HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » M Kitt » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »

M Kitt

Profile Information

Name: Really?
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: California
Home country: USA
Current location: So-Cal
Member since: Fri Apr 5, 2013, 10:18 AM
Number of posts: 208

About Me

Former military, I enjoy commentary as should be made apparent by my posts ;-)

Journal Archives

No, but again "Conflation" is the driving purpose of that comparison

We can easily tie Christianity to the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany. The Catholic church in Germany, more specifically.

Not to mention involvement of that same church in KKK activities that peaked in the mid 1960s, and related killings connected to lynchings, etc.

But Back to WW2/Hitler

Does that connect Hitler to responsibility for purges associated with the Crusades, or the Inquisitions? Not likely.

Conversely, are Christians accountable for those actions of "final solution" carried out by the Nazis against Jews?

Do these (guilt by association) examples of "Christian" behavior mean that it's a religion of complete violence, prone to Genocide and World War?

More Recently

If you're that intent on conflating muslim activities in Aghanistan or Algeria with current Isil/Daesh threats in Iraq or Syria, why not blame all Christians for the Genocides on both sides of the Boznia/Herzogovina conflicts in 1992? Hundreds of bodies (mass graves) discovered on both sides of that conflict.

So when you roll out numbers like "Half a Million" killed in Algeria, you're not really bringing the historical perspective into it, Christianity has been involved with nearly every major war across the last several hundred years, and often on both sides of those conflicts.

Which is the flaw in the argument of "Global Jihad" against Muslims, they're not historically prone to War/Genocide on the scale of Christianity. Period.

As Stated in my last remark

Speaking of the results of our invasion/occupation of Iraq

Those same hawks are calling for current actions against Iran today, right wing TeaHadists are intentionally conflating Isis with Al Qaida with Iran with Iraq (with the entire Muslim religion of course). For purposes of rationalizing actions against any Middle Eastern nation with a Muslim constituency.

Essentially the Reicht Wing Fundamentalist version of what they'd call "Jihad" if proposed by Muslim religious fanatics.

TeaHadist Fundamentalist Christians are apparently intent on carrying out the same ambitions/agenda they accuse Muslims of.

In support of an "End Times" holy war in the middle east.



So we agree GW and Cheney R owners of a Gigantic Clusterf*ck that the rest of us have inherited

But you'll be less than successful describing the "radicalized" Muslims of Isis/Daesh currently driving military operations in Syria or Iraq as a "Worldwide Movement". Linking them to Saudi Fundamentalism is a pretty obscure proposal.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29910-the-rise-of-islamic-state-offers-policy-lessons-for-us-hawks

Generating a radicalized segment of Islamic fundamentalists seems to have been part of the agenda driving our invasion of Iraq.

The argument can be made, of course, that "Radicalized Fundamentalism" stems from Saudi Wahhabism or factions of that movement, but you'd be hard pressed to trace that back across 30 years of those developing religious trends.

Most likely, tho, the threat posed by current Isis/Daesh radicals is largely a result (blow-back) of our occupation of Iraq, as described by the above link.

Speaking of the results of our invasion/occupation of Iraq

Those same hawks are calling for current actions against Iran today, right wing TeaHadists are intentionally conflating Isis with Al Qaida with Iran with Iraq (with the entire Muslim religion of course). For purposes of rationalizing actions against any Middle Eastern nation with a Muslim constituency.

Essentially the Reicht Wing Fundamentalist version of what they'd call "Jihad" if proposed by Muslim religious fanatics.

And you seem to be "Invalidating" the threat posed by our own Reicht Wing fundamentalists

Not to mention the other edge of that political spectrum, militant white supremacists.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463035

Point being, Al Qaida (or Isis/Isil) didn't drag us into the occupation of Iraq, that was our own GOP administration of NeoCons.

Which applies currently, of course. Reicht Wingnuts are stirring up hatred against Muslims for that same purpose, they'd like to start further conflict, taking US troops into the combustible tinderbox represented by the Middle East. For purposes of igniting a much larger (full-blown) conflagration, I'm supposing.

But the first target is more likely to be Iran, this time, before moving on to several others.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7463272

Reliable motivation for frenetic Anti-Muslim rhetoric? Reicht wing ambitions of Military Conflict

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29910-the-rise-of-islamic-state-offers-policy-lessons-for-us-hawks

Generating a radicalized segment of Islamic fundamentalists seems to have been part of the agenda driving our invasion of Iraq.

Those same hawks are calling for current actions against Iran today, right wing TeaHadists are intentionally conflating Isis with Al Qaida with Iran with Iraq (with the entire Muslim religion of course). For purposes of rationalizing actions against any Middle Eastern nation with a Muslim constituency.

And throw in the bigotry of Anti-Islam racism, while you're at it. Which draws support from the White Supremacist USA faction.

So the the combined USA/International Corporate war machine has great plans for the Middle East, as many of us have been aware since before 9-11 (project for a new American Century, anyone?)

