Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 06, 2013

On The Way Towards War

Harper writes at Pat Lang's place that the launch of the new Middle East war is imminent:
I am told by current intelligence officials that President Obama intends to bomb Syria in the coming days--with or without Congressional approval. With the whip count in the House of Representatives looking worse and worse for the war party, the White House is pressing Harry Reid to rush the Senate vote, perhaps as early as Monday evening, Sept. 9, the day that the Congress returns to Washington and the debate is scheduled to begin. If Obama can get a Senate majority, sources close to the White House say that he will order strikes before the House can get started. Perhaps this is why Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is saying that a House vote is unlikely before the week of Sept. 16, given that passions are running so high on the issue. The reality is that opposition in the House is growing and the chance of a "yes" vote from the GOP-led lower chamber is well below 50 percent.
A report in the New York Times somewhat disagrees:
Although Mr. Obama has asserted that he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. As a practical matter, it would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the public’s will at home. As a political matter, it would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him, which even if it went nowhere could be distracting and draining.
Obama's and Kerry's arguments, based on dubious intelligence, for the illegal war that they don't even dare to call such are not having the impact they hoped. Even fanatic Obama supporters reject their reasoning.

While the Senate may pass the all-out-war resolution the House seems likely to reject it. To change that a massive Israeli and AIPAC lobbying operation for war on Syria and Iran is underway:

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
Obama has canceled further travel to press on Congress and to propagandize to the public for his war.

One reason for this war and its likely extension to Iran is the fact that sanctions against Iran are breaking down in Europe and elsewhere. That the sanctions on Iraq were receding without achieving their goals was one of the arguments that was made for the war on Iraq.

But rejection of the war within the U.S. and globally is massive. The U.S. military is not at all on board and also rejects the war on Syria and its likely regional escalation. The administration is showing no understanding that the other side of an attack also has a vote and that any escalation could well have militarily catastrophic consequences.

Mission creep already starts even before the open shooting begins. Instead of "a few cruise missiles" the orders have moved to an all out bombing campaign on more than 50 sites to "degrade" the Syrian military and thereby relatively increase the power of the already coordinating and preparing al-Qaeda insurgents.

The build up of forces in the area continues. Russia is sending more ships to the Syrian coast as are other countries. The U.S. has moved an aircraft carrier to the Red Sea from where it could reach Syria. I am certain the Navy would prefer that carrier to be in the Mediterranean. But to get there it would have to pass through the Suez Canal where only this week a container ship was attacked with several RPGs by al-Qaeda aligned fighters. A U.S. carrier on its way to kill more Muslims would certainly be a preferred target to them. The Suez Canal is for now a no-go zone for U.S. war ships which could have a serious impact should U.S. war plans, as they are likely to, fail after the first contact with the enemy. In further war preparations the U.S. ordered non-emergency diplomatic staff to leave Lebanon.

Turkey is shifting more and more troops towards the border with Syria. This could be the preparation of a land invasion. Erdogan urgently wants and needs a war while the Turkish population is largely against it. Erdogan's peace negotiations with the Kurds seem to go nowhere and the Turkish economy is on the verge of breaking down:

[T]he benchmark Istanbul stock index has lost one-third of its value since hitting a record high in mid-May, the lira has plummeted to record lows and bond yields have doubled to 10%. Turkey's central bank has failed to stem the declines despite spending more than 15% of its net reserves as billions of dollars exited the country.
Turkey's total foreign debt has nearly tripled since 2002 to $350 billion, more than half of which must be repaid or rolled over within one year. That puts short-term liabilities at about a quarter of Turkey's GDP—two to three times more than Brazil and India.
A war against Syria will hurt Turkey further. It will also hurt the United States. The already diminished global standing of the "sole superpower" will decrease further. The likely prolonged war will cost it more money it does not have without achieving its aim. Going to war against the will of its own people will let others laugh at any U.S. argument of "democracy promotion". The global oil price hike that is already occurring in anticipation of the war will hurt the global economy while it will fill Russia's, Iran's and other oil producers war chest.

