April 2008
http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/RosenTestimony080402p.pdf
QuoteBIDEN: Based on what you've said, there's really no hope, is there? We should really get the hell out of there right now, right? There's nothing to do.
ROSEN: As a journalist, I'm uncomfortable advising an imperialist power about how to be a more efficient imperialist power. I don't think we're there for the interests of the Iraqi people. I don't that's ever been a motivation. However, I have mixed emotions on that issue. Many of my Sunni friends, beginning about a year ago, many of them who are opposed to the Americans, who supported attacking American troops in Iraq, began to grow really nervous at the idea of the Americans leaving Iraq because they knew they would be massacred. It could be Rwanda the day the Americans leave. The creation of these Sunni militias, the Awakening groups, militates against that kind of a massacre of civilians occurring because now there are actually Sunni safe zones...But I do believe that if Americans were to withdraw you'd seen an increase in violence at least temporarily, until some sort of equilibrium is reached—
Today
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16297707
QuoteA wave of apparently co-ordinated bomb attacks in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has killed at least 63 people and injured around 185, say officials.
The interior ministry told the BBC 14 blasts hit various locations, including al-Amil in the south and Halawi and Karrada closer to the centre.
The bombings are the worst in months - and follow the withdrawal of US troops.
They come amid fears of rising sectarian tensions as the unity government faces internal divisions.
It was not immediately clear who was behind the attacks.
[...]
Iraq's year-old power-sharing government is in turmoil after an arrest warrant was issued for Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi on terror charges.
The entire al-Iraqiyya group, the main Sunni bloc in parliament, is boycotting the assembly in protest. It accuses Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a Shia, of monopolising power.
Mr Hashemi denies the charges. He is currently in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, under the protection of the regional government, but Mr Maliki has demanded that they give him up.
The BBC's Jim Muir says most Shias will conclude that Iraq's disaffected Sunni leadership was behind the latest violence.
There is a strong possibility, he says, that insurgents on the Sunni side were just waiting for the most tense moment to unleash attacks they had been planning.
Not good at all
Can we just go ahead and bitchslap Donald Rumsfeld?
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months... we will be greeted as liberators."
This comes as no surprise.
Admin's gone! Everybody throw bombs!
Wouldn't it have been something if they'd proven us wrong?
This kind of sectarianism didn't exist in Iraq before the occupation. That's the worst part. Yeah, there was a little bit of it, but the Americans went in with an expectation of sectarianism based on a crude misunderstanding of Saddam's regime as a "Sunni dictatorship" over the Shia. And so they started dividing people up and giving them political power based on sectarian alleigances, not democratic legitimacy. Throw in the disbanding of the Baath Party and the Army, the two least sectarian forces in the country, and some of the responsibility for the violence, ethnic cleansing etc lays at the feet of the CPA and Paul Bremner in particular.
Ironically, given Nir Rosen's mention of Rwanda, this is exactly what the Belgians did in that country (divided people into Hutu and Tutsi based on mostly arbitrary distinctions), just sped up.
So, the invading occupyers imposed ORDER on the invaded country....
...which led to the escalation of______________.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2011, 04:24:11 PM
So, the invading occupyers imposed ORDER on the invaded country....
...which led to the escalation of______________.
"No-bid contracts"?
SURPRISE
Yeah.
Fucking hell. I don't have anything coherent to say.
Quote from: Nigel on December 22, 2011, 05:07:03 PM
SURPRISE
Yeah.
Fucking hell. I don't have anything coherent to say.
I do.
The Iraqi people are now as "liberated" as you can possibly get.
Im guessing liberated here is the american definition (ie fucked)?
This is really dismaying to hear, though not unexpected. I'll be curious to see how the media chews through this. Let's hope that 63 deaths is the high point and can't be sustained.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 22, 2011, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2011, 04:24:11 PM
So, the invading occupyers imposed ORDER on the invaded country....
