HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » CIA Agent Exposes How Al-...

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 07:29 PM

CIA Agent Exposes How Al-Qaeda Dosen't Exist

88 replies, 8145 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 88 replies Author Time Post
Reply CIA Agent Exposes How Al-Qaeda Dosen't Exist (Original post)
zeemike Jun 2014 OP
Mnemosyne Jun 2014 #1
dvduval Jun 2014 #4
uhnope Jun 2014 #24
BlueStreak Jun 2014 #28
uhnope Jun 2014 #37
BlueStreak Jun 2014 #50
Archae Jun 2014 #2
zeemike Jun 2014 #3
malokvale77 Jun 2014 #8
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #26
BlueStreak Jun 2014 #29
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #31
newthinking Jun 2014 #6
BlueStreak Jun 2014 #30
uhnope Jun 2014 #5
zeemike Jun 2014 #9
dvduval Jun 2014 #10
zeemike Jun 2014 #12
rpannier Jun 2014 #17
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #32
rpannier Jun 2014 #39
uhnope Jun 2014 #57
newthinking Jun 2014 #14
uhnope Jun 2014 #21
newthinking Jun 2014 #40
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #33
newthinking Jun 2014 #41
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #27
5X Jun 2014 #7
rpannier Jun 2014 #18
uhnope Jun 2014 #22
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #35
uhnope Jun 2014 #38
newthinking Jun 2014 #43
uhnope Jun 2014 #58
newthinking Jun 2014 #42
Politicalboi Jun 2014 #11
zeemike Jun 2014 #13
RufusTFirefly Jun 2014 #16
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #36
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #15
zeemike Jun 2014 #20
uhnope Jun 2014 #23
Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #45
kristopher Jun 2014 #49
truth2power Jun 2014 #19
uhnope Jun 2014 #25
Historic NY Jun 2014 #34
fireflysky46 Jun 2014 #44
Enthusiast Jun 2014 #46
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #47
zeemike Jun 2014 #48
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #51
zeemike Jun 2014 #52
uhnope Jun 2014 #55
zeemike Jun 2014 #61
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #65
uhnope Jun 2014 #67
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #53
uhnope Jun 2014 #59
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #60
uhnope Jun 2014 #62
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #73
zeemike Jun 2014 #69
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #64
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #74
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #76
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #79
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #54
uhnope Jun 2014 #66
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #75
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #78
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #85
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #88
uhnope Jun 2014 #56
zeemike Jun 2014 #63
uhnope Jun 2014 #68
zeemike Jun 2014 #70
uhnope Jun 2014 #71
zeemike Jun 2014 #72
malokvale77 Jun 2014 #80
zeemike Jun 2014 #82
malokvale77 Jun 2014 #83
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #77
Name removed Jun 2014 #81
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #84
sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #86
LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #87

Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 07:34 PM

1. Remember when we called them Al-Cia'da(sp), here on DU? We've known it was horse crap since

before we shock and awed Iraq.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #1)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:07 PM

4. This Thread is BS

I am thoroughly convinced there are people making posts here to incite division here at Democratic Underground. How do we Down Vote this stuff? As posted below, Russia Today is well recognized as a Russian propaganda news outlet, and is by no means "free press".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dvduval (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:30 AM

24. the only way is that we do an "alert" on every RT video and make our case that

 

RT is BS and lies and doesn't belong on any decent website, that it's a ridiculously obvious propaganda outfit funded by the Kremlin and is worse even than FOX.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dvduval (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:11 AM

28. Please list your specific complaints about this interview

 

Don't just claim it is BS. Tell us where you think the gentleman was wrong and why you should have more credibility than he has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #28)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:45 AM

37. "ex-CIA agent" is RON PAUL supporter

 

nuff said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #37)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:31 AM

50. No, it is not "nuff said". List your objections

 

Don't engage in ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with the gentleman, tell us why. Be specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 07:38 PM

2. Three strikes...

And yer out!

1. Ex-CIA, even if true she was CIA, she probably got fired for something stupid.

2. "Russia Today," Putin's propaganda outlet.

3. Old "Jewish conspiracy" charges.

In other words, this video is pure bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 07:48 PM

3. Not she but he...Michael F. Scheuer

So obviously you never even looked at it before you declared it a strike out.

Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952[1]) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station", from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.

Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States' assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who was fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism"[3] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are "struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism."[3][4] Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed "the reasons for your losing the war against us".[5][6]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:35 PM

8. I think you called that correctly

That one saw RT and a women, and proceeded to jump the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malokvale77 (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:02 AM

26. Lol, so much for 'informed comment' on RT. One of the better International news

media outlets. But it's the same thing we got about Al Jazeera, only back then WE supported Al Jazeera, while it was the war supporters on the Bush side who hated it, same kind of talking points thought 'It's a Terra Owned, Mooslim, network'... Lol, I just laugh at the fear some have that the American people might actually learn something about what is going on outside the US.