But argue against a useless war that will cost the U.S. a lot and you will be accused as "anti-American".

This is the non-sensical response one gets for challenging war promoters:

Laura Rozen ‏@lrozen
look moon you wld like nothing better than russia & iran & china architects of global order. “@MoonofA:
And this is the appropriate response to such idiocy:
billmon @billmon1

Scratch a "liberal" interventionist, find Joe McCarthy hiding underneath.

Posted by b on September 6, 2013 at 14:18 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

well , some of Turks member in a Iranian forum reports that Turkey send some division to his south borders and asked people " to give their 4X4 Jips in the need .... "

Look like Turkey want to take some land and krush kurds as well ...

Posted by: R.P | Sep 7 2013 4:20 utc | 101

Posted by: Johnboy | Sep 6, 2013 9:36:40 PM | 85

you been smoking turps son,-best thing that could happen now is removal of assad and his band of crimminals -putin will give the go ahead once he is promised his share of treasure

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 6, 2013 11:55:22 PM | 98

most of zusa will be blahblahblah................

Obama gonna beat them silly,the Syrians were given enough rope by zusa and comes the hangman

Posted by: jacques | Sep 7 2013 4:22 utc | 102

well , USA forget that small mistake lead empire to their end ....

ops ... sorry , I forget their " The end of History " theory ...

Posted by: R.P | Sep 7 2013 4:24 utc | 103

This analysis here makes absolute sense

---Iran, why the target--

***in fact, under the U.S 's Iran policy lies in his classic defense doctrine. In other words, Iran is the application area of the U.S 's defense strategy.İf we remember that, the U.S defense strategy was based on prevention of the emergence of a rival superpower to itself and its domination in the MiddleEast region that could create a world power with its rich sources.

***As you know, Iran is sitting on the second largest Natural Gas and the third largest oil reserves in the world.

*** Furthermore, Iran controls 35% of the oil provided to the entire world and more than half of the amount provided to China through Hormuz Strait, which is a geostrategic pathway of energy.

Besides, İran is the only country that prevents the U.S's interests in the region. and it is also a serious threat for Israel.

**However,more importantly,İran is in the close cooperation with China that posing the greatest threat to U.S's global and regional interests in the economic and political realm,especially on the dollar euro-competition-and energy issues.

**As you know,Iran's geo-strategic location, allows to transport its own natural gas easily to the Arab peninsula, the Caucasus, Central Asia even the China directly and to the Europe through the Turkey.

***The energy bridge which İran trying to set up with the Central Asia and the pipeline agreements that İran made with China and Hindistan, threatens the power of the dollars and the global supremacy of the U.S., whereas the military presence of China in the Indian Ocean and Persian gulf, also its economy gradually gains power. *** If the strategic pipeline agreement concluded by Iran with Pakistan and India becomes functional and these three countries get connected to each other through the oil pipelines , Then, Iranian gas will have been introduced to Asia.


*Undoubtedly, if necessary, the United States,will activate the most radical strategies, such as military intervention to weaken Iran's relations with China, or completely terminate.However, for now, within the scope of the containment and restructuring policy of Iran and its allies, the U.S has been implementing the creative destruction methods such as, divisive, internally weaken,demolishing to prepare the sub-floor of possible military operations behind the scenes .

As it is seen, iran has been the strategic target for the U.S for decades due to U.S.'s interests in the region

U.S's nuclear weapon pretext is the only visible face of the coin. In the background, a great war has started.

