HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 49 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 35,666

Journal Archives

Neocons Urge Embrace of Al Qaeda

I'm having a hard time keeping track of which terrorist group we are supposed to be afraid of, which are now freedom fighters, and how much it depends on what our government thinks of the government they are terrorizing.

But since al Qaeda is supported by our close ally Saudi, there's no way neocons were tempted to use them for a little terror here in 2001 to give Americans an attitude adjustment in favor of war.

The latest evidence of a sea change in establishment thinking is a blog that Ahmed Rashid, a prominent Middle East correspondent, recently published on The New York Review of Books website. Entitled “Why We Need al-Qaeda,” it argues that Al Qaeda and its Syrian affiliate, Al Nusra, are evolving in a more moderate direction in growing contrast to its rival, the super-violent Islamic State. So why not use Al Nusra as a counterforce against both Bashar al-Assad and ISIS?

As Rashid puts it: “Unlike ISIS, which demands absolute subjugation of the inhabitants of any territory it conquers (surrender or be executed), al-Nusra is cooperating with other anti-Assad groups and recently joined the ‘Army of Conquest’ alliance of rebel militias in northern Syria. Moreover, in contrast to ISIS’s
largely international and non-Syrian fighting force, al-Nusra’s fighters are almost wholly Syrian, making them both more reliable and more committed to Syria’s future.

This is dramatic stuff. After all, Rashid is not taking aim at some minor doctrine, but one that has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since 9/11. Moreover, he’s not the only one talking this way. Since Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan flew to Riyadh in early March to meet with Saudi King Salman and discuss ways of upping support for the Syrian Islamist opposition, there has been a veritable boomlet in terms of calls for a rapprochement with Al Qaeda.

Within days of the Riyadh get-together, Foreign Affairs went public with an article arguing that even though “the United States is the closest it has ever been to destroying al Qaeda, its interests would be better served by keeping the terrorist organization afloat.”
Lina Khatib, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, wrote a few weeks later that “while not everyone likes Nusra’s ideology, there is a growing sense in the north of Syria that it is the best alternative on the ground – and that ideology is a small price to pay for higher returns.”


TOON: How to tell a terrorist from a wacko

Why is it we forced "de-nazification" on Germany but not the equivalent on Confederates?

In some respects, Lincoln was too kind to Southern leaders, wanting a gentler, conciliatory reconstruction rather than bringing their leaders low and root out violent racists the way Ulysses S. Grant later did as president--but too late to have the public behind him.

As Dylan Roof lamented, the Klan and other racist groups never quite recovered from Grant's work in South Carolina.

It seems a little reminiscent of the Wall Street bailout. Wealthy Southern planters profited mightily from the labor of slaves, started a war that damaged the entire country, and Lincoln was most concerned about bringing those very enslavers and traitors back into the family.

That soft approach seems to have led to Jim Crow and the lingering injured pride of Southerners, whose heroes were allowed to keep their honor.

What will happen if mainstream media tries to take down Bernie like it did Howard Dean...

with the "Dean Scream" and it doesn't work?

I have suspected that a day will come when the mainstream media and its manufactured conventional wisdom would not influence enough people to change the course of events.

With Bernie's poll numbers in spite of being a dreaded "socialist," it looks like that day is getting a lot nearer.

How will the financial and political elite control the game then?

on Confederate Flag in SC: who killed more Americans, al Qaeda or Confederates & their admirers?

Americans killed by al Qaeda:

1993 World Trade Center bombing: 6

1998 embassy bombing: 12

2000 USS Cole bombing: 17

9/11: 2,977

You could give them credit for every American killed in the Middle East since 9/11 too, and it would still be a fraction of those killed by the pro-slavery Confederacy and their various racist descendant groups.

Northern troops killed in Civil War: 364,000

Southerner troops killed (a self-inflicted would) 300,000

Lynchings, 1882-1968

You don't even have to add hate crime murders since 1968 or cops killing unarmed blacks with impunity for racist Americans a hundred times the body count of the terrorists our government and the right are constantly telling us to wet our pants over.

We can't root out racist thoughts, but we can stop allowing the symbol of racial terrorism and mass murder to fly on state property at state expense.

It's time to end welfare for the Confederate flag.

Take it down.

Have REPUBLICANS called the attack in Charleston TERRORISM yet?

The squishy response of the GOP South Carolina governor makes it sound like they are SOFT on terrorism and possibly even sympathetic to white supremacist terrorists.

Jeb Bush Among Conservatives Criticizing Pope For Climate Change Encyclical

Source: Huffington Post

GOP presidential hopeful Jeb Bush criticized Pope Francis on Tuesday after a draft of his encyclical on climate change was leaked by an Italian newspaper.


During a town hall event in New Hampshire, Bush said he thinks religion "ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm."

