Customize

Glenn Greenwald is a target

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Jul 5, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Excerpt:

    For example, journalists tell us that Hugo Chavez was 'divisive', that Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are 'narcissistic', that George Galloway is 'controversial'. But beneath their literal meaning, these adjectives communicate a hidden message: that these individuals are acceptable targets for negative media judgement; they are fair game.
    By contrast, Barack Obama is never described as 'controversial' or 'divisive'. David Cameron is not a 'rightist prime minister'. Why? Because the rules of professional journalism are said to ensure that journalists serve democracy by remaining objective and impartial. Reporters are merely to describe, not to judge, the words and actions of leading politicians.
    _________________________________________
    Nice, very nice indeed.
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Anonymous Member

    One of the main reasons for this is access. if reporters are critical, the access they need goes away.

    But Greenwald no longer needs access to the politicians. he has documents, which are even better. And that pisses off the reporters and the politicians, so one of those Baptist and Bootlegger situations comes to the fore, where two seeming opponents work together to defeat a more dangerous enemy.

    The politicians are pissed and scared, and the reporters can curry favor by distancing themselves from such a reckless journalist.
    • Like Like x 4
  3. Anonymous Member


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/europe-erupts-nsa-spying-chief-government
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/sarah-harrison-edward-snowden-berlin

    Not Greenwald but more equating investigative journalism with terrorism
    • Like Like x 1
  5. A.O.T.F Member

    David Miranda Heathrow detention was unlawful, court told

    Lawyers for partner of ex-Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald say police wrongly used powers under Terrorism Act


    The detention of David Miranda, the partner of the former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at Heathrow airport was unlawful and the first time journalistic material has been seized under a controversial provision of the Terrorism Act, his lawyers have told the high court.
    Their claim alleges that counter-terrorism powers under schedule 7 to the act should not have been used, insists Miranda was not involved in terrorism and says that his right to freedom of expression was curtailed.

    Continued - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/david-miranda-heathrow-detention-glenn-greenwald

    The Truth.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. muldrake Member

    It's such an obvious truth that I find it hard to maintain any respect whatsoever for people who can't see it. I know, I know, yelling "wake up sheeple" is rarely all that useful, but fuck. This is basic Democracy 101 shit. How does anyone not get it?
    • Like Like x 4
  7. Anonymous Member

    This.
    The propaganda effort to distract us is powerful and amazing. They tried to distract with "Snowdon is a traitor!" and "where's waldo". As the revelations continued to unfold and were more and more damaging they have changed to brief NSA related sound bites then on to Obama Care. And Fienstien outrage whilst she pushes secret NSA adgendas. They will wait for a while before the Task Force is unveiled so maybe we wont care by then.
  8. Anonymous Member

    It is their expression of their contempt for the people they are allegedly ruling. They see us, rightfully, as idiots who will accept any lies and forgive (or forget) them. There are still people defending Obama despite his continuous stream of lies. Those still defending him are interested in power, not people
  9. String up a few Wall Street bankers, and the rest will fall in line.
  10. Anonymous Member

    pour encourager les autres
  11. Anonymous Member

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/177417/glenn-greenwald-responds-critics-attacks-continue#
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Anonymous Member

    This is a new attack, but I wonder about the reason behind it. Are these guys government mouthpieces too?
  13. Anonymous Member

    I dunno but this was posted on Slashdot Nov. 20th, 2013:

    An anonymous reader sends this news from Al-Jazeera: "BP has been accused of hiring internet 'trolls' to purposefully attack, harass, and sometimes threaten people who have been critical of how the oil giant has handled its disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The oil firm hired the international PR company Ogilvy & Mather to run the BP America Facebook page during the oil disaster, which released at least 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf in what is to date the single largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. The page was meant to encourage interaction with BP, but when people posted comments that were critical of how BP was handling the crisis, they were often attacked, bullied, and sometimes directly threatened. ... BP's 'astroturfing' efforts and use of 'trolls' have been reported as pursuing users' personal information, then tracking and posting IP addresses of users, contacting their employers, threatening to contact family members, and using photos of critics' family members to create false Facebook profiles, and even threatening to affect the potential outcome of individual compensation claims against BP."

    http://yro.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=BP Oil

    AvS WWP knows about these tactics all so well, re: the cult & OSA...
  14. Anonymous Member

