the writer is saying—and what she isn’t saying.

• Does she want someone to change something?
• Start something?
• Does she argue for the status quo?
• How far-reaching are her suggestions: do they apply to every situation or is she flexible in the application of her ideas?
• Does she address counter arguments in her own work?
• Is she writing from personal experience or synthesizing ideas from other people?
• [While this isn’t applicable to blogs, usually, you may also want to consider who the intended audience is… is this a letter? Was it published post-mortem? Etc.]

Again, that's more about Op/Ed than news.

When you’re considering the “what” of a piece of writing, you’ll have to consider what you know about the topic as well, which colors your ability to assess it. You’ll need to ask yourself:

• What is my own level of expertise in this subject?
• Is this something that hits close to home for me?
• Is my own personal experience/research affecting the way that I am hearing/reading this argument?
• …and the zinger: Am I hearing only what I expect this person to be saying, or am I being objective enough to see the true argument.

Geeze, all good suggestions you should try.

Where?
Context is so important; you’ll need to consider it.

You don't.

Where is this work published? WSJ? NY Times? Homemade newspaper from the Midwest/Southern California/Salt Lake City/Miami?
Who is sponsoring the site? Might the sponsors of the site be influencing the apparent viewpoint of the author?
Is this the author’s personal website or a site used to promote a business?

Considering the sites you use, that's funny.

When?
Addressing the “when” of the post goes beyond “oh, that was written in 1997.” Looking into when means looking at the political and economic time frame of the argument, both on a national level and in the writer’s personal life.

That doesn't stop you from posting crap from years ago that has already been proven wrong.

This can cover everything from “well, the stock market had just crashed so everyone was extremely worried and fiscally conservative at this time” to “he wrote this three months before/after he became a father for the first time/ lost his job/ got a new job/ killed that guy/ saved that whale/ got his legislation passed.” The when for the author can color the argument.

• Does the political climate affect the writer’s intentions?
• Does he or she have something to gain or lose because of the timing of this post?
• Would she be saying the same thing at a different time?

Why?
What prompted the whole thing, anyway?

• Is what you’re reading for artistic purposes?
• Is it to entertain or educate?
• Does it seem that the author wants you to change your viewpoint?
• What is her call to action?
• Is she hurt or outraged by something or, alternately, elated and supporting something she believes in?
• What does she have to gain from sharing these ideas?
• What does she have to lose?
• Why might that be “worth it” to her?

Again, more about Op/Ed than news.

How?

How did this piece of work get into your hands anyway? Was it intended for you?
Is the author married to editor of the paper? Did she make a considerable donation to some charity who now feels obligated to let her say her piece? Does she “know someone” or was this vetted by objective third parties? Is she writing in her own space where she has clearance to say whatever she likes without consequences [as if that were possible!]? Did she likely write this for free or is she making a large chunk of change for it?

Again, Op/Ed oriented. but the comment about vetted intel is funny, since you don't vet yours.

 

[DaSleeper]

If you believe considering the source is the same as not really paying attention, then you obviously know little about using critical thought and that explains much about your alleged opinions. Alleged, because if you don't understand what news is, then you don't have an opinion. You have someone else's opinion and that explains much about your posts...

Let me give you a basic intro into how to read the news:

Who?
Consider who wrote the piece.

• What do you know about this individual’s background?
• What is his or her age and socio-economic standing?
• How about level of education [which you may not want to assess simply using degree level but also the person’s body of work]?
• In what part of the world or country does she live?
• Is she regarded as an expert on this particular topic?
• Is she a widely regarded BS-artist (seriously)?

What?
Figure out what the writer is saying—and what she isn’t saying.

• Does she want someone to change something?
• Start something?
• Does she argue for the status quo?
• How far-reaching are her suggestions: do they apply to every situation or is she flexible in the application of her ideas?
• Does she address counter arguments in her own work?
• Is she writing from personal experience or synthesizing ideas from other people?
• [While this isn’t applicable to blogs, usually, you may also want to consider who the intended audience is… is this a letter? Was it published post-mortem? Etc.]

When you’re considering the “what” of a piece of writing, you’ll have to consider what you know about the topic as well, which colors your ability to assess it. You’ll need to ask yourself:

• What is my own level of expertise in this subject?
• Is this something that hits close to home for me?
• Is my own personal experience/research affecting the way that I am hearing/reading this argument?
• …and the zinger: Am I hearing only what I expect this person to be saying, or am I being objective enough to see the true argument.

Where?
Context is so important; you’ll need to consider it.

• Where is this work published? WSJ? NY Times? Homemade newspaper from the Midwest/Southern California/Salt Lake City/Miami?
• Who is sponsoring the site? Might the sponsors of the site be influencing the apparent viewpoint of the author?
• Is this the author’s personal website or a site used to promote a business?

When?
Addressing the “when” of the post goes beyond “oh, that was written in 1997.” Looking into when means looking at the political and economic time frame of the argument, both on a national level and in the writer’s personal life. This can cover everything from “well, the stock market had just crashed so everyone was extremely worried and fiscally conservative at this time” to “he wrote this three months before/after he became a father for the first time/ lost his job/ got a new job/ killed that guy/ saved that whale/ got his legislation passed.” The when for the author can color the argument.

• Does the political climate affect the writer’s intentions?
• Does he or she have something to gain or lose because of the timing of this post?
• Would she be saying the same thing at a different time?

Why?
What prompted the whole thing, anyway?

• Is what you’re reading for artistic purposes?
• Is it to entertain or educate?
• Does it seem that the author wants you to change your viewpoint?
• What is her call to action?
• Is she hurt or outraged by something or, alternately, elated and supporting something she believes in?
• What does she have to gain from sharing these ideas?
• What does she have to lose?
• Why might that be “worth it” to her?

How?
How did this piece of work get into your hands anyway? Was it intended for you?
Is the author married to editor of the paper? Did she make a considerable donation to some charity who now feels obligated to let her say her piece? Does she “know someone” or was this vetted by objective third parties? Is she writing in her own space where she has clearance to say whatever she likes without consequences [as if that were possible!]? Did she likely write this for free or is she making a large chunk of change for it?

And you think you follow that to the letter????:roll:
All I see from your postings....you pay good lip service...but don't practice what you preach :lol:

edit: I actualy follow those guidelines each and every time I read one of your posts;-)

 

[JLM]

Being stupid or foolhardy is something young people do all the time.

What do I expect? Immediate release. Will that happen? No, but all involved know it's a bullsh!t charge, they have served two years already and the Iranian regime is simply using them for propaganda purposes.



Ask yourself if you think I was being really serious. If the answer is "Yes" then my response is also: "Brilliant."

There are three rules of thumb when entering foreign countries ............1. Find out the rules 2. If you don't like the rules don't go there and 3. If you do go there and decide to break the rules don't whine. I don't know if you remember that lying, whining bitch that got stuck in the Mexican slammer for a couple of years, her boss got nailed for some skulduggery and she (his accountant) wasn't aware he was pulling some shadies. She finally whined long enough that the Mexicans got sick of her and deported her back to Ontario. Then there was the pair that pulled off the kidnapping in Brazil and did about 9 years and whined for all of it. YOU DON'T PULL THAT SH*T.

 

[CDNBear]

There are three rules of thumb when entering foreign countries ............1. Find out the rules 2. If you don't like the rules don't go there and 3. If you do go there and decide to break the rules don't whine. I don't know if you remember that lying, whining bitch that got stuck in the Mexican slammer for a couple of years, her boss got nailed for some skulduggery and she (his accountant) wasn't aware he was pulling some shadies. She finally whined long enough that the Mexicans got sick of her and deported her back to Ontario. Then there was the pair that pulled off the kidnapping in Brazil and did about 9 years and whined for all of it. YOU DON'T PULL THAT SH*T.

They didn't go to Iran according to them and some witnesses. And even if they had, they didn't do it wittingly.

Unless you believe the assumptions, fallacies and misinformation posted by one of the usual suspects.

 

[shadowshiv]

Wow. Some serious pruning is needed in this thread. I am going to temporarily close it so I can remove the offending posts. Please keep it civil when the thread is reopened.

Wow. Some serious pruning is needed in this thread. I am going to temporarily close it so I can remove the offending posts. Please keep it civil when the thread is reopened.

Okay. I removed any off-topic or attacking posts from the last few pages. I did not read the first couple of pages as there weren't any Reports from back there.

Also. I want to reiterate one thing. There are to be NO pictures shown of dead children on this site. I don't care how important you feel it is to show to get your opinion across, it is not acceptable here. I have edited it out from gopher's original post, and the two posts that quoted his post. I have also removed about 34 posts or so, so I would appreciate people staying on the topic and refraining from the personal attacks(that goes for everyone involved). Thank you.

The thread is now going to be reopened.

 

[gopher]

Kudos to you. Sorry about the pics. Did not mean to offend with them, just to make an important point.

 

[gerryh]

Yes, one can make all kinds of erroneous accusations about Muslims but God help you if you post an actual picture of the deaths that the americans are responsible for.

 

[petros]

Here is a ham sandwich for all the Christian kids caught in the middle of all this bull****.

 

[shadowshiv]

Yes, one can make all kinds of erroneous accusations about Muslims but God help you if you post an actual picture of the deaths that the americans are responsible for.

No, this goes for all children regardless of how they died.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes, one can make all kinds of erroneous accusations about Muslims but God help you if you post an actual picture of the deaths that the americans are responsible for.

Are the Libyan pictures out yet? Somalia?

 

[gerryh]

Are the Libyan pictures out yet? Somalia?

I don't know, are they? If they are, go ahead and post them. I have no problem condemning those responsible for the deaths of innocents. No matter who pulled the trigger. I also Wont make e fuses for the war mongers and murderers in my Country. Unlike you.

 

[petros]

Hooray for Canadian/Qatar back al Qaeda!

 

[In Between Man]

U.S. Hikers Released From Iranian Prison

Hopefully they will have a new found appreciation for the good 'ol USA!