A veteran U.S. counterterrorism agent says that President Donald Trump’s executive order banning people from seven majority Muslim countries will harm the fight against terrorist organizations and make it more difficult for intelligence agencies to maintain partnerships with foreign partners in the battle against ISIS and al Qaeda.
“Any kind of blacklisting countries like this will probably ruin effective local partnerships that are already in place,” said Ali Soufan, a former FBI special agent who served as one of the central U.S. officers targeting al Qaeda in the years leading up to 9/11. “When you’re operating in conflict zones in places like Yemen or in places like Iraq or Syria or Libya, you need local support,” he told The Intercept in an interview. “You need local help. You need people to assist you, to translate for you, to show you the lay of the land. Unfortunately, if this ban is seen as an anti-Muslim ban, or if this ban is blacklisting a whole entire population, that will end up fighting back on the much-needed, local cooperation that we depend on.”
Soufan was in the FBI from 1997 to 2005, when he served as a supervisory special agent. In 2005, Soufan resigned from the FBI because of what he alleged was the CIA’s refusal to share crucial counterterrorism intelligence. Soufan believes the CIA had information that if shared could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks. In 2009, Soufan rose to prominence after testifying in front of the U.S. Senate and penning an anti-torture Op-Ed in the New York Times. He has become an outspoken critic of torture on not only moral grounds, but because he has deemed it ineffective and counterproductive to intelligence gathering. Despite his criticism of torture, Soufan opposed prosecuting CIA personnel who participated in the torture program and has often voiced support for the agency.
Referring to Trump’s overt support for torture, Soufan said, “He’s not putting any lipstick on a pig. He’s just trying to sell a pig to the nation. I think there is overwhelming support for the idea that torture is not only illegal, but it’s also immoral and ineffective.”
In 2002, Soufan interrogated terrorist Abu Zubaydah for four months, obtaining what he called crucial and accurate intelligence from him, including the central role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the planning of 9/11. In August 2002, however, the CIA snatched Zubaydah from the FBI and sent him to a CIA black site where he was waterboarded more than 80 times. Despite the intelligence gathered by Soufan from Zubaydah without torture, the CIA claimed it was their waterboarding that extracted the intelligence. “There was no actionable intelligence that was generated because of torture,” said Soufan. “Abu Zubaydah lied after 83 sessions of waterboarding. He claimed that he was a number three of al Qaeda, even though he wasn’t an al Qaeda member. And later on, when they went back to him and they said, ‘Why did you lie?’ He said, ‘Well, you were torturing me. I told you what you want to hear.’”
“You don’t want to get the information that you want to hear,” Soufan added. “You want to get the truth.”
Soufan pointed out that torture is illegal under U.S. law, though he recognized that Trump seems to believe his executive orders override such quaint facts. “The president can put any executive order that he wants, but in order to change the law, he needs Congress,” said Soufan. “And I really doubt you’re going have a congressional debate that authorizes the president to use torture. I would like to watch that hearing and see how they will try to sell it to the American people.”
Jeremy Scahill’s interview with Ali Soufan can be heard on Episode 2 of The Intercept’s new weekly podcast, Intercepted, on February 1.
Subscribe to the Intercepted podcast on iTunes, Google Play, Stitcher, Spotify, and other platforms.
Greenwald’s analyses at least give a robust look at the past. Dissapointed to read your piece this time.II’ve watched and read your excellent work for thepast 5 years at least. This is more of the same kind of lazy clickbait fingerpointing going on in the MSM. Not a Trump supporter, but he should not be the fall guy for 15 years of institutionalized torture. John Woo’s ‘Torture Memos’ did essentially codify torture into law. Anyone read legal scholar Marc Denbeaux? Forget what we’ve been doing down at old GITMO?
In a thread below that’s grown too long and unwieldy, a Zionist asked if someone such as Norman Finkelstein is also a Zionist. And of course he is — he is that increasingly untenable species known as the “liberal Zionist.” (Albeit that Finkelstein is sui generis in the manner in which he straddles the liberal/Zionist chasm.)
In the Age of Trump, it is becoming almost impossible to maintain the intolerable logical inconsistencies between Zionism on the one hand, and liberal values, on the other. Omri Boehm highlighted this issue last month in the NYT, my emphasis:
And indeed, many American Jews are increasingly abandoning liberal Zionism, because they are moral and intellectually honest people.
So Sadat strongly criticized Zionism and used military force against Zionists. You consider him a Zionist.
Finkelstein spent his whole life writing, talking against Zionism. You consider him a Zionist.
I am curious, what about Arafat? Is he a Zionist too? What about Jeremy Scahill or Glenn Greenwald are they Zionists? I have never heard the last two saying Israel does not have a right to exist.
Finkelstein actually is not a Zionist, I was wrong about that (as are you about his position). He does not believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State. The ADL says he is “obsessive anti-Zionist” and filled with “vitriolic hatred of Zionism and Israel.” For his part, Finkelstein says he opposes ANY country maintaining an “ethnic character, ” Israel included. So Norman Finkelstein is not a Zionist, but you are.As was always obvious.
Glenn said a long time ago that Israel has a right to exist — altho he didn’t say as a specifically “Jewish State.” That was on the Hugh Hewitt show, before he really began looking into Zionism. He hasn’t addressed it since, not in public. I won’t discuss what he says that’s not public.
Like Finkelstein I am opposed to any state with an ethnic character. Sorry for the confusion. We have a tendency to refer certain nations as Muslim states or the Jewish state because the predominant religion is Islam or Judaism. For instance, sometimes we say Turkey is a Muslim state. It is not officially.
So when you asked about the Jewish State, I thought you were referring to the fact that most of the inhabitants are Jewish, not to the fact of the separation of citizenship and nationality that Israel follows.
So, no. I do not believe there should be an ethnically Jewish State. I believe there should be a state called Israel that must respect international laws and leave occupied territories.
RThen, you oppose Israel’s mandatory Jewish majority and would allow the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank (and those who have fled to Jordan) to be citizens of the country?
Can someone who supports affirmative action still be considered a liberal?
736
Glenn Greenwald promoted by retweeting — at Hawkins’ request — this apparently sincere event about voter fraud and illegal immigrants:
‘Like a nightmare’: 4-month-old girl misses open heart surgery because of Trump’s travel ban
The paperwork had all been completed, visas acquired. This is heinous. All because she’s a baby girl Muslim with Muslim parents from Iran.