    Thanks. Informative.
  15. Anonymous Member

    http://cryptome.org/2013/12/greenwald-v-pando.pdf
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    • Like Like x 2
  18. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 3
  19. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 3
  20. muldrake Member


    Greenwald should invite this asshole to repeat this shit off the floor of the House, where he can be sued for it.
    • Like Like x 3
  21. A.O.T.F Member

    incep.jpg


    The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program

    By Jeremy Scahill and Glenn Greenwald 10 Feb 2014

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/

    The very best of luck to Glenn, Jeremy, and Laura, Liliana, and Peter, The two Dan's, The two Ryan's, Murtaza, Marcy, & Micah .. And guys' .. Please keep Pierre Omidyar, away from the fucking office. If it is ever going to work well, you guys will need to have FULL & TOTAL CONTROL. Without any restrictions or interference of any kind, whatsoever.
    • Like Like x 3
  22. hasnulife Member

    Brandon Bryant spent six years as a “stick monkey” – a drone sensor operator who controls the “eyes” of the U.S. military’s unmanned aerial vehicles. By the time he left the Air Force in 2011, Bryant’s squadron, which included a small crew of veteran drone operators, had been credited with killing 1,626 “enemies” in action.

    One guys crew murdered 1,626 people in 6 years time...how many people in total have been butchered by drones amongst all crews? This is Genocide, a logical and ethical man would have to admit that by paying taxes as a U.S. citizen he is culpable to these acts and bears blood on his hands. More children without fathers and hate filled hearts sewing seeds of rage that could perpetuate the cycle of vengeance aimed at a country who ruined their family. It makes me weep.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. muldrake Member

    It's such an obvious consequence that one suspects that's exactly the point. Make sure there are always enemies out there to justify the money pump keeps flowing to the weapons pushers and other contractors who own Congress.
    • Like Like x 1
  24. As ifness Member

    If you think "enemies" is not a legitimate term for the Taliban militants who are being targeted, and whose aim is to enslave women and kill people who resist their theocratic totalitarianism, you might well be confused about a number of terms you have used. A ground war, and increased civilian casualties, or the triumph of the Islamists are two other alternatives to drone targeting.
    • Like Like x 3
  25. As ifness Member

    The fact that citizens of democracies vote and pay taxes are, in fact, specific reasons that Islamists assert that, under Islamic law, civilians of such democracies are legitimate targets.

    They are entitled to their opinion. However, if liberal democracy is in conflict with supremacist theocracy that opposes freedom of belief, freedom of expression, and virtually everything else, I do have a preference as to who should win.
    • Like Like x 3
  26. hasnulife Member

    I'll reply to this on two points what " I think" and what I know.

    Firstly what I think is that my country has played world police long enough. These men are not my enemies I can tell you that much for certain, nor do I believe they are the enemies of U.S. citizens. The men who allegedly perpetrated the trade center high jacking were obviously killed in the act and that was Al'Qaeda not the Taliban which is who we are now droning by and large . Their network was left in shambles and their leaders assassinated. Certainly Islamic extremists are despicable in many ways especially as regards to the treatment and near enslavement of women. There is already too much blood on my country's flag spilled on the account of backwards bearded bigoted bible believing bus bombing goat herders. To put it simply I would stop this program of systematically removing terrorist leaders like a never-ending game of whack-a-mole because of what I know about their culture. Which brings me to my second point.

    History has shown time and time again that Persia cannot be truly conquered. The mongols managed to hold on to them during the dark ages, yet their rule never shook the faith of its people who fought back for over 2oo years . You can obliterate their armies , invade their country, force upon them new laws and forbid old ones, but you cannot break their will. Whether it makes any sense to you or I these people by and large adhere to a very old belief in Allah. Although there is a great diversity (over a dozen different ethnic groups and interpretations of islam) when faced with an invading force they can be the very definition of unified peoples. Eventually when foreign entities realize that their occupation is unsustainable ( as has happened multiple times during the past 500 years inevitably to the same end) they leave the country in ruins. From those ashes climbs the same theocracy which has ruled their hearts and minds for over a thousand years. Unlike some other religions their faith based guidelines are not to be questioned much less changed to fit the cultures of the world around them. After the last american soldier leaves Afghanistan it will be same. The greatest fear of the western world being that a Shiite party would emerge as the nations leading party which could end with Afghanistan merging with Iran to become a single Islamic republic. The economic implications of which are enough to make a banker collapse at the thought.

