Jordanian lawmaker pulls a gun on a critic on live TV

[GostHacked]

That I want evidence? That just because karychik says its true doesn't necessarily make it so.

As DogonPorch indicated, this video has been going around for a few days. It is now making news in the MS in North America.

What should be obvious to you is that a heated exchange happened on live Jordanian TV. It almost does not matter what exactly was said, but what is important is that one guy said something and the other pulled a gun on him. What more do you need?

But the video has been vetted for the most part and is exactly what the OP indicated.

[Signals.Cpl]

As DogonPorch indicated, this video has been going around for a few days. It is now making news in the MS in North America.

Ok, so why couldn't kraychik support his argument?

What should be obvious to you is that a heated exchange happened on live Jordanian TV.

It is obvious what happened.

It almost does not matter what exactly was said,

It does matter when the argument is based around what was said rather than what was done.

but what is important is that one guy said something and the other pulled a gun on him. What more do you need?

Proof, for example what did I ask in my first post? I wanted to know how he got that, was there any source outside of the youtube video and rather than answering with proof he determined I was calling him a liar...

How did you get all that? Do you speak the language?

But the video has been vetted for the most part and is exactly what the OP indicated.

Now wouldn't it have been much easier if he had just done that after the initial question rather than getting "offended" because I asked for a reliable source?

[Signals.Cpl]

Well, "the facts" have been provided to you, no need to go around this circle again with a supposedly-conservative man who quotes a leftist like Mohandas Gandhi in his signature.

Why? Whats wrong with Gandhi?

[kraychik]

Now wouldn't it have been much easier if he had just done that after the initial question rather than getting "offended" because I asked for a reliable source?

I wasn't offended, at all. I was simply allowing you to expose your ignorance of the region. It worked out beautifully.

[Signals.Cpl]

I wasn't offended, at all. I was simply allowing you to expose your ignorance of the region. It worked out beautifully.

How so?

You make a claim, when someone questions it instead of providing evidence backing up your claim you start crying... it worked out beautifully to prove your ignorance...you couldn't even provide evidence of your argument.

[bleeding heart]

How so?

You make a claim, when someone questions it instead of providing evidence backing up your claim you start crying... it worked out beautifully to prove your ignorance...you couldn't even provide evidence of your argument.

Totalitarians demand 100% agreement. Hence the hostility you're reading from him.

Didn't you know that, you frigging radical lefty?

Edited July 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[TheNewTeddy]

Of course you don't believe me, because you are an oblivious leftist who is absolutely shocked that the anti-Semitism of this society is so intense that the absurd accusation of being a Mossad agent would trigger such a response. It floors you because you live in a fantasy land where all societies and cultures are essentially the same. People who live in Realville (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh), however, weren't really that shocked at all to come across this exchange. ]

You also greatly misunderstood my tone. It should've been quite clear that I wanted to trap Signals.Cpl into calling me a liar (or stupid enough to believe a false story), so that I could throw it back in his face and expose his ignorance. Thank you for doing the job for him.

You don't know me very well, I'm a very bad leftist. I support wars to Liberate, Israel (in general), I hate Unions, especially public sector unions, I've been a member of the Tories and voted for Harper in 2006.

As for misunderstanding your tone, that is possible. I was arguing that you, YOU, don't know what the people are saying and you've only confirmed that by showing translations others have made.

[GostHacked]

Ok, so why couldn't kraychik support his argument?

Thought the OP did that.

It is obvious what happened.

It does matter when the argument is based around what was said rather than what was done.

Just because something does not hit the MSM in your area does not mean it's not happening or it's not legit.

Proof, for example what did I ask in my first post? I wanted to know how he got that, was there any source outside of the youtube video and rather than answering with proof he determined I was calling him a liar...

A simple search could have done that if you really really wanted to know.

Now wouldn't it have been much easier if he had just done that after the initial question rather than getting "offended" because I asked for a reliable source?

Define 'reliable' source?

[Signals.Cpl]

Thought the OP did that.

No he didn't, he demanded I call him a liar.

Just because something does not hit the MSM in your area does not mean it's not happening or it's not legit.

Never claimed otherwise.

A simple search could have done that if you really really wanted to know.

And a simple answer with a reliable source would have sufficed as well.

Define 'reliable' source?

What he gave was a youtube video with a translation in the description box by someone with unknown competency in language in question. To me a reliable source would be one where they would be held to a standard(Newspaper, Television, Radio).

[GostHacked]

No he didn't, he demanded I call him a liar.

That demand was in the OP?

And a simple answer with a reliable source would have sufficed as well.

