Some DUers are pulling a "Frist" - how sad.

We make fun of Frist for diagnosing Terry Shiavo via a video feed, yet some CT idiots on DU are diagnosing Zarqawi's cause of death and time of death via two photographs.

Hypocricy at its finest!

BushCo has a proven record of lying to us, over and over and over. Nice try, though.

You know I'm right.

There are serious inconsistencies with what we're being shown and told by the admin. And frankly, I haven't seen too many posts where people are assigning causes and times of death. Plenty of them are questioning the causes and times due to the administration's history of lying, and the facts as they're being told to us now, and the facts about al-Zarq already known. A lot of things don't add up. I see very little, if any parallel between this and Frist-Schiavo debacle.

Between a report that someone died in an attack, and a later report that he died shortly after an attack of injuries received during it. Initial reports of any sort of incident usually contain less specifics, and subsequent accounts supply further detail; anyone who has researched historical events will testify to this normal succession.

So far no glaring inconsistencies have emerged from the account. That bombs were dropped seems well established, and the sort employed are not delivered from helicopters. These were present, and may have served as spotters for the bombers. That is not unusual.

Claims the man was dead for some time prior to the attack, and his corpse planted, are pure speculation, without a shred of evidence to back them up. The fact that the official authority giving an account of the attack is known to lie does not valiidate any particular line of speculation at variance with their account it might please someone to pursue.

"Bushco" has lied to us in the past. THEREFORE, any claim we make about how Zarqawi died has credibility.

The logic is flawless, as always...

:sarcasm:

"Everything I say is a lie."

Well, there are more than a few Cretans on this board, and more than a few cretins as well..

;-)

You won't find any posts from me saying he was packed on ice. I'm not defending or supporting such claims. I'm just saying that people have earned the right to be skeptical of BushCo, and the OP has no more inside knowledge of the veracity of BushCo's claims than any of the "ice-packers" do. Therefore, he is has no right to claim that anyone is an "idiot" for posting their own little conspiracy fantasies. After all, it may well turn out that both sides are wrong, and absolutely nothing about this story is as it appears.

You do remember Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, don't you? Considering that the story is already showing signs of tattering at the edges, I'd say the only people who are not idiots are the one's who are at least asking questions.

The fact that lies have previously been told does not lend credence to any particular line of speculation. These must stand or fall on their own, based on available evidence, for which there is generally none, and considerations of plausibility and even the past record of the person engaging in the speculation. There are lines of speculation current that can with great kindness be called foolish.

Nor is it wise to assume persons who have no truck with such speculations have previously displayed great creduility. The account of Ms. Lynch's rescue particularly had serious flaws from the start; cameramen are not taken along on commando strikes behind enemy lines. Tales of her heroism in the ambush are pretty standard boiler-plate that all military authorities have peddled from time immemorial; they are hardly peculiar to the curent administration. Similarly, all military authorities try to hush up mistakes on the order of that involving the unfortunate Mr. Tillman, which seems to have ensued from a series of serious mistakes that an elite infantry detachment ought to be incapable of committing.

are being made on both sides. The only one that is glaringly wrong would be to compare discussion on a political-social internet forum, with Senator Frist attempting to impose his belief system on strangers in a gross abuse of his political position. While I do not agree with any of the things being said that imply the fellow didn't die in much the manner described on the news, I fully agree that citizens have not just a right but an obligation to question everything that comes from the government and the corporate media. Doing so is distinct from what senator Frist did.

No particular line of speculation has any right to be taken seriously, however. Like the news accounts, these must be judged independently on their own merits.

Many of the "theories" being expressed in the past 24 hours are weak, at very best. A couple hint the believer may experience extreme difficulty distinguishing between a comic book and reality. That also describes some of the comic reporting of Judith Miller, and comic commentary of Sean Hannity. Still, for a peasant to be invested in a silly "theory" on an internet forum is distinct from a US Senator trying to inflict his religious belief system on others.

Tom Clancy and The X-Files have a good deal to answer for....

... that past lies are no proof of future lies, there is more to consider than that.

First off, I have NO OPINION about the veracity of the reports of Zarqari's demise, and equally, I hold no reason to assume that any accounts of what happened will be true or false.

