@MattSingh1 The U.S. and Israel are the ONLY 2 countries in the U.N. (2 verses 144), that don't want a resolution for Palestine. If you think that the U.S. and Israel are the only sane countries in the entire world then you're a fucking retard.
Israel is the mercenary state of the U.S. to help us control the resources in the Arab world. We need conflict with Palestine to keep them dependent on us. This is a manufactured problem that could just be resolved.
@sk8tafrnk I'm not entirely, or even partially, sure why you're mentioning the Israel/Palestine Question, but can only assume you're one of the anti-war/MoveOn.org masochist type, like Goodman. I agree Israel is stripping those in The Gaza of their right, but that doesn't mean Iran has the right to go nuclear, or those foreign Jihad terrorists in Iraq have the right to murder girls that want an education. I suggest a little less Michael Moore, and more Christopher Hitchens..
@MattSingh1 Iran is building (allegedly) a nuclear program because we're threatening them. So we threaten them more. We could extinguish this problem now if we wanted, but we don't. We want an excuse to attack.
You see, Arabs hate the U.S. because of all the fucked up things we do to them. We're culturing that violence. The Pentagon determined this in DSB Report in 2004. It's an unclassified document available on the Pentagon website.
@sk8tafrnk (1) Iran has no right to go nuclear; I suggest you re-read, or read, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. (2) "Iran is building (allegedly) a nuclear program because we're threatening them. So we threaten them more." So, it's the US's fault the leaders of Iran murder and repress their own population? Talk sense.. (3) The 'fucked up things we do to them'? Like liberating million in Afghanistan and Iraq? Like fighting Fascist Islam that has murdered thousands of fellow Muslims? (cont)-
@MattSingh1 I'm not defending Iran's actions. I'm saying, obviously there will be a point where we'll have to attack them. At this point, there's less violent alternatives and we should pursue them. There's several people who address this, including an IAEA member from the former administration. I'll link to them if you want.
If we have liberated so many people, then why do Arabs hate the U.S. so much? Look at Arab opinion polls? You think if we helped them they'd like us.
@sk8tafrnk It's my view that Israel could not, and should not, attack Iran's reactors like they did with Osirak reactor in '81. I also do not favour attacks on Iran per-se, but rather supporting it's uprising, ala Libya. The IAEA has little credibility on these issues; Blix certified North Korea as kosher, for one example. Also, the CIA is of the same ilk; it's beyond reform, and needs to be torn-down and rebuilt. Remember, the CIA, in '89, warned that (cont..)
@sk8tafrnk ..(cont) the Soviet Union was a growing economic and military power. In regards to opinion polls in the Arab world, that’s actually not the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan; troops we greeted the length and breadth of Iraq upon the intervention in 2003. In Afghanistan, 50% of the population (women) now have the right to vote, be educated and essentially, live. I assume you prefer Taliban rule to what there is now, which immoral masochism as you’re never likely to live like that.
@MattSingh1 In regards to mentioning the Soviet Union, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Can be more specific on that in particular and I'll respond if I can.
In regards to everything else, our Pentagon/ government explains a completely different story than what you have said in both leaked classified documents and unclassified documents.
Are you implying that the CIA has little credibility as you claim the IAEA does. And if so, what is a more credible research/intelligence agency that we should actually be listening to?
Well I'm going to go to bed here. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. If you respond I'll get back to you after I get home from work and all that crap.
@sk8tafrnk ...(cont) (4) Yes, the US and others have been on the wrong side of history in the region, such as supplying weapons for the Al-Anfal campaign of genocide, such as the overthrow of the Iranian democratic government in the 50s so US oil companies could control the oil flow, but now, finally, the US is on the right side of history. I support this positive policy change of supporting democracy and over-throwing dictators. Obviously some preferred it the other way around.
I brought up the Israel/ Palestine conflict for several reason. One, it's been central to everything that's going on there in many different ways. For one, Britain breaking up Transjordan to take control of the resources over there is kind of the start of all of this.
Also, it demonstrates how the U.S. leaves/ creates bad situations over there as long as they benefit us/ don't affect us negatively.
@MEpianist Amy gave that bald douche the fucking death glare after Matthews asked him that stupid question about Mel Gibson after she gave that heated response about kids dying and both countries using terroristic tactics.
i love it, chris asks how many people think mel gibsons anti-semitic remarks are more important than the war in the middle east... nobodies says anything except the guy who says, "msnbc does".
I want to party crash with Amy Goodman. I can’t wait to see her in the new political documentary “Programming the Nation.” Her interviews are always can’t miss stuff.
i hate seeing this.. Amy is so stupid.. you have to fight against its the only way... he is right and this stupid amy goodman needs to shut her mouth.., she is playing a very good act .. voices of peace !! HA! she is so stupid im proud to fight.. remember 911 people and remember that we have to fight for the way we live
@taledarkside She really does, and I still say her face could benefit from a dent puller. Also, she should color her hair. If hair coloring for women offends her feminist sensibilities, I suggest a product called Just For Men. With that, she could strike a blow for women's equality while becoming less of an eyesore on TV.
@Elmore3141 Oh here you are again! Polluting every video with Amy in it using your limited wits. You're definitely getting paid for this aye you dirty little monkey :) I'm onto you mr sneaky
Smerconnish is just pandering to infotainers in Cable and it's shameless even to bring up Mel Gibson .. and unfortunately the pro Israel amen crowd on Cable , which is 99.9% gets REAL REAL uncomfortable daring to say Israel is doing ANYTHING wrong ,why Matthews gets nervous and interrupts when Israel is brought up .
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with left and right, as if that has anything to do with war. She is right in what she says. Does it really matter whether she is left or right?
Both socialism and capitalism are legit ideologies and can be executed brilliantly, but we have to get rid of the corporations running politics. Ron Paul, for example, is very very conservative, yet I like him as a politician (me being on the left). We need less corruption - not a left vs right war.
Its amazing to watch how uncomfortable Chris Matthews becomes when somebody talks about real issues instead of the stupid mindless fluff that fills his show every fucking day. Day after day. His god damn show is a worthless distraction from real shit that matters. Fuck Matthews and all the talking heads that make people the U.S stupid. Hey everyone lets talk about Sarah Palin for 15 min on every show all week long. Matthews little talk is as worthless as a rusty nickle.
I wish Lebanon didn't fire any rockets since they didn't kill anyone anyway; it just provides ammunition for Israel to bomb civilians. After the Israeli invasion was over, their blatant aggression would have been that much more evident.
The entire war was begun because 2 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped accross the line?...Smerconish: is he a moron, or just a good self-promoter for work in mass media?
while i respect the work that amy does, she often appears to me a bit aggressive and sensationalist. aggressive in interview-situations like this and sensationalist in some of the interviews she does on DN!.
for instance with a woman she recently had on the show who would've faced circumcision upon deportation to her home country and it's mentioned like 2-3 times before amy still asks her to explicitly state what would've been done to her.
and every couple of shows there's something like that.
That's a valid point, but I'm sure the professional standard of preparing the person you're interviewing for what you're going to talk/ask about and focus on. I saw that interview, circumcision is not the right word. Female gentile mutilation is the more appropriate term. Sometimes you have to be explicit to really get the point across. Especially when the issues she discusses are often shrouded by misinformation or ignorance.
@Lamenthatic well, i would agree on the fact that you have to be explicit (and i would even say always, not just sometimes) but that is not what this is about... repeating disturbing things multiple times and make the person interviewed repeat facts that were already established is not necessary to get a point across, it is purely exploitative.