...which led to the escalation of______________.
"No-bid contracts"?
legitimate :horrormirth:
Quote from: Nph. Twid. on December 22, 2011, 05:34:23 PM
Im guessing liberated here is the american definition (ie fucked)?
Shut it, or I'll "liberate" ya in the face.
:lulz:
60 deaths was a low daily tally during the worst of the violence, in 2006.
If the violence gets as bad as it did after the destruction of the Golden Mosque, 200+ deaths daily is not unlikely.
The thing is, what will the response be? Lots of people are saying this is Al-Qaeda...possible, but I'm not so sure. Either way, there'll be a race on, between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Organisation to catch the culprits. Neither is good, but the Badr Organisation prefers to work through the police and internal security forces, which gives them a veneer of legitimacy. If Moqtada's crew strikes back though, there could be reprisals, the government may act against the Mahdi Army, and then everything gets nice and...messy. Lots of the Awakening (Sunni) Groups would like to see the Mahdi Army and Badr Organiation mix it up, too.
I occasionally wonder how different the world would be if the only way we could inflict violence upon each other was with swords.
I fucking HATE bombs. Bombs mean, "I don't care who gets fucked up, as long as I make the papers."
Quote from: Luna on December 22, 2011, 05:58:57 PM
I occasionally wonder how different the world would be if the only way we could inflict violence upon each other was with swords.
I fucking HATE bombs. Bombs mean, "I don't care who gets fucked up, as long as I make the papers."
Civilians took it in the shorts WAY more, back in the swords & catapult days.
Just saying.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 22, 2011, 04:24:11 PM
So, the invading occupyers imposed ORDER on the invaded country....
...which led to the escalation of______________.
FREEDOM
ah shit
This seems like an appropriate thread for this:
http://www.loweringthebar.net/2011/12/for-christmas-your-government-will-explain.html
For Christmas, Your Government Will Explain Why It's Legal to Kill You----------------------------------------------
Ha! Just kidding! It won't tell you that. That's classified!
QuotePlaintiffs The New York Times Company, Charlie Savage, and Scott Shane (jointly, "NYT"), by their undersigned attorney, allege for their Complaint (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/278318-foia-targeted-killing-complaint.html):
1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") ... seeking the production of agency records improperly withheld by Defendant United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") in response to requests properly made by Plaintiffs.
***
4. Given the questions surrounding the legality of the practice [of "targeted killing"] under both U.S. and international law, notable legal scholars, human rights activists, and current and former government officials [i.e., Democrats and Republicans] have called for the government to disclose its legal analysis justifying the use of targeted lethal force, especially as it applies to American citizens.
***
11. Both before and after the death of [Anwar] al-Awlaki [who was blown up in Yemen], NYT duly filed FOIA requests seeking memoranda that detail the legal analysis behind [blowing people up]. To date, DOJ has refused to release any such memoranda or any segregable portions, claiming them to be properly classified and privileged and in respect to certain memoranda has declined to say whether they in fact exist.
***
35. On September 30, 2011, the Washington Post described a [DOJ] "secret memorandum authorizing the legal targeting" of al-Awlaki, an American citizen accused of coordinating the Al-Qaeda operations in the Arabian peninsula. The article said that officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis" such as "how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process." It also quoted a "former senior intelligence official" as saying the C.I.A. "would not have killed an American without such a written opinion."
***
44. On October 7, 2011, Mr. Savage submitted a FOIA request [to] DOJ OLC seeking a copy of "all Office of Legal Counsel memorandums analyzing the circumstances under which it would be lawful for United States armed forces or intelligence community assets to target for killing a United States citizen who is deemed to be a terrorist."
