Yesterday Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov slammed the US over the State Department’s response to last week’s attack that killed senior regime officials in Damascus, accusing the US of endorsing terrorism.
“This is direct endorsement of terrorism. How are we supposed to understand that?” Sergey Lavrov shared his astonishment at a press conference in Moscow. “This is a sinister position, I cannot find words to express our attitude towards that.”
From the other side, here’s the State Department’s daily press briefing from July 25th, with Victoria Nuland responding to the Russian claim:
QUESTION: Hello.
QUESTION: Small thing. The Russian Foreign Minister has accused the U.S. Government and yourself in particular of trying to justify terrorism in Syria. And in particular, he criticizes the failure of the U.S. Government to itself condemn the attack that resulted in the deaths of the senior Syrian security officials last week. Do you have any comment on this?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, on the day of the attack, we were asked here, and we made absolutely clear that we condemn violence in any form inside Syria. We’ve said that from the beginning of this conflict. We condemn all terrorist attacks, all bombings of targets, of civilians. The bombing of the Defense Ministry, however, targeted senior military and security officials.
So without condoning these tactics by any means, because we don’t condone violence of any kind, and we did condemn the bombing at the time, I would note that these were not civilians. These were the organizers of Assad’s military campaign who lost their lives.
QUESTION: So wait a minute. Just so I’m clear, so you regard this as sort of a legitimate target, therefore?
MS. NULAND: As I said, we do not condone violence of any kind. But to draw the implication that these were innocents who were targeted is also wrong.
QUESTION: You do not condone violence of any kind inside Syria?
MS. NULAND: Correct. Moving on? Anything else on Syria?
QUESTION: We – I remember getting into an exchange with Patrick about this on that very day, and in fact, I don’t think you did use the word “condemn.” What – the language was, “We do not welcome further violence.” And then the next line of the – of it was that – was noting exactly what you just said, that these were not good guys. These were bad guys who lost their lives. So I asked if – “Is it a bad thing,” after the first sentence, and then after the second sentence, “Is it a good thing,” and we didn’t get anywhere on that. So you’re saying now that you do condemn the –
MS. NULAND: We’ve said from the beginning of this we don’t think violence is the way out of this at all, and we want to see a peaceful resolution of this. That said, who bears responsibility for the preponderance of violence in Syria? Who is the one who is using now fixed-wing aircraft against their own people – helicopters, artillery, gunships, et cetera? It is the Assad regime. And as we’ve said, it is unfortunately not surprising that people are trying to defend themselves now.
Moving on? Anything else on Syria? No?
Okay. Please.
We condemn all terrorist attacks, all bombings of targets, of civilians. The bombing of the Defense Ministry, however, targeted senior military and security officials.
I actually agree with this perspective. However, I wonder, does the U.S. State Dept. conduct such parsing when Israeli “military and security officials” are killed?
Who is the one who is using now fixed-wing aircraft against their own people – helicopters, artillery, gunships, et cetera? It is the Assad regime. And as we’ve said, it is unfortunately not surprising that people are trying to defend themselves now.
I wonder if the State Dept. is willing to apply that rationale to Palestinians defending themselves, for example, during the Cast Lead catastrophe. I mean, “who is the one who is using fixed-wing aircraft against an occupied people – helicopters, artillery, gunships, white-phosphorous, et cetera? It is the Israeli regime. And as we’ve said, it is unfortunately not surprising that people are trying to defend themselves now.”
The US and their allies are doing everything in their power aside from military intervention to remove Assassins from power. What cowardly Nuland should have or wanted to say was “we condemn violence of any kind” …….except when its directed at government officials in a regime we are doing our best to replace. The hypocrisy is unreal. Imagine if it was German or French officials who were targets of a terrorist attack. The condemnation of the US Im sure would’ve have been a tiny bit more harsh. Kudos to the Russians for calling it what it is.
Precisely, Real Jew. Sergei Lavrov is calling it what it is.
These Syria posts are confusing and lack any explanatory element. I am not looking for an explanation – just saying one should be offered, along with analysis. One would assume from these posts that the Official Russian Position (to include that of its TV station) is a more just, moral and upstanding position – but is it? This is a serious topic, too serious to boil it down to a rhetorical back and forth between the US and Russia, as if its a given they really are on opposing sides here………
Watch Russian RT television for a bit, and see how much more sense it makes than American mass media.
Oh, I do. I like RT. But they do, at times, act as stenographers for the Russian Government. This can’t be overlooked.
I just don’t think it would be helpful for people to think that there is a clash of values and morals here. the opposition stems from, in this case russia’s, interests potentially being harmed. its not as if this russian government is really interested in protecting the syrian people on a humanist level. It’s their main client, the home of their only naval base on the med, at Tartus – this should be part of the introduction to every article involving russian policy and rhetoric on syria. these guys are going to object until they get a good deal from the “west” (which in this case is really NATO and the GCC”) – its just like in the sopranos – a top guy beats up or kills a non made guy from another crew, he doesn’t get killed, he just pays out for the transgression.
But they do, at times, act as stenographers for the Russian Government.
this is russia’s foreign minister. when he accuses the US of endorsing terrorism it’s called news. i agree with you RT sounded very supportive of lavrov’s statements but where else am i going to get the video? it’s big news imho and represents what people are thinking all across the world. besides western press plays stenographer for the US gov and the neocons all the time so it’s fair game. heck how many of them brought us netanyahu last sunday? this is sort of par for the course. so what RT is doing is no worse than that.
Annie, who in the world backs Assad aside from Hezbollah, Khamenei, Russia and Israel; aside from a couple folks in Europe and America? Even the Iraqis hate Assad; they are just divided because they fear the FSA.
i’m not backing assad, i’m backing time magazine and seymore hersh. assad’s claims were no different then theirs. pay attention.
The issue is not “backing Assad,” but the US intervening covertly — and under the guise of “humanitarian concern” — overtly in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. The neocon blueprint for remaking the map of the Middle East has been having some problems in demonizing Bashar: Saddam had many ostentatious palaces, body doubles and a sadistic son Uday. Muammar backed the Lockerbie bomber, ranted on and on and dressed funny.
Bashar succeeded his father — as have many other leaders in the Middle East, whose countries we are not trying to overthrow. His wife’s Paris shopping sprees are nothing compared to the lavishness of the Saudis. Bashar is often accused vaguely of human rights abuses — when examined too closely, the worst of them turn out to have been committed during his father’s regime or, awkwardly for the US, in cooperation with the Bush extraordinary rendition program.
Bashar may not be the modern, reformist, mild-mannered opthalmologist his image makers have been trying to portray. But even with 24/7 coverage of Syria for the past several months, the American public hasn’t been convinced that we need to overthrow him. Three quarters of Americans oppose military intervention in Syria.
RustyPipes, you are idealistic and impractical. Countries intervene in the affairs of other countries all the time. Always have. What mid sized or large country in the world today doesn’t do this? And for that matter, why shouldn’t countries intervene in other countries as a moral matter?
What you can maybe argue is that interventions in other countries should be transparent and open as much as possible. And that they should be consistent with values. Here you would have a point.
To date the primary support for the FSA has come from Turkey and the Arab League; with other Sunni countries slowly starting to chip in. Europe is also starting to help in a limited way.
To date the US has been behind. And it is causing anti American anger within the FSA.
To any lawyers reading:
Legally, Assad is no longer related to the sovereign Syrian government. The sovereign Syrian government is either the opposition; or there is no legal Syrian government at all right now, depending on your point of view. The opposition has clearly asked for international help. Where does international law come down in this case? If we assume Syria has no legal government right now, does the Syrian Opposition have the legal right to request and accept international help?
“for that matter, why shouldn’t countries intervene in other countries as a moral matter?”
Because it is a violation of international law — a subject in which some other posters on this site have demonstrated expertise. Until you can show a comparable level of knowledge, I’ll prefer Hostage’s opinion on the subject.
Based on what finding Anan? somethign you read on the back of a public latrine?
Why woudl we assume Syria has no legal government right now?
@ Dan Crowther,
We’ve been here may times before: the US wants a piece, the Russians want to cling on to one. That’s the bottom line. Everything else is window-dressing. Both sides are amoral and claims otherwise misdirection and distraction. I’m with you, Dan.
kinda jumping the gun there anan.
“related to”
Now, there’s a legally precise way of desribing it. He used to be a second cousin?
Rusty Pipes morally and legality are often completely different unrelated things.
Regarding legality, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran and other countries poured large sums of money in Iraqi political campaigns 2004 to the present. By doing this, they bought political influence that they have used ever since.
Many countries donate money to Lebanese political parties. Many countries influence the elections and political process in other countries with money.
How come no one takes these countries to court?
Look at the US. Many lobbies from many countries wield significant political influence in Washington. I am sure many readers of this blog have met lobbyists in Washington. Are these lobbies a violation of international law?
For that matter large parts of the establishment of countries had a role in 9/11. For valid geopolitical reason the US government chose to let that slide without taking them to court. Correctly so.
Other countries intervene in US affairs all the time. Unless lawyers (presumably your friend Hostage is one of them) can win these cases through the judicial system, then I don’t agree that this is illegal under international law. Maybe under the domestic law of some countries, but that is another matter.
Rusty, you need to live in reality, and try to change the world in practical ways. Read Finkelstein for advise on how to do this.
I learned something today. That some people still consider Assad to be the legal government of Syria.
This is my understanding. Hafez al-Assad in 1970 overthrew the existing Syrian government by force and mass murdered a lot of people. He was closely allied with the USSR in the cold war. But his ruthlessness and killer instinct so impressed Kissinger that Kissinger praised Hafez in his books, and even though Hafez was a nominal enemy of America, they struck up a friendship of sorts.
[If you want to learn more, please read one of the best book of our times . . . "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by the Hitch from 2001]
Kissinger and the USSR manipulated the international community into recognizing their beloved Hafez al Assad as the legitimate leader of Syria under international law. In my view this was deeply wrong and immoral. But it happened.
Fast forward to 1982. Hafez lost all legitimacy to being the leader of Syria when he organized a genocide against his own people. Unfortunately at that time the USSR still backed their bosom buddy Hafez. Reagan was too busy being obsequious to Hafez to get a Nobel prize for the Israeli-Arab peace process, to get Israel out of Lebanon, and to end the Lebanese civil war to do anything either.
As a result, although the international community should have dropped all recognition to the Baa3th regime, they didn’t.
Fast forward to 2011. Assad engaged in crimes against humanity against the Syrian people and under international law lost all legitimacy to hold any position in the Syrian Government. Since 2011, Syria has not had a sovereign government recognized by the international community.
Some time ago, when India joined Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the entire Sunni world in supporting the Syrian opposition, it was all over. Brazil, the non-aligned countries, virtually everyone in the world now supports the opposition.
Sovereignty for a country ends when a country engages in crimes against humanity and genocide against their own people. Few have explained the legal reasons for why better than Christopher Hitchens.
Sovereignty for a country ends when a country engages in crimes against humanity and genocide against their own people.
source? the opposition has engaged in these practices you mention. you know that right?
sometimes values suck.
for example, Joshua’s values suck: voices in his head told him it was okay to steal the land of Jericho and slay all its inhabitants.
Based on Old Testament recidivism, United States claims the right decide who should be the leaders of sovereign states, and the right to kill leaders who are inconvenient to them.
Sergei Lavrov and Vitaley Cherkin stand on their values that coincide with an international consensus recorded in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2131 (XX) on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, which falls under the general rubric of the Golden Rule: Do Unto Others as you would have Other Do Unto You.
Some prefer to erode both of those consensus holdings:
Salut Annie Robbins. Very astute and relevant questions. My complements.
International Law is a very controversial subject. I don’t have a JD, and would be very interested in critiques from those who do.
I interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to mean that a sovereign entity loses its national sovereignty when it commits sufficiently egregious human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes against its own citizens.
Does anyone have a different interpretation? If so, could you please elaborate?
The next question is if sufficient human rights offenses have occurred for Assad to lose his ability to claim sovereignty over the Syrian state. This is a much tougher question to answer.
I would very much like to hear everyone’s thoughts regarding this.
Annie Robbins, I have many friends and acquaintances who are journalists. You have no doubt heard many of their names. However none of them has been able to assemble anything with as much granular detail as an Order of Battle for the Free Syrian Army by Company, Battalion and Brigade. There are militias in Syria that have tenuous links to the FSA. I should probably stop talking here, since I personally haven’t spent enough time researching the FSA to make generalizations. My point is that atrocities have been committed. But by what company, battalion, brigade of the FSA? Have they been committed by another militia entirely?
If a battalion in the FSA committed a specific atrocity, how much influence does the FSA general command HQs in Turkey have over that battalion.
Without knowing this type of specific information it is very hard to determine whether or not the Turkish assisted and advised FSA has committed large scale human rights abuses.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is completely off topic; Annie Robbins, would Mondoweiss like to conduct a detailed interview with the FSA? Could you nominate an Arabic speaking person to conduct the interview by telephone on behalf of this blog; and then publish that interview on this blog in English translation? Is this something that the Mondoweiss community might consider doing?
Maybe this is more appropriately discussed via e-mail.
I too would love to hear the FSA directly answer questions.
would Mondoweiss like to conduct a detailed interview with the FSA?
the FSA? do you mean:
ADO, AKP, ASM, CAP, BSS, DASU, DBASP, DD, FSA, HCRS, KDP, KNC, LCC, MB, MJD, NCB, NCC, NDA, NSF, NPF, PFLC, PKK, PPW, PUK, PYD, SCP, SDP, SDPP, SNC, SNDB, SRGC, SSNP, SSNP/i, TYM, WRAP
or AQ?
I take it the answer is no then for the FSA. Are you interested in interviewing any of the other groups you mentioned? Presumably AQ was written in jest.
“I learned something today.”
And people say the Age of Miracles is over?
@annie,
You need to read this F. William Engdahl article:
“Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia”
link to voltairenet.org
It’s a must-read.
He shows a photograph and offers this tidbit, but the body of the text is far more interesting and I don’t have the time to offer a précis:
dan, sorry for your confusion. in my earlier syria watch report i responded to charges of a lack of analysis here:
link to mondoweiss.net
if you’d like to ask me my personal opinion of what i think is going on i can provide it. as background i will reveal that i lobbied to include more syria posts to the site. i think one of the reasons we have not had them is because none of us are experts on syria and hence the site doesn’t really have a position and as individuals we probably differ on our take of events somewhat. contributor Eleanor Kilroy wrote an excellent article the other day concerning what i perceived as her perception of a lack of attention/focus/empathy for the syria people caught up in this nightmare. so there are sensitive feelings all around and people differ on opinion. as a staff person i represent the site and as a result some could perceive there is an implied endorsement by the site of my opinion. that’s why i’m reluctant to add much analysis in the posts,but as a commenter just like you i can say more.
i tend to be kind of chatty, and especially with phil and adam gone it could make editorial decisions more difficult if i get carried away saying what i think is happening. does that make sense?
i added this post today and the video to provide an opportunity for commenters to weigh in on their perceptions. the US and susan rice made it pretty clear the other day the US state department sees both china and russia as obstructionists wrt resolving this issue thru their veto of resolutions leading to UN sanctions. so i think it is pretty clear we are at loggerheads with russia.
then, i also posted the rehm show where she point blank asks if israel or the US was instrumental in the assassinations although none of her guests spoke specifically to her query. but i thought she verbalized what must be on the minds of many (globally not necessarily the US).
but at this point i think speculation is about as best as we can do wrt what’s happening here. on the 24th when asked about Aleppo clinton said
link to state.gov
so, i think they are trying to take over areas and provide a space for the US to enter (medical support is code for humanitarian intervention imho)
i hope that’s helpful.
This is a serious topic, too serious to boil it down to a rhetorical back and forth between the US and Russia
so what do you think is going on? if you’ve read any analysis elsewhere please link.
also, as an aside..i think the assassinations took people by surprise and it is inevitable once the dust settles there are going to be sharper more direct recriminations and accusations. it was a big deal. so this is part of that fallout. part of the question in the press briefing yesterday, challenging nuland:
so they are getting cornered because it’s natural to assume if they are supporting the opposition they may be involved in the planning of the assassination. that’s my analysis. and as always i recommend b at moa:
link to moonofalabama.org
more at the link..and i agree with b on this, he really taught me how to read the news wrt FP. i think assad’s claims were correct about foreign jhiadists/guerrillas in syria. it’s kind of a no brainer, just because assad called it doesn’t make it a lie. this is what the US does in the ME, we support shady characters to act as our proxies when the jobs too slimy to be doing it directly. we did it in south america too, it’s nothing new for the cia.
The U.S. plan in the Bay of Pigs was to establish a bridgehead that the invaders controlled, where an insurgent (puppet) Cuban government could be installed. Then the U.S. planned to recognize that new government.
Dan
Check out the Angry Arab. He is an expert on that region but for the most part he simply says that it is really hard to get at the truth. MoA has two pieces up in the last two days that are extremely informative. Check out a Colm O’Toole in the comments for some smart analysis.
As a careful reader of As’ad AbuKhalil, I know that he has had to distance himself from blogs of his from weeks and months ago, when he was all but dismissing the accusations against Assad, even though he thought he was working on good information (such as the arab league report from the ground) — His blog is a great resource, agreed – but declarative statements from anyone, or any amplifying of state sanctioned rhetoric should be looked upon skeptically. wherever the truth is, it isn’t in the statements of government officials
@ Dan Crowther,
More to read:
@ link to atimes.com
@ link to atimes.com
The truth is where we hope it is.
@Daniel Rich,
Thanks for those two links. The first one is great for its sweep of history in a few paragraphs; I loved how it showed Lenin for the callow creep he was in toying with people’s lives, wanting to play war the way a kid wants to play video games.
The two together make up for the tedium of having to endure the inane comments of anan here, who refuses to read links or think clearly. In other words, those two links provide needed content on this thread.
ToivaS, what is Angry Arab an expert at other than worshiping Assad’s Khera?
Anan Angry Arab has been a bitter critic of the Syrian regime since they intervened in the Lebanese civil war 30 years ago. He saw very early that the MB and AQ had penetrated the rebel opposition and refused to support them either.
Angry Arab is a deeply confused individual. He backed this same Al Qaeda (or Salafi extremists) in Iraq 2003-2007. Heralding them as “resistance” even though the large majority of Iraqis hated them. Angry Arab celebrated violent attacks that killed 18 thousand Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police. Angry Arab wrote the nastiest things about the Iraqi Government and all the major Iraqi political parties.
The hardest anti Hezbollah diatribe I ever read Angry Arab write was when Hezbollah saluted Sistani (who I think is a great man.) Angry Arab regards Sistani as the man most responsible for destroying Iraq and the most sectarian man in Iraq. No kidding.
Confused angry people like Angry Arab should meditate more. He is angry at Sistani, Maliki, America, Israel, Barghouti, Europeans, UN, Iraqi Army, Al Qaeda, Russia, Aoun, Geagea, Jumblatt, Berri, Hezbollah. Now you tell me he is angry at Assad too. I believe you. He is an angry man. How does being angry like that help the world? The world needs love, respect, forgiveness and light; not anger.
Anan what are your politics? In any case you miss quite a bit about Angry Arab — he has a great sense of humor and his name is half a joke. Here is an example of his anger:
Can an Israeli redeem himself/herself?
I am often asked that question since I adhere to boycott of all things Israeli. The answer is yes provided 1) the person refuses to serve in the Army or the intelligence service of the state as part of military service; 2) the person must leave the house he/she occupies and the land on which he/she stands on because chances are the house is occupied, in the literal sense, and the land is occupied, in the literal sense; 3) the person must engage in armed struggle against the terrorist state of Israel. If an Israeli person fulfills those conditions, he/she should be acceptable from a pro-Palestinian point of view. So by my definition, Daniel Barenboim has not met any of those conditions.
You;re the one who is confusing any insurgency in Iraq with Al Qaeda.
The Iraqi Government most of the major Iraqi political parties weer little more than militias.
You’re probably the most unedcuated and clueless commenter on this blog. Perhpas you shoudl just shut up and leave this duicussion to the adults.
Oh, Tovio, why don’t you ask “anan” about Juan Cole’s qualifications for the job he does?
But apart from that, first we get this:
“How does being angry like that help the world? The world needs love, respect, forgiveness and light; not anger.”
And then, just a few comments later in the same thread:
“Al Awaki was a Takfiri who wanted to mass murder muslims and nonmuslims all over the world. Praise be to Allah that he is gone.”
That is, no doubt, an example of his idea of “love, respect, forgiveness and light, not anger”
This is without a doubt, a person you can have a serious conversation with. Me, for what it worth,I think he’s got the “divert and distract” brief from HHQ.
ToivoS, my politics are irrelevant. They also keep changing. The reasons I don’t like the Angry Arab are too many to list.
This quote is a perfect example. An Israeli citizen should be loyal to his or her own country; serve, respect and love his or her country to the best of their ability. Ditto for citizens of other countries too.
“3) the person must engage in armed struggle against the terrorist state of Israel. ” I couldn’t disagree more. It is horrible to demand such things from Israeli citizens. MLK refused to use violence against the elected US government. Gandhi refused to use violence against the British and later the elected Indian bodies even when he very strongly disagreed with them . . . which he did many times. Observe what Nelson Mandela did.
The principle of democracy is that the side that loses an election respects the side that won the election and “DOES NOT” try to kill them. But not according to Angry Arab. Angry Arab wants Israelis to vote for what “HE CONSIDERS” the right Israeli political parties. If the Angry Arab’s preferred political parties lose Israeli elections, then he wants all voters who support his preferred political party to use violence to hurt and kill the parties that won the most votes in free and fair elections.
He would put this up as an example to every free democracy in the world? If everyone listened to him; every time someone’s political faction lost an election; the losers would violently attack the political faction that won the most votes.
Angry Arab would replace every free democracy in the world with a violent dictatorship. He discredits anyone who wants to nonviolently use civil society and democracy.
How on what planet is this funny or acceptable rhetoric?
I always admired the late Christopher Hitchens, a great friend of the Palestinians. He would have butchered this quote far better than I ever could. For that matter Finkelstein would rip apart this quote as well.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“2) the person must leave the house he/she occupies and the land on which he/she stands on because chances are the house is occupied, in the literal sense, and the land is occupied, in the literal sense”
I know the Angry One presumably favors a free democratic plural one person one vote democracy. The marriage of Israelis to Palestinians. I respect that this is his opinion. But if a one state solution happens, then Israelis would become partners in democracy and freedom with Palestinians. They would stay in their homes in a united Israel + Palestine.
But how can this happen if the Angry One demands that every Israeli person leave their home in a one state solution?
Is the Angry One even really in favor of a One State Solution? Or does he enjoy the sound of his voice a bit too much?
Mooser, I have exchanged e-mails to Juan Cole on many occasions. He introduced me to a person who I greatly respect and admire.
This is the wrong setting to discuss Juan Cole. Suffice to say he is much better than the Angry One.
Shingo, are you a lion? Shingho means lion in Sanskrit and in many South East Asian and South Asian languages. For example Singapore is a permutation of lion.
Thank you for telling me how uneducated and clueless I am. Thank Yeshua that you are here to teach me these things.
“The Iraqi Government most of the major Iraqi political parties weer little more than militias.” This is borderline racist talk. How would you like it if I called every political party in your country little more than militias?
“You;re the one who is confusing any insurgency in Iraq with Al Qaeda.”
Al Qaeda was by far the largest, best funded, and most combat effective “Iraqi Resistance” organization in Iraq. They served as embedded combat advisors, officers and NCOs in other Iraqi Resistance units as well. The Syrian Army and the establishments of several other Arab countries played a very large role in the Iraqi Resistance. Many of them nominal American allies.
2006-2008, the commanders of the 2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions HQed in Ninevah province Iraq spoke quite openly about the Syrian hand and what Syrian Army Colonels and senior officers were doing what. They also spoke openly about Al Qaeda.
1st and 7th Iraqi Army Divisions also spoke openly about these subjects in their press briefings.
Please read these briefings on your own directly. There are english translation available for them.
If you show the least bit of interest in looking them up and reading them, we can talk further.
“…This quote is a perfect example. An Israeli citizen should be loyal to his or her own country; serve, respect and love his or her country to the best of their ability…”
No, he should not. It’s understandable that he might — but that doesn’t make it right.
I’ll skip the obvious analogy. As I just said, it’s obvious.
“ToivaS, what is Angry Arab an expert at other than worshiping Assad’s Khera?”
Ok, anan creep. Enough is enough! It’s widely known among all Arab and non-Arab readers of his blog and his articles in Al-Alkhbar that Abu Khalil, from the very beginning has had the harshest and most severe words towards Assad, his regime and the Baath party, a line of which he never diverted one iota. But soon enough he started to be EQUALLY critical of the opposition which drew him a slew of invectives from ALL sides. This is documented stuff. Now stop making things up and spreading shit you know nothing about or, I’m warning you, I’d reveal here whom you work for. I’m serious!!
Pray tell, anan the fantasist. Explain to us how the writer of this article can be called an “Assad’s worshiper”?
The Eccentricities of Bashar al-Assad
As’ad Abu-Khalil (The Angry Arab)
“Bashar al-Assad is an eccentric character. He is quite different from his father. He belongs to the new generation of Arab rulers: some Arab former rulers grew up in poverty and harsh conditions (in the Gulf region). The new generation of rulers are more pompous and isolated from public opinion, because they grew up in royal (republican or monarchist) palaces…….
…….
How does one read his aloofness? It could be one of his eccentricities. But it could also be part of the burden of growing up in a ruler’s court. People like this can’t believe that there are people who don’t love them. They start to believe their own paid for propaganda. Many regime supporters disagreed with me on Twitter when I said this, but I will say it again: I don’t believe that Bashar spoke once to the Syrian people directly. He never appeared to offer respect or to bow down to the Syrian people. Instead, he does not leave room in his rhetoric for complexities. For him, the regime is Syria, and then there are the “terrorists.” He does not make an effort to address those who hate him but who have not carried arms against the regime.
But one can explain his aloofness in another way: it could be because he is no longer running the show. It is possible that the regional-international war is now so intense and vast, that the regional-international supporters of Bashar (Iran, Hezbollah and Russia) have taken over from him. The game may now be bigger than Bashar but he remains responsible for every drop of blood spilled because he remains the official ruler of the country and has not expressed any desire to resign.”
link to english.al-akhbar.com
Who is the KHARA here but yourself?
“Al-Alkhbar ”
Ooops! Al-Akhbar
Unusually perceptive comment by the Angry Arab. I am pleasantly impressed.
I guess the attack on the soldiers in Fort Hood wasn’t terrorism either.
Again, what was the justification for assassinating al-Awlaki?
The attack on Fort Hood was treason from a respected US Army Major and 20 year veteran.
Al Awlaki was a Takfiri who wanted to mass murder muslims and nonmuslims all over the world. Praise be to Allah that he is gone.
So you admit that the attack in Fort Hood was not terrorism?
What’s the evidence that al-Awlaki wanted to murder millions of Muslims and non-Muslims around the world?
“The attack on Fort Hood was treason from a respected US Army Major and 20 year veteran.”
Only if, by the attack, he intended to make war on the United States. The Gov. doesn’t have to prove such a thing to prosecute him, so he won’t be charged with treason.
He never even broke the law. You’re obviously a fascist.
“Al Awlaki was a Takfiri who wanted to mass murder muslims and nonmuslims all over the world. Praise be to Allah that he is gone.”
And I thought praising the death of a person was a big no-no.
Al Awlaki was a Takfiri who wanted to mass murder muslims and nonmuslims all over the world.
You’re an idiot.
MRW wrote: “You’re an idiot.”
I know. Others have already told me this. Do you disagree with the statement? If so why?
“anan” you are an idiot if you think commenters can’t recognise somebody with a “distract and divert” brief. You keep on saying you are here to learn, and then keep claiming incredibly detailed knowledge of situations nobody else seems to have much information on. And some of your best friends are Journalists, and you correspond with Juan Cole. So what are you doing here?
“…I guess the attack on the soldiers in Fort Hood wasn’t terrorism either…”
It looked more like the Colorado movie theater killing to me.
I’m sure a disturbed person who is Muslim is likely to find in al Qaeda’s rhetoric a justification for acting out. Unless it can be shown that the disturbed person wouldn’t have just found some other rationale for acting out if he hadn’t been Muslim, I wouldn’t call it an act of terrorism, no.
Obviously, there’s some uncertainty and grey areas here — and obviously, we cannot deny the link between al Qaeda’s rhetoric and all acts of violence perpetrated in response. However, at the same time, that someone who is Muslim does something because he’s convinced Islam demands it is no more necessarily a terrorist than is a Christian who does something because ‘the Bible told him to do it.’ Presumably, there’s been some disturbed Jew who thought he was acting out something in the Torah when he killed. Was he a terrorist?
That guy in Fort Hood struck me as just another dude going postal. This used to be pretty much an all-white thing. It’s nice that it’s becoming an equal-opportunity activity. We’ve had black multiple killers, an Asian multiple killer, now a Muslim multiple killer…
I can see you disagreeing with this — and legitimately. However, I refer you to the ‘motivation’ section in the Wikipedia article. There’s considerable disagreement about how to classify the Fort Hood shooter.
If only the Branch Davidians had had some more ‘outside’ help, we’d all be singing ‘Kumbaya my lord’ on mount Wacko every morning.
This is one example of the “takfiri” elements that are infested in the Syrian opposition:
link to youtube.com
The translation into English, in a nutshell, is that the Shias of Syria are the enemy and that anyone who is found to be collaborating with them in any way will be exterminated. Literally. I am Iraqi Shia myself, and therefore am quite familiar with this kind of wahhabi/salafi rhetoric and the mayhem and destruction that the followers of this extremist sect carried (and is still carrying) out on the Iraqi population. This is just the tip of the ice-berg for Syria, it will get much worse before it gets better.
Also, I’ve posted this article from the Guardian in a previous thread:
link to guardian.co.uk
Look at some of the alliances between the Syrian opposition and the US gov’t, the CIA, Bilderberg, etc…
Lastly, for an interesting perspective on the Syrian bombings and the role that the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc… are playing in the overall conflict, see:
link to original.antiwar.com
And..
link to salon.com
Both demonstrate the sheer hypocrisy and double standards of the West and specifically the U.S. with regards to these issues. Sort of like the way they support the MEK opposition, still listed as a terrorist organization by the US state department (although they’re lobbying very hard to have them removed), and similar to the US support for terrorism in Latin America. The School of the Americas, operating out of Georgia, directly training and supporting some of the worst mass murderers, torturers, and thugs ever. See:
link to guardian.co.uk
I wonder whether all of the above, plus countless other examples, would suggest that the international community has a right and moral obligation to use a) gun-boat diplomacy against the US of A, b) implement the harshest form of economic sanctions to starve the civilian population, c) train, arm, fund and otherwise support local militias to overthrow the government, or d) get down and dirty with a Shock and Awe military intervention, blowing the country and its people to smithereens, in order to carry out regime change and implement some other cultural/political alternative to the dominant democracy/capitalism variety of the modernist ideology. Sounds all fine and dandy, right?
Schlonich Akhoia Averroes? Salam Aleikum.
That youtube link was extremely scary.
Regarding the FSA; Obama has yet to decide whether to support them or not with lethal combat enablers such as weapons and training. Concern from Maliki is one of the reasons Obama is so divided.
As you know the US government has multiple silos and often it seems like each of them are carrying out their own foreign policy oblivious to the other silos or any “whole of government” coordination.
There are some in the CIA who are a bit too enamored with Salafi extremists and their sponsors in the Gulf establishment, Pakistani Deep State and among the Egyptian Salafis.
Many uniformed officers in the American armed forces have a very negative view of the CIA. Partly because many CIA are very green, naive and uninformed. But also partly because of how the thought process of the CIA has been influenced by the establishments of “nominal” US allies that duplicitously support Salafi extremists (which to a tea are all viscerally anti American in addition to being anti Sufi, anti Shia, anti Kurd, anti Ahmedi, anti Jewish, anti Hindu, anti Russian, anti atheist, anti communist etc.). Some CIA people are perceived as being partly brainwashed by America’s worst enemies. And I am putting this much more politely than GIs say it.
Part of the issue is that CIA officers often have little understanding of military matters, COIN, capacity building, economic development, the real world etc.
For example the CIA reported in late 2006 that Al Qaeda had decisively won the war in Al Anbar and now controlled the entire province. The CIA also believed that this victory would be very difficult to reverse, and to over generalize the CIA was presenting options such as throwing Maliki and the Iraqi Army over the bus to negotiate with Salafi nutjobs. The CIA also greatly underestimated the capacity of the Iraqi Army’s 1st Division and 7th Divisions that were then based in Al Anbar. [As you know Averroes, The Gulf, Assad and Arab League strongly opposed any international attempts to build a powerful Iraqi Army and were continuously spreading false propaganda about how weak and incompetent the Iraqi Army was, in part to persuade the US Congress to cut off funding for the Iraqi Army. Often elements of this propaganda would end up in official US government reports.]
Of course the CIA report in Al Anbar in late 2006 was 100% incorrect and read like pure Saudi Arabian, Jordanian, Assad propaganda. Unfortunately much of the intelligence the CIA provided MNF-I 2004-2007 was deeply inaccurate and biased in favor of Salafis.
The US government is deeply internally divided regarding the MEK. If you noticed, the US State Department to date still calls them terrorists. The MEK hasn’t yet gotten appreciable help from the US Department of Defense. All that happened was that MNF-I decided not to waste resources directly attacking the MEK when it had so many higher priority missions to complete. Ultimately Maliki did take the MEK out, and the US refused to lift a finger to help the MEK.
“US support for terrorism in Latin America. The School of the Americas, operating out of Georgia, directly training and supporting some of the worst mass murderers, torturers, and thugs ever. See:”
The School of the Americas is America’s only spanish language military school. As a result all Latin American countries use it. Even ones that don’t like America. Part of the reason it exists is so that all the militaries in Latin America can learn about each other, interact with each other, conduct joint operations together, and so that American GIs can practice Spanish. Education and capacity building are good things. Because of education and capacity building, Latin Americans can handle their own affairs without very expensive direct American involvement. This should be the model for how America conducts business everywhere.
To blame the school of Americas for what some of its alumni do makes no sense. It is like blaming Harvard or HKUST for every bad action every one of their alumni make.
Would you rather that the US had provided no training for any Iraqi Army officers and NCOs? Would you rather that no Iraqi Army officers were training inside the US as we speak? If this had happened, it is almost certain that millions of Iraqis would have been mass murdered by the very Salafis you are so right to be concerned about.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
” international community has a right and moral obligation to use a) gun-boat diplomacy against the US of A”
For what purpose. America is already a free democracy. And its people are generally affluent, successful, happy and prosperous. America generally does well by its own people. Not as rich as some other countries (only 4.3% of Americans are millionaires compared to 17.3% of Singaporeans, and America has such a small percentage of its population that has over $100 million in wealth that the US isn’t even in the top 25 countries list), but successful none the less. The US has low unemployment. Not by Asian standards of course. But low by international standards. Why would the international community use gun boat diplomacy against the US? There are many who need international help more than Americans do.
“b) implement the harshest form of economic sanctions to starve the civilian population”
For what purpose? Sanctions against the US would cause a deep global financial crisis and depression. Likely over a billion poor people around the world would starve to death. Africa and Latin America would be devastated. And for what?
“c) train, arm, fund and otherwise support local militias to overthrow the government”
Why? The US government tries to look after Americans for the most part. Elections are free, fair and transparent. There is freedom of press, speech and religion. Any Americans who disagree with the US government should do so through the political system. How would this benefit Americans? How would this benefit anyone in the world? Who benefits from a global financial crisis and depression?
“d) get down and dirty with a Shock and Awe military intervention, blowing the country and its people to smithereens, in order to carry out regime change and implement some other cultural/political alternative to the dominant democracy/capitalism variety of the modernist ideology.”
Are you joking? Why would anyone want to do that? What could possibly be gained by that?
@anan
This is old classic story. If and when you invade a foreign country, chances to succeed is very limited without population consent. They will start to resist occupation in time or immediately.
“If and when you invade a foreign country, chances to succeed is very limited without population consent. They will start to resist occupation in time or immediately.”
I am sorry. But as a student of history it is rare that a country will “violently” resist occupation, and even when they do, they generally lose.
This said, in Al Anbar the “occupation” they were resisting was the occupation of the Government of Iraq and the Iraqi Army. Al Qaeda in Al Anbar called them both “Iranians.” Their primary MO was that they were fighting “Iranian” occupation.
I am reminded of very nice cartoon drawn by a US Marine officer in Al Anbar to explain things to fellow Americans, probably around late 2005. The drawing shows a US Marine having few friends in Al Anbar. And it shows the US Marine’s Iraqi Army Shiite colleague having no friends in Al Anbar.
When Falluja happened in November 2004, the locals in Falluja were scared to death not as much of the Marines, but rather of the Iraqi Army that followed them in. Some Iraqi Army soldiers drew graffiti murals about “Remember Karbala.” Implying that some local Fallujans were responsible for Saddam’s genocide of 30,000 civilians in Karbala over 3 days in 1991. And reminding people about what Muawiyah did to Ali in Karbala in 661, what Muawiyah persuaded Hassan’s wife to do to him in 669 and what Yazid did to Hussein in 680 in Karbala.
Of course the Iraqi Security Forces and Government of Iraq decisively won the war in Al Anbar in early 2007. Weeks after the CIA stated that the war was lost in Al Anbar and that Al Qaeda controlled the province completely. [Could the CIA analysts who wrote that report have really been that stupid, or where they intentionally lying?]
Would you rather that no Iraqi Army officers were training inside the US as we speak? If this had happened, it is almost certain that millions of Iraqis would have been mass murdered by the very Salafis you are so right to be concerned about.
and what of the iraqi officers from the badr brigades? the US turned a blind eye to their savagery as the genocide of sunnis served the US at that time. while the compliant msm was screaming about sadr hardly a peep about hakim’s lethal killers. the hypocrisy is astounding.
link to independent.co.uk
Annie Robbins, what Badr/SCIRI/ISCI did at Iraqi MoI will forever blight the Iraqi people much as the Nabka continues to horrify the conscience of good Israelis.
Badr/SCIRI/ISCI might have done a lot to save Iraq from Saddam, and during 2003-2005 they were heroes among the Iraqi Shia for doing so; but there is no excuse for what they did starting in 2005.
To repeat, there is “NO EXCUSE” and I am not excusing them. However you Annie, should recognize what created them.
As you know Khomeini came to power in 1979. Once of his first acts was to call for the death of Saddam Hussein and the elimination of the Baa3th. You probably use to see video of large crows chanting in pharsi “Death to Saddam. Death to America” etc. Khomeini immediately began to massively arm, train, equip and advise the Iraqi resistance, including the Badr.
In 1980 Badr and others started a general popular revolt by the Iraqi people against Saddam. Saddam was so scared by it, that he decided to invade Iran to take out Badr’s logistics, training camps, command and control and other combat enablers. Badr continued to fight Saddam 1980-2003. Badr fielded a large fully equipped and functional army during this period.
In April, 2003, over a hundred thousand Iraqi resistance fighters entered Iraq and quickly took over most of Iraq. The Coalition stayed clear of them for good reason, knowing how much popular support they had.
The Iraqi resistance initially primarily targeted Iraqis rather than internationals, and no one as much as Badr. In fact Annie Robbins, you bosom buddy Rumsfeld claimed in July, 2003, that there was no insurgency in Iraq because the resistance was primarily mass murdering Iraqis rather than targeting coalition forces.
The Iraqi resistance killed the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of American civilians [{Iraq's civilian casualties} * {America's population}/{Iraq's population}]. This is why the Badr went crazy with wild revenge in 2005, despite Sistani pleading with Badr not to do so. Just imagine if America was going being hit by Al Qaeda with a 9/11 type attack every week for years on end. How long would it take before America’s social fabric would break apart, and American gangs would wildly go after anyone for revenge. Not After the first 10 9/11 attacks, not after the first 30 9/11 attacks. But eventually, wouldn’t many Americans go crazy too?
Badr/Hakim/SCIRI (renamed ISCI now) won a decisive victory in the January 30, 2005 Iraqi elections. Defeating Muqtada Al Sadr, Fadheela Sadrists, Dawa, Allawi etc. Muqtada only won Maysan and part of Sadr city.
Bayan Jabr got the Interior Ministry in April, 2005. And this is what he found. Rumsfeld hadn’t trained anyone. Rummy and MNF-I didn’t even start training anyone at the Interior Ministry until 2005. Something Rumsfeld frequently brought up in briefing as a way to subtly jab the hated State Department which Rumsfeld claimed should have trained the Iraqi MoI. The entire Iraqi MoI was a joke. Moreover Rumsfeld was publicly saying that it was not America’s responsibility to train the ISF, that the ISF should train, equip and fund themselves. The Iraqi resistance was organizing a genocide against the Iraqi people while MNF-I was under orders from Rumsfeld not to defeat the resistance. Dead serious. Rumsfeld’s orders were that it wasn’t MNF-I’s responsibility to defeat the resistance. Rather that was the responsibility of Iraqis (that again Rumsfeld didn’t think the US should train very much.)
Jabr felt there wasn’t time to build training camps and actually train Iraqi police officers. Rather the MoI had to induct vast numbers of Police officers without any training, and give them weapons they didn’t know how to use, and throw them into the fight ASAP against the Iraqi Resistance. This is what the MoI did. The MoI often had little idea regarding what forces they actually had. MNF-I was even more clueless than they were.
This is how death squads came into the Iraqi MoI. It would never have happened if MNF-I had actually trained the Iraqi Police. MNF-I didn’t begin training the Iraqi Police in large numbers until mid 2006. It was only then that Pres GW Bush found out that Rumsfeld hadn’t been allowing much training of the ISF for more than 3 years; and directly took more control over his administration.
Annie Robbins, who do think is more responsible for the tragedy of the Iraqi MoI? Jabr? Or Mr. Rummy . . . . I have nice hair . . . . I have a standing desk . . . I won’t take any responsibility for training any Iraqi Police so that I can say the Iraqis are fully responsible for their own security and make fun of the State Department . . . I won’t order MNF-I to defeat the Iraqi resistance so that the Iraqis do it on their own . . . The Iraqi resistance trying to organize a genocide against the Iraqi people is Iraq’s problem; not my problem . . . nothing is my problem . . . nothing is my fault . . . I am so cool . . . I rock . . . The US State Department sucks because I am not in charge of it . . . Powell sucks . . . actually everyone except for me and my friends sort of sucks . . . woman like my smile . . . I get up at 4:30 AM every day . . . I work hard . . . kids be like me . . . no one in the universe talks like me or has my unique feisty syntax . . . known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, unknown unknowns . . . did I say how smart I was?
I mean, where did President GW Bush pick this guy up from?
@Annie
The great preponderance of violence/torture came from extremist Sunni factions against the Shia population, especially from 2006 to about 2008-2009, i.e. at the height of the sectarian strife in Iraq. This is not to excuse or justify the killings and murders by some Shia militias or factions against Sunnis, which undoubtedly did happen as a tit-for-tat strategy during these horrible events. But the level of violence against Shias, in Shia neighborhoods and towns and cities, was MUCH greater than vice-versa. There were entire neighborhoods in Baghdad, for instance, which were predominantly Sunni, which forcibly removed the Shia inhabitants, through violence or threat of violence. This happened in areas like A’adthamiya, Hayy il Jihad, Hayy il Adl, al Mansur, and countless other areas with minority Shia populations. The same was not reciprocated (for the most part) in Shia dominated areas of Baghdad, such as Hayy il Qahira, Hayy il Kasra, Hayy il Shaab, al Karada, etc… Sunni families lived within these neighborhoods with little or no harassment even at the height of the conflict. This I know first-hand since I was living/working in Iraq from 2009 to the end of 2010. Again, please don’t misconstrue my statements as suggesting that no crimes or atrocities were committed by some Shias against Sunnis… this did happen, I would be the last to deny it. Of course other countries were instigating the sectarian violence also, the usual suspects, mainly Iraq’s immediate neighbors and of course the US itself. But if you wanted to compare it in numbers of deaths, amount of destruction to infrastructure, and the sheer level of brutality and violence, you would notice that the Shia population was overwhelmingly on the receiving of that violence. Still goes on today, as we speak, albeit to a lesser extent.
There were entire neighborhoods in Baghdad, for instance, which were predominantly Sunni, which forcibly removed the Shia inhabitants
you’re barking up the wrong tree. i cut my blogging teeth on iraq. . i know how baghdad got cleansed. the US was not even handed in their support of shia/sunni. they instigated fitna and it’s my assessment the ruthlessness was present across the board, including the peshmerga.
Annie, which American official do you think instigated a fitna? Or better question, which senior American official knows the meaning of the word “fitna.”
Ukhti Annie, you can be naive. If I have your permission to call you sister.
You have no idea how uninformed many of the top American officials in Iraq were at the time. It was like they were preschoolers running around around with their heads between their legs. Most of them were very idealistic. Especially in MNF-I. Do you know how many top American officials didn’t properly understand the different between twelver and ismaeli or between normal Sunni and salafi? Their pronunciation of Iraqi cities were beyond awful. What is worse is that Iraqis would use terribly American mispronunciations so that their American colleagues would be able to follow them. There were also some schmucks who advised the ISF. It was a real uneven mixture in quality.
And how do you know all this stuff you claim to know “anan” you make authoritative statement about things no one could possibly know.
Adn then he simultaenously makes the most ignorant statements that are easly debunked by main strem news reports.
You have no idea how uninformed many of the top American officials in Iraq were at the time.
‘sorry we screwed up your country iraq, we didn’t do it by intent, we were just stupid and naive’. yeah, we’ve heard that excuse endlessly, it’s not flying. triple #fail. creative destruction/plausible deniability was the MO. stuff a sock in it troll.
@anan
Alaykum al Salam. It’s “shlonek” not “shlonech” in my case. I’m fine thank you.
“The US government is deeply internally divided regarding the MEK. If you noticed, the US State Department to date still calls them terrorists. The MEK hasn’t yet gotten appreciable help from the US Department of Defense. All that happened was that MNF-I decided not to waste resources directly attacking the MEK when it had so many higher priority missions to complete. Ultimately Maliki did take the MEK out, and the US refused to lift a finger to help the MEK.”
Not true, the only division over this issue has been superficial. The MEK has been funded by big-time, highly influential Washington players and politicians for some time now. Pretty much across the board, both Democrats and Republicans. The only thing new nowadays is that this moral, political, and military support has come out in the open instead of being done under the table and behind the scenes. It’s become more politically correct to support/bankroll this type of “terrorism” since it so happens that it now falls within the US’s overall framework of stirring up sh*t and instigating instability vis-a-vis Iran. Sort of like how it became imperative for the US to remove Iraq (under Saddam) from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism back in the early 1980s. You remember that, don’t you anan? The whole messy business with Iran, the obstacles in Congress that prevented the US government and US arms-dealers from directly or indirectly providing political/economic/military/logistic support to Iraq due to it’s horrific human rights record against its civilian population at the time. The US needed a free unfettered hand to, alongside Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, etc.. (interestingly the same nations who were the primary sh*t-disturbers in Iraq post 2003, and the same ones also now involved in the Syrian debacle) to beef up Iraq’s military machine in order to fight its war against Iran. But I digress.
For clear and undeniable proof of what I’ve mentioned regarding the US support for the MEK in Iran, please see:
“Washington’s High-Powered Terrorist Supporters”, Glenn Greenwald
link to salon.com
And “Likely Victory for MEK Shills”, here: link to salon.com
Most recently, a piece accurately called “America’s Own Terror Group”:
link to salon.com
Here are direct quotes from the last article, as I can tell from your previous posts (on this and other topics) that you either totally ignore evidence that doesn’t fit nicely within your worldview of international politics, or you merely skim over it to choose and pick those parts that make you feel like you have the moral high-ground, an utterly ironical oxymoron since you staunchly support two of the worst and most deadly terrorist states on the planet, i.e. the US and its fierce little attack dog in the ME, Israel.
-”As usual for a MeK event, Abedini was able to tout more than a dozen former high-level U.S. political officials from both parties who spoke to the rally, many of whom (if not all) have been repeatedly paid large sums of money for their MeK speeches. According to Abedini, this latest rally included many of the usual MeK shills: former GOP New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, former Democratic New Mexico Governor and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former GOP U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former GOP Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Democratic State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, and several retired U.S. Generals.”
-”NBC News reported that “deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group [MeK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service,” while The New Yorker‘s Seymour Hersh detailed in April that the U.S. has provided extensive training to MeK operatives, on U.S. soil.”
-”MeK used to work in close cooperation with Saddam (during the time Saddam was America’s decreed Enemy, rather than Ally), so they were therefore Bad: Terrorists. Indeed, in 2003, when the Bush administration was advocating an attack on Iraq, one of the prime reasons it cited was “Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism,” and it circulated a document purporting to prove that assertion, in which one of the first specific accusations listed was this:
Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians.”
If I know how to properly quote or use italics I would’ve simplified it even further by pinpointing those areas that you should focus on. We wouldn’t want your mind going into burn-out mode due to overheating from too much reading.
In any case, the evidence for US government support (again, across all party lines, in all departments) is exhaustive and quite extensive. It is not even a matter of debate in our day and age of moral relativism and openly proud hypocrisy (read democracy). Seymour Hersh, one of the most respectable and respected and thorough American journalists working within the MSM, has done some pretty detailed and in-depth work in this regard. He’s been documenting/reporting it for years. Here is his most recent piece in the New Yorker called “Our Men in Iran”:
link to newyorker.com
And a video interview with him on this very topic:
link to youtube.com
We don’t agree on the MEK. They have a powerful lobby in Washington, but you exaggerate the extent of their power. Yes they had powerful friends inside the Bush administration. What I am telling you is my best information and conjecture regarding MNF-Iraq. I don’t believe that MNF-I backed MEK. Sure some other agencies of the US government could have been doing God knows what without the knowledge of the MNF-I [MNF-I had 30 countries which might be a reason MNF-I would not be informed]. I don’t know what the US ambassador knew and didn’t know. It is possible that he didn’t really know what they were up to either.
MNF-I had a simply awful relationship with many other powerful parts of the US government, which is a major reason Iraq wasn’t as successful as she should have been.
Strange as it sounds, MNF-I in many ways had a foreign policy slightly independent and contradictory to the foreign policies of other parts of the US government. That is how the American system works.
“remove Iraq (under Saddam) from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism back in the early 1980s. You remember that, don’t you anan? The whole messy business with Iran, the obstacles in Congress that prevented the US government and US arms-dealers from directly or indirectly providing political/economic/military/logistic support to Iraq due to it’s horrific human rights record against its civilian population at the time. The US needed a free unfettered hand to, alongside Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Jordan, etc.. (interestingly the same nations who were the primary sh*t-disturbers in Iraq post 2003, and the same ones also now involved in the Syrian debacle) to beef up Iraq’s military machine in order to fight its war against Iran.”
What Reagan did in the 1980s was disgraceful. The 3rd worst mistake of his life. Worst mistake was backing Takfiri Mujahadeen in Afghanistan through Gulf extremists and the Pakistani Army. 2nd worst mistake was not getting rid of all nuclear weapons with Gorbechev in return for ending missile defense. 3rd worst mistake was cohabiting with the Lucifer spawn wanna be antichrist general scum of the earth Saddam Hussein al Tikriti. 4th was not running budget surplusses during the 1980s economic boom. Other than that he was a good President.
However, note that Saddam was allied with the USSR against the US at the time. As a result Saddam didn’t get nearly as much support from the US as he got from the communists. Saddam was also closely aligned with India at the time. Saddam was also allied to China and other countries.
The only country in the world that did right then was Israel. Israel alone backed Khomeini against Saddam. Israel also probably helped the Iraqi resistance help Saddam although the extent of this help is hard to know. Thank you Israel for standing up for justice at that critical time. [Israel now please do right by the Palestinian brothers too. Thank you.]
Glenn Greenwald made up vicious lies about the Iraqi Army and now the Afghan National Army. I don’t trust him. Need to still read your links though.
Regarding Israel, I kind of support everyone. Even the FSA. I know that many of their fighters tried to destroy Iraq 2003-2007. I am hoping that they learned their lesson and will not try foolish things like that in the future. I am also strongly and proudly pro Palestinian.
Israel is not America. Just like Turkey isn’t America. The US isn’t even as closely aligned with Israel as it is with Turkey.
I heard about “former GOP New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell, former Democratic New Mexico Governor and U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson, former GOP U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, former GOP Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Democratic State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, and several retired U.S. Generals.”” at the MEK rally. Very impressive. But not nearly as impressive as what truly powerful American lobbies such as the Turkish lobby or the Saudi lobby are able to present.
Iraq needs to build its own lobby in America modeled after the Israeli, Turkish, Chinese, Indian and other powerful American lobbies. As I sadly remind my Iraqi friends; Iraq is not doing nearly as good of a job as she must. She would immeasurably serve the American people by doing so. By somewhat balancing the powerful Gulf and Pakistani lobbies. And yes even that lobby that many people on this blog speak of which does not always even serve the interests of the country it claims to support. Iraq can easily build a more powerful lobby than KSA. Iraq is helped by the fact that Iraqi interests are more similar to American interests than some of these other countries. Iraqi family values and values more generally are similar to the values of the American Midwest and South. Biden’s mother has a rosary of beads with which she says God’s name. So do many Iraqis. Iraqis and Americans share many seculars and left of center types too. There is much commonality that can be utilized.
“”NBC News reported that “deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group [MeK] that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service,””
Israel is not America.
“while The New Yorker‘s Seymour Hersh detailed in April that the U.S. has provided extensive training to MeK operatives, on U.S. soil.”” Be careful about Hersh’s sources. What I would like to know is which US agency and when.
Maybe the Obama administration is moving closer to supporting the MeK than the Bush administration did. This is possible. Have you asked any friends you might have at the US state department about it? I could try to ask around. But I am not motivated to.
Does the US support MeK or is the MeK buying some US support through their US lobby? I think this is a question that might be explored.
It sounds like a false flag operation by the Iranian regime to me.
anan, where do you get your information from? Really?
“Other than that he was a good President.”
That list indicates a pretty shitty track record on its own, not even bringing up the disastrous policies in Central America and elsewhere. It would be like saying that Saddam gassed the Kurds, violently suppressed the Shi’ites, aggressively attacked/invaded Iran, tortured and killed political and religious dissidents, but other than ALL OF THAT, he was a good president. You must be delusional. No one buys the garbage you spit out, so why not give it a break, go learn a thing or two about common sense, consistency, and the like, and perhaps then you can come back and have some real discussions.
“However, note that Saddam was allied with the USSR against the US at the time. As a result Saddam didn’t get nearly as much support from the US as he got from the communists. Saddam was also closely aligned with India at the time. Saddam was also allied to China and other countries.”
You forgot to include most of Europe and the West in general in your list of nations supporting Saddam against Iran. There isn’t a sane and intellectually consistent person out there who denies this. You can’t cherry pick which countries you want to single out and not those ones you think acted noble or righteous. It’s a load of crap. The reality is that almost every regional and global part had an angle to play in the 8 yr war between Iran and Iraq that destroyed those countries and cost millions of lives. It’s astonishingly similar to the role that most of the world is playing in Syria at the moment. So don’t even try for a second to minimize, marginalize, or otherwise legitimize and justify the role of your favorite actors. You are a hypocrite, that much is clear, I just can’t figure out whether you’re actually ignorant (which would make your hypocrisy somewhat excusable) or not (which would not).
And your assessment is wrong to indicate that the USSR provided more support to Saddam than the US, complete bullocks. We’re not talking about the latte 70s here, the situation shifted in the early 80s, the US became directly and indirectly involved in supporting Saddam, sometimes through surrogates and proxies when it wanted to avoid scandal or inquiries from Congress. The US also, incidentally, supported Iran (through Israel), the overall strategy being that they should both destroy each other and neither of them come out as the more powerful victor in the war. The strategy, in that sense, was a complete success. For a detailed account of this, and how the West and the United States was VERY MUCH involved in supporting Saddam even while they knew perfectly well about his human rights record and his ruthless suppression of his own people, I would suggest two comprehensive works:
Unholy Babylon: The Secret History of Saddam’s War, by Adel Darwish and Gregory Alexander, here: link to foreignaffairs.com
Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, by Said Aburish
link to books.google.com.au
“The only country in the world that did right then was Israel. Israel alone backed Khomeini against Saddam. Israel also probably helped the Iraqi resistance help Saddam although the extent of this help is hard to know. Thank you Israel for standing up for justice at that critical time. [Israel now please do right by the Palestinian brothers too. Thank you.]”
Ha! What a load of crap! Ever hear of Iran-Contra bud? Go look it up, you may learn a thing or two. Short version: US was directly and indirectly supporting Iraq, while simultaneously selling arms to Iran through the Israelis and with money diverted from Latin America. Some pretty dark and shysty stuff. But your good ol’ US of A can do no wrong, eh?
Nations or states rarely if every act out of moral considerations. That is a fact of international relations and politics. They do so for more mundane and selfish reasons, always, all nations, across the board. They pursue something called their “national interests”, which often have nothing to do, and many times fly right in the face, of moral questions such as human rights or democracy or whatever else. Of course they may sugar-coat their policies, dress them up, make them look altruistic and noble and benign, for the feeble-minded gullible sheep like you to swallow hook, line and sinker. But that has nothing to do with their actual realpolitik interests and goals. Some nations are better at “manufacturing consent” at home and abroad by claiming that their motives are righteous and grand, but this is just another ploy. It doesn’t match up with the reality on the ground, especially if you rack up the claims against the historical record, you’d most likely shit your pants at how strange it is that)the two (moral motives vs. historical record) never seem to cross paths. Only a mental midget would be aware of this, especially in the case of the US and Israel, but of course not limited to these two.
anan,
What about Hersh’s sources? It’s preposterous to cast doubt on something unless you have evidence to back it up. As I mentioned earlier, he’s one of the most consistent and honest and thorough investigative journalists around, especially within the MSM. And his work goes back decades. He was the first to break the news to the US population of the MyLai massacre by US forces in Vietnam, the same guy who exposed the Abu Ghraib scandal, and on and on. There is nothing in his track record to indicate that I or anyone should be skeptical or suspicious of his sources, and certainly not taking your word for it. He, like Greenwald, makes you uncomfortable because their findings and writings don’t align perfectly with your inane worldview and perspectives.
Wouldn’t be surprised if US government support for the MEK has expanded under Obomber, since he’s like Bush on roids. He’s taken it to the next level, just has the finesse and style and elegance to make his people, and the world, applaud him for it.
Israel does what it does with America’s endorsement.
How do you know what Hersh’s sources are?
Saudi Lobby? They are practially non existent. The same goes for the Chinese lobby.
According to US Feredal Law, Giuliani, Rendell, Richardson, Bolton, Mukasey and Howard Dean should all be facing serious charges for supporting a terrorist group.
Especially given how protective Hersh is about his sources in general.
The fact is that by giving a pass to all those high profile political high rollers who ARE supporting the MEK and breaking the law, is itself evidence that Obama is endorsing them.
It goes much farther than that, Hersh and a few others have demonstrated that during the Bush era, the US military was directly involved in training MEK members in Nevada. This seems to have stopped under Obomber, but there is a great deal of evidence that the CIA and other government agencies are still exchanging money, intelligence, etc… with the group. And now recently a US Court of Appeals has ruled that Clinton has a few months to decide the status of the group (whether terrorist or not), so keep a close eye on that in the run-up to possible military action against Iran.
link to washingtontimes.com
How convenient! Is it even sensible to claim that the US going to war with another country for “sponsoring terrorism” when there is exhaustive evidence that the US partakes in the same sort of thing? It’s ludicrous really.
Stop feeding Zionist propaganda agents already, especially obscenely logorrheic ones like this guy, who make the discussion site worse reading than the Aipac bulletin. Except, of course, if we want this site to also become repulsive to people looking for a serious discussion of Zionism. It almost looks as if the site owners also want that, but at least we the discussants could try to avoid it.
sardelapasti: “Stop feeding Zionist propaganda agents already, especially obscenely logorrheic ones like this guy, who make the discussion site worse reading than the Aipac bulletin. Except, of course, if we want this site to also become repulsive to people looking for a serious discussion of Zionism. It almost looks as if the site owners also want that, but at least we the discussants could try to avoid it.”
I think you are talking about me. When have I said anything anti Palestinian? I don’t know what you mean by Zionism.
I support free plural democracy and justice.
“The School of the Americas is America’s only spanish language military school. As a result all Latin American countries use it. Even ones that don’t like America. Part of the reason it exists is so that all the militaries in Latin America can learn about each other, interact with each other, conduct joint operations together, and so that American GIs can practice Spanish. Education and capacity building are good things. Because of education and capacity building, Latin Americans can handle their own affairs without very expensive direct American involvement. This should be the model for how America conducts business everywhere.”
Are you on crack? Have you even done any extensive research into this area? Have you had even a cursory look at the training manuals at the SOA? Did you even bother reading the article I linked from the Guardian? Or any other academic work that delineates the cozy and deep relationship between this terrorist-training school and the para-military and military thugs of Latin America? Say like, oh I don’t know, Chomsky’s “Culture of Terrorism” and “Turning the Tide”, which provide mind-boggling details and insights into this topic? Let me quote again, since I’m REALLY not in the mood of giving you any wiggle room on these issues:
-”The FBI defines terrorism as “violent acts… intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government, or affect the conduct of a government”, which is a precise description of the activities of SOA’s graduates. But how can we be sure that their alma mater has had any part in this? Well, in 1996, the US government was forced to release seven of the school’s training manuals. Among other top tips for terrorists, they recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of witnesses’ relatives.”
-”Last year, partly as a result of the campaign run by SOA Watch, several US congressmen tried to shut the school down. They were defeated by 10 votes. Instead, the House of Representatives voted to close it and then immediately reopen it under a different name. So, just as Windscale turned into Sellafield in the hope of parrying public memory, the School of the Americas washed its hands of the past by renaming itself Whisc.”
-”We can’t expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all, it refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence linking the al-Qaida training camps to the attack on New York, what should we do about the “evil-doers” in Fort Benning, Georgia?”
So anan, with all due respect, please at least have the decency to get your facts straight before you decide to come here and spew forth your nonsense. It really makes you look bad.
“To blame the school of Americas for what some of its alumni do makes no sense. It is like blaming Harvard or HKUST for every bad action every one of their alumni make.”
Apples and oranges, and utter bullsh*t. See above. That you can even compare the two with a straight face goes to show how far you’re willing to go to defend the indefensible and demonstrates that your mind cannot even consider or fathom the possibility that the US government has been involved in some pretty nasty business throughout the world, atrocities and war crimes and state-sponsored terrorism that you so easily and gleefully ascribe to the official enemies, whoever they happen to be at any given time.
“Would you rather that the US had provided no training for any Iraqi Army officers and NCOs? Would you rather that no Iraqi Army officers were training inside the US as we speak? If this had happened, it is almost certain that millions of Iraqis would have been mass murdered by the very Salafis you are so right to be concerned about.”
There would not have been a need to train Iraqi officers or soldiers, in the US or elsewhere, had Paul Bremer and co. not disbanded the Iraqi army in the immediate aftermath of the invasion. So what, they invade the country, lure in Al-Qaeda to a country which had no presence of them in the past, destroy the country, disband the army, etc… effectively creating the sh*t-storm in the first place, and you expect me or any other sane person out there to be oh-so-grateful for attempting to fix the problem that THEY created in the first place? Give me a freagin break. Only half-wits and hypocrites and self-serving opportunists of your ilk can even suggest something like that without flinching.
“Why would the international community use gun boat diplomacy against the US? There are many who need international help more than Americans do.”
For the obvious reasons stated earlier, as well as countless other examples. Frankly I don’t have the patience nor the time to tutor you on the list of atrocities and human-rights violations and State terrorism that the US has been involved in, regionally and globally, directly or indirectly, over the past 100 years. The great portion of that would fall in the period after WWII, but one could go back much further than that. Let me state here, unequivocally, since my point seems to have been lost of you, that I am not suggesting that the logic of invading/intervening/occupying other countries is legitimate, not in the case of the US or elsewhere. I am saying that if you want to be honest, sincere, and consistent, that the same standards you apply to others you must first and foremost apply to yourself. Otherwise you’re a hypocrite. To quote the Prophet Jesus (as):
“Or how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. “- Luke, 6:42
Noam Chomsky, on an article on the “Iran effect” a couple years back, summed it up this way:
“Doubtless Iran’s government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called “liberation,” of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites — nuclear and otherwise — in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?”
link to tomdispatch.com
One last side-note. I don’t mean to be quaint or anything, but why is American-style democracy the only legitimate type of government in your view? Should all countries, consisting of all cultures and/or religions, have to follow the a system or style of government, simply because it is the dominant one at the time, or simply because the US says so? Do all nations or peoples need to fall within the modernist discourse that produced communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and countless other isms over the past couple centuries, in order to be considered legitimate in their own right? And is promoting this cultural hegemony of the dominant power(s), through the means of force, “spreading democracy on the wings of cruise missiles”, as one Russian politician put in the run-up to the Iraq invasion… is this any different from the crazy and deranged calls of some salafi extremists that one needs to spread Islam by the sword? Is there a difference between the two? Maybe I shouldn’t hold my breath and hope that for once you’ll avoid falling into your usual habit of talking out of both sides of your mouth. But it’s worth a try. Good luck.
I suspect Anan is on something. Nothing else would explain his level of ignorance and outright stupidity.
Anan is clearly not interested in edcating himself on the topics he pretends to address. There si somethign inherently creeepy about the degree of delusion and discinnection with reality he displays. Just about everything he says is false or counter factual, and when this is pointed out to him, he is not the least bit peturbed – he just dusts himself off and continues on as though nothing had happened.
Yes indeed. Notice that the only other poster here who shared Anan’s views was Sassan, that fraudulent impire loving cretin who claimed to be an Iranian?
Seriously, it’s a waste fo time trying to engage Anan. He’s eitehr painfully deluded/frighfully ignrant or incredibly cynical and dishonest.
Probably all of the above.
“It is like blaming Harvard or HKUST for every bad action every one of their alumni make.” Because Harvard grads regularly murder peons then dis-embowel them so they’ll sink when tossed into the river.
Dear Mr. Invigilator: why are my considerate, thoughtful, helpful posts scrubbed and the excrescences of these arm chair hoplites allowed into the bloglight?
“…I wonder whether all of the above, plus countless other examples, would suggest that the international community has a right and moral obligation to use a) gun-boat diplomacy against the US of A, b) implement the harshest form of economic sanctions to starve the civilian population, c) train, arm, fund and otherwise support local militias to overthrow the government, or d) get down and dirty with a Shock and Awe military intervention, blowing the country and its people to smithereens, in order to carry out regime change and implement some other cultural/political alternative to the dominant democracy/capitalism variety of the modernist ideology. Sounds all fine and dandy, right?…”
Well, (1) you can’t do most of this, because then we wouldn’t be able to buy your products. China would never permit it.
(2) Have you ever seen just how much corn we grow here? (Okay — not this year). But in general, (b) is a non-starter. We could even meet our own date needs, in a crunch. There are probably enough canned goods in American closets to feed us for years. Hell, you might help us lose weight. ‘Mommy, not corn again!’ The discovery that there are still 246 billion unwanted cans of Spam left over from World War Two…
(3) At least in the case of (c), some of us would just enjoy it. You don’t know some of the Americans I know.
Colin,
Please note that my points were all theoretical ones, based on the line of logic that some use to justify military action. In other words, if you can justify the way the US conducts its foreign policy in many parts of the world, then you must by extension be willing to justify and support any other country that carries out the same actions or policies. As they have. See for instance the preposterous and hypocritical statements of Condoleeza Rice during Russia’s invasion of and conflict with Georgia a few years back:
link to youtube.com
Putin and others in Russia’s officialdom noted the double standards applied by the US by responding accordingly:
link to youtube.com
Note that I rarely, if ever, would support wars of aggression nor sanctions in any circumstances to influence regime change or any other security or geopolitical outcome. The burden of proof lies absolutely on the shoulders of the belligerent nation, the aggressor, to prove unequivocally, and without a shred of doubt, that the nation being intervened in or invaded or attacked is in fact guilty of being a real existential threat to the country doing the attacking, invading, bombing, etc… It’s the proverbial slippery slope, and many other nations can (and have) used similar arguments and justifications to redeem their actions against other nations, with at least as much “evidence” as the US provided vis-a-vis Afghanistan or Iraq. Saddam’s invasion of Iran in 1980, and his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (after getting the green light from the US to do so), are just two cases in point. There are probably countless others.
Akhoiya Averroes,
Hope to respond to your thoughtful observations in other comments later. If I could respond to this comment first?:
1)
“if you can justify the way the US conducts its foreign policy in many parts of the world, then you must by extension be willing to justify and support any other country that carries out the same actions or policies. As they have. See for instance the preposterous and hypocritical statements of Condoleeza Rice during Russia’s invasion of and conflict with Georgia a few years back”
We 100% agree. There has to be a common universal standard.
Iraq was in a civil war 1980-2008 against one of the greatest demons in world history . . . Saddam Hussein. Despite massive help from Khomeini, Khamenei, Europe, US, at least 15 countries, the Iraqi resistance was unable to overthrow Saddam. The Iraqi resistance was clearly on the right side and Saddam was on the side of demons.
The Iraqi resistance in 2003 requested and accepted American help to overthrow Saddam.
This is different from Georgia. Georgia was a successful prosperous free democracy and friend of Russia. Russia’s attack on it harmed Russia’s own long term interests. On the other hand Georgia was foolish not to proactively advance Russia’s interests in Ossetia, knowing how sensitive and irrational Russia was on the issue.
The US and Europe should have tried to stay neutral. Fortunately Georgia was not in NATO. The world needed and still needs a close working relationship between NATO and Russia to better fight the Takfiri menace. Sometimes the welfare of the few must be sacrificed for the welfare of the many. Unfortunately in this case Georgia needed to sacrifice for the welfare of the world.
I am not justifying what Russia did, however. Georgia didn’t want a conflict. They had an entire combat maneuver brigade in Wasit province Iraq (2.5 K strong) when Russia struck, which demonstrates that Georgia wanted to avoid a conflict with Russia.
Georgia’s performance in Iraq was admirable, and far better than England’s.
The Georgians had successfully advised what was at that time one of the best brigades in the entire Iraqi Army. The 32nd motorized commando brigade, 8th Iraqi Army Division [The division Lieutenant General Othman created from scratch.]. This once Georgian advised brigade played a major role in winning the Iraq war. When 32-8 brigade was sent down to save the English from shame and defeat in Basrah, it was replaced (in Wasit) with the awful British advised brigade from Basrah, which the Georgians helped fix up. [Old 1st Bde, 10th IAD. In my opinion the worst brigade in the entire Iraqi Army. And the one the English had the largest role creating and advising.]
How interesting that Georgia and the Iraqis had to fix the whale of a mess creating by England in Southern Iraq. How the empire had fallen. What a contrast between the performance of the English in Basrah and Maysan, and the performance of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi MoI rapid reaction forces.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Putin and others in Russia’s officialdom noted the double standards applied by the US by responding accordingly:”
With all respect, Russia’s actions had little to do with the US. America simply isn’t that important. Putin acted because of emotion related to South Ossetia.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“with at least as much “evidence” as the US provided vis-a-vis Afghanistan or Iraq.”
Do you refer to Charlie Wilson, Jimmy Carter 1979 to Reagan 1988 regarding Afghanistan?
Not sure what you mean by Iraq. The real reason for the 2003 US invasion in March 2003 was because Saddam tried to kill GW Bush’s dad and Lara.
link to youtube.com.
It wasn’t business, it was strictly personal. It was between the two families, the Saddams and the Bushes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
” Saddam’s invasion of Iran in 1980, and his invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (after getting the green light from the US to do so), are just two cases in point. There are probably countless others.”
Do you think Jimmy Carter asked Saddam to invade Iran in 1980? Jimmy Carter has never acknowledged that he did this.
Saddam was allied with the USSR, France and India 1968 to 1991 (in 1991 the USSR, France and India all abandoned Saddam.) 1968-1991, Saddam supported the Soviets against the US. None the less, Reagan was so angry at Khomeini that he tilted in favor of an anti American Soviet client state against Khomeini. Carter, however, has not acknowledged that he supported the evil Saddam Hussein . . . America’s long time enemy.
I cannot believe the extent of the crap you post here Anan. You must be a troll who is simply getting a perverse kick out of watching the reactions you get to your diatribes.
The civil war in Iraq began after Desert Storm. Between 1980 and 1991, the US was backing Saddam against Iran and turnign a blind eye to his massacre of the Kurds. The Iraqi resistance was nothing more than a couple of exiles stationed in Iran.
No it wasn’t. georgian forces attacked Russian peace keepers, which led to the Russians booting them out of South Ossetia. Russia won a major strategic\ and geopolitical victory as a result.
Rubbish. There is no relationship between NATO and Russia. In fact, NATO’s only purpose seem to be to kick sand in the face of Russia. NATO should have been disbanned when the Soviet Union imploded.
Saakashvili did. He was sure the US would have his back when he took on the Russians.
Winnning the Iraq war? On what day was victory declared?
How did they fix the mess in Southern Iraq?
No, Putin acted because of some delusional ambitions Saakashvili harvbored for re-claiming South Ossetia.
Absolutely rubbish. That whole stpory was long since debunked. Are yiou seriosuly going to argue that Congress voted to support the war because of a phony story about a failed asassination attempt?
And the US. It was Reagan that removed Iraq from it’s list of terrorist states, thereby enabling IRaq to qualify for loans to purchase dual use technology.
Yuo really do reside in a pAralllel universe Anan. Nothing you ever post is ever supported by evidence or sources. Why do you isist on wasting everyone’s time with your diatribes?
anan propaganda:
anan. georgia instigated the conflict and attacked south ossesia. quit lying. all the propaganda at the time tried to assert russia attacked first. they didn’t. even wiki acknowledges this:
link to en.wikipedia.org
more here: link to moonofalabama.org
check first comment, for DEBKAfile exclusive ..fun!
but this is much better: link to moonofalabama.org
whoops! more anan debunking. did you really think you could come into this thread 12 days later and your lies/propaganda would go unnoticed? don’t use the threads on my posts for dumping grounds of disinformation. get it?
if anyone is interested in more on that war i recommend googling ‘moon of alabama’ and ‘south ossesia’. after about a month all the news stories confirmed what he said first. after the fact of course, goes without saying.
link to moonofalabama.org
“all the propaganda at the time tried to assert russia attacked first.”
That might have been the case in the US. I don’t recall the MSM trying to give that impression.
here’s cnn RoHa, here the framing..’russia is causing these problems’. it took over a month for the msm to comeout with the truth, georgia attacked first, by over 12 hrs as i recall. they pounded south ossesia before russia responded.
link to youtube.com
“here’s cnn RoHa,”
CNN is a US channel.
The irony Annie is that Fox News were the first to report the truth as to whom attacked first.
link to youtube.com
link to youtube.com
Thank you for that Annie. It’s mind boggling that crap that Anan posts to this blog. I can’t fathom what he is doing here to be honest, other than make an ass of himself.
A little background. Saakashvili was Washington’s man, replacing Eduard Shevardnadze. Georgia was put on a path to NATO membership and became the second largest per-capita recipient of U.S. aid – after Israel, of course – but Shevardnadze didn’t toe the line completely, so he had to go. “Shevvy,” as U.S. officials called him, lost out, as Gwynne Dyer notes, when he defied Washington on a crucial matter:
Here are some fo the reports about the icnident at the time:
link to topics.blogs.nytimes.com
link to lewrockwell.com
link to fff.org
US blamed over S Ossetia crisis
link to aljazeera.com
Head of World Congress of Russian Jewry accuses Georgia of genocide
link to haaretz.com
Blowback From Bear-Baiting
link to antiwar.com
In the guise of humanitarian aid
Bush dispatches US military forces to Georgia
link to uruknet.de
CNN fabricates reports about Georgia and South Ossetia
link to english.pravda.ru
Bush rebuking Russia? Putin must be splitting his sides
link to guardian.co.uk
Contrary to Anan’s claim that the incident was bad for Russia
Putin’s Winning Hand:
link to informationclearinghouse.info
Russian womans and children killed by georgian troops
link to youtube.com
Shingo,
Great rebuttals, from you and Annie, as always. But I do think it’s a waste of time vis-a-vis anan. I doubt if anyone here takes him seriously, and doubt even more that anyone will be able to change his inane views.
“Rubbish. There is no relationship between NATO and Russia. In fact, NATO’s only purpose seem to be to kick sand in the face of Russia. NATO should have been disbanned when the Soviet Union imploded.”
Russia and NATO have worked closely many times. Most especially in Afghanistan starting in 2001. Russian and NATO embedded combat advisors for the Northern Alliance worked shoulder to shoulder.
I think Russia should join NATO. The conflict between Russia and some other free democracies helps evil doers.
“Great rebuttals, from you and Annie, as always. But I do think it’s a waste of time vis-a-vis anan. I doubt if anyone here takes him seriously, and doubt even more that anyone will be able to change his inane views.”
Averroes, how is supporting a strong ISF inane? I haven’t called you inane.
” It was Reagan that removed Iraq from it’s list of terrorist states, thereby enabling IRaq to qualify for loans to purchase dual use technology.”
Huge mistake. It is a major reason why Reagan isn’t one America’s great presidents.
Saddam was evil. Reagan should have known that.
Georgia is very complicated Shingo. It would take a long time to discuss it in the lenght it deserves.
I would say that Saakashvili (who was never Europe’s or America’s man, although he pretended to be that and extensively lobbied for everything he could get) was reckless in his actions in South Ossetia. He partly provoked Russia, which still shouldn’t have attacked militarily. Georgia was still a friend of Russia and Russia could have used its leverage (and its close relationship with America and Europe) to pressure Saakashvili. Russia has many allies inside Georgia.
Both Georgia and Russia were hurt by the conflict. Mostly because it is bad for business.
RoHA, CNN is not a US channel. CNN is owned by a $40 billion market cap multinational corporation (TWX ticker symbol) that has shareholders from all over the world. CNN maximizes profit. This is far more important to them than to listen to the US government.
Annie, some of my friends wrote pretty damning articles about Saakashvili. Many of my friends criticized Saakashvili. Damn good articles in fact. He wasn’t America’s or Europe’s friend and caused all sorts of problems for his supposed allies.
His stupidity is multifold. As soon as he heard that Russians were wounded, he should have immediately called Putin, and cried for forgiveness.
This is an example of Saakashvili manipulating a situation and moving it so far so fast, that other countries responded before learning all the facts.
He wasn’t America’s or Europe’s friend
he was being advised by a neocon salwart out of nyc. i recall doing the research on it at the time. plus, the israelis were training troops there. all of this is documented. we dumped him like a hot potatoe when he (we) got busted for faking the narrative. but we were definitely on board with his attack.
we (US/IS neocons) want georgia in nato to build a ring around russia. south ossesia is disputed under international law (legally, as opposed to ‘occupied’ like the palestinian territories) and no country can be part of nato with disputed territory. so this action was to peel russia away from south ossesia, it didn’t work. c rice and france were also involved with a little switcheroo wrt an agreement w/russia. it all fell flat. so really anan, go read the MOA links, it is all there and don’t give me this crap like we weren’t behind Saakashvili every step of the way until he fell on his face.
So why are you blaming Putin for Saakashvili’s stupidity?
You’re phony version of events has beeen debunked. Juist admit you are wrong and move on.
“he was being advised by a neocon salwart out of nyc.”
What is a neocon? I know that Saakashvili hired a lot of guys. Hired help.
I am amazed by the lobby he was able to build for such a small country. If Georgia can do it, then Iraq can build a “FAR” more powerful lobby than that. Iraq should do it. So should other good countries of conscience.
Be curious to get your research and file it. If I ever argue this position with someone again, I want to have more facts. In 2008, I didn’t have all the facts. And I guarantee you that the Americans duped by Saakashvili didn’t have all the facts either, including senior people in the US establishment.
“israelis were training troops there” Do you know how many countries around the world Israelis train troops in? Serbia and Israel are long time allies. Israelis like how the Serbs fought the Nazis in WWII. Israel helped Serbia until right before both the 1995 and 1999 NATO wars against Serbia. Israeli weapons shipments arrived in Serbia weeks before the 1999 war.
Israelis are friends with a lot of countries that America isn’t that close with.
Israel was simultaneously supported after a fashion by both the US and USSR 1948-1961. Israel continued to have an interesting relationship with the USSR throughout the cold war. Israel quickly befriended Indira Gandhi 1967-1984, despite Indira being on the outs with the US.
Israel famously it assumed to have given US F-16 and radar technology to the Chinese. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Israel and China help each other train, although I have never seen news to that affect.
Russia and Israel have close defense cooperation. Closer than Israel/Georgia. When push comes to shove, I think Israel would side with Russia against Georgia.
“we dumped him like a hot potatoe when he (we) got busted for faking the narrative”
You don’t get it. By then Bush was getting wiser about some of the folks around him, including Cheney. When Bush found out that there was an attempt to dupe him, he was justifiably not pleased. Nor were the other countries Saakashvili tried to dupe.
“but we were definitely on board with his attack.” :LOL: Oh my you have an imagination.
The US, Europe and Russia were allies in Afghanistan and with respect to Pakistan at the time. And truth be told many countries are secret allies against the Gulf extremists although very few have the courage to openly admit it. Al Qaeda and Taliban linked networks and Pakistan was much more important to both NATO and Russia than a few tiny almost irrelevant villages in South Ossetia.
But I will tell you what. Next time I argue this position with someone (mostly to argue why it is important to improve cooperation between Russia and other free democracies, I will ask you for data and arguments. I really don’t care that much about South Ossettia aside from the fact that it is detracting from solving far more important global challenges.
“we (US/IS neocons) want georgia in nato to build a ring around russia.”
Why? For what purpose? Russia and NATO are de facto mostly allies. This was the opinion of GW Bush, Condi, Biden and Obama.
Israel wants Russia to become a closer ally. Israel most definitely isn’t interested in antagonizing Russia for irrelevant things.
Rumor is that Georgia and Azerbaijan might help Israel and sectarian Arabs attack Iran. If so, Israel would dance a little for them. But not seriously threaten the Israeli/Russian friendship. At least in my opinion.
“ossetia is disputed under international law” . . . Absolutely. And I think the free world should absolutely try not to get involved in it. Georgia must sacrifice her claims for the welfare of the world. At least that is the argument I make.
“no country can be part of nato with disputed territory” Bingo. Right again.
“so this action was to peel russia away from south ossesia, it didn’t work.” Now here I don’t follow. Russia would have to concede for the territory to no longer be disputed. Angering Russia through inept gymnastics and hurting Russian peacekeepers does not help.
“c rice and france were also involved with a little switcheroo wrt an agreement w/russia.” I don’t follow. How could Saakashvili’s actions have possibly benefited the US or France? Those tiny villages in South Ossettia are almost worthless.
“it all fell flat.” For Georgia and Russia. It was terrible publicity for the both of them. And terrible for the concept of free democracy and international rule of law in general.
“so really anan, go read the MOA links”
When I want to argue this case with someone, I will. Not now though.
“don’t give me this crap like we weren’t behind Saakashvili every step of the way until he fell on his face.”
You aren’t the only one who has sources. I also have friends in DC and friends who are close to the DC crowd as you do. I don’t believe Bush knew about it in advance. If he did, Bush would have pulled Saakashvili’s neck. It was very inconvenient for the US and for Bush. Bush badly wanted a good Russian US relationship, even an alliance.
I am amazed by the lobby he was able to build for such a small country.
He didn’t build a lobby for his country. The US regards Georgia as a strategic state geopolitically with regards to teh Caspina and Russia. The necons simply jumped on boar when they saw Georgia as an opportunityh to kick sand in the face of Russia.
You evidently still don’t have them. The Russians disciovered Israeli air bases in Georgia, which were likely being preppped for an attack on Iran. Thsi was not justa case of Israel trainign troops.
False as always. Israel is friends with no one but the US.
Israel didn’t give them anything, they sold it to the Chinese and continue to do so.
Wrong as always. There is no defense cooperation. Russia has bought some techniolocy from Israel, but other than diplomatic relations, there si certianly no defense pact.
Again, what you think is both irrelevant and rediculous.
Becasue we all know what your idea of the truth is, don’t we Anan? You’ve got all those leaders and generals on speed dial.
Wrong as always. Are you forgetting why NATO was created? NATO should have been disolved when the Berlin Wall fell. It didn’t. NATO’s primary raison d’etre is to remain hostile to Russia which is why NATO continues to exapnd easward, in contravention of the assurances given to Russia.
One the truly delusional would ever suggest that Russia and NATO are de facto allies. Russia has asked to participate in NATO strategy and activities and NATO has told them to get lost every time. NATO continues to reject Russia’s help with the missile defense strategy becasue as everyone knows, the mssile defesne shield has nothig to do with defense, and everythig to do with targetting Russia.
Russia has even threatend to bomb those missile facilities in NATO countriesd like Poland.
link to washingtontimes.com
link to rt.com
link to articles.latimes.com
link to dailymail.co.uk
link to csmonitor.com
You really don’t hace a cclue do you Anan? Are you seriously this stupid or simply tryign very hard to give that illusion?
Why? For what purpose?
Because the Washigton establishement never got it through their skulls that the Cold War ended. Every since Putin took control of Russia and re-established Russia’s independence and sovereignty, the West hazs had it in for Russia. When Yeltsin was at the helm, the West loved him. They saw Russia as one big fire sale of assets and resources to be exploited. Putin turned off the spigot and they are furious about it.
Israel has no allies. It reufses to sign an alliance with anyone, including the US. Israle wants to keep Russia close, becasue they know that Russia’s support for her enemies stands as the greatest therat to ISrael’s regional genemony. When Russia agree to sell Iran S-300 anti aircraft missiles, Israel went into a panick and franticalyl lobbied Washinton to pressure Russia into backing out of the deal.
You don’t follow or you don’t have an answer to an pobvious statement? North Ossetia is practially part of Russia and most South Ossetians are far closer to Russia than Georgia. In fact, prior to the atatck on South Ossetia buy Georgia, Russia had been issuing passports to the South Ossetians, who gratefully accepted them.
The territory might be disputed, but the scale is clearly tipped in Russia’s favour, so the outcome would be very much in Russia’s favour if South Ossetians were to determine their own future.
Try tto keep Anan. The US and NATO are not interested in any tiny villages. Georgia and South Ossetia are all part of the the pipleline channels the West ant to developed from the Caspian to the India Ocean.
No it wasn’t. It was a stratgic and PR coup for Russia. It cost teh Russians very little and it served as an example to all current and potential puppet reigimes in the region that when it comes down to a crisis, Washinton cannot be counted on to deliver.
Then get lost and stop wanting everyone’s time. You’re arguing from a position of willful ignorance and simply making an ass of yourself.
You wish. If you have friends, then they are no doubt part of the clueless circle or morons that inhabit the American Enterprise Institute. Bush was never calling the shots in the White House.
Edu ate yourself before insulting otehrs on this forum that clearly understand this topic far better than you do. You’re nothing but a troll.
Thank God for small mercies, because you’re clearly the least qualified person to discuss Georgia. You know so little about it, and I don’t have the time or patience to correct all your mistakes, lies and outright BS or explain it all to you.
Anyone who followed the faux Rose Revolution that overthrew Shevardnadze knows that Saakashvili was without doubt, Europe’s and America’s man. He was pro NATI and pro Western through and through. He received an LL.M. from Columbia Law School in 1994 and took classes at The George Washington University Law School the following year. In 1995, he also received a diploma from the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, so don’t waste your timer suggesting he was anything but Washington’s blue eyed boy.
Bush assured Saakashvili that he would do his best to get the Georgians into NATO. It was the Europeans, particularly the Germans, that balkied, fearing that this would draw them into direct conflict with the Russians.
The Euros were well aware of Saakashvili’s recklessness and weren’t going to chance it.
The fact that Saakashvili ordered a sneak military attack on Russia forces and South Ossetia hardly contradicts that he was in bed with Washington. Clearly you were on some other plant when McCain announced to teh world that “we are all Georgians”. Her was given an open platform by Western media to spout his BS. mcCain’s chief foreign policy adviser was A paid shill for the Georgian government. McCain’s supporters accused Obama of being a tool of the Kremlin for not concdeming Russia sufficiently.
The United States denounced the Russians as aggressors in the UN Security Council and accused the Kremlin of engaging in a policy of “regime change,” in Ambassador Khalilzad’s phrase. When McCain and Rice went so far as to suggest that civlized countries don’t attack other countries, the whole world tilted to one side as the entire human civlization colelctively rolled their eyes.
Georgia has been engaging in a military buildup since earl 2007 while proclaiming that the aim was to re-conquer South Ossetia. In fact, this delaration was part of Saakashvili’s campaign platform. There is no question that the Americans were notified well in advance. Georgia depends on U.S. military and economic aid. Georgian tanks would never have rolled into South Ossetia without being given a green light by Washington.
After the deblacle, Washington sent billions to rebuild the damage to Georgia. Are you gomng to suggest that this was their way of punishing Saakashvili?
link to nytimes.com
Georgia and Washington was hurt by the conflict. Russia enjoyed a great strategi and PR coup.
Averroes’ comments are non innane. Yours are.
There was nothing close about the relationship. Russia contributed some assets towards ISAF but they abstanined from the UNSC Resolutions granting the ISAF mandate.
Again no one cares what you think. NATO should be disbanned. It is an anarchronism.
The US regards Georgia as a strategic state geopolitically with regards to teh Caspina and Russia.
absolutely shingo, along with azerbaijan, an energy corridor to the black sea.
RustyPipes, you are idealistic and impractical. Countries intervene in the affairs of other countries all the time. Always have. What mid sized or large country in the world today doesn’t do this?
SHOULD I PROVIDE A LIST OF 50 COUNTRIES HERE?
International Law is a very controversial subject. I don’t have a JD, and would be very interested in critiques from those who do.
SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THOSE TREATIES. PERHAPS THE TEXT CAN BE HELPFUL?
I interpret the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights to mean that a sovereign entity loses its national sovereignty when it commits sufficiently egregious human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes against its own citizens.
THIS IS TOTAL B.T. FIRST, LOOSES SOVEREIGNITY TO WHOM, ON WHOSE SAYING SO?
Also, what can be baffling to some, “Human Rights” are not “rights of citizens” or “rights of nice people”. Israel is quite egregious, if not “against own citizens”.
There is something very wrong with commenter “anan”. Notice the huge internal contradictions. He’s on some kind of “distract and divert” mission, but who on earth for?
That’s an understatement.
What really interesting is how his ‘feces filled pound cake’ of imperial apologetica is liberally sprinkled with the sort of saccharine-sweet humanist platitudes that someone might ascribe to a caricature of a ‘lefty-progressive’.
It’s rather obvious he thinks he’ll sound reasonable and caring by spouting off about ‘universal values’ and ‘shared humanity’ as a hook to his arguments – then he veers off rapidly into la-la land filled with the most startling hypocrisy.
Maybe he’s discovered how to freebase Ziocaine?
speaking of feces filled pound cake have you read this comment by jonah?
link to mondoweiss.net
Enough cake for everyone! Huzzah!
Shame I don’t have much of an appetite.
Jonah’s comment is long. It is difficult to read through and understand.
Mooser, I don’t even understand what you are saying.
Shegetz, do you ever drop your politically correct dialogue to say what you really think? Why do your opinions have to neatly fit into already established lines of thought?
I am not a leftist. Please don’t call me that. I have already been called a leftist far too often. Leftist believe in everyone being poor together. Shared poverty and sacrifice. Where everyone slowly gets poorer every year. The closest thing to a leftist country in the world is North Korea. That is not what I support. Why can’t everyone become rich instead?
I don’t know what you mean by hypocrisy. Perhaps we believe in different assumptions and facts and that our positions are completely consistent with the assumptions and facts we believe in.
Whoa, sorry for calling you a leftist! What an insult. What was I thinking?!
Oh wait…I didn’t. You can’t read. You’ve suffered a ‘total reading comprehension failure’. That would explain a lot about what you’ve written on this site and what you seem to believe.
Thanks for clearing all that up! ;)
“Why can’t everyone become rich instead?”
And now we have our answer! “Anan” is a displaced real-estate agent, one who is outstanding in his field.
My answers keep disappearing. Many countries shape the US through their powerful lobbies. Remember the way the Indonesian lobby wielded such influence over the Clinton administration in the 1990s? The Israeli lobby isn’t close to being the most powerful national lobby.
Please list the countries that you think don’t intervene in other countries.
Maybe the real rule is that countries can freely intervene in each other’s affairs so long as they comply with international law and values.
A country retains sovereignty, but it’s government can lose sovereignty. Often a sovereign country can go without a sovereign government for decades at a time. For example, Iraq didn’t have a sovereign government 1968 to 2004.
How should countries deal with sovereign countries that lack sovereign governments? I don’t know the answer to this question.
Syria is a sovereign country without a sovereign government. Does the FSA armed militia had the right to request and accept international assistance? If so, can you elaborate how?
How does that happen and who gets to decide?
Again, according to whom?
Who decided thatand when did it cease to be a sovereign country without a sovereign government?
Syria and Iraq were always sovereign countries.
In Iraq the sovereign government was mass murdered with a lot of other Iraqis in 1968 by Saddam and his uncle. After that the old sovereign government was dead. But no new sovereign government was created after that that had legitimacy among the Iraqi people. Saddam wasn’t seen as legitimate because he had to be Iraqi to be legitimate. To be Iraqi he needed to be a human being first. Devil spawn doesn’t count.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Assad’s crimes against humanity and against the Syrian people cost him any legitimacy he may have had or any sovereign authority his government may have had in 2011. But no new government has risen that is acknowledged by the international community as the sole legitimate Syrian government. Therefore Syria is in flux.
Shingo, you ask you said so. Doesn’t common sense come into play.
Again, you’re just making thsi up as you go along. It’s really irrelevant who some necon yuppie in the US thinks is a legitmate government or not. That’s for the states themselves to decide.
Assad’s crimes against humanity and against the Syrian people cost him any legitimacy
You nut jobs keep referring to the Syrian people without givign any explanation as to whom you are referring to. The FSA is not the Syrian people, in fact, they are foreign fighters with no legitimacy whatsoever. The reason the opposition keeps rejecting ceasefires and refuses to entern into negotiations is because they know that they have no hope of winning power by legitimate means.
What do you know about common sense? You’re not even paying attention to the facts on the ground.
Precisely Shingo. Bingo. See below:
Everything They’re Telling Us About Syria is False?
link to whowhatwhy.com
German Intelligence: “al-Qaeda” All Over Syria
link to voltairenet.org
anan July 28, 2012 at 2:52 pm
” Remember the way the Indonesian lobby wielded such influence over the Clinton administration in the 1990s?”
Uh? Indonesia was forced to withdraw from East Timor
“The Israeli lobby isn’t close to being the most powerful national lobby”
Who is then?
“A country retains sovereignty, but it’s government can lose sovereignty.”
You just make this stuff up… The State is the sovereign, regardless of the administration of the State (Government). The State is considered to be a person. The Government is not. The State is bound to adhere to International Law and if a UN Member State, the UN Charter. The administrative Government is responsible for guiding the state in such a way that it does adhere to its obligations. It is they who can be charged with war crimes, not the state.
“Uh? Indonesia was forced to withdraw from East Timor”
“Asian Financial Crisis”
It is a good thing that there are many tens of thousands of powerful lobbies. To a great extent they cancel each other out. It is far from clear what the strongest global lobby (or strongest lobby in DC) is.
A country can be without a legitimate sovereign administrative government for long periods of time.
Are you saying that no government is “sovereign”? If so, how to indicate that the government of a country is not recognized by its people and the international community. For example the Taliban was only recognized by 3 countries (KSA, UAE and Pakistan) 1994-2001. The rest of the world and UN recognized the Northern Alliance as the sovereign government of Afghanistan.
What is the better phrase to describe a “legitimate” government or an
“illegitimate” government?
>> Doesn’t common sense come into play.
Welcome back, eee. You always did enjoy using the phrase “common sense”, rather than using common sense itself.
The lion wrote: “It’s really irrelevant who some necon yuppie in the US thinks is a legitmate government or not. That’s for the states themselves to decide.”
Now this makes no sense. How could Iraqis decide on their legitimate sovereign government when they were living inside a large concentration camp where Saddam kept digging and filling more mass graves; as in filling them with Iraqis? Iraqis had no way to choose who their sovereign legitimate government was between 1968 and 2004.
There is a world of difference between free democracies such as Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil and now Iraq . . . . and genocidal mass murdering absolute dictators. Do you understand this?
Averroes is completely right to be concerned about Takfiri influences over part of the Syrian resistance and FSA. We should all be very wary of this. I would urge everyone to listen very carefully to Maliki, the Iraqi National Security Advisor (and commander of the Iraqi Intelligence and Operations center) and the Iraqi Joint Forces Command. They know what they are talking about.
At the same time it is almost certain that the FSA would beat Assad in a landslide if a free election were held today. The world cannot be on the wrong side. This is in my opinion is why Maliki has quietly allowed arming of the FSA through Iraqi territory and is careful not to support Assad.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Averroes, didn’t Assad try to destroy Iraq 2003-2007? Didn’t Assad send many of the current fighters in the FSA to Iraq to organize a genocide during that period? Might it not be worth destroying Assad and simultaneously doing all you can to weaken the more Takfiri idealogical parts of the Syrian opposition?
Many Iraqis now seem to say something different . . . Syria tried to destroy Iraq . . . now let them suffer the consequences for their former crimes against Iraq. Let Syrians kill each other. Let us help this along so that Syria is weakened and is less of a threat to Iraq in the post Assad era. Is this the right attitude? [Facilitate international aid to the FSA and Khamenei aid for Assad so that Syria burns?]
Why, do you approve of coccurptiom and graft?
Where does it say a government’s sovereignty is incumbernt upon them being democratically elected?
You’re idiocy is without peer. Singhapore is not a free democracy, in fact, it’s not even a democracy. Did you not know that?
Absolute rubbish.
“The opposition figures are well aware that if the general atmosphere is calmed down, at least to allow for free elections, and if people went to the ballot boxes, they would never prefer radical Salafi elements”
“The fear that the Sunni majority has of a Salafi minority is a very important, and often censored, reality about the situation on the ground in Syria.”
link to iranreview.org
The FSA has been completely overtaken by those radical Salafi elements, and the FSA knows it could never win an election.
Wrong again. Malaki is on the same side as Assad.
link to khaleejtimes.com
Maliki under fire from Syria’s defected Baghdad envoy
link to middle-east-online.com
No. What did they do to try to destroy Iraq? Assad simpy cooperated with the Coalition.
No, and there is no evidence of him doing so. Secondly, the current fighters in the FSA came from Lybia.
Which Iraqis are saying that?
I thought you were iopposed to Saddam, now you’re defending him?
I thought you were on the side of teh Syrian people. Now you want them to kill each other and Syria to be weakened?
I think you just let your guard down and exposed what a neocon extremist you are. This is nto about Syria for you is it Anan? You’re just another variation of Sassan, but in drag.
“Let Syrians kill each other. Let us help this along so that….”
I think “anan” is recommending killing here. That’s a bad thing to do. I suspect he is Takfiri
Haha, he’s just full of logical contradictions isn’t he? Do you think his brain short-circuits sometimes and has to go into stand-by mode?
Anan: even if I concede to you that Syria was allowing salafis to enter Iraq from their border (there is some evidence of this), does this justify Iraq instigating “fitna” and chaos and instability in Syria now as some sort of tit-fot-tat strategy? Are you mad? Whatever happened to your fruity calls for everyone to love one another, to help one another, etc…? Or, as with most of your values and standards, do these calls apply only to some and not to others?
anan July 30, 2012 at 10:45 am
“Are you saying that no government is “sovereign”?”
Correct. State Governments change. State Governments are temporary.
“The rest of the world and UN recognized the Northern Alliance as the sovereign government of Afghanistan”
You had to add the word “sovereign”.
“What is the better phrase to describe a “legitimate” government or an “illegitimate” government?”
Er …. “legitimate” government or an “illegitimate” government!
[ ......s] for a Greater Israel are REALLY REALLY REALLY THICK!!!
Averroes, didn’t Assad try to destroy Iraq 2003-2007? Didn’t Assad send many of the current fighters in the FSA to Iraq to organize a genocide during that period?
i really do not understand how unsourced allegations about assad organizing a genocide in iraq passes moderation here. this is outrageous. i followed that war day by day and never did i hear anything about assad organizing a genocide in iraq. anan, do you know how to link? source this or i am making a formal complaint. allegations of genocide should be taken seriously. syria took in millions of refugees during our war on iraq. millions. if anyone should be accused of genocide in iraq it is the US government.
Sources from 2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions have described Assad’s and the Syrian Army’s involvement inside Iraq.
Assad use to send “retired” plain clothes Syrian Army Colonels into Ninevah province. These Syrian Colonels in turn ran much of the insurgency in Ninevah province.
If you are interested, why don’t you call the cell phones of retired officers from 2nd and 3rd IADs yourself and ask them?
2nd IAD cleared this for release on the record:
link to longwarjournal.org
“the leader of the Christian community in Mosul. Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul, was kidnapped during what Iraqi officers in Mosul described as a professional operation. Three cars pulled up as Rahho left mass, killed his three-man security detail, and put him into the trunk of a car.
His captors were led by a former Syrian colonel and a former lieutenant colonel in the old Iraqi Republican Guard, said Colonel Hage Alzebari, the 2nd Iraqi Army Division’s intelligence officer during a briefing given to the staff of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Iraqi Army Division at Forward Operating Base Lion.
Read more: link to longwarjournal.org”
This was one of many operations run by Syrian Army Colonels inside Iraq.
Many more data points like this are available from 2nd and 3rd IADs. It comes down to how much you trust 2nd Iraqi Army Division commanding Brigadier General Mouta’a and 3rd Iraqi Army Division commanding Major General Kirshad.
Maybe you can argue that Assad was only trying to destroy the 2nd and 3rd Iraqi Army Divisions 2006-2008 since he saw them as a long term threat to his regime in Syria. But then, how to you explain Al Qaeda in Ninevah province?
Do you really believe that Assad was not behind Safi, the former al Qaeda emir of Mosul, who was personally killed by BG Mouta’a in August, 2007?
In Ninevah, the “insurgency” launched several well organized large sized attacks of several hundred soldiers against the Iraqi Security Forces [that to my knowledge were unique to Ninevah and Al Anbar provinces.]. How could this have happened without Assad’s direct help? The logistics, training, signals and command and control requirements for these large unit actions is substantial. How did the Ninevah resistance pay their soldiers more than the Iraqi Army paid its soldiers? [OK, this does not prove anything. Someone could speculate the funding came from the Gulf.]
Another source that corroborates Assad’s backing of Al Qaeda is Sayyed Muqtada al Sadr. Muqtada on several occasions while in Iran publicly angrily blasted Sayyed Khamenei for backing Al Qaeda. How could Khamenei (a Shia Marja and supreme leader of Iran–Al Qaeda’s hated enemy) have backed Al Qaeda. It would have had to be indirectly with plausible deniability. Muqtada al Sadr between the lines was in part saying that Khamenei is backing Al Qaeda through Assad.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I need to sleep now. If I could close with a question. Does anyone disagree with the assertion that Al Qaeda was trying to organize a genocide in Iraq? If so why? If someone believes that Al Qaeda was not trying to organize a genocide in Iraq, then Assad wasn’t trying to organize a genocide against Iraq either.
Forgot to post this link:
link to atimes.com
The author is Hezbollah and IRGC Kuds force friendly. So I hope everyone trusts its credibility. In this article, Assad’s people claim that 50,000 Syrians who use to fight in the Iraqi resistance inside Iraq are now fighting for the Syrian opposition.
I cannot confirm whether the 50,000 number is accurate or not. However, this is more evidence that many tens of thousands of Syrians were sent to Iraq by Assad under the leadership of senior “retired” officers in the Syrian army to fight the Government of Iraq, Iraqi Security Forces and Multinational Forces-Iraq.
I am only alleging that Assad tried to organize a genocide against Iraqis if Al Qaeda tried to organize a genocide against Iraqis. This based on sources from 2nd and 3rd IADs about the Syrian security force role in Ninevah province.
How can you possibly argue that these fighters were sent to Iran by the Assad regime when these same fighters are trying to oust him? Can ypo not comprehend how this report undermines your whole line of argument?
But Al Qaeda has and always has been an enemy of Assad. Are you illiterate Anan?
First of all, the insurgency had virtually no presence in Ninevah province and what’s more, Ninevah province was not under the control of the central Iraqi government anyway. Apparently, you haven’t figured otu that Ninevah province lies in Iraqi Kurdistan, and came under sepsrate control.
Secondly, why would the Baghdadn leadership care what was happenening to the Christian community in Mosul? How is kidnapping the Archbishop of Mosul amoutn to an isnurgency against the Iraqi leadership?
This was one of many operations run by Syrian Army Colonels inside Iraq.
No, it is one example of an operations alledgedly run inside the Kurdish region of Iraq.
The same way you can explain Al Qaeda in the Sunni triangle.
Do you actually have any evidence of this and more importantly, a logical explanation as to why Assad would flirt with Al Qaeda in the first place?
The same way it happened elsehere in Iaq without Assad’s direct help.
That is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard outside of the Weekly Standard. Muqtada al Sadr was in Iran by that stage at the invitation of Khamenei you fool.
Yes, you sure do. You’re head is scrambled with dissinfomration and poor understanding of what was taking place in Iraq. Then again, your understanding abotu practially everything is riddled with ignorance as superficial reading.
Does anyone disagree with the assertion that Al Qaeda was trying to organize a genocide in Iraq?
Why don’t you start by providing a logical argument as to why Assad or Khamenei, who were both mortal enemies of Al Qaeda, would provide support to Al Qaeda? You’ve simply made some absurd leap from Iraq’s intentions in Iraq and the assumption that they were being enabled by Assad without a shred of evidence.
“How can you possibly argue that these fighters were sent to Iran by the Assad regime when these same fighters are trying to oust him” ??? What are you talking about?
“Al Qaeda has and always has been an enemy of Assad”
Assad backed Al Qaeda 2003-2008. Now Al Qaeda and Assad are enemies.
“First of all, the insurgency had virtually no presence in Ninevah province”
Did someone really write this? Shingo, you really need to talk to people who have visited Ninevah or live in Ninevah. Forget that. Look up MNF-I statistics. Starting in May 2008 a majority of all violent attacks in Iraq were in Ninevah.
“and what’s more, Ninevah province was not under the control of the central Iraqi government anyway.”
MND-N transferred Ninevah security responsibility to the 3rd and 2nd Iraqi Army Divisions in late 2006.
By late 2006, there was less than one US brigade assigned to Ninevah At Tamin (Kirkuk province), Northern Salahadin. They were advisors to the ISF. By contrast Ninevah alone had two Iraqi Army Divisions (more than 25 K), and more than 15 K Iraqi provincial police.
By late 2006 Ninevah was an ISF versus Assad and Assad proxy fight. With some free lance Takfiri mixed in. Even that oversimplifies things. Ninevah is very diverse. Peshmerga still had a presence not under ISF control. There were Shia Turkmen. Sunni Turkmen. Different groups of Sunni Arabs with significant tension between them. [Initially entire battalions of the 7th Iraqi Army Division in Al Anbar were composed of specific pro Government of Iraq Ninevah tribes.] Badr had a presence, including among the Turkmen Shia. Ninevah also sported Kurdish Shia and Kurdish Yezidi.
Many Ninevah Sunni Arab young men would give the Iraqi Army dirty looks during IA patrols since the IA were under the command of a hated Shia/Kurdish Iraqi Government.
“Apparently, you haven’t figured otu that Ninevah province lies in Iraqi Kurdistan, and came under sepsrate control.”
Part of Northern Ninevah were under the control of the Peshmerga and the KRG. This was a problem. But Maliki had bigger fish to worry about until 2008, and let it be for a while.
“Secondly, why would the Baghdadn leadership care what was happenening to the Christian community in Mosul? How is kidnapping the Archbishop of Mosul amoutn to an isnurgency against the Iraqi leadership?”
Not everything is about the Iraqi parliament, their internal squabbles and mutual insults.
Kidnapping the top Christian Biship in Ninevah province in 2008 was a shot across the bow to the Iraqi Army and they hated Syria for it.
Why did Assad do this?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
“No, it is one example of an operations alledgedly run inside the Kurdish region of Iraq.”
Whatever you say about the KRG national guards, they kept Syria and Al Qaeda out. And they gave sanctuary to Iraqi Christians. More Iraqi Christians than Syria and Jordan did, based on my best estimates. The KRG were far from perfect, but they were not the idiots many European and American leftists described them to be.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“The same way it happened elsehere in Iaq without Assad’s direct help.”
This is a sensitive issue. It appears to me that Assad’s influence was greater in Ninevah than elsewhere. Another province Assad also had influence on Al Anbar. Other Iraqi provinces were far from Syrian supply lines and logistics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
“That is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard outside of the Weekly Standard. Muqtada al Sadr was in Iran by that stage at the invitation of Khamenei you fool.”
Exactly my point. Muqtada was extremely dependent on Khamenei and living in Iran. Yet he was so angry that he accused Khamenei of supporting Al Qaeda publicly while living in Iran. What do you make of that?
You have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support this. All you are doing is parritiong US government propaganda. In 2007, Al Qaeda were calling on Syruians to kill and overthrow Assad, so it is ludircour to suggest he was backing the in 2008.
link to nytimes.com
In fact, the US DOD reported that security had improved in Ninevah in 2008.
link to defense.gov
You’re going to have to get with the program if you expect to be taken seriously and start using references and sources. tpo back oup your oputlanding wingnut claims.
Your evasiveness is obvious and duly noted. Neither you nor I have access to people who live in Ninevah. If there was any basis to your argument, you’d be able to link to reports and sources that support your claims. MNF-I statistics don’t tell su anythig. The manority of violence in Ninevah was due to Arab-Kurdish rivalry.
The Peshmerga never allowed that to happen. The Kurds fircely objected to the presence of th e Iraqi Army in Ninevah and Diyala.
Rubbish. It was and always has been an Arab-Kurdish fight.
Many Ninevah Sunni Arab young men would give the Iraqi Army dirty looks during IA patrols since the IA were under the command of a hated Shia/Kurdish Iraqi Government.
What are you talking about? The Kurds are Sunnis you dufus.
Why? What reason would they have to hate Syria for it? Syria had nothig to do with it. Why do you keep repeating tha false calim that Assad was behind it when you have no evidence?
Syria was never in and you are going to have to make up your mind whether Al Qaeda were in or out.
Sorry, do you still think anyone gives a crap what appears to you given your 0 from 100 track record of gettign anything right?
Nothing. Didn’t happen.
I’m stril trying to think of what to make of the weed you’re smoking.
longwar journal? is that what we’ve come to here on MW, using the most infamous blatant psyops disinfo sites as sources? thanks for outing yourself anan.
you’re insane. there’s nothing whatsoever in that article implying assad sent thousands of sunni salifists to iraq to fight the government. nothing.
Yes, I concur Annie – Anan is either insane or just a troll trying to provoke a reaction. Everything he has stated, without exception, has not only been completely wrong or false, but his theories are so absurd and so off the wall, that I can’t help but wonder if he’s some crazed nut who’s battling an addiction to prozac.
shingo, notice he’s avoiding allison’s current thread. instead he comes over to an almost two week old thread to fill it up with his psyops disinfo links. meanwhile, the current front page thread he’s made one comment. but that won’t last, he’ll wait until it’s old news and then go cram it up with ‘evidence’ that’s years old and make allegation that were not even made during the iraq war. this is how psyops ‘experts’ work their magic. because often people do not check dates of postings while reading archives.
so while posters are thrashing the disinfo narrative on the current thread he’s over here in the old thread ‘news’ dropping. how helpful/NOT.
what a coward, can’t face the crowd in real time.
Anan is either insane or just a troll trying to provoke a reaction.
you’re too kind shingo. he’s on the job. link to iwar.org.uk
he’s inserting old allegations with a new twist. gee, if only the psyops crew had claimed assad was orchestrating genocide in iraq back when we were in iraq his job would be so much easier..but they didn’t. so he’s here trying to rewrite the past using old ‘evidence’ which was, at the time, part of psyops operations. and linking to longwarjournal!.. his jig was up as far as i am concerned.
Apart from his blatant dishonesty, there is definitely something creepy about this guy. His sanguine and detached demeanour is pretty macabre and suggests he’s on a mission, though what that mission is remains a mystery. He’s failing miserably to convince or imprrss anyone with his arguments (other than than Sassan), but that doesn’t seem to phase him.
When his arguments get decimanted with an abundance of links and sources (something he is averse to using himseld) he simply dusts himself off and changes the subject or ignores them completely and talks about his own opinions – as though we’re supposed to give a crap about his opion!
He reminds me of Witty on prozac.
Yes Annie,
longwarjournal is the only link he producd other than a link to a report by Alistaior Crooke – which didn’t contain any of the argument he claimed it included.
But that’s what puzzles me. He’s so bad at making his arguments that I fail to see what he’s trying to achieve. I noticed he was trying to link up with Hostage, so I hope Hostage has not taken the bait.
“longwar journal?”
BINGO!
I knew that sooner or later, somehow, he’d out himself.
he simply dusts himself off and changes the subject or ignores them completely and talks about his own opinions
it’s as if MW has our own personal an onsite disinfo energizer bunny
“avoiding allison’s current thread. instead he comes over to an almost two week old thread to fill it up with his psyops disinfo links.”
I was responding to Shingo and others. I didn’t notice what thread the comments were on or the date.
Annie Robbins, I haven’t impugned your motives or accused you of engaging in “psyops”? You use the word like an F world.
If I wanted to accuse you of “pysops”, I would remind people that after Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the best friend the Syrian Allawites and Assad has left is Israel. The friends of Israel are a big reason the US and Europe haven’t offered military aid to the FSA yet. I could accuse you of trying to block international aid to the FSA as part of an Israeli “psyop”. Many in the FSA use this exact argument to discredit their opponents. But I don’t say this. Because after reading your comments, I don’t think this is your actual motive.
I could also accuse you of not wanting a strong ISF back in 2004-2008, because Israel was afraid of a strong ISF. But I don’t. I don’t think that is your motive. Some Iraqis were afraid that the Israelis didn’t want a strong ISF and were preventing America from strengthening the ISF back in the 2000s.
Sister, you constrain your imagination. As a result you don’t ask the right questions and research the right things. Which reinforces your lack of understanding. How does this facilitate Palestinians making themselves more successful?
We should respond to anger, hate and abuse with love and light. And this is how I am trying to respond to you.
The FSA are receievuibg state of the art RPGs. Those are made in Europe and the US and the GCC countries are supplying them with the permission of the US.
Many? Name them. The FSA are jihadists and Salafists. Who is even paying Attention to what these terrorists are saying?
Yawn. There was no such thing as a strong ISF in 2004-2008. In fact, the DOD were maknig us stories about the ISF leadign from them front when in fact the ISF had no clue.
Oh really? I just got on the phone to a couple of generals in the ISF Anan, and they all say you are full of it. I don’t need to prove anything, I can just take a leaf out of your book and say it.
Everything you have posted to this forum has been complete and utter rubbish. Whether it be about the FSA, Syrian relations withn Iraq, your bizzaro theories about teh F-22 and F-35 or Irag. Eveythign, without exception, has been 100% wrong and demonstrably so.
Yeah right. A few weeks ago you said the Surians shoudl be free to kill each other. That’s love and light.
There’s no love and light about lies. Do us all a gavor Anan and get lost. No one believes a word you have to say and everyone of us agree you have serious psycological problems. You are not achieving anything. Take the time to get some professional help.
“…There is a world of difference between free democracies such as Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil and now Iraq . . . . and genocidal mass murdering absolute dictators. Do you understand this?”
Somebody already pointed out that Singapore doesn’t qualify. I think it’s a tad premature to classify Iraq as a ‘democracy:’ I’ll be happy if it settles down into that, but I wouldn’t put any money on it. Interesting things go on in Malaysia, and I’d be interested to read a full evaluation of Indonesia.
ColinWright, Singapore is a free democracy. Not as free as America, but mostly free.
Iraq is also a mostly free democracy. More democratic than free. For example it is illegal for an Iraqi muslim to convert to another faith on their own volition. So Iraq isn’t completely free. But by the standards of the muslim world there is freedom of speech and press.
Iraq has had 4 national elections with high turnout and several peaceful transfers of power. In my view the test of democracy is peaceful transitions of power.
Malaysia is an amazing success story. Indonesia is also a success story.
As is always the case, you have no idea what you are talking about. Singapore is not a free democracy. It is an autocracy. While it’s government structure is based on a parliamentary representative democratic republic model, the ruling party, People’s Action Party (PAP), has remained unchallenged.
Iraq is police state and has reverted to a dictatorship. Nothign free about it.
For example it is illegal for an Iraqi muslim to convert to another faith on their own volition.
Tell me Anan. Do you get a perverse kick out of many a fool of yourself?
link to hrw.org
link to aljazeera.com
Iraq has had 4 national elections with high turnout and several peaceful transfers of power
In the first one, they counldn’t even show the faces of the dandidates. After the last election, it took 6 months to appint Malaki, and it was Washington who appoointed him.
The only thing that is amazing is your level of ignorance and stupidity. The military remains a government unto itself in Indonesia (much like Egypt). In Malyasia, the United Malays National Organization has been in power for over 50 years.
Do you know anything at all?
I really think it’s time you be banned Anan, for wasting everyone’s time. You’re nothing but a nuisance for trolling.
“Maybe the real rule is that countries can freely intervene in each other’s affairs so long as they comply with international law and values.”
Wow, it’s like the entire Gordian knot of interventionism got sliced open by the Sword of Damocles!
Mooser, something seems very fishy about anan. He supports Bush, but criticizes Cheney and Rumsfield (huh??). He supports Israel’s support for Iran in the war with Iraq, but justifies the US stance (supporting both countries to annihilate one another) as just some sort of geopolitical game of the Cold War era. He supports the right of the Syrian rebels to overthrow the Assad regime, but not the right of Palestinian militias or groups to fight against and overthrow their occupiers. The list is practically endless. Not sure if he’s simply playing devil’s advocate to get a kick out of it or actually truly believes in the crock of shit he relays here and elsewhere.
Akhoiya Averroes, many of my responses to you have disappeared .
The third biggest mistake in Reagan’s life was not realizing that Saddam as a bigger threat to the world than Khomeini.
Hamas’ army and the PA National Security Forces (NSF) can attack the IDF if they choose. But do you believe that is in Palestine’s interests? If so, why?
Neitehr of them were ever a threat to the world.
anan,
How convenient that somehow your posts have “disappeared” into thin air.
Doesn’t really matter if you, I, and the entire world thinks that it is not in the “interests” of the Palestinians to rise up and fight against their colonial oppressors. The fact of the matter is, they have every moral and legal right to do so, under all conventions and international law. They don’t need you or me or anyone else to be interpreting their interests for them.
Averroes, the Palestinian situation is anything but simple:
1) Palestinians are deeply dependent on very expensive ocean desalinized water
2) Palestine has to import food because water is too expensive to make agriculture practical
3) Palestine has to create new products and sell them internationally to buy water and good
4) Palestine imports $4 billion per year. Exports $500 million
5) Palestine receives more international grants per year than collects tax revenue
6) Palestine’s national debt is soaring.
7) Palestine is deeply dependent on implicit international debt guarantees to borrow money at reasonable interest rates.
8) Palestinians need Israel to pay for a marshal plan for Palestine, provide vast numbers of student, tourist, work, commute and business visas, give vast numbers of free scholarships and affirmative action seats at Israeli universities, free trade/free investment/free product development treaties with Israel.
Would you really recommend that our Palestinian friends fight a war with the IDF right now? Would any true friend of the Palestinians advise them that this moment is the best time to fight the IDF? Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should do it.
I’m utterly speechless. Really… Marshal Plan, by Israel, for the Palestinians? Essentially you are saying that they should ignore 60 years of rape, torture, murder, terror, destruction, oppression, dispossession, and injustice… in order to secure some conditional, limited, financial or economic benefits and advantages? Sell their souls, do away with their principles and values, for some loot and clout, lil bit of cha-ching? Right. Nice to see where you stand.
Damn right I believe they should fight against their oppressors. Haven’t you argued time and again that the Syrians should do the same? You unabashed hypocrite!
I guess this is meaning of that saying from Ali ibn Abi Talib, some 1400 years: “I have not debated with an ignorant person except that he has overcome me in the debate.”
You win bud. Congratulations!
Averroes, thank you for your very clear response. I will need to think it over.
The Palestinians need life. They need it now, not a hundred years from now. This is what I think.
Truth be told I am someone slightly divided on Syria. I am arguing the FSA position here because no one else is. Among the pro FSA crowd, I would argue differently.
Ali ibn Abi Talib was a great man. I like reading about his sayings. Thank you for the quote.
I am not trying to “debate” you. More understand you better and then ruminate over your response. You and “hostage” and a few others have a lot to teach everyone else.
Becasue ISrlae has drained the acxquifers that they were tapping before the occupation
And water is too expensive because ISrael has stolen it.
See above. Of course, Israle has desrtoyed the Palestinian economy, as the World Bank has pointed out.
4) Palestine imports $4 billion per year. Exports $500 million
See above.
Same goes for the US and Israel. The US borrows 2 billion per day to simply remain solvent.
So is everyone’s.
So is Israel.
In fact, if Israel were to pay reperations to Palestine, they would be bankrupted.
Would you advise them to simply walk quietly to their deaths?
Shingo,
you try a polemic with anan with a premise that he is not writing rank nonsense is this is not a correct premise.
Start with the dependency of Palestinians on expensive desalinated oceanic water. West Bank Palestinians do not have access to any bodies of saline water, were they inclined to do some desalinization. Gaza has access to Mediterranean, which could be dubbed “oceanic water”, but uses its own well water, and definitely has no access to energy sufficient to run desalinization plants. Equally well one could write that Palestinians are dependent on expensive Fiji bottled water.
Concerning agriculture, Palestinian main crop, olives, is perfectly adapted to dry climate and requires no irrigation. It is Israel that perfected national mythology “we convert desert into gardens” and run out of water. Currently it pumps almost entire water out of Jordan river so Dead Sea is drying out, steals Palestinian water, runs some desalinization plants and it is still short of water. The scheme of pumping water from Jordan to Negev to grow water and labor intensive crops to provide employment for Thai workers and absorb heavy subsidies is economically and ecologically insane.
“5) Palestine receives more international grants per year than collects tax revenue
6) Palestine’s national debt is soaring.
7) Palestine is deeply dependent on implicit international debt guarantees to borrow money at reasonable interest rates.”
So? It’s shocking that Israel is not fulfilling her responsibilities as the occupying power, isn’t it?
She, and she alone, is responsible for ensuring that all basic Palestinian needs are met. If she doesn’t like that deal, she can withdraw. We don’t try to make the EU pay for any shortfall in the Navajo Indian Reservation’s budget.
“So? It’s shocking that Israel is not fulfilling her responsibilities as the occupying power, isn’t it?”
How interesting. Israel is not doing a good job. She is not doing right by her Palestinian sisters and brothers, which Israel as a good and great people must.
“She, and she alone, is responsible for ensuring that all basic Palestinian needs are met. If she doesn’t like that deal, she can withdraw. We don’t try to make the EU pay for any shortfall in the Navajo Indian Reservation’s budget.”
Here we don’t agree. Israel has to withdraw “AND” pay for a Marshall Plan for the Palestinians “AND” co-sign Palestine’s debt so that Palestine can borrow at reasonable interest rates “AND” end all restrictions on Palestinian imports, Palestinian investment, Palestinian cross border collaborative product development, “AND” use affirmative action to provide Palestinians a large percentage of Israeli college seats (with scholarships), and jobs inside Israel “AND” greatly liberalize work visas, student visas, business visas and tourist visas for Palestinians “AND” use affirmative action to guarantee Palestinian participation in Israeli sports “AND” train, advise and provide combat enablers to the Palestinian Security Forces as requested by the Palestinians.
One of my ideas is for the settler to gain Palestinian citizenship and become patriotic citizens of the Palestinian nation. I think many might need dual Israeli and Palestinian citizenship.
What does everyone else think?
To be clear I don’t have a problem with property swaps of equal quality provided the Palestinians and Israelis agree to it. Nor do I have a problem if the Palestinians agree to sell property to Israelis at a fair price.
However, the Palestinians need a fighting chance to succeed as a free plural democratic nation.
anan, How convenient that somehow your posts have “disappeared” into thin air.
my hunch is moderators are tired of reading his unsourced crap/disinformation.
Nor do I have a problem if the Palestinians agree to sell property to Israelis at a fair price.
oh wow, shocking. i don’t have a problem if jews agree to sell property to palestinians at a fair price either.
so how much do you think jerusalem is worth? to jews? name your price since you seem to think it’s up for sale. what would you sell west jerusalem back to palestinians for? let’s put this in perspective.
not really. israel could just pull back to the 48 mandate borders and respect ror. i bet that would go along way towards settling past debts, at this stage anyway.
Do you mean the 1947 UN plan borders or the 1967 borders?
Annie Robbins wrote: “not really. israel could just pull back to the 48 mandate borders and respect ror. i bet that would go along way towards settling past debts, at this stage anyway.”
Please look at it from a Palestinian perspective.
Palestinians export $500 million and import $4 billion per year. Palestine collects less annual tax revenues than international grants per year. The Palestinian national debt is soaring. Without implicit international guarantees on Palestine’s national debt from abroad, it is unclear if Palestine would be able to borrow at all. Which would mean that Palestine would have to end most social spending virtually overnight.
The Palestinians also need market compensation for all property confiscated by the ILA paying below market prices.
If Israel abruptly withdrew to 1967 borders and didn’t issue visas to Palestinians and didn’t agree to free trade/free investment/ free product development with the Palestinians and didn’t pay market compensation for property confiscated by the ILA, and didn’t pay for a Marshal plan for the Palestinians, what would happen to the Palestinians?
The Palestinians do not have access to enough drinking water to survive. And because they lack drinking water, they cannot grow enough food to survive.
Your proposal would doom the Palestinians to dehydration and starvation unless the international community agreed to give Palestine grants. There is no guarantee this would happen once Israel pulls back to the 1967 borders.
Palestinians need a lot more from Israel to survive.
If Israel were to decide to deny West Bankers and Gaza access to the Israeli transportation, electricity and infrastructure networks, the economies in the West Bank and Gaza would both deteriorate from current levels.
Palestinians and Israelis are symbiotic and interdependent. Israel cannot just abruptly withdraw to 1967 borders and end the conflict.
++++++++++++++++
Unrelated, how important is the welfare of the 23% of Israeli citizens who happen to be Arabs that are not Jewish?
You keep repeating this pointless argument. This same argument can be made about practially any state. As I mentioned ealier, even the US government spends more money than it collects in tax revenue.
What are you talking about? The water the Palestinians in the West Bank are consuming is their own. The reason the Palestinians do not have access to enough drinking water is because Israel controls and steals most of the Palestinians’ own water. They are not even allowed to dril and operate their own wells. If the occupation ended, that would cease to be a problem. How can you not possibly comprehend this logic?
Again, you’re making no sense. The only infrastructure the West Bankers access is in the West Bank, so that would become theirs. Those in Gaza has no access to Israeli transportation at all. As for electricity, yes that is a problem, but Jordan and Egypt could supply that shortfall.
Not sure if he’s simply playing devil’s advocate to get a kick out of it or actually truly believes in the crock of shit he relays here
your radar must be off. time to whip out the comet cleanser and polish up the ol antennas eh?
Annie Robbins, what is that suppose to mean? Are you implying that I am an ant?
“Annie Robbins, what is that suppose to mean? Are you implying that I am an ant?”
Maybe she is looking for the antidote? Antidotes and doesy-dotes and little lambs eat ivy. A kid’ll eat ivy, too, wouldn’t you, “anan”?
“Are you implying that I am an ant?”
“anan” the resemblance is there for all to see! In fact, I’d say you are always adamant.
Almost all the Syrian opposition fighters I’ve seen in pictures have been dressed in civilian clothes. And they’re driving around in towns and villages. I’d like to know where all the chorus is, accusing them of “hiding behind civilians” and “using civilian areas for military bases” or “using civilians as shields”. Poor Assad, I guess he’s forced to kill civilians just like those poor Israelis.
lyn117, your point is well made. Should the FSA where uniforms?
anan July 29, 2012 at 5:08 am
” Should the FSA where uniforms?”
There’s no law requiring uniforms.
“My answers keep disappearing.”
ROTFLMSJAO!!! Have you thought about pressing “Post Comment” after you imagine you have typed them? That usually helps. Press it several times, and use a pattern (say, 3 short, 2 long presses) so they know it’s you when the “Post Comment” buzzer goes off at Mondoweiss Towers.
i recommend not reading that comment with a mouthful of hot fluid.
Annie, how many times have you been told not to read and practice your fire-breathing act at the same time? Complete concentration is required!