I do know this - if there is any perceived advantage to be gained by embellishing or omitting details of what actually happened in the official account, I haven't the slightest doubt of the propensity or the ability of the Bush administration to edit same with no regard for the truth whatsoever.

Certainly a habitual liar may on occassion tell the truth, but it is fair to assume always such a person is speaking falsely.

But the fact that one person speaks falsely does not indicate that something someone else says on the matter is true, and certainly does not constitute evidence that the someone else is making an accurate statement, or provide any reason to take what the someone else says seriously.

... the coordination of the PR apparatus of the administration, which I submit is pretty evolved and well controlled. I say that when it comes to information of this sort, we will hear what George Bush and his assigned lackies wish us to hear, and very little else if they have their way :)

He was captured alive. At that point, a number of very important laws come into play.

And criticizing another poster for lacking "a shred of evidence" is comical given the endless series of untruths from a regime of pathological liars.

Only they have the evidence. The people must figure out for themselves how it is being distorted, and that is not an easy process.

A mortally wounded man expires on a stretcher rather than in the rubble or on the ground. Where does any item of law come into play?

Point me to a shred of evidence the man was dead long before this incident, and planted on the scene.

would be "what law?"

Then why do the pics show a man with his head lying in the dirt?

Did they take him off the stretcher, clean him up, then lay him in the dirt for the photos?

Don't assume I am taking sides here. At least, not in that way you might think. I am only taking sides to the degree that, as with so many things previously told to us by this administration, there are some things that are not adding up.

Magistrate, I assume, has some knowledge of the law. So what is generally assumed when a prosecutor wants to bring up a defendant's prior record? Is it never okay? If the defendant is known to be a habitual offender, is this allowed in court?

But we're not in court, one way or another. We're on a message board. People don't think Bush is lying now just out of the blue. Bush has provided the fuel for this himself. He is a habitual offender when it comes to lying. That, provided with motive and opportunity, tells me that unlike what OP is saying, there is plenty of reasonable doubt here. So, Bush can't be convicted.

But then, OJ walked, too.

It is not known when the picture was taken. Photographs for documenting a scene are generally taken before any alteration to the scene is made, so it is certainly possible the picture was taken first. Indeed, it might not have been realized initially the man was still alive; the presumption of those come first one the scene would likely have been all were dead, and he may have been inert and semi-conscious at best, perhaps even trying to avoid notice by his enemies.

It may well be that what occured in fact is different in some detail from accounts of the matter that have been circulated so far, and it may even prove that some of the difference is signifigant. Some of that difference may reside in the usual muddle of events and misperceptions and differening emphasis common to initial reports by numerous witnesses, just as it may be there is deliberate distortion for some purpose. But so far, none of the various discrepancies seem out of the ordinary run, and certainly there is nothing to rest extremities of speculation on.

As a general rule, a defendant's prior record may not be brought up at trial, unless he testifies on his own behalf, and then it may be introduced as a means of impeaching his truthfulness, or perhaps more precisely, prejudicing the jury against him. But prior convictions do count as grounds for disbelieving what a person says, and certainly a prior conviction for perjury or fraud is generally devestating to the credibility of a witness on the stand. It can certain be recalled at sentencing, and earlier, in the process of setting bail.

with his head still in the dirt? Why did they not just put a white sheet background behind him? Why are they so intent on wanting us, Americans, to know it was Zarqawi that was killed? Do they think we would not take them at their word? Why would they think such a thing? This is very troubling to me, for some reason.

Showing a much paler face, seems to me to be a bit cleaned up. It would be pretty cold to wash the fellow and then pose the thing, but worse has happened in this world.

Display of the dead rebel for the edification of the populace is an ancient practice, and certainly some display was required in this case. How many people do you think would be expressing complete disbelief in the absence of a photograph of the corpse, and even clamoring that they would not belive it on the grounds they were not shown a picture of the body? Doubtles it would be a greater number than are now claiming the picture is a concoction, and therefore they do not believe him dead.

The current regime ought by now to have grounds to doubt whether people will take them at their word, not only around the world but here at home. They, after all, know better than anyone they are liars, and so devoted to it they will often lie when the truth would serve perfectly well.

One thing about when the pictures were taken IS known...the primary picture we're being shown was taken AFTER al-Zarqawi was supposedly "cleaned up," because he was in such bad shape when we got him. According to the press conference this morning, he'd been autopsied, I believe.

