Still More Evidence of the Infinite Precautions Taken by the U.S. Military . . .

[Michael Tee]

<<The author is using suspect sources in the article you posted. >>

Really?  Since the reporter named ALL of his sources, unlike MSM reporters who routinely report anonymous spokespersons from the Pentagon, the DOD and other Federal Government sources, it should not be asking too much of you to name the "suspect sources" used in the article and the grounds for your suspicion of them.

[BT]

Yes he did name all his sources.

Unfortunately they are all members of IVAW and that organization is riddled with frauds.

[Michael Tee]

<<Unfortunately they are all members of IVAW and that organization is riddled with frauds. >>

You could say the exact same thing about the U.S. military spokesmen, they are riddled with liars and frauds, who have been exposed over and over again in their often pathetically childish lies.  I would venture to say that the U.S. military has been exposed in more lies and cover-ups than IVAW could ever hope to be, yet never once have I heard you voice ANY skepticism over the "official story" as told by spokespersons for the U.S. military.

Anyway, what exactly did you mean, "riddled with frauds?"  Each and every one of them?  One out of every two?  Nine out of every ten?

And I take it that your continuing silence over the veracity of the individual sources quoted in the story   means that you have absolutely zero evidence of any of THEM being a fraud?  In which case, your attempt to impugn the story rests on nothing more than guilt by association?  And further that the association itself rests on totally unsupported allegations of fraud against un-named members of an organization, of which you have thus far been unable or unwilling to produce even ONE concrete example?

You see how it is, BT?  You start out raising doubts about the veracity of any IVAW source and wind up in the end only putting your own in question.

[BT]

Actually what id did was show you that information is currency, and that how that information is presented sets the value of the currency.

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually what id did was show you that information is currency, and that how that information is presented sets the value of the currency. >>

A truism that has absolutely nothing to do with your current predicament, in which you have impugned the credibility of a story through its sources, on no basis other than guilt by association, and worse yet have totally failed to demonstrate any lack of credibility in the sources' associations. 

You basically shot yourself in the foot as regards your own credibility, and spouting platitudes of no direct application to your unfortunate predicament only highlights your unhappy situation.

In addition, you have yet to explain how guilt by association magically would apply to invalidate a story based on IVAW sources but not a story based on U.S. military/DOD sources.

Interesting predicament, no?

[sirs]

no

[Michael Tee]

<<The author is using suspect sources in the article you posted. >>

You're going round and round in circles here, and still refusing to answer some of the most basic questions I raised.

On what grounds other than guilt by association are the sources suspect?

If guilt by association is enough to taint the stories based on IVAW sources, why isn't guilt by association enough to taint the stories based on military/DOD sources?

WHICH sources from IVAW are "suspect" and what exactly did they do to fall under such suspicion?

[BT]

On what grounds other than guilt by association are the sources suspect?

It has nothing to do with guilt by association , some of the people associated with IVAW including it's co-founder have been caught in lies. Thus their accounts are suspect.

The information is out there, Educate yourself.

[sirs]

He's not required Bt.  His template must be adhered to

[Michael Tee]

<<It has nothing to do with guilt by association , some of the people associated with IVAW including it's co-founder have been caught in lies. Thus their accounts are suspect.>>

TRANSLATION:  You have absolutely nothing to show as evidence that the IVAW individuals quoted as sources in Dahr Jamail's article are unreliable other than that they were or are IVAW members.  You allegations of unreliablity imputable to those sources is based on nothing more than IVAW membership, hence amounts to - - - and has EVERYTHING to do with - - guilt by association.  And further:  you have absolutely no explanation for the fact that while you zealously apply the reasoning of guilt by association to witnesses from IVAW, you have never applied the same reasoning to discredit witnesses from a much more obviously unreliable source, the U.S. military and the DOD.

<<The information is out there, Educate yourself.>>

I already have.  Your credibility has been basically shot to hell, and you just did it all to yourself.  You apply guilt by association to discredit IVAW sources but not Pentagon/DOD sources and are unable to explain the discrepancy. 

[BT]

Mikey

Perhaps you don't understand how this works.

I don't need to defend the Pentagon/DOD. They can defend themselves.

You produced the article by that third string journalist Dahr Jamail, not me.

I simply pointed out that his sources had credibility problems.

And as for guilt by association, isn't it you who carries the broadbrush?

Tea partiers are racist?

Military personnel are inbred, knuckle draggin hillbillies?

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey

<<Perhaps you don't understand how this works.>>

No, how could I?  I'm just a dumb Canuck.  But I have a feeling that you're about to explain this to me.

<<I don't need to defend the Pentagon/DOD. They can defend themselves.>>

Not here they can't.  They are relying on guys like you in this part of the blogosphere.

<<You produced the article by that third string journalist Dahr Jamail, not me.>>

I don't know what you mean by "third string."  Jamail is far more reliable IMHO than the NYT journalists who parrot the Pentagon line (Judith Miller springs to mind, but also many others) and source their stories heavily from unnamed government and military officials.

<<I simply pointed out that his sources had credibility problems.>>

It wasn't all that simple when your "credibility problems" were looked into.  You were unable to link any of the sources directly to any credibility problem and the best you could do was to charge them with being members of an organization (IVAW) which you allege had credibility problems with some of its un-named members.  This is a classic example of guilt by association, with the added problem (for you) of your inability even to impeach the group or its other members (those not being the sources Jamail used in his story) so we are in fact left with your allegations of guilt by association with people whose own credibility you have been unable to impeach in any specific way.  Not only guilt by association, but the shakiest kind of association.  Not only have you failed to point out anything specifically unreliable in any of Jamail's sources, you are not even able to point out anything unreliable in any members of the group you sought to associate him with.

Furthermore, relying on guilt by association leaves you in a very awkward position, doesn't it?  Because you routinely credit stories or versions based on sources in the military or the DOD, both of which are in fact "riddled" with serial liars who have by this time been caught red-handed in hundreds or perhaps even thousands of lies.  You are then left with the unenviable task of explaining why you still believe stories based on anonymous military or federal government sources, when you know that all such sources are intimately associatedd with organizations that routinely lie, dissemble and deceive.

<<And as for guilt by association, isn't it you who carries the broadbrush?

<<Tea partiers are racist?

<<Military personnel are inbred, knuckle draggin hillbillies?>>

I'm afraid you've confused stereotyping with guilt by association.  Educate yourself.  Learn the difference. The examples you've just given  are examples of stereotyping, not guilt by association.

[BT]

I'm afraid you've confused stereotyping with guilt by association.

Stereotyping slanders the group the same as guilt by association slanders the group. If there is a difference, please explain what it is.

[Michael Tee]

<<Stereotyping slanders the group the same as guilt by association slanders the group. If there is a difference, please explain what it is. >>

You might as well say that a thunderstorm gets a guy all wet the same as falling out of a boat gets a guy all wet and please explain the difference if there is one.

With your question and your challenge, this debate has reached a level of idiocy where I feel more comfortable in abandoning the debate than in participating further.  My time is not totally devoid of value.

There is a difference between stereotyping and guilt by association and I am really, really, really sure that you are smart enough and old enough to figure it out all by yourself without my assistance.

[BT]

You might as well say that a thunderstorm gets a guy all wet the same as falling out of a boat gets a guy all wet and please explain the difference if there is one.

In either case the guy gets drenched in water.

And the difference between a stereotype and guilt by association is what again?