oh fer christ’s sake, b, are your gonna ban anyone who doesn’t stroke your ego?

Posted by: DM | Apr 25 2013 11:51 utc | 4

@DM – I ban people for attacking other denigrating other commentators, not for attacking me.
—
I have the feeling that the U.S. media is preparing fro a turn in U.S. policy towards a more positive picture of Assad and a negative one of the opposition.
This WaPo piece is about refugees in Lebanon and finds that most of them, independent of religion, support Assad. Some even after their houses were bombed. They all blame the opposition.
Assad still has backers among Syrian refugees
Now this was obvious to me. But the U.S. media has so far not touched on it. Winds of change …

Posted by: b | Apr 25 2013 12:11 utc | 6

so b – if what you say is true, then #7 should require some attention from you, no?

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 25 2013 12:14 utc | 8

“This WaPo piece is about refugees in Lebanon and finds that most of them, independent of religion, support Assad. Some even after their houses were bombed. They all blame the opposition.
Assad still has backers among Syrian refugees
Now this was obvious to me. But the U.S. media has so far not touched on it. Winds of change …”
The Guardian has a piece on Christians in Syria, today
They headlined it Syria’s uneasy Christians feel both sides closing in
Which gives the false impression that the Syrian Gov’t is also causing problems for Syrian Christians – but when one reads the article the only problems for Christians are clearly coming from the US-financed Mercenaries

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 25 2013 12:21 utc | 10

Another one changing his tone. David Frum: Are the Syrian Revolutionaries Even Worse than Assad?

Rule 1 of Middle East politics: things could always be worse. The Assad regime in Syria seems to be gaining a more attentive audience for its argument that the anti-regime militants represent even a worse option than the regime itself.
…

Posted by: b | Apr 25 2013 12:27 utc | 12

The Boston bombings might be influencing the winds of change that b mentioned concerning Syria,…yah…but what do I know? I’m not a real practioner of real facts anyway! Welllll, yah….but what the heck I’ll still give it a shot to hell with all naysayers!

Posted by: Fernando | Apr 25 2013 13:30 utc | 14

@ b no. 6
Until shown otherwise, I suspect this “turn” in the media is more a tactical turn in messaging rather than a reflection of any substantive turn in US policy. The ultimate goal remains the removal of Assad of course, perhaps now with the realization that the rebels will not win a military victory and are too “tainted” by salafists to be sellable internationally.
I suspect events will increasingly shift to some form of diplomacy rather than outright military force–negotiations/reforms/trickery, again with the goal of Assad’s removal: the velvet fist rather than the fist.

Posted by: sleepy | Apr 25 2013 14:02 utc | 16

@ 17: First paragraph resonates. These folks are PAID to do what they do. Dominate and disrupt.

Posted by: ben | Apr 25 2013 14:41 utc | 18

Meanwhile, the human rights champions in — Qatar! — are pushing a new UN General Assembly resolution.
UN General Assembly draft resolution on Syria (excerpts)

Qatar proposed this draft resolution in the UN General Assembly, diplomats said. It might be voted on later this month.
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
1. Strongly condemns the continued escalation in the use by the Syrian authorities of heavy weapons, . .
2. Strongly condemns all violations of international humanitarian law and the continued widespread and systematic gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms by the Syrian authorities and the Government affiliated shabbiha militias . .
3. Condemns also all violence, irrespective of where it comes from, and Calls upon all parties to put an end to all forms of violence, including terrorist acts and acts of violence or intimidation that may foment sectarian tensions, and to comply strictly with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law;
4. Demands the Syrian authorities immediately put an end to all violations of international humanitarian law, including attacks against civilians, end immediately all violations of international human rights law, and meet its responsibility to protect the population . .
5. Demands the Syrian authorities to release immediately all persons arbitrarily detained, including the members of the Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression . .
6. Demands that the Syrian authorities grant the commission of inquiry and individuals working on its behalf immediate, full and unfettered entry and access to all areas of the Syrian Arab Republic . .etc. etc.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 25 2013 15:04 utc | 20

that’s 3 personal attacks in this thread alone that b has ignored – yet apparently b has a problem with people making personal attacks – seems that not actually the case though, is it?
Some people get awfully peeved when someone shows them that what they are saying is wrong.S Poor old “guest” seems to have a chip on his shoulder too, about whatever.
The belief that people actually get paid to comment here is kinda silly though.