Now, never mind the timing trouble I'm having -- his house was bombed, he made it out alive but was handed over to the Iraqis, he subsequently died, we then had time to make a positive ID, autopsy him, clean him up, photograph him and even have his photo professionally matted and framed, all within the course of a twenty-hour window. But why would he have then been laid out on the ground again for the photograph? Why not when he was on the table or the stretcher? Can you think of any logical explanation to take a body and lay it on the ground after you've cleaned it up and autopsied it? Except, perhaps, if you're trying to make the photo appear to be something it's not?

Are you going to say they were in a hurry, running to the Hummer with al-Z's body in their arms and someone said, "Oh, shit! We forgot to take photos!" so they just laid him out on the ground? I mean, as opposed to simply photographing him on the aforementioned stretcher?

Magistrate, I respect you attempts to find logic in all of this, but I simply cannot. None of it adds up. That is not the same, though, as saying I think he was "on ice" or whatever. I am simply saying that given all the "facts" as presented to us thus far, I'm finding very little of them that could actually be considered "facts" at all.

Would be Mr. Stranger alludes to those portions of the Geneva Accords relating to the treatment of prisoners, as well as whatever military regulations governing the conduct of U.S. and Iraqi forces presently, and even perhaps some egulatuions or other claimed in force by the puppet government we have erected in that country.

I was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to the mild indicators that there has been a break-down in law & order in Iraq.

uneducated observers and a DIAGNOSIS by a health care professional who really should have known better.

Learn the difference. It will save you a lot of flames in the future.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have an objection to ONE DU'er. Why start a new thread complaining about "DU'ers"?

Again, as the earlier poster said, there is a difference between idle speculation by an uneducated observer and a long-distance diagnosis by a health care professional. The poster in your example makes an appeal to experience as a reporter covering emergency services, which is hardly the same as being a trained health care professional.

Another difference? Clark2008 isn't speaking as someone who has the power to push through legislation which directly effects/complicates the situation.

The other side is just guessing based on how many Friday the 13th films they've seen.

And when you say "DUers", you include ALL of us. Knock it off.

What, realized that you showed your hand by being all inclusive? LOL, you are too transparent.

This is a discussion board, we discuss many things here, and unlike Frist, we have no clout to effect the national policy. But yet, you feel free to insult DU simply because of what we are, a discussion board.

Hey, if you don't like what is being discussed here, if you think we're "all idiots" why do you stick around? Hmmmmm....:think:

So I fixed the title.

"DUers" grammatically doesn't have to mean all, and he qualifies it as "CT idiots" in the body of his post. I don't agree with the "idiots" label, but he didn't accuse all of us. And I agree with the gist of his post. I understand not trusting anything BushCo says. But there are many who are just shouting "It's a LIE!" without any proof, evidence, knowledge, or logic to back it up. There's a big difference between saying "I wonder if this story is true, too," or "Wow, that was convenient timing," or some such thing, to saying "THere's no way that's Zarqawi," or some variation of that.

I love to read learned speculation around here, but I notice that after every big event like this, the theories get so wacko that I leave for a while. I suspect a lot of rational people do, which skews the numbers even further towards the wacko theories--some of which I'm sure are posted by trolls just to see if they can get people to follow along, so they can go back to FR or some blog and talk about how insane we are here.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we should try to shut anyone up. I'm just saying I love to see someone challenge these theories, too. Free speech cuts in all directions. :)

He's challenging the intelligence of the people who espouse them using no independent thought of his own other than what the government has said. It doesn't take much to say "your theory is wrong because I say so".

Jay

But it still makes them idiots.

rather lacking ...

is a discussion board where we "discuss" things. We are not leaders of a country making decs ions of public policy based on a video tape. BTW who the fuck are you to call people "idiots" for talking about a story?

... he was not really bombed, but beaten to death by US Soldiers are CT Idiots.

I have called them CT Idiots in the past.
I call them CT Idiots now.
I will call them CT Idiots tomorrow.

Because they are CT Idiots.

People were "nuts" and "unpatriotic" to question the government then, too. But look how that story turned out.

