Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Trotsky, Mar 13, 2018.
Huh, didn't know that. If they're not active then how how do they exist in any meaningful way?
Yeah, everything that Frontline does is outstanding, but I'm always kind of wary of US bias. There's a little in this documentary, but not nearly as much as you would expect, certainly from any other government-funded outlet.
This documentary, combined with all that I know about the Cuban revolution and subsequent events, really highlight what a shit show Eisenhower's foreign policy was. Despite him (still) being the best GOP president of the past century, it shows how gravely terrible even his platform was for the US and the world, compared to Democratic successors.
It's also a wonder as to whether a wave of social democratic independence in the region would really be preferable to government elites and financial backers to the situation we have now.
This is a phenomenal book...how I was first introduced to the "lion" of Afghanistan
If you were to list the top 10 fucked up things did in the name of U.S. foreign policy I would rank what we did to Mohamed mosaadegh in the top 5.
It's truly heartbreaking because when the idea was posited to Truman he was like, "fuck no. We need to let them choose their own destiny ."
It wasn't until Ike and being cajoled by the brits with the communist scare tactic did Americans support this coup .
How dare mosaadegh look after his own people and want to nationalize their own fucking oil. Lol.
Yes a particularly shameful episode of British interference in the region .
King Hussein death ? Obama died
Agreed. I remember early in the 2016 primary, when I was still very skeptical of Bernie Sanders as some vanilla social democrat, he made a comment in an interview about the tragedy of Mossadegh and how we were partially to blame for the disposition and hostility of Iran. I gained a lot of respect for him after that (and also after he took a principled stance on defending Palestinians).
It speaks to the perpetual hubris and sense of entitlement in American international policy.
Also, on that note, Truman was just an outstanding President. Best one since FDR and probably the greatest friend of American workers of any president in history, including FDR. He'll be forever known for the atomic bomb, first and foremost, but he really was an iconic leader. I could do without the Zionism and Truman Doctrine, but pobody's nerfect.
Good thing we stripped them of funding to increase military spending.
It wouldn't be the first time British interests ruined everything.
*Funding rebels all around world
*Operation condor in latin America bringing hell and torture in cia backed prisons against 'communists' and all opponents.
I think. Also arming talbian and helping them grow to fight soviet union also up there with fund rebel.
I an surprised the US has never military helped Israel even in 1972 when attacked and almost lost. They arm them. But that would of been time. Oh wait the soviets!! If it was not for that israel would of expe palestinians and kept Sinai and south lebanon and west bank. And honestly the region would be more quiet. People think all muslims around world would riot and fight to death but this not true. So much of radical islam is pure middle east drived and started later. To only blame israel existence ignore how some more or less moderate islamic states existed around same time as Israel
What sucks is how many great figures there are, and have been, in the British left like Tony Benn and, today, Jeremy Corbyn.
Yet, just like with massive debt, we young leftists and leaders of the future will be carrying around the moral burden of our conservative predecessors' warmongering for many generations. Just like Trump voters today, these people were irresponsible reactionaries whose recklessness damned future generations. We'll be trying to remediate their selfish fuckery for our entire lives even though we had no say in it.
Yup, Corbyn is truly great:
Shares stage with holocaust deniers, calls Hamas and Hizbollah his friends.
This quote is quite telling:
Not all Jews are wealthy and involved in a media conspiracy...
If that's the worst that you have, then he must be a fucking saint.
Also, it's Hezbollah.
That quote isn't a complete sentence and you didn't provide a source for it. For all I know the complete sentence is "It's wrong...to assume that a Jewish friend is wealthy, part of some kind of financial or media conspiracy or takes a particular position on politics in general, or on Israel and on Palestine in particular.”
Thanks for the language lecture, please feel free to contact among others Financial Times and Crisis group and correct them as well.
As for the quote:
That clearly alludes to a conspiracy involving Jewish capitalists and media even though your Jewish friend may be innocent.
Antisemitism is rampant in the Labour party.
He said it's wrong to assume a Jewish person is wealthy or an Israel supporter. What exactly is antisemitic about that? Are you just dumb, or what?
It's incredible the straws that right-wingers like you will grasp on to try to criticize the left, while remaining willfully ignorant to the bountiful and substantive criticisms available to the right.
...which basically means: By the way, not all Jews are bad or rich Jews who run the media and support Israel.
Add that to the problem with antisemitism within the Labour party and how they have tried to whitewash it.
I think they went from active bombing to just ranting online and shit
No, it means exactly what is says: that pigeonholing Jewish voters into an affluent and Israel-supporting block is not right. Just like assuming that every black person is poor and votes along economic interests.
Cool. I'll take some vague, fleeting and unsubstantiated allusions to antisemitism over an alternative of the Tories' open hostility to foreigners, subservience to Saudi business interests, and complete ineptitude and corruption in running the British economy.
This is why people hate the deep state. Start a bunch of trouble overseas in order to profit a few, while claiming it's in the name of the entire country.
I think attributing the spread of Wahabism to the Iran/Saudi schism isn't telling the entire truth. It certainly helped isolate the Iranian regime in the region but the Saudis have funded mosques in literally every corner of the world. This isn't to counter some nefarious Iranian agenda because there has never been a real effort on the Iranian side to do the same thing. The relationship between the house of Saud and Wahabists runs very very deep. It spans centuries. The spread of their religion was a way for the Saudis to enhance their prestige in the muslim world outside of countering Shiism or whatever else they are trying to pin on Iran here. The decline of Ba'athism and especially the oil wealth as a result of the oil crisis 73 that got into Saudi hands was equally if not more important.