^^^ Excellent point jv. The libs/radlibs are getting so scattered w/ their thoughts they even attack their own. Liberal thoughts cause nasty people.
What's never ever mentioned by the sanctity of the vote hypocritical democrats: 100% verifiable proof and multiple examples of the DNC and Clinton campaign undermining democracy in the primaries and sabotaging primary opponents, but funny there were ZERO calls for protests, ZERO calls for recounts and ZERO calls for delegates to flip and vote their conscience. Interesting.
I hack that to be very very odd.
Bernie supporters were protesting all over Philly, are you kidding? The Dem convention was a huge embarrassment, but little was mentioned on mainstream media, siding of course with establishment for Hillary.
This is all about establishment Dems. Poor babies.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
Well, at least you've admitted to Trump's strategy. And you seemingly support him, blinded thus by your ideology. And when did you previously ask me to provide such evidence? Are you denying that those were your positions? Slippery, slippery, slippery!!!
“All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.
In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example …
NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved….The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network…
The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.
The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.” (“US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims“, Consortium News)
Bottom line: Leaked not hacked. Thus, the MSM “Putin did it” version = Bullshit.
...and part of the goal here was to make sure that we did not do the work of the leakers for them by raising more and more questions about the integrity of the election...
Well, Wikileaks does have the word "leaks"in it and Julian Astrange does consider himself a leaker, yes? Or is it "fighter for the truth" or "rapist?"
^^^ Excellent point jv. The libs/radlibs are getting so scattered w/ their thoughts they even attack their own. Liberal thoughts cause nasty people.
What's never ever mentioned by the sanctity of the vote hypocritical democrats: 100% verifiable proof and multiple examples of the DNC and Clinton campaign undermining democracy in the primaries and sabotaging primary opponents, but funny there were ZERO calls for protests, ZERO calls for recounts and ZERO calls for delegates to flip and vote their conscience. Interesting.
I hack that to be very very odd.
Bernie supporters were protesting all over Philly, are you kidding? The Dem convention was a huge embarrassment, but little was mentioned on mainstream media, siding of course with establishment for Hillary.
This is all about establishment Dems. Poor babies.
Yeah I remember now, just before the convention Obama Biden Pelosi and Reid calling for an investigation of the DNC, I remember DWS, Tanden, and Stein calling for caucus recounts, I remember Podesta, Charlie Sheen and George Clooney calling for delegates to vote their conscience. I explicitly remember Bernie Sanders calling for protests and telling his supporters to not accept the results of the convention. I usually have a better memory, I may have drunk too many GMOs that week.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
Well, at least you've admitted to Trump's strategy. And you seemingly support him, blinded thus by your ideology. And when did you previously ask me to provide such evidence? Are you denying that those were your positions? Slippery, slippery, slippery!!!
Admitted Trump's strategy? I have been saying the same thing about Trump since the moment he came down that escalator. Your response makes it clear that you do not read people's posts. It also makes it clear you don't even understand the difference between Trump's ideology (if he even has one) and my own. You toss out things like "Yemen" and "170,000 troops" based on narratives created in your own head. It is quite sad to seeh how your post-trump victory emotions have gotten the better of you. Previously you at least used to make an attempt at tackling issues but now you have just descended into a Trumpian style debater. It's as if his twitter feed has taken root on these boards.
Russia hacks US elections allowing Trump to become president elect. Unconfirmed reports the CIA and FBI agree that Russia Russia Russia "interfered" in the election, DHS and NSA silent. US democracy has been hacked, CIA and FBI heads refuse to brief congress instead un-named anonymous sources go to press. An investigation is underway and the findings will be released sometime around January 20th.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
What should Americas role in Syria be in your opinion?