I love Amy but I wish she would make more appeals to logic and history considering her vast knowledge. When the guy condemned Hezbollah and says its Israel's fault those fifty civilians died Amy should have pointed out that the only reason Hezbollah exists and does what it does is because it is the only defense against the terror tactics of Israel, which have torn that country up since 1982. Put things in context and don't operate within the propaganda framework that idiots like this guy do!
She could have. But for the audience who are insensitive to facts, it's a waste of 15 seconds that could be used for headliners which are easier for MSNBC's audience to grasp. She did however make that point in almost all her speeches, David Barsamian conversations and to my knowledge, atleast once on radio interviews in Oregon and NY stations.
For anyone who is interested in an ethical and intellectual dialogue about war, read: "Just and Unjust Wars" from Michael Waltzer. It is a seminal text that is reflective of, and enshrined in international law surrounding the constitution of war. It also discusses of the notion of 'aggression.' GO AMY!
the iraq war is undoubtedly a violation of the UN charter and UN 1483 does not deal with this violation in any way. all you guys have to do is look up "UN Charter" on wiki or google and read what it says. WE WROTE the UN Charter, basically. doesnt that mean we should follow it
1483 called upon member states to support the new regime financially, called for trials of the saddam regime, calls for member nations to assist the occupying powers and notes that the occupying powers are working under the authorization of the UN. It was regarded in the Security council as the codification of the Iraq War by the UN body. Sorry you missed it.
In an earlier comment you stated that the codification made the war legal (both of them actually). you're still yet to prove this. codification doesn't mean "made legal." don't be sorry i missed it, there's nothing to miss about your bullshit, its quite apparent
yeah sorry your justification doesnt work. the UN charter says unambiguously that aggressive war is the supreme crime. the US found no WMD's and saddam had no connections to al qaeda, meaning we invaded without a pretext of self-defense. under UN law, even wars to bring "democracy" are illegal and considered aggressive war. i think you should study the laws our country was responsible for writing (the UN charter) a bit more, if you're to claim you hold american values dear
If a pre existing state of war existed, as it did in Iraq (America was under cease fire) how was this an "aggressive war"? Typically you're pulling the parts of the law you want and using them without acknowledging the previous state of war. America had a pre existing state of war with Iraq and a cease fire signed on condition that Iraq (by judgement of the United States) complied with all UN resolutions, they did not.
that's the crucial part: "by the judgment of the united states." that's not up to the US to decide, especially if you believe in international law - which we basically wrote, by the way. it's up to the UN to judge. its ME that's pulling parts of laws i want to justify my beliefs? that's you.
the US had no justification for invasion: no threats from WMDs, no link to al-qaeda. bush admitted to both a year after the invasion, it's a matter of public record
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty". That's International law, right? Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687, right? So the cease fire was suspended legally under Int law. No war crime there...
As for a "war of aggression", it's up to the UN Security council to pass a resolution declaring that an actor has entered into one according to the "definition of Aggression" passed in the 29th session of the UN, 1974. Was any such resolution passed? So if it's up to the UN to declare that the US has committed a war of aggression and they did not find the need to.
OMG UN 1483 only acknowledged that the US and UK wre occupiers and now had responsibility, and also stopped the oil-for-food program since it was unnecessary.
stating that the US and the UK have responsibility doesnt mean the war was legitimate! the nuremburg laws: any war that is not one of self-defense is illegal and the supreme crime. we wrote that law by the way.
UN 1483 does not affect the status of our breaking the nuremburg laws.
1483 deals with transferring control of finanacces from iraq's oil wealth fro the UN to the provisional govt. since they might as well since the US controls iraq now.
1483 also called for oil expenditures (which it dealt with) to be for the benefit of iraqi people and to be in an open and transparent way. well, the US violated 1483 on both counts then and it's being audited now.
you should be honest enough to say what UN 1483 actually refers to.
the security council is also the one that passed UN 1483. the security council represents only the rich and powerful nations, like china and russia and europe. that's why they passsed it through there. if it had been put to vote in the rest of the UN, it would've failed miserably.
if you think that an undemocratic and unrepresentative body like the security council counts as legitimate support from the world, i question your understanding of democracy and international law
you leave something out though. we don't have the right to make aggressive war. the UN gives the right to wage war, but only in defense. you can't invade a country unless you want to destroy military capability which threatens your territory and citizens.
north korea is still in a "state of war" with south korea and the US. is it ok for north korea to terminate it as they wish and bomb the US and south korea? they actually have prety good justification for that course of action accordin to u
Wow, ok. Declare war on America, send the Italian army to invade Texas and I'll send my daughter's soccer team to force their surrender. European armies are a joke, you must first have power to use it. Long ago your people sacrificed any real power for a welfare state. BTW, the US Congress authorized force in Afghanistan and Iraq (found to be a declaration of war in the courts) on Sept 14, 200/ Oct 16 2002. The UN codified them both making both legal.
You are correct about military tribunals, but only about half correct, the Courts said we must use the same format as a military courts martial, not that tribunals were illegal or that they as an entity violate Geneva. In fact Geneva supports the use of military courts for this purpose. The courts questioned the format, not their existence overall.
You are 100% correct about the Federal Reserve though. and fascism
American Imperialism? We've never colonized. Can your country make that claim?
You've never colonized? What do you call your country all the way to California (remember those indians), Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philipines, and you're the biggest coroporation colonizer ever. Just a new name with the same functions as the old European colonizers. About European armies... They're a joke because we don't have them.. it would be about time we built em up said fuck usa. Our army would be unstoppable eastern europe plus western.. haha
Thats not true. The UN declared the war in Iraq illegal. The US never set up colonies in other countries for US citizens, but we have more soldiers based around the world than any other country. We've also smothered the democratic movements of many nations, choosing to empower more US friendly brutal dictators. I have no idea where you get your facts.
UN resolution 1483, codified the Iraq War in the eyes of the UN and authorized full UN involvement, so are they then participating in an "illegal" war?
UN res. 1483 did a few things: authorized a transnational council of iraqis; removed sanctions against iraq; and made the US and UK responsible for peacekeeping in iraq. it DID NOT declare the war legal. i think you should account for this before i reply to any more of your baseless comments.
I like the American people in general. But I despise your Foreign Affairs politics and government. I despise your Capitalism your Corporations.. I despise your war on terrorism which is along with 9/11 one big hoax. I despise your Rockefellers. I despise your talking about democracy when you are nothing but a growing fascist state. I despise your criticism of humanitarian issues of other countries when, in fact, you are even worse. Terrorism is not the danger today, it's American Imperialism.
As an american 111robinhood, I couldn't agree more. i also appreciate you're taking the time to separate the American people from our problems, thats very generous and we probably wouldn't do that for anyone else. the old america no longer exists.
Thanks. Yes I love American people. And the American public are being deceived by the media, the administrationa and presidents. The people have no true representation. And the president is owned by banks and corporations. Presidents are sworn in to protect the Constitution. Well it is unconstitutional and illegal to pay income tax on wages in America, and yet it is tolerated! People have no say and presidents insult people's intelligence when they pretend to be for justice when they are not.
You say all you are concerned is with the law? You sound a like self righteous American. Your Bush declares war on terrorism which is constitutionally illegal because it is not a specific target. Your foreign affairs politics is all about oil and rampant Capitalism. American concepts of Democracy is hypocrisy. You talk about Saddam and his WMD, but America used chemical weapons during the Vietnam war and which vietnamese are still born crippled thanks to your American democracy. Hypocrisy again.
