Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumMnemosyne
(21,363 posts)before we shock and awed Iraq.
dvduval
(260 posts)I am thoroughly convinced there are people making posts here to incite division here at Democratic Underground. How do we Down Vote this stuff? As posted below, Russia Today is well recognized as a Russian propaganda news outlet, and is by no means "free press".
uhnope
(6,419 posts)RT is BS and lies and doesn't belong on any decent website, that it's a ridiculously obvious propaganda outfit funded by the Kremlin and is worse even than FOX.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Don't just claim it is BS. Tell us where you think the gentleman was wrong and why you should have more credibility than he has.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)nuff said?
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)Don't engage in ad hominem attacks. If you disagree with the gentleman, tell us why. Be specific.
Archae
(46,261 posts)And yer out!
1. Ex-CIA, even if true she was CIA, she probably got fired for something stupid.
2. "Russia Today," Putin's propaganda outlet.
3. Old "Jewish conspiracy" charges.
In other words, this video is pure bullshit.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)So obviously you never even looked at it before you declared it a strike out.
Michael F. Scheuer (born 1952[1]) is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, author, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station" , from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
Scheuer became a public figure after being outed as the anonymous author of the 2004 book Imperial Hubris, in which he criticized many of the United States' assumptions about Islamist insurgencies and particularly Osama bin Laden. He depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who was fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans. He challenges the common assumption that terrorism is the threat that the United States is facing in the modern era, arguing rather that Islamist insurgency (and not "terrorism" [3] is the core of the conflict between the U.S. and Islamist forces, who in places such as Kashmir, Xinjiang, and Chechnya are "struggling not just for independence but against institutionalized barbarism."[3][4] Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed "the reasons for your losing the war against us".[5][6]
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)That one saw RT and a women, and proceeded to jump the gun.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)media outlets. But it's the same thing we got about Al Jazeera, only back then WE supported Al Jazeera, while it was the war supporters on the Bush side who hated it, same kind of talking points thought 'It's a Terra Owned, Mooslim, network'... Lol, I just laugh at the fear some have that the American people might actually learn something about what is going on outside the US.
Love that we get RT, Al Jazeera, CCTV and occasionally the BBC on our lineup. Since there's no news on our Corporate media, I probably would not be watching tv at all if it were not for the fact that we do have a few decent news stations now.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)The interview consisted of RT asking questions of Scheuer and allowing him to offer his views. It seems to me the lady was quite fair in her questions and was not overtly "anti American".
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)same narrow minded thinking on the 'left' I once thought only existed on the right. I have told everyone I know to watch RT, mainly because I see the mindless effort to censor people. Did the same with Al Jazeera which was online back then. I donated to them when I realized the effort to censor them was so intense and got others to do the same.
Far worse than any news media, regardless how biased, Fox comes to mind, is CENSORSHIP. That is a sickness I despise, a blow to the heart of any democracy.
So to combat it whenever I see signs of it, I make sure to watch and support networks like Al Jazeera and RT both of which have some excellent reporters working for them from all over the world.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Perspectives
Summed up by Jason Burke in the March 21, 2004, Guardian Unlimited (UK):
"Al-Qaeda is as much an ideology or a set of values as a single organisation led by a single leader." [1]
In Burke's May/June 2004, Foreign Policy follow-up article "Think Again: Al Qaeda" he wrote:
"The mere mention of al Qaeda conjures images of an efficient terrorist network guided by a powerful criminal mastermind. Yet al Qaeda is more lethal as an ideology than as an organization. Al Qaedaism will continue to attract supporters in the years to come--whether Osama bin Laden is around to lead them or not."