How many MSM articles don't have reliable information? Anonymous government sources say, some officials say. I don't expect much reliability out of most of the MSM. All of the alphabet channels have been caught doctoring information and reusing photos of previous atrocities to say they are new atrocities. Or misinterpreting what someone says to mean something different also happens a lot in MSM. Reliability?? Please.

What he gave was a youtube video with a translation in the description box by someone with unknown competency in language in question. To me a reliable source would be one where they would be held to a standard(Newspaper, Television, Radio).

Sure, name a few that you consider reliable?

[Signals.Cpl]

That demand was in the OP?

Look at comment #3,#5 and #12. All I wanted to know was if there was some way to determine if this was a reliable translation then he proceeded to say:

#3

Are you suggesting that I'm misrepresenting the dialogue? I want you to tell me you don't believe me.

#5

Tell me I'm lying, then.

#12

There's a reason I want you to call me a liar, which is essentially what you're implying with your demand for proof that the Jordanian lawmaker was accused of being a Mossad agent. This reveals a lot about your ignorance of these societies. It is only hard for you to believe the truth about this exchange because you think it is far-fetched that a Muslim Arab "political activist" (critic of the government) would accuse a politician he disliked of being a Mossad agent. This is not an uncommon accusation in Muslim or Arab societies to be hurled against a political enemy, and it is used intentionally to feed off of the virulent anti-Semitism that is endemic to these societies. You seem to be unaware of this phenomenon, as well. What you don't realize is how much you reveal about yourself, you assumptions and your ignorance about the region and its inhabitants, through the very little you actually said. No doubt you hoped your short request for proof that the exchange occurred as I said it did was innocuous, but in reality it revealed a lot about you.

I dont know if he understands the concept of a discussion but you present information and back it up I wanted more reliable source but he wanted me to call him a liar in order to produce the evidence.

How many MSM articles don't have reliable information?

Yeah, but when it concerns a simple thing as a translation where potentialy millions of people could see any errors or misleading information I would place more trust on the media than someone on youtube.

Anonymous government sources say, some officials say. I don't expect much reliability out of most of the MSM.

Again, there is a difference between an obscure fact or event that most people would not have access or knowledge to disprove it and a translation which could easily be proven wrong by many many people.

All of the alphabet channels have been caught doctoring information and reusing photos of previous atrocities to say they are new atrocities.

I went to my home country, when someone translated something from english I immediatly caught it because it was an obvious twist on the translation, I am sure there are many people who can disprove the faulty translation.

Or misinterpreting what someone says to mean something different also happens a lot in MSM. Reliability?? Please.

There is once again a significant difference between an obscure fact or asset like the 911 tapes of George Zimmerman and a language, one they could doctor the tape and hope that no one has access or does not notice, while translating something like this would be a significant risk to intentionaly mislead the people when you know the likely outcome is that someone or many people will point out the lie.

Sure, name a few that you consider reliable?

I don't know, for a situation where there is a translation that could be disproven by so many people I would say even Fox News would fit the bill mainly because it would be almost setain that they would be caught if they lie. Very few people/media sources will be stupid enough to be caught in an obvious lie with such an extremely easy way to be caught.

[GostHacked]

I dont know if he understands the concept of a discussion but you present information and back it up I wanted more reliable source but he wanted me to call him a liar in order to produce the evidence.

Actually I provided no more evidence than the OP.

Yeah, but when it concerns a simple thing as a translation where potentialy millions of people could see any errors or misleading information I would place more trust on the media than someone on youtube.

Well you said as long as it was 'radio, tv' newspaper' ... this just happened to be Jordanian TV.

I went to my home country, when someone translated something from english I immediatly caught it because it was an obvious twist on the translation, I am sure there are many people who can disprove the faulty translation.

So far the translation stands as is.

There is once again a significant difference between an obscure fact or asset like the 911 tapes of George Zimmerman and a language, one they could doctor the tape and hope that no one has access or does not notice, while translating something like this would be a significant risk to intentionaly mislead the people when you know the likely outcome is that someone or many people will point out the lie.

I think you are reading too much into this.

Very few people/media sources will be stupid enough to be caught in an obvious lie with such an extremely easy way to be caught.

Then you need to pay attention to much of what is in the MSM. The lies are all over the place.

[DogOnPorch]

Frick...this stuff happens all the time. A quick trip to one of the various rawer video news channels will produce numerous crazy videos from the ME. Often the ME has seperate categories all of its own...rich, rich field of 'YouTube Talent'.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5bc_1341870970

[Signals.Cpl]

Actually I provided no more evidence than the OP.

So? I asked him to support his argument which he could have easily done rather than go around and whine and cry that someone does not believe him.

Well you said as long as it was 'radio, tv' newspaper' ... this just happened to be Jordanian TV.

And the translation was on youtube.

So far the translation stands as is.

And it stands that kraychik does not like having anyone question the authenticity of his posts, and that in the future before asking him to provide more reliable evidence I would have to call him a liar in order for him to "prove me wrong"

I think you are reading too much into this.

How so? The first post states this is what happened and my source is on youtube, I asked how do you know, do you speak the language? And instead of posting support from any other site he decided to get offended. Do you throw a hissy fit every time someone asks you to support your position or claims like this guy or do you support your position or claims?

Then you need to pay attention to much of what is in the MSM. The lies are all over the place.

I never claimed that there are no lies, my argument is that most MSM outlets would be careful not to make a claim that is so easily refuted

[GostHacked]

I never claimed that there are no lies, my argument is that most MSM outlets would be careful not to make a claim that is so easily refuted.

Those claims are made quite often. The BBC was caught rehashing photos of Iraq's dead to claim they are of the atrocities in Syria. They make these kinds of mistakes all the time.

A good deal of the stuff the alphabet stations get, comes from a couple of the international sources. And the information is surely not all vetted as reliable or even factual. There is not much time for facts when you are about to see another country invaded.

Remember the run up to the Iraq invasion? What kind of lies had the MSM perpetuated and supported? And now that we know the real story, the MSM still does not go back on that for the most part. The MSM is complicit in the reporting of incorrect news.

[Signals.Cpl]

Those claims are made quite often. The BBC was caught rehashing photos of Iraq's dead to claim they are of the atrocities in Syria. They make these kinds of mistakes all the time.

Again though if I showed you a picture of a nondescript building and claimed the picture is of me in London, England most people would not be able to tell the difference. Putting something like that when you know it’s a small chance of getting caught is different than putting something that is likely to be disproven in a few minutes to a few hours.

A good deal of the stuff the alphabet stations get, comes from a couple of the international sources. And the information is surely not all vetted as reliable or even factual. There is not much time for facts when you are about to see another country invaded.

Again though, we are talking about a simple translation that anyone who speaks the language could do in 10 minutes.

Remember the run up to the Iraq invasion? What kind of lies had the MSM perpetuated and supported?And now that we know the real story, the MSM still does not go back on that for the most part.

That’s different because most Americans or westerners in general could not go to Iraq and verify whether or not the WMDs were there, but they can easily verify something like a simple translation.

The MSM is complicit in the reporting of incorrect news.

But do you think that they would go out of their way to put out false information when they know that it’s so simple and easy to catch them and not only that but it is almost certain they will be caught?

[TheNewTeddy]

Is it that simple though? How long as it been since the original video went online. Has anyone provided a full translation? Like, a translation of all of it, not just the few key phrases?

[DogOnPorch]

Is it that simple though? How long as it been since the original video went online. Has anyone provided a full translation? Like, a translation of all of it, not just the few key phrases?

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3481.htm

[TheNewTeddy]

Patchy but seems legit. I can hear the guy say "Mossad" but they chose to not include that line for some reason.

[GostHacked]

Again though if I showed you a picture of a nondescript building and claimed the picture is of me in London, England most people would not be able to tell the difference.

Some will be able to tell the difference. Other factors like the road in front of the building, the street signs, the light posts ect.

Putting something like that when you know it’s a small chance of getting caught is different than putting something that is likely to be disproven in a few minutes to a few hours.

It happens and we have seen it happen.

Again though, we are talking about a simple translation that anyone who speaks the language could do in 10 minutes.

The video is essentially vetted and you are still going on about it?

That’s different because most Americans or westerners in general could not go to Iraq and verify whether or not the WMDs were there, but they can easily verify something like a simple translation.

No for that it was that people did not pay attention to what happened between the first Gulf War and the 2006 invasion of Iraq. There were so many things thrown at Iraq during that time, that there was little to no hope in hell of getting a weapons program back online without pissing off the USA (as an example).

It's not to say he could not have done it in secrecy, but with the sanctions and no fly zones, Saddam did not have a chance.

But do you think that they would go out of their way to put out false information when they know that it’s so simple and easy to catch them and not only that but it is almost certain they will be caught?

Sure, I bet it happens all the time, and when caught, or they catch it themselves, it's a 'note' buried on another page with the correction of the article. They may correct themselves, but in ways you would not know about so the information you already have you think is true because you had not seen the revision. That would be a little harder to track down and keep up.

And with the amount of information/news we get these days through various means, some information will be wrong, and some on complete purpose. The news media's job (well it should be) to vet the information they get.

[Signals.Cpl]

Some will be able to tell the difference. Other factors like the road in front of the building, the street signs, the light posts ect.

Im talking about a simple side of the road picture avoiding any landmark, in the example you gave about the BBC using pictures from Iraq in stories about Syria, if they avoid anything identifiable they are just showing dead Arabs, now this might sound horrible but how many in Canada or the US can tell the difference between a dead Iraqi and a dead Syrian? There are certain things that are not easily proven or even caught while others are exceptionally easy to note and prove.

No for that it was that people did not pay attention to what happened between the first Gulf War and the 2006 invasion of Iraq. There were so many things thrown at Iraq during that time, that there was little to no hope in hell of getting a weapons program back online without pissing off the USA (as an example).

It's not to say he could not have done it in secrecy, but with the sanctions and no fly zones, Saddam did not have a chance.

I don't want to make this in to another thread about wether or not there were WMD's and all but the reality I would say is that it was a toss up wether there were or were no WMD's based on the information that was had at the time (Excluding the information that senior government officials had). The reality is that WMD's could have existed since before GW1 and therefore could have been in existence. What my point is that with the resources available at the time there could not be a definitive factual position within the general public because the MSM was giving us "facts" and we had nothing in the way of verifying them.

[GostHacked]

I don't want to make this in to another thread about wether or not there were WMD's and all but the reality I would say is that it was a toss up wether there were or were no WMD's based on the information that was had at the time (Excluding the information that senior government officials had). The reality is that WMD's could have existed since before GW1 and therefore could have been in existence. What my point is that with the resources available at the time there could not be a definitive factual position within the general public because the MSM was giving us "facts" and we had nothing in the way of verifying them.

Right, so verification of those facts would be prudent. Especially in the case of waring with another nation where you will sacrifice soldiers for 'the greater good'.

We were told the facts and evidence was slam dunk. It was anything but that. But the MSM perpetuated the WMD story as hard as they could. It got fantastic ratings. It was sensationalized and hyped. The reason? To put fear into people and to gain home support for an invasion that was not about WMDs at all.

Simply stating that the US is going in for regime change, and only regime change, you would get plenty of push back from the citizenry of the USA. Now since we know that Curveball's information was anything but factual, we can say that the information was not vetted.

[Signals.Cpl]

Right, so verification of those facts would be prudent. Especially in the case of waring with another nation where you will sacrifice soldiers for 'the greater good'.

We were told the facts and evidence was slam dunk. It was anything but that. But the MSM perpetuated the WMD story as hard as they could. It got fantastic ratings. It was sensationalized and hyped. The reason? To put fear into people and to gain home support for an invasion that was not about WMDs at all.

Again we are talking about average joe, people like you and I who might have our beliefs we have no way of actually proving anything until after the fact. You believed that WMD were non existent while millions believed otherwise and the definitive evidence was not available to us.

The reasons are not too important when it comes to this argument, its more that if the MSM told you there were WMD's you might not believe them but you have no hard definitive proof of their existence or lack of existence.

Simply stating that the US is going in for regime change, and only regime change, you would get plenty of push back from the citizenry of the USA. Now since we know that Curveball's information was anything but factual, we can say that the information was not vetted.

But at the time you couldn't prove it one way or another.

[GostHacked]

Again we are talking about average joe, people like you and I who might have our beliefs we have no way of actually proving anything until after the fact.

Do you understand the implications of misleading the country into war due to lies and misinformation because the information is not vetted? The consequences of that played out as many of us expected because we claimed that the information the USA put out was false. Now they fully admit that.

Your complaint here is that the OP did not back up the statement. Now that me and DogonPorch verified it as well (but hell don't take OUR word for it, go find it yourself) you seem to be still hung up on the OP not vetting that information.

The consequence of misinterpreting the Jordanian video is not on the same level as misinterpreting known incorrect data to lead a country to war. And this is where the MSM complicity comes in and more to the point that they know that their information is sketchy at best.

You believed that WMD were non existent while millions believed otherwise and the definitive evidence was not available to us.

Actually it was more than a belief based on information before and after the invasion.

The reasons are not too important when it comes to this argument, its more that if the MSM told you there were WMD's you might not believe them but you have no hard definitive proof of their existence or lack of existence.

The reasons are important. If you are going to war based on false data, many men and women died needlessly.

But at the time you couldn't prove it one way or another.

And their evidence was 'slam dunk', and the reality shows something completely different. Now you have to ask yourself. Since the information that the USA said they had on Iraq was solid, (know knowing it was 100% false and fabricated) you have to wonder about the rhetoric towards countries like Iran and Syria.

If either country is invaded (from the NATO side) due to false or misleading information, the ramifications are global. They lied once (more than than in previous administrations) they will lie again and the MSM will be complicit in getting the population behind another war.

[DogOnPorch]