192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
Builder
 
  -3  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 04:40 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Al Qa'ida was the creation of the CIA during cold war games in Afghanistan.


Gross oversimplification


How so? It's on the record, my friend. Along with translating the Quran into languages never seen before, and radicalising already radical islamists with propaganda films. All on the record.
Lash
 
  1  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 04:59 am
@BillW,
I think individuals have a right to block who they choose. Suit should be thrown out.
hightor
 
  5  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 05:08 am
@Builder,
The USA recruited, armed, and trained Afghan and foreign "mujahideen" to fight the Soviets and the Soviet puppet government in Kabul. And some remnants of those forces coalesced around bin Laden around 1988. I don't dispute that. But it's a stretch to say that the CIA "created" what we know as "al Qa'ida".
Quote:
Toward the end of the Soviet military mission in Afghanistan, some foreign mujahideen wanted to expand their operations to include Islamist struggles in other parts of the world, such as Palestine and Kashmir. A number of overlapping and interrelated organizations were formed, to further those aspirations. One of these was the organization that would eventually be called al-Qaeda.

Wiki

It's difficult to see why the CIA would create an organization to specifically
"provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by staging a massive attack or string of attacks on US soil that results in massive civilian casualties." (wiki)

But it's not that difficult to see how the CIA might have formed an armed resistance group and subsequently lose control over it.


lmur
 
  5  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 05:27 am
@Walter Hinteler,
He may release his papers to his library once the audit has been completed.

I for one am looking forward to visiting the colouring book section.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 06:41 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Some people disagreed with what Dixie Chicks said, where and when they said it.
Uh... yeah. Let's note what they said in London:
Quote:
"Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
Then the boycotts followed, masses of CDs bulldozed, death threats, and country music stations broadly across the US dropping the DC from their play lists.

And why? What was the "disagreement"? They had spoken and acted in a manner which caused offence to a particular group of people - conservative Americans. They said something they shouldn't say to a (gasp!) foreign audience. This was definitely not "politically correct".
Quote:
No serious person tried to bring suit that they shouldn't be allowed to criticize the president.
What the **** does that have to do with anything?
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 06:55 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Setanta (Post 6505835)
Quote:
Trump says he wants a massive military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on July 4


This is so disgusting. On so many levels.

I've been travelling and just saw that one yesterday. I think there's about zero chance this will happen. But clearly the idea appeals to Trump. I expect he sees himself in attendance at the parade, surely on some elevated grandstand at some camera-friendly point along the route and, surely, he's backdropped by a half dozen 100 foot tall US flags, his chest is puffed up, his chin thrust forward, as his troops goose-step past while turned to salute him.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:01 am
@hightor,
Quote:
there are lessons there to be learned about the worldwide arms trade
A fascinating book on the arms trade is Anthony Sampson's The
Arms Bazaar
It was published in 1977 (lots has happened since) but the history of the arms trade is very good and much of what was going on when he wrote the book is still the case now.
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  5  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:14 am
@Lash,
Quote:
I think individuals have a right to block who they choose. Suit should be thrown out.


Individuals yes, President's no, because that is how he chooses to communicate with public he is serving.




Lash
 
  0  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:16 am
@blatham,
The **** was this.


You said:
"And who could or would argue with this attribution of the mental failing to liberals uniquely? Certainly not the Dixie Chicks whose speech rights were loudly celebrated by conservative Americans in keeping with their long-standing traditions of prizing an open mind and wide-ranging reflections/criticisms on broadly held cultural ..."
---------------------------------------
The Dixie Chicks' speech rights were never imperiled. They were responded to, you know, with free speech.
revelette1
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:16 am
@blatham,
I well remember, I used to be a big fan of Reba Macintyre and other like country stars (spell?) until that whole ugly incident. Since then, I haven't hardly listened to country music at all in protest.
Lash
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:17 am
@revelette1,
He obviously chooses not to communicate to the blocked ones.

Had to laugh.
revelette1
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:20 am
@Lash,
Laugh at what?

Anyway, he is supposed to be the President of the United States, which means all it's citizens, not just ones he likes.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:20 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Neoconservative realpolitik.
These two terms refer to completely different and opposing political stances.
Quote:
re·al·po·li·tik
noun
a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.
Paleoconservatism (a la Buchanan) is the main US manifestation of "realpolitik".

Neoconservatism is something else. But I haven't found very many people posting on boards like this one who have bothered to read up and get clear on what the term actually means. Instances of incorrect conceptions far exceed instances where the writer has bothered to get themselves educated on this ideology. The wikipedia page is helpful but you're best to turn to the work of Shadia Drury on the history and shape of this thing. Here's an interview with her on the subject

blatham
 
  5  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:40 am
@Lash,
Quote:
The Dixie Chicks' speech rights were never imperiled. They were responded to, you know, with free speech.

"Howdy and gooood morning, country fans. This is W-COW bringing you the best good ole American country music 24 hours a day, six days a week (Sunday's for prayin', of course). Let's talk a minute about the Dixie Chicks. Yeah, boooooooo. I know. Traitors. Scum. So what we're going to do here at W-COW is what country stations across this great land are doing. We're not going to ever play another one of their songs again. We're gonna shut them down. We're not gonna pollute the airwaves with communists and America haters. And if you hear anyone playing their crap, or if some cowardly socialists and money-grubbers in your city or anywhere in the US of A advertise a concert by the Dixie Sluts then phone them up and ask them why they are helping to destroy this great and godly nation. Don't let up. We're gonna bring this so-called music group down. We're gonna treat them like the godless liberals treat Ann Coulter. You betcha, bubba. God Save America"

blatham
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:45 am
@revelette1,
Quote:
Since then, I haven't hardly listened to country music at all in protest.
Many had pocketbook considerations. Others would have been driven by a certain species of rightwing ideology which holds criticism of US (or of a conservative president) to be a political and national profanity. The first is understandable, if rather cowardly. The second is the land of idiots.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 07:53 am
Front-running nominee for our celebrated No ****, Sherlock! award
Republican governors are getting into the “news” business.

Quote:
The Republican Governors Association has quietly launched an online publication that looks like a media outlet and is branded as such on social media. The Free Telegraph blares headlines about the virtues of GOP governors, while framing Democrats negatively. It asks readers to sign up for breaking news alerts. It launched in the summer bearing no acknowledgement that it was a product of an official party committee whose sole purpose is to get more Republicans elected.

Only after The Associated Press inquired about the site last week was a disclosure was added to The Free Telegraph’s pages identifying the publication’s partisan source.

The governors association describes the website as routine political communication. Critics, including some Republicans, say it pushes the limits of honest campaign tactics in an era of increasingly partisan media and a proliferation of “fake news” sites, including those whose material became part of an apparent Russian propaganda effort during the 2016 presidential campaign.

It’s propaganda for sure, even if they have objective standards and all the reporting is 100 percent accurate,” said Republican communications veteran Rick Tyler, whose resume includes Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign.
TPM

The deceptive pretense of being an objective, non-partisan news operation while in fact being the opposite... yeah, I'd call that propaganda.

Steve Benen has more
Quote:
If you swing by The Free Telegraph’s site right now, there is a disclosure notice at the very bottom that notes the outlet is “paid for by [the] Republican Governors Association.” But before anyone finds that impressive, it’s worth remembering that (a) the disclosure is in a small, gray font, against a gray background; and (b) that disclosure was only added to the site after the Associated Press started asking about it.

The Free Telegraph – not be confused with the Daily Telegraph, which is an actual newspaper published in the U.K. – has a Twitter feed that tells readers it’s “bringing you the political news that matters outside of Washington,” without mentioning its Republican ownership. The same is true of its Facebook account, which labels The Free Telegraph a “Media/News Company.”

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  4  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 09:04 am
Sean Illing at Vox has a great piece up on Gamergate and an interview with the woman at the center of the thing, Zoe Quinn. It's a truly ugly story but she's no shrinking violet, this lady.
Quote:
“We don’t have to be tolerant of other people’s intolerance. That’s bullshit, frankly...”

...Quinn, who was known for speaking out about gender inequities in the gaming industry, became an avatar for everything the male-dominated gaming subculture detested or feared. “If I ever see you are doing a panel at an event I am going to, I will literally kill you,” said one of the early messages she received. “You are lower than **** and deserve to be hurt, maimed, killed, and finally, graced with my piss on your rotting corpse a thousand times over.”

I spoke to Quinn last week about why she chose to write a memoir right now and if she’s worried about exposing herself to more harassment. “I don't know if you can do anything visible enough and still have teeth to it that doesn't piss off somebody,” she told me. “At least the people who are pissed off at me are miserable, hateful little fuckers that I don't want to like me anyway.”
Vox

farmerman
 
  3  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 09:21 am
@blatham,
Hurricane Donald makes landfall in NYC.
revelette1
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 09:37 am
@blatham,
Interesting article, thanks. Like the way she thinks.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Tue 19 Sep, 2017 09:42 am
@izzythepush,
Ugly plan. I hope it is stopped by saner folk.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.42 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 06:55:42