According to the perspective of historian R.T. Naylor:
"Al Queda itself does not exist, except in the fevered imaginations of neo-cons and Likudniks, some of whom, I suspect, also know it is a myth, but find it extremely useful as a bogeyman to spook the public and the politicians to acquiesce in otherwise unacceptable policy initiatives at home and abroad. By those terms, Al Queda is cast like 'the Mafia' and similar nonsense coming from police lobbies. This is a complex issue but, putting it very simply, what you have in both cases is loose networks of likeminded individuals-sometimes they pay homage to some patron figure who they may never have met and with whom they have no concrete relationship. They conduct their operations strictly by themselves, even if they may from time to time seek advice." [2]
According to the perspective of author Jason Burke:
"Every piece of evidence I came across in my own work contradicted this notion of al-Qaeda as an 'evil empire' with an omnipotent mastermind at its head. Such an idea was undoubtedly comforting - destroy the man and his henchmen and the problem goes away - but it was clearly deeply flawed." [3]
In the May 23, 2002, Christian Science Monitor, Kimberly A. McCloud and Adam Dolnik wrote:
"The United States and its allies in the war on terrorism must defuse the widespread image of Al Qaeda as a ubiquitous, super-organized terror network and call it as it is: a loose collection of groups and individuals that doesn't even refer to itself as 'Al Qaeda.' Most of the affiliated groups have distinct goals within their own countries or regions, and pose little direct threat to the United States. Washington must also be careful not to imply that any attack anywhere is by definition, or likely, the work of Al Qaeda."
"we must be honest with the facts in order to construct a viable long-term strategy"
Peter Bergen wrote December 25, 2003:
"... there is a great deal of ambiguity about what exactly constitutes al Qaeda. Is it a terrorist organization run in a regimented top-down fashion by its CEO, Osama bin Laden? Or is it a loose-knit group of Islamist militants around the world whose only common link is that many of them trained in Afghanistan? Or has al Qaeda, the organization, morphed into something best described as al Qaeda, the movement -- a movement defined by adherence to bin Laden's virulent anti-Westernism/anti-Semitism and propensity for violence? Is 'al Qaeda' all of the above?"
... and describes four concentric rings of depiction:
"First there is al Qaeda, the organization. Most non-specialists are surprised to learn that al Qaeda has only 200 to 300 members. These are the men who have sworn bayat, an oath of allegiance to serve their emir, or leader, bin Laden, even unto death. (It is al Qaeda, the organization, that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks.)
"The second concentric ring spreading out beyond the inner core of al Qaeda consists of perhaps several thousand "holy warriors" trained in the group's Afghan camps in the terrorist black arts of bomb making and assassination.
"Beyond this circle are tens of thousands of militants who received some kind of basic military training in Afghanistan over the past decade. Many of these trainees went to Afghanistan for what amounted to little more than a jihad vacation. Most were to be cannon fodder in the Taliban's war against the Northern Alliance. Think John Walker Lindh.
"Finally, untold numbers of Muslims around the world subscribe to bin Laden's Manichean worldview that the West is the enemy of Islam. Some of these, too, may be prepared to do violence."
Bergen concludes that there is evidence "that al Qaeda has successfully turned itself from an organization into a mass movement -- one that has been energized by the war in Iraq."
In the documentary series The Power of Nightmares, producer Adam Curtis "tells the story of Islamism, or the desire to establish Islam as an unbreakable political framework, as half a century of mostly failed, short-lived revolutions and spectacular but politically ineffective terrorism. Curtis points out that al-Qaida did not even have a name until early 2001, when the American government decided to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence and had to use anti-Mafia laws that required the existence of a named criminal organisation." --Andy Beckett for The Guardian, October 15, 2004
"In an era of satellite television and the World Wide Web," Faye Bowers writes of Al-Qaida in Christian Science Monitor, "it is nearly impossible to stop boutique terror groups - small homegrown cells that can reach mass audiences with just a videocamera and a few stylish graphics." According to Michael Scheuer, a former senior intelligence official who studied Al Qaeda for more than a decade, "Their communications systems are light-years more sophisticated than they were on 9/11." [4]
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)whether they call themselves "al Qaeda" or not. None of them go out of their way to say "We are al Qaeda". It is always the western media that tries to make that association. Most of the time, that seems like a giant leap in logic.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)The Russian government invented the anti-Semitic hoax Protocols of Zion... Now they do it on TV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion
zeemike
(18,998 posts)like that is relevant today...but just because you acknowledge the FACT that there is an israeli lobby does not make you anti Semitic.
Sources for the Protocols
The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. It was originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police, and unknown others.[3][4]
dvduval
(260 posts)The real FACT (I can use caps too) is you need to find a better news source than Russia Today. Putin himself has said RT reflects the views of the Russian government.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Who reflect the views of Corporate America?
I happen to believe in hearing both sides and making up my own mind...and this interview represents the views of a 20 year veteran of the CIA...is he a double agent working for Putin?
rpannier
(24,304 posts)Two sides presenting heavy amounts of propaganda is how you make your determinations?
