Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda

paulsurovell said:
Syria and Russia blame Al Qaeda rebels for chemical weapons attack on government-controlled Aleppo.
Syria has asked OPCW to investigate.
US media, politicians, muted.
Tells you something about US media and politicians.

https://apnews.com/39cf08b5895a48eaac2d1e1ab90a0b37

 Already responded to you.

It's only "muted" for people who don't read the news.  
Which I guess is your preferred audience.

https://twitter.com/SMountaineer/status/1067140861648125952

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons-un.html

"Can't find the article in the paper. Can you?"

Really?

dave23 said:
"Can't find the article in the paper. Can you?"
Really?

 Really. Not mentioned on the front page today or yesterday. I don't see an inscription on the web version of when it was published. Can you find it?

Also, can you show me a Twitter search that finds the @nytimes Tweet? Not coming up on my end.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
"Can't find the article in the paper. Can you?"
Really?

 Really. Not mentioned on the front page today or yesterday. I don't see an inscription on the web version of when it was published. Can you find it?
Also, can you show me a Twitter search that finds the @nytimes Tweet? Not coming up on my end.

By "inscription" you mean the date below the byline? 

You have an ever-expanding definition of "muted." Too late to save face, though.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
"Can't find the article in the paper. Can you?"
Really?

 Really. Not mentioned on the front page today or yesterday. I don't see an inscription on the web version of when it was published. Can you find it?
Also, can you show me a Twitter search that finds the @nytimes Tweet? Not coming up on my end.

By "inscription" you mean the date below the byline? 
You have an ever-expanding definition of "muted." Too late to save face, though.

 One of these:

And can anyone tell us how much coverage this story has gotten on networks and cable television?

A comparison with previous Syrian chemical weapons attacks will tell us something about the US media.

Similarly, can anyone tell us how many political leaders have expressed outrage over this?

A comparison with previous Syrian chemical weapons attacks will tell us something about US political leadership.

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
"Can't find the article in the paper. Can you?"
Really?

 Really. Not mentioned on the front page today or yesterday. I don't see an inscription on the web version of when it was published. Can you find it?
Also, can you show me a Twitter search that finds the @nytimes Tweet? Not coming up on my end.

By "inscription" you mean the date below the byline? 
You have an ever-expanding definition of "muted." Too late to save face, though.

 One of these:

 Ah, I have no idea. They run a lot of web-only articles. It is 2018, after all. #notmuted

paulsurovell said:
And can anyone tell us how much coverage this story has gotten on networks and cable television?
A comparison with previous Syrian chemical weapons attacks will tell us something about the US media.
Similarly, can anyone tell us how many political leaders have expressed outrage over this?
A comparison with previous Syrian chemical weapons attacks will tell us something about US political leadership.

Haven't seen any tweet from Tulsi Gabbard  about it. What does that tell us about her?

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:
"Can't find the article in the paper. Can you?"
Really?

 Really. Not mentioned on the front page today or yesterday. I don't see an inscription on the web version of when it was published. Can you find it?
Also, can you show me a Twitter search that finds the @nytimes Tweet? Not coming up on my end.

By "inscription" you mean the date below the byline? 
You have an ever-expanding definition of "muted." Too late to save face, though.

 One of these:

 Ah, I have no idea. They run a lot of web-only articles. It is 2018, after all. #notmuted

Stories that are web-only are muted stories.

There will probably be a "retrospective" piece in the next day or two.

It's one way the Times can say they covered the story, but at the same time conveying to the reader that it's not big story.

cramer said:

paulsurovell said:
And can anyone tell us how much coverage this story has gotten on networks and cable television?
A comparison with previous Syrian chemical weapons attacks will tell us something about the US media.
Similarly, can anyone tell us how many political leaders have expressed outrage over this?
A comparison with previous Syrian chemical weapons attacks will tell us something about US political leadership.

Haven't seen any tweet from Tulsi Gabbard  about it. What does that tell us about her?

 The most blatant whataboutism on this board ever. Where's the coverage?

Yawn. 

paulsurovell said:

Stories that are web-only are muted stories.

Yeah, no one's on the internet. People only read print nowadays. In fact, I took this picture on the train this morning.

cramer said:
Haven't seen any tweet from Tulsi Gabbard  about it. What does that tell us about her?

 Maybe it's in her print-only newspaper?

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Stories that are web-only are muted stories.

Yeah, no one's on the internet. People only read print nowadays. In fact, I took this picture on the train this morning.

 Your effort to save face isn't working.

cramer said:
Yawn. 

 Didn't see that comment for previous chemical weapons attacks. Why the lack of interest?

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Stories that are web-only are muted stories.

Yeah, no one's on the internet. People only read print nowadays. In fact, I took this picture on the train this morning.

 Your effort to save face isn't working.

C'mon, you can be more clever than that. 

Paul - who has provided the best coverage of these "muted stories" in the US?  Intercept? 