45. By letter dated October 27, 2011, (DOJ) denied Mr. Savage's request.
Summary:
- The government dropped a bomb on a U.S. citizen,
- who, though a total dick and probably a criminal, may have been engaged only in propaganda,
- which, though despicable, is generally protected by the First Amendment;
- it did so without a trial or even an indictment (that we know of),
- based at least in part on evidence it says it has but won't show anyone,
- and on a legal argument it has apparently made but won't show anyone,
- and the very existence of which it will not confirm or deny;
- although don't worry, because the C.I.A. would never kill an American without having somebody do a memo first;
- and this is the "most transparent administration ever";
- currently run by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
Merry Christmas!
----------------------------------------------
First, they came for the total dicks that may have been engaged only in propaganda,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't--umm wait a minute.
Then they came for me
and there was no one who knew because it was classified.
What about the part where they coincidentally dust off his son for good measure. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-family-protests-us-killing-anwar-awlakis-teen/story?id=14765076#.TvW82HpNtwQ)
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 24, 2011, 11:51:45 AM
What about the part where they coincidentally dust off his son for good measure. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-family-protests-us-killing-anwar-awlakis-teen/story?id=14765076#.TvW82HpNtwQ)
It still pisses me off when people say he was a terrorist "leader". Just like the editor of Stars and Stripes is an American military leader.
Quote from: Telarus on December 24, 2011, 08:28:21 AM
Summary:
- The government dropped a bomb on a U.S. citizen,
- who, though a total dick and probably a criminal, may have been engaged only in propaganda,
- which, though despicable, is generally protected by the First Amendment;
- it did so without a trial or even an indictment (that we know of),
- based at least in part on evidence it says it has but won't show anyone,
- and on a legal argument it has apparently made but won't show anyone,
- and the very existence of which it will not confirm or deny;
- although don't worry, because the C.I.A. would never kill an American without having somebody do a memo first;
- and this is the "most transparent administration ever";
- currently run by a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
I can understand why enemy combatants don't get to ride the American justice system rollercoaster.
I can understand why the government would see propagandists as enemy combatants in this murky 5th generation war.
And if you're riding that train of logic, what's the difference between this cat and legitimate political dissent?
If he were spreading propaganda on American soil, would he have gotten a trial? If yes - on what charges? If no - what's the difference between him and any other protester? Is it in the message, or the network he belonged to?
I'd really like to hear what the apologists for these laws have to say about that.
Quote from: Cramulus on January 03, 2012, 04:38:58 PM
I'd really like to hear what the apologists for these laws have to say about that.
Well, you won't hear it here. The type of people who believe in this kind of shit will only post at places that give their beliefs constant positive reinforcement.
Cram, they've said "but al-Walaki was working with Al-Qaeda! He's a traitor! Fuck him!"*
*based on personal observation
Quote from: Cain on January 03, 2012, 06:25:16 PM
Cram, they've said "but al-Walaki was working with Al-Qaeda! He's a traitor! Fuck him!"*
*based on personal observation
Yep, hear it all the time.
And there's no sense asking them if he shoulda maybe got a trial or something.
Apparently, trials aren't for traitors.
that dialog IS taking place somewhere though, right? Haven't there been press conferences, etc? I'd just want to hear the white house's response to these things. anybody have an idea?
Wel, you see Roger, its because the US intelligence services say they have proof he is a spy. And, as we know, US intelligence is rarely ever wrong on such vital issues, and so is well tasked with being judge, jury and executioner.
Cram, the White House will not comment officially, because the drone program is secret and so are the targets. Unofficially, there is a lot of backslapping about how they're using this to deter others from propagandizing for Al-Qaeda.
Quote from: Cain on January 03, 2012, 06:38:09 PM
Wel, you see Roger, its because the US intelligence services say they have proof he is a spy. And, as we know, US intelligence is rarely ever wrong on such vital issues, and so is well tasked with being judge, jury and executioner.
Cram, the White House will not comment officially, because the drone program is secret and so are the targets. Unofficially, there is a lot of backslapping about how they're using this to deter others from propagandizing for Al-Qaeda.
What I LOVE about the last few decades, is they can say "We can't tell you about X or Y, because of NATIONAL SECURITY concerns." When you ask, "How could X or Y possibly relate to national security concerns?", they say, "We can't tell you that either, for NATIONAL SECURITY REASONS".
At which point, everyone stops asking questions and accepts it. Well, not
everyone, but everyone whose business card has the word "Journalist" or "anchorman" or "editor" on it.
I'd like to reply to your post, but I cannot because of NATIONAL SECURITY anxieties.
Quote from: Cain on January 03, 2012, 06:51:31 PM
I'd like to reply to your post, but I cannot because of NATIONAL SECURITY anxieties.
:lulz:
Won't help, Cain. They'll drag us all away, sooner or later, for reasons that will never be made clear, due to...
Speaking of which, I've noted some Democratic partisans defending Obama signing the NDAA into law because "he promised he would never use it to detain an American."
To which I have two responses, depending on my mood:
1) Just like he shut down Camp X-Ray as promised!, or
2) and its a good thing a man of Obama's noble instincts will be President for Life, and never shall the office be inhabited by the likes of a Nixon, or Bush Jr.
Quote from: Cain on January 03, 2012, 07:03:34 PM
Speaking of which, I've noted some Democratic partisans defending Obama signing the NDAA into law because "he promised he would never use it to detain an American."
To which I have two responses, depending on my mood:
1) Just like he shut down Camp X-Ray as promised!, or
2) and its a good thing a man of Obama's noble instincts will be President for Life, and never shall the office be inhabited by the likes of a Nixon, or Bush Jr.
They promised that PATRIOT would only be used on terrorists. Something like 99% of its use so far has been to arrest music pirates.
Promises are worth precisely jack & shit.
But Obama really means it! He's a constitutional scholar, don't you know?
Given liberal whining about politics being reduced to personality, I am endlessly amused by how they rely on the same argument to defend Obama. Not to absolve Obama his horrific personal choices, but it's also a systemic thing, and unless someone came in looking to dismantle the entire thing, would personality actually make much of a difference. Assuming they lived long enough to implement any policies, not something I would be willing to bet on.
Quote from: Cain on January 03, 2012, 07:30:27 PM
But Obama really means it! He's a constitutional scholar, don't you know?
Given liberal whining about politics being reduced to personality, I am endlessly amused by how they rely on the same argument to defend Obama. Not to absolve Obama his horrific personal choices, but it's also a systemic thing, and unless someone came in looking to dismantle the entire thing, would personality actually make much of a difference. Assuming they lived long enough to implement any policies, not something I would be willing to bet on.
1. Something about knowing your enemy, something something.
2. The funniest thing about 2009 was watching the RWNs turn into champions of individual liberty and opponents of the wars, and at the same time watching the Dems become national security freaks and war hawks.
More "ah shit"...
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/01/03/0448225/iran-tests-naval-cruise-missile-during-war-games
There is some good news...and some bad news (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA05Ak01.html).
Good news: despite the rash of covert action directed at Iran, the Obama administration seems to be making it clear that overt military action will have lots of negative consequences:
QuoteIn a sign that the Obama administration is worried that Netanyahu is contemplating an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tried and failed in early October to get a commitment from Netanyahu and Barak that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran without consulting Washington first, according to both Israeli and US sources cited by The Telegraph and by veteran intelligence reporter Richard Sale.
At a meeting with Obama a few weeks later, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and the new head of CENTCOM, General James N Mattis, expressed their disappointment that he had not been firm enough in opposing an Israeli attack, according to Sale.
Obama responded that he "had no say over Israel" because "it is a sovereign country".
Obama's remark seemed to indicate a desire to distance his administration from an Israeli attack on Iran. But it also made it clear that he was not going to tell Netanyahu that he would not countenance such an attack.
QuoteIn a December 2 talk at the Brookings Institution, while discussing the dangers of the regional conflict that would result from such an attack, Panetta said the US "would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases".