If one side is propagandist garbage and the other side is as well, why listen to either
There are thousands of sources out there for information
Using RT as a counterbalance hardly qualifies as becoming more informed.
I would also add, two sides of any issue doesn't really exist. There are thousands of sub-stories going on in conflicts.
RT is inane, anti-western, pro-Russian garbage. It sits slightly above KBS here in South Korea and North Korean television.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)by some excellent reporters with no sign of propaganda, unless you consider facts to be propaganda.
It is not much different than AJ in its format regarding the news.
Could you give some examples of what propaganda you have seen on RT's news programming?
Then maybe, instead of these 'I hate rt' with nothing to help people understand WHY, people could actually decide if what you are seeing, assuming you've ever watched it, actually is propaganda, or just facts that people would rather not see.
Now if you were talking about Fox, which unlike RT where I can hear from actual Liberals, absolutely pushes propaganda and doesn't have a single professional unbiased reporter that I've ever seen, I would agree.
rpannier
(24,304 posts)I actually enjoy some of their shows but to say they don't engage in propaganda would be untrue
Watch Peter LaVelle on Crosstalk.
His throw out questions are often O'Reilly-esque in their spinning
Kiev Goes For Broke: Divisions within the Ukraine are becoming greater with each passing day. The western backed government in Kiev shows no interest in compromise or negotiation. At the same time civilians in the east are dying. Kiev is going for broke.
Lavelle almost always has two anti-western journalists-politico's and one pro-western person. He encourages and prods the anti-western persons
Then there is always the subtle head nodding and shaking that he does.
Russia is always portrayed on RT as having nothing but the most noblest intentions in the Ukraine. There is seldom, if ever, any serious push back against Russia's involvement. Even after it became clear there were Russian soldiers in the Ukraine, RT still insisted they weren't Russian soldiers.
The story on their website about all the sandwiched being given to the 'self-defense forces' was so unbiased. The 'high heels or machine gun in close combat' would have been laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous
RT strongly suggested in 2010 that there were no slave labor camps in North Korea and only backed down when they were going to lose their license to be shown in South Korea -- one cable service pulled them and one refused to pick them up
Putin is this heroic man of the people. His greatness is so overwhelming that even Steven Segal was invited to tell us what a great leader he is, while Segal explained how to combat the scourge of terrorism.
There was no mention of the anti-Gay legislation that passed (at least no serious mention) and how neo-Nazi groups in Russia have been intimidating foreigners and non-ethnic Russians
Propaganda is not just what you say, it's what you don't say
uhnope
(6,419 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)there is no need to link to RT. There are lots of liberal/progressive sites doing deeper investigation than our lazy media.
I believe that the post I added earlier today was only the 2cd time I have purposely linked to RT, and I did that because it was not against TOS and was unfairly kicked.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)if you want to be taken even somewhat seriously
newthinking
(3,982 posts)You still don't get it
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It is a very reliable source on news so there is no need for you to 'explain' to those who object to sources they don't approve of. I think we are all grown up enough to watch and read whatever we find interesting and come to conclusions about the veracity and credibility of those sources. It is insulting to DUers to have these attempts to monitor what we use as sources.
So again, thank you for posting this link.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)There are still many progressive sources that are trustworthy and not willing to compromise for a few more bucks in their pockets. My point being that I don't need to use RT (specifically) as a source to debunk the false narratives around Ukraine because what RT is reporting is well known and being reported throughout the liberal media. That should mean something here. It isn't just RT, half the world understands the real story. In Europe the leaders there are barely able to keep their people at bay. Most of the support, even from Germany is tepid. They are trying to "please two masters".
RT. provides information with a Russian viewpoint. That only sounds bad to someone who is a Russophobe. It is no different than most countries in the world. Most countries in the world have at least one public channel. PBS used to be mostly public funded but it was extremely reliable during that period.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)world and only on DU, and maybe FR I don't know, haven't checked, have I seen this effort to discredit. Their reporters are from all over the world, actual war correspondents, which don't exist in this country anymore, and the reason why they are going to work for other foreign networks and doing fantastic and courageous work.
Great work from RT on foreign news from all over the world, and some actual worth while discussion programs with great interviews where the reporters are actually INFORMED on their subjects.
Not to mention all the great Liberal voices we get to hear there who are never going to be seen on our own Propaganda Corporate owned excuse for news media.