Federal workers turn to encryption to thwart Trump
Right now, it seems mostly EPA employees, and some at Labor. Let’s hope courageous souls at the FBI, DHS and even the CIA take advantage of encryption to communicate what should be communicated to activists and/or journalists, and that they use the Secure Drop software at sites such as The Intercept, to leak what should be leaked.
Just what we need. A Muslim of dubious loyalty to the U.S. telling us how to protect our country. I don´t trust this member of the “umma” one bit. Ali should go home, now.
That is disgusting. Truly rancid. Bigots like you are a plague on humanity.
To All Readers: The commenter “Mona” will distort your words and spread falsehoods about you whenever she is unable to respond to your challenge. She is willing to pollute a comment section with false claims, ridiculous statements, and childish assertions. She falsely claims that I accuse her and others of being mentally ill. And she quickly spread those falsehoods in different sections to disparage your reputation. Do not fall to her trap by arguing with her whenever she starts spreading falsehoods about you. Report her quickly to the moderator or the writer directly. The Intercept cares about the quality of its comment sections.
The commenter Mona uses her real name. No need for the scare quotes.
Are you really so fragile that you need moderators to protect you from Mona? How ridiculously pathetic.
The Intercept very likely desires high quality commenting. All I’ve seen from you is nonsense — and now whining.
If you want to avoid rough and tumble discussion, you’re probably in the wrong venue.
This guy heavily implied that I am mentally ill and stated that I am doing “therapy.” Then he has the chutzpah to report me, and on top of that, launch a standalone thread to continue his whining about a personal squabble having nothing to do with the article.
What actually has his knickers in a twist is my extensive documentation of Zionist and white supremacist mutual support, history and affinity. He, along with Craig Summers, shrieked that I should not have been writing all that in a thread where Israel was tangential in the article, but brought up in comments by another commenter. And he ended up implying I have a mental disorder and saw the thread as “therapy.”
Well, it’s not the first time, and won’t be the last, Zionists get furious by my knowledge of Zionist crimes.
Sick cheerleaders for ethnic cleansing. I hope their anger is therapeutic.
Ach, look at this insult. It really rises to libeling me. I should report this and I hope you will join me?
Absolutely. That one must be banned!
And since s/he’s probably resident in a state other than yours, be sure the damage claim is well north of $75K and file in your nearest federal district — for your convenience.
Only if I can get the case sealed. I wouldn’t want that spreading around — Streisand effect, you know.
As long as I am allowed here I will urge everybody to report you to the moderator and to the writers directly every time you lied or distort someone’s views. Your dishonesty will be noted eventually because you will not stop. You will always rely on this tactic because you do not have debating skills. Your friendship to the writers do not give you a pass to pollute the comment sections. Your strategy is not new: distort somebody’s view, quickly spread falsehoods about the individual, repeat it again and again, and falsely accuse the individual or doing what you are actually doing.
Sweetheart, I’ve been commenting with the same core group in Greenwald’s space for some 11 years. “Eventually” must take a long time!
The only people who rant about me being dishonest are Zionists like you, Trumpers, authoritarians, and DNC hacks. I assure you, I not only can live with that, I’d be worried if such types liked me. For I’d be doing something wrong.
And yes, that you strongly intimated I’m mentally ill by claiming my Israel commentary constitutes “venting some internal frustration you have accumulated for years. I do not believe this is the appropriate venue for such therapy” is a fact I will cite to show your absurd and typically Zionist, unpleasant reaction to facts. Perhaps you should reconsider your own behavior rather than be so fixated on me.
“I’ve been commenting with the same core group in Greenwald’s space for some 11 years.”
It is completely irrelevant as you are not the owner of this site. The best way to deal with people like you is not to get into a name calling match as you wish, but to always report you and encourage others to do so every time you distort my view or others in order to disrupt debates you are incapable of handling. Writers do care about the quality of their comment sections. You might be their long time friends, but you do not own The Intercept and are not shielded from appropriate warnings.
Expressing frustrations have absolutely nothing to do with mental illness. We all express frustrations about the traffic, the high cost of medicines….Scahill have expressed frustration at American foreign policy for years. You automatically accused me of being a Zionist who prevents you from spreading the truth while I never stated a single friendly word about Zionism or even about Israel. To accuse somebody that way means you are probably frustrated about Israel. I have nothing to do with that and you know it.
This is a textbook strategy: you quickly distort my words, and spread false claims about me to evade your inability to handle the debate being discussed. That is the perfect example of insecurity: you and your pal Doug do not attack the argument, but resort to calling me names.
Again, this is an attack on your argument: on what basis am I a Zionist?
If you answer is: “You are a Zionist”, then you have no debating skills and I checkmate again!
This site does not moderate for “dishonest” argumentation. If it did no hasbara troll would ever be allowed to stay. Craig Summers wouldn’t be here.
This has nothing to do with my “being friends” with anyone. It has to do with WHY I am friends in the first place. Glenn Greenwald has never banned ad hominem attacks (which are logically valid on matters of credibility), and neither does this site. I contributed to his first formulation of moderating policy back at his first blog and agree with his standards.
What you want is the Comment is Futile regime at The Guardian. Glenn would let that happen here roughly when hell freezes over.
You are, in fact, a Zionist. You argue just as they do. Few are more shrill about running to moderators than Zionists. (Again, see the Guardian.) And insecure idiots of all stripes shout “Checkmate!” “I crushed you!” and that sort of transparently insecure inanity, just as you promiscuously do.
If the staff here is happy to be flooded with endless silly whining from you, that’s up to them. But I did tell them I absolutely do not want your post implying I’m mentally ill and doing “therapy” deleted. I thought they might, and I want it to stand to show what you are.
I have seen it all!
“You are, in fact, a Zionist. You argue just as they do. Few are more shrill about running to moderators than Zionists.”
Let me get it. Even if the debater does not say anything in support of Zionism or Israel, he is a Zionist because he “argues as they do”? That is your argument?
Well, checkmate for me again!
You are a Zionist because your position is: “Yes, Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State.” It was already obvious by the way you argue, but now you’ve (finally) admitted it.
I see. Yes, I do that by quoting them verbatim. Including your use of the word “therapy.”
Do you retract this? “[ you are] venting some internal frustration you have accumulated for years. I do not believe this is the appropriate venue for such therapy.”