This explains why the US prefers chaos.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 4:40 utc | 104

Re #100: In their very first sentence, those Bloomberg hacks (both Jewish, non coincidentally) say: "Lobbying on Syria has inspired coalitions of the unlikely, aligning Obama with Sheldon Adelson." This is another example of framing Jewish warmongering as anomalous rather than inevitable. And I see no reason to hedge about the term 'Jewish'.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 7 2013 4:52 utc | 105

zomebody (104)

I will not make the effort to comment on the complete text you published; it simply isn't worth it.
Instead I will just correct one part seeming important to you.

tl;dr Not surprisingly zomebody tries to sneak propaganda and lies into the discussion.

The zusa doctrin is *not*

based on prevention of the emergence of a rival superpower to itself and its domination in the MiddleEast region that could create a world power with its rich sources.

Neither is it based on any specific region, nor is it about prevention of a rival superpower.

Rather it's quite simply targeting to interdict any whatsoever challenge to its (zusa) dull spectrum dominance.

Furthermore Iran is a peaceful nation that didn't start a war for over a quarter of a millenium. It also did not challenge zusas dominance nor did it in any way exclude zusa from its oil. All zusa needed to do was to pay the market price.

It is, however, well understood that zusa recognizes both Russia and China as potential rivals in that both of them might - or do - not blindly and obediently follow zusa orders.

As for your turkish friends the situation is quite simple. If they dare to co-attack Syria they will very soon have to confront kurds with a solid supply of modern weapons and excellent and up to date intelligence.
If they are lucky. With some less luck turkey will find out how the receiving end of missiles feels like.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 7 2013 5:15 utc | 106

105) It is clear that the US is not interested in getting sucked into another draining war itself and on its own. Basing your analysis on religions (Jews, Sunnis, Shias, whatever) is just plain stupid. Netanyahu adopted his "War on Iran" mantra for Israel to remain relevant for the US. US interests are in the Gulf and Asia, Iran controls that fault-line.
US elites will dangle whatever wild ideologies (neoconservatism, humanitarian intervention) marketed to the preference of their Jewish, Christian and liberal audiences (and a lot of people are making money in think tanks to do just that) to achieve their strategic goals. That does not make these ideologies the cause of any action taken. Crusaders broke the Arab trade monopoly. They did not intend to convert the Middle East to Christianity.
The US are a democracy, elites have to market their stuff more than in any other country, they cannot just order.
Their arguments to convince people to go to war for chaos in the Middle East seemingly have run out.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 5:21 utc | 107

Thanks, b for your posts.

As we all use the language of red line, degrade, punish, send a sign, walk back, mission creep, limited war, etc., I offer George Lakoff's recent analysis of policy-makers' use of these terms, the underlying (mostly unconscious) reasoning that leads to action, and so on, reminding us of the frames, metaphors, systemic causation, and more, as they relate to Syria. Very useful analysis IMHO.

Truthout link

Huffington Post link


Posted by: Hamburger | Sep 7 2013 5:38 utc | 108

108) thanks.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 5:57 utc | 109

105) Basing your analysis on religions (Jews, Sunnis, Shias, whatever) is just plain stupid. Netanyahu adopted his "War on Iran" mantra for Israel to remain relevant for the US. US interests are in the Gulf and Asia, Iran controls that fault-line. US elites will dangle whatever wild ideologies (neoconservatism, humanitarian intervention) marketed to the preference of their Jewish, Christian and liberal audiences (and a lot of people are making money in think tanks to do just that) to achieve their strategic goals. That does not make these ideologies the cause of any action taken. Crusaders broke the Arab trade monopoly. They did not intend to convert the Middle East to Christianity. Posted by: somebody | Sep 7, 2013 1:21:53 AM | 107
The Jews are in their own estimation a nation first, and possessors of a national religion, second. They are, again by their own estimation, a unique nation: indestructible even after millennia of dispersion, and uniquely skillful by necessity in manipulating the rulers of other nations. You can go on claiming that you don't see it that way round, but the other way round, and maybe you are telling the truth, in which case as I said before you simply have not read enough. Or you may be being disingenuous, as hmm constantly tells you you are. I don't personally care either way. To me the realities of the world are obvious, and I'm glad that circumstances are forcing them more out into the open of obviousness for the entire world to see. The US is a Jewish puppet. Not a 'zionist' puppet, a Jewish puppet. And it isn't the first such puppet: before it, Britain was the Jewish puppet, and before that it was Holland, and before that again it was Spain and Portugal (that was in the early days, when 'money' still meant real gold and silver, from the slave mines of central and south America). Each puppet in turn is built up by its Jewish bankers to become a world power, and each is the stepping stone to the next. But now, to quote Laibach, "Das Spiel ist aus."

