Alex Jones Sucks Up to Revolutionary Communist Party Apparat-Chick
Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed. Alex Jones fawned over Sunsara Taylor on his radio program (MP3 file) yesterday. Sunsara is a board member of World Can't Wait, an outfit that is pushing for President Bush to be removed from office. Of course, Alex hopes for that as well, but you'd think he'd do a little investigation on Sunsara before sucking up to her.
Who is Sunsara Taylor? Well, she writes for Revolution, "The Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA", which states, "Our Ideology is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism".
Update: As Troy points out in the comments, Jones also appeared on Jack Blood's goofy program yesterday and came completely unhinged (1/11/01 show, first hour). By way of background, I'm pretty sure that the people Jones is angry at are the WingTV nutbars (Correction: John Stadtmiller). We can only hope that Jones is serious about suing them, and that both sides end up spending lots of money on lawyers.
posted by Pat @ 12:08 PM
50 comments
50 Comments:
Dont you know he could care less who his bedfellows are as long as they want to over throw the NWO Moloch worshipping Death Camp creating evildoers that are the USG...lol
TAM
Troy, I listened to that this morning and you were right--Jones becomes absolutely unhinged!
The Chairman of the Guardians Council Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati described 9/11 as a "puppet show", adding that it had been orchestrated by the Americans themselves.
You simply have to start watching TV in Iran to get the truth.
BG:
Why do you hate so much of your country. You hate your government, you hate your media, you think your fellow man is a stupid sheeple.
Is life in the USA so bad for you?
BG:Why do you hate so much of your country. You hate your government, you hate your media, you think your fellow man is a stupid sheeple.
Is life in the USA so bad for you?
I wasn't sure if BG was being sarcastic or not. But I don't recall BG ever stating he hated anything, perhaps with the exception of the behavior of some on this blog.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
For starters, losing habeas corpus is a huge blow to any Nation, which I had expected the US would always respect.
The Bush Administration made up a new class of criminals called unlawful combatants. Rather than impeach Bush, which is the only appropriate moral and legal action, The Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which puts this outrageous approach under force of law (until the SCOTUS can get around to declaring it unconstitutional).
All the above is egregious and has no justification even if the govt. story of 9/11 100% correct.
Well it's a good thing the US didn't lose Habeas Corpus.
Ofcourse, it sucks when your comprehension abilities are so bad that fear mongering psychopaths like Alex Jones can convince you that you no longer have the protection of Habeas Corpus. I feel your pain Bill.
do you even know what an "unlawful combatant" is? do you know how they were dealt with before now? do you know why the military comissions act was passed?
I've researched all of this extensively.
The Military Commissions Act in action
default.xbe said...
I've researched all of this extensively
so then you know th emilitary comissions act actually GIVES rights to people who have no rights defined in the geneva conventions, correct?
and you know that the military comissions act prevents army units from dealing with unlawful combatants in the manner they were dealt with in korea and vietnam (that being shoot on sight)
The issues isn't at all whether it "gives" certain rights that aren't given the by the Geneva convention. The issue is what rights it abbrogates.
'Beginning of the end of America'
Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."
This legislation not only strips the habeas rights of any alien designated as an unlawful enemy combatant, including permanent alien residents of the United States, but it also greatly and loosely expands the very definition of "enemy combatant." Current case law defines an enemy combatant as someone engaged in armed conflict with this country, but now it also includes anyone who "purposely and materially" supports hostilities against the United States. Such alleged enemies can be picked up by the Defense Department and held without charges indefinitely -- and without recourse to our courts.
The Military Commissions
Act - Question & Answers
Jose Padilla and the Military Commissions Act
I thought it was boring to read writing from people bashing Dylan. Now I realize that it is less boring that reading the bashing against Alex Jones.
Wow - news that the delusional left is now in bed with the delusional Troothers.
Then again, 2 delusional heads can be better than 1 delusional head. They certainly are far more funny.
You simply have to start watching TV in Iran to get the truth.
Yeah - that the Holocaust never happened and that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.
If that is truth, BG is more insane than even I thought.
The Bush Administration made up a new class of criminals called unlawful combatants.
I wasn't aware a group of people who have existed since the Geneva Conventions was created by the Bush Administration.
(Anyone not fighting in uniform or under a flag is an unlawful combatant - Israel has been fighting them since Bush was a child.)
Video: The Underlying Politics of 9/11
shawn said....
do the research yourself.
no retreat here.
discussion over.
hah. RETREAT! RETREAT!
Let me guess....you're a democrat? Either that or French....
Family Guy, shocking evidence: Did Osama know "Show Tunes"?!!!
BG wrote: "no retreat here.
discussion over."
lol... Amazing.
The whaks bitch about loosing rights but never give an example of one that they personally have lost
Yes, America's my friend. Or is it? Suddenly I'm not sure
sponsorship of intransigence in Israel
BG, the guy you linked to lost all credibility there. The only side who refuses to compromise is the Palestinians.
Or perhaps he missed the forced removal of settlers and ending of the occupation when the Palestinians did nothing in return.
Jones becomes absolutely unhinged
Has he been "hinged" anytime in the last several decades?
Shawn, I don't think it is just the Palestinians who are preventing peace in between themselves and Israel.
I don't think it is just the Palestinians who are preventing peace in between themselves and Israel.
When I say "Palestinians" I mean their leadership (though somewhere between 70 and 87 percent of Palestinians supporting suicide bombings).
Historically, every time there's been some kind of move towards a settlement of land the Palestinian side has rejected it and then increased violence (the initial rejection of the UN partition, the Clinton peace talks, the most recent dismantling of settlements and PA authority-granting in the Gaza Strip). To be honest, it's the only situation where a victor has tried to make any kind of concessions against an aggressor they defeated. You don't tend to gain things by trying to destroy another state, but Palestine will eventually have their way.
I think leaders such as Mahmoud Abbas do want peace with Israel. I will grant you there are certainly nihilistic elements on the Palestinian side who don't want peace under any circumstances. However, you are overestimating the generosity of past Israeli peace offerings, many of which would have left Israel with all of Jerusalem and some of the best land on the West Bank.
I would also differ with your victor/aggressor analogy. The Israelis have never achieved a decisive victory in the struggle with the Palestinians (as opposed to other Arab countries) thus the threat of violence has to come into play in the calculations of both sides.
shawn said...
sponsorship of intransigence in Israel
BG, the guy you linked to lost all credibility there. The only side who refuses to compromise is the Palestinians.
Or perhaps he missed the forced removal of settlers and ending of the occupation when the Palestinians did nothing in return.
Shawn,
I respect your right to be almost 100% wrong, and to state your inaccurate ideas as loudly and as frequently as you want.
I respect your right to be almost 100% wrong, and to state your inaccurate ideas as loudly and as frequently as you want.
Thank you, but I'm 100 percent right. BG, I've studied the Arab-Israeli conflict more than you have. Only someone completely ignorant of the situation would even try to say I was wrong.
However, you are overestimating the generosity of past Israeli peace offerings, many of which would have left Israel with all of Jerusalem and some of the best land on the West Bank.
The Clinton peace plan gave them the Arab part of Jerusalem as their capital and all of the West Bank but a tiny sliver that borders Israel (which they should be able to keep as a buffer zone against terrorism).
Realistically, the Israelis should be able to keep Jerusalem in total (though they've quite obviously decided they'll give up land for peace), as they conquered it in a war in which they were attacked. Millions of Europeans moved around after WWII and none of them continually complain or commit suicide attacks against the former Allies (or former Axis). Israel is the only country that has ever been asked to give up land it legally gained.
Where are the Tibetan groups marching through the streets daily (the Tibetans don't commit terrorism against the Chinese)? Why don't they have a UN observer group? The reason is the Palestinians understand that no matter what they do the world will see it as righetous rebellion, no matter how faulty this mythology is.
I would also differ with your victor/aggressor analogy. The Israelis have never achieved a decisive victory in the struggle with the Palestinians (as opposed to other Arab countries) thus the threat of violence has to come into play in the calculations of both sides.
Cons, please, man. You're a bright guy, don't be posting this kind of nonsense. Israel could annex Palestine in a day if they really wanted to. Israel's never achieved a decisive victory because the Palestinians are so pathetic that attacking them is the equivalent of beating up a retarded kid in a wheelchair. Sure you could do it, but do you really want the rest of the world to see you doing it?
The Clinton peace plan gave them the Arab part of Jerusalem as their capital and all of the West Bank but a tiny sliver that borders Israel (which they should be able to keep as a buffer zone against terrorism).
Well, the Israel didn’t completely buy into the plan either and it turns out there were some complications with the land Israel wanted to keep.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1100365.stm
I agree this had the elements of a permanent solution and I fault Yassir Arafat for dropping the ball but even when these negotiations were going on Israel was building settlements like crazy. Furthermore, they don’t seem to be promoting anything similar today (at least not that I am aware).
Israel is the only country that has ever been asked to give up land it legally gained.
I'm not sure Israel's occupation of the WB qualifies as "legally gained". I believe UN Resolution 242, calls on Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.
