• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Pushes Back Against Warnings That ISIS Plans to Enter From Mexico

Why do people keep bringing this up? Is the fact that we supported them 30 years ago suppose to excuse what they are doing now? Are we just suppose to roll over and take whatever attacks they commit without retaliation?

No, that's just to point out HOW LONG we've been doing this, need more recent examples? The Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Mubarak in Egypt, used al Qaeda in Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi, and has supported the AQ, MB, Al Nusra infested syrian opposition forces fighting Assad. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad, all contained militant Islamic groups, and they're gone.
 
No, that's just to point out HOW LONG we've been doing this, need more recent examples? The Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood against Mubarak in Egypt, used al Qaeda in Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi, and has supported the AQ, MB, Al Nusra infested syrian opposition forces fighting Assad. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi and Assad, all contained militant Islamic groups, and they're gone.

And all that I agree with, which is why I've become far more cynical when it comes to the idea that Arabs can govern themselves. I think the fatal flaw in American Foreign Policy is believing in the goodwill and good nature of all human beings. Say what you want about the Russians, (and believe me I can) at least they recognize that it's better to keep them under the jack boot then allow them free will. I just hate when people bring up the Al Qaeda deal with the 1980's because they leave out the fact that their enemy just so happened to be the Soviet Union. I very much doubt Reagan would of signed off on supporting them, had he of known that 20 years later, they'd come back to attack the homeland.
 
He bud, We won't be hunting down and killing them, they are our ally's. As I've been pointing out all along, decades of support of militant Islamic groups has produced the ME we see today.

The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups that were favored by neighboring Pakistan, rather than other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups.

Operation Cyclone


It wasn't so much with what was favored toward Pakistan. ;)


In Honor of the Syrian Rebels

In the past, United States officials saw the Islamist groups’ abundant resources as the main draw for recruits, said Steven Heydemann, a senior adviser at the United States Institute of Peace, which works with the State Department.

The strategy is based on the current assessment that popular appeal of these groups is transactional, not ideological, and that opportunities exist to peel people away by providing alternative support and resources,” he said. Mr. Heydemann acknowledged, however, that the current momentum toward radicalism could be hard to reverse.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...eate-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/171776-honor-syrian-rebels-w-90-a-2.html
 
State Dept. Lapses Aided 9/11 Hijackers

"This is a systemic problem," said Nikolai Wenzel, a former U.S. consular officer. "It's a problem of sloppiness, it's a problem of negligence which I would call criminal negligence because obviously, having reviewed all these applications, there is a pattern here."

The pattern? None of the 15 applications reviewed was filled out properly.

Brothers Wail and Waleed al Shehri applied together in October 2000. Under "occupation" Wail wrote "teater;" brother Waleed claimed "student." The name and address of alleged employer and school was listed as "South City," and the questionable U.S. destination named as "Wasantwn."

Visas approved.

Abdulaziz Alomari claimed to be a student but didn't name a school; claimed to be married but didn't name a spouse; under nationality and gender, he didn't list anything.

Visa approved.

Three months later, Alomari followed his friend Mohamed Atta through airport security … heading for the World Trade Center.

Khalid Al Mihdhar, who helped crash the plane into the Pentagon, simply listed "Hotel" as his U.S. destination — no name, no city, no state — but no problem getting a visa.

Just One Had a Slight Delay

Hani Hanjour, who also was on the plane that hit the Pentagon, had only a slight delay in acquiring his visa. A consulate employee flagged Hanjour's first application, noting that Hanjour wanted to "visit" for three years, although the legal limit is two. When Hanjour returned two weeks later, he simply changed the form to read "one year".

Visa approved.

Yep. Pretty easy to get into the country isn't it? The State Department has always been lax on security. Not only in what you listed in your post, but also in physical and communications security or I suppose they call it IT today.
 
Why is it odd coming from NYT?

That is the same outfit that covered up the NSA dirty work being performed by telecoms back in 2003, and that coverup allowed Bush to be re-elected.

NYT is just another mouthpiece for the neocons that still control the government. Their role is to fear monger, and that's what this story is.

Comical. The New York Times is the Bible of liberalism.
 