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 7 2013 6:38 utc | 110

Rowan Berkeley (110)

I'm sometimes worried about jews and by jews I mean people who happen to practice a certain religion - and that's it. I remember when in france jewish churches were smeared and jewish cemeteries where desecrated because yet another mass murder criminal action by israel.

For some time the term zionists was good enough to mean those jews that do not simply practice a certain religion but avoid bodily labour and prefer finance, law and mangling in other nations politics.
But actually zionists is not really the right term as, as far as is known, the political intention to create their own state began only in the last half of the 19th century.
On the other hand here and today israel embodies and manages and does all that is evil and so it seems OK to use the term zionists anyway.

But again, I have reservation about talking bad jews; often enough they were the victims of zionists crimes by having to suffer the consequences. I suggest therefore to use the term zionist for what you mean rather than jew.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 7 2013 6:49 utc | 111

108) First sightings of the new methaphors targeting liberal audiences
"Anne-Marie Slaughter envisions an America where caring is as important as competing"

So, let me guess: They are going to feature Syrian refugees, make it a humanitarian cause that these (Sunni rebel affiliated) refugees can return, and try and get the semblance of international legitimacy outside of the UN by getting countries to issue Syria resolutions even if these resolutions only call for response and diplomacy, and fake a "majority of the international community" by adding Spain to the G20.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 7:09 utc | 112

Actually, could the Chicago style of foreign policy as decrepit to tell Spain they can get Gibraltar and Argentina they can get the Malvinas/Falklands just because they are not satisfied with the performance of David Cameron?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 7:15 utc | 113

And that opens the interesting question - what did they pressure France with?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 7:18 utc | 114

@97 They don't have to go through Al Anbar province to get onto Syrian soil,

Posted by: Johnboy | Sep 7 2013 7:29 utc | 115

114) also - "our values" - that will be the crusader religious part including LGBT.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 7:45 utc | 116

The thing is that Odummy has already lost this.
If he wins whatever victory can come about as a result of this terrible fiasco, he will be viewed as a bully, an aggressor. He will have lost the trust of all those who supported him.
If he loses, if body bags start arriving from the poor slobs who are forced to fight in this wicked war. Than he will be viewed as a wimp, a fool.
I already think he is at best a creature, a non entity, a mediocrity that fooled us all.
He probably is the AC!!!!!

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 7 2013 8:20 utc | 117

On the other hand here and today israel embodies and manages and does all that is evil and so it seems OK to use the term zionists anyway. But again, I have reservation about talking bad jews; often enough they were the victims of zionists crimes by having to suffer the consequences. I suggest therefore to use the term zionist for what you mean rather than jew. Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 7, 2013 2:49:03 AM | 111
But it's fatally incomplete as a concept. You are dealing with a dialectical strategy that has two apparently opposed but actually coordinated wings. This is not Einstein territory, even the CIA uses such a strategy when it simultaneously funds and directs both religious and anti-religious 'civil society' orgs in target countries like Russia. The well-known Mr Soros is no zionist, he is perceived by both Jews and non-Jews as an anti-zionist, but he is very much part of the strategy. And it is asking for manipulation to try to tailor your concepts to avoid the fear that some violent individuals or gangs will use the same concepts to justify their violence. If you let the liberals con you into tailoring your thought in that way (sort of Kantian, really, imagining what would be the implications of your thought if everybody shared it), then you'll never be able to do any thinking at all. But no matter. I have had my rant and shall not continue with it. Apologies to those offended by it.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 7 2013 8:24 utc | 118

Why does the New Yorker publish such garbage? Is it supposed to be funny? I understand that people think it's true and wonder if it belongs to the psy-op tactics, like the 300 trained rebels who according to Le Figaro would have entered on August 21st?

I agree with Pragma that "Zionists" is more appropriate than "Jews". People who turn religion into politics are not the same as "believers" who genuinely think that people come down from Adam and Eve and that prehistorical studies are hasbara and a conspiracy (the way most islamists see it too, by the way). But here also one has to distinguish between the proto-Zionists, mainly from Eastern Europe,but with a mix of seculars and bigots, and the Neo-Zionists, which are on the stage certainly in connection with the US all the way since WW2 and think they are pragmatics.

Posted by: Mina | Sep 7 2013 8:29 utc | 119

KSA and Israel have a common interest in a weak Iran (read the wikileaks where cables from the Gulf to their US partners state is clearly). The first don't want to admit that there is no successful Arab Sunni state, and in the perspective of a Bigger ME, would be totally ashamed to see Iran have much better economic and scientific results than them, no matter the money they pour. The answer is women empowerment, and they don't want to hear about it. Another reason is that sectarianism/political confessionalism does not work (see Lebanon, no matter how many wealthy family they have, you can't find an area without powercuts). As for Israel, it's interest in in a weak Iran, and just do business with the Gulf city states while having nothing to do with the laymen (welcome as basic-skilled workers for the US funded companies), so that it remains the strongest (financially, economically, etc) spot in the region. To achieve that, Israel does not want to be forced (by the Stalinist EU for example) to give the same rights to its "foreign" workers. This should have been clear all along but the EU enjoys emptying its own pockets to send cash to the ME and think they can beat the US.

Posted by: Mina | Sep 7 2013 8:39 utc | 120

The life of journalists who do not accept suitcases of cash is becoming difficult: two examples recently

Posted by: Mina | Sep 7 2013 9:03 utc | 121

119) :-)) It is propaganda. Fact is Putin called Kerry a liar - and the US did neither deny nor confirm.

There is something else that is slowly sinking in. Angela Merkel did not sign that resolution where "the majority in the room was comfortable with the conclusion" that the Syrian regime is to blame for the chemical injuries and called for "international response". She said she wanted to get a united European opinion first. Cameron has no mandate to act outside of the UN. Hollande has not asked his Parlament but said he will wait for UN results. Spain was bribed to be there to talk about Gibraltar.
RT has graphics - claiming "Germany decided to remain neutral"
Obama is pretty isolated.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 9:06 utc | 122

AIPAC watch

Lo and behold I hear from a friend that it probably is AIPAC trolls. I also heard from that same friend that at, "Rosh Hashanah lunch ... virtually nobody could come up with a good reason to support the AIPAC-administration position about Syria." The conjecture is that it's a minority within AIPAC that is signing on to the Obama play. Remember this is AIPAC. They are not doing it because they like him but because it suits their purposes. If this is not an AIPAC all in commitment, how much? Is it like Nancy Pelosi's troubles delivering the California delegation? As they say, weak sauce? How true is this assertion that it's an AIPAC minority play? Not sure. Maybe some of you will kindly share what you know. But the bumbling nature of what I've seen so far says this is probably not AIPAC's A-Team in action.

As to the trolling behavior, it's typical ruthless both sides against the middle. On the Huffington Post, they take the persona of left wing nuts and make havoc. Apparently on the Atlantic, I'm told the same trolls hit people as being "Anti-American" from the right. Equal opportunity jerks. But, they are all reading from the same "turn Americans emotionally against each other" talking points master script.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 9:15 utc | 123

Interesting country list for the G20 and how the meeting broke into two camps:

Article itself is quite vicious.

Team Obama

Australia Canada, France, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America

Team Putin

Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, India, Germany, South Africa, Indonesia, EU

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 7 2013 9:23 utc | 124

The list is wrong: Spain - not in G20, Germany - neutral (this is big), EU - no vote, no decision yet (otherwise UK, France, Italy, Spain could not be listed as Team Obama), UK just lonely Cameron, not his parliament, France, Italy, Spain, no public opinion on it.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 9:54 utc | 125

Sharmine Narwani reports on some interesting speculation on the Israeli missile test:
Yes, Syria and Hezbollah Will Hit Israel if US Strikes

Two Israeli missiles were launched off the Syrian coast in the Mediterranean Sea to raise temperatures again. Whether this was meant to be veiled threat, a provocation, or an attempt to pin the deed on Syrians is unclear. What is certain is this: Russian early radar systems caught the activity and publicized it quickly to ward off misunderstandings that might trigger counterstrikes.

This quick reaction forced Israel – under US cover – to acknowledge it had participated in unannounced ballistic missile tests. The Iranians reacted very skeptically. Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces General Hassan Firouzabadi said the missiles were “a provocative incident” conveniently executed as western nations withdrew from plans to attack Syria, and called Israel “the region’s warmonger.” He further charged: “If the Russians had not traced the missiles and their origin, a Zionist liar would have alleged that they belonged to Syria in a bid to pave the way for breaking out a war in the region.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Sep 7 2013 9:58 utc | 126

Majority of Turks against intervention in Syria

Huge majority - 72 percent

Posted by: somebody | Sep 7 2013 10:27 utc | 127

Re #123

Pot, meet kettle

Posted by: hmm | Sep 7 2013 10:42 utc | 128

Another example of how journalists create pseudo stories by making gratuitous inferences, which they can then knock down again later and accuse their subjects of contradicting themselves:

Iran rules out sending arms, troops to Damascus
JPost, Sep 5 2013

... Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria. "The Syrians do not need us to provide them with weapons because they have a defensive anti-aircraft system themselves," Dehghan said.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 7 2013 11:14 utc | 129

Chaos, night & blundering journalists, plus or minus some deliberate disinfo:

Obama opts to expand Syria operation with allied air strikes
DEBKAfile, Sep 6 2013

US military sources report that Obama has decided to expand the US operation against Syria’s chemical weapons. Instead of confining the action to Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from warships, he is now turning to the introduction of air strikes by US, French, Turkish and Saudi bombers. This indicates that the US targeting inventory will include Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles and air bases.

US Rules Out Hitting Attacking Syrian Chemical Sites
Richard Sisk,, Sep 6 2013

The Pentagon has ruled out hitting Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said Thursday. He said: "We are taking into account in our planning that there could be environmental impacts in large dispersions of chemical stockpiles."

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 7 2013 11:27 utc | 130


Is it really pseudo? The alleged quote makes sense.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 7 2013 12:07 utc | 131

In France, Hollande is totally alone for his war. On his right side, parties leaders such as Fillon and Bayrou are against. On his left side, the Communists are against.
Remains the so-called Socialists and the so-called Greens. What a picture.
Their sole supporters are Le Monde and Libération (and occasionally only, right-wing Le Figaro, who belongs to the big aircraft manifacturer Dassault). Latest example, this silly article in Libération assimilating the Copts and the Greek Orthodox, and squarely accusing the Copts for having fomented Morsi's fall.
Who would have believed that to keep their paper versions out of bankruptcy, the very Parisian leftish newspapers would have to convert to Qatar's MB orthodoxy?

Posted by: Mina | Sep 7 2013 12:34 utc | 132

US Rules Out Hitting Attacking Syrian Chemical Sites
Richard Sisk,, Sep 6 2013

The Pentagon has ruled out hitting Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said Thursday. He said: "We are taking into account in our planning that there could be environmental impacts in large dispersions of chemical stockpiles."