I think that you reaching your conclusions so early on in this particular psy-op is just as "idiotic" as saying everyone else is wrong but you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"People that claim he's been on ice for months, or claim that he was not really bombed, but beaten to death by US Soldiers are CT Idiots", I guess you really don't have a problem with the "CT idiots" because their ultimate conclusion is that he is dead. They are just discussing how and why. So what's your problem again? And if you don't believe that "Its all true exactly as its being reported", doesn't that make you a "CT idiot"?

Jay

Are all the CT'ers on DU public servants holding medical degrees? There's a vast difference.

I have seen you post "CT idiot" now 3 times, and I'm not even trying to notice your ridiculous posts.

And the same could be said for YOU, you are so sure this guy is actually dead and is actually Zarqawi and that Zarqawi is actually the boogie man......because??? You saw the picture? Because you believe our government is telling you the truth about this person? Because you believe our media is telling you the truth?

Why don't you post some logic, and stop the attacks.
Just why is it that you are so certain Zarqawi is dead? I'd like to know.
Thanks.

What I thought was unusual was that he was all in one piece. I would think that a 500 lb bomb would blow him and everyone else into little pieces. Maybe he was protected by a wall. Only the Shadow knows. I tossed that in for the older guys.

:D As with most things since Selection 2000 it does seem that only the Shadow knows. In this case the "shadow government" who seems to be constantly caught in it's own lies...time after time.

It was fixed by the "professionals" that were getting him ready for burial? Notice the mouth in the first photo as compared to the second? Funny how they got the dead man to put on lipstick smile for the cameras...Yeah, I'm a conspriacy theorist on this one.

Im sick of this CT Bullshit.

You just made a claim.

Prove it. Now.

The Pentagon spokesman asked if it was photoshopped. He kinda grinned and I believe he said that the guy was cleaned up and all, but that he'd have to seek further clarification from his superiors or something like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounded like one of those classic non-denial denials.

Anyway, I'm still baffled as to why you suddenly put so much faith in BushCo that TODAY they decided to start telling the truth. They've had six years. What is so special about this guy that would suddenly make them change their ways?

But there is a line that can be crossed between "skeptical" and "idiocy". Many here have crossed that line.

For the record, I am still somewhat skeptical, but I believe the main point of the story, which is, Zarqawi was ratted out and killed yesterday (or Wed as the case may be).

But, I'm not even sure the "doctored" photo in the second picture is the same person? I'm more than skeptical and I seldom follow any of these so-called CT's of yours.

You believe this bullshit from this Administration? Since when have they told the truth even one time? Prove it. He was alive when he was found by the Americans. Looks like his head is laying in dirt after his wounds have been fixed? uh-huh...

I havent seen you post anything to back up any of your statements!
And you know what I'm fucking sick to death of being called an idiot because i don't just go along to get along.
So why don't we just turn the tables for a moment, and you can explain to me why is it that YOU BELIEVE the bullshit story coming from our treasonous government and our media whores?

I can search the web, read the stories from the 100s of reporters around the world that have reported the same information as the American Media.
Because I can look at a photo and tell a live person from a dead person.
Because it makes no logical sense for this story to be false.
Because it makes no logical sense for men and women of the US Military, our sons and daughters, to conspire to lie about a Terrorist Leader (or ex-leader as the case may be).

"I can search the web, read the stories from the 100s of reporters around the world that have reported the same information as the American Media."

Hundreds of reporters around the world all repeating the same thing.
Are you talking about hundreds of reporters who were actually there?
And are you talking about the American MSM, who continually lie to us?

:rofl:




"Because I can look at a photo and tell a live person from a dead person."
If you dig the Zarqawi pics you should see Silent Hill....that movie scared the crap out me. So realistic. OMG, maybe it WAS real. :scared:


"Because it makes no logical sense for this story to be false."

You know much about politics? Globalization? :banghead:


"Because it makes no logical sense for men and women of the US Military, our sons and daughters, to conspire to lie about a Terrorist Leader (or ex-leader as the case may be)."

Ever see "Wag the Dog" ? :think:

movie references?

No STFU in this post? I'm so disappointed.

But I get it. You believe our government and you believe our media.
Because theres no other logical explanation for any of this. I get it.

Good luck with that.

I do not believe nor disbelieve anyone or anything unequivocally, and you claiming that I do doesn't change that fact.

But nice try to divert attention from the point of the post and the CT Idiots and onto me.

Uh...just like all the ones who had "the exact same intelligence Bush had?" You know, because Bush gave it to them?




Basically what Frist said, dude.




Actually, it makes complete logical sense for this story to be false. In many ways. The PR victory alone would be worth it.




What makes no logical sense is your assumption that the grunts and the men and women back in Iraq are somehow involved in the briefings the Pentagon is giving us, and the PR campaign being spun around it. You did read the WP article, right? Why wouldn't this make sense, given whas had been previously stated by our own military?

.

He should read it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Gimme a camera and let me follow ANYBODY around for a few years and I'll get pictures that can make them look any way I want. It's silly.

...but people seem to keep posting those threads here...

but I get your point.

I'm ridiculing the people that are 100% convinced its all B.S. and who post stupid, illogical, ridiculous crap about the details of this event that they could not possibly know anything about, espeically diagnoses of his death via two photos.

"details of this event that they could not possibly know anything about, espeically diagnoses of his death via two photos."


It would seem to me that you're doing the exact same thing. The fact that you BELIEVE the photos doesn't make you any more right than those who do not. In the end, both sides are purely speculating and relying on their own perceptions of the government's credibility.

Saying "the photos look odd, I wonder if (posulate here)"

is totally different than:

"BushCo is lying, he isn't dead"
or
"BushCo is lying, he's been on ice for months"
or
"BushCo is lying, looking at the photo and using my 14 years as a medical professional, I claim with 100% certainty that he did not die from a 500lb bomb."

lately on this board.. If you believe this you are crazy... If you don't believe this you are crazy...

With this administration, you never know what is fact or what is fiction.. I refer you to Lynch and Tillman stories both....

I'm ridiculing the people that are 100% convinced its all true and who post stupid, illogical, ridiculous crap about the details of this event that they could not possibly know anything about, espeically diagnoses of his death via two photos.

Now, please explain yourself.
Thanks.

you could tell from a photo whether someone was dead or not? If you can, why can't others make a determination that differs from yours? You say that you know the truth because you have researched it on the net and read numerous reporters' coverage of the event. Are there no reporters who are questioning the truth of the administration's statements?

I have no problem with your disagreement with other DUers' takes on this event, but why you seem so intent upon insulting and smearing these posters is beyond me...

Anyone who looks at the photos, as he did, and did internet research, as he did, and doesn't reach the same conclusion he did is an idiot. Simple. He doesn't seem to note the extreme irony in his stance.

you make an excellent point.

We wouldn't want to be like Frist. :crazy:

Seriously. You're comparing apples to oranges here. What damage does it do to look at Zarqawi's photos and speculate, debate and disbelieve the information given? What damage does it do to have an opinion that differs? People have been doing that with the Kennedy assassination for decades. The Magic Bullet theory doesn't add up for most people but are they "idiots" or pulling a "Frist"?

What Frist did was abuse his position as a physician by giving his "professional" medical assessment of a woman who was being kept alive by feeding tubes in order to score a cheap political point. How is this anything like debating the time of death or the way someone died?

Random speculation by posters on a discussion board, no matter how specious or wholly logical, cannot be compared, in any way, to a person in a position of power, with medical training, making medical diagnoses based upon a picture while talking on international television.

The difference is so disparate that you should know better.
The Professor

Frist makes a medical diagnosis via video, and a DUer makes a medical diagnosis via two photos.

And you think its totally different because one was a Senator on TV and the other is a poster on DU?

You're comfortable saying these two things are TOTALLY different?
You're unwilling to maybe come down to "somewhat different in circumstance but pretty much the same in effect" ?

Yes. It's different.

Frist sold his opinion based upon his well-known medical expertise. A DU'er saying it on a faceless discussion board is not claiming credibility based upon any special knowledge. Just speculating. Doctor's don't just speculate. They diagnose based upon years of study and experience. And, we know that what he did was unscientific, unethical (for a doctor), and just plain wrong.

And, he used a national forum to bolster his opinion and his "expertise" to validate his opinion.

Nobody here has that type of pulpit available, and nobody on those threads was claiming to be a doctor who knew more than the average people.

I'm shocked you don't see the difference.
The Professor

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Oh, wait...you probably just left out a comma. Never mind.

:D

Do not start a new topic in order to continue a flame war or call out a member from another discussion thread.