So show me the dirt on Damon.I would love to see what you can dig up. As far as my Honey Erin Burnett.Yes she is the one with former employment within the financial community.But your question has different relevance depending on who you ask.I was not a fan of the occupy movement.I thought it was a waste of time and stupid.A rallying cry for white college kids to piss off the establishment.When in fact they really didn't have a message. So yes I do want her covering that because I'm looking at it thru different lenses so to say.
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
So show me the dirt on Damon.I would love to see what you can dig up. As far as my Honey Erin Burnett.Yes she is the one with former employment within the financial community.But your question has different relevance depending on who you ask.I was not a fan of the occupy movement.I thought it was a waste of time and stupid.A rallying cry for white college kids to piss off the establishment.When in fact they really didn't have a message. So yes I do want her covering that because I'm looking at it thru different lenses so to say.
Fair enough...we are all guilty of confirmation bias. And I guess some of us are guilty of getting our news from 'honey's' ....hey, the first search suggestion on youtube when I started typing her name was 'Erin Burnett hot', so you're not alone. I wouldn't discredit someone over their looks, but I think letting a financial analyst control coverage of international relations with Iran might have something to do with the ratings you get from a pretty face. Still...she's no Sloan Sabbith I'll do some digging on Damon later. I mean...no one can survive a google witch hunt unscathed, right? ....I'm sure you could find something to discredit Greenwald if you wanted to dig deep enough. But I stand by my assertion that there is a very very strong chance that you are already bought and sold by the establishment if you're reporting for those outlets.
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
I'm reading Kent Nerburn's excellent book, Chief Joseph and the Flight of the Nez Perce in which the author paints a gruesome and accurate narrative of the atrocities committed by Christian fanatics against Native Americans and our government's actions that allowed and supported it. Our history via our European heritage is steeped in these kinds of deplorable acts and though we've come a ways since then, I think it's still a part of our cultural psyche. The genocide we committed against American Indians (and African Americans, Asians and Hispanics) "in the name of God" is still very recent.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
Your question puts terrorism in front of the acts of the west. I don't think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing; it's not about violent actions / reactions, nor is it about religion...tho it's promoted as such. Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist. fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting I'll wait to see what you say to this before blabbing on with specifics...
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
Your question puts terrorism in front of the acts of the west. I don't think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing; it's not about violent actions / reactions, nor is it about religion...tho it's promoted as such. Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist. fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting I'll wait to see what you say to this before blabbing on with specifics...
Now, now No need to go a rantin Religion has never been a cause for war Nor has it been a cause for terrorism You don't know what you're talking about.
When discussing the lovely Mrs.Rodgers please don't use her Newsroom name.lol That was a very witty show.Too bad more people didn't "feel it"
Ok that confused the shit outta me...didn't know who her bf was. They're not married! But thank you for making me google Olivia Munn Yes, I think I'd have followed that show for many more seasons....the writing was great. I don't understand how it wasn't popular enough to stay on the air.
When discussing the lovely Mrs.Rodgers please don't use her Newsroom name.lol That was a very witty show.Too bad more people didn't "feel it"
Ok that confused the shit outta me...didn't know who her bf was. They're not married! But thank you for making me google Olivia Munn Yes, I think I'd have followed that show for many more seasons....the writing was great. I don't understand how it wasn't popular enough to stay on the air.
I even watched regularly with the clear liberal bias in the writing.Loved the show.I thought Waterson,Fonda,Munn and of course Daniels were top notch.
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
Your question puts terrorism in front of the acts of the west. I don't think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing; it's not about violent actions / reactions, nor is it about religion...tho it's promoted as such. Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist. fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting I'll wait to see what you say to this before blabbing on with specifics...
No, I'm not putting one in front of the other. I'm well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of god. Most wars were fought in the name of god. Our reaction to 9/11 wasn't religiously motivated. GW claimed god told him to invade iraq. Was that war in the name of god? I'd say no.