5X
(3,971 posts)Should I believe cia analyst with 20 plus years experience or anonymous posters on the internet?
rpannier
(24,304 posts)Would you believe a CIA analyst with 20 years who supported the US government line or would you brush it off because it doesn't meet with your preconceived ideas
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and because RT will twist anything and use any interview sentence out of context, and will just make stuff up and show fake footage that they know is fake: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017196999
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Give us an example of RT 'twisting anything'. I've watched them for over two years and have not seen their news crew do any such thing. But if you have some examples, please provide them.
So the analyst is saying there is no Al Queda as such, we KNOW THAT, in fact this is OLD NEWS. Are you disputing the analyst or what?
Eg, I wrote an OP years ago here on DU after one of our Generals actually told members of the press that they were using Al Queda, a specific individual at the time, who we 'killed' at least four or five times, and that this person wasn't even a member of any organized group.
So, what is so controversial about what this analyst is saying? Do you agree, disagree what?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)"Al Queda does not exist" vs. "the west's understanding of Al Queda is incorrect"? Too very different statements. This analyst has radically changed his tune. BTW the "analyst" is a Ron Paul supporter. Do you know Ron Paul's history with racism? Do you know how anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists use the term "Jewish Lobby" to mean "The Jews Control the World"?
RT is FOX News of Russia, but worse. OK? You've never heard of RT twisting something? Are you joking? Time to do your homework:
http://notsoreviews.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/dont-be-fooled-russia-today-is-trash/
If you can watch this RT video about the fluoridation of water evil conspiracy theory and ever take RT seriously ever again, well good luck with that because life is going to be difficult for you:
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 04:37 AM - Edit history (1)
What they are saying is absolutely true. I learned that in college years ago.
You know why floride kills bacteria? Because it is a freaking poison. It's ok to use it to brush your teeth (and spit it out) but it really is not good to ingest it. My household has not used it in years. The risk is not worth the relatively small gains. Just teach kids to brush their teeth.
We are learning all the time and it is not unusual to reverse a long held therapy because we learn it is not so good for you. It doesn't help that in our system industry lobbies make it harder to make change when science learns of a problem.
It wasn't that long ago that they used to have people ingest radioactive iodine to get "better xrays" . Then oops, not such a good idea!
Maybe you are too young to remember that this is what most of our investigative reporting used to look like (without the Rachel Maddow edge, which is who she seem to be emulating).
uhnope
(6,419 posts)of your opinion of RT conspiracy theory.
Oh, I forgot, you don't answer inconvenient questions about your support of homophobic dictators and their lies. Nevermind.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)Half the posters defending the real propaganda don't seem to even know what PNAC was all about. That is one of the problems of the new administration not having dealt with it.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Maybe Al Qaeda is as dumb as the Teabaggers.
I don't believe in Al Qaeda, never did, just another monster "WE" created to keep the military in business.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Not like having a country as one, because once the country is destroyed the monster is gone.
This is a perpetual monster, one that will be around for a long time, and one we can fight continuously and expend our resources on...it is a war not meant to be won but to be continuous...like Orwell described in 1984
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And we killed one 'leader of Al Queda', who was supposed to have only one leg, several times, before they decided we had begun to notice. When asked if they were sure they 'got him' that time, eg, did the one they claimed to have killed have one leg, which would have at least matched their story over the years, they couldn't or wouldn't say.
What a scam it all is.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)But the MIC don't need much dragging...there is money to be made.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)and I'm sure you will say Putin only wants peace
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Remember that they described a world-wide terrorist network operating in 70 different countries with terrorist cells ready to go on suicide runs when they got the 'go' order. They EXAGGERATED the threat to paint themselves as heroes that would save us and to justify their authority to rule.
THEY didn't even take it seriously.
Do you know how you can tell?
In the middle of this epic battle for the future of mankind and civilization itself the Republican led congress decided to hold hearings on steroid use in sports.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)truth2power
(8,219 posts)won't even bother to watch and actually analyze the content.
Sad.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Historic NY
(37,449 posts)seems to him everyone has problems except himself in accepting blame for the 911 attacks. He tends to blame others when he himself was allegedly in the arena.
fireflysky46
(224 posts)When its not the CIA its the gay.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The guy made some good points that I happen to agree with. And I do not support Rand or Ron Paul in any way and I'm not anti Semitic.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)I'm not a fan of RT as a source; but at least one could say that it's giving a certain (unreliable) Russian perspective. But Scheuer is not Russian; he is an American hard-right isolationist of the old-fashioned 'America First' variety.