Strictly humanitarian at this point. In the background however the screws need to be turned on Russia and Iran as much as possible. Assad's days are numbered but it shouldn't be the west's direct goal to remove him. The goal should be to put pressure on those who support him and he will hopefully collapse from within. This pressure can come in both direct and indirect ways but it should be made clear that supporting a war criminal who has used chemical weapons on his own people is a real red line. Presence of western troops in the region will have to be reevaluated based on how the facts on the ground have evolved over the last brutal year. It may be necessary in time to return troops to Iraq to beat back Iranian penetration.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Wow, you really don't knkw what's going on in the middle east
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Is there an iota of truth to this statement? Both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump believe the United States never should have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or, at least, Trump claims he now does). The war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath in many ways prefigure the present moment in the Middle East; it triggered a sectarian unraveling that now haunts both Iraq and Syria and looms large in the minds of an Obama administration wary of further intervention in the region's conflicts http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/saddam-hussein-should-have-been-left-to-run-iraq-says-cia-officer-who-interrogated-him/ar-AAlFmSr?ocid=spartanntp
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ... High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations. and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything? since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
Well, at least you've admitted to Trump's strategy. And you seemingly support him, blinded thus by your ideology. And when did you previously ask me to provide such evidence? Are you denying that those were your positions? Slippery, slippery, slippery!!!
Admitted Trump's strategy? I have been saying the same thing about Trump since the moment he came down that escalator. Your response makes it clear that you do not read people's posts. It also makes it clear you don't even understand the difference between Trump's ideology (if he even has one) and my own. You toss out things like "Yemen" and "170,000 troops" based on narratives created in your own head. It is quite sad to seeh how your post-trump victory emotions have gotten the better of you. Previously you at least used to make an attempt at tackling issues but now you have just descended into a Trumpian style debater. It's as if his twitter feed has taken root on these boards.
What is your ideology if not neocon? Trump is not a neocon? Are you worse than a Nazi collaborator? You have been quoted as saying that you don't have a problem with Trump thus far, nothing. Are you buying land in Israeli occupied West Bank?
In the past, you've advocated for a return to the "surge" troop levels. You've also advocated for a Korea, Japan, Germany post war, troop presence for Iraq. If its not 170,000 on the dot, what is it? obviously more than the current troop level in Iraq now, right? You realize that there were 350,000 + troops in South Korea at the end of the war, right? So, which is it? Surge numbers or Japan numbers or Korea numbers or Germany's numbers, post war of course?
Did you not advocate for the Saudis to crush the Houthis with US support in Yemen? Yes or no?
I'm glad you find my post Trump emotions humorous. What I find humorous is your neocon insistence that Trump will do better and that the answer is more war. I look forward to laughing at the ruinous folly you seem to advocate for.
How's Iran's nuclear program by the way? And yes, for you, its all about Israel.
PS: Your first full sentence is full of shit. I've watched your view of trump change, particularly since he's reached way back to the back bench of neocon thought for his appointments.
PSS: my third grade reading comprehension makes it difficult to follow you, dumb dumb, dumb it down please us simple folk need help.
PSSS: You didn't deny those were you positions, did you? yes or No?
Is there an iota of truth to this statement? Both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump believe the United States never should have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or, at least, Trump claims he now does). The war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath in many ways prefigure the present moment in the Middle East; it triggered a sectarian unraveling that now haunts both Iraq and Syria and looms large in the minds of an Obama administration wary of further intervention in the region's conflicts http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/saddam-hussein-should-have-been-left-to-run-iraq-says-cia-officer-who-interrogated-him/ar-AAlFmSr?ocid=spartanntp
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
What should Americas role in Syria be in your opinion?
Strictly humanitarian at this point. In the background however the screws need to be turned on Russia and Iran as much as possible. Assad's days are numbered but it shouldn't be the west's direct goal to remove him. The goal should be to put pressure on those who support him and he will hopefully collapse from within. This pressure can come in both direct and indirect ways but it should be made clear that supporting a war criminal who has used chemical weapons on his own people is a real red line. Presence of western troops in the region will have to be reevaluated based on how the facts on the ground have evolved over the last brutal year. It may be necessary in time to return troops to Iraq to beat back Iranian penetration.
Weren't you just blasting Obama for his handling of Syria and not intervening?
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Wow, you really don't knkw what's going on in the middle east
How so? Please...I desperately need your insight on the issue.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
What should Americas role in Syria be in your opinion?
