The Scott Horton Show – Gareth Porter

Description

Gareth Porter, an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism, discusses President Obama’s proposed cooperation with Russia in a combined air campaign against the Al Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front jihadist forces in Syria – and the strong opposition to such a plan within Obama’s own national security bureaucracy.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Decades from now, when the leading political figures of this era are dead or dying and will thus not be prosecuted for anything, classified information from this era will be released. This will show that Ambassador Chris Stevens either knew something, did something, or was about to do something that the Obama regime hated. Killing one’s own ambassador would be political suicide, but when violence broke out in Benghazi, Obama, Clinton, and the rest chose not to let a crisis go to waste.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • The Drone Papers The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Here’s a discussion I had yesterday with my accountant. He claims that “we” need to have “legal certainty” to encourage other ti invest in our economy. And that Patents are “legal certainty”. Companies spend large amounts of money and time to do research and to innovate. While others just “copy” what the researchers, the investigators, the investors, generate: new products, new technologies, new medicine, whatever. Therefore, the innovators/investigators/investors will want protection: And if they didn’t have protection of their “creations”, “discoveries”, “inventions” or whatever you’d want to call it, the would not have the INCENTIVE to invest tons of funds on investigation, innovation and research. And therefore there would be no progress. What do you guys think? Your opinion is highly appreciated!

    Jump to Discussion Post 29 replies
  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply