or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › OBAMA WATCH
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OBAMA WATCH

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 

Just how far down the rabbit hole has Obama gone?

 

Does he believe that every word we say and who we say it to, should be recorded?

 

What else ISN'T HE TELLING US?

 

 

"Having watched the Obama administration prosecute whistleblowers at a historically unprecedented rate, he fully expects the US government to attempt to use all its weight to punish him. "I am not afraid," he said calmly, "because this is the choice I've made."
 
But he believed that the value of the internet, along with basic privacy, is being rapidly destroyed by ubiquitous surveillance. "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."
 

Once he reached the conclusion that the NSA's surveillance net would soon be irrevocable, he said it was just a matter of time before he chose to act. "What they're doing" poses "an existential threat to democracy", he said.

 

Over the next three years, he learned just how all-consuming the NSA's surveillance activities were, claiming "they are intent on making every conversation and every form of behaviour in the world known to them".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/10/13 at 7:10am
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #2 of 64

I will wait for more info on this guy.  Right now, I have some doubts.  

 

 

He's scared of the government spying on everybody and losing freedom, yet he ran to China?  Doesn't sound so smart.

 

 

Double agent?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #3 of 64

Maybe he is a plant by the Obama Adm. to mislead us completely. This government cannot be trusted at all.
 

post #4 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I will wait for more info on this guy.  Right now, I have some doubts.  

 

 

He's scared of the government spying on everybody and losing freedom, yet he ran to China?  Doesn't sound so smart.

 

 

Double agent?

Hong Kong apparently values free speech.

 

He seems completely genuine to me. I don't see how it's some kind of scam, especially given he could be locked up and therefore unable to see his family. 

 

He's a Ron Paul supporter, which would tally with what he's done-

 

"According to campaign finance reports, Snowden made a $250 donation to Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign in March of that year, and gave another $250 in May. Paul has been a critic of excessive government intrusion."

~ http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/edward-snowden-says-motive-behind-leaks-was-to-expose-surveillance-state/2013/06/09/aa3f0804-d13b-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #5 of 64

I saw an interesting report on this yesterday.  The individual interviewed was discussing whistle blowing and how this guy went about it in a completely illegal way.  There are mechanisms in place to bring concerns up the chain of command, none of which he pursued before going public.  I do think that he believes what he says, and that he considers himself some sort of hero.  The problem is that he's also clearly disgruntled, and that he didn't even attempt to report these perceived abuses properly.  

 

This is not a defense of Prism and other spying programs.  Then again, it's not an attack, either.  My feeling is that the government has been surveilling every electronic and telephonic communication for 30 years or more.  I don't like it, but I do accept it. It's not going to change.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I saw an interesting report on this yesterday.  The individual interviewed was discussing whistle blowing and how this guy went about it in a completely illegal way.  There are mechanisms in place to bring concerns up the chain of command, none of which he pursued before going public.  I do think that he believes what he says, and that he considers himself some sort of hero.  The problem is that he's also clearly disgruntled, and that he didn't even attempt to report these perceived abuses properly.  

 

This is not a defense of Prism and other spying programs.  Then again, it's not an attack, either.  My feeling is that the government has been surveilling every electronic and telephonic communication for 30 years or more.  I don't like it, but I do accept it. It's not going to change.  

 

 

 

If Snowden had pursued "the correct" (!) (lol) method of "bringing concerns up the chain of command", what would have happened? As regards publicizing the fact that US agencies and their top executives have violated of the US Constitution as well as breaking numerous laws, a roaring silence - precisely nothing, squat! And Snowden himself? He would have gotten fired and then placed under a series of gag orders with the authorities pulling that old "national security" canard to protect themselves and hide their actions, from public scrutiny.

 

Snowden had the common sense to become as highly visible and public from the start, for (a) effectiveness,and (b) his own protection. He and other notables in the past with a sense of ethics and public duty have also employed the unconventional approach i.e. going to the media, for the same reasons: go through the accepted channels and you'll raise a host of red flags with the authorities, you'll get yourself shafted, fired, harassed and also make sure the information you're trying to publicize is buried still deeper.

 

On account of the US mainstream media being so tied in with these very same agencies, this approach is no guarantee either, especially today. In the past, when the media was a little more friendly, the Watergate and Pentagon Papers scandals for example, finally broke through the media's protective walls over a year and half after the events in question (before that, they were probably regarded as wild conspiracy theories 1tongue.gif). In Snowden's case, now that the US media is so much more  centrally controlled and influenced than it was in the 1970s, he perhaps felt that the UK Guardian would be more sympathetic to his cause. Had he gone to CNN (for example) to break this he would have more than likely been shown the door....

 

Public servants take an oath of office... which mandates protecting and upholding the Constitution of the United States... not trashing it. By breaking their oaths of office, *ANYONE* who is accessory before or after the fact to this flagrant abuse  should be hauled in front of a Congressional inquiry and forced to explain themselves, and justify their actions using multiple sourced material with a verifiable chain of custody, as opposed to hearsay garbage such as "our actions prevented an attack, but we cannot tell you what, who or how, when or where".

 

This issue does belong in Obama watch... this president has done more to warrant impeachment than any other... even including Reagan, Nixon, Clinton or G.W. Bush. Obama is waging a War on Whistleblowers - watch Robert Greenwald's recent documentary of the same title. It's a bit of a 'limited hangout" effort IMHO, but puts the point across well.

 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I saw an interesting report on this yesterday.  The individual interviewed was discussing whistle blowing and how this guy went about it in a completely illegal way.  There are mechanisms in place to bring concerns up the chain of command, none of which he pursued before going public.  I do think that he believes what he says, and that he considers himself some sort of hero.  The problem is that he's also clearly disgruntled, and that he didn't even attempt to report these perceived abuses properly.  

 

This is not a defense of Prism and other spying programs.  Then again, it's not an attack, either.  My feeling is that the government has been surveilling every electronic and telephonic communication for 30 years or more.  I don't like it, but I do accept it. It's not going to change.  

If he's working as a cog in a massive machine, that willingly takes large sums of money to keep the public from becoming informed he's not got any other options than to expose what's happening, because he sure as hell isn't going to change a damn thing from within. 

 

Why was he "disgruntled"? That's just like picking your nose to slander him. That he is standing up to the machine that is pulling a fast one on us, is far more than most "disgruntled" people will ever do.

 

The big difference between your antiquated notion on spying on a countries citizens, is that intercepting phone calls, intercepting mail etc, is, and always was, targeted at only a few people. What's now happening is that everybody, and in new ways that are far more intrusive than before, will be fully recorded and tracked. And like he says, that raises major concerns for democracy and the freedom of thought. 

 

Monitoring is also being extended to foreign citizens, a global information netwok. It's not new, obviously, to track foreign nationals, but it certainly is new, and can only become more intrusive, to track all the worlds citizens. 

 

It's valid IMO to target some, as I'm sure the US is doing. Those who are considered major cogs and/or threats. It's not valid to take surveillance to the level of total monitoring of all citizens. Tyranny has no greater friends than fear and intrusion.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #8 of 64

How did he work in the NSA if he was a high school drop out? Something is not kosher here.
 

post #9 of 64

I guess your mouth is not running  to much now a days with your incredible cracks!
 

post #10 of 64

Not surprisingly the state is in full "kill the messenger" mode. But this goes even further:

 

"King: Journalists in classified leak cases should face punishment"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 64

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 64

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #13 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

 

One thing I'll say is that he didn't even try to express his concerns through the proper channels.  I believe he thinks what he did was right, and in the end...it may be.  But he didn't have the be the one to do it.  He could have tried whistle-blowing through his employer, the NSA and even Congress first.  And if he truly doesn't want the story to be about him (as he claims), why reveal himself at all?  The problem as I see it is that yes, what's happening is wrong...but yes, the revelations do harm national security.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #14 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Obama vs. Obama

 

And of course, the media doesn't care.  Nor do his ignorant, sycophant supporters.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #15 of 64

The guy has disappeared.

 

Ron Paul thinks he may get assassinated by a drone strike.  In Hong Kong, which is Chinese territory?  Not likely at all.  And this guy wanted to be POTUS?

 

 

I wonder if the Chinese picked him up...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #16 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

One thing I'll say is that he didn't even try to express his concerns through the proper channels.  I believe he thinks what he did was right, and in the end...it may be.  But he didn't have the be the one to do it.  He could have tried whistle-blowing through his employer, the NSA and even Congress first.

 

But this begs the question I think. The really problem here is Congress and the NSA (and the Executive.) You say this like these are all fundamentally different things with fundamentally different goals and interests. They aren't...and the reactions are evidence of that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

the revelations do harm national security.  

 

 

How?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

But this begs the question I think. The really problem here is Congress and the NSA (and the Executive.) You say this like these are all fundamentally different things with fundamentally different goals and interests. They aren't...and the reactions are evidence of that.

 

 

How?

 

I didn't mean to imply anything about separate goals and interests.  I'm simply saying he should have at least tried to go through channels.  He could have reported his concerns to his superiors at the contractor, or to the NSA directly, or to Congress and/or to attorneys who deal with whistle blowing.  From what I've seen and read, there are doubts about his claims of "having authority" (his words) to tap/monitor "anyone," or even a capability to do so.   Because he's out there making these claims, we don't really know quite yet.  

 

National security:  He has directly exposed tools and methods for intelligence collection used in fighting terrorism.  People who wish us harm are watching, too.  Getting these perceived abuses reported to a closed-door committee or what not would have been better.  Put simply, terrorists and enemies of the U.S. now have a much better understanding of how we protect ourselves.  Not good.  

 

Part of my opinion is of course based on my perception that many of the NSA's activities are, in fact, legal.  I don't have a legal or moral issue with them gathering metadata (not content) and conducting widespread analysis to identify trends and such. Frankly, I don't think I even have a problem with them scanning for keywords and following up those flagged communications with warrants for additional search. My understanding is that moving beyond general data mining was done with warrants.  That being said, if certain accusations about the PRISM program are correct, that's another matter entirely.  Collecting and storing content via backdoors to internet firms (or by other methods) is unacceptable, dangerous and unconstitutional.  I don't believe for a second that they have this program only for non-citizens and non-residents or they "unwittingly" have done so in the past.

 

I suspect we disagree on the above, though I'd be interested to read your take.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #18 of 64

Republicans in Congress are against background checks for guns, yet are in favor of the phone checks.  The former for privacy.  The latter, for safety.  Or vice versa.  Or, or. . . "Jobs!"  Or something.


Edited by Bergermeister - 6/13/13 at 4:56am

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #19 of 64
Thread Starter 

A goog article in the Guardian by someone who has first hand experience of Big Brother-

 

"During my detention in China I was watched 24 hours a day. The light was always on. There were two guards on two-hour shifts standing next to me – even watching when I swallowed a pill; I had to open mouth so they could see my throat. You have to take a shower in front of them; they watch you while you brush your teeth, in the name of making sure you're not hurting yourself. They had three surveillance cameras to make sure the guards would not communicate with me.
 
But the guards whispered to me. They told stories about themselves. There is always humanity and privacy, even under the most restrictive conditions.
 
To limit power is to protect society. It is not only about protecting individuals' rights but making power healthier."
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #20 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Republicans in Congress are against background checks for guns, yet are in favor of the phone checks.  The former for privacy.  The latter, for safety.  Or vice versa.  Or, or. . . "Jobs!"  Or something.

 

Ah, and the naked partisanship continues.  Berg, you do realize that opinions on the NSA programs vary widely across the ideological spectrum?  There have indeed been some strange bedfellows made over this, with people like Micheal Moore and Rush Limbaugh agreeing on issues. 

 

And as for background checks, you know full well that it's not "background checks" that many oppose.  It's creating a registry.  I mean, why would we worry about the government having all that info on us?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #21 of 64
Thread Starter 
Read it and weep-
 
"Obama monitors everything -- except mosques
 
Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.
That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.
 
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
 
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
 
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
 
Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.
 
If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshipped.
 
The bureau didn't even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.
 
One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn't monitored, red flags didn't go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.
 
This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.
 
What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?"
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #22 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Read it and weep-
 
"Obama monitors everything -- except mosques
 
Homeland Insecurity: The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won't snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.
That's right, the government's sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.
 
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
 
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
 
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel's formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
 
Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.
 
If only they were allowed to continue, perhaps the many victims of the Boston Marathon bombings would not have lost their lives and limbs. The FBI never canvassed Boston mosques until four days after the April 15 attacks, and it did not check out the radical Boston mosque where the Muslim bombers worshipped.
 
The bureau didn't even contact mosque leaders for help in identifying their images after those images were captured on closed-circuit TV cameras and cellphones.
 
One of the Muslim bombers made extremist outbursts during worship, yet because the mosque wasn't monitored, red flags didn't go off inside the FBI about his increasing radicalization before the attacks.
 
This is particularly disturbing in light of recent independent surveys of American mosques, which reveal some 80% of them preach violent jihad or distribute violent literature to worshippers.
 
What other five-alarm jihadists are counterterrorism officials missing right now, thanks to restrictions on monitoring the one area they should be monitoring?"

 

Robert Spencer? Pamela Geller? If you really have to keep posting your racist hate-mongering sludge here, you might do yourself a little justice and quote a source with a little more credibility than Spencer et al ... The terrorist responsible was inspired by the US Islamophobe set, who in turn openly supported the worst ever terror attacks on the European soil - cold blooded massacre of 70 Norwegian kids, and detonating a huge car bomb in the capital Oslo. Perhaps you did as well? Spencer etc. links to terror are even mentioned in the New York Times - all the news thats fit to print (?/!!)

 

 

Quote:
"About Islam, I recommend essentially everything written by Robert Spencer". Anders Breivik, terrorist and mass murderer, 2011.

 

 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #23 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

Robert Spencer? Pamela Geller? If you really have to keep posting your racist hate-mongering sludge here, you might do yourself a little justice and quote a source with a little more credibility than Spencer et al ... The terrorist responsible was inspired by the US Islamophobe set, who in turn openly supported the worst ever terror attacks on the European soil - cold blooded massacre of 70 Norwegian kids, and detonating a huge car bomb in the capital Oslo. Perhaps you did as well? Spencer etc. links to terror are even mentioned in the New York Times - all the news thats fit to print (?/!!)

 

 

 

 

Breivik no doubt won't be the last either. As more and more muslims flood Europe intent on living separate lives from the societies they despise more and more Breivik's will commit atrocities. It's people like yourself who encourage muslim immigration and attack those most effected by it, and those speaking out against it, as  "racists" that are the cause of these atrocities. You should hang your head in shame for each and every child you let die in your quest to Islamise Europe.

 

By the way, in 2004 in Madrid, 13 rucksacks were left on four trains. 10 of them exploded, wounding 1,800 people and killing 191. It was carried out by muslims. I guess Spencer was to blame for that too?

 

Back to the article which IS perfectly related to this thread, despite your insane ranting gibberish. What part of it do you deny?

 

 

 

"ROBERT SPENCER is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both Regnery). His latest books are Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins (ISI) and Not Peace But A Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam (Catholic Answers).

 

Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community....

 

Q and A with Robert Spencer-

 

Q: Do you hate Muslims?
RS: Of course not. Islam is not a monolith, and never have I said or written anything that characterizes all Muslims as terrorist or given to violence. To call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence within Islamic texts and teachings, and to show how jihadists use those texts and teachings, says nothing at all about what any given Muslim believes or how he acts. Any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts. Any hate in my books comes from Muslim sources quoted, not from me. Cries of "hatred" and "bigotry" are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat. But there is no substance to them.


It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology. It is a peculiar species of displacement and projection to accuse someone who exposes the hatred of one group of hatred himself: I believe in the equality of rights and dignity of all people, and that is why I oppose the global jihad. Those who make the charge use it as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.


Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."


In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.

 

Q: Are you trying to incite anti-Muslim hatred?
RS: Certainly not. I am trying to point out the depth and extent of the hatred that is directed against the United States, because efforts to downplay its depth and extent leave us less equipped to defend ourselves. Anyone who targets innocent Muslims in the USA is not only evil, but is playing into the hands of the jihadists who are trying to fan the flames of anti-American hatred. Also, one of the reasons why the war on terror is so important is that those who would destroy Western civilization do not believe in the principles of due process and justice that are central elements of the American system.

 

Q: Are you deliberately ignoring more liberal schools of thought in Islam?
RS: Certainly not. Any Muslim individual or group who works for genuine reform of the Islamic doctrines, theological tenets and laws that Islamic jihadists use to justify violence, is to be commended. But this reform must be undertaken honestly and thoroughly, confronting the texts of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that are used to justify violence against unbelievers, and decisively rejecting Qur'anic literalism. Not all self-proclaimed moderates are truly moderate: many deny that these elements of Islam exist at all -- hardly a promising platform for reform. It is important to make proper distinctions and speak honestly about the roots of the terrorist threat.

 

Q: Why are you doing this?
RS: The doctrines of jihad and Islamic supremacism threaten the peace and human rights of all free people. If it is not confronted and resisted, it will prevail."

~ http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html


Edited by Hands Sandon - 6/13/13 at 10:40pm
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #24 of 64
Thread Starter 

"The CEO of the Associated Press told an audience Wednesday that the Department of Justice has succeeded in muzzling government employees from talking to AP reporters in the weeks since the seizure of AP phone records was revealed.

What I learned from our journalists should alarm everyone in this room and I think should alarm everyone in this country. The actions of the DOJ against AP are already having an impact beyond the specifics of this particular case,” AP CEO Gary Pruitt told an audience at the National Press Club. “Some of our longtime trusted sources have become nervous and anxious about talking to us, even about stories that aren’t about national security. In some cases, government employees that we once checked in with regularly will no longer speak to us by phone, and some are reluctant to meet in person.”

After it was made public that the Justice Department took AP Washington bureau phone records as part of the Obama administration’s aggressive anti-leak operation, Pruitt said the fear among potential sources has spread to reporters from other outlets.

I can tell you that this chilling effect is not just at AP, it’s happening at other news organizations as well,” he said. “Journalists from other news organizations have personally told me it has intimidated sources from speaking to them.”

Pruitt said he believes government officials are happy to see the process of newsgathering become more difficult in Washington.

The government may love this. I suspect that they do,” he said. “But beware the government that loves secrecy too much.”

~ http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/ap-ceo-details-chilling-effect-after-dept-of-justice-seized

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #25 of 64
Thread Starter 
"Well, the "Syrian people" have spoken. Roughly 70% support the government of Bashar al-Assad. Another 20% are neutral. And only 10% are aligned with the Western-supported "rebels", including those of the kidnapping, lung-eating, beheading jihadi kind. 
 
The data was provided mostly by independent relief organizations working in Syria. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) received a detailed report in late May - but, predictably, was not too keen on releasing it. 
 
Meanwhile, in Britain - where David of Arabia Cameron remains gung ho on a no-fly zone to protect the "Syrian people" - only 24% of Britons are in favor of further weaponizing the "rebels" (although 58% support humanitarian aid)."
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #26 of 64

How can you really trust these rebels who we really do not know who they are? Perhaps these weapons can go into the wrong hands.This is a real touchy situation we have here in arming them in this conflict.
 

post #27 of 64

Power players traditionally arms both sides, and let them fight it out between them - the usual old Macchiavellian scheming. Its about profit and control, while the puppet-masters sit back and get fat and rich.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #28 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

How can you really trust these rebels who we really do not know who they are? Perhaps these weapons can go into the wrong hands.This is a real touchy situation we have here in arming them in this conflict.
 

Agreed. There are about 85 different groups fighting in Syria. Ordinary civillians are being slaughtered like toys. There's no way that anyone could prevent arms reaching Islamists, because one day they would be moderates and another, Islamists. I get Cameron's thinking, but his overall desire is simply to democratise Syria, no matter the human cost. Longer term the thinking is "we can control muslims through Europe, ie the EU expansion", but all that will really do is destabilize Europe. Russia is right on this one, and we should support them, but we won't simply for the bigger prize. The end result isn't pretty for moderate muslims, of which there are many. How much longer they can survive when we support the muslim brotherhood and worse, is a depressing thought.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #29 of 64
Thread Starter 
"Britain's spy agency GCHQ has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world's phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency (NSA).
 
The sheer scale of the agency's ambition is reflected in the titles of its two principal components: Mastering the Internet and Global Telecoms Exploitation, aimed at scooping up as much online and telephone traffic as possible. This is all being carried out without any form of public acknowledgement or debate.
 

When it came to judging the necessity and proportionality of what they were allowed to look for, would-be American users were told it was "your call".

The Guardian understands that a total of 850,000 NSA employees and US private contractors with top secret clearance had access to GCHQ databases."
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #30 of 64

Food for thought:

 

Quote:

Suppose that during the Stalin regime in the USSR, Eduard Snowdenski was an analyst who worked for a bureau under the NKVD (People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs). Suppose that he decided to reveal to the Russian people the extent of the NKVD domestic spying apparatus that peopled the Gulag, or Main Directorate for Corrective Labor Camps, with prisoners.

How should Snowdenski do this? Should he report through NKVD channels, or should he defect?

Do you regard Snowdenski as a traitor if he defects to America and reveals the extent of the Russian domestic spying program?

Is Snowdenski a hero?

What is your opinion of those in the Kremlin who demand Snowdenski's head?

If Snowdenski defected to America and the USSR charged him with espionage, would you consider the charge valid?

Should America extradite him to the USSR?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 64

post #32 of 64

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 64

US Drone War

 

I need to vomit.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 64

I do not trust Snowden at all. He is two timing the U.S,. and he knows dam well what he is doing.I hope Obama gets off his ass and has some balls and calls Putin and tells him he wants Snowden back in the states pronto.He is a traitor period Snowden is.Unfortunately Obama will cower down to Putin as usual.
 

post #35 of 64

Extradite Snowden asap!

post #36 of 64

Saw somewhere that Snowden just a few years ago had very harsh words for people who leak stuff.

 

What happened in the interim?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Saw somewhere that Snowden just a few years ago had very harsh words for people who leak stuff.

 

What happened in the interim?

 

Apparently he got educated. People do change, sometimes even for the better.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I do not trust Snowden at all. He is two timing the U.S,. and he knows dam well what he is doing.I hope Obama gets off his ass and has some balls and calls Putin and tells him he wants Snowden back in the states pronto.He is a traitor period Snowden is.Unfortunately Obama will cower down to Putin as usual.
 

 

Donald Trump already suggested assassination.

 

I'm waiting for a Republican to call for sending in Seal Team 6.

 

- - - - -

 

Hong Kong and Russia look mighty pathetic in all this.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #39 of 64

When Trump talks people listen.
 

post #40 of 64
Thread Starter 

You LIE!

 

"THE twin revelations that telecom carriers have been secretly giving the National Security Agency information about Americans’ phone calls, and that the N.S.A. has been capturing e-mail and other private communications from Internet companies as part of a secret program called Prism, have not enraged most Americans. Lulled, perhaps, by the Obama administration’s claims that these “modest encroachments on privacy” were approved by Congress and by federal judges, public opinion quickly migrated from shock to “meh.

 

It didn’t help that Congressional watchdogs — with a few exceptions, like Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky — have accepted the White House’s claims of legality. The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, have called the surveillance legal. So have liberal-leaning commentators like Hendrik Hertzberg and David Ignatius.

 

This view is wrong — and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House — and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught...."

~ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/opinion/the-criminal-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › OBAMA WATCH