Faux News Channel Funds Terrorists

CassinoChips

Get out.
Veteran
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
3,567
Gil
0
Setzer's Tent
DISCLAIMER: This thread is only indirectly tied to the mosque at Ground Zero and the controversy thereof. Please do not derail this topic by bringing that element into the discussion. The primary focus of this thread is Faux News Channel, the FOX parent company, and Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

++++++++++++++++

Faux News and its "reporters" and pundits have been foremost in the stance against the mosque at Ground Zero, alleging ties between it and potential terrorism. Coupled with that, they have been asking people to "follow the money trail," through which they have discovered that one of the backers of the mosque is an imam with murky links to radical madrassahs in the Middle East.

Then comes this nugget:

"Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince and one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News, is one of the financial backers of the Mosque at ground zero in NYC."

(overthelimit.info)

bin Talal has a $3 billion stake in NewsCorp. So if we follow the money trail, as Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and every other Republican mouthpiece has implored us to do, we can follow it right back to Faux News. Hypocrisy, thy name be FNC.
 
I'm not just going to come right out and say this is a stupid argument, but...

...how does News Corp's second largest shareholder being a Saudi Arabian entrepreneur have ANYTHING to do with "Fox News funding terrorists"?
 
By using Republicans'/FNC's own argument against them. Muslim guilt by association.

Imam Rauf -> alleged ties to "radical" madrassah -> funds mosque at Ground Zero -> terrorism -> Rauf is funding terrorists.

bin Talal -> Muslim -> ties to NewsCorp -> funds mosque at Ground Zero -> terrorism -> bin Talal is funding terrorists -> by extension NewsCorp is funding terrorists -> by association Faux News is funding terrorists.

More importantly, of course it's a stupid argument. That's the point.

The other morning, Faux News went on and on about the MaGZ project getting most of its funding from the Kingdom Foundation and it's Saudi ties, and how Giuliani refused $10m of their money after 9/11, all the while implying that the money funded terrorism, etc. etc.

You know who runs the Kingdom Foundation?

I'll give you a hint. It starts with b and rhymes with "din Talal."
 
DISCLAIMER: This thread is only indirectly tied to the mosque at Ground Zero and the controversy thereof. Please do not derail this topic by bringing that element into the discussion. The primary focus of this thread is Faux News Channel, the FOX parent company, and Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

++++++++++++++++

Faux News and its "reporters" and pundits have been foremost in the stance against the mosque at Ground Zero, alleging ties between it and potential terrorism. Coupled with that, they have been asking people to "follow the money trail," through which they have discovered that one of the backers of the mosque is an imam with murky links to radical madrassahs in the Middle East.

Then comes this nugget:

"Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince and one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News, is one of the financial backers of the Mosque at ground zero in NYC."

(overthelimit.info)

bin Talal has a $3 billion stake in NewsCorp. So if we follow the money trail, as Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and every other Republican mouthpiece has implored us to do, we can follow it right back to Faux News. Hypocrisy, thy name be FNC.
I thank you for this, sir. I have lol'd heartily.

Now granted anyone can put their money anywhere like this, but the way it all loops around is rather ironic.
 
This isn't much of a suprise. Americans have always funded terrorism, and not just the state sponsored South American terrorism either.
The IRA always got shitloads of money from Americans, probably because lots of Americans on the East Coast like to consider themselves Irish.
Also all the Gang wars/Narco terrorism in Mexico and South America today is funded by America's drug habbit and most of the guns are bought in America as America has far fewer gun controls and regulations than South American countries.

nt flmn r trlln.
 
And Faux news is undeniably American.
I'd love to say that Australia also funds terrorism, but I would be on less solid ground.

nt flmn r trlln.
 
DISCLAIMER: This thread is only indirectly tied to the mosque at Ground Zero and the controversy thereof. Please do not derail this topic by bringing that element into the discussion. The primary focus of this thread is Faux News Channel, the FOX parent company, and Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal.

++++++++++++++++

Faux News and its "reporters" and pundits have been foremost in the stance against the mosque at Ground Zero, alleging ties between it and potential terrorism. Coupled with that, they have been asking people to "follow the money trail," through which they have discovered that one of the backers of the mosque is an imam with murky links to radical madrassahs in the Middle East.

Then comes this nugget:

"Al-Waleed bin Talal, a Saudi Prince and one of the biggest shareholders of Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News, is one of the financial backers of the Mosque at ground zero in NYC."

(overthelimit.info)

bin Talal has a $3 billion stake in NewsCorp. So if we follow the money trail, as Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, and every other Republican mouthpiece has implored us to do, we can follow it right back to Faux News. Hypocrisy, thy name be FNC.

I think something similar to this was mentioned on the Daily Show recently, wasn't it? :hmmm:

TBH I'm not at all surprised; however, I suppose I don't blame Fox for wanting to refrain from letting a lot of people know about this. After all, if their viewers found out, a large portion of them would probably want to quit watching, and some of the featured reporters on their station have already embarrassed themselves so thoroughly as of late by being unaccepting of other cultures that I doubt they can really afford to do that.
 
And Faux news is undeniably American.
I'd love to say that Australia also funds terrorism, but I would be on less solid ground.

nt flmn r trlln.

:wacky:

Although, by your logic, you'd probably be on decent ground. I'm sure Oz has its fair share of heroin junkies. Which comes from certain unstable regions. Etc.

bsltly flmn n trlln

I think something similar to this was mentioned on the Daily Show recently, wasn't it?

Yes ma'am. Right after I read the article, I scrolled to the bottom of the page and there was a link to... Monday's episode I think it was. Which I unfortunately missed. :sad3:
 
:mokken: Lemme guess, you watched the Daily Show? All this means is that Fox News is tied to the bad-dudes--no one is claiming Fox is perfect. They're just better than CNN, or MSNBC, or any other "news" channel.
 
lol are they that miss-informed at Faux news? why would the CEO of Faux news let them act so dumb?? statements are always under some protocol and restricted right?
man or are they so dumb...it comes back to them..they playing a foul game which they stink in themselves...
lol...im talking about the magz project in particular..

I shouldnt be replying here to be honest, cuz I dont give a shit about rich companies.etc in america...but terrorists are a threat worldwide..
 
:mokken: Lemme guess, you watched the Daily Show? All this means is that Fox News is tied to the bad-dudes--no one is claiming Fox is perfect. They're just better than CNN, or MSNBC, or any other "news" channel.

I already said in the thread I hadn't watched that episode of the Daily Show.

But the point is, if Faux News is "tied" to the "bad" guys, aren't they implicit in the actions the bad guys take? Because that's the argument Faux News' mouthpieces try to make about Obama via ACORN, among others.

"Better" is a subjective opinion. I think they're all equally terrible, for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.
 
I already said in the thread I hadn't watched that episode of the Daily Show.

But the point is, if Faux News is "tied" to the "bad" guys, aren't they implicit in the actions the bad guys take? Because that's the argument Faux News' mouthpieces try to make about Obama via ACORN, among others.

"Better" is a subjective opinion. I think they're all equally terrible, for reasons that have nothing to do with politics.
Oh, yes. I agree, what Fox is doing is very hypocritical, indeed. But, they can't really help who their bosses are. It's funny they're still sticking to their stories, though. Despite one of their main money-suppliers backing the Mosque in a way.

They're quite brave, to be honest.
 
Back
Top