The 'Israeli lobby in the US are getting us into wars!' is classic xenophobic paranoia: in this case, anti-Semitism. It is easy to find youtube videos of his speeches which accuse Israel of 'owning Congress', etc. I won't link to them, but they're easy to find. But it's not only Jews that he's paranoid about; he seems to subscribe to almost every right-wing xenophobic anti-liberal conspiracy theory that exists.
He now has his own 'Non-intervention' blog:
http://non-intervention.com/
Note the following gem in particular (it reads almost like a parody of right-wing nuttery):
'How to do this? Well, first, impeachment is out of the question. The Congress is completely unable and unwilling to do anything to protect the American people from what has become the everyday-lawlessness of Obama and Eric Holder. An impeachment proceeding would immediately be identified by the Democrats and their slaves in the mainstream media as an effort by the nasty, racist Republicans to unseat the noble Black man who aspires to help all citizens by becoming Americas first, post-1776 monarch. Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats various colonies of automatons Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war.'
Is this REALLY the sort of person on whose opinions we should be relying?
No, I do not think that most American (or British) interventions in the Middle East have been beneficial: most have been the product of a slightly different form of RW xenophobic paranoia, and have led to destabilization and disaster.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Nor do I divide them up into people you can listen too and people you can not hear.
But I guess saying that makes me one of them because you are ether with us or against us.
Some people want it to be that way...if Ron Paul were to say he is for something then we would have to be against it...and likewise here if one of "them" says something about the false narrative of the Neo Cons we must believe it is true...because every one of "them" must be wrong on everything they say.
Frankly it is the same thing that the right wing does to it's followers, and in this case I don't think we should be like them at all...I think we should be different than them, and consider every point made on it's own merits, not on who is saying it or what they said on something else.
But that is just me...I see the left and right becoming more alike than different in this respect...and I find it disturbing, and can see no good coming from it.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)
But perhaps that's just me.
I think that pundits' points are usually embedded in their wider worldviews. So that if Scheuer criticizes American interventionism, it is embedded in a view that all foreign 'entanglements' are bad; and that Obama's entire constituency ('abortionists, environmentalists, gays,' etc .) are suspect; and indeed that Democrats are likely to cause race war and civil war. I think that there is about as much point in listening to the words of such an individual, as in listening to the hissing of a poisonous snake.
I do think that British and American interventionism in Iraq have been dangerous and destructive and criminal; I have said so since 2003. So have many others. I don't think the fact that Scheuer says it makes it not true; but I do think that Scheuer is using it to attack foreigners and liberals (just as many of the pro-war Right have done); and that there is little point in encouraging such people.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Because that is exactly what the right wing does in most every case...Commie, anti American, Moonbat, and yes even hater...they have a label for anyone who speaks out about anything.
I don't know that this man is a "hater"...and in fact I reject that label when it is used on anyone that meanly says things you don't like to hear.
If we become just like them but on opposite sides we are them...and that merger will be our downfall.
But what he said was attacking the neo cons and the Bush administration, so it is not just attacking liberals...it is attacking the policy.
And I don't give a damn what his politics are, if he speaks the truth about the disastrous polices of our wars I will listen, and I will not dismiss him as a "hater"
But that is just me...your experience may be diferent.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Or is the true that you take any so-called authority on RT because you like the message--the twisted message of Putin TV?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And condemning everyone who ever spoke to them or had any contacts with them at all.
And that is what your talking about...Tom Hartman and others...even Larry King is on RT...you want them shut up too.
I don't do guilt by association well...but it works for the right wing I guess...so you want us to use it too.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)see him for what he is--a RW nutter (see post 47) being cherrypicked by RT as they always do
So who is the one using the tactics of the RW here?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)do or are just using that as an example of some sort.
I don't, for the record, so if that is this analyst's viewpoint it is a very liberal pov, one we don't get on the Corporate controlled MSM.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Or do you actually like anything that says "America bad" even if it's the Kremlin-owned FOX news of Russian neocons?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)familiar with, why bother asking ME for my views?
For others reading however, I live HERE in the US so have zero influence over any other country, in fact we have little influence right HERE as we've learned.
I notice you didn't answer my question, so if you don't mind, I will use my internet mind reading devices and conclude that you do support our interventionist foreign policies. You are free to correct that if my mind reading devices are not working correctly.
But for argument's sake, has Russia been attacking the US with WMDs and Mushroom clouds lately? If so, then dammit, yes, we need to go to war with them.
But I'm leery of being told about WMDs and Mushroom clouds headed our way, I'm sure you can understand why.
As far as Ukraine, why are we there? That is the EUs and Russia's problem to sort out. Is there money to be made there? I suspect that IS the reason we are there interfering in what has turned out to start looking like all the other Western interventions in recent history, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia. Everywhere we have intervened is a humanitarian disaster. Which is why I do not support these for profit interventions.
However if we are being attacked by Russia with WMDs and Mushroom clouds, I will be the first to demand that our government do everything they can to defend this country. Meantime I see NO reason for our intervention in Ukraine.
As for RT, it is a great news source, much like Al Jazeera was back when Bush was occupying the WH. Reporting NEWS that our own Corporate media were not allowed to report.
Fox is a right wing foreign run propaganda machine for war.
Rt's bias is more to the left, and given a choice, I prefer left to right any day.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)It's disguised as progressive but it is so not. But apparently Americans are not getting any less naive or gullible, or educated about the outside world
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And RT has provided them with a media audience to push Liberal views which of course the Corporate MSM has decided never to do.
Fail, seriously, you are talking to people who are capable of thinking for themselves, not willing to accept the same old talking points we got re Al Jazeera during the Bush years. We were right then, to support that beleagured news network, how many of their reporters died or were tortured, I don't have a number. And we are right now, never to listen to those who would try to suppress information.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)You said what I feel nicely.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)I have said elsewhere that there are two main forms of vicious hawkishness: xenophobic-isolationism and neocon-imperialism and each is worse than the other.
Scheuer is a xenophobic-isolationist (as are UKIP; the BNP; etc); the Bushies and Blairites are neocon-imperialists.
If they want to eat each other, great; but I want neither of them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)some insight that, when Bush was fronting for the MIC, resonated with the Left?
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)Not something I'm aware of. Who on the Left did so?
As I understand, he is/was a fairly regular Fox News guest; and support for him tends to appear on such sites as VeteransToday, DailyPaul, antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell's site, etc. I have not seen any real support for him on the Left!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I would never have heard of him otherwise since I never go to Fox, or any other right wing website or media outlet. I knew of him only from Dem forums, where he was considered a hero for daring to speak out against Bush when doing so was fairly risky.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Airc, he was lauded for standing up against Bush lies. Wasn't he fired by Tenet btw? So why do you think he was a hero to the Left during the Bush years?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Really embarrassing for the large numbers of naive folks here who seem to have a fanboy/fangirl need to believe RT is their friend with a pony
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)When did the 'Left' decide he was a Right Wing nutter? I missed that transition from support to opposition.
So what you're saying is we are all 'naive' when we supported him way back during the Bush era?? Care to explain that support?
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)Of course, most on the Left opposed the Iraq war, but that doesn't mean we saw eye to eye with everyone else who opposed it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who opposed Bush's policies smeared in recent years. But airc, Scheurer had the status to point out the lies. I don't recall anyone asking 'but is he a Republican, a Libertarian, NOT a Democrat'? No, we never paid attention to the political affiliation of those who opposed Bush publicly, except to congratulate them, see Drake eg, for 'having the courage to speak against their OWN PARTY'
For some reason this has changed for a few here. All of a sudden their political affiliations have been the PRIMARY 'concern' of a few.
Interesting, isn't it? The way things change for some.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)Here is a link to a thread from 2008 - when Bush was still president- where I was commenting on a Scheuer article, and on the antiwar.com site which he then frequented:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x221587
uhnope
(6,419 posts)your first?
zeemike
(18,998 posts)No, English is my only language...and I have been an American all my life, and my ancestors came over on the Mayflower...is that enough to make me a real American?
uhnope
(6,419 posts)from the way they post. One fervent Putin defender, who eventually got banned for vile racist posts, was definitely from somewhere in eastern Europe if not Russia.
I also see the video was reposted on Youtube by someone who is into conspiracy theories like HAARP causes earthquake. Yeah, typical RT viewer
zeemike
(18,998 posts)For the MIC which wants war somewhere in the world all the time.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)So tell us how Putin is placing sock puppets here...and how you know because of a misspelled word.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)It is like trying to reason with a 2 year old. I can visualize the foot stomping.
You are very patient indeed.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)I'm looking forward to being in that position. Not much longer to go.
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)Nor do I think that most RT quoters here are Russian (it might be more constructive if they were, and were bringing actual experience to the discussion).
I don't think RT is a particularly reliable site; but so far as I know, this is the first time that Scheuer has been quoted by them. Mostly he is on American neo-isolationist sites. Rather ironic under the circumstances that he'd allow himself to be interviewed by a Russian organization; but xenophobes are often highly inconsistent.
Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #77)
Name removed Message auto-removed
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who are Liberal, should be kept off the air completely? If that is what you want, you got it. The US Corporate media will never allow Liberals like Thom Hartmann eg, to speak about policies like our disastrous foreign Wars and Wall St so you are free to watch the MSM if that is what you prefer.
I will continue to seek out Liberal voices who tend to be correct about policies, such as the Iraq invasion and Wall St. among other things. And I find them on RT frequently, people who SHOULD be on our own media, but facts are not what the MSM is interested in ever since it was bought by six Corporations.
To each their own. I have no problem with what you choose to watch or read. Not sure people are so concerned about what I choose to watch or read.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fired by Tenet for his opposition to Bush's lies. It must be hard on those like Scheurer who served his country to watch what has gone on here for over a decade. You say he is 'isolationist'. How so? What was 'isolationist' about opposing a war that we all knew was FOR PROFIT and certainly not for America's National Security.
If HE is an isolationist for opposing these ME invasions and proxy interferences, then every one of us on DU could be accused of the same 'crime'.
I'm not following your logic, so maybe it's me. But was he WRONG to oppose Bush policies re the ME, and is he wrong NOW to maintain the same views that WE ALL HAD back then?
LeftishBrit
(41,190 posts)'If HE is an isolationist for opposing these ME invasions and proxy interferences, then every one of us on DU could be accused of the same 'crime'. '
NO!!!! THIS is not what I am objecting to; what I am objecting to in this specific case is his blaming the 'Israeli lobby in the US' for 'getting us into wars'. Not to mention his otherwise far-right views that I cite below. And I have disliked him since I heard of him in (I think) 2007 - when Bush was still president; though I was not aware of e.g. his extreme 'pro-life' viciousness, until now.
Opposing one individual who happens to be against the war, but is right-wing in every other possible way, does not mean supporting the wars and interventions. Just as opposing the wars and interventions does not mean supporting the terra-ists, as Bush argued.. One can oppose the wars, without blaming the Jews and feminists (see below for the latter), just as one can oppose terrorism, without blaming Iraq and the doves.
And it is not me who is calling him an isolationist; this IS where his views are coming from. Ask him; that's what he'd say. And I don't even think that being an isolationist as such is all that bad; it's the xenophobia and right-wing attitudes that go with it in the paleo-conservative context.
From his own blog:
http://non-intervention.com/
Italics mine:
'Impeachment also is the road to perdition because it would give the Democrats various colonies of automatons Ivy Leaguers, Blacks (even though Obama has been their economic scourge), school teachers, illegal immigrants, abortionists, environmentalists, gays, movie stars, most journalists, animal righters, socialists, the voting-rights-for-felons crowd, etc. a cause to rally around in defense of their liege lord. Indeed, even a successful impeachment would be a defeat for America because the Democrats would not hesitate a second before bringing America to the brink of a race or civil war...
It would, I think, be quite hard, though not impossible, to prove that Obama waged war against the United States. To wage war against America, Obama would have to have some semblance of manliness he has none and he would need one of those guns he hates. Indeed, any fair-minded jury looking at a man like Obama could only conclude that he was fit to wage war only against those who cannot defend themselves, like unborn Americans and U.S. soldiers, Marines, and intelligence officers sworn to defend the Constitution. ...
How long, for example, will they continue to believe that bloodthirsty people like Mrs. Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the other antiquated but still fanatic Democratic feminists really care about the lives of 300 Nigerian school girls except as pawns to be used to win votes and put more of our troops in harms way when they have done nothing but applaud and champion laws that have, since 1973, allowed more than 55 million unborn Americans to be deliberately butchered? How long can we Americans claim to be decent and sane human beings while supporting a party peopled by would-be tyrants like Obama and real-life slaughterers like the Democratic sisterhood