I wouldn't call what white people did to the native Americans terrorism. It was genocide. And it wasn't done in the name of god. It was done because we needed a place to build houses and farm.
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
Your question puts terrorism in front of the acts of the west. I don't think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing; it's not about violent actions / reactions, nor is it about religion...tho it's promoted as such. Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist. fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting I'll wait to see what you say to this before blabbing on with specifics...
No, I'm not putting one in front of the other. I'm well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of god. Most wars were fought in the name of god. Our reaction to 9/11 wasn't religiously motivated. GW claimed god told him to invade iraq. Was that war in the name of god? I'd say no.
I wouldn't call what white people did to the native Americans terrorism. It was genocide. And it wasn't done in the name of god. It was done because we needed a place to build houses and farm.
Confused again.... I argued that the MIC uses terrorism to justify their actions, while loosely defining terrorism based on what benefits them most. You replied to ask my opinion of religious terrorism, and compared it to the response from the west. I said that there is almost always a capitalist motivation to war (money, land, control of trade corridors, eliminating competition and consolidating power within the capitalist system etc)....I'm not sure how your position reconciles with your questions about religiously motivated atrocities, because reading your latest response it sounds like we're on the same page...Am I missing something?
It sounded to me like you think the sole motivation of AQ and ISIS is religion; we simply respond to those atrocities. That does put their atrocities ahead of ours in a game of chicken-or-egg...paints them as the aggressors and us as reactionaries....which I don't think is the case...but that isn't my point.
Do you think AQ and ISIS have other objectives and motivations that might get overlooked? Even if you think they are 100% religiously motivated, do you not agree that we still need to look beyond the organizations themselves when considering motive? They operate with funds/arms/training from foreign governments (including ours), NGO's, and private companies - both covert and overt. I would posit that the motives of those helping these organizations have nothing to do with religion....religion is the reason for the act and the terrorists themselves see it that way....but it is window dressing; the terrorists themselves are essentially patsy's - doing what they do in the name of religion, but enabled or encouraged by people with very different goals....That's what I'm getting at in reply to your questions.
THIS IS A TRUE STORY ...and a dirty one! Be sure to read it and then pass it on.
You need to read this true account of what happened to our Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 who died.
If this doesn't make you mad.........
Cynthia Lee Myers wanted to share the truth of what happened over in Libya, you will not find this in the media yet, but it aired on FNC please read....
Here is my story. A week out the Embassy in Tripoli began receiving multiple tips about an Al Qaeda cell in the area planning an attack on 9/11 in response to the killing of Bin Laden. For the next several days, the State Dept. and WH (White House) were asked for a security force and were denied at least six times. Ambassador Stevens and his team were given the all clear that the Consulate in Benghazi was safe and there was no need for a security force other than his 3 personal guards (One being my cousin) and a few Libyans who were not armed. Then the attack and murders occurred.
Immediately the WH claimed it was a protest gone bad over a you tube video. Obama made a quick speech in the Rose Garden on Sept.12 before catching a plane to Vegas to campaign. He made a generic statement at the end of his speech after placing the blame on an overheated protest over the video. He said: No act of terror will shake the resolve of America.
Later that day and over the next 2 days, the liberal media began saying Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 men died of smoke inhalation.
This was not the case.
Out of respect for my cousin, I'm not going to be specific about his murder. However, Ambassador Stevens was brutally murdered. His genitals were cut off, he was sodomized and beaten and cut and stabbed and burned. He was drug thru the streets and left for dead.
This is eyewitness testimony of a local Dr. who found the Ambassador in a ditch and tried to save his life. He had no idea who he was.
The other 3 men, including my cousin, met similar fates. And deaths due to smoke inhalation is a 100% fabricated LIE.
The next week I drove my aunt and Uncle and 2 others to DC to receive his body. We met with Hillary, Panetta, and Susan Rice. ALL of whom apologized and said it was a protest gone bad over a video and exited the area.