Ah - I see you're parroting RT's headline - Another alleged Syrian chemical attack but this time Western media is silent 

At least I know where to get Paul's angle.

My guess as to why this one didn't get the same attention is because nobody died and there wasn't video of dead children.  Yet, Paul and RT expects us to be equally outraged.

jamie said:
Paul - who has provided the best coverage of these "muted stories" in the US?  Intercept? 

 More whataboutism.

jamie said:
Ah - I see you're parroting RT's headline - Another alleged Syrian chemical attack but this time Western media is silent 
At least I know where to get Paul's angle.

 You read RT at least 100 times more than me. I'm beginning to wonder about you  . . . .

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Paul - who has provided the best coverage of these "muted stories" in the US?  Intercept? 

 More whataboutism.

It was a serious question - who is doing a good job in your opinion? 

jamie said:
My guess as to why this one didn't get the same attention is because nobody died and there wasn't video of dead children.  Yet, Paul and RT expects us to be equally outraged.

 So the use of chemical weapons are no big deal as long as no one gets killed?

Many child victims in Aleppo. Where's the outrage?

http://www.reuters.tv/v/Prn6/2018/11/25/syria-russia-accuse-rebels-of-aleppo-gas-attack

paulsurovell said:
 

jamie said:
My guess as to why this one didn't get the same attention is because nobody died and there wasn't video of dead children.  Yet, Paul and RT expects us to be equally outraged.

 So the use of chemical weapons are no big deal as long as no one gets killed?

Says the guy who downplayed previous attacks and fell into a paranoid, truther wormhole because they were committed by Assad

How about this: It's all awful. 

BTW, congrats on the latest aggression against Ukraine. #beaboutputin

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

jamie said:
Paul - who has provided the best coverage of these "muted stories" in the US?  Intercept? 

 More whataboutism.

It was a serious question - who is doing a good job in your opinion? 

 Jamie,

If you read my posts carefully, you'll see that my sources are almost always mainstream or just outside the mainstream (like the Nation), including my post that started today's discussion (the source was AP). My most recent source was Reuters TV.

Apart from one RT video of a panel of victims of the April chemical weapons attack, I don't recall ever citing RT on this board. I almost never look at the website, and it's not available on FIOS (if it were, I'd probably watch).

The point is that your constant suggestions that I rely on RT  (mimicked by that toothless attack dog who leaves his droppings in the Sub Forum) suggest you haven't read my posts. You certainly haven't looked at my sources.

To answer you question -- AP is doing a good job, but few people read a wire service. That only happens if the story is picked up by the major media, newspapers and their webpages, and especially broadcast media.

I scanned the first 8 or so pages of this thread and these are the sources that I cited:

C-Span

Mint Press

MSNBC

Fox News

The Telegraph

de Welt

The Independent

The Atlantic

Reuters

The Nation

Wall Street Journal

Times of Israel

I'm pretty sure I also cited Max Blumenthal's work on Alternet.

Sorry to get off the subject but just wondering if you're a fan's of Blumenthal's book, Goliath?

I suggest you follow RT more - their views amazingly align with yours, I'm sure you'll be an immediate fan.  I also think they'd love to have you on staff.

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:
 

jamie said:
My guess as to why this one didn't get the same attention is because nobody died and there wasn't video of dead children.  Yet, Paul and RT expects us to be equally outraged.

 So the use of chemical weapons are no big deal as long as no one gets killed?

Says the guy who downplayed previous attacks and fell into a paranoid, truther wormhole because they were committed by Assad
How about this: It's all awful. 
BTW, congrats on the latest aggression against Ukraine. #beaboutputin

 Let's clean this mess up:

No, didn't downplay the attacks -- I challenged the sources of the attacks, citing experts like Scott Ritter, Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk.

Of course it's all awful.

Your use of the word "congrats" evinces a mindset that is eager to slur, reluctant to discuss, on the Ukraine question. Because it's not a black and white situation. George Kennan's quote that hit  close to home, needs repeating here:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Stories that are web-only are muted stories.

Yeah, no one's on the internet. People only read print nowadays. In fact, I took this picture on the train this morning.

 Your effort to save face isn't working.

C'mon, you can be more clever than that. 

 Sadly, no.

jamie said:
I suggest you follow RT more - their views amazingly align with yours, I'm sure you'll be an immediate fan.  I also think they'd love to have you on staff.

I'll take a look, but I'm pretty sure there's one topic they're not covering that would get me fired -- Russia's unconscionable emphasis on fossil fuels. They are as much a problem as Trump.  In fact that is what Trump shares with Putin -- and would like to collude on -- that is really dangerous for the world.

But you won't hear about that on the MSM or from the Democratic Party leadership because they are on the payroll of Big Business, including the fossil fuel industry, who set the parameters of what is acceptable for national discourse.

So the next time you throw out a "Who's paying you to write that" line, think about who's paying Chris, Rachel and Lawrence and how that affects what they can say.