Strictly humanitarian at this point. In the background however the screws need to be turned on Russia and Iran as much as possible. Assad's days are numbered but it shouldn't be the west's direct goal to remove him. The goal should be to put pressure on those who support him and he will hopefully collapse from within. This pressure can come in both direct and indirect ways but it should be made clear that supporting a war criminal who has used chemical weapons on his own people is a real red line. Presence of western troops in the region will have to be reevaluated based on how the facts on the ground have evolved over the last brutal year. It may be necessary in time to return troops to Iraq to beat back Iranian penetration.
Weren't you just blasting Obama for his handling of Syria and not intervening?
Yes I was. Intervention requires seizing of windows of opportunity that do not always remain open. Huge windows were negligently missed and now Russia, Iran and Assad have filled the vacuum on the ground. This leaves minimal opportunities to intervene in Syria "at the moment". Pressure on these countries in other areas along with providing support to allies that surround Syria may allow for stronger intervention at a later time.
Podesta on Meet the Press whining. The email leaks would have been meaningless if the campaign hadn't colluded with the media like Donna Brasile. Sorry, the truth got out and you lost. Campaign better next time.
thanks, was gonna say the same, just not as elegantly. T. is a pu$$y grabbing liar. Someone like that usually needs help to win
And you and other voters would weigh all of these factors equally? That being said, all people keep saying is that Democrats aren't holding their party or its candidate accountable for the election outcome: I haven't seen that denial here, has anyone else?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"I think there is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the integrity of our elections ... we need to take action. And we will — at a time and place of our own choosing. Some of it may be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be."
WEIRD HOW THE WASHINGTON POST BROKE THE STORY OF "RUSSIAN HACKING CONFIRMED BY CIA" - AND THEY JUST SO HAPPEN TO HAVE A 600 *MILLION* DOLLAR CONTRACT WITH THEM.
NBC, CBS and CNN all separately claimed Putin's direct involvement according to their sources 4-5 days ago.
WEIRD HOW THE WASHINGTON POST BROKE THE STORY OF "RUSSIAN HACKING CONFIRMED BY CIA" - AND THEY JUST SO HAPPEN TO HAVE A 600 *MILLION* DOLLAR CONTRACT WITH THEM.
NBC, CBS and CNN all separately claimed Putin's direct involvement according to their sources 4-5 days ago.
So far:
ODNI: No formal statement. No confirmation.
CIA: No formal statement. No confirmation.
FBI: No formal statement. No confirmation.
The positions of Comey and Clapper were revealed in a message that CIA Director John Brennan sent to the agency’s workforce Friday.
“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said.
The silence is deafening. Seems to me an internal memo could easily be proven or disprove. I'm sure the foia request had been filed already.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Triggered so posting in dos threads... Good bye, sweet "Russia Russia Russia" the electoral vote is over so you will fade back into obscurity. I'll miss you mucho.
Check this article from WaPA, By Steven L. Hall. If anyone knows Russia and cybersecurity, its Mr. Hall, also true if anybody can shill for the CIA it too is Mr. Hall.
https://www.stratfor.com/content/steven-l-hall Steven L. Hall retired from the Central Intelligence Agency in 2015 after 30 years of running and managing intelligence operations in Eurasia and Latin America. Mr. Hall finished his career as a member of the Senior Intelligence Service, the small cadre of officers who are the senior-most leaders of the CIA's Clandestine Service.
Most of Mr. Hall's career was spent abroad, overseeing intelligence operations in the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact. As an executive at CIA headquarters, Mr. Hall also focused on cyber threats, security and counterintelligence, and counterterrorism. He has been a Chief of Station multiple times and has worked closely with the FBI, the U.S. military and other U.S. government agencies. Mr. Hall also acted as the Clandestine Service’s senior liaison officer to Congressional intelligence oversight committees in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Hall is a recipient of CIA's Donovan Award, as well as CIA's Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal. He is a graduate of the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
Comments
This is all about establishment Dems. Poor babies.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Sniff sniff
German spies now claim that WikiLeaks' BND files were not hacked by Russia after all and source is an insider. https://t.co/ZhmgFf68Lz https://t.co/JLFzFsUfIa
we will find a way, we will find our place
Both President Obama and President-elect Donald Trump believe the United States never should have invaded Iraq in 2003 (or, at least, Trump claims he now does). The war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath in many ways prefigure the present moment in the Middle East; it triggered a sectarian unraveling that now haunts both Iraq and Syria and looms large in the minds of an Obama administration wary of further intervention in the region's conflicts
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/saddam-hussein-should-have-been-left-to-run-iraq-says-cia-officer-who-interrogated-him/ar-AAlFmSr?ocid=spartanntp
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards:
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything?