Love that we get RT, Al Jazeera, CCTV and occasionally the BBC on our lineup. Since there's no news on our Corporate media, I probably would not be watching tv at all if it were not for the fact that we do have a few decent news stations now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #26)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:15 AM

29. RT wasn't making any commentary

 

The interview consisted of RT asking questions of Scheuer and allowing him to offer his views. It seems to me the lady was quite fair in her questions and was not overtly "anti American".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStreak (Reply #29)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:21 AM

31. They are very fair in their interviews and generally very professional. It's a shame to see the

same narrow minded thinking on the 'left' I once thought only existed on the right. I have told everyone I know to watch RT, mainly because I see the mindless effort to censor people. Did the same with Al Jazeera which was online back then. I donated to them when I realized the effort to censor them was so intense and got others to do the same.

Far worse than any news media, regardless how biased, Fox comes to mind, is CENSORSHIP. That is a sickness I despise, a blow to the heart of any democracy.

So to combat it whenever I see signs of it, I make sure to watch and support networks like Al Jazeera and RT both of which have some excellent reporters working for them from all over the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:21 PM

6. From sourcewatch - a progressive / liberal wikipedia

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Al_Qaeda


Perspectives

Summed up by Jason Burke in the March 21, 2004, Guardian Unlimited (UK):

"Al-Qaeda is as much an ideology or a set of values as a single organisation led by a single leader." [1]

In Burke's May/June 2004, Foreign Policy follow-up article "Think Again: Al Qaeda" he wrote:

"The mere mention of al Qaeda conjures images of an efficient terrorist network guided by a powerful criminal mastermind. Yet al Qaeda is more lethal as an ideology than as an organization. Al Qaedaism will continue to attract supporters in the years to come--whether Osama bin Laden is around to lead them or not."

According to the perspective of historian R.T. Naylor:

"Al Queda itself does not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neo-cons and Likudniks, some of whom, I suspect, also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad. By those terms, Al Queda is cast like 'the Mafia' and similar nonsense coming from police lobbies. This is a complex issue but, putting it very simply, what you have in both cases is loose networks of likeminded individuals-sometimes they pay homage to some patron figure who they may never have met and with whom they have no concrete relationship. They conduct their operations strictly by themselves, even if they may from time to time seek advice." [2]

According to the perspective of author Jason Burke:

"Every piece of evidence I came across in my own work contradicted this notion of al-Qaeda as an 'evil empire' with an omnipotent mastermind at its head. Such an idea was undoubtedly comforting - destroy the man and his henchmen and the problem goes away - but it was clearly deeply flawed." [3]

In the May 23, 2002, Christian Science Monitor, Kimberly A. McCloud and Adam Dolnik wrote:

"The United States and its allies in the war on terrorism must defuse the widespread image of Al Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organized terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as 'Al Qaeda.' Most of the affiliated groups have distinct goals within their own countries or regions, and pose little direct threat to the United States. Washington must also be careful not to imply that any attack anywhere is by definition, or likely, the work of Al Qaeda."
"we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy"

Peter Bergen wrote December 25, 2003:

"... there is a great deal of ambiguity about what exactly constitutes al Qaeda. Is it a terrorist organization run in a regimented top-down fashion by its CEO, Osama bin Laden? Or is it a loose-knit group of Islamist militants around the world whose only common link is that many of them trained in Afghanistan? Or has al Qaeda, the organization, morphed into something best described as al Qaeda, the movement -- a movement defined by adherence to bin Laden's virulent anti-Westernism/anti-Semitism and propensity for violence? Is 'al Qaeda' all of the above?"

... and describes four concentric rings of depiction:

"First there is al Qaeda, the organization. Most non-specialists are surprised to learn that al Qaeda has only 200 to 300 members. These are the men who have sworn bayat, an oath of allegiance to serve their emir, or leader, bin Laden, even unto death. (It is al Qaeda, the organization, that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.)

"The second concentric ring spreading out beyond the inner core of al Qaeda consists of perhaps several thousand "holy warriors" trained in the group's Afghan camps in the terrorist black arts of bomb making and assassination.

"Beyond this circle are tens of thousands of militants who received some kind of basic military training in Afghanistan over the past decade. Many of these trainees went to Afghanistan for what amounted to little more than a jihad vacation. Most were to be cannon fodder in the Taliban's war against the Northern Alliance. Think John Walker Lindh.

"Finally, untold numbers of Muslims around the world subscribe to bin Laden's Manichean worldview that the West is the enemy of Islam. Some of these, too, may be prepared to do violence."

