Connect with us
//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Video

Watch Milo Yiannopoulos Breakdown His Twitter Ban [Video]

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Milo Yiannopoulos “banned from twitter” controversy has taken on a life of it’s own, providing a ‘free speech vs. hate speech’ sub-text to the Republican National Convention.

CNBC hosted the controversial Breitbart Editor for their “Power Lunch,” segment from the RNC in Cleveland, Ohio.

During the interview, Yiannopoulos presented his side on the the controversy over Twitter permanently banning him. The banning of Yiannopoulos reflects the utter confusion that plagues America’s neo-liberal psyche.

Yiannopoulos is an avid Trump supporter, and the conservative editor of a wildly successful media publication. He is also a gay man.

The liberal media, feminists, and much of the LGBT community is waging war against Yiannopoulos. Liberal white knights and social justice warriors are scared to death of Yiannopoulos and his very public, outspoken demeanour. They simply cannot reconcile how Yiannopoulos could hold such conservative values.

He breaks the liberal narrative, and in their minds must be punished.

Partial transcript (courtesy Breitbart) below:

MICHELLE CARUSO-CABRERA: On Monday Lesley Jones quit Twitter following a series of racist and sexist attacks. CEO Jack Dorsey reached out to Jones quickly and the social media company promised to take action. One day later Milo Yiannopoulos a conservative writer for Breitbart.com was permanently suspended from Twitter, although the company did not specifically cite the conflict with Jones, the suspension came after Yiannopoulos posted this tweet to his more than 380,000 followers. ‘If at first you don’t succeed because you’re work is terrible, play the victim. Everyone gets hate mail, FFS.’ Which I assure you does not stand for french fries and salad. Joining us now is Milo Yiannopoulos technology editor with Breitbart.com.

YIANNOPOULOS: Thanks for having me.

CARUSO-CABRERA: You’ve been permanently banned from Twitter.

YIANNOPOULOS: I have.

CARUSO-CABRERA: You’ve been pretty mean through the years on Twitter.

YIANNOPOULOS: I’ve been pretty mean through the years on Twitter. But I don’t think that’s a reason to excise somebody from the platform. You know, actually plenty of people enjoy what I do. Over 380,000 of them as you say, enjoy what I do. And there’s no suggestion whatsoever I was involved in any kind of racist or sexist harassment of Leslie Jones. What I did is dislike her movie, and write a very critical review that she didn’t like. After that teased her on Twitter. if a journalist can’t tease a Hollywood blockbuster actress, I don’t know what this platform is about.

CARUSO-CABRERA: Many of your followers started to attack her as well. I mean, some of those things were brutal. and your acknowledge.

YIANNOPOULOS: Yes, of course. and some are completely disgust disgusting. But I’m not responsible for what other people post on the internet. Is Justin Bieber responsible when his fans cut themselves with the hashtag Cuts for Bieber? Is Beyonce responsible when her fans go after One Directionist with death threats and rape threats, of course not. It’s preposterous to suggest that a public figure an entertainer, personality, or prominent journalist is responsible for what other people post on the internet.

CARUSO-CABRERA: Let me read to you what you wrote in 2012. ‘The internet is not a universal human right, we ban drunks from driving because they’re a danger to others. Isn’t it the time we did same to trolls, trolls for people who do not know are people like you who are mean on Twitter.’ You wrote this, right?

YIANNOPOULOS: No, of course.

CARUSO-CABRERA: What happened? You don’t agree with this anymore?

YIANNOPOULOS: I agree with it entirely. Twitter is a private company entitled to do what it likes. The problem is it’s lying to users. Jack Dorsey says it’s the free speech platform of the free speech wing of the free speech party, that he wants it to be a utility like water. Twitter is a place you go if you want to express yourself. That’s a lie. There is a systemic campaign against conservative and libertarian points of view on Twitter. How do we know this? Not from the company’s own notoriously opaque statements but the fact they apply their own rules so capriciously and inconsistently. There’s only one possible explanation. Twitter is perfectly happy to host ISIS, to host death threats from Donald Trump supporters and they do not take any of it down.

CARUSO-CABRERA: They try to take those down. They try.

YIANNOPOULOS: Not hard enough. You make a joke about a feminist or dislike the new “Ghostbusters” movie or have the audacity to dislike the work, in Hollywood of somebody’s movie who happens to be black or happens to be a woman and then you get suspended That is absurd.

Via: http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/20/milo-twitter-has-a-systemic-campaign-against-conservatives/

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement //pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Trump bets on Haftar, as the battle to control Libya rages on (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 190.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at a US President Trump’s apparent support for Khalifa Haftar, the leader of the Libyan National Army trying to capture Tripoli from the UN backed government of Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj.

Field Marshall Haftar’s forces control much of the eastern and southern parts of Libya. The LNA has steadily gained more territory as they march toward Tripoli. At the moment Haftar’s advance on the Libyan capital has been stalled by militias from Tripoli, Misrata, and Zintan.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Washington Monthly


During Barack Obama’s presidency I probably wrote more than a dozen pieces begging him not to intervene in Libya, and I watched bitterly when he later said that his biggest mistake in office was “probably failing to plan for the day after” Moammar Qaddafi was killed. This was precisely why I had been so vehemently opposed to committing America to the future of Libya. Here’s a sample of what I argued at the time:

Getting Gaddafi to resign does nothing to assure stability. Who says that his opponents are unified? Who says they will agree to split the spoils equitably? Saddam ruled his country the way he did not only because he was a sadist but because the country would tear apart at the seams without some heavy hand to keep things in order. The same may well be true about Gaddafi. I’m not opposed to the idea of democracy for Libyans, but we shouldn’t get too invested in the idea. There’s no evidence that Libya is ripe for parliamentary democracy. If it happens, great. If it doesn’t, let’s make sure we’re not to blame…

…Let me say this again. We don’t know what kind of leadership would emerge from this opposition if they were to prevail, but they don’t even appear to have operational leadership in the field. We have no compelling reason to commit ourselves to this fight. It’s a mistake. And the president has been pushed very far out on a limb here, probably through a false sense of momentum arising from the successful revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. It will be painful to walk this back, but unless Hillary Clinton discovers a compelling, organized opposition in Benghazi when she arrives there this week, our commitment to regime change in Libya should be scaled back. It’s not our problem. Obama is in the process of making it our problem. We should stand ready to prevent massacres and offer asylum, but should not commit our military to do what the rebels cannot do themselves.

Over and over again, I said that we were racing into a quagmire without doing our research.

What disturbs me is the absolutely thoughtless way that so many Americans and American leaders are willing to commit our country to the use of violence and meddling in other countries. In some cases it is justifiable, but can someone do a week of research before they start sending in the 82nd Airborne? I mean, Jesus, seriously…

Eight years later, Libya is still embroiled in civil war and violent factionalism. My purpose here is not to explain or discuss that history or those factions. I want to discuss something that Donald Trump did on Friday.

President Trump on Friday abruptly reversed American policy toward Libya, issuing a statement publicly endorsing an aspiring strongman in his battle to depose the United Nations-backed government.

The would-be strongman, Khalifa Hifter, launched a surprise attack on the Libyan capital, Tripoli, more than two weeks ago. Relief agencies said Thursday that more than 200 people had been killed in the battle, and in recent days Mr. Hifter’s forces have started shelling civilian neighborhoods.

Trump decided to back a military commander who is fighting against the U.N.-supported government. Mr. Hifter (or Haftar) is a U.S. citizen. He has backing from the governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. You may also find this of interest:

On November 2016, Haftar made a second trip to Russia to meet with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu. It was reported that while he was seeking weapons and Russia’s backing, Russia was holding off pending the new Trump Administration. On 26 December, it was reported that Russia had thrown its weight behind Haftar, saying he must have a role in the leadership of Libya.

Russia has since then treated wounded LNA soldiers, printed Libyan dinars for the Tobruk-based government, and signed exclusive agreements that will allow the Russian government to establish two additional military bases in eastern Libya. Global risk experts Giorgio Cafiero and Daniel Wagner recently observed that “Moscow appears to view Haftar – not the weak UN/Western-backed government – as the only realistic bulwark against extremism in post-Gaddafi Libya.”

When Hifter launched his latest offensive, the U.S. State Department condemned him. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued the following statement on April 7, 2019.

The United States is deeply concerned about fighting near Tripoli. We have made clear that we oppose the military offensive by Khalifa Haftar’s forces and urge the immediate halt to these military operations against the Libyan capital. Forces should return to status quo ante positions. All involved parties have a responsibility to urgently de-escalate the situation, as the UN Security Council and G7 ministers emphasized on April 5. This unilateral military campaign against Tripoli is endangering civilians and undermining prospects for a better future for all Libyans.

There is no military solution to the Libya conflict. This is why the United States continues to press Libyan leaders, together with our international partners, to return to political negotiations mediated by UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General Ghassan Salame. A political solution is the only way to unify the country and provide a plan for security, stability, and prosperity for all Libyans.

The civil war in Libya has been brutal on all sides, but as Ryan Goodman of Just Security points out, Mr. Hifter’s troops have been implicated in war crimes, including the summary execution of prisoners.

Due to a U.N. Security Council resolution that vests the International Criminal Court with jurisdiction over the situation in Libya, the prosecutor in The Hague is also a looming factor in Haftar’s future. With the backing of that resolution, adopted by the United States and other states unanimously in 2011, the prosecutor has already issued an arrest warrant for one of Haftar’s top military commanders, Mahmoud Mustafa Busayf Al-Werfalli. The allegations against Al-Werfalli include his directing or participating in a series of seven executions of 33 prisoners — that’s the war crime of murder.

Mr. Hifter is captured on video ordering his troops not to take prisoners, which is also a war crime. Because Hifter is a U.S. citizen, supporting him comes with a little extra legal liability.

What also separates Haftar from the rest of the pack is that, as a U.S. citizen, he is subject to parts of the US federal code that make it a crime to violate the laws of war. As Alex Whiting and I wrote in an article for Just Security in late 2017, “By extension, US officials who provide support to Haftar in the future may also risk criminal liability as aiders and abettors under US domestic law if it can be shown that they intentionally facilitated his crimes or, arguably, if the crimes are particularly grave, if they provided support with knowledge of those crimes.”

President Trump’s decision to back Mr. Hifter is stunning on many levels, including that Hifter isn’t exactly dominating the battlefield.

The policy reversal came as a surprise in part because Mr. Hifter’s forces also appear to be losing ground. His promises of a quick victory have proved false, and his forces appear outmaneuvered by those aligned against them. Most analysts say that he has little hope of exerting his authority over all of Libya any time soon, so his continued campaign may only prolong the country’s instability…

“It is nuts,” Mr. [Frederic[ Wehrey, [an expert on Libya at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace] said of Mr. Trump’s statement. “Even judging by the hard-nosed American goals of stabilizing the flow of oil and combating terrorism, this is completely shocking.” …

“I don’t think Hifter can do it,” said Lisa Anderson, a political scientist who has studied Libya and who was the president of the American University in Cairo during the uprisings of 2011. Although he may present himself as a strongman, she said, “he can’t actually control that part of the country and he will continue to face existential challenges there for the foreseeable future.”

What spurred the president to make this abrupt change in foreign policy on Friday? There are many theories already circulating. Here’s one:

US President Donald Trump’s apparent signal of support for the Libyan National Army over the UN-backed Government of National Accord was motivated by the president’s concerns over the impact another supply outage would have on oil and domestic gasoline prices, analysts said Friday.

After imposing sanctions on PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, in January, and reimposing sanctions on Iranian crude exports in November, Trump likely fears that the loss of Libyan crude hike crude prices to politically unsustainable levels, these analysts said.

On the other hand, Trump seems to be aligning himself with Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy for Libya.

Days before Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar launched an offensive to seize the capital and attempt to unite the divided country under his rule, Saudi Arabia promised tens of millions of dollars to help pay for the operation, according to senior advisers to the Saudi government.

The offer came during a visit to Saudi Arabia that was just one of several meetings Mr. Haftar had with foreign dignitaries in the weeks and days before he began the military campaign on April 4.

The announcement also came a day after the U.A.E’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, met with Secretary Pompeo and National Security advisor John Bolton in Washington DC.

My suspicion is that Trump called Mr. Hifter on Friday at the behest of John Bolton. This wouldn’t surprise me in part because Bolton is famously contemptuous of the United Nations. I don’t think Trump came up with this plan on his own or as a result of any thorough interagency policy discussion. Bolton probably told them Hifter is fighting jihadists and that was enough to convince the president to make a hugely consequential move that will alarm and alienate our European partners and the leadership at the United Nations, as well as put American policymakers at risk of abetting war crimes.

Even someone as thoughtful and careful as Barack Obama managed to be bullied into overruling his own good instincts and committing the biggest blunder of his presidency in Libya. I don’t think Trump has the first clue what he is doing with this decision, and that makes it all the more likely that it will not end well.

Martin Longman
Martin Longman is the web editor for the Washington Monthly and the main blogger at Booman Tribune.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Trump Has Gifted “No More Wars” Policy Position To Bernie Sanders (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 148.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss how US President Donald Tump appears to have ceded his popular 2016 ‘no more wars’ campaign message and policy position to Bernie Sanders and any other US 2020 candidate willing to grad onto a non-interventionist approach to the upcoming Democrat primaries.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Is Bernie Stealing Trump’s ‘No More Wars’ Issue?” by Patrick J. Buchanan…


The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016.

“The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars… I agree with that,” Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday’s town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Then turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added:

“Mr. President, tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: Sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country.”

Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.

Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of the GOP led by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.

But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities.”

With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump’s veto, that should be the end of the matter.

It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the “no-more-wars” theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president?

Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing “Trump’s endless wars” in the Middle East? Because that is where he is headed.

In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia, lost.

Yet, in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq War and an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and get out of these Middle East wars.

Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker — not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.

Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.

He declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which Iran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.

Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. Embassy there, closed the consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi Netanyahu’s threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and castigating the “right-wing” Netanyahu regime.

Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the troops are still there.

Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 INF treaty that outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Caracas — ostensibly to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts — Trump, drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to “get out.”

Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the left wing of his party, and by Sanders, who voted “no” on the Iraq War that Biden supported.

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.

And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new bipartisan majority.

Prediction: By the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have captured the “no-more-wars” political high ground that Candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Mike Pompeo reveals true motto of CIA: ‘We lied, we cheated, we stole’ (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 147.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at a Texas A&M University speech, and subsequent interview, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The former CIA Director admitted, ‘as an aside’ to the question asked, that the Intelligence agency he headed up before being appointed as the top US Diplomat had a motto “we lied, we cheated, we stole”…which, according to Pompeo, contained entire CIA training courses based on ‘lying, cheating and stealing.’

Pompeo finally speaks some truth.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Videos

Trending