since 1917
it's interesting that i write all that stuff about syria and there's not a lick of a response ...
this is the thing with the mainstream media ... sometimes they don't know they are being played ... that these propaganda campaigns put forth by western countries uses them as tools ... folks have to understand that the primary reason these media outlets are in place is to make money ... sell advertising and make profits ... profiteering doesn't necessarily translate to lying ... it just means that they are less likely to send independent investigators to cover a story when they can get it bulk from a lot of places ... especially in a conflict like syria ... currently, the UN reporting on syria is based on organizations that are tied to the US who is undergoing a regime change campaign ...
it's the same reasons why most americans think of fidel castro as some evil tyrannical dictator ... it works when people aren't interested in figuring things out themselves ...
I think most of us are aware of what is happening in Syria and the medias coverage of it. My guess is we all have differing opinions of what is going on. I'm not going to go down that rabbit hole here, because this thread isn't supposed to be about that. Were going way off into the weeds.
i'm pretty sure most people are not aware of what is happening in syria ... judging by the lack of discussion on that thread ... but you're right in that this isn't the thread for it ... I just wanted to show that those supposed unbiased sources of media do not always report the truth ...
The AMT is aware...they just don't want to confront this administration's utter failure in dealing with it. This is Hope and Change, the light footprint, the consequences of the Cairo speech on full display. Heckuva job Barry.
consequences of the cairo speech??
It was titled A New Beginning. It was applauded by the globalist elite and certainly gave comfort to the liberal forces that participated in the Arab Spring and the Green Revolution. In of itself it was not a bad speech but the major defect is that Obama believed his own rhetoric was powerful enough to usher in a new era of freedom through words and a draw down of the American presence. This was horribly naive and it resulted in the crushing of moderates across the region. Be it the Green Revolution, the overthrow of Mubarak, the overthrow of Gaddafi, Turkey, Iraq, you name it the absence of western power and support allowed the worst actors to further tighten their grips on their oppressed populations. The Cairo speech lit the fuse for great hope but the absence of resolve turned that hope into genocide.
Whatever happened to allowing people to choose their destiny rather than have it provided for them? Democracy is messy. But you're okay with continued support of corrupt dictators and governments as long as it serves Israel's purpose. I get, get, get that. Let me know when the first waves of Canadian troops land to stop the genocide. I'll be sure to thank you for your contribution.
ahhh...I get it now...it's about Israel.
Anything having to do with the Middle East has to do with Israel. But nothing 170,000 Canadian troops couldn't solve, solve, solve.
why do you keep harping on canadian involvment/non-involvment in foreign conflicts? my government's refusal to participate does not negate the opinion of the people.
Because there's a Canadian on these boards who harps on the failure of this US policy or that US policy and thinks the best policy is for the US to occupy Iraq for 50 years with170,000 troops and get involved in Syria and Yemen with failed neocon policy. All at my tax dollar's and nation's expense. When Canada, Canada, Canada ponies up and spends three trillion US dollars taming the Middle East, I'll stop harping.
so because canada doesn't get involved, his opinion is moot? does that mean I should just stroll on outta here and head off to AET too?
It does make me wonder if his opinions would be the same when its your country paying the price for failed policies. Does it make them moot? No, please express them. I'm just going to think they're wrong and call you out on it. Easier to say shit when you don't have any skin in the game. Go ahead, ask BS how that splendid little war in Yemen is going? The one he championed in the spring and thought it would be great for the US to get more involved with the Saudis and crush the rebellion. And I'll say, let Canada get involved. Please stick around and explain to me why failed neocon policy should be US foreign policy, please, please, please?
Please link where I "championed" a war in Yemen or advocated for 170,000 troops in Iraq. You couldn't do it the last time I asked but if you have new evidence please share it. You seem to think that if your repeat something often enough then it magically becomes true...how Trumpian of you.