Bergen concludes that there is evidence "that al Qaeda has successfully turned itself from an organization into a mass movement -- one that has been energized by the war in Iraq."

In the documentary series The Power of Nightmares, producer Adam Curtis "tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation." --Andy Beckett for The Guardian, October 15, 2004

"In an era of satellite television and the World Wide Web," Faye Bowers writes of Al-Qaida in Christian Science Monitor, "it is nearly impossible to stop boutique terror groups - small homegrown cells that can reach mass audiences with just a videocamera and a few stylish graphics." According to Michael Scheuer, a former senior intelligence official who studied Al Qaeda for more than a decade, "Their communications systems are light-years more sophisticated than they were on 9/11." [4]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Reply #6)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:18 AM

30. And in fact, the opposition to American interests in the region continues

 

whether they call themselves "al Qaeda" or not. None of them go out of their way to say "We are al Qaeda". It is always the western media that tries to make that association. Most of the time, that seems like a giant leap in logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:12 PM

5. "Israeli lobby" is dog whistle Kremlinspeak for their usual anti-Semiticism

 

The Russian government invented the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of Zion... Now they do it on TV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #5)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:48 PM

9. Right, back in 1903 before the revolution.

like that is relevant today...but just because you acknowledge the FACT that there is an israeli lobby does not make you anti Semitic.

Sources for the Protocols

The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. It was originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police, and unknown others.[3][4]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:04 PM

10. The real FACT...

The real FACT (I can use caps too) is you need to find a better news source than Russia Today. Putin himself has said RT reflects the views of the Russian government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dvduval (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:11 PM

12. You mean like the US MSM?

Who reflect the views of Corporate America?
I happen to believe in hearing both sides and making up my own mind...and this interview represents the views of a 20 year veteran of the CIA...is he a double agent working for Putin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #12)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:22 PM

17. Both sides???

Two sides presenting heavy amounts of propaganda is how you make your determinations?
If one side is propagandist garbage and the other side is as well, why listen to either
There are thousands of sources out there for information
Using RT as a counterbalance hardly qualifies as becoming more informed.

I would also add, two sides of any issue doesn't really exist. There are thousands of sub-stories going on in conflicts.

RT is inane, anti-western, pro-Russian garbage. It sits slightly above KBS here in South Korea and North Korean television.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rpannier (Reply #17)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:26 AM

32. I've been watching RT for more than two years, and have seen professional news reporting

by some excellent reporters with no sign of propaganda, unless you consider facts to be propaganda.

It is not much different than AJ in its format regarding the news.

Could you give some examples of what propaganda you have seen on RT's news programming?

Then maybe, instead of these 'I hate rt' with nothing to help people understand WHY, people could actually decide if what you are seeing, assuming you've ever watched it, actually is propaganda, or just facts that people would rather not see.

Now if you were talking about Fox, which unlike RT where I can hear from actual Liberals, absolutely pushes propaganda and doesn't have a single professional unbiased reporter that I've ever seen, I would agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:03 AM

39. I too have watched RT on many occassions

I actually enjoy some of their shows but to say they don't engage in propaganda would be untrue

Watch Peter LaVelle on Crosstalk.
His throw out questions are often O'Reilly-esque in their spinning

Kiev Goes For Broke: Divisions within the Ukraine are becoming greater with each passing day. The western backed government in Kiev shows no interest in compromise or negotiation. At the same time civilians in the east are dying. Kiev is going for broke.
Lavelle almost always has two anti-western journalists-politico's and one pro-western person. He encourages and prods the anti-western persons
Then there is always the subtle head nodding and shaking that he does.

Russia is always portrayed on RT as having nothing but the most noblest intentions in the Ukraine. There is seldom, if ever, any serious push back against Russia's involvement. Even after it became clear there were Russian soldiers in the Ukraine, RT still insisted they weren't Russian soldiers.
The story on their website about all the sandwiched being given to the 'self-defense forces' was so unbiased. The 'high heels or machine gun in close combat' would have been laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous

RT strongly suggested in 2010 that there were no slave labor camps in North Korea and only backed down when they were going to lose their license to be shown in South Korea -- one cable service pulled them and one refused to pick them up

Putin is this heroic man of the people. His greatness is so overwhelming that even Steven Segal was invited to tell us what a great leader he is, while Segal explained how to combat the scourge of terrorism.

There was no mention of the anti-Gay legislation that passed (at least no serious mention) and how neo-Nazi groups in Russia have been intimidating foreigners and non-ethnic Russians

Propaganda is not just what you say, it's what you don't say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #32)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:19 PM

57. here's some wonderful RT BS

 



Don't be naive. RT is trash. Read this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dvduval (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:45 PM

14. Actually, I have been researching and posting on this topic quite a bit and

there is no need to link to RT. There are lots of liberal/progressive sites doing deeper investigation than our lazy media.

I believe that the post I added earlier today was only the 2cd time I have purposely linked to RT, and I did that because it was not against TOS and was unfairly kicked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:20 AM

21. "there is no need to link to RT" ????? Then STOP

 

if you want to be taken even somewhat seriously

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #21)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:06 AM

40. I always want to do the opposite of what an authoritarian tries to push me to do

You still don't get it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Reply #14)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:29 AM

33. Thank you for the OP, I have found RT to be right more often than wrong on many issues.

It is a very reliable source on news so there is no need for you to 'explain' to those who object to sources they don't approve of. I think we are all grown up enough to watch and read whatever we find interesting and come to conclusions about the veracity and credibility of those sources. It is insulting to DUers to have these attempts to monitor what we use as sources.

So again, thank you for posting this link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:29 AM

41. That was the point ; I just did not say it well.

There are still many progressive sources that are trustworthy and not willing to compromise for a few more bucks in their pockets. My point being that I don't need to use RT (specifically) as a source to debunk the false narratives around Ukraine because what RT is reporting is well known and being reported throughout the liberal media. That should mean something here. It isn't just RT, half the world understands the real story. In Europe the leaders there are barely able to keep their people at bay. Most of the support, even from Germany is tepid. They are trying to "please two masters".

RT. provides information with a Russian viewpoint. That only sounds bad to someone who is a Russophobe. It is no different than most countries in the world. Most countries in the world have at least one public channel. PBS used to be mostly public funded but it was extremely reliable during that period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dvduval (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:07 AM

27. You mean like the Corporate Propaganda machine? Rt has excellent reporters, news from all over the

world and only on DU, and maybe FR I don't know, haven't checked, have I seen this effort to discredit. Their reporters are from all over the world, actual war correspondents, which don't exist in this country anymore, and the reason why they are going to work for other foreign networks and doing fantastic and courageous work.

Great work from RT on foreign news from all over the world, and some actual worth while discussion programs with great interviews where the reporters are actually INFORMED on their subjects.

Not to mention all the great Liberal voices we get to hear there who are never going to be seen on our own Propaganda Corporate owned excuse for news media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 08:30 PM

7. Let me see....

Should I believe cia analyst with 20 plus years experience or anonymous posters on the internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 5X (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:24 PM

18. depends on who the analyst is and what biases they bring to the table

Would you believe a CIA analyst with 20 years who supported the US government line or would you brush it off because it doesn't meet with your preconceived ideas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 5X (Reply #7)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:25 AM

22. because that same CIA analyst says Al Qaeda DOES exist here

 

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1073863.html

and because RT will twist anything and use any interview sentence out of context, and will just make stuff up and show fake footage that they know is fake: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017196999

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #22)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:35 AM

35. Actually the analyst in your link says the west's understanding of Al Queda is incorrect.

Give us an example of RT 'twisting anything'. I've watched them for over two years and have not seen their news crew do any such thing. But if you have some examples, please provide them.

So the analyst is saying there is no Al Queda as such, we KNOW THAT, in fact this is OLD NEWS. Are you disputing the analyst or what?

Eg, I wrote an OP years ago here on DU after one of our Generals actually told members of the press that they were using Al Queda, a specific individual at the time, who we 'killed' at least four or five times, and that this person wasn't even a member of any organized group.

So, what is so controversial about what this analyst is saying? Do you agree, disagree what?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:46 AM

38. Whaaaat? Do you understand the difference between

 

"Al Queda does not exist" vs. "the west's understanding of Al Queda is incorrect"? Too very different statements. This analyst has radically changed his tune. BTW the "analyst" is a Ron Paul supporter. Do you know Ron Paul's history with racism? Do you know how anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists use the term "Jewish Lobby" to mean "The Jews Control the World"?

RT is FOX News of Russia, but worse. OK? You've never heard of RT twisting something? Are you joking? Time to do your homework:
http://notsoreviews.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/dont-be-fooled-russia-today-is-trash/
If you can watch this RT video about the fluoridation of water evil conspiracy theory and ever take RT seriously ever again, well good luck with that because life is going to be difficult for you:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:01 AM

43. Yawn....

Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:37 AM - Edit history (1)

What they are saying is absolutely true. I learned that in college years ago.

You know why floride kills bacteria? Because it is a freaking poison. It's ok to use it to brush your teeth (and spit it out) but it really is not good to ingest it. My household has not used it in years. The risk is not worth the relatively small gains. Just teach kids to brush their teeth.

We are learning all the time and it is not unusual to reverse a long held therapy because we learn it is not so good for you. It doesn't help that in our system industry lobbies make it harder to make change when science learns of a problem.

