Whether tis Nobeler....

Sorry, I just couldn't read any more after that. Is the author referring to the reader? Or to the individuals targeted by it? And it's not, as implied, a newly designed weapon system, it's pushing 30 if I recall.

And sucking the air out of your lungs? That's just.... It's something like a 20lb warhead, the rocket would probably have to HIT you to need air close to you, and if it hits you then the least you're going to worry about is shortness of breath. You'd be dead from the blast or the shrapnel.

So if something has a minor error in it then that instantly negates anything else contained in the post whether or not it has any valid points? That's a great way to go about a discussion.

Sorry, I just couldn't read any more after that. Is the author referring to the reader? Or to the individuals targeted by it? And it's not, as implied, a newly designed weapon system, it's pushing 30 if I recall.

And sucking the air out of your lungs? That's just.... It's something like a 20lb warhead, the rocket would probably have to HIT you to need air close to you, and if it hits you then the least you're going to worry about is shortness of breath. You'd be dead from the blast or the shrapnel.

So if something has a minor error in it then that instantly negates anything else contained in the post whether or not it has any valid points? That's a great way to go about a discussion.

I didn't say it negated their argument. But things like that are a pet peeve of mine, and I reserve the right to be a pedantic jackass. lol Especially when a minor mistake is indicative of either lack of research or heavy bias.

You're 100% right that the article is biased. Pilger is known for speaking straight, from the left. Nevertheless, most articles are biased one way or another, or most wouldn't get written and that shouldn't stop you from reading the rest and getting the gist.

You're 100% right that the article is biased. Pilger is known for speaking straight, from the left. Nevertheless, most articles are biased one way or another, or most wouldn't get written and that shouldn't stop you from reading the rest and getting the gist.

Shouldn't, but does. Anyways, when you see certain types of phrases or imagery, you know that it isn't going to be a well reasoned article with concrete verifiable facts backing it up. It's going to be an emotional hook whether you're tearing up for the poor mangled whatevers, or cheering up the gallant, can do-no-wrong soldiers.

Though actually, given the response, I did read on afterwords. And it contained more of the same heart pulling persuasive tactics that are used by everything from used cars salesmen to fire and brimstone preachers the world over. Paint a bunch of devil horns on whomever you don't like. If it was a news article it would be yellow journalism, as an opinion piece it's sensationalist doom and gloom dribble with all the favorite code words: "concentration camp" "fired indiscriminately" and "irresistible to the besotted and boneheaded" stand out.

An article doesn't have to be a propaganda piece to get its point across, and I don't have nearly enough patience to read through every shitty piece of "oh, lets pat ourselves on the back and compare the other to the worst dictator/idiots/serial killer we can think of." Especially if they outright lie to try and make their point by the second sentence(or else they could just have been horribly misinformed and didn't do the research, which reduces the level of trust I'd have in any of their later facts just as much as if they'd lied).

This I think makes Obama's case along roughly the same lines I'd want to make it. Selected paragraphs and a link. Emphasis added:

From http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wi...09/10/its-.html

I petted a bunny last week.