Yep...no need for concern.

Terrorist_Map_of_the_US.jpg

About Bare Naked Islam, the source of that map:
"Islam is NOT a religion of peace, nor does Islam mean peace. Islam means submission.
Most people are simply unaware that Islam is NOT just another religion but a totalitarian political cult-like ideology, which compels its followers into blind obedience, teaches intolerance, brutality and locks all Muslims and non-Muslims in a struggle deriving directly from the 7th century nomadic, predatory, Bedouin culture.....
In Islam, one is considered “moderate” if one supports the goals of jihad, if not the tactics. Those who totally reject the violent teachings of Islam are considered apostates of Islam and as such, are condemned to death....."
 
HD, you have some really ..... interesting views on the world. Calling the NYT, the same newspaper that ran with the ad "General Petraeus or General Betray US?"

Have not read the succeeding posts yet, but your second 'sentence' above is not really a sentence, so the thought you were trying to convey is incomplete.

Yes, my views are notably politically incorrect, to be sure. That said, I liked very much the General Betrayus moniker, more for the sound than for any factual qualities. I thoroughly enjoyed the video taken last year or so as the former General was walking to his new job as college professor in NYC and was properly harassed by some young protestors.

NYT serves the interests of the power elite, however one chooses to describe them. They favor the status quo for the most part, and have for years, whether the subject is drug policy or war policy. Their not publishing Risen's story in 2003 was the final straw for me with that paper. They are but a propaganda organ for the government.
 
Comical. The New York Times is the Bible of liberalism.

Yes, it's funny how both liberals and conservatives in government got onboard with FISA II to give immunity to telecoms for their crimes assisting the NSA with wiretaps. Even the Great Liberal Barack, then Senator.

That Great Liberal Bastion NYT holds Risen's story in reserve until after the election, which the supposed "liberal" (Kerry?) lost.

Labels are usually misleading and counterproductive to rational analysis.

My point is that NYT supports the status quo, whether war or drugs or virtually any other major issue, and if the status quo happens to be gathering personal information in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so be it.
 
Have not read the succeeding posts yet, but your second 'sentence' above is not really a sentence, so the thought you were trying to convey is incomplete.

Yes, my views are notably politically incorrect, to be sure. That said, I liked very much the General Betrayus moniker, more for the sound than for any factual qualities. I thoroughly enjoyed the video taken last year or so as the former General was walking to his new job as college professor in NYC and was properly harassed by some young protestors.

NYT serves the interests of the power elite, however one chooses to describe them. They favor the status quo for the most part, and have for years, whether the subject is drug policy or war policy. Their not publishing Risen's story in 2003 was the final straw for me with that paper. They are but a propaganda organ for the government.

Huh so I didn't. My point was that they (NYT) were the ones that carried the aid "General Betray US". I wouldn't call the paper that ran us a mouthpiece for Neo-cons. That wasn't exactly supportive of the War in Iraq... now was it?
 
Why do people keep bringing this up? Is the fact that we supported them 30 years ago suppose to excuse what they are doing now? Are we just suppose to roll over and take whatever attacks they commit without retaliation?
Apparently so. There are always plenty of people who will try and justify terrorist attacks against America, and it was the same during the Cold War as well. Their brains have been carefully washed.
 
Yes, it's funny how both liberals and conservatives in government got onboard with FISA II to give immunity to telecoms for their crimes assisting the NSA with wiretaps. Even the Great Liberal Barack, then Senator.

That Great Liberal Bastion NYT holds Risen's story in reserve until after the election, which the supposed "liberal" (Kerry?) lost.

Labels are usually misleading and counterproductive to rational analysis.

My point is that NYT supports the status quo, whether war or drugs or virtually any other major issue, and if the status quo happens to be gathering personal information in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so be it.

Uh, I can't find the story you are referring to, but I have found a lot of anti-war stories he posted, like one where "James Risen of The New York Times, using recently disclosed State Department documents, has written a bombshell-of-a-story chronicling how Blackwater's top manager threatened to kill the U.S. government's chief investigator in 2007, thus thwarting an investigation into Blackwater's operations just weeks before the company's guards massacred 17 Iraqi civilians." Exposing Blackwater was a pretty big thing wasn't it? A blow against the war and PMC and the like... I thought you'd love that sort of thing.
 