“I hope I’m not going to get castigated for saying this by my priest back home, but I don’t get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope,” Bush said, according to the New York Times. “And I'd like to see what he says as it relates to climate change and how that connects to these broader, deeper issues before I pass judgment."


While many haven't yet spoken out about the pope's views, several Republican presidential hopefuls have question climate change and its origin. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has said “humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe.” Business mogul Donald Trump has called global warming a "hoax." Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has compared climate change activists to "flat-Earthers."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/jeb-bush-pope-climate-change_n_7603160.html

The Republican Party is actively trying to be less enlightened than a 2,000 year old church.

Or put another way, when God and money conflict, Republicans say, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

re Rachel Dolezal, what do African Americans think of white kids who act like black rappers?

That was one of the first things I thought of when this issue blew up.

Is it complimentary, like a minstrel show, just odd, or what?

How Do Charter Schools Succeed? By Cutting Loose Students Who Aren't Good Enough

To the degree that charter schools appear to do better than real public schools, this is why: they can kick kids out.

It works the same way in entirely public magnet schools: because students have to go through an application process, no matter how pro forma, they are more motivated to be there.

At the magnet high school I attended, there were few discipline problems, and nearly all could be cleared up with a sign from the vice principal saying, "If this behavior keeps up, I guess we'll have to send you back to your neighborhood school."

The teachers at that school were no different from neighboring high schools and in fact were rotated in from and out to them. But being able to jettison the "bad apples" made all the difference.

But just because those kids are not a problem at the magnet or charter doesn't mean that they leave society. They still need to be educated, or we will be paying a lot more to take care of them later in life.

Which is why we need to end this corrupt, corporate-driven education "reform" as soon as possible.

How do these lucky few rise? The charter doesn't have better teachers. In many cases the charter doesn't have a single pedagogical technique or instructional program that is a bit different from its public school counterparts. What it has is a concentration of students who are supported, committed, and capable.

Those students are able to rise because the school, like the pilot of a hot air balloon, has shed the ballast, the extra weight that is holding them down. It's left behind, abandoned. There's no plan to go back for it, rescue it somehow. Just cut it loose. Let it go. Out of sight, out of mind. We dump those students in a public school, but we take the supplies, the resources, the money, and send it on with the students we've decided are Worth Saving.

This may be why the charter model so often involves starting over in another school-- because the alternative would be to stay in the same school and tell Those Students, the ones without motivation or support or unhindered learning tools, to get out. As those students were sent away so that strivers could succeed, it would just be too obvious that we are achieving success for some students by discarding others.

The ballast model is an echo of a common attitude about poverty. If you are poor, it's because you chose badly, because you didn't try hard enough, because you don't have grit, because you lack character, because you deserve to be poor. Insert story here of some person who was born poor and use grit and determination and hard work to become successful, thereby proving that anyone who is still poor has nobody to blame but himself. Just repeat that narrative, but instead of saying "if you are poor" say "if you are a poor student."



It's disturbing to hear even some Democrats trot out old lies to justify their support for the Iraq War, particularly the "bad intel" one, when whether Saddam Hussein had nukes is irrelevant to whether we should invade.

The real question that should have been asked over and over again was "EVEN IF every piece of cooked intel was true and Saddam had or sought nukes, why would he commit suicide and take his whole country with him by using it on us or Israel?"

You could certainly make the case that Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, even evil, but he did not get and keep power by being an idiot.

CIA director at the time, George Tenet was forced to say as much:

But in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, CIA director George Tenet also said the likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States was "low".


That is true because the United States has THOUSANDS of nukes to retaliate with, and we are the only country in the world to have ever used them. Even when the Soviet Union had as many or more nukes than us, they dared not use them because whatever damage they did, we would still have more than enough to strike back. Saddam Hussein would know all that.

Likewise, Israel has HUNDREDS of nukes, and while they haven't used any, it's not hard to imagine them doing so in retaliation given their history of attacking their neighbors (including Iraq) when they thought it was in their interest. Saddam would certainly consider that since Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear plant while he was in power.

For those same reasons, neither Saddam not any other state leader would be willing to give or sell nukes to terrorists. Once the weapon is out of their hands, they would have zero control over how it was used, and if it was used, since terrorist don't typical have a return address, we would strike whoever gave it to them. And if we didn't know, our government would hit whoever we SUSPECT gave it to them (or whoever is next on our shit list).

Saddam Hussein would know all that too, especially since we were doing that shit list trick to him with 9/11 before we invaded.

Everyone in Congress old enough to remember the Cold War did not need to be privy to any secret intelligence or told directly that Saddam didn't have those weapons or even that if he did, he would not be a threat to us.

They just had to remember why we didn't have a nuclear war in their lifetime.

Anyone in Congress who says otherwise is either lying or they are so corrupt, they don't care what the truth is anymore.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 49 Next »