    TL;DR In short sir I don't think it's any of my fucking business the way a nation chooses to govern itself. The disease of shiite influence on the afghan sunni people cannot be removed by killing mullahs and militant leaders. These people do not want to be changed and often their customs are grotesque and inhumane but it should be their right to determine that for themselves.
  27. White Tara Global Moderator

    Except for the women of Afghanistan whose original right to be educated and live a reasonable life was eroded by fundamentalist values imposed by their taliban rulers, who may beg to differ. The barbarism of the fundamentalist taliban was ratcheting out of control for some time before 9/11. The world did virtually nothing, and the women of Afghanistan's pleas for help fell on largely deaf ears. No answers here, just a recognition that the talibans rule was not very long in the scheme of things and was an alien imposition.
    • Like Like x 3
  28. As ifness Member

    The Taliban can choose anything they like, and believe anything they like. They may revere any customs they like. I would not care. No one would care. They can be Sunni. They can be Shia.

    But I don't acknowledge the right for anyone to perform any grotesque inhumanity. The concept of human rights overides barbarism, everywhere, no matter what the Taliban believe.

    Yet, in the 21st century they, as part of a worldwide Islamist revival, seek to impose their tyranny everywhere they can - by force and by strategy - against my brothers and sisters, against reason, against thought, against knowledge, against liberty, against equality.

    You might think they have a "right". I don't. Everywhere, there are people - non-Americans - who resist, and I respect their rights. Everywhere there are girls who want to go to school.

    There are people being murdered by this militant revival them every day - in the Philippines, in China, in India, in Egypt, in North Africa. Nowhere is exempt.

    Forget the United States. The United States is only their strongest opponent, not their sole opponent. Every non-sharia nation is their enemy. If the United States did nothing, the Islamist campaign would advance, not shrivel up. Not fighting them is not going to stop them.

    Perhaps the Taliban has some "right" of force to rule over their captives. Not all of the captives agree. Some believe in human rights - utterly incompatible with anything the Taliban permits.

    I would not impugn anyone for fighting against the Taliban. I would impugn someone for asserting the Taliban's "right" to rule over others.

    I want the Islamists to lose. I don't acknowledge that they have any right to win. They don't acknowledge the right of their subjects to think, to speak, or for women or non-Muslims to live, except under subjugation.

    The United States doesn't have an obligation to fight the Taliban, but it isn't murder to do so.
    • Like Like x 2
  29. hasnulife Member

    The United States doesn't have an obligation to fight the Taliban, but it isn't murder to do so. - Asifness

    Murder is murder ,the deliberate act of ending the life of another. Semantics aside I want my country out of theirs. If it is the consensus of the United Nations that a never ending military effort against the Taliban is warranted then so be it. My country has done more than enough to garner animosity and outright hatred from the Islamic world and I'm tired of my tax dollars ending up in what used to be some poor family's living room. We've put two wars on the credit card and are teetering on the brink of a depression yet we continue to fund dozens of military bases in the area.
    What effect will all this money and loss of life have in the long run? Not a god damn thing. Even if you eradicate the Taliban (who've survived 12 years of intense bombardment by the most powerful military force in the world) giving the afghans a chance to govern themselves will still end up with pashtun majority (same tribe as the taliban originates from)being in power and similar islamic laws and customs being enforced . You can't bomb jesus into them sergeant and even if you could I do not want my country to be the one to pay for it anymore. We're broke ,tired, and have a myriad of our own issues to attend.
    • Like Like x 2
  30. The Internet Member

    I could be wrong but it’s been my impression that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are both products of Saudi influenced madrassas in Pakistan and are basically working together to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan. These are Sunni warriors, not Shi’ite.

    The Taliban are more Islamic than everyone else, as per the asshole rule: Where there is no functioning government the biggest asshole wins.

    Normally, as far as Islam is concerned, the biggest asshole would be the Saudi Arabians. So to be assured of success the Taliban took the imported Wahhabi brand and cranked the crazy up to eleven. Everybody who disagrees dies, basically. Lots and lots of killing, many many thousands of people without any wringing of the hands.

