Jordanian lawmaker pulls a gun on a critic on live TV

[Signals.Cpl]

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.

Yet, no matter what you say, you had no solid undisputed facts that you were right and they were wrong

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.

Again my issue is not with the proof but his answer to a simple question. I was wondering how he knew what they were saying, to me it is simple if you ask me to support a point I will do my best to find proof for my position rather than demand you call me a liar because you disagree with my position.

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.

Yeah, but the initial point I was trying to make had nothing to do with the consequences but the fact that some news articles were much easier to prove/disprove than others were/are. Iraq was one, you couldn't prove that there were no WMD's and that anyone was lying because you had no solid facts and no way to obtain said facts, while at the same time the MSM outlets that supported the claims of WMD's could not as well present solid undisputed facts.

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

What was the undisputed evidence before the invasion?

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

Again, in this situation reasons for and consequences as a result of are of no importance because I am trying to point out that neither side could prove that the other was lying unlike lying about a simple translation which could be proven/disproven almost instantaneously by millions of people.

And their evidence was 'slam dunk', and the reality shows something completely different.

What if the al-Assad regime collapses and evidence is found of Iraqi WMD's being transported in to Syria just before or during the invasion? Who will be the liar then?

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.

Well I agree 100% its not like al-Assad is killing his own people right?

If either country is invaded (from the NATO side) due to false or misleading information, the ramifications are global.

Just like the global ramifications from the Iraq war? I doubt that the US is willing to go to war with either Syria or Iran, seeing as they will be blamed for something either way, I can see them benefiting more from inaction.

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.

And you think thats limited only to the US? Governments have lied for thousands of years in order to achieve one goal or another, it is neither an American Invention nor an invention of the Media.