Huh so I didn't. My point was that they (NYT) were the ones that carried the aid "General Betray US". I wouldn't call the paper that ran us a mouthpiece for Neo-cons. That wasn't exactly supportive of the War in Iraq... now was it?

Oh, they can change their official position from time to time, and that's good. And they will not often turn down revenue for ads bought by people with opposing views.

To find the true answer I suppose, we would have to interview Judith Miller, eh? Or James Risen? ;)

To me, actions speak louder than words. Of course the newspaper is in the business of words, but those paying attention can also judge the more substantive actions. Covering up the crimes of government is what I consider to be a substantive action.
 
Oh, they can change their official position from time to time, and that's good. And they will not often turn down revenue for ads bought by people with opposing views.

To find the true answer I suppose, we would have to interview Judith Miller, eh? Or James Risen? ;)

To me, actions speak louder than words. Of course the newspaper is in the business of words, but those paying attention can also judge the more substantive actions. Covering up the crimes of government is what I consider to be a substantive action.

I'm just saying, your kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. On the whole though, the NYT has been the most prominent anti-war paper. Anti-war doesn't equal Neo-con is what I'm saying. That was what you said wasn't it? That the NYT was neo-con?
 
I'm just saying, your kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. On the whole though, the NYT has been the most prominent anti-war paper. Anti-war doesn't equal Neo-con is what I'm saying. That was what you said wasn't it? That the NYT was neo-con?

That is certainly fair criticism.

Yes, I am a cynical bastard, no doubt.

I have no respect (or very damn little) for the paper.
 
Huh so I didn't. My point was that they (NYT) were the ones that carried the aid "General Betray US". I wouldn't call the paper that ran us a mouthpiece for Neo-cons. That wasn't exactly supportive of the War in Iraq... now was it?

Many publications carry adverts promoting political positions contrary to the publication's editorial positions. It means little, accept a respect for allowing diverse opinions to be heard.
 
I'm just saying, your kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. On the whole though, the NYT has been the most prominent anti-war paper. Anti-war doesn't equal Neo-con is what I'm saying. That was what you said wasn't it? That the NYT was neo-con?
Thomas Friedman, Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: New York Times columnist. [NYTimes.com, accessed 3/19/13] Friedman Supported Iraq War Invasion, Though Had Serious Reservations About Bush Administration Tactics And Planning.

Bill Keller, Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: Keller served as an op-ed columnist and senior writer for The New York Times from 2001-2003, then became its executive editor in July 2003. [NYTimes.com, accessed 3/19/13] Keller Served As "A Leading 'Liberal Hawk' Backing The Invasion Of Iraq.

Judith Miller, Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: New York Times investigative reporter. [New York Times, 11/9/05] Miller Produced A Series Of Now-Debunked Reports That Saddam Hussein Had WMD. As Franklin Foer wrote for New York magazine:

Where Are The Media's Iraq War Boosters 10 Years Later? | Research | Media Matters for America
 
Thomas Friedman, Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: New York Times columnist. [NYTimes.com, accessed 3/19/13] Friedman Supported Iraq War Invasion, Though Had Serious Reservations About Bush Administration Tactics And Planning.

Bill Keller, Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: Keller served as an op-ed columnist and senior writer for The New York Times from 2001-2003, then became its executive editor in July 2003. [NYTimes.com, accessed 3/19/13] Keller Served As "A Leading 'Liberal Hawk' Backing The Invasion Of Iraq.

Judith Miller, Position At The Time Of Iraq Invasion: New York Times investigative reporter. [New York Times, 11/9/05] Miller Produced A Series Of Now-Debunked Reports That Saddam Hussein Had WMD. As Franklin Foer wrote for New York magazine:

Where Are The Media's Iraq War Boosters 10 Years Later? | Research | Media Matters for America

It's misleading to talk about their position at the beginning of the war, because that was a different time.
 