    Afghanistan is a clusterfuck partly of our own creation. Because we encouraged the Wahhabi extremism when it was aimed at the Russians. Once the Russians were out then tag, we’re it. Cults gotta have some evil devil or they don’t hold together.

    Moral of the story: enemy of my enemy ain’t my friend if it is a fucking cult.

    I don’t know what to do to fix the mess. Get the Saudis to quit exporting their extremists maybe.
    • Like Like x 3
  31. As ifness Member

    Djin might be out of the bottle, The Internet.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. The Internet Member

    Some stuff on the Taliban from Wikipedia:

    WTF, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Stop encouraging these nutters.
    • Like Like x 2
  33. hasnulife Member

    I've got it! We'll just send Richard Dawkins on a lecture tour through the islamic nations.
    damn-right-richard-dawkins_c_227785.jpg
    • Like Like x 3
  34. As ifness Member

    I suspect that, to many Saudis and Pakistanis with influence, they're not nutters, but allies in their beliefs and projects.
  35. The Internet Member

    Sadly I think you are right. These people are drowning in moonbat conspiracy theories about Jews doing 9/11 and poisons in vaccines and HIV as a US plot.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. I've had a few hours to think before posting.

    As usual both sides have their points.

    The area is a mess, but I'm sure as much blame can be laid at the feet of the french, english, etc colonizers of the region whose elites passed the 'white man's burden' off to the elites in the US after WWII. The Russians have gamely contributed their own bullshit to the mess.

    One problem is the old concept of group/national enemies. We all know here how much cults need to have enemies. It was expedient for the US to create their own 'frenemies' the Taliban, because the taliban were the ones who would fight the enemy du jour, the Soviets. I'm sure the US government was plenty knowlegable at the time about the fact that the Taliban are nasty to women and espousers of a authoritarian religious plague, But THAT DIDN'T MATTER WHEN THERE WERE ROOSKIES TO FIGHT.

    The region had a shot at modernization in the 50's-70's, the photographs of the time are a stark reminder that those places, especially cities, had a thriving secular, somewhat modern western life. But that was dependent upon a certain amount of democracy and a global push in educational and economic standards, which has been staunched by neo-liberal economic policy and a few well-placed assassinations. The photos now taken of those cities show piles of rubble where hijab-less coeds once sat.

    I support the west leaving the damn place to their own devices. I think without the pressure of common enemy at the door, the natural factions would eventually fall out of the cult and get back to their mutual kneecappings. Perhaps even some modernity may creep in again. If we must be there for 'human rights' and 'women's rights' I would certainly think the money would be better spent escorting women to school not unlike the way the national guard had to guard young black children in Ala when they went to school back in the 60's. Another thing to look at is aid and support, the reason the Taliban in those areas have so many supporters is because they provide food and social services. If western countries were serious about improving things and keeping raw meat out of the hands of the Taliban, they'd be doing more along those lines. Drones are needless and nasty and are going to keep this conflict going long past it's day.

    As for cults, the US (where I live) is one of the biggest. And there is always an enemy, a thought-stopping sound bite to get everyone riled up about so they don't see they are being conned too.
    • Like Like x 3
  37. The Internet Member

    Here is proof that Americans and Pakistanis are the same under the skin no matter their conflicting cultures and languages.



    There you have it. East and West people are easily suckered by the opportunity to be on TV. They can be made to babble like idiots if somebody merely hints that John Travolta might be watching.

    United by our common retardation, surely we can find it within our hearts to love one another, mah Paki brosephs.
    • Like Like x 4
  38. fishypants Moderator


    Can't happen, too much oil there.
  39. I know, It's all a pipedream anyways. 'Realpolitik' and the national cult always wins...for now. More oil so we can waste it having more war and the right pockets get lined with the world's wealth going upward in pyramidic fashion... I can only be glad that I've never had much income to tax for purposes such as this.

    I am not a good cult member. I hope as time goes on there are more.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. muldrake Member

    I think that's bull. Oil has an enormous market value. Even utterly insane countries manage to sell commodities on the open market. I have yet to see a great argument that oil consuming countries need to control the governments of oil producing countries to be able to buy oil.

    How does this logic go?

    (Yeah, I know your suggestion is the usual tongue-in-cheek comment about the obsession of the US government about oil.)
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins