John Kerry now says there is evidence sarin gas was used - thanks John, we’d all be lost without you: is it last week again already?
Well, that’s you.
As I said, in the absence of an impossible to obtain proof, one should be able to put together 2 and 2 at a meta level of a discussion. At this point, I really don’t care how it happened - the fact is that mass-media outlet is prepping population with carefully placed articles that otherwise, without the context of Syria and Russian opposition, would not make any sense (but then, it would not be there).
Since we can establish that articles on CNN site are not determined by a randomizer, one can engage in a meaningful debate on why would such an article appear so prominently on the home page of CNN.
In terms of actual debate about placement of this article, value of “extremely preposterous” argument is nil.
He’s only disputing that Mossad had anything to do with 9/11 
Are you sure that is the phrase you want to use, Mr. Tenet?
Regards,
Shodan
Are you serious? A decades old operation that was revealed to the public more than a generation ago? That’s your evidence?
That’s a bit like saying that because Newcomer’s posts are largely incoherent Conspiracy Theorist nonsense, that it’s pretty reasonable to think that the CIA is drugging him just like in MK Ultra.
Not sure what his stance on a Jewish cabal controlling Hollywood, but he supports the belief that the Mossad was behind 9/11.
Which, of course, is why I was curious if he had any evidence, at all, to back up his new Conspiracy Theory that the CIA controls CNN. I suppose that raises the question of who controls the CIA, but I wonder if it has anything to do with whoever it is that, ahem, controls the US government and intelligence agencies to the point where they’ll have agents of the Mossad caught dead to rights as 9/11 conspirators, and then just let them go and bury the information.
The plot thickens!
Here, we have CNN calling out the CIA, which newcomer tells us, controls CNN. Obviously it’s a False Flag Operation. After all, if [del]the[/del] CIA “plants articles in regular newspapers all the time” and it’s “[p]repping the population to recall Russia for what it is”, obviously CNN was reporting on CIA involvement in order to cover up the real fact: that of [del]the[/del]Mossad’s involvement.
Of course the CIA plants articles: were you born yesterday?
We won’t know unless we see his birth certificate!
boom boom! 
Cite?
Then a cite for Newcomer’s claim that the CIA is the force behind CNN’s recent editorial policies.
Or is your argument entirely backed up by ad hominem and innuendo? Unless I was whooshed, in which case, ah well.
Your post is ridiculous.
No, I’m not disputing Mockingbird, an operation that happened 60 years ago and about 30 or so years before CNN was even founded.
I’m merely saying that people who think that CNN put up a story about Russia shooting down the Korean airliner in the 80s are being extremely foolish.
Based on your logic it’s absurd to deny the CIA murdered Kennedy because the CIA has engaged in assassinations.
No, I wasn’t born yesterday, nor was anyone who naively argues that CNN put up a story on their website because the CIA told them to.
Is that your definition of ‘planted’ - being told to do something?
Newcomer’s original post made it clear that CNN put up that article about the Korean airliner on their website because they were told to do so.
So anyway, are you suggesting that you think that CNN put up that article on their website about the shooting down of the Korean airliner because of the CIA?
If so, please explain because that strikes me as extremely paranoid and extremely stupid and if you do I hope you’ve never ridiculed any of the people who insisted 911 was an inside job.
I am sure the fact that it was a 30 year anniversary of the shooting down of the flight had nothing to do with it.
Anniversaries are a CIA plot. I keep telling my girlfriend that, but she won’t believe me.
You both need to put down the grudge juice - it’s affecting your reading comprehension (and ability to form appropriate analogies). I don’t know this poster’s history, but I do know it shouldn’t be dredged up in this thread.
FTR, I have no idea or opinion about CNN’s relationship with the CIA, but, based on the past history I cited, it would not be “extremely preposterous” to entertain the idea that the CIA (or other govt entity) would influence the media. Of course one would expect evidence if a specific claim was made. Please take note that I made no such claim. I was addressing Ibn’s hyperbolic reply, not offering evidence of any particular incident.
Your opinion of newcomer, and/or his general coherence, and/or what he claimed in other threads, is besides the point, and it certainly should have no bearing on your response to my post.
Try answering the question on its own merits: Do you think it is “extremely preposterous” to suspect that the government would influence the media?
Of course governments try and do influence the media. I think it is “extremely preposterous” to think that posting an article about flight 007 on the 30th anniversary of the incident was done under the government’s influence.
Er… the question wasn’t whether or not governments tried to influence the media. The obvious response to such a question is “duh”.
The question is whether or not the CIA was responsible for CNN running an article about the shooting down of a Korean airliner on the 30th anniversary of the event.
The obvious response is that such a claim is laughably stupid.
I agree - they are two different claims. I posted my question because I did not think that Ibn was making the distinction clear in his replies to newcomer.