Olympic Security

[Splott Dave]

Not when the evidence is so heavily biased it forces people to come to the "logical" conclusion.

Everyone can own a different opinion, but they cannot own different facts.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Everyone can own a different opinion, but they cannot own different facts.

I try to base my opinions on facts. Something that is sadly lacking here.

[Splott Dave]

I try to base my opinions on facts. Something that is sadly lacking here.

You could always go and do the research for yourself? The information on all of the events I have mentioned is freely available. I don't make the news or create the dots.

[lardy]

You could always go and do the research for yourself? The information on all of the events I have mentioned is freely available. I don't make the news or create the dots.

Good idea. Let us all do our own research.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

You could always go and do the research for yourself? The information on all of the events I have mentioned is freely available. I don't make the news or create the dots.

The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

[Splott Dave]

The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

Do you deny the links? Do you have alternative or countervailing information which discredits them? The only way that you can criticise them is if you have factual evidence to disprove that any of these links are authentic.

The intellectually incurious will always rely on msm to explain to them what it is that they should think about on a certain issue, according to which ever agenda they are following that week.

It may fly in the face of what you previously thought in relation to certain events, but then you have to question where you acquired that knowledge in the first place? You always have to bear in mind that the sins of omission are just as bad as the sins of commission. Thus in the areas of any news item, it is always what you are not being told about, that you should be questioning.

[Badly Ironed Shirt]

Do you deny the links? Do you have alternative or countervailing information which discredits them? The only way that you can criticise them is if you have factual evidence to disprove that any of these links are authentic.

The intellectually incurious will always rely on msm to explain to them what it is that they should think about on a certain issue, according to which ever agenda they are following that week.

I was replying to your comment that "I should do my own research". The argument being put forward here is yours, I'm just asking for evidence. You have provided some links, I'll look at them later when I have time and then comment - how can I deny them until I've seen them? How can you assume I have denied them?

Trublue asks about the sources - you didn't answer that, you merely attacked state/corporate media. That doesn't add any validity to your sources, so maybe you could answer that question.

The intellectually incurious rely on MSM? That is a sweeping statement, are you suggesting that people who disagree with you having formed their opinions on the evidence presented to them are intellectually inferior to you in some way?

It may fly in the face of what you previously thought in relation to certain events,

You have no idea what I think of certain events. I have not stated anything here - so why make the assumption that I am, somehow, conforming to corporate influenced views?

but then you have to question where you acquired that knowledge in the first place? You always have to bear in mind that the sins of omission are just as bad as the sins of commission. Thus in the areas of any news item, it is always what you are not being told about, that you should be questioning.

Similarly, is it unfair for us to question where you have acquired your knowledge? What makes your choice of trustworthy media less fallable than the choice your detractors choose to "believe"?

[Splott Dave]

I was replying to your comment that "I should do my own research". The argument being put forward here is yours, I'm just asking for evidence. You have provided some links, I'll look at them later when I have time and then comment - how can I deny them until I've seen them? How can you assume I have denied them?

Trublue asks about the sources - you didn't answer that, you merely attacked state/corporate media. That doesn't add any validity to your sources, so maybe you could answer that question.

The intellectually incurious rely on MSM? That is a sweeping statement, are you suggesting that people who disagree with you having formed their opinions on the evidence presented to them are intellectually inferior to you in some way?



You have no idea what I think of certain events. I have not stated anything here - so why make the assumption that I am, somehow, conforming to corporate influenced views?



Similarly, is it unfair for us to question where you have acquired your knowledge? What makes your choice of trustworthy media less fallable than the choice your detractors choose to "believe"?

Do you wish to present an argument, or just be argumentative?

I'm not responsible for what you have read or not read on the various incidents.

The initial post positioned a concern. It went on to mention links which are widely available from a variety of sources related to 'terrorist incidents'. It's entirely your choice whether you choose to read the links, or research the connections between those two incidents for yourself.