Next, Obama entered with the same story and didn't apologize and wasn't sympathetic. My aunt cried to this man and all he did was hand her flowers and walk away.
I tried to get his attention, but didn't. I got upset and yelled liar to him, he kept walking.
Then a secret service agent grabbed my arm and led me to a room where I was held till the proceedings were over.
America, I saw firsthand how cold this man is. What kind of liar he is. Most of you haven't a clue about this tyrant and yet you support him. And act like every word he says is Gospel.
These murders and the fast and furious cover-ups make Watergate look like a kid who told his BFF's secret to the class.
THIS PART YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT SHOULD. AMERICAN VALOR, BENGHAZI, LIBYA:
The stunning part of this story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force.
Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi, Libya..
However, there's a little known story of incredible bravery, heroics, and courage that should be the top story.
So what actually happened at the U.S. Embassy in Libya?
We are learning more about this every day. Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi.
Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable. It is still in a state of disrepair.
Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation.
Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable.
A well-organized attack by radical Muslims was planned specifically targeting the temporary U.S. Embassy building. The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people deserted their post, or joined the attacking force. Either way, our people were in a real fix.
And it should be noted that Ambassador Stevens had mentioned on more than one occasion to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that he was quite concerned for his
personal safety and the welfare of his people.
It is thought that Ambassador Stevens was on a hit list. A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy Seals.
When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.
Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two Seals set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead.
However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. (But all have been silenced and kept away from congress and all investigations on Benghazi!!)
Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves.
But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I'm fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gunfight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!
Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code:
1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate,
2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield,
3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit,
4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates,
5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation,
6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation's Enemies, and...
7) Earn your Trident every day.
Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code. You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death. And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others.
Hey GF.....you need to post links to your articles. Otherwise it's plagiarism.
sorry man but it's lost on the on the interweb somewhere, it was one of those news sites I've never seen and don't know how reliable it is and seemed more of a letter then a story, I just found it to be another theory of what happened.
Hey GF.....you need to post links to your articles. Otherwise it's plagiarism.
sorry man but it's lost on the on the interweb somewhere, it was one of those news sites I've never seen and don't know how reliable it is and seemed more of a letter then a story, I just found it to be another theory of what happened.
Godfather.
Fair enough...but just so you know....no link + no editorial credit = plagiarism....regardless of your source.
Roots says, "Out of respect for my cousin, I'm not going to be specific about his murder. However, Ambassador Stevens was brutally murdered. His genitals were cut off, he was sodomized and beaten and cut and stabbed and burned. He was drug thru the streets and left for dead."
Why doesn't he share the same level of respect for Stevens?
As for the rest of the story... it's a nightmare. But slingshots can't take down jets- I can understand the mentality where the embassy became a target. The degree of violence employed by the radicals is inexcusable and speaks to their nature.
I think the controversy over how Stevens died and other 'relatively' minor details in the bigger picture are strawman arguments that take away from investigation into the real story - that the Benghazi embassy was the a hub for transfer of arms and a focal point for movement of mercenaries used by the US/NATO in the overthrow of Ghadaffi, into the next theatre of regime change - Syria. I saw a lot of otherwise reasonable obama supporters downplay the story as a partisan witch hunt over the death of few, neglecting to call out the Dems for involvement in illegal arms transfers and CIA aided coups involving groups we have listed as terrorist orgs,.....mission accomplished. It's stories like this one that expose partisan bickering as a big show; cover for the over-arching, long term foreign policy goals that continue unabated thru multiple presidencies and changes in congress.
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
Your question puts terrorism in front of the acts of the west. I don't think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing; it's not about violent actions / reactions, nor is it about religion...tho it's promoted as such. Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist. fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting I'll wait to see what you say to this before blabbing on with specifics...
No, I'm not putting one in front of the other. I'm well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of god. Most wars were fought in the name of god. Our reaction to 9/11 wasn't religiously motivated. GW claimed god told him to invade iraq. Was that war in the name of god? I'd say no.