Read the first paragraph of the story. It attributes no one.
; )
In the sentence,
"As the Obama administration and the American public have focused their attention on ISIS in recent weeks, conservative groups and leading Republicans have issued stark warnings like those that ISIS and other extremists from Syria are planning to enter the country illegally from Mexico,"
what does the word "those" refer to?

:shrug:
 
Last edited:
Until I see proof, I'm not going to differentiate.

That chart was from 2002....before ISIS

2002? There was a caliphate before WW1, and they've been trying to get one back ever since, and US policy in the Middle East over the last couple decades has provided them with the best shot at it that they've had yet.
 
It's misleading to talk about their position at the beginning of the war, because that was a different time.

Nearly everyone was opposed to the war a few years later when it became clear that there were no WMDs, the war was not achieving its goals and it was likely to drag on for a long time. Even Bush II arranged for the USA's withdrawal from Iraq. For the most part, only genuine liberals and a few libertarians had the knowledge, intelligence and guts to oppose the war from the beginning. It was opposed by publications like the Nation, the Progressive and Mother Jones. Despite its liberal reputation, the NY Times is, and was, a large corporation with a pro-establishment centrist orientation.
 
2002? There was a caliphate before WW1, and they've been trying to get one back ever since, and US policy in the Middle East over the last couple decades has provided them with the best shot at it that they've had yet.

So Muslims are Mulims no matter when? Don't forget that Poco Harem declared their own in Africa.
 
Nearly everyone was opposed to the war a few years later when it became clear that there were no WMDs, the war was not achieving its goals and it was likely to drag on for a long time. Even Bush II arranged for the USA's withdrawal from Iraq. For the most part, only genuine liberals and a few libertarians had the knowledge, intelligence and guts to oppose the war from the beginning. It was opposed by publications like the Nation, the Progressive and Mother Jones. Despite its liberal reputation, the NY Times is, and was, a large corporation with a pro-establishment centrist orientation.

I'm not going to re-argue the Iraq War, but I will say that just because the newspaper supported the Iraq War (though, I'm sure you could also find some writers from there who opposed it, one being the Miller guy we were referring to earlier) doesn't mean there not a liberal newspaper. This may be hard for you to do, but try to see the world as it was through their eyes; at that time, everyone knew that Saddam had WMDs and we all knew that Saddam was a strategic enemy in the world. After 9/11, there were a lot of people, that weren't willing to sit around and wait, and hope that Saddam wouldn't try to export his WMDs. A lot of people that might of been opposed to the war, were willing to side with it under these circumstances.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they were still very critical of the war effort, almost the moment after the statue had fell. Even in the post you mentioned, it talked how Thomas Friedman had his trepidation. And keep in mind, these are the people that broke the Blackwater Scandal. These are the people that Wikileak went through to release the Afghan and Iraq War Tapes, and the Diplomatic Cables. And These are also the guys that were the go to guys with the exposure of the NSA activities. I'm sorry, if you are pro-establishment, you don't rock the boat this damn much. I get it that they disagreed with you on ONE issue, that doesn't mean their not liberal, it just means their human. And by the way, if you were to rewind time and give them the option, NONE of them would go down that road twice. The real neocons, the ones that really did want this war, are the ones out there still defending it today but instead talking about it as a campaign of liberation.

They may not be as far left as you want, but that don't mean their not left of center. However, if you rather not be objective, then I suppose everyone is to the right of you, and in that case, oh well.
 
What people don't realize is that their "big heart" is transporting drugs, guns, people and terrorists and street gangs.
 
Nearly everyone was opposed to the war a few years later when it became clear that there were no WMDs, the war was not achieving its goals and it was likely to drag on for a long time. Even Bush II arranged for the USA's withdrawal from Iraq. For the most part, only genuine liberals and a few libertarians had the knowledge, intelligence and guts to oppose the war from the beginning. It was opposed by publications like the Nation, the Progressive and Mother Jones. Despite its liberal reputation, the NY Times is, and was, a large corporation with a pro-establishment centrist orientation.
Of course the Iraq war was about a great deal more than WMD's, but the Democrats and their supporters eventually made it exclusively about WMD's. The Democrats shifted their position for political gain and of course it worked. Now we have the Iraq we have today and none of those who were for it before they were against it know what the hell to do about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom