Jim Hoft, who blogs as ‘Gateway Pundit’, has been exposed as a liar before. He’s at it again.
Hoft links to a photo published by the BBC, as part of a story about a recent US raid in Baghdad:
US-led forces have killed 30 militants in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, the US military has said.
They said most had died in an air strike following a raid in the Shia district of Sadr City. Twelve people were also detained in the operation.
The US military said the dead were part of a network that was smuggling weapons from Iran, but witnesses said women and children were among those killed.
The photo shows a young man lying atop what appears to be a coffin, crying. Hoft jumps to a totally unwarranted conclusion, effectively lying about the contents of the BBC article:
The BBC mourns the loss of 30 heroic terrorists killed by Iraqi and American troops in Baghdad.
Read the BBC article. Not one word of “mourning” will you find. But because the BBC dared to publish a photo of an unknown young man crying over the death of someone close to him (and note that we have no idea whatsoever who is in that coffin), Hoft decides that lying about the contents of the BBC article is something he wants to do today.
Is there anything that Jim Hoft will not lie about?
25 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 8th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
righto
pssst. you forgot to look at the pictures that BBC directly associates with this article. link is IN the article. and yes it does say mourn. matter o fact, 5 of the 7 pictures associated to this article and this article alone are of people crying.
btw, my mother always said calling other people names just means you dont have the mental capacity to really debate. i think shes right
August 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
meatbrain
Pssst. You wanna make a point, supply the link.
And what exactly does it say? Quote the full sentence, with a link to the page on which it appears, please.
Jim Hoft lies. Pointing this out is a simple observation of fact.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Terry Gain
The BBC pretends there is some question as to whether Iran is supplying terrorists with weapons. The BBC are the liars. And by suggesting that their coverage is appropriate you’re no better.
Hoft wants the terrorists defeated so that ordinary Iraqis can live in peace and American soldiers return home. That day will not come until the fanatics are killed in sufficient numbers that the rest give up.
Apparently you don’t share his goals.
By supporting the insurgency people like you contribute to the death of innocents. You are a liar and much worse.
August 8th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
meatbrain
Specifics, please. What exactly did the BBC article say that you claim is false?
Apparently you like making shit up out of thin air.
Specifics, please. What exactly have I said in this article that you interpret as “supporting the insurgency”? What exactly have I said in this article that you claim is false?
Making wild-ass accusations is easy. Can you back them up with facts?
August 8th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
righto
Quote:
Making wild-ass accusations is easy. Can you back them up with facts?
Quote from BBC:
US raid kills 30 Iraq ‘militants’ (note the quotes)
The US military said the dead were part of a network that was smuggling weapons from Iran, but witnesses said women and children were among those killed. (these witnesses are Sadr City residents, a City openly against the coalition)
So the real question is, who do you believe? Somethin tells me you’d rather believe people who would kill you on sight, just for living in the west rather than the ones who make a living keeping your own country safe.
As for your link. As I said its in the article. for those too lazy to actually read the article here is the direct link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6937294.stm
Youll find the mourning in there.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Terry Gain
I’m to believe you go out of your way to defend the leftard BBC but none the less support the liberation of Iraq? There is no real differnce between your word games and outright lies.
“What exactly did the BBC article say that you claim is false?”
As I said. The BBC pretends there is some question as to whether Iran is supplying terrorists with weapons.
Can’t you read?
August 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
meatbrain
Something tells me you’re trying hard to avoid answering a simple question: What exactly does the article say that lends the slightest credence to Hoft’s accusation that the BBC itself “mourns” the deaths of terrorists?
No, asswipe. You’ll cite the exact sentence in the article that lends the slightest credence to Hoft’s accusation that the BBC itself “mourns” the deaths of terrorists.
Or, you’ll run away from the question. I think we both know which option you will choose.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
meatbrain
Translation: Terry cannot cite a single thing I said in this article that can be interpreted as “supporting the insurgency”. Terry cannot cite a single thing I said in this article that is false.
Terry’s accusations were piles of horseshit from the very beginning. Terry is all hat, no cattle.
So? Cite the falsehood, moron.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
meatbrain
And the article is “pretending” Because! Terry! Says! So!
But the actual evidence that the article is “pretending” is strangely missing. We’re just supposed to take Terry’s claims as Revealed Truth.
Golly, I wonder why?
The BBC is “cheering for the other side” Because! Terry! Says! So!
It seems that Terry considers his own babbling proof enough of anything. No actual facts ever need pollute his conversations.
How conveeeeeeeenient…
August 9th, 2007 at 3:56 am
kender
While it is fun it is futile in the long run, and your time is better served just poking this particular troll.
Observe…
So meaty, you are saying that Iran is not supplying weapons to iraqi insurgents?
Why do you support the insurgency meaty?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:26 am
meatbrain
The shitmonkey is unable to conduct an honest, rational discussion, so it falls back to the most transparent of intellectually dishonest tactics, the loaded question.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Terry Gain
Kender
I realize this guy’s a complete meathead, however every once in a while I like to go into the gutter and remind these rats that they’re fooling no one with their adolescent word games. This guy pretends that a leftard infested network which is so pathetic it apologized to the Iranian hostage takers for referring to them as hostage takers (sic) isn’t part of the problem.
Hoft has an update which proves who the liars are. As usual they are on the sinister side.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Terry Gain
Answer the question meathead. Why do you support the insurgency?
August 9th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
meatbrain
Gain claims that “The BBC are the liars.”. He has presented not one shred of evidence to support this claim.
Gain claims that I am “supporting the insurgency”. He has presented not one shred of evidence to support this claim.
Gain claims that I am a liar. He has presented not one shred of evidence to support this claim.
Gain claims that “the BBC is cheering for the other side”. He has presented not one shred of evidence to support this claim.
Gain claims that Hoft has ”[proven] who the liars are.”. He has presented not one shred of evidence to support this claim.
Gain is very good at making claims. He is utterly unable to supply factual evidence for any of his claims.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Terry Gain
Meathead
I would suggest that if you are going to pretend you are something other than what you are that you eliminate your blogroll and archives. Idiot.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
kender
meaty makes comments to try to bolster his bs arguments, yet is utterly unable to actually make that occur.
meaty makes comments…..and we laugh…...
August 10th, 2007 at 7:19 am
meatbrain
Notice the very predictable pattern followed by shitmonkey and Terry Gain. Both are unable to support their claims with any evidence, and both therefore turn to direct ad hominem attacks.
This is, of course, a loaded question, designed to smear me as a supporter of the insurgency rather than to advance any real argument. Gain has not yet learned to ask honest questions.
August 10th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
kender
August 10th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
meatbrain
This is, of course, a loaded question, designed to smear me as a supporter of the insurgency rather than to advance any real argument. Shitmonkey is unable conduct an honest discussion.
August 10th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
kender
No matter how long you avoid answering the question there it remains, unanswered and mocking your cowardice in honestly answering it.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
meatbrain
False. The use of the loaded question, and intellectually dishonest tactic, is further evidence that shitmonkey cannot conduct an honest discussion.
False. Shitmonkey understands nothing of the repercussions of the use of such a threat. It is afraid to even discuss those repercussions.
False. Shitmonkey is afraid to discuss the alleged “deterrent”, and seeks to derail the discussion by making an ad hominem attack.
Mu.
August 10th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
kemibe
It’s not surprising that when bloodthirsty ideologues and Fuddbloggers are asked to back up claims with evidence, they don’t even try. What’s at least a little surprising is that they don’t simply slink away after a comment or two. They, in effect, respond to meatbrain’s predictiions that they will launch more irrelevant, angry responses by launching more irrelevant, angry responses. They’re hapless wind-up toys.
For an example of an unconditional warmonger who almost makes Jim look disinterested, see this moron. The most striking thing all pro-war nuts share at this point is the belief that any questioning of how this grossly failed war has been conducted, period, amounts to rooting for the enemy. That’s it. They have no fucking concept of a middle ground, which helps explain why most of them are extremist in other ways (religion, gun ownership, abortion, etc.).
A fairly ambitious and learned 11-year-old can see that “If you’re not totally on board with this plan (which in the case of Iraq is a dishonest and failed one), then you want the other side to win” is childish and inane. But so are wingnuts like the one you find under whatever rocks and shithunks you keep overturning.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Bill from Dover
Hey! Let’s play a game. We’ll all search for the phrase insur and see what we come up with. Here’s what I found:
By supporting the insurgency people like you contribute to the death of innocents. You are a liar and much worse.
Why do you support the insurgency meaty?
Pretty neat huh? Accuse someone of something with absolutely nothing, zilch to back it up and then continually ask them why they support it.
A fuckin’ 3rd grader can come up with better logic than this. I know it’s a tough job, Mr. Meat, but hang in there. Somebody had to occupy the low-hanging fruit.
August 10th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Bill from Dover
BTW, the pentagon has conducted seven investigations into the Pat Tillman fiasco and there are still questions about what the hell happened. But then again, would one expect less from the same organization that gave us Jessica Lynch?
Yo Meat, can you get a preview button here?
August 11th, 2007 at 5:43 am
meatbrain
The site is definitely due for a design overhaul, Bill. Better comment handling is high on the priority list.