It wasn't that long ago that they used to have people ingest radioactive iodine to get "better xrays" . Then oops, not such a good idea!

Maybe you are too young to remember that this is what most of our investigative reporting used to look like (without the Rachel Maddow edge, which is who she seem to be emulating).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:22 PM

58. Yes! Fluoridation Conspiracy Theory! Your credibility is shredding so tell us more

 

of your opinion of RT conspiracy theory.

Oh, I forgot, you don't answer inconvenient questions about your support of homophobic dictators and their lies. Nevermind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:34 AM

42. Seems we are having to re-cover old news.

Half the posters defending the real propaganda don't seem to even know what PNAC was all about. That is one of the problems of the new administration not having dealt with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:07 PM

11. Al Qaeda means The Toilet

 

http://www.smoking-mirrors.com/2008/02/hold-that-thought-ive-got-to-go-to-al.html

Maybe Al Qaeda is as dumb as the Teabaggers.

I don't believe in Al Qaeda, never did, just another monster "WE" created to keep the military in business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:20 PM

13. But you must admit it was a brilliant monster.

Not like having a country as one, because once the country is destroyed the monster is gone.
This is a perpetual monster, one that will be around for a long time, and one we can fight continuously and expend our resources on...it is a war not meant to be won but to be continuous...like Orwell described in 1984

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #13)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:38 PM

16. And with a seemingly unlimited supply of second-in-command's n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #16)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:37 AM

36. I can't remember how many #2 guys we killed over the years.

And we killed one 'leader of Al Queda', who was supposed to have only one leg, several times, before they decided we had begun to notice. When asked if they were sure they 'got him' that time, eg, did the one they claimed to have killed have one leg, which would have at least matched their story over the years, they couldn't or wouldn't say.

What a scam it all is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 10:34 PM

15. Israel and the SAUDIS are the ones dragging us into war.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:57 PM

20. That is probably true.

But the MIC don't need much dragging...there is money to be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:27 AM

23. yeah right. The Taliban don't exist. ISIS did not just sweep into Iraq

 

and I'm sure you will say Putin only wants peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #23)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:06 AM

45. Actually, it's al Qaeda as described by the Bush Administration that doesn't and never did exist....

 

Remember that they described a world-wide terrorist network operating in 70 different countries with terrorist cells ready to go on suicide runs when they got the 'go' order. They EXAGGERATED the threat to paint themselves as heroes that would save us and to justify their authority to rule.

THEY didn't even take it seriously.

Do you know how you can tell?

In the middle of this epic battle for the future of mankind and civilization itself the Republican led congress decided to hold hearings on steroid use in sports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #45)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 09:24 AM

49. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 11:31 PM

19. thanks for posting, zeemike. Too bad that some

won't even bother to watch and actually analyze the content.

Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 12:58 AM

25. "ex-CIA agent" is RON PAUL supporter

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:30 AM

34. Problem is that isn't what he has said in the past....

seems to him everyone has problems except himself in accepting blame for the 911 attacks. He tends to blame others when he himself was allegedly in the arena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:31 AM

44. Kremlin TV and his useful idiot conspiracist.

 


When its not the CIA its the gay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:32 AM

46. I think it was an interesting piece.

The guy made some good points that I happen to agree with. And I do not support Rand or Ron Paul in any way and I'm not anti Semitic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:09 AM

47. Michael Scheuer is REALLY not a suitable person for progressives to quote

I'm not a fan of RT as a source; but at least one could say that it's giving a certain (unreliable) Russian perspective. But Scheuer is not Russian; he is an American hard-right isolationist of the old-fashioned 'America First' variety.

The 'Israeli lobby in the US are getting us into wars!' is classic xenophobic paranoia: in this case, anti-Semitism. It is easy to find youtube videos of his speeches which accuse Israel of 'owning Congress', etc. I won't link to them, but they're easy to find. But it's not only Jews that he's paranoid about; he seems to subscribe to almost every right-wing xenophobic anti-liberal conspiracy theory that exists.

He now has his own 'Non-intervention' blog:

http://non-intervention.com/

Note the following gem in particular (it reads almost like a parody of right-wing nuttery):


'How to do this? Well, first, impeachment is out of the question. The Congress is completely unable and unwilling to do anything to protect the American people from what has become the everyday-lawlessness of Obama and Eric Holder. An impeachment proceeding would immediately be identified by the Democrats and their slaves in the mainstream media as an effort by the nasty, racist Republicans to unseat the noble Black man who aspires to help all citizens by becoming America’s first, post-1776 monarch. Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats’ various colonies of automatons — Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. — a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war.'


Is this REALLY the sort of person on whose opinions we should be relying?