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 25 2013 15:10 utc | 22

7 posts on this thread by this “yah . . . But”, none on the subject, all obviously trying to derail the conversation – hard to imagine he/it is anything other than a paid troll/astroturfer. Not surprising ‘b’ is attracting some after MoA has been quoted by some solid independent journalists.
—
Onto more interesting subjects, there is an interesting series done by Abkhazian TV on Syria that has been translated on Youtube that is well worth a look:
FPS Syria: Episode 6! Riding on a BMP-2 in Darraya! (English subtitles)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0Sb4OdRJ9w&list=UUx0U4oa1EOYhnujzL8Vvz8g&index=31
This shows the city of Darraya before & after the ‘rebels’ came. Looked like a pleasant, busy 2nd world city before – full of life – now it is a wasteland.
The Syrian soldiers however looked confident, & if you compare it to earlier videos in Syria it is obvious they feel the tide has turned decisively.
The channel is here : http://www.youtube.com/user/BitnikGr?feature=watch
– mostly Russian military stuff, but there is some interesting translated documentaries there as well

Posted by: KenM | Apr 25 2013 15:30 utc | 24

@ 24:
“7 posts on this thread by this “yah . . . But”, none on the subject, all obviously trying to derail the conversation – hard to imagine he/it is anything other than a paid troll/astroturfer. Not surprising ‘b’ is attracting some after MoA has been quoted by some solid independent journalists.”
YEP!
—

Posted by: ben | Apr 25 2013 15:37 utc | 26

The past few weeks have seen a devastating defeat for the fsa/nusra terror group..Seems their main supply lines and strongholds in and around Damascus have been squashed..The border with Lebanon is also about to be sealed, cutting off a vital weapons supply line..
To counter that, the West and their lapdogs are getting nervous at the staggering defeat the rebels have been going through so they’ve now ramped up the chemical weapons meme..Hagel is the latest to add his name to the list of noise makers..
The FUKUSI terror gang have invested so much into the regime change project that they can’t accept any other outcome despite all the odd against them.. I fear this may very well lead to a major war in the entire Middle East or even WW3.
In other news, Hezbollah spooked Israel with a drone flyover..The IDF are freaking out now..lol

Posted by: Zico | Apr 25 2013 15:57 utc | 28

@yah-butt
So suddenly when you’re attacked, you demand special treatment? And mind you you’re being attacked for your actions, not just calling people “stupid” because you think you’re some genius (MY bet is you’ve been to both sides of your mom’s basement… and back).
Anyway, you come off as a little troll with personality issues. You’re completely self-absorbed and demand special attention so now you’re getting it.
Instead of complaining, stick to the topic and engage in the conversation without being a rude little fucker. We’re all still waiting for something from you that isn’t “I’m so smart!” “you’re so stupid!” “Life is unfair!” and “treat me special!”.
If you can’t do that, shut off your computer and go upstairs and ask your mom for another cookie. She’ll love you even if you are a cunt. But no one here will.

Posted by: guest | Apr 25 2013 16:08 utc | 30

Assuming the goal is simply to keep Syria in crisis, what actions on the ground would it take to reverse the success of the Syrian army?
Israel is never hampered by any UN resolutions – would a bombing campaign by them against Hezbollah, and possibly an incursion into Syria be enough to give the Syrian rebels the upper hand?
The media already seems to be making a much bigger deal over this drone than the one that was shot down over the Negev(?) a few months ago. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Posted by: guest | Apr 25 2013 16:16 utc | 32

And now we have the “Syrian Electronic Army” being reported as hacking the AP Twitter feed and “briefly crashing the stock market”.
It seems like as though there’s an anti-Syrian accusation to please every segment of the American population. How convenient!

Posted by: guest | Apr 25 2013 16:39 utc | 34

“Experience based realistic interpretation of all available facts would certainly provide for better analysis. Unfortunately there are few real practitioners of such a process in U.S. foreign policy discussions.”

I can buy this. They not need or want a reality based interpretation. They believe is: We can create “reality”. So-called intelligence report/assessment is propaganda’s tool with academia deeply involved. Simply, they believe in sheer raw force and “allies” in region who are financing the mayhem in Syria. They thought it’s gonna to be like in Libya or elsewhere. Finally, the West haven’t invested anything
money-wise or weapon-wise. What they put is political capital and effort to legitimize its mercenaries.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Apr 25 2013 16:47 utc | 36

Reuters says the US “believes”, the BBC says that the US “suspects”. What’s it going to be?

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has said American intelligence believes “to some degree of varying confidence” that Syria has used chemical weapons.

What does this actually mean? To some degree of varying confidence? I really can’t work it out.

The White House has warned chemical weapons use would be a “red line” for possible intervention, but said the intelligence does not represent proof.

They’ve got nothing then? So why comment?
Or perhaps, as guest@32 suggests, are we seeing attemtps to justify future Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in Syria under the guise of preventing the flow of CWs into the “wrong hands”, when in actual fact it is to reverse the recent successes of pro-Assad forces along the Lebanese border.
But the CW argument is a worn one. It doesn’t wash with anyone..

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Apr 25 2013 16:51 utc | 38

“Finally, the West haven’t invested anything money-wise or weapon-wise. What they put is political capital and effort to legitimize its mercenaries. “
This is misleading – the US certainly has invested capital and is planing on doubling that investment
Excerpt below from Asia Times would suggest that any claims that Obama is somehow intending to “dial down” the US financed War on the Syrian people are based more on wishful thinking than any objective analysis of facts.

US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that Washington will double its assistance to the Syrian opposition to US$250 million and will expedite delivery of new US military assistance to the Syrian opposition fighters.
“I’m going to make sure this is a matter of weeks. It has to happen quickly; it has to have an impact,” he said.

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 25 2013 17:12 utc | 40

@41
I followed him for quite bit, because of his CV, you know. I’ll say very rarely, what he envisioned, had happened. He is knowledgeable, but he is also a bureaucrat. For example, he predicted Kofi Annan’s (his friend) mission to be successful and it fail miserably, which was quite predictable.
Secondly, they say a lot of things, to take their words at face value is foolish. In the field very rarely it’s materialize, and particularly not when things are not going according to their plan.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Apr 25 2013 18:47 utc | 42

What’s all the fuss about yah? Most of his comments show reflection and a critical mind, usually focussed on the matter at hand.
At times his way of putting things seems somewhat outside the quoting-heavy pc-polite way that is considered mature in the anglosaxon world.
And yes, sometimes he is – or can be perceived as being – on the edge of being rude to others.
To keep this zoo here within acceptable bounds, however, is b’s job and he does it and does it well. No need for others to take over or “help out”.
So, could we, please re-focus on the issues rather than on “preferred personal enemies”?
And, yah, could you please stay as you are but cut off the emotional peaks?
—
Concerning the issue I find it increasingly boring.
I mean, everyone with eyes and ears and a brain by now *knows* that the us bought terrorists, among them AlQaeda guys, payed and stuffed them with weapons. Europe, of course followed suite, and of course cowardly, inconsistently and incoherenty.
Also everyone knows that saudi arabia and bahrein are was worse than Assad and that quite some major atrocities on Assads side werde jobs for the usa.
Can the terrorists win the (not their,but payed for) war they were ordered and payed to wage? No. No matter what.
Will the usa engage in a war against Syria? Quite probably no. They are stupid, those americans, and way off reality but they are not suicidal (forgive me if my voice doesn’t sound really convinced on the last one).
Will israel engage in war against Syria? Quite probably not. The stakes are too high, their chances to win are way too low and their risk to experience major pain or lite up a major war is high.
I think, the wests problem isn’t any more about winning or ousting Assad (although they continue to blubber about that but quite probably only to not lose face). It’s rather about how to get somehow out of that grossly miscalculated and turned-ugly situation and how to not have their payed terrorist assets come to their own countries.
Oh and btw., Russia and Iran reestablished/intensified their high-level talks.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 25 2013 18:56 utc | 44

“And, yah, could you please stay as you are but cut off the emotional peaks?”
Let this then be an official apology to all those that have felt personally insulted by any comments I have directed at them over the last few days/week.
I’ll be the first to admit that I am occasionally fairly abrasive when becoming a little too involved in discussion. 🙂

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 25 2013 19:18 utc | 46

@PB #39
Reuters says the US “believes”, the BBC says that the US “suspects”. What’s it going to be? . .
What does this actually mean? To some degree of varying confidence? I really can’t work it out.
quotes (and a few –comments) from the letter:
* Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent Sarin.
–Varying degrees of confidence probably refers to the different judgments 16 intelligence agencies.
* the chain of custody is not clear
* so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions
* We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime
–but “belief”is not evidence
* Thus far we believe that the Assad regime maintains custody of these weapons
–“belief” again

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 25 2013 20:07 utc | 48

Interesting coverage of the Obama admin saying there is evidence of use of chem weapons, but not certain as to where, by whom, etc. Huh?? How could they test if not knowing “where” to test?? (Question of “where” was in NPR report earlier this afternoon.)
But the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media, NPR branch) is sort of walking this thing back from having crossed that “red line.” Not totally persuasive.
Sheesh, there goes Obama, going all Bush/Cheney with the lies and misinformation on our asses…. Well, why not, he’s been the best third term Bush could have hoped for, and is now taking us into a fourth term for Bush/Cheney. Gah.

Posted by: jawbone | Apr 25 2013 20:28 utc | 50

Joshua Landis can be deservedly criticized for his errors. I can’t criticize him too strongly for that since I too thought the rebels were in fact winning when they seized big chunks of Aleppo. I am happy to see that the situation has improved for the Syrian government. Otherwise Landis has written some sensible articles about Syria and has definitely opposed US involvement. Of course he is establishment. He has recently raised over a million dollars for a chair in Iranian studies at his university. That means he has close connections to the wealthy Iranian expatriot community here is the US. Such is the nature of academic life today.

Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 25 2013 21:36 utc | 52

I’ve noted before that Landis is good on history but stinks on current events. I’ll stick with that.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 25 2013 21:43 utc | 54

Landis called for arming the rats with anti-aircraft weapons back in October 2012:
http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-us-must-supply-portable-heat-seeking-missiles-to-the-syrian-opposition/?cp=all
He also is one of the most sectarian of all.

Posted by: revenire | Apr 26 2013 2:45 utc | 56

Don@52
In addition to the the UN team having representatives from Britain, France and Israel, the United Nations said the team would not include experts from Russia and China to ensure it wasn’t biased. Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin criticized “this kind of logic” saying in that case he “would recommend excluding all NATO countries too.”
Now we’re in a position where preventing inspectors from Britain, France and Israel to investigate their own claims that chemical weapons have been used in Syria implies that the Syrian Government has something to hide.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Posted by: Pat Bateman | Apr 26 2013 10:55 utc | 58

@54, met and sat with S.Feller in Kosovo 2004; he left, and was a utter failure, yet it was French intervention (With US backing) that led him; or for a better word ‘dominated’ him. He managed to get a post (Promoted) with Interpol; the way it works – takes the fall/flack and gets promoted; wont discuss the issue, but I am sure you see the point – Full circle with half the turn…

Posted by: kev | Apr 26 2013 13:12 utc | 60

@62 Maybe Hagel told them to cool it? Off camera of course.

Posted by: dh | Apr 26 2013 14:00 utc | 62

@46 yah . . . But
“And I do not think you can just so easily dismiss Kerry…”
Yes, I dismiss his words and his statements, easily and entirely! That’s me, and it can be quite easily something wrong with me.
There is iterative narrative that last for quite some time about that non-lethal weapons. It’s coming from Anglo-American political circles. Namely from Hague and Kerry, the first talking about an armored vehicles and the second about body armors. What I see here is arrogance or manipulation with wide public and holding them in contempt – “because we can”.
In the other hand on clips coming from Syria we have an opportunity to see mercenaries very poorly equipped: in snickers, t-shirts and sweaters, either with “addidas” or “nike” logos. Maybe it’s “cool” to fight in that way, but their “concern” for their safety and well being, which presumably is the goal, is hilarious.
I, for one, am quite sure mercenaries will get sufficient supply of 7.62×45 mm ammo and RPGs rockets and some other calibers that necessities the War of Attrition. Whatever amount they appropriate none of it will benefit Syrian people either way; even if they see some tangible benefits, it is going to be just fraction of that amount. Pure Realpolitk
I am OK if you read WaPo or whatever…but by using them as source of “logic” or “wisdom” when comes to the imperial/colonial and security affairs you are making foul of yourself.

Posted by: neretva’43 | Apr 26 2013 15:03 utc | 64

A flash of sanity from the DoD.
Official: Action on Chem Weapons Requires Clearer Evidence
There is evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on its own people, but the world needs “clear evidentiary facts” before acting, a White House official said today.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/syria/2013/syria-130425-afps02.htm?_m=3n.002a.789.wf0ao04t6j.pwi
I’d love to see a list, from b and others, of the pro-Syria intervention forces vs. the anti-intervention forces (in the west and gcc of course, and purely as power on the ground stand now – ie. with the al Qaeda elements in the forefront of the fighting forces of the rebels, intervention meaning anything from sending arms to boots on the ground).
I present the following to be torn apart in argument, I haven’t really thought it out. How much would it change if the al Qaeda could be sidelined?:
PRO
Senate GOP leaders
Conservatives in the UK
The French Government
The CIA
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
ANTI
The White House
The Department of Defense
The German Government
Jordan (?)

Posted by: guest | Apr 26 2013 15:59 utc | 66

#67 – add Israel to the “PRO” intervention list. Also add “US Military” to the ANTI column. Israel wants green light for intervention even though they seem to play a “game within a game”. The Israeli situation is actually complicated and not unlike the American one, with some politicos pro intervention (in the form of a few bombing runs, likely against hezbollah as well) and the military echelons and some of the security orgs in opposition.
Complicating the picture further is Iran. Those in favor of attacking Iran – both in israel and the US – view a collapsed Syria as key to that gambit. Many in israel have a view that a weakened Syria – torn by sectarian strife, is basically good for israel and are therefore advocating continuing to stoke a simmering lower level conflict – while sealing the Golan heights border.
All in all, on the Israeli side, I would watch more “revelations” like the chemical weapons one, as indicators as to which side is winning. basically, whichever side gains the upper hand in israel is what the neocon crowd in America, including McCain and Graham – will push. that’s not an accusation, it’s reality. Israel pretty much dictates all congressional action on foreign policy, and not only the middle east.
I do agree we are seeing evidence of push-back from the white house and DoD. They obviously have other preferred fish to fry than another foreign adventure, especially one where the likelihood of success is murky at best.

Posted by: Merlin2 | Apr 26 2013 17:35 utc | 68

What effect would these events – if they happened today – have on the civil war in Syria:
Israeli air attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Israeli air attack on Syrian border with Lebanon.
Israeli air/ground attack on Syrian border with Lebanon and past the Golan.
Israeli air attack on Iran.
Israeli air attack on both Hezbollah and Iran at the same time.
Would Assad’s position strengthen with people rallying to him as a protector from Israel, or would the situation become more dire as the “rebels” take advantage of the confusion and Syrian army and militia forces are transferred to combat the Israelis.

Posted by: guest | Apr 26 2013 18:37 utc | 70

@ 70
The civil conflict in Iraq was primarily initiated by the Samarra Al-Askaria mosque destruction in February 2006. I and some others believe the US to have been complicit in this event, which with its ensuing attacks and counter-attacks fully served to promote the US goal of continued US military occupation in Iraq.
SEC. GATES: “Well, what I’m saying to you is, though, you had one strategy under way until attack on the Samarra mosque. After that and the development of the sectarian violence that was being stoked by extremists — this wasn’t spontaneous — there was a shift in strategy, and instead of sending troops home, the troops that were supposed to be sent home were kept — or the troop level was kept.”
The US military stayed longer in Iraq “to prevent a civil war” until the last of the US military was evicted in December 2011.
As Dahr Jamail has written (2008): “The policy is divide to rule. If the U.S. leaves Iraq, the violent sectarianism between the Sunni and Shia will worsen.”

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 26 2013 21:34 utc | 72

interview tunisian jihadists: we were lied to by MSM:
were told important not2 fight alongside infidels’; what about fighting FOR them! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxgFR9vYSmY&feature=youtu.be …
A Tunisian reporter conducts interviews with several Tunisians who came to Syria for Jihad after they were misled by propaganda lies about what is really happening in Syria. They also had to pay hefty sums of money to make their journey to Syria, some even giving away all that they possessed in order to fight what, in their view, was a “just cause”, a cause that was based on a false narrative created by the Muslim Brotherhood, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, and that was propagated by most mainstream media, all for the benefit of Israel, the US, and its Western lapdogs.

