>> ^hpqp:

@marbles
You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.
Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.
"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.
As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.


No, I just try to see the world for what it is. Cut through the bullshit, and find the truth. Regurgitating talking points from sources that over and over lie to me just seems like a fool's errand, but you find solace in being a dis-info/government apologist.

I guess that makes you an "I know, but" kind of person: I know Obama said he was going to end the wars, but we've got finish what Bush started. I know we've killed millions of people, but we're trying to spread democracy. I know we armed and supported Al-qaeda rebels in Libya (remnants of the same ones attacking US troops in Iraq), but "geopolitics is a messy thing". The list is endless.

And "you're either with us or against us" is the same motto used by "progressive" war-mongers like Obama, Hillary, and Reid, not just neocons. I think the real problem is you're just hostile toward the truth whenever it exposes your false reality, whenever it bursts your blissful ignorance of illusion.

And for Tarpley, of course it sounds like "denialism" to you. Narrow-minded government sycophants would equate the two as the same.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:

And meanwhile you lament the loss of monsters like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad. Well done.

Do you have a citation for that claim?
Meanwhile 1.5 million dead civilians in Iraq, untold thousands of dead civilians from drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, hundreds of innocents locked up and tortured at secret prisons all over the world, terror bombings in North Africa, yeah... you've got the moral high-ground here.


And your problem is you hold Saddam guiltless for the Iraqi dead. You hold the Taliban and Al Qaeda guiltless for the Afghan and Pakistani dead. You hold Al Shabab guiltless for the Somali dead. You hold Gaddafi guiltless for the Libyan dead.

What kind of twisted world view do you have were you reject the evidence for the above, but fully and enthusiastically embrace the guilt of those fighting against Saddam, Gaddafi, the Taliban, Al Qaeada and Al Shabab?

@marbles

You really are an "either/or" kind of person aren't you. Either we adhere to your paranoid conspiracy theories or we are the brainwashed mouthpieces of the guv'mint propaganda and fully support the violence and death caused by America's wars.

Sure there are Al Qaeda elements amongst the Lybian rebels, geopolitics is a messy thing. But to go from there to saying that the Arab Spring uprisings is some mass conspiracy takes the kind of singleminded ignorance that conspiracy theorists and religious fanatics have in common.

"You're either with us or against us" may be good enough for Jesus, W. Bush and conspiracy nuts, but the rest of us like to have a nuanced view of things.

As for Tapley: "The notion of anthropogenic global warming is a fraud." ( The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off 2009). Sounds very much like denialism to me.

>> ^hpqp:

What a trustworthy source, Webster Tarpley, 9/11 "it's-an-insidejob"er and climate change denialist.

Did man also never set foot on the moon, oh bearer of unwanted truths?
>> ^marbles:
The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen
edit - link added:
Is the “Imminent Liberation of Libya” Propaganda?



Typical hpqp response. Scared to address the facts but has no problem tossing out lazy ad hominem static.
For the record 9/11 was an inside job, and Tarpley is not a "climate change denialist".

Furthermore, Tarpley's first article is completely sourced so I guess those idiots at West Point must be wrong about North-eastern Libya having the greatest concentration of Al-Qaeda fighters anywhere in the world.

The Telegraph and Washington Times must be conspiring with Tarpley also.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html (link dead?)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/

The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq

Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen

edit - link added:

Is the “Imminent Liberation of Libya” Propaganda?

>> ^Skeeve:

They are right about animal testing!?
I hope you don't have any loved ones who take insulin for diabetes, because without animal testing and animal products they would be DEAD. And that includes Marybeth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of PETA.
Animal testing is the basis of all modern medical research and has led to treatments for childhood leukemia, hemophilia, meningitis and many, many more diseases. So if you think they are right about animal testing, sign yourself up to be an AIDs vaccine tester.
As for them being a small group so it doesn't matter what they say, that's garbage. They have 2 million members, millions more supporters (most in the dark about their agenda) and bring in more than 30 million dollars a year. And even if they were a small group, that doesn't make them harmless. By comparison, Al-Qaeda is estimated to have only 200-300 operatives and may have trained as few as ten-thousand insurgents, should we ignore the bad things they do because "they believe and fight for something that will never happen"?
Shades of gray exist, but there are also plenty of animal rights organizations to support that aren't terrorist supporting hypocrites.
>> ^Yogi:
OH Fuck off. They believe and fight for something that will never happen...if they cause pets and farm animals to be treated better as a result than I say more power too them.
Look at the IRA, a lot of what that group did was abhorrent, but they were fighting against an abhorrent situation and a lot changed. It's not enough to look at what a group says because they're a small group, look at what they drive for change and agree with them when they're right about something...like animal testing.
Same with Malcolm X, there's tons of these examples throughout history, it's not Black and White...all shades of gray.



Again Fuck Off. You don't know shit and you haven't done any fucking research about how many animals have been tortured and killed. Animal testing has done good things as well...THATS A SHADE OF FUCKING GRAY LIKE I WAS TALKING ABOUT!

You're just a moron painting them with one fucking brush...like all their supporters and even members agree with everything they do. I know plenty of people who have worked at PETA and they never agreed with everything they do but they have been a source of some good and have brought the plight of animal torture and maiming to the forefront of public debate.

If you can't understand these BASIC FUCKING CONCEPTS Than I will just fucking Kill you! I WILL FUCKING EAT YOUR HEART!

They are right about animal testing!?

I hope you don't have any loved ones who take insulin for diabetes, because without animal testing and animal products they would be DEAD. And that includes Marybeth Sweetland, Senior Vice President of PETA.

Animal testing is the basis of all modern medical research and has led to treatments for childhood leukemia, hemophilia, meningitis and many, many more diseases. So if you think they are right about animal testing, sign yourself up to be an AIDs vaccine tester.

As for them being a small group so it doesn't matter what they say, that's garbage. They have 2 million members, millions more supporters (most in the dark about their agenda) and bring in more than 30 million dollars a year. And even if they were a small group, that doesn't make them harmless. By comparison, Al-Qaeda is estimated to have only 200-300 operatives and may have trained as few as ten-thousand insurgents, should we ignore the bad things they do because "they believe and fight for something that will never happen"?

Shades of gray exist, but there are also plenty of animal rights organizations to support that aren't terrorist supporting hypocrites.
>> ^Yogi:

OH Fuck off. They believe and fight for something that will never happen...if they cause pets and farm animals to be treated better as a result than I say more power too them.
Look at the IRA, a lot of what that group did was abhorrent, but they were fighting against an abhorrent situation and a lot changed. It's not enough to look at what a group says because they're a small group, look at what they drive for change and agree with them when they're right about something...like animal testing.
Same with Malcolm X, there's tons of these examples throughout history, it's not Black and White...all shades of gray.

1:01 "A problem in a lot of European countries is they think by being neutral in the war on terror ... that they won't face the threats that we face"

Of course, Norway isn't neutral, they have contributed troops to the war in Afghanistan. Along with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Azerbaijan. That's exactly why people suspected al-Qaeda at first. Not because al-Qaeda hates their freedom, but because Norway stepped into a war with them.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Lefty, don't think you're off the hook because now you disavow Odumbo for not ending the wars, closing Gitmo and raising taxes.

Isn't Obama about 2/3rds of the way through ending the wars?

There are fewer than 50k soldiers in Iraq, none in active combat positions. Heck we have 28k soldiers in Korea, are you counting that war against Obama, as well?

Obama has also laid out the timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, slightly faster than the generals wanted, after putting serious hurt on Al Qaeda.

Congress blocked the closing of Gitmo. Obama can't do anything about that.

Are you complaining that Obama hasn't raised taxes? Congress clearly blocked that, as well. Obama has been trying to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire.

I'd say at least 100kg of explosives, Al-Qaeda?

So many emotions. Overall, I think this is the first time I've felt really disappointed with one of Jon's interviews. I know Jon's time is limited and it's tough to have background coming into every interview, but interviewing Musharraf is a crazy big deal right now. Some point form places I wanted Jon jumping in and instead he just took what Musharraf said at face value.

-Musharraf insists that any sympathy for Al Qaeda within the ISI and military is strictly limited to isolated low level dissenters, and in no way associated with higher up decision makers. Jon accepts this as though correct. Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, is on video declaring that all good Muslims should hope for the defeat of America and the victory of the Taliban. Elected members of Pakistan's Legislature from the JUI-F party spoke out insisting that the ISI and military MUST have known about Osama's location, and condemned the failure to protect him as the muslim hero that he was... The reality is that extremism reaches into the very highest ranks of Pakistan's power structures, and that Musharraf vehemently denies this demands the question be asked, why is he denying such an enormous problem exists?

-Musharraf denies that the ISI killed the journalist that was revealing their ties with Al Qaeda, and does it by stating that's not how the ISI would kill someone. Jon chuckles. Either Jon's balls are 10 times the size of mine, or he had forgotten he was sitting across from the man how spent very many years ordering those kinds of assassinations to be made by the ISI...

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!

Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.
You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...
If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.


There you go being a moron troll again. I've made no claims on whether or not Assad is responsible for killing civilians. YOU HAVE. YOU CHERRY PICK WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE THE REST. Even your sources say they don't know.
Unlike you, everything I said is backed up with actual substance.

1. Arab Spring. Confirmed by multiple sources - sponsored by foreign groups (multiple links in this thread)
2. Al Jazerra even admits that.
3. From Google result:In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process.
4. here and here
5. 2007 West Point Study
6. Already established Qatar support for NATO.
I never claimed number 7. Irrelevant anyway.

>> ^marbles:

Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!


Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.

You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...

If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.