Israel could annex Palestine in a day if they really wanted to. Israel's never achieved a decisive victory because the Palestinians are so pathetic that attacking them is the equivalent of beating up a retarded kid in a wheelchair.
Hello Alex. I’m afraid I must differ. Continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is recipe for permanent conflict. Far more Palestinians have died than Israelis in the course of the occupation yet the Intafada continues, with perhaps periodic lulls. Sooner or later some terrorist entity is going to aim WMD at Israel. This may happen whatever they do, but I think the odds go down if they try to reach some sort of accommodation with the Palestinians. The Jewish settlements on the WB are largely there for religious reasons and they just keep the cauldron boiling. Ideally, Jerusalem should be some sort of international city since it is sacred to three religions.
I'm not sure Israel's occupation of the WB qualifies as "legally gained". I believe UN Resolution 242, calls on Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.
When you gain land in a defensive war it is legal. The resolution is after-the-fact calling for legally conquered land to be returned.
Far more Palestinians have died than Israelis in the course of the occupation yet the Intafada continues, with perhaps periodic lulls.
Those numbers include Palestinian militants and those murdered by other Palestinians. In terms of civilians killed it's actually much closer.
Hello Alex. I’m afraid I must differ. Continued Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is recipe for permanent conflict.
No, the existence of Israel is a recipe for permanent conflict. If Israel pulled out of the west bank and gaza, AND give ALL of Jerusalem to the palestinians, do you seriously believe that the attacks against Israel would stop?
If so, I've got some beachfront property to sell you.
Far more Palestinians have died than Israelis in the course of the occupation yet the Intafada continues, with perhaps periodic lulls.
Which is mainly a sign that not enough have died. Far more Egyptians died when Egypt attacked Israel, but the violence stopped when a) Egypt got tired of getting butchered and b) They promised (and delivered) peace in exchange for having their land returned.
Sooner or later some terrorist entity is going to aim WMD at Israel.
I hope you're wrong, because if this happens, the entire middle east will be a big smoking crater shortly after. The Jews want to avoid another holocaust, but if it's going to happen anyway...well, that's why they have nukes. This time they can take their killers with them.
This may happen whatever they do, but I think the odds go down if they try to reach some sort of accommodation with the Palestinians.
You mean like they've been trying for years now? EVERY time that a new approach has been tried, it has been Israel that's made the initial overture, and made the biggest sacrificed. And every time, palestine has only intensified it's attack on Israel.
The Jewish settlements on the WB are largely there for religious reasons and they just keep the cauldron boiling.
What the hell? In case you didn't notice, Israel pulled out of the West Bank in 2005, and removed it's settlements. Subsequently, Palestinians destroyed the infrastructure that was handed over to them, turned the whole area into a disaster zone, and then increased their attacks on Israel. Have you been asleep for the last year?
The Jewish settlements on the WB are largely there for religious reasons and they just keep the cauldron boiling.
Actually, a vast majority of the settlers have said they will dismantle if it means peace.
What the hell? In case you didn't notice, Israel pulled out of the West Bank in 2005, and removed it's settlements. Subsequently, Palestinians destroyed the infrastructure that was handed over to them, turned the whole area into a disaster zone, and then increased their attacks on Israel. Have you been asleep for the last year?
That's Gaza. West Bank still has a sizable settlement population. The Gaza pullout was a sort of practice run to pull out of the West Bank, but a suicide bomber the DAY AFTER the disengagement was complete put an end to more moves.
whoops. you're right. sorry 'bout that, got them confused.
The overall point is still the same though. they pulled out of gaza and the attacks continue. What possible reason would they have to give the pallies more land?
Alex, Gaza wasn’t in particularly great shape before the pullout. You are right that terrorists continue to operate out of it and the big problem on the Palestinian side is the inability of some central force to guarantee compliance with a peace agreement. However, both you and Shawn continue to overestimate the willingness on the Israeli side to reach a workable deal, particularly among the Likud politicians and other hard liners.
How do you see this playing out in the long run? Are you of the opinion there is no hope for a peaceful settlement and thus permanent conflict is inevitable? The U.S. has shot its wad in the region, the road to peace doesn’t lie through Bagdad, as the war’s promoters were once saying. If anything, the radicals are far more emboldened today now the U.S. has been exposed as a “paper tiger”, to quote Chairman Mao. If the Arab population remains radicalized and WMD technology spreads, what is the end the result? Mutually Assured Destruction might be an impediment to rational people, but I’m not sure it would work against religious fanatics.
Shawn, do you have a citation on those settler opinions? Everything I’ve seen suggested they are opposed to pulling out. It may be that some majority answered yes to a particular question implying pullout but their political groups tend to back the most rejectionist politicians.