I wouldn't call what white people did to the native Americans terrorism. It was genocide. And it wasn't done in the name of god. It was done because we needed a place to build houses and farm.
Confused again.... I argued that the MIC uses terrorism to justify their actions, while loosely defining terrorism based on what benefits them most. You replied to ask my opinion of religious terrorism, and compared it to the response from the west. I said that there is almost always a capitalist motivation to war (money, land, control of trade corridors, eliminating competition and consolidating power within the capitalist system etc)....I'm not sure how your position reconciles with your questions about religiously motivated atrocities, because reading your latest response it sounds like we're on the same page...Am I missing something?
It sounded to me like you think the sole motivation of AQ and ISIS is religion; we simply respond to those atrocities. That does put their atrocities ahead of ours in a game of chicken-or-egg...paints them as the aggressors and us as reactionaries....which I don't think is the case...but that isn't my point.
Do you think AQ and ISIS have other objectives and motivations that might get overlooked? Even if you think they are 100% religiously motivated, do you not agree that we still need to look beyond the organizations themselves when considering motive? They operate with funds/arms/training from foreign governments (including ours), NGO's, and private companies - both covert and overt. I would posit that the motives of those helping these organizations have nothing to do with religion....religion is the reason for the act and the terrorists themselves see it that way....but it is window dressing; the terrorists themselves are essentially patsy's - doing what they do in the name of religion, but enabled or encouraged by people with very different goals....That's what I'm getting at in reply to your questions.
I may have been drinking when I posted that because I have no clue what AQ is.
As for how much thought we should give to terrorism, and how concerned we should be about it... I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
What about the atrocities committed in the name of religion? Isn't that more of a terrorist act than any response to terrorism that the west conjure up?
Your question puts terrorism in front of the acts of the west. I don't think it's a chicken-or-the-egg thing; it's not about violent actions / reactions, nor is it about religion...tho it's promoted as such. Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist. fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting I'll wait to see what you say to this before blabbing on with specifics...
No, I'm not putting one in front of the other. I'm well aware of the atrocities committed in the name of god. Most wars were fought in the name of god. Our reaction to 9/11 wasn't religiously motivated. GW claimed god told him to invade iraq. Was that war in the name of god? I'd say no.
I wouldn't call what white people did to the native Americans terrorism. It was genocide. And it wasn't done in the name of god. It was done because we needed a place to build houses and farm.
Confused again.... I argued that the MIC uses terrorism to justify their actions, while loosely defining terrorism based on what benefits them most. You replied to ask my opinion of religious terrorism, and compared it to the response from the west. I said that there is almost always a capitalist motivation to war (money, land, control of trade corridors, eliminating competition and consolidating power within the capitalist system etc)....I'm not sure how your position reconciles with your questions about religiously motivated atrocities, because reading your latest response it sounds like we're on the same page...Am I missing something?
It sounded to me like you think the sole motivation of AQ and ISIS is religion; we simply respond to those atrocities. That does put their atrocities ahead of ours in a game of chicken-or-egg...paints them as the aggressors and us as reactionaries....which I don't think is the case...but that isn't my point.
Do you think AQ and ISIS have other objectives and motivations that might get overlooked? Even if you think they are 100% religiously motivated, do you not agree that we still need to look beyond the organizations themselves when considering motive? They operate with funds/arms/training from foreign governments (including ours), NGO's, and private companies - both covert and overt. I would posit that the motives of those helping these organizations have nothing to do with religion....religion is the reason for the act and the terrorists themselves see it that way....but it is window dressing; the terrorists themselves are essentially patsy's - doing what they do in the name of religion, but enabled or encouraged by people with very different goals....That's what I'm getting at in reply to your questions.
I may have been drinking when I posted that because I have no clue what AQ is.
Comments
As far as my Honey Erin Burnett.Yes she is the one with former employment within the financial community.But your question has different relevance depending on who you ask.I was not a fan of the occupy movement.I thought it was a waste of time and stupid.A rallying cry for white college kids to piss off the establishment.When in fact they really didn't have a message.
