I’m not at all sure what posting more glurge from a Right wing blog that simply echoed the opinion piece of Mr. Gertz does to inform us of the fcts of this case.
The only evidence we have that Mr. Coughlin is an “expert” is Mr. Gertz’s claim–as echoed in a dozen blogs. The only “evidence” we have that he was fired because he “told the truth” is Mr. Gertz’s unsupported assertion (backed up by a few dozen bloggers quoting Gertz and each other).
Heck, even the Washington Times, itself, appears to have failed to produce a news story on the topic.
Umm the blogger I posted above echoed agreement and also pointed out that he KNOWS Coughlin. Do you have any reason to distrust Gertz and Bostom other than them being right wing?
This is a reasonable statement. Just as, a few decades ago, there were bona fide Christians and Jews giving nuclear secrets to the Soviets.
What do you propose to do about it?
Secondly, attaching one’s name to a firing incident that makes its way into a high-profile newspaper is hardly Spying 101. I thought spies were meant to lay low and keep the information coming.
Not even from the Washington Times? Your google fu must be as weak as your knowledge and understanding of the Koran and the hadiths. Washington Times National Review CBNnews
As for your denigration of the hundreds of “blogs” reporting the same item, I believe that they’re far more likely to be telling something approximating the truth, whatever that is, than the papers you select each day as being the most suitable news sources for affirming your opinions and beliefs.
Asking you why you think that repeating opinion pieces attacks neither you nor the authors of those pieces based on personal attacks. It is simpy a question as to why you would think that repeating a lot of mutually supporting opinion pieces adds any facts to the discussion.
(Your atttempt to pretend that there has been an ad hominem employed would appear to be an ad hominem. )
That is the opinion piece that kicked off this whole discussion, not a news item.
The National Review and CB News articles are simply more echoes in more opinion pieces.
Your ability to distinguish between news and opinion is as flawed as your ability to actually understand the Qur’an and Hadith without quoting them out of context.
Now, we will leave further personal insults outside this thread and this Forum.
I am willing to consider the possibility that Mr. Gertz’s article is factual in every way. However, given that it flies in direct conflict to the actions of nearly everything else this administration has done in selecting and tailoring both information and informants over the last seven years, I would like to see somethng in the way of a neutral party’s evaluation of the event before I run out and accept a series of opinion pieces that have no factual substantiation.
After what was done to Richard Clarke, Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, James Comey, several retiring generals from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and any number of other persons who raised questions about administration policy, I can think of no reason for the Pentagon to suddenly get all squishy about the personal feelings regarding Muslim bureaucrats. Given the utter lack of mention (regardless of perspective) of this incident in any news report, I see no reason to accept the non-news reports of a bunch of people who are spinning this story like a top.
Riddled with muslim ideas, Mr. Coughlin staggered into the main lobby of the Pentagon, where he collapsed in front of shocked onlookers.
Seriously, though, what’s the story here?
What was Mr. Coughlin’s actual expertise on Islamic extremism, and what sorts of policies were being advocated by him? What sort of Jedi mind trick did Mr. Islam manage to work on the deputy Secretary of Defence to get Mr. Coughlin fired? Why is it impossible, that, say, it had become apparent to his bosses that Mr. Coughlin wasn’t providing value for money?
Without some kind of answer to these questions, not much there to hang one’s tinfoil hat on.
Yes, espionage is a murky subject, that’s why it’s so fascinating.
Not a thing. I’m in no position to do anything. If I were I wouldn’t be asking the Dope its opinion because I’d most likely be more informed than anyone here.
Well, espionage comes in a lot of different forms. Basically, the thing that interests me most about the war on terror is how it affects societal trust levels. The waters are murkier than ever due to globalization and the great influence that Arab businessmen have over American big business. We are highly interlinked with Arab interests. They discussed this issue back in the movie ‘Network’ in 1976 where our demagogue protagonist was censured by his boss for attacking the company’s Saudi investors.
No, your ad hominem is that you seem to think that their opinion is invalid because of the fact that the people making the arguments are ‘right wing’. Though it would seem that you have judged people like Bostom as ‘right wing’ because they agree with the ‘right wingers’ like Gertz and the National Review.
Sure, I recognize that they are opinion pieces, as would be an ‘actual news story’ in the Washington Times.
The point was not that it was false because it came from the political Right.
The point was that a bunch of like-minded people sitting around echoing each other’s like-minded beliefs is not evidence for anything more than their similarity of beliefs. I treat stuff that is posted on Daily KOS or Democratic Underground the same way (i.e., I wait for confirmation that an event has occurred), when the only other references to an incident are found on those sites, The New Republic, and/or like-minded blogs.
Note that despite all the hoopla that has made it into three Op-Ed pieces and dozens of blogs, there is still not even a single report by any news organization (including Gertz’s Times) that the event even occurred.
Yes, you implied that it’s racist to say that people might have loyalties to their own culture. How horrid of me. I shouldn’t dare to suggest that people might have loyalties based upon shared culture. No everyone is exactly the same, and as such have no special loyalties based upon such trivialities like familial bonds, or religious affiliation or any of those silly things. That are of course in reality mere aesthetic affectations and have no relationship to the political reality of the world where everyone gets along because they are precisely the same and have no differences, no loyalties based on those differences being as they don’t matter at all in our idealized monoculture. :rolleyes:
I provided a few articles and asked for opinions. Again, as you often do, you want me to hold an opinion, when I’m just curious about the subject. As I have said, I do not know what is true in this case. So your rhetoric keeps challenging me to provide proof for a position I do not hold, only one that I am speculating upon because it interests me. I am reading about this subject on two different message boards that I frequent. This one, and one that is a bit more right wing that examines the effects of theology on the political landscape with a strong emphasis on demographics and economics. It is interesting to me to see what people think. Mostly on both boards it is an echo chamber of people reciting party line creeds, but once in a while a great insight is shared that unlocks the ideas. What I am most interested in is the difference in the way the two different boards interact with the info.
Since all the “information” you have provided has been in the form of mutually re-inforcing opinion (the explicit point to which I objected last nght) and since you have produced no other information and since you have started or strongly participated in three separate threads, recently, in which Islam was characterized as inherently aggressive and Muslims, by implication, untrustworthy, you will forgive me for considering your claim to be merely seeking an opinion to be either disingenuous or naive.
Perhaps you are merely curious, but you have stacked the deck behind the question in a particular manner that suggests more than mere curiosity.
So it is in the interest of liberty to purge all evangelical Christians from the government, before they subvert it for their own loyalties, is that right?
)