The drums of war are again being heard within our borders, a "Keynote" that's clearly heard across the spectrum of Corporate War supporters in the USA.

Thanks again for these posts, Napkinz.

Regarding the link you attached (The Donald)

Just took the time to review the contents of that link.

I've been telling myself for months now that Trump can't be nearly as stupid or bigoted as he appears to be.

Was thinking to myself, maybe he's just putting us on, maybe he's just a "Media Whore" who'll do or say whatever ridiculous BS will make headlines.

But as time goes on, I've adjusted that opinion to match his behavior, as we've all been forced to do (or simply shut off the news feed?)

Based on the sheer VOLUME of nonsense spouted/produced by this Jacka$$, he really MUST be just as stupid and bigoted as he appears to be. Period.

Thanks Randys1

Thanks, appreciate the supportive and thoughtful comments.

My Perspective

Why is there such a lack of compassion among the white community now, today, here in the USA?

Setting aside what must be the obvious motivation, the aspect of protecting their position in society (IE White Privilege).

Has Empire really been outgrown?

I would first point out that our current military middle east ventures demonstrate that we've not given up ambitions of empire, we're just covering those tendencies over with a veneer of "International Involvement", protecting our interests, right?

We're REALLY interested all right, and those interests are represented by the petroleum beneath the sands of the middle east.

What's the connection, how do international Interests in the USA effect behavior of our "News Media?"

Our news media is generally supportive of broad national policy.

So if those policies include military intervention in support of our middle east interests (and they do), our token "media reporting" will reflect those policies. Will continue to do so, as has always been the case.

Specifically, if our so-called "news media" goes looking for "Islamic Terrorists" within our borders in support of our broad national policies of middle east military intervention, we can be assured that those "Islamic Terrorists" will be found. Or at least SOMEONE will be (eagerly!) labeled as such.

As has been the case since the events of 9-11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123016212

From the opening paragraph of that post:

"Ever wondered why the Intolerance so easily observed today has always existed, why it's completely acceptable to so many among us, considered to be simply the "Social Norm"? Even among we "Non-Participants", right?

Targets of this aggression change across the decades, of course, but doesn't it seem peculiar that all of us DON'T understand that bigotry, racism, presumed white privilege of today, they're all interconnected?

And that those "Accepted Behaviors" are actually descended from a literal "lineage" of ambitious, repressive policies that brought about and perpetuated Slavery early in our national history, why haven't ALL OF US considered that?

Truth be told, effects of Centuries Old Colonialism are still being "Echoed" in the damaged results of our current society."


Our current news media is simply following along in the footprints of our broad military goals, our "national interests" as historically represented by the same Colonialist (Empire Building) behavior mentioned above.

Thanks.

Shootings and the "Terrorist" label, what's the Racial connection?

Allowing our national identity to be compromised, the real threat

Once we’ve identified threats within the USA, who decides our national response? What agenda drives that response?

Are we downplaying some threats, magnifying others?

Are you a potential Terrorist? Who gets to decide?

Keeping things in Context

Some perspective is in order, the following article was posted not long after the events of late June 2011, when a right wing Norwegian fringe racist killed over 60 persons, including children at a camp/school center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?_r=0

A short summary of that event:

NYT quotes local Oslow Norway publications, “The shooter is characterized by officials as a right-wing extremist, citing previous writings included on his Facebook page. This person entered the youth camp on the island of Utoya, about 19 miles northwest of Oslo, a Norwegian security official said, and opened fire.”

Of the at least 80 people killed on the island, some were as young as 16, the police said on national television early Saturday. The suspect’s Internet postings suggest that he has some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views.


Was that person engaging in “Terrorism”? Members of the right wing continue to deny that, of course, across the international spectrum. Based on their own partisan political bias.

Recent Similar Events

Are there comparisons to be made in the USA? Currently? Yes, of course.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-live-updates-htmlstory.html

Some of our supposed “news sources” have immediately rushed to label that incident “Terrorism” and are calling for a national response targeting this supposed “Muslim Threat”. We’re being led to believe that middle east Al Qaida (or Isis?) connected radicals have somehow manipulated the actions of an Islamic couple in San Bernadino, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, however unlikely that scenario may be (see below article statistically comparing the threat of Muslim violence to White Supremacist activity within the United States).

What can we expect as a result of that irrational sustained media attack?

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/shocking-list-anti-muslim-bigotry-and-hate-crimes-paris-attacks-one-month-ago

Our media “feeding frenzy” behavior assures that the number of incidents of resulting “defamation” behavior continue to grow and gain momentum, blow-back for this incident and the Paris attacks.

Since media coverage is amplifying this supposed looming national threat, we’re assured that this trend will continue in the USA, supporting the right wing Anti-Islam agenda we’ve come to recognize as prominent in that segment of our national political ambitions, thru ongoing biased media coverage.

What isn’t being covered, what’s intentionally excluded from our media?