So yes I do want her covering that because I'm looking at it thru different lenses so to say.
I think the thing to remember is that the threat of terrorism frames our entire foreign policy. To me, it's not about a threat to my own safety. It's what we use to justify military action, and decide who to throw our weight behind in conflicts. The PKK are considered terrorists by the Turkish government - our supposed allies. Our media portrays them as freedom fighters. Why? Our media has also portrayed al-qaeda aligned rebels as heros in syria and libya, and as heels in iraq. why? This is what we need to be thinking about when we hear these stories - who is making the distinction, and who benefits from it? Hyping islamic terror is what allowed the MIC to keep profits up in the post cold war era. I personally care about terrorism reporting more than most issues not because of the fear it instills, but because it is the basis of atrocities committed in my name, and the reason our own young people die in foreign lands.
I'll do some digging on Damon later. I mean...no one can survive a google witch hunt unscathed, right?
That was a very witty show.Too bad more people didn't "feel it"
Do you not recognize that religion has for millennia been used to manipulate the vulnerable and unstable to commit violent acts that further the goals of those in positions of power (the manipulators)....goals which are rarely religiously motivated at their core? Behind every religious extremist is a smiling capitalist.
fack man, just your two simple questions are enough to get me ranting
No need to go a rantin
Religion has never been a cause for war
Nor has it been a cause for terrorism
You don't know what you're talking about.
Oh wait, I forgot about rr, Hedo and Last 12. Party on... I mean, carry on.
Yes, I think I'd have followed that show for many more seasons....the writing was great. I don't understand how it wasn't popular enough to stay on the air.
Sorry... carry on.
Two finger tip challenged individuals and a So Cal Ginger.
Good to know I'm in damn fine company.:)
I wouldn't call what white people did to the native Americans terrorism. It was genocide. And it wasn't done in the name of god. It was done because we needed a place to build houses and farm.
I argued that the MIC uses terrorism to justify their actions, while loosely defining terrorism based on what benefits them most. You replied to ask my opinion of religious terrorism, and compared it to the response from the west. I said that there is almost always a capitalist motivation to war (money, land, control of trade corridors, eliminating competition and consolidating power within the capitalist system etc)....I'm not sure how your position reconciles with your questions about religiously motivated atrocities, because reading your latest response it sounds like we're on the same page...Am I missing something?
It sounded to me like you think the sole motivation of AQ and ISIS is religion; we simply respond to those atrocities. That does put their atrocities ahead of ours in a game of chicken-or-egg...paints them as the aggressors and us as reactionaries....which I don't think is the case...but that isn't my point.
Do you think AQ and ISIS have other objectives and motivations that might get overlooked? Even if you think they are 100% religiously motivated, do you not agree that we still need to look beyond the organizations themselves when considering motive? They operate with funds/arms/training from foreign governments (including ours), NGO's, and private companies - both covert and overt. I would posit that the motives of those helping these organizations have nothing to do with religion....religion is the reason for the act and the terrorists themselves see it that way....but it is window dressing; the terrorists themselves are essentially patsy's - doing what they do in the name of religion, but enabled or encouraged by people with very different goals....That's what I'm getting at in reply to your questions.
we'll see.
THIS IS A TRUE STORY ...and a dirty one! Be sure to read it and then pass it on.
You need to read this true account of what happened to our Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 who died.
If this doesn't make you mad.........
Cynthia Lee Myers wanted to share the truth of what happened over in Libya, you will not find this in the media yet, but it aired on FNC please read....
Here is my story. A week out the Embassy in Tripoli began receiving multiple tips about an Al Qaeda cell in the area planning an attack on 9/11 in response to the killing of Bin Laden. For the next several days, the State Dept. and WH (White House) were asked for a security force and were denied at least six times. Ambassador Stevens and his team were given the all clear that the Consulate in Benghazi was safe and there was no need for a security force other than his 3 personal guards (One being my cousin) and a few Libyans who were not armed. Then the attack and murders occurred.
Immediately the WH claimed it was a protest gone bad over a you tube video. Obama made a quick speech in the Rose Garden on Sept.12 before catching a plane to Vegas to campaign. He made a generic statement at the end of his speech after placing the blame on an overheated protest over the video. He said: No act of terror will shake the resolve of America.
Later that day and over the next 2 days, the liberal media began saying Ambassador Stevens and the other 3 men died of smoke inhalation.
This was not the case.
Out of respect for my cousin, I'm not going to be specific about his murder. However, Ambassador Stevens was brutally murdered. His genitals were cut off, he was sodomized and beaten and cut and stabbed and burned. He was drug thru the streets and left for dead.
This is eyewitness testimony of a local Dr. who found the Ambassador in a ditch and tried to save his life. He had no idea who he was.
The other 3 men, including my cousin, met similar fates. And deaths due to smoke inhalation is a 100% fabricated LIE.
The next week I drove my aunt and Uncle and 2 others to DC to receive his body. We met with Hillary, Panetta, and Susan Rice. ALL of whom apologized and said it was a protest gone bad over a video and exited the area.
Next, Obama entered with the same story and didn't apologize and wasn't sympathetic. My aunt cried to this man and all he did was hand her flowers and walk away.
I tried to get his attention, but didn't. I got upset and yelled liar to him, he kept walking.
Then a secret service agent grabbed my arm and led me to a room where I was held till the proceedings were over.
America, I saw firsthand how cold this man is. What kind of liar he is. Most of you haven't a clue about this tyrant and yet you support him. And act like every word he says is Gospel.
These murders and the fast and furious cover-ups make Watergate look like a kid who told his BFF's secret to the class.
THIS PART YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT SHOULD. AMERICAN VALOR, BENGHAZI, LIBYA:
The stunning part of this story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force.
Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi, Libya..
However, there's a little known story of incredible bravery, heroics, and courage that should be the top story.
So what actually happened at the U.S. Embassy in Libya?
We are learning more about this every day. Ambassador Stevens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi.
Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable. It is still in a state of disrepair.
Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation.
Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable.
A well-organized attack by radical Muslims was planned specifically targeting the temporary U.S. Embassy building. The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people deserted their post, or joined the attacking force. Either way, our people were in a real fix.
And it should be noted that Ambassador Stevens had mentioned on more than one occasion to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that he was quite concerned for his
personal safety and the welfare of his people.
It is thought that Ambassador Stevens was on a hit list. A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping. They were in Libya as independent contractors working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy. They also happened to be former Navy Seals.
When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight. Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.
Not knowing exactly what was taking place, the two Seals set up a defensive perimeter. Unfortunately Ambassador Stevens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead.
However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety. (But all have been silenced and kept away from congress and all investigations on Benghazi!!)
Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers brought against them, an enemy force numbering between 100 to 200 attackers which came in two waves.
But the stunning part of the story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force. Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry. As we know now, that was not to be. I'm fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gunfight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!
Consider these tenets of the Navy SEAL Code:
1) Loyalty to Country, Team and Teammate,
2) Serve with Honor and Integrity On and Off the Battlefield,
3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit,
4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates,
5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation,
6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation's Enemies, and...
7) Earn your Trident every day.
Thank you, Tyrone and Glen. To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code. You served all of us well. You were courageous in the face of certain death. And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others.
Dr. Charles R. Roots Senior Pastor
Former Staff Sergeant, USMC Captain,
U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret.)
Godfather.
Why doesn't he share the same level of respect for Stevens?
As for the rest of the story... it's a nightmare. But slingshots can't take down jets- I can understand the mentality where the embassy became a target. The degree of violence employed by the radicals is inexcusable and speaks to their nature.
Al Qaeda...sorry, lazy acronyms
(isn't ass queef a redundancy?
Ass queef isn't redundant...I believe that would commonly be known as a fart.