The disturbing view of Muslims in the US

[Redfish]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

I know exactly what you mean, asshole. But you are wrong. Fox news gives equal time to both sides. So do O'Reilly and Kelley. Hannity is clearly a one sided commentator, but he is a commentator not a news person. The news shows give air to both sides. Thats why Fox has a huge audience and MSNBC can count its viewers on its toes and fingers.

Fox has attacked Trump. If they were in the tank for the GOP that never would have happened.

Now, tell me when any of the other networks have attacked the leading democrat candidate, hillary clinton.

 

[Redfish]

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.

If you are keeping score:

People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1

Wow they are way ahead.

Oh, wow, facts that are just missing lots of stuff. You forget the number of people the US managed to get killed by making a political vacuum in Iraq.

Now you want to bring global warming into this debate..... er......

Fear of Muslims??? Why would I fear a Muslim? A friend of mine is a Muslim, she wouldn't hurt a fly, she's a bit bossy though. I went to Southern Africa last year, there's a history of Muslims in the area due to trading. Places like Inhambane in Mozambique which has it's semi-famous old mosque. It's not the Muslims I fears in that area, it was the criminals who walk around with knifes and guns.

But then some people want to know the truth, others want to make the truth simple so they can understand it. You seem to be aiming for the latter.

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

No one has said that all muslims are bad people. I worked with many good honest muslims in the mid east for years. But did I fully trust them? only a very few.

Islam teaches that lying and deception are permissible if they are needed to reach a goal called for by the koran.

When we try to apply judeo/christian principles to muslims, it doesn't work because they do not think about right and wrong the same way we do.

The problem is not the people, its the religion.

Applying Judeo/Christian principles doesn't seem to work very well for most Christians either.

wrong again, oh foolish one. for the vast majority they do work, sure, there are a few mentally ill idiots like the SC church shooter, but for every one like him there are 1000 crazed muslims willing to die for jihad.

 

[Liminal]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

 

[Redfish]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

If Obama had not abandoned Iraq there would be no ISIS. If he had done something when his "red line" was crossed there would be no civil war in Syria. If he had any balls Putin would not be taking control of the mid east.

But we agree on one thing, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake based on bad intel and a world consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power. But once there we could have won if obozo had not pulled the plug and allowed the radicals to take over.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And now they are invading Europe demanding to be let in, meanwhile Muslim countries turn them away. That is another reason to look poorly on Muslims.

You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.

The problem isn't a lack of research.

The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.

Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.

If you are keeping score:

People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1

Wow they are way ahead.

Oh, wow, facts that are just missing lots of stuff. You forget the number of people the US managed to get killed by making a political vacuum in Iraq.

Now you want to bring global warming into this debate..... er......

Fear of Muslims??? Why would I fear a Muslim? A friend of mine is a Muslim, she wouldn't hurt a fly, she's a bit bossy though. I went to Southern Africa last year, there's a history of Muslims in the area due to trading. Places like Inhambane in Mozambique which has it's semi-famous old mosque. It's not the Muslims I fears in that area, it was the criminals who walk around with knifes and guns.

But then some people want to know the truth, others want to make the truth simple so they can understand it. You seem to be aiming for the latter.

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

No one has said that all muslims are bad people. I worked with many good honest muslims in the mid east for years. But did I fully trust them? only a very few.

Islam teaches that lying and deception are permissible if they are needed to reach a goal called for by the koran.

When we try to apply judeo/christian principles to muslims, it doesn't work because they do not think about right and wrong the same way we do.

The problem is not the people, its the religion.

Well how many people do you actually trust in real life? I mean I went to southern Africa and you get paranoid about black people. I went to South Africa first and you have to be careful, but then in other countries the people are really friendly, but you're still wary of them because of the experience in South Africa, especially in the big cities. No matter how many black people you talk to there's still that mistrust especially when on the streets.

So I understand mistrust. However at the same time you need to tell yourself that this mistrust is based on what a few people do and not the majority. Letting your impulses control your brain and your views is not a great way to go. I'd still say the black people are generally friendlier than the white people in southern Africa, though even the white people are friendly on the whole. I'd not discriminate against them.

Islam teaches that lying is permissible, they probably learned it from Christianity. I mean, you can go do what you like during the week, then go to church and all your sins are absolved so you can continue sinning the next week. What does this teach Christians? I mean, I'd not trust a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist the same as any other person out there. Until they earn their trust as individuals.

Religions ARE a problem, and I don't like Islam, but much of the problem with Islam is the way they react to the west and are becoming more conservative. War does that. Look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which after years of problems under Sharon the right are now firmly entrenched on both sides. Because people feel the need for strong action to "defend" their position. Then politicians "defend" by attacking and causing more reasons to "defend" and keep telling people they're the ones who are strong and will defend. Age old right wing tactics in play that cause more harm.

Islam was becoming more secular, but the west, mostly France and Britain caused problems to the extent where Jihad was the way of countering the forces. Britain in Afghanistan is a perfect example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

Yeah, because it's convenient to ignore. The "truth" is what people say a hundred times, most people don't bother to consider all sides. In fact some people go out of their way to make sure they don't consider things that might be uncomfortable for their position.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

If Obama had not abandoned Iraq there would be no ISIS. If he had done something when his "red line" was crossed there would be no civil war in Syria. If he had any balls Putin would not be taking control of the mid east.

But we agree on one thing, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake based on bad intel and a world consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power. But once there we could have won if obozo had not pulled the plug and allowed the radicals to take over.

Saddam was a bad man. No one is sad he is gone. However bad intel, it wasn't bad intel, it was fabricated intel and Bush acted on it knowing it was fabricated. He told them to go get what he wanted, he had two agencies giving him different advice and he ignored the one that hadn't gone out to fabricate. "Intel"? More like "stupid".



Don't go blaming Obama for any of this. He didn't pull the plug, it was pulled before he got in the bath.

 

[Liminal]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

I know exactly what you mean, asshole. But you are wrong. Fox news gives equal time to both sides. So do O'Reilly and Kelley. Hannity is clearly a one sided commentator, but he is a commentator not a news person. The news shows give air to both sides. Thats why Fox has a huge audience and MSNBC can count its viewers on its toes and fingers.

Fox has attacked Trump. If they were in the tank for the GOP that never would have happened.

Now, tell me when any of the other networks have attacked the leading democrat candidate, hillary clinton.

FOX News isn't an actual news organization. They could have made Goebbels blush.

 

[Liminal]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

If Obama had not abandoned Iraq there would be no ISIS. If he had done something when his "red line" was crossed there would be no civil war in Syria. If he had any balls Putin would not be taking control of the mid east.

But we agree on one thing, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake based on bad intel and a world consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power. But once there we could have won if obozo had not pulled the plug and allowed the radicals to take over.

Iraq was a complete fuck up from start to finish. Poorly planned and executed, no provision for occupation, and the crowning glory of stupidity......disbanding the Iraqi Army. The Bush Administration did more to undermine this nation's strategic position than the Soviet Union ever could have done. This country used to have a policy of always being able to fight two major campaigns at once, a strategic military policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The Bush Administration showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of successfully fighting even one campaign against rag tag insurgents. That cornerstone of US policy is no longer in effect.

 

[Redfish]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

If Obama had not abandoned Iraq there would be no ISIS. If he had done something when his "red line" was crossed there would be no civil war in Syria. If he had any balls Putin would not be taking control of the mid east.

But we agree on one thing, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake based on bad intel and a world consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power. But once there we could have won if obozo had not pulled the plug and allowed the radicals to take over.

Saddam was a bad man. No one is sad he is gone. However bad intel, it wasn't bad intel, it was fabricated intel and Bush acted on it knowing it was fabricated. He told them to go get what he wanted, he had two agencies giving him different advice and he ignored the one that hadn't gone out to fabricate. "Intel"? More like "stupid".



Don't go blaming Obama for any of this. He didn't pull the plug, it was pulled before he got in the bath.

total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.

I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.

Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.

Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.

 

[Redfish]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

I know exactly what you mean, asshole. But you are wrong. Fox news gives equal time to both sides. So do O'Reilly and Kelley. Hannity is clearly a one sided commentator, but he is a commentator not a news person. The news shows give air to both sides. Thats why Fox has a huge audience and MSNBC can count its viewers on its toes and fingers.

Fox has attacked Trump. If they were in the tank for the GOP that never would have happened.

Now, tell me when any of the other networks have attacked the leading democrat candidate, hillary clinton.

FOX News isn't an actual news organization. They could have made Goebbels blush.

If thats so, then the rest of the media is pravda. Of course, statistics and studies of media coverage prove you wrong, but like all liberals you have no interest in facts.

 

[Liminal]

Mass media like FOX News has something to do with shaping those perceptions as well.

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

I know exactly what you mean, asshole. But you are wrong. Fox news gives equal time to both sides. So do O'Reilly and Kelley. Hannity is clearly a one sided commentator, but he is a commentator not a news person. The news shows give air to both sides. Thats why Fox has a huge audience and MSNBC can count its viewers on its toes and fingers.

Fox has attacked Trump. If they were in the tank for the GOP that never would have happened.

Now, tell me when any of the other networks have attacked the leading democrat candidate, hillary clinton.

FOX News isn't an actual news organization. They could have made Goebbels blush.

If thats so, then the rest of the media is pravda. Of course, statistics and studies of media coverage prove you wrong, but like all liberals you have no interest in facts.

That's right, they all just sell a product, they don't provide information as a public service.

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, telling the truth has a lot to do with shaping perceptions. Showing both sides is a terrible thing for a media outlet to do, they should all be 100% biased like MSNBC, right asshole?

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

I know exactly what you mean, asshole. But you are wrong. Fox news gives equal time to both sides. So do O'Reilly and Kelley. Hannity is clearly a one sided commentator, but he is a commentator not a news person. The news shows give air to both sides. Thats why Fox has a huge audience and MSNBC can count its viewers on its toes and fingers.

Fox has attacked Trump. If they were in the tank for the GOP that never would have happened.

Now, tell me when any of the other networks have attacked the leading democrat candidate, hillary clinton.

FOX News isn't an actual news organization. They could have made Goebbels blush.

If thats so, then the rest of the media is pravda. Of course, statistics and studies of media coverage prove you wrong, but like all liberals you have no interest in facts.

That's right, they all just sell a product, they don't provide information as a public service.

I won't say that all media outlets aren't profit motivated or that they sensationalize things to attract viewers. But what is also true is that Fox is the one network that gives air to both sides. That is simply a proven fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.

I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.

Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.

Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.

Have you read the intelligence reports?

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Bad intelligence?

You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.

""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""

Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.

"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""

Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.

"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""

I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.

Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....

You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).

Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?

 

[Liminal]

MSNBC and FOX News are just flip sides of the same coin. They are both selling a product, they both represent corporate interests. Know what I mean........asshole.

I know exactly what you mean, asshole. But you are wrong. Fox news gives equal time to both sides. So do O'Reilly and Kelley. Hannity is clearly a one sided commentator, but he is a commentator not a news person. The news shows give air to both sides. Thats why Fox has a huge audience and MSNBC can count its viewers on its toes and fingers.

Fox has attacked Trump. If they were in the tank for the GOP that never would have happened.

Now, tell me when any of the other networks have attacked the leading democrat candidate, hillary clinton.

FOX News isn't an actual news organization. They could have made Goebbels blush.

If thats so, then the rest of the media is pravda. Of course, statistics and studies of media coverage prove you wrong, but like all liberals you have no interest in facts.

That's right, they all just sell a product, they don't provide information as a public service.

I won't say that all media outlets aren't profit motivated or that they sensationalize things to attract viewers. But what is also true is that Fox is the one network that gives air to both sides. That is simply a proven fact.

No, they are all completely full of shit. And you can't trust anything they say about each other, you have to look to alternative sources to get some hint of the truth. Here's a nice example of liberal hypocrisy......I mean a real example, not a FOX News example.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.

Those who are ideologically obligated to spin for the PC-protected religion aren't going to be honest about that.

That way they can use the dishonest term "Islamophobe".
.

The primary tactic of the left is to divide us in every way possible, age, sex, religion, location, ethnicity, sexual preference, and of course race. Its nothing new, tyrants and socialists throughout history have used the same tactics. Make one demographic believe that another demographic hates them without reason. Divide and conquer. Obama did it twice in elections and is still doing it.

Well said. And this is the inevitable consequence of a perversion of reason known as "Relativism".

Relativism begins with the rejection of objectivity. Objectivity, being crucial to the discernment of truth, and truth being the basis of trust, strips the adherents of the means to trust, through the failure to know truth.

This eventually tears away any sense of morality, as morality rests in the trust of simple truths... .

The coolest thing about the perversion of Relativism, is that it lends the deceit to the adherent, that their inability to discern truth is a function of 'higher reasoning', when in truth, Relativism is a degeneration of the means to reason... .

LOL! The Relativist literally considers itself 'enlightened', even as it rejects the objective essence of enlightenment.

ROFLMNAO! And that is HYSTERICAL... in every sense of the word.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.

I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.

Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.

Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.

Have you read the intelligence reports?

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Bad intelligence?

You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.

""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""

Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.

"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""

Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.

"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""

I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.

Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....

You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).

Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?

Well... now let's see.

Bush followed Clinton, Right?

And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.

And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.

Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!

Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.

SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.

 

[Liminal]

total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.

I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.

Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.

Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.

Have you read the intelligence reports?

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Bad intelligence?

You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.

""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""

Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.

"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""

Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.

"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""

I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.

Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....

You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).

Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?

Well... now let's see.

Bush followed Clinton, Right?

And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.

And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.

Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!

Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.

SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.

One can only imagine the outpouring of patriotic sentiments and support from Republicans if a Democrat had been in the White House on 911.

 

[Correll]

You stated invasions was one of the reasons that Muslims are pissed off at the West. I pointed out, correctly that US troops PROTECTING his homeland was one of the issues that Osama was pissed off.

His words.

"(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures."

And again with Afghanistan. We were HELPING them against an Invasion and an Occupation and Genocide. That is hardly cause to hate US, as you suggested with your "invasion" reason.

So there are many reasons Muslims can be pissed off at the West. Are you surprised?

In Afghanistan you were helping "them", who is "them"?

Also, many countries need help against groups that threaten their country, the US doesn't always go in. Why Afghanistan?

Also, anyone with a computer and internet can find out about the Powell Doctrine.

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

So if the US invades anyone, helps anyone, does anything in another country with troops you know that the first they consided is whether US interests have been threatened. Not those of anyone else.

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!

To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.

ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!