Palestinian side is the inability of some central force to guarantee compliance with a peace agreement.
Many of the people launching these attacks are PART of the "central force". Much like in Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an official part of the government, yet defies the law of the land by maintaining massive militias, and blocking legitimate government authority in whichever towns they consider "theirs". The problem in both Palestine and Lebanon is that terrorist organizations are allowed to represent themselves as an official part of the government, and in Palestine they actually ARE the government.
However, both you and Shawn continue to overestimate the willingness on the Israeli side to reach a workable deal, particularly among the Likud politicians and other hard liners.
I'm not in denial about the stance of some of the hardliners, but they are in the minority. Your statement is like saying "this 747 can't take off yet because we don't have any peanuts", when, in fact, the pilot is drunk and puking in the bathroom. Technically you may be telling the truth, but there's a much bigger obstacle that you're not talking about.
How do you see this playing out in the long run? Are you of the opinion there is no hope for a peaceful settlement and thus permanent conflict is inevitable?
Realistically, yes, it probably is inevitable. Until I learned more about the Hizbollah presence in Lebanon, I would perhaps have said that the best solution for Israel is to simply annex Palestine. They'd certainly have a legal precedent for doing so, and, while it might lead to more voilence in the short term, it'd gaurantee peace 15+ years down the road. Unfortunately the middle east doesn't work that way. The moment that Israel manages to resolve their problems with Palestine, they'll be targeted from a new direction. Actually, as we've seen, they've been targeted (by Hezbollah) even BEFORE they could make peace with Palestine, just on the off chance that they might succeed. That whole area is one giant shit pit, and the Jews are surrounded. I think they're screwed no matter what. Assuming nobody starts launching nukes, they'll still be fighting 300 years from now.
Technically you may be telling the truth, but there's a much bigger obstacle that you're not talking about.
Oh, I’m quite mindful of the flaws on the Arab side, I just don’t think they deserve all the blame. You may reflexively dismiss this suggestion out of hand but you really should read Jimmy Carter’s book. I know plenty of people have knocked it but he makes some valid points and he is more pro-Israel than his critics allow, but he tries to delve into the Palestinian side. Among other things he makes the point Israel’s peace offers have been less generous than they have been portrayed.
I would perhaps have said that the best solution for Israel is to simply annex Palestine.
No way in hell they would have done that because eventually Jews would become a minority with the combined state, unless they were to expel the Palestinians. That is precisely the reason they pulled out of Gaza.
That whole area is one giant shit pit, and the Jews are surrounded. I think they're screwed no matter what. Assuming nobody starts launching nukes, they'll still be fighting 300 years from now.
I’m not quite a dim on the prospects for some sort of settlement. However, I see the introduction of WMD as virtually certain absent some sort of settlement. Iran is going to get them and they will only be the first.
However, both you and Shawn continue to overestimate the willingness on the Israeli side to reach a workable deal, particularly among the Likud politicians and other hard liners.
I don't think I can overestimate "we will give you more than we rightly should". Israel shouldn't give the Palestinians any of Jerusalem, yet if the Palestinian leadership ever decides they want a state they'll get some of it. Plus they get to keep the most important site in the Jewish religion.
Golda Meir put the situation perfectly. There will be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews.
However, I see the introduction of WMD as virtually certain absent some sort of settlement. Iran is going to get them and they will only be the first.
On this we agree, although I think they may be the last rather than the first. I don't know what the capability of the Israeli nuclear weapons program is, but it should be sufficient to level Iran with a retaliatory attack.
Golda Meir put the situation perfectly. There will be peace when the Palestinians love their children more than they hate the Jews.
Precisely. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to come about any time soon. The radicalized Palestinians will never give a shit about children, and many of the rest show their "love" by encouraging their children to become martyrs. They have one of the sickest societies in existence on the earth today. They've been subject to half a century of brainwashing, and have emerged as the most uncompromising fanatics that the world has seen in a long time. It's unfortunate, but it's true - I've known enough "moderate" Palestinians in Canada to understand just how brainwashed the rest truly are. So how do you negotiate with fanatics? How do you come to ANY sort of compromise when every time you lower your pistol, the fuckers start shooting again?
Alex jones works for the new world order you have been warned!
'Alex jones works for the new world order you have been warned!
'He is a builder burg'
I said that ok didn't I 'I do not fear alex because he is the threat to the new world order 'I do not dis- like alex I do not like his faith in gold!
faith in a metal is like a glass without water! He has no answers he will never be greater than me.
'EVER'
Post a Comment
<< Home