Not sure what the inconsistency is supposed to be here
My personal favorite is the claim that Al Qaeda was not “fully fledged” in 1996–the year that bin Laden issued his fatwa openly declaring war on the United States.
One can consistently (indeed, easily) assert that The Times is biased–and that the Times contains the very information one needs to show that it’s biased. It’s a big newspaper and there tends to be a lot in it.
It’s not “useless” as a source for news, but it is flawed. I’ve used NY Times examples because it’s the paper I get. But I have noticed the same sorts of things in the Washington Post, which is the other paper I read (though not as carefully or as often).
You ask, “What has the Times done?” Let’s start small. What do you think about the Times’s claim that Al Qaeda was not “full fledged” in 1996 in an article describing the connections online payday loans West Virginia between Al Qaeda and Iraq in 1996?
Irfan Khawaja – 8/4/2006
It’s not clear to me why your idiosyncratic challenges should set the agenda of this discussion. I asked a question, and I think I’m entitled to an answer to it before you decide that it’s time to change the subject. If you don’t like that, maybe you should kindly find another set of interlocuters. Do YOU think Al Qaeda was NOT “fully fledged” in 1996? If you’re not interested in that question, I’m not interested in your comment.
Irfan Khawaja – 8/4/2006
You’re wrong. The question I asked was whether Al Qaeda was or wasn’t fully fledged in 1996. You deferred an answer it–he didn’t address it at all. It’s not obvious that he subscribes to your view. He didn’t say so, and you are after all autonomous individuals. He mimicked my language, and was clearly aiming his comment at me–while evading the issue I had raised (and not even being able to address me explicitly). So he did owe me an answer before I had any obligation to address a further subject.
Incidentally, you’ve offered a rather charitably inaccurate summary of what he actually wrote (which I think is a necessary condition of being able to defend him). He didn’t make a request satisfiable by the citation of one article. He made a request for every article pertinent to his inquiry. (Re read what he wrote and pay some attention to the plurals. Ask yourself: what WOULD satisfy that request, as stated?) Well, sorry, but I’m not his research assistant.
As for your telling me that I shouldn’t have written a response, with all due respect Adam, I don’t think it makes any sense whatsoever. I wrote a comment that was perfectly responsive to Lederer, but one to which Clarke addressed an irrelevant response. It’s legitimate for me to demand that Clarke either respond to what *I* am saying or not respond to me (e.g., mimicking my language) at all. And I haven’t said I won’t entertain a response from him, so it’s senseless to say I shouldn’t have written a response to him. I’ve said I won’t entertain a response *to me* that’s irrelevant to what *I’ve* said. Am I obliged to entertain responses to things I HAVEN’T said? Or obliged to entertain research assistant-level requests for archives of information because Peter Clarke decides that I’m his unpaid info-servant? Sorry. I don’t operate that way and don’t see why I should.
Irfan, I believe I have located our communications problem. It stems from your question: “What do you think about the Times’s claim that Al Qaeda was not “full fledged” in 1996 in an article describing the connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq in 1996?”