HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 35,670

Journal Archives

HOUSE Judiciary Committee page looks like a BUZZFEED article:

This is just bizarre.

If you've ever read through one of those vapid Buzzfeed articles with vaguely related gifs, you have the reading comprehension ability to get through this.

Netanyahu comic book, action movie logic echoes Bush admin lies

This is the line that really got me in Netanyahu's speech to Congress:

ďRight now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we donít know aboutĒ

Doesn't that sound suspiciously like the Bush administration's thin case for invading Iraq because of phantom WMD's that MIGHT be there and if they exist MIGHT someday be used against us?

Also, even if Iran were to get nukes, why would they use one against the US or Israel when they know that would mean instant retaliation from one of Israel's hundreds of nukes or our thousands?

They would take out maybe a city on our side, but would not even have time to gloat before everyone in their country was radioactive dust.

Individuals might become suicide bombers, but nations do not.

After the farce and crime against humanity that was the Iraq War, no leader should be able to make this kind of case without being met with boos, eggs, and rotten fruit, and their mental competence or more likely, honesty, should be publicly questioned.

Should the US put "troops on the ground" to deal with ISIS?

I think there are better ways to deal with them like acknowledging our ally Saudi Arabia has bankrolled most of the Sunni extremist groups we've fought, and treating them accordingly, but someone in a thread here said that most people, including those on DU, would support sending in ground troops to fight ISIS.

Would you support sending ground troops to fight ISIS?

CNN falsely says they can't independently confirm Saudi gov't role in 9/11

CNN ran the story of the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, testifying in a 9/11 families lawsuit that high ranking members of the Saudi family supported al Qaeda before 9/11, but rather than try to find any evidence to substantiate his claims, they ran a classic "he said, she said, we can't tell who's telling the truth" mainstream media story.

But the evidence is there if they bother to look.

Saudis backed the foreign jihadis that fought the Soviets in the 80's, helped with the break up of Yugoslavia in the 90's along ethnic and religious lines, and most recently, bankrolled ISIS (at least when their target was primarily Syria).

The FBI was actually tracking two of the 9/11 hijackers who landed at LAX, and were picked up by a Saudi agent who set them up in an apartment in a building he owned in San Diego, funneled money to them from Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar's wife, and this agent was in constant phone contact with the Saudi embassy and consulate until 9/11, according to FBI documents released in response to a FOIA report.

Former chair of the Senate Foreign Relation Committee at the time of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, Sen. Bob Graham, said ]

Former Senator Bob Kerrey has joined him in pursuing other evidence that independently verifies what they know is in those pages but can't legally reveal.

And that's just scraping the surface.

The issue of Saudi government involvement in 9/11 is not a matter of whether, but why, and why it hasn't shaken our government's trust in them one iota.

Amy Goodman asked the right question on ISIS and Boxer dodged it

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now had a chance to interview Barbara Boxer at Sundance, and her answers on ISIS were as dishonest as any you'd get from a Republican.

Everyone knows these ISIS guys are bad. But like many Islamic extremists from those who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan to the 9/11 hijackers to ISIS as recently as two summers ago, they have been funded by SAUDI ARABIA and sometimes directly the US (when they were only a problem for Syria, a country on our shit list).

Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot cheaper to tell our allies to stop supporting assholes like this? Wouldn't it be cheaper and generate more good will toward the US if OUR GOVERNMENT stopped backing assholes like this when it's convenient to overthrow secular regimes they don't like, then spending more money to kill them later?

I rate Boxer in the top 5 or 10 progressive senators, but if any politician can't be honest about foreign policy that costs us hundreds of billions of dollars and costs people's lives, what can we trust them on?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: So, let me just say, as a leader in what I call the peace movement, because Iíve been ever since Vietnam, I think if someone sits back and allows people like this, who donít value human life, who enslave women, who rape women, who throw acid in the faces of women, if we canít stand up to thatósure, if thereís a diplomatic way, you do that. War is a last resort, not a first resort. But for me to stand here and say Iím going to do nothing about ISIL, I think I wouldóI would be dead wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: But isnít standing up to that perhaps looking behind thatófor example, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. support of Saudi Arabia?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Well, look, if you wonít beóyou and I just disagree, so why do we cut it off? It seems to me that you donít see any reason ever to confront people who are uncivilized, who donít care one stitch about your life or mine, who would just as soon cut off your head as say "good morning."

AMY GOODMAN: No, but what about cutting off their support?

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: And let meóyouíre asking me a question. And I donít support them. As a matter of fact, I already voted to give the president authority to go after them. So why donít we leave it at that? And as far as trying to find out the root causes of why they are the way you are, Iíll leave that to you. Iím a senator. My people are threatened, and Iím going to take action. War is the last resort, never a first resort. I donít support going to war and sending combat troops. I support President Obamaís plan, which is not to do that, but to make sure that we can help people fight against this terror group, which is so frightening and so frightening to humankind. Thank you so much.


thoughts on the "lover/hater" meme

I thought the "hater" talking point to put down critics was stupid when the Bush administration did it (along with the corollary "lover" meme like "You're a Saddam lover," etc.), but when it survived to be used by defenders of the Obama administration, I was offended that they would not only talk to their own base like that, but that they wouldn't hire a new PR firm to do their shilling, or at least ask for some new glib put downs.

I just realized the other day though that I had heard this kind of talking point before.

When I was a kid, any white person seen as too friendly, sympathetic, tolerant, or just benignly neglectful toward blacks would be called a "n*****r lover." Maybe if you just didn't laugh at a racist joke.

It was racist and vaguely seemed to question people's loyalty to their own race, but most importantly, it was ugly and stupid.

People are often accused here of being "Obama haters," Putin or ISIS "lovers" or in the past, "lovers" of the now dead Hugo Chavez.

Can't we agree to leave this kind of childish, ugly rhetoric in the trash can of history along with Bull Connor and Jim Crow where it belongs?

Shouldn't there be something like Godwin's Law to shame those who use this in place of arguments or evidence?

Did anyone see SNOWPIERCER? It's a brutal political allegory for our time.

It seems pretty straight forward at first: the world has gone cold and the survivors live in a long, long train that is constantly circling the earth, with the people divided into classes, with the poor in the back, living miserably and eating protein jello made of ground up bugs, and the wealthy living in style and comfort up front.

The engineer who designed and runs the train is so far removed from everyone they don't even know what he looks like.

The poor start a revolution, and move forward to take over the train.

When the leader of the revolution finally meets the engineer, he realizes their lives were even more controlled than they imagined, and even the successful outcome of the revolution was accounted for to fit into the system (I'm trying to write this without giving too much away).

That interaction wasn't the end of the movie, but the end had a ring of truth for how things will turn out for us (not just as Americans but the world).

I wonder what anyone else thought of it.

PIC: trickle down economics explained on Reddit

Democracy Now: Fox Expert admits Birmingham, UK not all Muslim on BBC News, called idiot by PM

Video and audio at link

AMY GOODMAN: While Steve Emerson claimed the British city of Birmingham was totally Muslim, itís in fact a predominantly Christian city. Emerson, who describes himself as, quote, "one of the leading authorities" on Islamic extremist networks, appeared on the BBC Monday and apologized.

STEVE EMERSON: I relied on incorrect research. It was totally irresponsible for me not to have fact-checked the information that I obtained. And it was not done out of any malice, but out of a total irresponsible journalistic practice, which I usually and uniformly donít practice.

NICK OWEN: Are you aware that our prime minister has called you a complete idiot?

STEVE EMERSON: Yes, Iím aware.

NICK OWEN: What does that make you feel?

STEVE EMERSON: Not great. You know, mistakes are made. What can I tell you?


TOON: NY Cop work slowdown blowback

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 49 Next »