Posted by: brian | Apr 26 2013 22:22 utc | 74

Israeli air attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. – no effect whatsoever
Israeli air attack on Syrian border with Lebanon. – It might depend on what they attacked but most likely little to no effect whatsoever
Israeli air/ground attack on Syrian border with Lebanon and past the Golan. – Unlikely to happen in the immediate future.
Israeli air attack on Iran. – Definitely not going to happen.
Israeli air attack on both Hezbollah and Iran at the same time. — Definitely not going to happen
Would Assad’s position strengthen with people rallying to him as a protector from Israel – since most of the Syrian population seem to already support him not much is likely to change in that dept.
But imo an Israeli ground attack on Syria is a longshot. They might try a few sorties, and the Syrians might actually let them get away with a few pot-shots, depending on the target. Anything more threatening Air-attack wise from the Israelis definitely would result in some retaliation.

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 26 2013 23:29 utc | 76

According to Inner City Press, UN Secretary-General Ban is due to meet Monday “with his chemical weapons prober Ake Sellstrom, who Ban has summoned to fly to New York.”
yahoo, Apr 12

A team of U.N.-led experts is on standby in Cyprus . . .The team of at least 15 investigators includes analytical chemists, able to collect and test suspected samples, and World Health Organisation experts on the medical effects of exposure to toxins, who could examine alleged victims.

But there’s a problem about the UN coming to terms with Syria, the UN Secretariat being a US lap-dog, and all.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 27 2013 0:22 utc | 78

@74
When Chuck Hagel was crowing about the sanctions “doing significant damage to Iran’s economy” he was speaking to US troops “at an air base in Southwest Asia, April 25, 2013.” We can now reveal thet Hagel was talking to airmen and women at the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing at Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates. (Shhh — it’s a secret) This was after Chuck did the Crown Prince schmoozing thing, finalizing military sales necessitated by the scary Iran threat.

During his first official trip to the Middle East, Secretary Chuck Hagel met with the United Arab Emirates’ Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan today in Abu Dhabi and reaffirmed the strong U.S. commitment to defense and security cooperation between the two countries. They underscored the deep and enduring partnership between the United States and the UAE.
In particular, they discussed the UAE’s purchase of 25 F-16 Block 60 aircraft and the decision for the United States to release standoff weapons for sale for the defense of the UAE. The additional F-16s will increase both nations’ interoperability and enhance their ability to perform joint and coalition security operations.
The secretary also expressed appreciation for the UAE’s contributions to NATO missions in Afghanistan and Libya.

NATO missions in Afghanistan and Libya haven’t work out that well, so Hagel had to compensate. With the troops, talking about putting a hurt on Iranians, the Chuckster was practicing “Two Minutes Hate” from Orwell’s “1984.”

The purpose of the Hate is said to satisfy the citizens’ subdued feelings of angst and hatred from leading such a wretched, controlled existence. By re-directing these subconscious feelings away from the Oceanian government and toward external enemies (which likely do not even exist), the Party minimizes subversive thought and behavior.

Go Chuck.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 27 2013 1:42 utc | 80

I wondered why you hadn’t chimed in. What was the more important distraction??? Yeah, I agree.

Posted by: juannie | Apr 27 2013 3:06 utc | 82

100% inspired by the last two posts here: Shaving cream war: will it turn the tide for the rebels. Horror and sick jokes are expected in imperial wars, I guess.

Posted by: fairleft | Apr 27 2013 5:25 utc | 84

76) this is the full story you are talking about

The sources said the oil company wanted to repay its debt to NIOC to maintain cordial relations with Iran, one of the biggest producers in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
“Politics come and go but it’s in the interests of Shell and its shareholders to pay its debts and maintain a relationship with a leading oil producer like Iran,” said one of the sources.
….
Iran’s oil revenues have fallen by about 50 percent since sanctions were imposed last year, and regional economists believe it has been forced to draw on its foreign reserves to help buy essentials like grains.
But with an estimated $100 billion of foreign reserves at the start of 2012, thanks to high oil prices, the Iranian economy is far from collapse.
….
Food and medicine are among the humanitarian goods not barred by U.S. and European sanctions but, isolated from international banking, Iran has been forced to pay a premium for grain imports.
Washington has tried to restrict countries like China, India, South Korea and Japan that still buy Iranian oil to paying for shipments by the barter of approved goods – including food and medicine.

Just Britain shooting itself in the foot – I guess their relations with Iran are irreparable anyway.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 27 2013 12:10 utc | 86

The latest pro-terrorist “news” from the Coventry clothier, helpfully brought to us by USAToday.

Rebels attack sprawling air base in northern Syria
After two weeks of advances by Syrian troops, rebels attacked a sprawling military air base in the country’s northwest on Saturday. . . .
The raids follow nearly two weeks of advances by Syrian troops, mostly in the suburbs of the capital, Damascus, and areas near the Lebanese border in the central province of Homs.. .

And then way down near the bottom, after a bunch of fluff about chemical weapons:

In Saturday’s fighting at the Abu Zuhour air base in northwestern Idlib province, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said there were casualties on both sides. The base has been under rebel siege for months.

“Under siege for months” suddenly becomes “attack” — just when some good news is required. The article has no author identified — I guess the Coventry clothier even has to write the articles for the “news media” now and email them in to Associated Press.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 27 2013 13:49 utc | 88

Hmmmmm…..the number 87 I referred to was removed.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Apr 27 2013 19:17 utc | 90

@3 Someone I should say. Not somebody.

Posted by: dh | Apr 27 2013 19:31 utc | 92

Ya know, while we are on the topic of moderation….
I hope b doesn’t mind this post, but I am on wits end over at Mondo. The moderation there is so sucky, so inexplicable, that Phil and Adam embarrass themselves by allowing it, or if they are, engaging in it. I only post this here because I know Annie reads this blog, and attempting to post a complaint at Mondo is an exercise in futility, as they simply don’t allow it to appear. And emailing Adam or Phil for an explanation is a fruitless endeavor as well, because they simply don’t respond. Case in point, on this particular thread…
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/04/vulnerability-americans-consider.html
….I posted the following comment, which is basking in “moderation” mode. But note the comment that appears under mine. It was submitted at a later time, yet “passed” whatever chicken shit system of “moderation” they are engaging in over there. Truth be told, it pisses me off. Particularly in light of the past sniveling I witnessed over there about how another site was biased in its moderation when banning Phil or Adam (can’t remember which one) for his comments…..
Anyway, you be the judge. Why is my post (Blank State) languishing in “moderation” when a subsequent post (Donald), saying basically the same thing, sailed right through…
Blank State says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 27, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Wrong.
Phil, you obviously are not hobnobbing with Joe Homeowner middle america. We are, collectively, some of the most ignorant, ill-informed, brainwashed, and opinionated creatures on God’s green earth. Just this morning, at the counter of one of the local eateries here, I listened to an extremely intelligent (seriously) townsperson wax elequent on middle eastern affairs, citing, verbatim, the worthless swill that is regurgitated daily on Fox News. We have a looooong ways to go before your optimism is even remotely founded in reality. As long as our media continues to be a spokesentity for Washington DC and its policies, rather than serving as our Fourth Estate, the idea that the general public will wake up to the very real phenomena of “blowback” is ludicrous to the extreme. Our general sources of info are corrupted beyond redemption, becoming more so with each passing day. Our ignorance is nurtured with misinformation designed to popularize policy and agenda.
Truthfully, often times I find the optimism expressed here naive to the extreme. Case in point, the recent swooning expectations many expressed about the impending confirmation of Hagel as Sec of Def. Does anyone here really believe he would have ascended to his position if he was willing to buck the status quo?
No, Phil, these events, such as the Boston bombing, are merely fodder to continue to nurture a public acceptance of middle eastern policy. Politically capitalized on, they have the exact OPPOSITE effect on the public psyche than the effect that you are so optimistic in advancing. Besides, if a localized and relatively minor “attack” such as the Boston event does not get us all back in line chanting the GWOT mantra, I have no doubt that a larger event will be concocted to do the trick. The two kids in Boston are a prime example of a neo-con’s wet dream. I imagine those such as Cheney thanked thier lucky stars when those two bombs exploded.
Donald says:
April 27, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Wishful thinking Phil. (You do that a lot–maybe it’s a necessary part of being a full-time activist, to keep your own morale up.) Mainstream America (at least what the mainstream press allows us to see) simply doesn’t do that sort of reflection. I wouldn’t choose the Boston example anyway if I wanted to make the case.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Apr 27 2013 23:45 utc | 94