Or do you continue to insist I am using this site for “therapy?”
Well?
Do you retract this?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Therapy is not a word that is automatically associated with mental illness. Dancing is a therapy suggested for the relief of stress. Salsa dancers are mentally ill? Many commenters are here to express their frustration about US government policies. You know it very well. You are distorting my point because your ultimate goal is to disrupt the debate by creating falsehoods about the commenter not the argument.
If you want to blame me of being a Zionist who “prevents you from spreading the truth” then yes, you do have some internal frustrations regarding Israel because I never prevented anybody for saying whatever they want about Zionism and Israel and more importantly I never said anything positive about neither Zionism nor Israel.
Of course you don’t. You continue to insist I am inappropriately using the thread as “therapy” for a psychological problem. Yet you shriek endlessly, and even start a new thread to do it, that *I* am the one making personal attacks and refusing to debate substantive issues.
LOLOLOL
Now, for the third time: Do you believe that Israel has a “right to exist” as a Jewish State?
Yes, Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State. Does it make me a Zionist?
This is a list of countries in that believe Israel has a right to exist:
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, UAE, Morocco. All these countries stated publicly they are ready to recognize Israel as a Jewish State if Israel withdraws from the occupied territories.
Does it make the rulers of those countries Zionists? Am I also a Zionist for supporting that position? I like Norman Finkelstein, is he a Zionist too? About Al Sadat, is he a Zionist too?
Your arguments are weak, illogical and dishonest. You had absolutely no idea where I stand politically in that conflict, but you claimed that I am a Zionist preventing you from spreading the truth simply because you wanted to disrupt the debate you could not handle.
I am not aware that expressing frustration is really a “psychological problem”. But again, you already know that. Your ultimate goal is disruption not vibrant and civil discussion.
Of course. You strongly intimated I was psychologically ill for stating the obvious: You are a Zionist. You behave just like one.
According to your logic these individuals are Zionists:
Norman Finkelstein, Al Sadat,Yasser Arafat, King Abdullah of Jordan..and the list continues. Some of them took arms and fought against Israel, but stated publicly that Israel has a right to exist.
Your reasoning is weak.
Not in the least is my reasoning “weak.” Yes, Sadat was not only a Zionist, he was a vile pro-American-empire liberal who betrayed the Palestinians. And yes, Finkelstein is trying to be a “liberal Zionist.” An increasingly untenable position to maintain. (He’s downright bizarre in his commentary about BDS.)
And you are a Zionist as well, because you declare: “Yes, Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish State.” But this was obvious well before you admitted it.
You forgot Yasser Arafat. Is he a Zionist too?
I don’t know enough about his specific relevant views to say.
“All I’ve seen from you is nonsense”
That will be a truthful statement if you can present
1) to me and everybody else the rational basis on which that I am a “Zionist”. Since you do not know me personally, and you have never read anything from me in support of Zionism or Israel, then it would be fair to share the magic formula that enables you to determine that I am a “cheerleader of ethnic cleansing”, which of course I am not. Notice that if you cannot, then your whole statement would be nonsense.
2) Explain how an executive of sovereign nation (the US) that decides to ban a citizen of another sovereign nation (Iran) should not consider that nation’s (Iran) political state with regards to how it treats other citizens (Israelis). You have argued that Iran’s ban on Israeli citizens is justified because of Israel violation of international laws. But you will not call it a Jewish Ban. US courts already decided that Iran is in violations of international laws by targeting US citizens and killing them. So how are you going to argue your case in US courts by stating it is a Muslim ban?
Obviously you do not have any rational explanation of your inconsistencies, so you just start attacking me, not my argument. That means you have no debating skills.
BTW I am against Israel occupation of Palestine, against Israel illegal settlements, against the unbelievable lack of pressure of the US government towards Israel, which makes the situation worse. However, the above article is not about Israel Palestine conflict.
Do you believe that Israel has a “right to exist” as a Jewish State?
Doug, this one hurls this all the time, you are merely the latest:
He spews a pile of mischaracterizations and non sequiturs, and then declares the other guy lacks debating skills, and eventually shouts: “Checkmate!” Only extremely insecure people feel compelled to constantly declare they’ve “won.” The secure rely on their argumentation and performance to be observed by other intelligent people, and don’t need to tell themselves and the world how they’ve vanquished — oh yes, they have! — the other person.
And then he runs to Mommy Moderator to try to stop you from being “dishonest.” And pompously shrieks about THAT to the world in a standalone post, all while claiming others are polluting the board. (He seems to want this site to moderate for “honesty” in comments — LOL Any site doing that would do little else.)
Yes, his shtick is all nonsense, nonsense of the intellectually insecure, as you said.
Now, let’s find an on-topic something to put at the top of the thread.
According to Soufan’s testimony, the timeline and changed location for Zubaydah’s interrogation are wrong in this article. The FBI didn’t control it for four months and the FBI and CIA were at the same site.
I’m happy that people are speaking out against banning people from 7 countries. People should also speak out against Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Yemen, Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia and Pakistan banning Israelis.
Oh, it’s good that you are here. You don’t know how deeply sick you are but there’s someone here who can help you, just like he assisted me.
In your whataboutery you mentioned Israelis, just as you did in another thread active here that has nothing to do with Israel. swisscheese must be a physician, for he has found that discussing Israel in a thread where it is only tangentially touched on in the article — even when first discussed by another commenter — is to exhibit a psychological disorder. Imagine his diagnosis in a thread where Israel is not even alluded to in the piece.
I had just begged swisscheese to go to the other thread to intervene and help you. But here you are, so he can stay right here for your treatment.
“You don’t know how deeply sick you are but there’s someone here who can help you, just like he assisted me.”
Hypocrisy much? You just ranted through a lengthy string of posts about how someone is libeling you by implying that you are mentally ill. And then turn around and imply that someone is mentally ill.
That was sarcasm. Jack Green is not mentally ill. He’s hasbara troll doing his job. (Scroll to the comment highlighted in gray if your browser doesn’t immediately take you to it.)
Nor did I claim anyone is libeling me for implying I am mentally ill. Had you followed the link you’d know that.
“You just ranted through a lengthy string of posts about how someone is libeling you by implying that you are mentally ill.”
And again I never stated she was mentally ill. She quickly spread false claims about commenters when she is unable to handle a debate. It will be efficient to report her whenever she does that because she is abusing her friendship with the writers to disrupt civil discussions she cannot handle. It is very important not to get into a name calling competition with her and falls for her trap. Let her attack the commenters not their arguments so the writers and moderators can clearly see she is the one polluting the comment sections.
This is ridiculous. I never said you or anyone else is “libeling” me for “stating” that I’m mentally ill. You strongly implied it, and said I was using the threads for “therapy.” That was not libel and I never claimed it is. Melanie is a lazy hack who would have known I was joking about an entirely different (and hilariously wrong) accusation, had she clicked through the link.
I am friends with exactly one writer here. And as I’ve already told you, we are friends in part BECAUSE we see much the same way, including proper commenting moderation standards, which I contributed to his developing at his first blog. This is not The Guardian, where prissy schoolmarms rampantly delete and censor. You would no doubt be happier there.
Zionists like you certainly are much happier at the Graun. There, they consider linking to or quoting, e.g., Max Blumenthal to be “antisemitic.”
(Altho your commentary about my psychological problems and doing “therapy” would be deleted there. I not only did not report you for that here, I told them I explicitly wish it to stand.)
“This is not The Guardian, where prissy schoolmarms rampantly delete and censor. ”
…
“You don’t know how deeply sick you are but there’s someone here who can help you, just like he assisted me.”
Paging Nurse Ratchet
Exactly. That’s who swisscheese seems to think he is.
You’re right – people should speak up about that. Specifically, people in those countries.
Emma Lazarus
“Until we are all free, we are none of us free. ”
Soufan was never a “veteran US counterterrorism agent”. In the FBI you were never considered a veteran agent unless you had at least 10 years in. In the CT arena, he would have been a neophyte who was only allowed to talk if he were told to do so. Anything he says is for his own public image improvement.
I do not believe you. Jeremy Schahill has great credibility and knowledge. You are an unknown whose unsupported assertions I decline to accept.
Exactly correct. A self-promoter.
I do not believe either of you. Unsupported assertions from unknown people with no record of reliability are not credible, and certainly are not to be preferred over the assessment of a journalist such as Jeremy Scahill.
Would you get a grip, please? Is there ANYONE who can control this woman?
LOL. Do you often enter comments sections asking that women be controlled? How…peculiar.
Jeremy,
Did you have a sexual relationship with the interviewee, before, after or during the interview?
Thanks.
The intercept #2
“Soufan believes the CIA had information that if shared could have thwarted the 9/11 attacks.”
Right.
Ask Soufan to walk us through the NIST report.
Math does not lie. Apply the correct math to a structure except for 9 floors and you have the biggest lie ever told.
Soufan is a self-promoter with a short career in the FBI.
I don’t believe you. Who are you that I should?
Soufan had a very short career with the FBI, an agency whose agent normally stay on 20+ years. He interrogated terrorist subjects only because he was one of the few Arabic speaking Agents at the time. Since, he has been mainly a self-promoter and does not represent the best in the FBI.
Hey Jeremy,
WE GET IT: The Intercept’s writers have been tasked with misrepresenting and vilifying the implementation of immigration policy that was written and enacted into law by the democrats under the Obama administration:
1. The current implementation of Obama’s immigration law only imposes a temporary ban on new applicants from seven nations who have reason to be openly hostile to American interests. This temporary ban was implemented for the purported purpose of safeguarding Americans during a review process of said policy
2. Syria is the only country that faces an indefinite ban on new applications for immigration. This ban is deemed necessary do to the in ability of immigration officials to thoroughly vet potential candidates due to ongoing hostilities between the US and Syria. Syria is currently awash with Saudi educated, trained, and/or funded jihadist-salafists. By a metric that has been repeatedly cited by you personally, there is every reason to believe that Americans can expect BLOWBACK from any one of several radicalized Muslim groups who are actively participating in the Syrian conflict. To suggest that no risk could be realized from the immigration of improperly vetted immigrants is patently false to the point of absurdity; else, all your rhetoric concerning blowback resulting from aggregate animus for the US throughout the Muslim world is pure bullshit.
3. As Chomsky and company are so vested in the official explanation of the attacks of 911, the mean by which Muslim terrorists gained entrance into the country must be weighed. As it is alleged that the identities of many 911 terrorists were sheep dipped by the intelligence services of nation states who were/are openly hostile to American interests, then it only stands to reason that immigrants from hostile nations be more thoroughly vetted.
4. As astute as you are in revealing the inner workings of groups like Blackwater, one would expect that the same level of diligence from you in you coverage of the DNC’s role in orchestrating this campaign against “Trump’s immigration policy”. Yet, not a single Intercept writer has even acknowledged the fact that the democrats were responsible for enacting the very law that Trump is relying upon in the implementation of his heightened vetting process.
5. When one examines the post 911 evolution of American immigration law, it becomes abundantly clear that its implementation has been a bipartisan effort in keeping with the neoliberal aim of exploiting the forced migration of cheap labor that predictably results from the ongoing application of the Bush doctrine. The beneficiaries of this cheap foreign labor are the very transnational interests that have used their financial clout to influence the political operatives who have been tasked with subverting US foreign policy in service to their own ends. Yet progressive critics of the US duopoly seem to be championing their intention to dispossess large segments of the Muslim world of their homelands via regime change, and to aid in the intended whole scale destruction of discrete Muslim cultures that follows. As champagne liberals like Soros and Omidyar have a proven history of working with the CIA to advance the neoliberal aims abroad, one is left wondering WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?
What about the Israeli ban these same Muslim countries practice when they refuse Israeli passports? And not just temporarily like trump. There are 16 Muslim countries that ban Israelis and a few that ban people just for visiting Israel. Where’s the anger – I see double standards here.
1. The current discussion is about our government and its actions — the government that is supposed to represent us and that we pay for.
2. It’s likely that fewer countries would ban Israelis if Israel were to cease its decades-long land theft, apartheid and ethnic cleansing campaign against Palestinians.
3. Israel tightly restricts the admission and movements not only of citizens of Arab/Muslim countries, but even, e.g., Arab/Palestinan/Muslim-American citizens.
4. Whataboutery is dumb and boring.
That is not whataboutery. That is a valid point because it relates to international relations. It is also a question that tests the honesty of those who call the order a Muslim ban. Are you willing to call the ban on Israeli citizens a Jewish ban?
Moreover, you are justifying the ban on Israeli citizens based on Israel violations of international laws. So, the US could justify its ban on Iranian citizens due to Iran violation of international laws as well.
Babbling ^^^.
Check Mate!!
Yup, whataboutery, very common with Israel apologists. Their favorite fallacy.
Israel bans quite a few American Jews.
Say, do I have your permission to talk about Israel? I know you’re very picky about when that’s ok.
Am I the Israel apologist or you were just talking in general? Is that the best you can do? Just resort to name calling? Do you see Zionists, Israel apologists everywhere?
“Do I have your permission to talk about Israel? I know you’re very picky..”
Sorry, but I am not responsible for your frustration regarding the conflict in the Middle East. You need to take your frustration to the Israelis or the Jewish lobby in Washington. Run for something, join some organizations. I really do not see how screaming “Zionists” on an Internet forum will stop the war in the Middle East.
Regarding the conversation above. I can make it easier for you again.
Let’s say it is 100% whataboutery. The question still stands. Is Iran or Yemen ban on Israeli citizens a “Jewish Ban”? Even if it is whataboutery, that should not prevent you from answering that simple question.
Why is that question relevant? Because it is a case related to International Relations. For instance, Iranian officials would tell you this is not a Jewish ban because they have Jews in Iran and they allow Jews from other countries to come to Iran. That is exactly what Trump will say in the US courts with regards to Muslims. If you believe that Iran, Yemen, Kuwait…are doing the right thing because of what is going on in Israel politically, not because of Judaism, what makes you think US courts would not take the same view considering what is going on in Somalia, Libya, Iran…politically. Hence, why I believe the Muslim ban approach will not work in US courts.
The commenter Doug is justifying Iran’s policy based on Israel violations of international laws. The US executive can do exactly the same with regards to Iran or any other countries. US courts already blamed Iran for supporting terrorism against US citizens.
If you could take a break from your childish habit of name calling you might actually notice that my points have absolutely nothing to do with supporting Israel. But again, since you cannot debate it might be the only strategy you can offer.
I’ll take that as a “yes,” that you hold no objections to my discussing Israel. That’s good. I wouldn’t want to upset you.
I didn’t read most of the rest of your lengthy comment as I’ve learned it’s a waste of time to go through it all.
“I didn’t read most of the rest of your lengthy comment..”
No offence taken. I doubt you would understand it anyway.
But Zionists resort to it, as you know, with wild abandon. The Soviets popularized it, but now:
It’s not whataboutery. It’s connected.
When we ban people because of their nationality, we are sending a message that it’s OK to ban people because of their nationality. So we need to consider what countries are or may ban people because of their nationality. Do we really want to encourage other countries to ban people because of their nationality?
Israel bans a number of non-Israeli Jews, including some Americans. What are you doing about that?
Israel even bans Israelis from leaving Israel.
Mordecai Vanunu is an example.
That’s right. After they imprisoned him and finally let him out. they also imposed a travel ban on Omar Barghouti, a legal resident of Israel. I don’t know if that was ever lifted. They don’t like his politics.
You would probably need the whole library of Congress to record Israel violations of international laws since 1948. Everybody knows Israel is in violation. That is not the point. The point is how would you argue that Trump’s order is a Muslim ban in US courts? If your argument is a country like Iran that bans Israeli citizens because of Israel violations does not have a Jewish ban, then Trump’s side can use the same argument, which is they are banning Iranian citizens because of Iran violations of international laws. US courts already concluded that Iran is indeed in violation.
The Muslim ban approach will not work in US courts. The courts will give more weight to Trump’s actual order, not to what he said as a candidate. This is obviously a political ban and has nothing to do with national security, but US laws is on the side of the executive.
Iran bans Israelis becasue Israel has aggresses severely against Muslims. It’s the same reason a handful of violent Muslim males target Americans for terror — our support for the Jewish State that has slaughtered, ethnically cleansed and stolen vast amounts of land from Muslims with impunity and our support.
Many Muslim-majority nations hate Israel and Israelis for their behavior toward Muslims and their coveting of all of Jerusalem.
That’s not ultimately a sensible reason to ban every Israeli, but then these nations don’t hold themselves out as “modern, liberal, Western democracies.” Israel and the U.S. do. Moroever, Iran is pissed at the U.S. for valid reasons of our behavior, but has not sent terrorists to harm us on our soil. No reason at all to ban them.
“Iran bans Israelis becasue Israel has aggresses severely against Muslims.” Yes, that is the official policy of Iran
“Many Muslim-majority nations hate Israel and Israelis for their behavior toward Muslims and their coveting of all of Jerusalem.”
Yes, correct.
“Moroever, Iran is pissed at the U.S. for valid reasons of our behavior, but has not sent terrorists to harm us on our soil.”
US courts have concluded that Iran have targeted and killed US citizens. Not even groups in Iran, but the Iranian government itself.
You write a lot without answering the single point of my argument: Do you consider Iran ban a Jewish ban?
You have to come up with a solid argument that supports your idea that Iran does not have a Jewish ban because it is only about Israel treatment of Muslims, but the US ban is a Muslim ban even though US courts have concluded that Iran specifically targeted and killed US citizens.
Do you believe that Israel has a “right to exist” as a Jewish State?
Is it really that hard to answer that simple question? Is Iran ban on Israeli citizens a Jewish ban?
Let me help you. This is my answer: NO, the Iranian ban of Israeli citizens is not a Jewish ban. French, British, Canadian. Jews visit Iran all the time. Iran ban is targeted at a specific country (Israel) because of that country violations of international law.
Now, what is your answer?
Can you link me when exactly PRESIDENT Trump stated it was a Muslim ban?
It’s a Zionist ban.
Iran does not perform Zionist test on visitors.
Conclusion:
You are unable to answer the question.
It is safe to assume that all Jewish citizens of Israel are Zionists unless they forswear it. (Their victims, the including Arab citizens, are unlikely to be Zionists.) Israeli passports identify nationality not as “Israeli,” but as “Jewish,” (or not) because of Zionism and it’s ethno-religious supremacist foundation.
For the fourth time: Do you believe that Israel has a “right to exist” as a Jewish State?
“Israeli passports identify nationality not as “Israeli,” but as “Jewish”.
The Israeli passport uses citizenship not nationality. The Israeli registry uses nationality. So, Israeli passports identifies individuals as “Israeli” regardless if they are Jewish or Muslims. Muslims holding Israeli passports are not allowed in Iran. Moreover, many of those countries including Iran do not allow any citizens who visited Israel to enter their country. So, a French Christian who visited Jerusalem is a Zionist? A Muslim Israeli Arab is a Zionist?
Again, you are unable to answer the simple question.
Anyway, according to your logic even Yasser Arafat is a Zionist since he believed Israel has a right to exist.
Why were Arabs attacking Jews before settlements, before occupation, before Israel, before Zionism?
Jews, Arabs and Christians have pretty much always attacked one another. But little has been more vicious than the grotesque terror Jewish Zionists began visiting on the Arabs of Palestine, as well as Jews who they felt were uncooperative, in the first half of the 20th century and forward. Already in 1914, prominent Jewish visitors were describing the Jewish behavior toward Arabs as like a “pogrom.”
Jews and some gentile British described these Zionists as literal Nazis, who were explicitly patterning their behavior toward the Arabs on the SS. They truly were disgusting, and many Israeli Zionists still are. (I can, of course, document all of this. Just ask.)
Evidence that Jews have always attacked Arabs & Christians?
Jews were living in fear for their lives. Were Arabs & Christians living in fear of the Jews?
What specifically were Jews doing in 1914 who were described as like a pogrom?
What specifically were Jews doing who were described as Nazis?
According to the German Jewish doctor Paul Nathan, they were terrorizing Arabs as in a pogrom. Nathan presumably knew what a pogrom is. In the next several decades, Zionist terror became exponentially worse, with moral Jews and others saying Zionists were Nazis.
Again, you need to read this book: State of Terror: How terrorism created modern Israel. I own and just finished reading it, and cannot recommend it highly enough.
definition of massacre:
“an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people.”
“The Saturday Night Massacre was the term used by political commentators to refer to U.S. President Richard Nixon’s dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and as a result the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973,”
People don’t always use words as they are defined in the dictionary. No one was actually killed or even wounded in the Saturday Night Massacre. No blood was shed.
Do you have evidence that even one Arab was killed in that “pogrom?”
Dj, you are on very dangerous ground bringing up Israel here. swisscheese finds that very offensive. Indeed, he’s been known to strongly imply you are mentally ill for doing that.
“He’s been known to strongly imply you are mentally ill for doing that”
You are really a dishonest individual. You do not only create false claims when you are unable to support your arguments, but you also spread falsehoods about those who challenge you so you can disparage their reputation. That is your strategy to ensure that those who defeated you are immediately seen as unworthy of a serious debate by the other commenters. You are a very disruptive commenter. There is no doubt that you would be removed here if you were not associated with the writers.
Listen, this man is in urgent need of your medical intervention. By your lights he is a candidate for a psychiatric commitment. He’s a hasbara troll, which means, of course, that literally the only topic he discusses here is Israel. That thread has nothing to do at all with Israel, but look at what he did!11!11!
Please, help him.
Look way up to the sky, you might see me going higher and higher while you keep going lower and lower. I shall pay attention to your comments in the future when you grow up and write something worthy of being challenged.
What? You are not going to help Jack Green?! He’s in this thread now, and I just told him that you would!
Do you not understand what I described about Jack? Literally the only topic he discusses here is Israel. And this thread makes twice he’s brought it up relative to an article that has zero to do with that topic.
You told me my bringing up Israel (in a thread where the article and another commenter raised it) meant that I was “venting some internal frustration you have accumulated for years. I do not believe this is the appropriate venue for such therapy.”
Is this venue appropriate for Jack’s therapy?
“You told me my bringing up Israel (in a thread where the article and another commenter raised it) meant that I was “venting some internal frustration you have accumulated for years. I do not believe this is the appropriate venue for such therapy.”
I have debated with you for hours after you brought Israel in the other section. I wrote the above statement after you suddenly accused me of being a Zionist who cannot prevent you from spreading the truth. That was a weird accusation as I have never written anything to support neither Zionism nor even Israel. In my view your sudden outburst was just an expression of your frustration regarding the conflict in the Middle East which I have absolutely nothing to do with. I have never accused you or anybody of being “mentally ill”.
You are distorting my words on purpose. I am not quite sure what your ultimate goal is, but you are definitely polluting the section with ridiculous and childish statements. I have reported your disruptive behavior to The Intercept administration.
After suggesting I am mentally ill? You may be surprised how that works out.
That is a lie. I did not introduce the topic of Israel. Another commenter did, referring to what was said about Israel in the article. You chased me all over that thread, you and Craig Summers, demanding that I answer questions I purportedly had not answered. And you have the chutzpah to report me?
Please.
But the question is an interesting one, and I’d like to know what the answer is from the point of view of someone who is apparently not from my echo chamber :)
Do you deny any equivalence between an Iranian ban on Israelis, and a US ban on Iranians? And if so, on what logic do you base your distinction?
Because supporting the one while decrying the other seems to be inconsistent, seen from the outside.
Personally I can understand the desire to temporarily stop everything and do a stock check to see “what’s going on”. Though the communication around it, and the (what seemed like) sloppy implementation, and the personal dramas that were caused, are to be deplored.
Torture can be useful when you are not interested in the truth but instead in obtaining ‘evidence’ that supports your position. This is why they will not give it up.
“You don’t want to get the information that you want to hear,” Soufan added. “You want to get the truth.”
Maybe YOU do, but the politicians who brought us the War on Terror use torture to extract false confessions from their victims. At least Trump has exposed the WOT as a war on Islam, which it has been ever since Dick Cheney blew up the twin towers and blamed it on bin Laden.
Trooferism is proving much harder to treat than medical researchers first expected. So far, all of the effective medications and modalities have fatal side effects.
Next month, there will be a major conference in Atlanta — an attempt to reach agreement on the question of whether overall community mental health would be improved if the treatments were widely administered regardless of the side effects.
Yes, indeed. People should just believe what their politicians tell them, regardless of the laws of physics. Clearly, airplanes brought the towers down because Allah obviously willed it so.
Actually, the final version of the National Institute of Standards and Technology report concluded that office fires were the cause of building 7’s collapse. Yet not a single change in building codes has been initiated to offset future occurrences of collapse due to similar circumstance. Kevin Ryan has torn the NIST report to shreds:
Kevin Ryan : On Why NIST’s 9/11 WTC Reports are False & Unscientific
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs9nHDDBtfA
Yeah, Kevin Ryan, a guy with an undergraduate degree in chemistry, who worked at a lab testing drinking water (which was purchased by UL) is totally qualified to “tear the NIST report to shreds.”
Onward, Troofer Soldiers!
“Onward, Troofer Soldiers!”
You couldn’t integrate a line function.
You think physics is so difficult only a handful of people are able to interpret Newton.
You bash a BS in Chem while you hold your manhood …
Don’t you have some melon balls to make.
I’m afraid we’re going to have to go ahead with the treatment.
Yet, in the very act of making sweeping summary jusgements about the nature of about all “troofers”, you have failed to provide a single argument of your own to counter any provided by Mr. Ryan in the video cited. Such is the nature of bullshit artists like yourself.
I would give a testicle to never see the word “blasts” or “slams” in another news headline, especially one from an organization I respect as much as The Intercept, or by a writer as articulate as Scahill.
July 15, 2016 Gestapo America
FBI Director James Comey got Hillary off the hook but wants to put you on it. He is pushing hard for warrantless access to all of your Internet activity. Comey, who would have fit in perfectly with Hitler’s Gestapo, tells Congress that the United States is not safe unless the FBI knows when every American goes online, to whom they are sending emails and from whom they are receiving emails, and knows every website visited by every American.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45107.htm
Journalism should try to inform their readers by using correct titles without innuendos. Jeremy, your headline accuses Trump on two false counts. Trump never tortured anybody and never banned anybody from being a Muslim. Trump has said he believes Torture works and has proposed extreme vetting on immigrants and refugees coming to the USA from predominantly Muslim countries.
You need to be more accurate also.
Trump’s perverse “ban” is not applicable to most
“predominantly muslim countries.”
It is limited to those nations which the democrats and
republicans have decided are worth destroying in this
current round of the privatizing global corporate takeover
of the planet. The predominantly muslim countries which
most ardently share in this corrupt militarized corporatism are
ignored, for the time being.
This is all about the spread of the real religion of
worshiping private wealth above all else.
Yours is a fine example of Orwellian doublespeak. Donald Trump has issued a Muslim ban. Most hilariously, Sean Spicer went out yesterday and denied it is a “ban.” CNN’s Jake Tapper most entertainingly pwned him.
“Donald Trump has issued a Muslim ban”
Yemen, Algeria, Sudan, Iran, Kuwait and many other countries ban holders of Israeli passports to enter their territory. Have these countries issued a Jewish ban?
“Donald Trump has issued a Muslim ban”
It is not a Muslim ban. If it were a Muslim ban, it would ban people from ALL predominantly Muslim countries. As Clark points out in his comment above, it is a selective ban, targeting certain countries for purely economic reasons. What Clark says bears repeating:
“It is limited to those nations which the democrats and
republicans have decided are worth destroying in this
current round of the privatizing global corporate takeover
of the planet. The predominantly muslim countries which
most ardently share in this corrupt militarized corporatism are
ignored, for the time being.”
Although I would replace “democrats and republicans” with “Oligarchs.” Or maybe “corporatist billionaires.” The Dems and Repubs. are just puppets of the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes. Soros, Koch, Rothschild, the British monarchy, Rockefellers.
This is exactly what Trump wants…..let the MSM, Democrats and Republicans fight over words and tweets while he delivers on his campaign agenda. He is always a few steps ahead of the crowd. So if journalists used the correct words and not the so called doublespeak, they might eventually catch up with him.
At this late date it is puzzling to me how so many people
still cling to the notion that the faking U$A is opposed to terrorism.
No one has done more to help create and expand the numbers of
“terrorists” and global terrorism
than has the so-called “government” of the U$A and
no one has done more to promote torture – even as they pretend
to oppose it – than has the so-called “government” of the U$A.
These perverse methods of manipulation are a central part
of the corporate takeover of the planet and
both democrats and republicans have enabled these methods
for the benefit of the corporatized private owners of the faking U$A
while some of them PRETEND to oppose these perversions.
The people are lured with words about “security” which are used
to continue the erosion of human rights and the quality of the
environment while the spread of militaristic arrogance and
willful ignorance is increased by both the faking U$A (and its allies)
and those who they are supposedly opposing.
“Classified” information is indeed just that. If you support the
work of a certain class of predators and you can pretend to be an
agent of the people, then you will rise to the top of the growing
pile of crap, like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Soufan is a typical example of those who are clearly part
of the problem while he promotes the delusion that
Laws are of much significance in the corporate owned fakery
which makes its own laws as it goes along.
The big clue here is when Mr. Soufan speaks about
“When you are OPERATING (emphasis added) in….” because
that is the acceptable mindset whereby we can deceive ourselves
that what we are all involved in isn’t quite as predatory
as it really is.
There is no United States of America.
That entity is based upon a constitution which is actually
just a thin screen which is used to cover over the religiously
privatizing monetary machinery of a bipartisan global lust.
Sure, Trump and his ilk are repulsive, but if you think the
solution to this corruption is going to come from within a
ROTTEN predatory system of faking bipartisanship, then you are
going to help keep that perversity alive.
To right, usa_naziland is the cause & enabler of mass killings world wide. From wholesale false-flag attacks to cause wars based on fake commie insurgencies. To home-grown attacks & even imho 9-11 the infamous twin towers attack where two buildings were hit but three fell down (see videos of WTC 7). It’s come to light that over 6 trillion dollars went missing before this cia-attack was enabled. Duping most of the non thinking worlds citizens to advocate a war on a word. We now live in an age where north-america is losing face & international credibility…which is a good thing! Down with usa_naziland & hopefully the break up of its states into independant nations. Just as is happening to the not-so united kingdom. The welsh, scotish, northern irish people are going to be free from british rule. Sooner than later north-america’s 1,000plus foreign military bases need to be closed & those rapists murders & general death-culture praiseing fucksticks need booting back to their failed & decrepid society or delusional 1st world culture.
Thank you, Clark. Someone actually gets it.