Well, at least you've admitted to Trump's strategy. And you seemingly support him, blinded thus by your ideology. And when did you previously ask me to provide such evidence? Are you denying that those were your positions? Slippery, slippery, slippery!!!
Admitted Trump's strategy? I have been saying the same thing about Trump since the moment he came down that escalator. Your response makes it clear that you do not read people's posts. It also makes it clear you don't even understand the difference between Trump's ideology (if he even has one) and my own. You toss out things like "Yemen" and "170,000 troops" based on narratives created in your own head. It is quite sad to seeh how your post-trump victory emotions have gotten the better of you. Previously you at least used to make an attempt at tackling issues but now you have just descended into a Trumpian style debater. It's as if his twitter feed has taken root on these boards.
What is your ideology if not neocon? Trump is not a neocon? Are you worse than a Nazi collaborator? You have been quoted as saying that you don't have a problem with Trump thus far, nothing. Are you buying land in Israeli occupied West Bank?
In the past, you've advocated for a return to the "surge" troop levels. You've also advocated for a Korea, Japan, Germany post war, troop presence for Iraq. If its not 170,000 on the dot, what is it? obviously more than the current troop level in Iraq now, right? You realize that there were 350,000 + troops in South Korea at the end of the war, right? So, which is it? Surge numbers or Japan numbers or Korea numbers or Germany's numbers, post war of course?
Did you not advocate for the Saudis to crush the Houthis with US support in Yemen? Yes or no?
I'm glad you find my post Trump emotions humorous. What I find humorous is your neocon insistence that Trump will do better and that the answer is more war. I look forward to laughing at the ruinous folly you seem to advocate for.
How's Iran's nuclear program by the way? And yes, for you, its all about Israel.
PS: Your first full sentence is full of shit. I've watched your view of trump change, particularly since he's reached way back to the back bench of neocon thought for his appointments.
PSS: my third grade reading comprehension makes it difficult to follow you, dumb dumb, dumb it down please us simple folk need help.
PSSS: You didn't deny those were you positions, did you? yes or No?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
That post makes zero sense.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
WEIRD HOW THE WASHINGTON POST BROKE THE STORY OF "RUSSIAN HACKING CONFIRMED BY CIA" - AND THEY JUST SO HAPPEN TO HAVE A 600 *MILLION* DOLLAR CONTRACT WITH THEM.
NBC, CBS and CNN all separately claimed Putin's direct involvement according to their sources 4-5 days ago.
So far:
ODNI: No formal statement. No confirmation.
CIA: No formal statement. No confirmation.
FBI: No formal statement. No confirmation.
“Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” Brennan said.
The silence is deafening. Seems to me an internal memo could easily be proven or disprove. I'm sure the foia request had been filed already.
Good bye, sweet "Russia Russia Russia" the electoral vote is over so you will fade back into obscurity. I'll miss you mucho.
http://www.recode.net/2016/12/27/14088808/russia-hacking-trump-election-journalist-sues-foia-leopold-shapiro-cia-fbi
Check this article from WaPA, By Steven L. Hall. If anyone knows Russia and cybersecurity, its Mr. Hall, also true if anybody can shill for the CIA it too is Mr. Hall.
https://www.stratfor.com/content/steven-l-hall
Steven L. Hall retired from the Central Intelligence Agency in 2015 after 30 years of running and managing intelligence operations in Eurasia and Latin America. Mr. Hall finished his career as a member of the Senior Intelligence Service, the small cadre of officers who are the senior-most leaders of the CIA's Clandestine Service.
Most of Mr. Hall's career was spent abroad, overseeing intelligence operations in the countries of the former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact. As an executive at CIA headquarters, Mr. Hall also focused on cyber threats, security and counterintelligence, and counterterrorism. He has been a Chief of Station multiple times and has worked closely with the FBI, the U.S. military and other U.S. government agencies. Mr. Hall also acted as the Clandestine Service’s senior liaison officer to Congressional intelligence oversight committees in Washington, D.C.
Mr. Hall is a recipient of CIA's Donovan Award, as well as CIA's Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal. He is a graduate of the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/27/why-its-so-hard-to-prove-russia-was-behind-the-election-hacks/