No, I do not think that most American (or British) interventions in the Middle East have been beneficial: most have been the product of a slightly different form of RW xenophobic paranoia, and have led to destabilization and disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 08:44 AM

48. Well I don't rely on people's opinion.

Nor do I divide them up into people you can listen too and people you can not hear.
But I guess saying that makes me one of them because you are ether with us or against us.

Some people want it to be that way...if Ron Paul were to say he is for something then we would have to be against it...and likewise here if one of "them" says something about the false narrative of the Neo Cons we must believe it is true...because every one of "them" must be wrong on everything they say.

Frankly it is the same thing that the right wing does to it's followers, and in this case I don't think we should be like them at all...I think we should be different than them, and consider every point made on it's own merits, not on who is saying it or what they said on something else.

But that is just me...I see the left and right becoming more alike than different in this respect...and I find it disturbing, and can see no good coming from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #48)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:44 AM

51. I just don't see a point in quoting haters.

Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

But perhaps that's just me.

I think that pundits' points are usually embedded in their wider worldviews. So that if Scheuer criticizes American interventionism, it is embedded in a view that all foreign 'entanglements' are bad; and that Obama's entire constituency ('abortionists, environmentalists, gays,' etc .) are suspect; and indeed that Democrats are likely to cause race war and civil war. I think that there is about as much point in listening to the words of such an individual, as in listening to the hissing of a poisonous snake.

I do think that British and American interventionism in Iraq have been dangerous and destructive and criminal; I have said so since 2003. So have many others. I don't think the fact that Scheuer says it makes it not true; but I do think that Scheuer is using it to attack foreigners and liberals (just as many of the pro-war Right have done); and that there is little point in encouraging such people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:23 AM

52. And I don't see any point in slapping a label on people to dismiss what they say.

Because that is exactly what the right wing does in most every case...Commie, anti American, Moonbat, and yes even hater...they have a label for anyone who speaks out about anything.

I don't know that this man is a "hater"...and in fact I reject that label when it is used on anyone that meanly says things you don't like to hear.
If we become just like them but on opposite sides we are them...and that merger will be our downfall.

But what he said was attacking the neo cons and the Bush administration, so it is not just attacking liberals...it is attacking the policy.
And I don't give a damn what his politics are, if he speaks the truth about the disastrous polices of our wars I will listen, and I will not dismiss him as a "hater"

But that is just me...your experience may be diferent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #52)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:05 PM

55. and you don't draw the line anywhere? You take Alex Jones seriously? Breitbart?

 

Or is the true that you take any so-called authority on RT because you like the message--the twisted message of Putin TV?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:03 PM

61. Well there is a difference between taking them seriously

And condemning everyone who ever spoke to them or had any contacts with them at all.
And that is what your talking about...Tom Hartman and others...even Larry King is on RT...you want them shut up too.

I don't do guilt by association well...but it works for the right wing I guess...so you want us to use it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:11 PM

65. I am not 'condemning everyone who ever spoke to them'; I am condemning Scheuer himself!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #61)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:16 PM

67. No, you are taking this "analyst" at face value when the less gullible or the less corrupt

 

see him for what he is--a RW nutter (see post 47) being cherrypicked by RT as they always do

So who is the one using the tactics of the RW here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #51)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 02:28 PM

53. Are you supporting our interventionalist foreign policies? It's not clear whether or not you

do or are just using that as an example of some sort.

I don't, for the record, so if that is this analyst's viewpoint it is a very liberal pov, one we don't get on the Corporate controlled MSM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:26 PM

59. do you support Putin's interventionalist foreign policies? And his private FOX TV of RT?

 

Or do you actually like anything that says "America bad" even if it's the Kremlin-owned FOX news of Russian neocons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #59)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:58 PM

60. Well, since you decided to speak for me, using that old internet mind reading device we are all so

familiar with, why bother asking ME for my views?

For others reading however, I live HERE in the US so have zero influence over any other country, in fact we have little influence right HERE as we've learned.

I notice you didn't answer my question, so if you don't mind, I will use my internet mind reading devices and conclude that you do support our interventionist foreign policies. You are free to correct that if my mind reading devices are not working correctly.

But for argument's sake, has Russia been attacking the US with WMDs and Mushroom clouds lately? If so, then dammit, yes, we need to go to war with them.

But I'm leery of being told about WMDs and Mushroom clouds headed our way, I'm sure you can understand why.

As far as Ukraine, why are we there? That is the EUs and Russia's problem to sort out. Is there money to be made there? I suspect that IS the reason we are there interfering in what has turned out to start looking like all the other Western interventions in recent history, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia. Everywhere we have intervened is a humanitarian disaster. Which is why I do not support these for profit interventions.

However if we are being attacked by Russia with WMDs and Mushroom clouds, I will be the first to demand that our government do everything they can to defend this country. Meantime I see NO reason for our intervention in Ukraine.

As for RT, it is a great news source, much like Al Jazeera was back when Bush was occupying the WH. Reporting NEWS that our own Corporate media were not allowed to report.

Fox is a right wing foreign run propaganda machine for war.

Rt's bias is more to the left, and given a choice, I prefer left to right any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:03 PM

62. "Rt's bias is more to the left" NNNNG wrong. try again

 

It's disguised as progressive but it is so not. But apparently Americans are not getting any less naive or gullible, or educated about the outside world

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #62)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:01 PM

73. Lol, well to my knowledge, Thom Hartmann, Pepe Escobar, among others, are not 'disguising' anything.

And RT has provided them with a media audience to push Liberal views which of course the Corporate MSM has decided never to do.

Fail, seriously, you are talking to people who are capable of thinking for themselves, not willing to accept the same old talking points we got re Al Jazeera during the Bush years. We were right then, to support that beleagured news network, how many of their reporters died or were tortured, I don't have a number. And we are right now, never to listen to those who would try to suppress information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:23 PM

69. Thank you Sabrina.

You said what I feel nicely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #53)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:10 PM

64. No. I'm most certainly not!

I have said elsewhere that there are two main forms of vicious hawkishness: xenophobic-isolationism and neocon-imperialism and each is worse than the other.

Scheuer is a xenophobic-isolationist (as are UKIP; the BNP; etc); the Bushies and Blairites are neocon-imperialists.

If they want to eat each other, great; but I want neither of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #64)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:05 PM

74. Well, the Left sure supported him throughout the Bush years. Any idea why? Could it be he had

some insight that, when Bush was fronting for the MIC, resonated with the Left?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #74)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:22 PM

76. The Left supported Michael Scheuer?

Not something I'm aware of. Who on the Left did so?

As I understand, he is/was a fairly regular Fox News guest; and support for him tends to appear on such sites as VeteransToday, DailyPaul, antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell's site, etc. I have not seen any real support for him on the Left!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #76)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:34 PM

79. Yes, he was lauded for speaking out against the Bush administration on the left.

I would never have heard of him otherwise since I never go to Fox, or any other right wing website or media outlet. I knew of him only from Dem forums, where he was considered a hero for daring to speak out against Bush when doing so was fairly risky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:21 PM

54. And yet, Michael Scheuer was quoted quite 'liberally' even here on DU during the Bush years.

Airc, he was lauded for standing up against Bush lies. Wasn't he fired by Tenet btw? So why do you think he was a hero to the Left during the Bush years?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #47)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:11 PM

66. GREAT post. RT is trotting out a RW nutter and the gullible think it's "progressive"

 

Really embarrassing for the large numbers of naive folks here who seem to have a fanboy/fangirl need to believe RT is their friend with a pony

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #66)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:07 PM

75. Can you explain why the Left supported Scheurer throughout the Bush admins?

When did the 'Left' decide he was a Right Wing nutter? I missed that transition from support to opposition.

So what you're saying is we are all 'naive' when we supported him way back during the Bush era?? Care to explain that support?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #75)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:29 PM

78. Seriously - who on the Left supported him during the Bush era?

Of course, most on the Left opposed the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean we saw eye to eye with everyone else who opposed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #78)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:03 PM

85. To start with, do a search on DU on Scheurer. We have become accustomed to seeing those

who opposed Bush's policies smeared in recent years. But airc, Scheurer had the status to point out the lies. I don't recall anyone asking 'but is he a Republican, a Libertarian, NOT a Democrat'? No, we never paid attention to the political affiliation of those who opposed Bush publicly, except to congratulate them, see Drake eg, for 'having the courage to speak against their OWN PARTY'

For some reason this has changed for a few here. All of a sudden their political affiliations have been the PRIMARY 'concern' of a few.

Interesting, isn't it? The way things change for some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:00 AM

88. They may have changed for some, but not for me

Here is a link to a thread from 2008 - when Bush was still president- where I was commenting on a Scheuer article, and on the antiwar.com site which he then frequented:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x221587

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:15 PM

56. Misspelling in the subject, "doesn't". Respectfully: Is English your second language and is Russian

 

your first?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #56)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:07 PM

63. The title was the same as the You Tube title.

No, English is my only language...and I have been an American all my life, and my ancestors came over on the Mayflower...is that enough to make me a real American?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #63)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:22 PM

68. just curious. Some of the RT defenders and pro-Putin crowd might be sock puppets

 

from the way they post. One fervent Putin defender, who eventually got banned for vile racist posts, was definitely from somewhere in eastern Europe if not Russia.

I also see the video was reposted on Youtube by someone who is into conspiracy theories like HAARP causes earthquake. Yeah, typical RT viewer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:27 PM

70. And some of the anti crowd could be sock puppets too.

For the MIC which wants war somewhere in the world all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #70)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:29 PM

71. ahhh. paid posters sent by the MIC? please develop this conspiracy theory a little more for us

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #71)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 05:32 PM

72. Well you started it.

So tell us how Putin is placing sock puppets here...and how you know because of a misspelled word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #72)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:55 PM

80. Mercy

It is like trying to reason with a 2 year old. I can visualize the foot stomping.

You are very patient indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malokvale77 (Reply #80)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:22 PM

82. I am retired and have nothing better to do with my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #82)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:35 PM

83. Dang

I'm looking forward to being in that position. Not much longer to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #68)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 06:28 PM

77. I think this goes way beyond RT to be honest.

Nor do I think that most RT quoters here are Russian (it might be more constructive if they were, and were bringing actual experience to the discussion).

I don't think RT is a particularly reliable site; but so far as I know, this is the first time that Scheuer has been quoted by them. Mostly he is on American neo-isolationist sites. Rather ironic under the circumstances that he'd allow himself to be interviewed by a Russian organization; but xenophobes are often highly inconsistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #77)


Response to Name removed (Reply #81)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:09 PM

84. RT puts people on who are not puppets, mostly Liberals actually. Are you suggesting that people

who are Liberal, should be kept off the air completely? If that is what you want, you got it. The US Corporate media will never allow Liberals like Thom Hartmann eg, to speak about policies like our disastrous foreign Wars and Wall St so you are free to watch the MSM if that is what you prefer.

I will continue to seek out Liberal voices who tend to be correct about policies, such as the Iraq invasion and Wall St. among other things. And I find them on RT frequently, people who SHOULD be on our own media, but facts are not what the MSM is interested in ever since it was bought by six Corporations.

To each their own. I have no problem with what you choose to watch or read. Not sure people are so concerned about what I choose to watch or read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #77)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:09 PM

86. Were you around on DU during the Bush era? Scheurer spoke out against Bush policies and was, airc,

fired by Tenet for his opposition to Bush's lies. It must be hard on those like Scheurer who served his country to watch what has gone on here for over a decade. You say he is 'isolationist'. How so? What was 'isolationist' about opposing a war that we all knew was FOR PROFIT and certainly not for America's National Security.

If HE is an isolationist for opposing these ME invasions and proxy interferences, then every one of us on DU could be accused of the same 'crime'.

I'm not following your logic, so maybe it's me. But was he WRONG to oppose Bush policies re the ME, and is he wrong NOW to maintain the same views that WE ALL HAD back then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #86)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 02:45 AM

87. I have been on DU since 2004. I have been opposed to the war since it started!

'If HE is an isolationist for opposing these ME invasions and proxy interferences, then every one of us on DU could be accused of the same 'crime'. '

NO!!!! THIS is not what I am objecting to; what I am objecting to in this specific case is his blaming the 'Israeli lobby in the US' for 'getting us into wars'. Not to mention his otherwise far-right views that I cite below. And I have disliked him since I heard of him in (I think) 2007 - when Bush was still president; though I was not aware of e.g. his extreme 'pro-life' viciousness, until now.

Opposing one individual who happens to be against the war, but is right-wing in every other possible way, does not mean supporting the wars and interventions. Just as opposing the wars and interventions does not mean supporting the terra-ists, as Bush argued.. One can oppose the wars, without blaming the Jews and feminists (see below for the latter), just as one can oppose terrorism, without blaming Iraq and the doves.

And it is not me who is calling him an isolationist; this IS where his views are coming from. Ask him; that's what he'd say. And I don't even think that being an isolationist as such is all that bad; it's the xenophobia and right-wing attitudes that go with it in the paleo-conservative context.

From his own blog:

http://non-intervention.com/

Italics mine:
'Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats’ various colonies of automatons — Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. — a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war...


It would, I think, be quite hard, though not impossible, to prove that Obama waged war against the United States. To wage war against America, Obama would have to have some semblance of manliness — he has none — and he would need one of those guns he hates. Indeed, any fair-minded jury looking at a man like Obama could only conclude that he was fit to wage war only against those who cannot defend themselves, like unborn Americans and U.S. soldiers, Marines, and intelligence officers sworn to defend the Constitution. ...

How long, for example, will they continue to believe that bloodthirsty people like Mrs. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the other antiquated but still fanatic Democratic feminists really care about the lives of 300 Nigerian school girls — except as pawns to be used to win votes and put more of our troops in harm’s way — when they have done nothing but applaud and champion laws that have, since 1973, allowed more than 55 million unborn Americans to be deliberately butchered? How long can we Americans claim to be decent and sane human beings while supporting a party peopled by would-be tyrants like Obama and real-life slaughterers like the Democratic sisterhood


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread