How legit is rense.com???

I have no idea, but they have a story that is...well.....here is the snip I was focusing on....

snip - The US-backed government put rebel losses at more than 2,000, although unit commanders later revealed their troops had orders to shoot all males of fighting age seen on the streets, armed or unarmed, and ruined homes across the city attest to a strategy of overwhelming force.

http://rense.com/general60/ern.htm

Shoot all males of fighting age??? Even though, those people were ordered to stay in Fallujah and were not allowed to leave....if it feels like mass murder, sounds like mass murder, smells like mass murder....then chances are it IS mass murder. No wonder the troops are having some psychological issues.
OK - flame away....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1508&ncid=1422&e=3&u=/afp/20041218/hl_afp/iraqusmilitaryhealth

on edit: the same quote you were wondering about is in the story from AFP.

They reprint lots of articles from mainstream sources. They also print lots of 'UFOs linked to Jews and Illuminati' articles.

You need to check the primary sources to tell the difference.

You just have to see where the article originated. They have everything from truth to conspiracy theories to UFO theories on Rense.

Edit htutt;e had the exact same idea a minute ahead of me:))

They have some real ugly shit on thier site,but they also have a lot of left wing stuff too.I've see DU articles there.I think they just throw anything up there,which is both good and bad :)

I wouldn't trust it as link though,unless it's linked to other more reputable sites.

Rense supports holocaust deniers, if not full-on neo-nazis. "Ugly" doesn't begin to describe it.

with the disclaimer that his guest's opinions are not those of Rense.com.

He gets a bad rap for being outspoken on many things, but criticism should be fair.

How about Free Zundel?

http://www.rense.com/1.mpicons/ernst.htm

I'm getting tired of this line from Rense boosters. How is that a "free marketplace" of ideas? I'd like to see some counter-ideas on his site, like "the holocaust actually happened." But I don't see that kind of information. He puts the holocaust deinail there, unchallenged. Why oh why would I get the idea that he supports it? Oh wait! His stupid christmas-cards-for-holocaust-denier is right there on his goddamn page! It's his content, not some linked Yahoo article, not from somewhere else. It's his. He lends his support to that monster by the content he selects. He is promoting lies. "Free market of ideas" is no excuse for promoting lies. How can you support this crap?

In a free country all opinions and all sides of an issue are fair game. That's the point.

Rense supports Zundel because he has been denied due process and is being persecuted.

I support ANYONE who is being, or who has been, persecuted.

How could YOU not?

>Rense supports Zundel because he has been denied due process and is
>being persecuted.

No, Rense supports him because he's a holocaust denier. There is absolutely no logical sense in promoting the idea that the holocause didn't occur. If your "viewpoint" is a dusgusting lie, it should be called out as such, not given free airtime.

snip

Zundel is a repellent figure, one who represents a horrifying combination of racism and historical blindness. But the way the government has conducted its case against him is flawed. Civil liberties have been compromised and procedural justice ignored. Never hearing from Zundel again may be an appealing prospect, but achieving that goal through the use of draconian legal measures is too high a price to pay.

The most disturbing aspect of the government's case is its use of a national security certificate. Security certificates, which can be used against any non-citizen in Canada, even permanent residents, allow the state to proclaim someone a security threat - and so deportable - after a trial that is extraordinary in two ways: Not only is secret evidence allowed, but that evidence can never be challenged.

Perhaps there are rare instances where the government needs to invoke evidence it can't reveal for reasons of national security. But the very idea of unchallenged evidence is frightening. The foundation of Canada's legal system is its adversarial nature, according to which the defense has a fundamental right to critically examine and rebut the government's case. Take away that right, and the result is not a legal trial, but an Orwellian exercise in which a judge must decide whether or not to accept the Crown's case on faith.

There are five other people besides Zundel being held on security certificates in Canada, all Arab or Muslim men accused of terrorist connections. (Mohamed Harkat, of Ottawa, may be the most well-known). Any anti-racists who delight in seeing Zundel subjected to a star chamber proceeding have to ask themselves how they would feel if the same tool were employed against an innocent immigrant. Even if some of the other suspects held on security certificates turn out to be connected to terrorism - a far from foregone conclusion - they deserve to have a lawyer with a security clearance challenge the evidence against them during the secret portion of their trial, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association advocates.

snip

http://www.rense.com/general60/antiz.htm

...his original content that he posted on his site.

His opinion is rightfully his. As is anyone's in a free country.

All that concerns me, personally, is the persecution aspect of the story.

Smearing Rense, because he has a difference of opinion, would be unAmerican.

turned off. Anyone giving air time to Holocaust deniers is perpetuating that filthy lie and should be ignored. Tough shit if you don't like it. As Nietzsche said to Wagner in a personal correspondence: "All anti-Semites should be lined up against a wall and shot."

than something Nitzsche would say, unless in jest.

Nietzsche was sick of Wagner's preoccupation with anti-Semitism and German Nationalism He just dashed off a provocative letter to cool him off. He was prone to rather extreme statements. The notion that he somehow supported later Nazi theories is wrong. The Nazi's culled Nietzsche's work the same way the xtian's cull the Bible by selectively attending to fragments that support their cause even though the fragments misrepresent the original work's manifest intent.

"For the first half of the twentieth century Nietzsche was largely misconstrued as being the primary philosopher of Nazism even though he is quite explicit about his hatred for German nationalism and anti-Semitism in many of his writings."

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/genealogyofmorals/context.html

(You inquiry deserved better than Spark's Notes but my Nietzsche books have been relocated by unauthorized personnel.)

"...relocated by unauthorized personel"

They were stolen? Bummer.

Thanks for that.

I am a fan. I knew I was on good behavior for some reason (you name is embedded in the "true patriot" section of my unconscious). The relocation project was actually my family moving books because they seem to think xmas decorations etc. are more important than MY books!

Here is another DU original site you might like:

http://www.thevoicestellyoutovote.com/

You flatter me. Thanks. I need to re-do that page...the wind went out of my sails, but it's time to regroup.

I am a fan of yours, as well. You have been on my buddy list for quite awhile.

Not many things as important as your books.

Cheers!

-

...he posts links to holocaust denial material, sponsors a campaign to send christmas cards to a jailed holocaust denier, gives free air time to holocaust deniers, etc. etc. etc. Giving someone time to air their views unchallenged, especially when those views are known lies is, if not actively supporting the idea, at least lending credence to it. Either way it's disgusting.

, and the views expressed?

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin. If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then you are in favor of freedom of speech precicely for views you dispise." -- Noam Chomsky

he/she seems to be saying that rense is crap and anyone who patronizes it is a fool (although maybe I'm reading too much of my own opinion into yibbehobba's posts).

Yibbehobba has every right to express such views. Being in favor of free speech doesn't mean letting all speech go unchallenged.

My opinion is that Rense is crap and that using original material posted on his site as a basis for any kind of discussion is a bad idea, because he lends support to holocaust deniers (amongst his other transgressions.) There's nothing wrong with citing an AP article you found on Rense, but then Rense isn't really the source.

I'm not even necessarily saying that anyone who patronizes the site is a fool. I'm saying that anyone who believes that his silly disclaimer negates the general slant and content of the site is a fool.

But that doesn't mean he's not an idiot.

it is obvious, and you can decide.

It is not a suitable source for DU's Latest Breaking News forum.

Sorry, couldn't resist, but rense.com and cbsnews.com are two of my favorite bookmarks...

He is endlessly printing off articles from rense.com to support his world view. As a result, I'd check, check and recheck the original source.

Julie

it's like the Weekly World News of the Internet

Interesting artice on the Fabian society. What do you guys think of them?

Triple check anything you read from there. They used to post some real tin foil type stuff.

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

:D

that there's never reason to put on your tinfoil hat?

What strikes me as peculiar is that people confuse reporting as advocacy. It is nothing of the kind. Many things are scoffed at in their early reportage. Later, they are accepted as fact. How much truth has been swept under the rug by a timid press, or a reluctant audience?

to believe much of what you see on Rense.com

Same goes for whatreallyhappened.

to believe much of what you see in the MSM.

My guess is mainstream media...

if much of what the MSM say isn't true, then the question is, what is true?
example: 3 congressional hearings (Iran-Contra is one) have found the CIA is involved in narcotics trade (this is besides many other sources making the same claim). If the MSM has mentioned this at all, it has done so very marginally, so that 'in the public mind' the idea that the CIA is involved in narcotics trade is tin foil hat material. You gotta wonder who has the power and the interest in suppressing this kind of information.


"News is what someone wants to suppress.
Everything else is advertising."
-- Rubin Frank, NBC

I wouldn't trust Rense on ANYTHING. As you can see by the previous posts, it freely supports RW hate sites. The source they are recopying here, Agence France Presse, certainly is legit, but given Rense's lack of any news judgement I'd have to see it on another site as well.

Basically Rense is a RWer who is seriously mentally ill.

That must be the reason why there's so much anti-Bush anti-neocon anti-corporate material on that site.

Anything that doesn't fit nicely into their cozy paradigm is found threatening. They can't seem to distinguish the anti-Zionist from the anti-Semitic, or even Liberal from Conservative, LW from RW.

...Kevin Sikes, on his blog says the same thing. "Marines were told it was a "weapons free zone" meaning shoot any male". Ended up he even saw women and children being shot. Then that video came out and he got a ton of hate mail on his blog. It was disgusting. All these freepers leaving comments that he was "a traitor" and "you should have been shot instead", and "you don't know what you're talking about, the soldiers best friend had been blown up by a booby trapped body the day before." All these comments from guys here in the US to a guy who was embedded with those troops for months! And they're telling him he's wrong?

Also, there was that AP photographer who barely made it out alive, a week after the Fallujah assault started.. He watched families crossing the Euphrates trying to flee with white flags held overhead, getting slaughtered by Apache helicopter machine guns as they swam across. It definitely happened

He always provides the source of his stories. It's up to you as a knowledge-seeking reader to follow the links he gives, which are often to respected sources, research and decide for yourself.

He's just a conduit.

He's no worse than the New York Times when it comes to accuracy in reporting. Some people may not like some of the stories he reports, or some of the sources he uses, but that doesn't make the mirror-reporting any less accurate.

that doesn't make him a supporter of anything except the freedom to express yourself about total BS, if you make it interesting...