To answer that question, let’s look at what other political interests are engaged in support of the right wing national agenda. If you control the media, you control the message. So instead of a “feeding frenzy”, we can demonstrate a policy of national exclusion regarding coverage of the following, with these exceptions.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/25/eyewitness_recalls_shooting_by_alleged_white

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/charleston-shooting-confederate-flag-debate-renewed/

The White Supremacist movement in the USA is much more of a threat than many of us realize.

Those of us who are not black may have difficulty understanding the scale of that threat, and national news media blackout on that topic is the reason. Can’t have organized dissent, now, can we?

Then there’s the subject of disproportional shootings minority members of our society are subjected to during confrontations with police, another topic altogether. I’ll not address that material here, tho it merits a great deal of discussion.

http://blacklivesmatter.com/


What else is NOT being covered in our national media?

Our Federal agencies can easily track this trend, have been documenting it for more than a decade.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-are-still-five-times-more-common-today-than-before-911/

http://time.com/3934980/right-wing-extremists-white-terrorism-islamist-jihadi-dangerous/

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/fbi-bias-crimes-against-muslims-remain-high-levels

Right wing media is intentionally rationalizing the Anti-Muslim rhetoric we’ve become familiar with over the last 1.5 decades since 9-11, while concurrently contributing to and encouraging the “defamation” of our national/international Islamic community.


Allowing our national identity to be compromised

Have we been compromised in this way? Absolutely.

And as asked in the opening paragraph, “Once we’ve identified threats within the USA, who decides our national response? What agenda drives that response?”

“Are we downplaying some threats, magnifying others?” Some of us are, obviously, to benefit their own partisan doctrine. Toward what end?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-diamond-chile-america-democracy-20141228-story.html

Let’s not allow our integrity to be further compromised on a global scale. Our national identity is at stake.

Shine a Light, in progress.

Expose the hatred, for the sake of us all. Please.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2015/11/19/music-stars-shine-light-racial-pain-progress/76036208/

Presidential Response to yet another GOP Government shutdown threat

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/09/20/obama-uses-his-economic-record-to-blast-gop-for-shutdown-threat-and-its-glorious-video/

It's not as tho we haven't seen this behavior before. Fairly recently, in fact.

"Yet another Contrived Debt Ceiling crisis, on the way. Thanks GOP"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024108464

Unfortunately, we'll see this cycle repeat ad nauseum.

"What's the Current GOP manufactured debt Crisis? Social Security Reform"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1100912

Why the White House matters?

You're generally correct, BUT, the White House will ABSOLUTELY become important over the next several years regarding upcoming selection of national Supreme Court justices. That links directly, will be the key to overturning "Citizens United" and related legislative errors.

Regardless, staying with the current thread, I'll address the reply you've just posted.

You have several legitimate concerns, the concept of "Austerity" really is an excuse to remove what Conservatives/Teapublicans consider to be unnecessary programs, those that have defined our "Safety Net" legacy since FDR.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022866586

Here's an excerpt from the above link:

The Social Safety Net doesn't serve Corporate Interests, who've apparently spent huge campaign money trying to convince former Republican "Independents" and other unaffiliated voters that the current system simply isn't worth investing in.

Conservative Political Investors (IE Koch Brothers Et Al) want Social Security and related programs removed Entirely, which can only be accomplished if they first destroy Public confidence in our current system.

They'd like to implement THAT by offering "We the Public Entity" a false choice, and Super Pac funding provides the means of delivery. What's the "false choice" being delivered by Conservative Media?

Trading Economic Recovery for Social Programs, GOP Treachery

Ideally, Conservatives would like to convince the rest of us that measured spending on "Social Programs" is the cause of our Economic Problems, that Wall Street and Investment Banking Bailouts were completely justified, that preceding Deregulation (IE Unregulated Derivatives) combined with uncontrolled Iraq/Afghanistan war spending are NOT larger contributors to our current economic deficit.

AND we're being led to believe that the "Bush Tax Cuts" had nothing to do with current funding deficits, that increased Tax Revenue isn't the solution to that problem, that the 2008 Market Meltdown didn't devalue our entire Investment and Banking System functionally destroying our Real Estate and 401k savings literally overnight.


That essay also points to the Koch Brothers and other Teapublican sources of Corporate money as the cause of several current contrived financial "Debt" issues, especially the "Debt Ceiling" government shutdowns.

It becomes apparent that today, in post-election 2015, our new recently appointed GOP house and Senate leaders are really just carrying out the same agenda. What they were "hired" to accomplish using campaign money from those same sources.

The above article was originally written prior to the 2012 mid-term elections, but we're now looking at the same issues 2 plus years later, particularly regarding SSDI.

Current Election Process:

By the way, it's kind of surprising to me that we're still using the term "Elected Office" under conditions of Citizens United, which has changed the process considerably. Our SCOTUS majority of 5 Conservatives have imposed their partisan doctrine on the rest of us.

The current election process seems to be a lot more like buying real estate than running a campaign, with the highest bidder (largest funding coffers) "Winning" based on dollar value rather than public approval.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1091850

Thanks again.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 Next »