And before you criticise Communist dictatorships run by death squads, look to your own American backyard and tell me whether Guantanama Bay concentration camps where hundreds of innocent prisoners were tortured was justifiable? Of course not. It was illegal and had no justification. It was a ploy to create the illusion of a war on terrorism. A brilliant show of democracy and humanitarian concepts by the US.
Are you kidding? Firstly, the prison camp in Guantanamo is full of people captured on the battlefield, not people who the regime just didn't agree with, and it is legal according to the Geneva convention. As is (despite hyperbole) America's treatment of non uniformed military combatants according to 4th Geneva and the Yugoslav Int. Criminal tribunal. As for "torture", while waterboarding is distasteful it pales in comparison to methods used routinely by european govts today.
Sorry, but Goodman is a fool. Negotiate with a group that has never once honored a negotiation or ceasefire? Negotiate with a group that announced they had no intention of honoring the last ceasefire and launched attacks the day it began? An organization that has as one of it's goals the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy throughout the region? That's a fools errand. Like always she doesn't want peace, she wants our surrender.
Hezbollah was born when Israel invaded Lebanon and Israel still occupy a part of Lebanon. While Americans may consider Hezbollah as terrorists, the Lebanese see them as freedom fighters. And Israel is a terrorist state ever since it was conceived! Do you call displacing and murdering Palestinians as not terrorist acts? Do you not consider the CIA as a terrorist organization sponsored by the President? The CIA has murdered millions of civilians and supported brutal dictaors. Look at Nicaragua!
So much misinformation, first it was the British and the UN that "displaced" the former Syrian/ Egyptians/ Iraqis in the region of Palestine, and they were granted a separate Muslim state at the same time- Jordan. Israel was formed in peace- then attacked by every Muslim country in the region.
As for Nicaragua, it was run by a Communist dictatorship backed by the Soviets that had death squads murdering the people and stealing their property, we should always resist that.
I don't have time to send you lists of American/CIA illegal involvements in South American countries where the people had elected democraticaly their leaders. You know as well as I that America should not be interfering in any countries. America has supported brutal dictatorships for their own interests! Known fact! It's for the people to decide whether they want communism, socialism or whatever! It's not for America to resist anything! Her CIA has supported terrorism so stop being hypocritical.
That's a hard demand to make given the fact that the sandinistas were supported by the entire eastern bloc, soviet satellites and Cuba. So dozens of hostile countries intervene and finance the overthrow of the govt expressly for the purpose of damaging the US and they are supposed to do nothing? True, they supported the dictatorship, but didn't you just say they shouldn't interfere? They decided to intervene after foreign countries sponsored a coup and started causing instability in the region.
By comparison, 240 people are held in Gitmo. Nicaragua routinely held more than 20,000 people in their political prison system, real torture was common place, and there were absolutely no civil rights. Their gulags were larger than any in our hemisphere than any other than their police state sponsor Cuba.
In June 2006, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter stated that the arrests of most of the roughly 500 prisoners held there were based on "the flimsiest sort of hearsay".[158] In September 2006, the UK's Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who heads the UK's legal system, went further than previous British government statements, condemning the existence of the camp as a "shocking affront to democracy".
I agree with you that the sandinistas were supported by Eastern bloc countries. Ok? But, I think it's time that America should be concerned with the negative image that they are producing today. I don't like all this talk about fighting world terrorism which to me is an excuse for imperialistic expansion. First it was the "commies" now its Islamic fundamentalism. I am probably not knowledgeable about politcs as you, but my gut feelings tell me that it is all about oil and corporation interests.
I don't really care what Arlen Specter or some unelected English Noble thinks, all I'm concerned with is the law, by law the US has the right to hold those people 'til the end of the conflict, and by law the US can consider them spies or sappers since they were caught committing acts of terror and not in uniform. Which means that literally we could summarily execute every single one and it'd be perfectly legal. The Afghan war was perfectly legal, Iraq was 70/30 due to the existing state of war.
In addition the perfect test of your oil theory happened in 2003, according to int law the US and Britain actually had a legal right to use Iraqi oil revenues or to even tax the Iraqi public to pay their expenses (Article 49 of the Hague Regulations), did they? No, in fact they signed on to UN Resolution 1483 which guaranteed Iraqi control of their own resources.
And most of the "so called" prisoners of war are INNOCENT! And I say that the MAJORITY of them are innocent! Now maybe you don't give a damn about a FBI official who said that many of them shouldn't even be there! Now we are talking about hundreds of innocents being locked up for several years and being tortured by your so called American Justice! If America is so proud of her camps I wonder why Obama wants to close them down? Change of heart? Of course! Public and International pressure!
You mean to say that Afghanistan and Iraq are both sovereign states and America is justified in attacking them? Afghan war was never legal and justified! If you WANT to prat on about American concepts of legality, then I will give you some. The CIA is the largest and most powerful terrorist organization in the world. And by that, America is a terrorist state along with Israel. Therefore, I declare a war on terrorism against the US. Got the picture! And legality? Americans are hypocrites.
You are concerned about law? Really? I don't think so. Let me be blunt. It was illegal for Bush to decalre war on terrorism, only congress could do that. The Federal Reserve is a private bank which is illegal constitutionally. Concerning Guantanamo, the Supreme Court of the United States found that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.
you don't know anything about US or international law. The US has detained people from all over the world, most of which were never caught doing anything, most of which have already been proven innocent (by a complete lack of evidence on the part of the government) but will not be set free due to fears of retribution. we could not execute anyone without a proper trial. did you know that there is a juvenile in gitmo who's been there for 4 years, he's believed to have been 12 upon his detention
Geez, here we go again. According to the Geneva Convention "non uniformed combatants" captured on the battlefield can be held until the end of the conflict and at the discretion of the capturing nation. So where's the violation? They need no more evidence than the word of a soldier.
Juveniles in Gitmo? According to the UN that juvenile committed grenade attacks on soldiers, do we then just give him back to the Taliban so they can hand him more grenades?
where's the battlefield? by your logic the battlefield must be the entire world. alot of these people were taken out of their homes because someone told our intelligence agents something (also known as hearsay). you're assuming these people are combatants but by your definition of combatant you could be a combatant, more likely i could because i disagree. should i be detained because i'm calling bullshit? that question's rhetorical, i don't need an answer
you don't know anything about law, you're all hot air, making up shit left and right...thanks for the laugh though, i'm sure most people on here enjoy this as much as i do.
actually, bbrou17 happens to be quoting Nuremburg and UN laws and also the opinion of the whole world. UN resolution 1483 and others like it contradict the founding principles of the UN and Nuremburg tribunal. do we accept any law just bc it's passed here in the US, even if it violates our constitution?
your acceptance of legal code written by the likes of John Yoo and other bush lawyers is quite astonishing and shows a willingness to support the actions of the powerful, right or wrong
why not hold the juveniles in the US, not gitmo? gitmo is known to not be applicable to US or cuban law, which means we can do whatever we want there. that's explicit. "whatever we want" means torture. even if it were true that gitmo detainees are really criminals, why are we holding them in a no-law zone like gitmo instead of US prisons? we brought italian and german POW's back to the US, why not gitmo detainees?
,,,,If you talking about living in the 21 first century thin old lady get a comb out and a dye job ,,,yes warhorse I mean this in a good way lady .....
i love how right when the discussion actually gets some momentum and starts covering real issues, at 6 minutes, he asks about mel gibson. anyone who thinks that the mainstream media covers issues we need to know about is blinded. agree with amy goodman or not, at least she covers topics that need to be addressed.