Aug 22, 2016 Dirty Wars – Death of Abdul Rahman Anwar al Awlaki
Investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill traces the rise of the Joint Special Operations Command. He exposes covert operations to capture and kill people, but those agents do not exist on paper.
https://youtu.be/ViGUSw6NBVU
JANUARY 1, 2015 We’ve Known for Over 2,000 Years that Torture Produces False Confessions
We’ve Known Since Ancient Rome that Torture Doesn’t Work In 72 BC – 2,086 years ago – Cicero (the well-known Roman philosopher, politician, lawyer, orator, political theorist and consul) pointed out that torture creates conditions of fear and desperate hope in which “there is but little room left for truth”, i.e. that torture is an unreliable method of extracting truth.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/weve-known-for-over-2000-years-that-torture-produces-false-confessions/
The media is massively over-reacting to Trump’s “Muslim Ban”. Personally, I am substantially to the left of Bernie but find the attacks on Trump to be completely unbalanced. I mean come on, where is the perspective here. Obama, blew up Doctor’s Without Borders hospitals, killed 100k + Muslims, destroyed Libya, and got less outrage from the media and the “left street” over his War Crimes than the first day of a Trump immigration ban?
WTF? Look in the mirror!
Obama, blew up Doctor’s Without Borders hospitals, killed 100k + Muslims, destroyed Libya, and got less outrage from the media and the “left street” over his War Crimes than the first day of a Trump immigration ban?
Perhaps you should spend more time reading at The Intercept.
Re: Obama and MSF attack,
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/03/one-day-after-warning-russia-of-civilian-casualties-the-u-s-bombs-a-hospital-in-the-war-obama-ended/
Regarding Obama’s killing of Muslims, Scahill and other writers here wrote a series of 8 articles entitled The Drone Papers detailing the depths of Obama’s drone war against Muslims and that’s just touching the tip of that particular iceberg and how it’s been detailed here at The Intercept.
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
On US intervention in Libya,
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/27/the-u-s-intervention-in-libya-was-such-a-smashing-success-that-a-sequel-is-coming/
There are a lot more stories, but I only gave these as examples that you complaint is without merit here. Apologies for doing this in multiple posts but the comment software excludes comments with multiple links.
Pedinska,
Perhaps you should learn how to read a simple comment. My statement is accurate and I stand by it.
I applaud Scahill career and read his work frequently. The fact is Scahill’s critics of Obama’s MIC actions were a voice of reason in the wilderness and were largely ignored because it occurred under Democrat. Now that contingent, which I call the Media, and the Left Street has their panties all twisted up to a much greater degree over an immigrant ban than any of the many War Crimes perpetrated by there so called liberal enlightened Constitutional scholar so called “leader”. And yes, thankfully Scahill reported on these very crimes.
Are you unaware that Jeremy Scahill — whom you profess to esteem — is the author of the above article?
Of course I am aware of the author. He is also well aware of the phenomena of which I speak. That a Democrat president can frequently be given a pass on obnoxious policies and actions. It is a strange form of hypocrisy, and one can ask why it took Trump getting elected for the Left to wake up? It is a serious question. On the other hand Trump with his years of bat crazy Birther crap is well deserving of the heat he is getting.
I know it’s tough, but try and expand your mind just a bit. We can abhor Obama’s actions in the middle east, and feel that they were a vast violation or international law and DEEPLY immoral, while still believing that Trump, with his deeply impulsive nature and incredibly shallow intellect is a tool for a new American authoritarian regime – and that his absolute contempt for the law marks a far more dangerous threat to the world.
ShaunMarie, it is a matter of perspective and balance. Far worse crimes were committed by Obama but suffered less criticism from the media and the leftest street. I agree Trump is scary but I am at least hoping he will be less scary than war mongering HRC and here apparent collaboration with the Deep State to restart the Cold War with Russia.
He is a monster surrounded by same. It’s entirely possible he won’t obey court orders, which would mean we will have a literal regime and dictatorship.
The country was going to be fucked either way, but Hillary — whom I did not support — is at least competent. No one doubts she would have obeyed the courts. A far-right racist with no idea how to govern, who has the nuclear codes as well as the armed agents of the state behind him, and who refuses to accept court orders, is fucking petrifying.
Do you value Medicaid? That’s likely to go.
“It’s entirely possible he won’t obey court orders, which would mean we will have a literal regime and dictatorship.”
With all those librul judges, who can blame him …
At least Trump made sure Kim Kardashian didn’t smuggle any Muslims in on her plane. The SWAT-style raid on her plane is what people can expect if you say mean things on twitter about The Donald.
This guy opposes prosecuting people who torture.
I really don’t care how many smoke and mirror arguments he has after that.
Mr. Trump’s approach won’t work, but to be fair, Mr. Soufan’s approach didn’t really work either. And Mr. Trump’s approach which consists of grandstanding and bloviating, is much more politically popular. Americans love a bully and Mr. Trump fits the bill. Targeting the most defenseless individuals from the politically weakest countries isn’t designed to solve a problem, but to energize Mr. Trump’s supporters. Implementing it in the most disruptive way possible was all part of the plan.
Actually Americans love an actor. The overused word “bully” has to go as those who use it most themselves to as the target of that word nearly always. Americans love “my way or the highway” types. “We came, he died” didn’t even register on the minds of the same who would themselves condemn ANYTHING the blowhard Trump says out of reflex.
Want to actually nudge a person’s perspective? Try to explain your biasing without crapping all over the life experiences that brought them to theirs.
No. Why should I want to change anyone else’s perspective? I could do it, but then the world would be much less entertaining.
Was $10mil in the coffers of ACLU last weekend part of that plan?
Mr. Trump thrives on conflict. He was probably hoping they would raise more than $10M, but I’m confident that Mr. Trump will be able to create some new outrage and help them raise more money.
Perhaps it’s so, he revels in confrontation still, I’m in no mood for hugs it’s why I already forked out the day after he got elected.
Jeremy, have followed you, read (and bought) your books, for years now. I have several points here: 1) #45 and his cabal don’t like Muslims, liberals, the media, Jews, Asians–particularly the Chinese, gay people, progressives, Democrats, etc., etc.; 2) these people earnestly believe in the trope “war is good for the economy”–especially for their buddies in the fossil fuel and munitions businesses; and 3) they believe in genetics and eugenics. Bannon and Trump both have admitted they want to ‘shake things up’, but what they really want is a culling of the human herd. So war is for them a good thing, as are protest marches, law suits and published outcries. These are distractions, mere mosquito bites, and serve to make the adversaries visible. These pirates look to Krupp and Thyssen, thinking, hell they survived the Nazis, so will we. In this sense, they KNOW global warming is a fact, but it just serves their ultimate purpose of reshaping the world. You may think I’m overstating this, but I’m convinced that this is how these people think.