Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Pentagon Confirms: Warning Pamphlets Dropped on Islamic State ‘to Minimize the Risks to Civilians’ - Washington Free BeaconAfter the military took down UBL they found a treasure trove of information, to include terrorist hideout locations.
Dumbass Barry was so eager to spike the political football that he went on tv and bragged about the collected information...allowing terrorists at those locations to shut down and move.
This still doesn't top Barry's treason of dropping leaflets down to ISIS to warn them attacks from our coalition partners were coming.
. Obama's Pentagon ? Sure it was to limit civilian casualties of war.Pentagon Confirms: Warning Pamphlets Dropped on Islamic State ‘to Minimize the Risks to Civilians’ - Washington Free BeaconAfter the military took down UBL they found a treasure trove of information, to include terrorist hideout locations.
Dumbass Barry was so eager to spike the political football that he went on tv and bragged about the collected information...allowing terrorists at those locations to shut down and move.
This still doesn't top Barry's treason of dropping leaflets down to ISIS to warn them attacks from our coalition partners were coming.
i often wondered which side obama was on.After the military took down UBL they found a treasure trove of information, to include terrorist hideout locations.
Dumbass Barry was so eager to spike the political football that he went on tv and bragged about the collected information...allowing terrorists at those locations to shut down and move.
This still doesn't top Barry's treason of dropping leaflets down to ISIS to warn them attacks from our coalition partners were coming.
The failing New York times........................Losing: The Failing New York Times Set to Lay Off More Staff, Including Reporters - Breitbart
By leaking intelligence information regarding Benghadi the head of ISIS the N.Y. times made it possible for Benghadi to escape. Truly dispicable....time to bring the leakers before a court of justice.
ISIS broken, but leader slipped away due to leak, says key general
Apparently the story was cleared by the Defense Department. If true then they did nothing wrong. This is just fake news.
Apparently the story was cleared by the Defense Department. If true then they did nothing wrong. This is just fake news.
By leaking intelligence information regarding Benghadi the head of ISIS the N.Y. times made it possible for Benghadi to escape. Truly dispicable....time to bring the leakers before a court of justice.
ISIS broken, but leader slipped away due to leak, says key general
Really, dude? Do you not realize by posting the thoughts you have, you've impugned your own repute for sagacious analysis and comprehension of information that comes your way? I below will explain how so.
Number One:
You've latched onto a speculative statement offered by Fox. That statement is this:
Thomas appeared to be referring to a New York Times report in June 2015 that detailed how American intelligence agencies had “extracted valuable information.Worse, Fox's news commentator based the speculation on a Trump tweet, which almost by definition means that what he tweets is not the way things were or are. Using a Trump tweet as the basis for drawing an inference about the content of the tweet is like citing the attentions of a five year old, who may occasionally be correct in their interpretation/depiction of events and outcomes, but most likely they are not.
Number Two:
Though the speculation, premised as it is on a Trump tweet, is unlikely to be sound, insofar as Fox has not linked or even cited the Times article's author and title, there's no way for one to deductively tell whether it is, unless one happens to remember verbatim what the New York Times article said. What the Fox article tells us is that the Times wrote:In light of the above, one sees that you, OP, have based your post's key point on and inferential "house of cards." That's just not the sort of thing rigorously thoughtful people willfully do. Occasionally, they may do so mistakenly, in which case they recant their remarks.
New insights yielded by the seized trove – four to seven terabytes of data, according to one official – include how the organization’s shadowy leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, operates and tries to avoid being tracked by coalition forces.In considering whether the Times "allowed" al-Baghdadi to escape, one must realize that along with U.S. and coalition forces, al-Baghdadi knew exactly what information was captured and what the people captured might possibly have been able (willingly or under duress) share with their captors. Accordingly, whatever the Times reported wasn't news to al-Baghdadi. On the contrary, he knew more about what was captured than did the Times.
By leaking intelligence information regarding Benghadi the head of ISIS the N.Y. times made it possible for Benghadi to escape. Truly dispicable....time to bring the leakers before a court of justice.
ISIS broken, but leader slipped away due to leak, says key general
Really, dude? Do you not realize by posting the thoughts you have, you've impugned your own repute for sagacious analysis and comprehension of information that comes your way? I below will explain how so.
Number One:
You've latched onto a speculative statement offered by Fox. That statement is this:
Thomas appeared to be referring to a New York Times report in June 2015 that detailed how American intelligence agencies had “extracted valuable information.Worse, Fox's news commentator based the speculation on a Trump tweet, which almost by definition means that what he tweets is not the way things were or are. Using a Trump tweet as the basis for drawing an inference about the content of the tweet is like citing the attentions of a five year old, who may occasionally be correct in their interpretation/depiction of events and outcomes, but most likely they are not.
Number Two:
Though the speculation, premised as it is on a Trump tweet, is unlikely to be sound, insofar as Fox has not linked or even cited the Times article's author and title, there's no way for one to deductively tell whether it is, unless one happens to remember verbatim what the New York Times article said. What the Fox article tells us is that the Times wrote:In light of the above, one sees that you, OP, have based your post's key point on and inferential "house of cards." That's just not the sort of thing rigorously thoughtful people willfully do. Occasionally, they may do so mistakenly, in which case they recant their remarks.
New insights yielded by the seized trove – four to seven terabytes of data, according to one official – include how the organization’s shadowy leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, operates and tries to avoid being tracked by coalition forces.In considering whether the Times "allowed" al-Baghdadi to escape, one must realize that along with U.S. and coalition forces, al-Baghdadi knew exactly what information was captured and what the people captured might possibly have been able (willingly or under duress) share with their captors. Accordingly, whatever the Times reported wasn't news to al-Baghdadi. On the contrary, he knew more about what was captured than did the Times.
What a idiot...did you even watch the video of General Teri Jones who is the head of the special operations command over there? Baghdadi had no idea of what was captured...that is just speculation on your part.
Do you even know what the special operations command does over there? Yet you want to attempt with your nonsense to impugn the leader of the special operation's credibilty? Ridiculous.
BREAKING: Leaks to New York Times Allowed ISIS Caliph al-Baghdadi to ESCAPE — BWCentral
did you even watch the video of General Teri Jones
Baghdadi had no idea of what was captured...
By leaking intelligence information regarding Benghadi the head of ISIS the N.Y. times made it possible for Benghadi to escape. Truly dispicable....time to bring the leakers before a court of justice.
ISIS broken, but leader slipped away due to leak, says key general
Really, dude? Do you not realize by posting the thoughts you have, you've impugned your own repute for sagacious analysis and comprehension of information that comes your way? I below will explain how so.
Number One:
You've latched onto a speculative statement offered by Fox. That statement is this:
Thomas appeared to be referring to a New York Times report in June 2015 that detailed how American intelligence agencies had “extracted valuable information.Worse, Fox's news commentator based the speculation on a Trump tweet, which almost by definition means that what he tweets is not the way things were or are. Using a Trump tweet as the basis for drawing an inference about the content of the tweet is like citing the attentions of a five year old, who may occasionally be correct in their interpretation/depiction of events and outcomes, but most likely they are not.
Number Two:
Though the speculation, premised as it is on a Trump tweet, is unlikely to be sound, insofar as Fox has not linked or even cited the Times article's author and title, there's no way for one to deductively tell whether it is, unless one happens to remember verbatim what the New York Times article said. What the Fox article tells us is that the Times wrote:In light of the above, one sees that you, OP, have based your post's key point on and inferential "house of cards." That's just not the sort of thing rigorously thoughtful people willfully do. Occasionally, they may do so mistakenly, in which case they recant their remarks.
New insights yielded by the seized trove – four to seven terabytes of data, according to one official – include how the organization’s shadowy leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, operates and tries to avoid being tracked by coalition forces.In considering whether the Times "allowed" al-Baghdadi to escape, one must realize that along with U.S. and coalition forces, al-Baghdadi knew exactly what information was captured and what the people captured might possibly have been able (willingly or under duress) share with their captors. Accordingly, whatever the Times reported wasn't news to al-Baghdadi. On the contrary, he knew more about what was captured than did the Times.
What a idiot...did you even watch the video of General Teri Jones who is the head of the special operations command over there? Baghdadi had no idea of what was captured...that is just speculation on your part.
Do you even know what the special operations command does over there? Yet you want to attempt with your nonsense to impugn the leader of the special operation's credibilty? Ridiculous.
BREAKING: Leaks to New York Times Allowed ISIS Caliph al-Baghdadi to ESCAPE — BWCentral
The issue I have here isn't whether it's possible that the Times article abetted al-Baghdadi's escape. It's that nothing in the Fox article and accompanying video segment credibly militates for that being so. Everything about the Time shaving something to do with his escape is fully fabricated by the "Fox and Friends" commentators; they don't even provide a means for readers/viewers to review a so much as one single bit of the source material on which the program team's claim is based.
- There is no usable reference to the Times article.
- There is no usable reference allowing one to review the entirety of the General's speech from which Fox drew the excepts it published.
- There is no background information that would allow one to see wherefrom how be founded their implied ancillary claims.
- The Times content Fox quotes does not support Fox's claim, nor does it align with the nature of information disclosure General Thomas indicates is detrimental to his organization's effectively doing its job.
Now, it's not that I have a problem with news organizations editorializing and providing news and situational analysis. On the contrary, when done with high degrees of intellectual integrity, it's quite beneficial for them to do so. The problem comes in when editorialists and commentators/analysts, especially with regard to their web-delivered content, don't provide references so readers can independently assess the quality of the opinion and commentary the news organization provides.
did you even watch the video of General Teri Jones
No, for the most part. I started watching the video and then realized that the Fox program is one of their purely editorial shows, so I stopped watching it.
Merely to indulge you, I just watched Gen. Thomas' remarks in the video. They are the exact same ones in the story text, which I read completely. Thomas states that "where and how our tactics and procedures are discussed openly" can compromise the military's/USIC's ability to do its job. As I earlier wrote, neither the Fox team nor Thomas provided any specific quote or citation of the Times article that allows audience members to read the story and see for themselves whether the Times indeed openly discussed tactics or procedures used to capture whatever the USIC/military obtained.
Also, I noticed Fox in the article highlighted Thomas' inapt depiction of what an army is -- 60K mere followers, or even employees, do not 60K soldiers make; 60K followers do not constitute an army, but 60K soldiers indeed does. Fox chose to single out that remark from the general, yet on its own and in the isolation in which Fox highlighted it, it clearly is not a serious and objective representation of al-Baghdadi's army troop strength.
That Fox chose to highlight that particular part of the general's remarks, one that, as Fox presented it, constitutes an unfounded and unsubstantiated depiction of al-Baghdadi's army, I determined there was no point in putting much credence in Fox's "Fox and Friends" video content. Fox chose to air on that program and highlight comments that were clearly cherry-picked for some rhetorical purpose(s); however, fairly, accurately and completely representing the Times' story and its impacts is not part of that purpose.
Baghdadi had no idea of what was captured...
That is your inference, not a claim the general made, and it's not a sound one.
- General Thomas does not indicate that al-Baghdadi was unaware of what was captured.
- General Thomas does not explicitly blame the Times, and nobody is shown asking him if he meant the Times. The Times article merely happens to be what the Fox commentator/article author speculated is what he had in mind.
- The U.S. forces (and any participating allies) captured al-Baghdadi's wife and a cache of "actionable" documentary information, and that information was what allowed them to plan a later operation to capture/kill al-Baghdadi.
- Do you think her capture eluded his notice? If so, for how long?
- Do you truly think the man didn't know where his wife was and what information was available to be captured there along with her?
- Do you truly think al-Baghdadi was unaware of what his wife knew about his operations, movements, etc?
There is no way al-Baghdadi didn't know what information was captured. The man would have to have been in a coma not to have known what information came into U.S. hands or that, as a result of their successful raid, plausibly had.Obviously, anything's possible, so, yes, it may have been that al-Baghdadi did not know what information was gathered by the U.S. forces, but it's absurd, absent credible information from reliable sources, to think that is so. The Fox story does not provide any such evidence; thus it's not at all sound (for the reasons noted in this post and in my earlier one to which you replied) to conclude that the Times story abetted al-Baghdadi's escape.
What is far more reasonable to presume is that the temporal coincidence of the Times' story and al-Baghdadi's escape makes them a rhetorically opportune scapegoat given Fox's and Trump's strident efforts to discredit and decry all media outlets that publish information that contradicts Trump/conservative ideology, or that challenges the credibility of Trump's assertions and speculations. Ad hominem lines of attack such as those Trump and the noted Fox story use are what they are, but what they aren't is direct and substantive refutations of the derided content. They also aren't on-point well sound arguments in their own right and that address the substance instead of attacking the messenger.
Aside:
The woman on the Fox editorial commentary team made a remark about the ends of the media being to "inform and protect" the American people. Well, the media is not tasked with protecting the American people. Protecting the American people is among the jobs and responsibilities of local, state and federal governmental organizations.