Amy Goodman is a hypocrite. She says nothing about Tibet, which shows she's a communist. She also says n othing about Darfur. She even had a Sudanese professor on her show claiming that Darfur was a Western driven farce. She is so hypocritical it's sick. She is obviously not about human rights, being she ignores the worst genocides in the world today: Tibet, Darfur
........i know show she is ??? just listen to her you can talk all you want matthew,s has a dog in this also and that,s to bad This Woman is the same persom as Patty S , code pink nut job she loves Donahue also ,he,s a nice guy speaks from the hart but but is off the mark...,,,ob2nob-- that,s nice to say,,did you forget the last 3 letters in your name------ ,,,j o b
lol, not sure if anyone understood Amy. they sure as hell didnt respond to any point she put out. cant respect ppl who dodge the issues for Mel Gibson gossip.
1-Israel did not give up Sinai when they signed the peace treaty with Egypt, they did so years after when they were involved in a new war in Lebanon.
2- Israel never tried to negotiate with "fanatic Muslims". In fact, if you look into Israel's previous negotiations with the Palestinians (PLO, no extremists), there was never an offer than proposed a just solution where the compromise on the Palestinian side wasn't relatively greater.
Proof of Israel's sincerity in seeking peace: Giving the huge Sinai peninsula that is very rich in oil, back to Egypt to make peace - although it was Egypt who attacked Israel. With Egypt and Jordan it worked fine, because they are not clergy-ruled countries.
It has been our painful experience that the more you try to negotiate with fanatic Muslims, the more they read you as fearful and weak, and the more murderous they become.
damn shes sick much respect amy
mothafakoo 1 week ago
Goodman is a typical anti-war masochist, carrying water for Fascist Islam.
MattSingh1 1 month ago
@MattSingh1 The U.S. and Israel are the ONLY 2 countries in the U.N. (2 verses 144), that don't want a resolution for Palestine. If you think that the U.S. and Israel are the only sane countries in the entire world then you're a fucking retard.
Israel is the mercenary state of the U.S. to help us control the resources in the Arab world. We need conflict with Palestine to keep them dependent on us. This is a manufactured problem that could just be resolved.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
@sk8tafrnk I'm not entirely, or even partially, sure why you're mentioning the Israel/Palestine Question, but can only assume you're one of the anti-war/MoveOn.org masochist type, like Goodman. I agree Israel is stripping those in The Gaza of their right, but that doesn't mean Iran has the right to go nuclear, or those foreign Jihad terrorists in Iraq have the right to murder girls that want an education. I suggest a little less Michael Moore, and more Christopher Hitchens..
MattSingh1 3 days ago
@MattSingh1 Iran is building (allegedly) a nuclear program because we're threatening them. So we threaten them more. We could extinguish this problem now if we wanted, but we don't. We want an excuse to attack.
You see, Arabs hate the U.S. because of all the fucked up things we do to them. We're culturing that violence. The Pentagon determined this in DSB Report in 2004. It's an unclassified document available on the Pentagon website.
I don't really watch Michael Moore or Hitchens.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
@sk8tafrnk (1) Iran has no right to go nuclear; I suggest you re-read, or read, the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. (2) "Iran is building (allegedly) a nuclear program because we're threatening them. So we threaten them more." So, it's the US's fault the leaders of Iran murder and repress their own population? Talk sense.. (3) The 'fucked up things we do to them'? Like liberating million in Afghanistan and Iraq? Like fighting Fascist Islam that has murdered thousands of fellow Muslims? (cont)-
MattSingh1 3 days ago
@MattSingh1 I'm not defending Iran's actions. I'm saying, obviously there will be a point where we'll have to attack them. At this point, there's less violent alternatives and we should pursue them. There's several people who address this, including an IAEA member from the former administration. I'll link to them if you want.
If we have liberated so many people, then why do Arabs hate the U.S. so much? Look at Arab opinion polls? You think if we helped them they'd like us.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
@sk8tafrnk It's my view that Israel could not, and should not, attack Iran's reactors like they did with Osirak reactor in '81. I also do not favour attacks on Iran per-se, but rather supporting it's uprising, ala Libya. The IAEA has little credibility on these issues; Blix certified North Korea as kosher, for one example. Also, the CIA is of the same ilk; it's beyond reform, and needs to be torn-down and rebuilt. Remember, the CIA, in '89, warned that (cont..)
MattSingh1 3 days ago
@sk8tafrnk ..(cont) the Soviet Union was a growing economic and military power. In regards to opinion polls in the Arab world, that’s actually not the case in both Iraq and Afghanistan; troops we greeted the length and breadth of Iraq upon the intervention in 2003. In Afghanistan, 50% of the population (women) now have the right to vote, be educated and essentially, live. I assume you prefer Taliban rule to what there is now, which immoral masochism as you’re never likely to live like that.
MattSingh1 3 days ago
@MattSingh1 In regards to mentioning the Soviet Union, I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. Can be more specific on that in particular and I'll respond if I can.
In regards to everything else, our Pentagon/ government explains a completely different story than what you have said in both leaked classified documents and unclassified documents.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
@MattSingh1 [second message]
Are you implying that the CIA has little credibility as you claim the IAEA does. And if so, what is a more credible research/intelligence agency that we should actually be listening to?
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
@MattSingh1 [third message]
Well I'm going to go to bed here. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me. If you respond I'll get back to you after I get home from work and all that crap.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
@sk8tafrnk ...(cont) (4) Yes, the US and others have been on the wrong side of history in the region, such as supplying weapons for the Al-Anfal campaign of genocide, such as the overthrow of the Iranian democratic government in the 50s so US oil companies could control the oil flow, but now, finally, the US is on the right side of history. I support this positive policy change of supporting democracy and over-throwing dictators. Obviously some preferred it the other way around.
MattSingh1 3 days ago
@MattSingh1 [Second message]
I brought up the Israel/ Palestine conflict for several reason. One, it's been central to everything that's going on there in many different ways. For one, Britain breaking up Transjordan to take control of the resources over there is kind of the start of all of this.
Also, it demonstrates how the U.S. leaves/ creates bad situations over there as long as they benefit us/ don't affect us negatively.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
She's awesome... need more of her on Hardball
MEpianist 2 months ago
@MEpianist Amy gave that bald douche the fucking death glare after Matthews asked him that stupid question about Mel Gibson after she gave that heated response about kids dying and both countries using terroristic tactics.
sk8tafrnk 3 days ago
Amy Goodman is a nice woman, but she is very naive. The Islamists will cut off her head while chanting allah is great. Why? Because Amy is Jewish.
Seekthetruth3000 2 months ago
@Seekthetruth3000 Muslims are tolerant to Jewish people.
treehuggerdude4 2 months ago
i love it, chris asks how many people think mel gibsons anti-semitic remarks are more important than the war in the middle east... nobodies says anything except the guy who says, "msnbc does".
'democracy now' is real news.
tomitstube 3 months ago
"AMERICA'S DARK SECRETS" DOCUMENTARY POSTED. SUBSCRIBE & CLICK LIKE. SHARE WITH ALL YOUR CONTACTS. BE BLESSED.
kbrummell 4 months ago
I want to party crash with Amy Goodman. I can’t wait to see her in the new political documentary “Programming the Nation.” Her interviews are always can’t miss stuff.
jasonmontes1492 5 months ago
Amy Goodman is the only one who makes sense. The entire media is so biased and sold to corporate interests. It never reflects the real world.
evarojas 6 months ago
I get the feeling Chris's eyes are just glazing over as Amy goes into the level of detail called for
sapper46123 7 months ago
I get the feeling Chris's eyes are just glazing over as Amy goes into the level of detail called for
sapper46123 7 months ago
ulgy old hippy lady
RudyKazoootie 7 months ago
i hate seeing this.. Amy is so stupid.. you have to fight against its the only way... he is right and this stupid amy goodman needs to shut her mouth.., she is playing a very good act .. voices of peace !! HA! she is so stupid im proud to fight.. remember 911 people and remember that we have to fight for the way we live
USMCimproudtofight 7 months ago
We need more like Amy Goodman!! She tells it like it is. She is a REAL journalist. Keep up the great work you're doing, Amy.
peterpotpie 7 months ago
Rachel Maddow could learn a lot about journalism from Amy Goodman.
rohgenextfan 7 months ago 2
lion heart - wow what an human being ... GREAT
pseudonymuser 8 months ago
Amy your my hero!!
SLINGSHOTandMOLOTOWS 8 months ago
elitist lying bitch, parasitic money whore, genetically flawed, non-productive childless know nothing
brahmbhattbhavna 9 months ago
@brahmbhattbhavna you are a lepton. shes not getting paid to say what shes saying. fucking z-mind douchelipped manuremuncher.
JulietsMan 7 months ago
she is a genetic misfit
brahmbhattbhavna 9 months ago
@brahmbhattbhavna self-hating closet crossdressing pedophilic carnie!
JulietsMan 7 months ago
Amy is talking about peace, this guy is talking about why they have to kill more children in the region. What an asshole.
UighurKnight 11 months ago
Amy Goodman didn't go to Egypt because she was afraid Far Rosen would make fun of her if she got raped.
rachelgolem 11 months ago
amy looks like a stupid white trash liberal
taledarkside 11 months ago
@taledarkside She really does, and I still say her face could benefit from a dent puller. Also, she should color her hair. If hair coloring for women offends her feminist sensibilities, I suggest a product called Just For Men. With that, she could strike a blow for women's equality while becoming less of an eyesore on TV.
Elmore3141 10 months ago
@Elmore3141 what difference does her looks make? it has no bearing at all on what she says.
JulietsMan 7 months ago
@taledarkside coward foreskineater
JulietsMan 7 months ago
@JulietsMan
oh wow, you hurt me there.
must be a dumb sheep that has nothing intellectual to say.
taledarkside 7 months ago
@taledarkside intlkshual?? what meen
JulietsMan 7 months ago
Amy's face could benefit from one of those dent pullers I've seen advertised on TV.
Elmore3141 11 months ago
@Elmore3141 Oh here you are again! Polluting every video with Amy in it using your limited wits. You're definitely getting paid for this aye you dirty little monkey :) I'm onto you mr sneaky
papapetad 10 months ago
This shit's so fucked up... turn off your tele's kids.
xjtbarnesx 1 year ago
fuck mel gibson
TheCorporationsWorst 1 year ago
Now this is WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT!! REAL MEDIA
gregruz45 1 year ago
@gregruz45 fuck yeah
TheCorporationsWorst 1 year ago
Smerconnish is just pandering to infotainers in Cable and it's shameless even to bring up Mel Gibson .. and unfortunately the pro Israel amen crowd on Cable , which is 99.9% gets REAL REAL uncomfortable daring to say Israel is doing ANYTHING wrong ,why Matthews gets nervous and interrupts when Israel is brought up .
franz909 1 year ago
So that's what happens when MSNBC meets a journalist. No wonder they don't have any.
ILIKESFLAN 1 year ago 2
Oh for GOD'S SAKE, who gives a shit what Mel Gibson said in a DRUNKEN STUPOR?
19Truth53 1 year ago
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with left and right, as if that has anything to do with war. She is right in what she says. Does it really matter whether she is left or right?
Both socialism and capitalism are legit ideologies and can be executed brilliantly, but we have to get rid of the corporations running politics. Ron Paul, for example, is very very conservative, yet I like him as a politician (me being on the left). We need less corruption - not a left vs right war.
kioskvaltare 1 year ago
Amy's a fruit
WonderBread006 1 year ago
they were so busted :P
FlyingFish112 1 year ago
amy goodman and john pilger best journelists ever
dazzie8304 1 year ago
This woman is fucking brillient if only more journelists were like her and john pilger
dazzie8304 1 year ago 2
Amy Goodman is a heroic woman, my love and respect to Amy.....
myonlyfascination 1 year ago 2
Poor Amy, having to just stand there most of that time and endure all the mindless drivel about Mel Gibson.
johnmiles 1 year ago 2
Matthews has a lot of balls bringing an independent news host who hates corporate media on to his show.
GoldeneyePwner 1 year ago
Amy Goodman pwns. Arguably the best reporter in the US.
GoldeneyePwner 1 year ago 4
Its amazing to watch how uncomfortable Chris Matthews becomes when somebody talks about real issues instead of the stupid mindless fluff that fills his show every fucking day. Day after day. His god damn show is a worthless distraction from real shit that matters. Fuck Matthews and all the talking heads that make people the U.S stupid. Hey everyone lets talk about Sarah Palin for 15 min on every show all week long. Matthews little talk is as worthless as a rusty nickle.
realgoodscoobysnacks 1 year ago 7
Peace lol. You want peace convert to islam , eliminate the jews and the muslims will stop bombing you. Oh wait they wont.
shaqdaddy11 1 year ago
I wish Lebanon didn't fire any rockets since they didn't kill anyone anyway; it just provides ammunition for Israel to bomb civilians. After the Israeli invasion was over, their blatant aggression would have been that much more evident.
I love Amy Goodman!
shipmaker14 1 year ago 3
The entire war was begun because 2 Israeli soldiers were kidnapped accross the line?...Smerconish: is he a moron, or just a good self-promoter for work in mass media?
ElDukerino1 1 year ago
while i respect the work that amy does, she often appears to me a bit aggressive and sensationalist. aggressive in interview-situations like this and sensationalist in some of the interviews she does on DN!.
for instance with a woman she recently had on the show who would've faced circumcision upon deportation to her home country and it's mentioned like 2-3 times before amy still asks her to explicitly state what would've been done to her.
and every couple of shows there's something like that.
sh4dow83 1 year ago
@sh4dow83
That's a valid point, but I'm sure the professional standard of preparing the person you're interviewing for what you're going to talk/ask about and focus on. I saw that interview, circumcision is not the right word. Female gentile mutilation is the more appropriate term. Sometimes you have to be explicit to really get the point across. Especially when the issues she discusses are often shrouded by misinformation or ignorance.
Lamenthatic 1 year ago
@Lamenthatic well, i would agree on the fact that you have to be explicit (and i would even say always, not just sometimes) but that is not what this is about... repeating disturbing things multiple times and make the person interviewed repeat facts that were already established is not necessary to get a point across, it is purely exploitative.
sh4dow83 1 year ago
Amy opens a can of whoop ass.
EngineFuel 1 year ago 4
and by the way , hezbollah doesnt use people as human sheilds , israeli uses them and kill them to put pressure on hezbollah ,
a72ou7a 1 year ago
did you hear in the background the dude who said, "MSNBC does" lmao
goindownwitit 1 year ago 8
How much did they have to pay those idiots to cheer MSNBC's "birthday"? Sadly, I suspect the answer is nothing at all.
borjon23 1 year ago
'well uh gee sheesh y'all how'dya negotiate with folks who're doing all terrorist bomberings??'
MetaCraken 1 year ago
I love you Amy!
puppetsandicecream 1 year ago 2
Gotta love Amy Goodman!
herrrob14 1 year ago 2
Thank god for Democracy Now, and Amy Goodman kicks ass!
jasonliao2 1 year ago 7
@jasonliao2 they fail lol and are complete dumb asses
Dogmeat1950 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that womans like dog shit she's everywhere lol!
corvino21 1 year ago
I love Amy.
yournamehere954 1 year ago 3
I love Amy but I wish she would make more appeals to logic and history considering her vast knowledge. When the guy condemned Hezbollah and says its Israel's fault those fifty civilians died Amy should have pointed out that the only reason Hezbollah exists and does what it does is because it is the only defense against the terror tactics of Israel, which have torn that country up since 1982. Put things in context and don't operate within the propaganda framework that idiots like this guy do!
jseiter2 2 years ago 7
@jseiter2
She could have. But for the audience who are insensitive to facts, it's a waste of 15 seconds that could be used for headliners which are easier for MSNBC's audience to grasp. She did however make that point in almost all her speeches, David Barsamian conversations and to my knowledge, atleast once on radio interviews in Oregon and NY stations.
wisetraveller 1 year ago
Rock on Amy, if only all news and media could be like you and your honest, truthful words!
allybataille7 2 years ago 6
Good honest crowd. Corporate media is simply scum
kakompo 2 years ago 5
Amy is Da Shit! She is a true patriot, what a great human being!
1neomonkey 2 years ago 9
Fuck this clown! Fuck his producers too!!!
kawaramachi907 2 years ago
Amy Goodman is gangsta for putting MSNBC on blast for firing Phil Donahue due to his anti-war views.
DaUnderworld 2 years ago 48
good stuff Amy!
soundmoneyfan 2 years ago 37
For anyone who is interested in an ethical and intellectual dialogue about war, read: "Just and Unjust Wars" from Michael Waltzer. It is a seminal text that is reflective of, and enshrined in international law surrounding the constitution of war. It also discusses of the notion of 'aggression.' GO AMY!
EyeAdoreShame 2 years ago 3
I like the way she speaks.
PepsiPope 2 years ago 6
amy goodman, awesome !!
nwajeekranjana 2 years ago 7
I love Amy Goodman.
breedcancer2006 2 years ago 4
"Pop culture" says the man in the light blue shirt and the yellow tie... Yeah, ok.
applesmurfen 2 years ago
Amy Goodman speaks with knowledge and with an ethical conscience, which is the reason why she's infinitely more convincing.
dancebaby808 2 years ago 5
hats off amie , u should have debunked this moron twice as hard...
what da fuck has mel gibson to do with anything in this story....
ragnagna007 2 years ago 2
amy smoked this clown
houstonmm180 2 years ago 7
Too bad isreal created hezbollah...
jalex26000 2 years ago
Oh my god... I love Amy Goodman!
CorkyBuchik 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com thrtu
kodykodyoneill 2 years ago
the iraq war is undoubtedly a violation of the UN charter and UN 1483 does not deal with this violation in any way. all you guys have to do is look up "UN Charter" on wiki or google and read what it says. WE WROTE the UN Charter, basically. doesnt that mean we should follow it
boing3887 2 years ago 4
1483 called upon member states to support the new regime financially, called for trials of the saddam regime, calls for member nations to assist the occupying powers and notes that the occupying powers are working under the authorization of the UN. It was regarded in the Security council as the codification of the Iraq War by the UN body. Sorry you missed it.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
In an earlier comment you stated that the codification made the war legal (both of them actually). you're still yet to prove this. codification doesn't mean "made legal." don't be sorry i missed it, there's nothing to miss about your bullshit, its quite apparent
bbrou17 2 years ago
yeah sorry your justification doesnt work. the UN charter says unambiguously that aggressive war is the supreme crime. the US found no WMD's and saddam had no connections to al qaeda, meaning we invaded without a pretext of self-defense. under UN law, even wars to bring "democracy" are illegal and considered aggressive war. i think you should study the laws our country was responsible for writing (the UN charter) a bit more, if you're to claim you hold american values dear
boing3887 2 years ago
If a pre existing state of war existed, as it did in Iraq (America was under cease fire) how was this an "aggressive war"? Typically you're pulling the parts of the law you want and using them without acknowledging the previous state of war. America had a pre existing state of war with Iraq and a cease fire signed on condition that Iraq (by judgement of the United States) complied with all UN resolutions, they did not.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
that's the crucial part: "by the judgment of the united states." that's not up to the US to decide, especially if you believe in international law - which we basically wrote, by the way. it's up to the UN to judge. its ME that's pulling parts of laws i want to justify my beliefs? that's you.
the US had no justification for invasion: no threats from WMDs, no link to al-qaeda. bush admitted to both a year after the invasion, it's a matter of public record
boing3887 2 years ago
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that "a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty". That's International law, right? Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687, right? So the cease fire was suspended legally under Int law. No war crime there...
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
As for a "war of aggression", it's up to the UN Security council to pass a resolution declaring that an actor has entered into one according to the "definition of Aggression" passed in the 29th session of the UN, 1974. Was any such resolution passed? So if it's up to the UN to declare that the US has committed a war of aggression and they did not find the need to.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
OMG UN 1483 only acknowledged that the US and UK wre occupiers and now had responsibility, and also stopped the oil-for-food program since it was unnecessary.
stating that the US and the UK have responsibility doesnt mean the war was legitimate! the nuremburg laws: any war that is not one of self-defense is illegal and the supreme crime. we wrote that law by the way.
UN 1483 does not affect the status of our breaking the nuremburg laws.
boing3887 2 years ago
1483 deals with transferring control of finanacces from iraq's oil wealth fro the UN to the provisional govt. since they might as well since the US controls iraq now.
1483 also called for oil expenditures (which it dealt with) to be for the benefit of iraqi people and to be in an open and transparent way. well, the US violated 1483 on both counts then and it's being audited now.
you should be honest enough to say what UN 1483 actually refers to.
boing3887 2 years ago
the security council is also the one that passed UN 1483. the security council represents only the rich and powerful nations, like china and russia and europe. that's why they passsed it through there. if it had been put to vote in the rest of the UN, it would've failed miserably.
if you think that an undemocratic and unrepresentative body like the security council counts as legitimate support from the world, i question your understanding of democracy and international law
boing3887 2 years ago
you leave something out though. we don't have the right to make aggressive war. the UN gives the right to wage war, but only in defense. you can't invade a country unless you want to destroy military capability which threatens your territory and citizens.
north korea is still in a "state of war" with south korea and the US. is it ok for north korea to terminate it as they wish and bomb the US and south korea? they actually have prety good justification for that course of action accordin to u
boing3887 2 years ago
Wow, ok. Declare war on America, send the Italian army to invade Texas and I'll send my daughter's soccer team to force their surrender. European armies are a joke, you must first have power to use it. Long ago your people sacrificed any real power for a welfare state. BTW, the US Congress authorized force in Afghanistan and Iraq (found to be a declaration of war in the courts) on Sept 14, 200/ Oct 16 2002. The UN codified them both making both legal.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
You are correct about military tribunals, but only about half correct, the Courts said we must use the same format as a military courts martial, not that tribunals were illegal or that they as an entity violate Geneva. In fact Geneva supports the use of military courts for this purpose. The courts questioned the format, not their existence overall.
You are 100% correct about the Federal Reserve though. and fascism
American Imperialism? We've never colonized. Can your country make that claim?
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
You've never colonized? What do you call your country all the way to California (remember those indians), Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philipines, and you're the biggest coroporation colonizer ever. Just a new name with the same functions as the old European colonizers. About European armies... They're a joke because we don't have them.. it would be about time we built em up said fuck usa. Our army would be unstoppable eastern europe plus western.. haha
scottythesaint 2 years ago
Thats not true. The UN declared the war in Iraq illegal. The US never set up colonies in other countries for US citizens, but we have more soldiers based around the world than any other country. We've also smothered the democratic movements of many nations, choosing to empower more US friendly brutal dictators. I have no idea where you get your facts.
bbrou17 2 years ago
UN resolution 1483, codified the Iraq War in the eyes of the UN and authorized full UN involvement, so are they then participating in an "illegal" war?
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
UN res. 1483 did a few things: authorized a transnational council of iraqis; removed sanctions against iraq; and made the US and UK responsible for peacekeeping in iraq. it DID NOT declare the war legal. i think you should account for this before i reply to any more of your baseless comments.
bbrou17 2 years ago
I like the American people in general. But I despise your Foreign Affairs politics and government. I despise your Capitalism your Corporations.. I despise your war on terrorism which is along with 9/11 one big hoax. I despise your Rockefellers. I despise your talking about democracy when you are nothing but a growing fascist state. I despise your criticism of humanitarian issues of other countries when, in fact, you are even worse. Terrorism is not the danger today, it's American Imperialism.
111RobinHood 2 years ago 3
You are a blind fool... I wont even fire neurons in an attempt to manifest a response because people of your ilk are too far gone to rationalize.
Have fun living in your poverty/mediocrity socialistic, I'm guessing Islamic, world - You parasite.
Namnarooni 2 years ago
i think you don't know what a parasite is.
bbrou17 2 years ago
As an american 111robinhood, I couldn't agree more. i also appreciate you're taking the time to separate the American people from our problems, thats very generous and we probably wouldn't do that for anyone else. the old america no longer exists.
bbrou17 2 years ago
Thanks. Yes I love American people. And the American public are being deceived by the media, the administrationa and presidents. The people have no true representation. And the president is owned by banks and corporations. Presidents are sworn in to protect the Constitution. Well it is unconstitutional and illegal to pay income tax on wages in America, and yet it is tolerated! People have no say and presidents insult people's intelligence when they pretend to be for justice when they are not.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
You say all you are concerned is with the law? You sound a like self righteous American. Your Bush declares war on terrorism which is constitutionally illegal because it is not a specific target. Your foreign affairs politics is all about oil and rampant Capitalism. American concepts of Democracy is hypocrisy. You talk about Saddam and his WMD, but America used chemical weapons during the Vietnam war and which vietnamese are still born crippled thanks to your American democracy. Hypocrisy again.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
And before you criticise Communist dictatorships run by death squads, look to your own American backyard and tell me whether Guantanama Bay concentration camps where hundreds of innocent prisoners were tortured was justifiable? Of course not. It was illegal and had no justification. It was a ploy to create the illusion of a war on terrorism. A brilliant show of democracy and humanitarian concepts by the US.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
Are you kidding? Firstly, the prison camp in Guantanamo is full of people captured on the battlefield, not people who the regime just didn't agree with, and it is legal according to the Geneva convention. As is (despite hyperbole) America's treatment of non uniformed military combatants according to 4th Geneva and the Yugoslav Int. Criminal tribunal. As for "torture", while waterboarding is distasteful it pales in comparison to methods used routinely by european govts today.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
Sorry, but Goodman is a fool. Negotiate with a group that has never once honored a negotiation or ceasefire? Negotiate with a group that announced they had no intention of honoring the last ceasefire and launched attacks the day it began? An organization that has as one of it's goals the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic theocracy throughout the region? That's a fools errand. Like always she doesn't want peace, she wants our surrender.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
Shes got balls, peace warrior.
kevinpaulharper 2 years ago
Hezbollah was born when Israel invaded Lebanon and Israel still occupy a part of Lebanon. While Americans may consider Hezbollah as terrorists, the Lebanese see them as freedom fighters. And Israel is a terrorist state ever since it was conceived! Do you call displacing and murdering Palestinians as not terrorist acts? Do you not consider the CIA as a terrorist organization sponsored by the President? The CIA has murdered millions of civilians and supported brutal dictaors. Look at Nicaragua!
111RobinHood 2 years ago
So much misinformation, first it was the British and the UN that "displaced" the former Syrian/ Egyptians/ Iraqis in the region of Palestine, and they were granted a separate Muslim state at the same time- Jordan. Israel was formed in peace- then attacked by every Muslim country in the region.
As for Nicaragua, it was run by a Communist dictatorship backed by the Soviets that had death squads murdering the people and stealing their property, we should always resist that.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
I don't have time to send you lists of American/CIA illegal involvements in South American countries where the people had elected democraticaly their leaders. You know as well as I that America should not be interfering in any countries. America has supported brutal dictatorships for their own interests! Known fact! It's for the people to decide whether they want communism, socialism or whatever! It's not for America to resist anything! Her CIA has supported terrorism so stop being hypocritical.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
That's a hard demand to make given the fact that the sandinistas were supported by the entire eastern bloc, soviet satellites and Cuba. So dozens of hostile countries intervene and finance the overthrow of the govt expressly for the purpose of damaging the US and they are supposed to do nothing? True, they supported the dictatorship, but didn't you just say they shouldn't interfere? They decided to intervene after foreign countries sponsored a coup and started causing instability in the region.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
By comparison, 240 people are held in Gitmo. Nicaragua routinely held more than 20,000 people in their political prison system, real torture was common place, and there were absolutely no civil rights. Their gulags were larger than any in our hemisphere than any other than their police state sponsor Cuba.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
In June 2006, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter stated that the arrests of most of the roughly 500 prisoners held there were based on "the flimsiest sort of hearsay".[158] In September 2006, the UK's Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who heads the UK's legal system, went further than previous British government statements, condemning the existence of the camp as a "shocking affront to democracy".
111RobinHood 2 years ago
I suppose you are now going to tell me that America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was legal and justified.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
I agree with you that the sandinistas were supported by Eastern bloc countries. Ok? But, I think it's time that America should be concerned with the negative image that they are producing today. I don't like all this talk about fighting world terrorism which to me is an excuse for imperialistic expansion. First it was the "commies" now its Islamic fundamentalism. I am probably not knowledgeable about politcs as you, but my gut feelings tell me that it is all about oil and corporation interests.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
I don't really care what Arlen Specter or some unelected English Noble thinks, all I'm concerned with is the law, by law the US has the right to hold those people 'til the end of the conflict, and by law the US can consider them spies or sappers since they were caught committing acts of terror and not in uniform. Which means that literally we could summarily execute every single one and it'd be perfectly legal. The Afghan war was perfectly legal, Iraq was 70/30 due to the existing state of war.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
In addition the perfect test of your oil theory happened in 2003, according to int law the US and Britain actually had a legal right to use Iraqi oil revenues or to even tax the Iraqi public to pay their expenses (Article 49 of the Hague Regulations), did they? No, in fact they signed on to UN Resolution 1483 which guaranteed Iraqi control of their own resources.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
And most of the "so called" prisoners of war are INNOCENT! And I say that the MAJORITY of them are innocent! Now maybe you don't give a damn about a FBI official who said that many of them shouldn't even be there! Now we are talking about hundreds of innocents being locked up for several years and being tortured by your so called American Justice! If America is so proud of her camps I wonder why Obama wants to close them down? Change of heart? Of course! Public and International pressure!
111RobinHood 2 years ago
You mean to say that Afghanistan and Iraq are both sovereign states and America is justified in attacking them? Afghan war was never legal and justified! If you WANT to prat on about American concepts of legality, then I will give you some. The CIA is the largest and most powerful terrorist organization in the world. And by that, America is a terrorist state along with Israel. Therefore, I declare a war on terrorism against the US. Got the picture! And legality? Americans are hypocrites.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
You are concerned about law? Really? I don't think so. Let me be blunt. It was illegal for Bush to decalre war on terrorism, only congress could do that. The Federal Reserve is a private bank which is illegal constitutionally. Concerning Guantanamo, the Supreme Court of the United States found that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and that the commissions were illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.
111RobinHood 2 years ago
you don't know anything about US or international law. The US has detained people from all over the world, most of which were never caught doing anything, most of which have already been proven innocent (by a complete lack of evidence on the part of the government) but will not be set free due to fears of retribution. we could not execute anyone without a proper trial. did you know that there is a juvenile in gitmo who's been there for 4 years, he's believed to have been 12 upon his detention
bbrou17 2 years ago
Geez, here we go again. According to the Geneva Convention "non uniformed combatants" captured on the battlefield can be held until the end of the conflict and at the discretion of the capturing nation. So where's the violation? They need no more evidence than the word of a soldier.
Juveniles in Gitmo? According to the UN that juvenile committed grenade attacks on soldiers, do we then just give him back to the Taliban so they can hand him more grenades?
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
where's the battlefield? by your logic the battlefield must be the entire world. alot of these people were taken out of their homes because someone told our intelligence agents something (also known as hearsay). you're assuming these people are combatants but by your definition of combatant you could be a combatant, more likely i could because i disagree. should i be detained because i'm calling bullshit? that question's rhetorical, i don't need an answer
bbrou17 2 years ago
Oh course you don't need an answer, I'm working off law, you're working off hysterical and uneducated rhetoric. There's no answering that.
SYNPlaymaker88 2 years ago
you don't know anything about law, you're all hot air, making up shit left and right...thanks for the laugh though, i'm sure most people on here enjoy this as much as i do.
bbrou17 2 years ago
actually, bbrou17 happens to be quoting Nuremburg and UN laws and also the opinion of the whole world. UN resolution 1483 and others like it contradict the founding principles of the UN and Nuremburg tribunal. do we accept any law just bc it's passed here in the US, even if it violates our constitution?
your acceptance of legal code written by the likes of John Yoo and other bush lawyers is quite astonishing and shows a willingness to support the actions of the powerful, right or wrong
boing3887 2 years ago
why not hold the juveniles in the US, not gitmo? gitmo is known to not be applicable to US or cuban law, which means we can do whatever we want there. that's explicit. "whatever we want" means torture. even if it were true that gitmo detainees are really criminals, why are we holding them in a no-law zone like gitmo instead of US prisons? we brought italian and german POW's back to the US, why not gitmo detainees?
boing3887 2 years ago
This clip gave me the feeling Chris Matthews rushed answers out of Amy Goodman....obviously not his decision.
marcoschalesky 2 years ago
WooHoo AMY.
Gotta love truth seekers.
believr77 2 years ago
Lol I kno!!!
LucianChick12235 2 years ago
Amy Goodman shows up MSNBC for the sham they are.
v1nylmatt 2 years ago
,,,,If you talking about living in the 21 first century thin old lady get a comb out and a dye job ,,,yes warhorse I mean this in a good way lady .....
twochaudio 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tom,
I am so glad I called you this morning from the Apple Store next to Central Park South.
I have now a clean look for I have had a wonderful haircut and great shave.
I look forward to canvasing the city further telling people to Google Jeff Fisher World Peace Forever and also Google Tom Heneghan
I love meeting people from all over the United States and the planet in wonderful diversified cultural oriented New York City.
Nobody can stop me.
NoMoreFraud dot blogspot com
LoveAmericaStyle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tom,
I am so glad I called you this morning from the Apple Store next to Central Park South.
I have now a clean look for I have had a wonderful haircut and great shave.
I look forward to canvasing the city further telling people to Google Jeff Fisher World Peace Forever and also Google Tom Heneghan
I love meeting people from all over the United States and the planet in wonderful diversified cultural oriented New York City.
Nobody can stop me.
NoMoreFraud dot blogspot com
LoveAmericaStyle 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tom,
I am so glad I called you this morning from the Apple Store next to Central Park South.
I have now a clean look for I have had a wonderful haircut and great shave.
I look forward to canvasing the city further telling people to Google Jeff Fisher World Peace Forever and also Google Tom Heneghan
I love meeting people from all over the United States and the planet in wonderful diversified cultural oriented New York City.
Nobody can stop me.
NoMoreFraud dot blogspot com
LoveAmericaStyle 2 years ago
uao! amy is great =)
gabrielaSH 2 years ago
i love how right when the discussion actually gets some momentum and starts covering real issues, at 6 minutes, he asks about mel gibson. anyone who thinks that the mainstream media covers issues we need to know about is blinded. agree with amy goodman or not, at least she covers topics that need to be addressed.
schapedo 2 years ago
wow she is one tough cookie
Ullbritt 2 years ago 2
Mel Gibson? Mel Gibson? Fuck Mel Gibson!
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
You keep peace with your friends.
You make peace with your enemys.
ob2kanob 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fight against work, and then against Money.
Then lastly you will fight against the true enemies of human potential NO matter what political label they are wearing.
pilgrimsareillegal 2 years ago
It's disgraceful that people like Goodman can't be heard in this country.
rooley 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Amy Goodman is a hypocrite. She says nothing about Tibet, which shows she's a communist. She also says n othing about Darfur. She even had a Sudanese professor on her show claiming that Darfur was a Western driven farce. She is so hypocritical it's sick. She is obviously not about human rights, being she ignores the worst genocides in the world today: Tibet, Darfur
autonomy52 2 years ago
,,,,dude just google her,,,there,s your answer,,,she a nut case...
twochaudio 2 years ago
Dude, I know show she is. She's not a nut case.
rooley 2 years ago 2
........i know show she is ??? just listen to her you can talk all you want matthew,s has a dog in this also and that,s to bad This Woman is the same persom as Patty S , code pink nut job she loves Donahue also ,he,s a nice guy speaks from the hart but but is off the mark...,,,ob2nob-- that,s nice to say,,did you forget the last 3 letters in your name------ ,,,j o b
twochaudio 2 years ago
I know who she is. That's what I meant to say. Typo.
You have yet to give me a reason to believe that she is a nut case.
rooley 2 years ago
........i know show she is ??? What does this mean? Learn to write!
cheddyrod 2 years ago
Sorry,, I can only listen to these left wing wack jobs when i`m drunk yes
twochaudio 2 years ago
You can watch Democracy Now program every day at 6:30 pm - CUNY (Channel 75). I watch it every day.
tomayconvida 2 years ago
lol, not sure if anyone understood Amy. they sure as hell didnt respond to any point she put out. cant respect ppl who dodge the issues for Mel Gibson gossip.
0o0sublime0o0 2 years ago 2
1-Israel did not give up Sinai when they signed the peace treaty with Egypt, they did so years after when they were involved in a new war in Lebanon.
2- Israel never tried to negotiate with "fanatic Muslims". In fact, if you look into Israel's previous negotiations with the Palestinians (PLO, no extremists), there was never an offer than proposed a just solution where the compromise on the Palestinian side wasn't relatively greater.
malsakka 2 years ago
Israelis do not want war. I am one.
Proof of Israel's sincerity in seeking peace: Giving the huge Sinai peninsula that is very rich in oil, back to Egypt to make peace - although it was Egypt who attacked Israel. With Egypt and Jordan it worked fine, because they are not clergy-ruled countries.
It has been our painful experience that the more you try to negotiate with fanatic Muslims, the more they read you as fearful and weak, and the more murderous they become.
Sefardi123 3 years ago
amy is a GREAT journalist.
latequilera22 3 years ago 5