Panetta's statement could be interpreted as an effort to convince Iran that the Obama administration is opposed to an Israeli strike and should not be targeted by Iran in retaliation if Israel does launch an attack.
Parsi believes Obama's calculation that he can convince Iran that the US has no leverage on Israel without being much tougher with Israel is not realistic.
"Iran most likely would decide not to target US forces in the region in retaliation for an Israeli strike only if the damage from the strike were relatively limited," Parsi told Inter Press Service (IPS) in an e-mail.
The Obama administration considers the newest phase of sanctions against Iran, aimed at reducing global imports of Iranian crude oil, as an alternative to an unprovoked attack by Israel.
And the bad:
QuoteNetanyahu is exploiting the extraordinary influence his right-wing Likud Party exercises over the Republican Party and the US Congress on matters related to Israel in order to maximize the likelihood that the US would participate in an attack on Iran.
QuoteFormer Mossad (Israeli intelligence) chief Meir Dagan, who left his job in September 2010, revealed in his first public appearance after Mossad on June 2 that he, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin had been able to "block any dangerous adventure" by Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
The Hebrew language daily Maariv reported that those three, along with President Shimon Peres and IDF senior commander Gadi Eisenkrot, had vetoed a 2010 proposal by Netanyahu to attack Iran.
Dagan said he was going public because he was "afraid there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak". Dagan also said an Israeli attack on Iran could trigger a war that would "endanger the [Israeli] state's existence", indicating that his revelation was not part of a psy-war campaign.
QuoteUnited States officials told Reuters on November 8 that sanctions on Iran's central bank were "not on the table". The Obama administration was warning that such sanctions would risk a steep rise in oil prices worldwide and a worsening global recession, while actually increasing Iranian oil revenues.
But Netanyahu used the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee over congressional action related to Israel to override Obama's opposition. The senate unanimously passed an amendment representing Netanyahu's position on sanctions focused on Iran's oil sector and the central bank, despite a letter from Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner opposing it. A similar amendment was passed by the House on December 15.
Quote
In an interview with CNN in November, Barak warned the international community that Israel might have to make a decision on war within as little as six months, because Iran's efforts to "disperse and fortify" its nuclear facilities would soon render a strike against facilities ineffective.
Barak said he "couldn't predict" whether that point would be reached in "two quarters or three quarters or a year". The new Israeli "red line" would place the timing of an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran right in the middle of the US presidential election campaign.
Netanyahu, who makes no secret of his dislike and distrust of Obama, may hope to put Obama under maximum pressure to support Israel militarily in a war with Iran by striking during a campaign in which the Republican candidate would be accusing him of being soft on the Iranian nuclear threat.
If the Republican candidate is in a strong position to win the election, on the other hand, Netanyahu would want to wait for a new administration aligned with his belligerent posture toward Iran.
Meanwhile, the end of US Air Force control over Iraqi airspace with the final US military withdrawal from Iraq has eliminated what had long been regarded as a significant deterrent to an Israeli attack on Iran using the shortest route.
Can you imagine what a war during the Presidential race would do? If Obama refuses to back Israel, he could well lose the election. And he might just lose it if he goes ahead and backs it anyway, as progressive support withers and dies in the face of yet another war in the greater Middle East.
An attack would also crash the economy, most likely, which always inflicts greater damage on the incumbent than the challenger. Spiking oil prices would drive Europe into a full on Depression, and probably take the rest of the globe with it.
Wow, the bad news is really bad. I'll have to keep an eye on this.
While I normally dislike describing foreign leaders as insane, I'm willing to make an exception in the case of Netanyahu.
One of my favourite quotes ever is his wife going on about how he's a hero and the Israeli people were ingrates for voting him out, and if he left the country villainous Iranians and Palestinians would overrun the country within a week, and deservedly so. Yes, they are his wife's comments, but remember, he married her.