Touchie-feelie mass murder from Mr Hopey Changey?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 7 2013 12:53 utc | 133

Rowan: Is it really pseudo? The alleged quote makes sense. Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 7, 2013 8:07:48 AM | 131
I should have printed them the other way round. Whether George Little's assurances are trustworthy or not, they do indeed make more sense than Debbie (DEBKAfile). Debbie's little item that says "the US targeting inventory will include Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles" is only one of three arrant pieces of fiction they have printed in the last two days (two main stories and a pop-up), and I have been having fun matching them to their contradictories elsewhere in the press. Debbie says in another of her unrestrained exercises in imagination:
The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down its airforce, destroy its airbases and knock out its ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US, others from the al-Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive. The US operation will also target the Syrian army’s 4th and Republican Guard divisions. Russia and Iran are already getting set to replenish by air and sea the losses the US air and missile offensive is expected to inflict on the Syria military.
And just above 'chaos, night & blundering journalists' in the thread is an item from the JPost saying that Iran has specifically stated it will not send either arms or troops. But I enjoy reading all this guff (except sometimes, when I fear it is driving me mad).

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 7 2013 13:05 utc | 134


CNN shows "declassified" videos shown to Congress with classified material!

Hold on a minute...these videos look a lot like the ones CNN has shown repeated times since the end of August along with other Zionist propoganda they feed the American masses on a daily basis.

They are, they are the same videos...okay, now please go back to the important work of STOPPING A USELESS WAR.

Now everyone knows how let down I felt when I saw "breaking news" flashing across my t.v. screen only to discover this is all BREAKING PROPAGANDA once again brought to you by the Zionist mainstream media meant to create fake drama to convince everyone that this war is urgent and necessary.

This kind of bullshet strategy is what we're all up against.

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 7 2013 18:25 utc | 135

But again, I have reservation about talking bad jews; often enough they were the victims of zionists crimes by having to suffer the consequences. I suggest therefore to use the term zionist for what you mean rather than jew.
Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 7, 2013 2:49:03 AM | 111

I've seen some offensively (and defensively) stupid arguments during 10 years on the www, Mr Pragma, but the above is vying with the worst of them for the No 1 spot. Your arrival here during a particularly vicious and dishonest chapter of the War on Islam (for the Jewish State) is now beginning to seem less than coincidental.
Gilad Atzmon is a good jew, or would be if he wasn't an ex-jew, which tends to make your claim sound more like gate-keeping than good advice or thoughtful analysis.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 8 2013 3:47 utc | 136

Gilad certainly is unusual in having forsworn his Jewish identity. He describes himself as a hebrew-speaking Palestinian. In a way this seems fatuous, but it does have the (calculated) effect of exposing the Jewish loyalties of, for example, the Mondoweiss community in the US, or the +972 Mag community in Israel. This may not always be to the point, however. There's one person who writes for +972, Yossi Gurvitz, who has devoted his entire adult life to putting spokes in the wheels of the Zionist occupation forces in the West Bank, and not only that but has recorded lengthy videos in which he dissects the religious doctrines of the IDF with devastating if sober contempt, and it would be just silly and doctrinaire to insist on asking him whether he still regards himself as a Jew or not. He probably does, but it's just not the point. So castigating people for still thinking of themselves as Jews is not always something I would endorse.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 8 2013 4:00 utc | 137

Hoarsewhisperer (136)

While it's senseless to discuss accusations based on "The timing! That wasn't coincidence!" one can, and I do, comment on tangible accusations.

The danger of putting all_jews (or all_Germans or all_blonde_women) into one single category is that there is a clear lack of criteria.
What about someone born by jews into a jewish family that shortly after (the birth) died? Is that person who was brought up in, say, some catholic institution a jew then? And if so, is that persons child without ever having been in contact with anything jewish a jew, too nevertheless?

*Evidently* it makes sense to differentiate.

Furthermore, I leave it to the zionists or to the jews (concerned) to "generously" consider others unworthy to live. I myself prefer to differentiate and to assume that many jews are just that, jews, i.e. followers of a certain religious belief; to consider them guilty of anything seems as absurd to me as if one considered, say, all Muslims or all Catholics guilty.

To be perfectly honest, I do not like jews and avoid any and all kind of relationships or interactions with them. But that is a personal matter; it is by no means a reason to consider them guilty, to harm them or to do other bad things to them.

If someone *wants* to perceive me a heinious creature doing the jews work here, pretty nothing will convince him of being wrong. But then, one shouldn't - and I won't - consider just anyone who pleases to point at one uttering baseless accusations as relevant. Feel free to think of me whatever pleases you.

And yes, for me anyone - including jews - is considered innocent until proven otherwise. Being a zionist or otherwise pro-israel *is* valid proof in my eyes.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr.Pragma | Sep 8 2013 5:05 utc | 138

Mr P, I must reiterate, when I use the word Jews, I do not intend to imply a religious identification, but a national one, and this I mean quite independently of territory. Jews throughout history, whether religious or not, have regarded themselves as members of a nation. Religion is a possession of the nation, rather than the other way round. This is quite in accordance with the patterns of self-identification among other nationalities. For instance, a Russian regards himself as a member of the Russian nation, whether or not he personally subscribes to Orthodox Christianity, which is a possession of the Russian nation but not a universal characteristic of every member. Surely you can comprehend the idea of a Russian nationalist who is not religious. It's no different with Jews. So when you insist on thinking of 'Jews' as a religious category, you are setting up a straw man as a target. I just offered you an example, in my previous comment, of one person, this Yossi Gurvitz, who I explicitly said treated the national religion with contempt, and I went on to argue that he very probably still thinks of himself as a Jew, in the national sense, and that this isn't necessarily something to take issue with. But you overlooked my argument completely and pursued your straw man dispute with old Horsy instead. I wish people would pay attention to what I post, because it is intended to influence the discussion, not just to decorate the page.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 8 2013 6:09 utc | 139

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 8, 2013 12:00:37 AM | 137

Your endorsement or otherwise of observations of excessive, spontaneous and contradictory carelessness in no way alters my interest in drawing attention to such things. Would it be impolite of me to suggest that you seem to be resorting to the same kind of ambiguity of which you seemed so (apologetically) critical on Sep 7, 2013 4:24:11 AM @ 118?

Or is impurity merely the new pure?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 8 2013 6:18 utc | 140

RB, had I seen your comment of Sep 8, 2013 2:09:20 AM | 139, I would have just thought the comment at 140 and not bothered posting it.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 8 2013 6:33 utc | 141

Well, it's confusing who is trying to argue against what now, but I shall fortify my argument even more by making it as formal as possible. Nationality is a primary concept of political science. Although the sense of nationhood originates through common possession of a territory, it is not destroyed if the territory is subsequently lost. For instance, Kurds and Armenians continue to regard themselves as members of a nation, whether or not they possess a national territory formally recognised by themselves or by others as their own. In the same way, Jews throughout recorded history have regarded themselves first of all as members of a nation, the Jewish nation. This can even take an explicitly non-territorial form. During the closing decades of the Austro-Hungarian empire, there was a movement of Jews within that empire in the direction of what they themselves called 'cultural nationalism'. This may be an incoherent and non-feasible concept, but the fact that they posited it proves my point, that the sense of nationhood once established is independent of territory.

A national territory, if it exists, is a possession of a nation. In the same way, a religion may be a possession of a nation, i.e. a national religion, as Judaism is. Again, a language may be a possession of a nation, or even several languages, as yiddish, hebrew, and ladino are possessions of the Jewish nation. The sense of nationhood, though chronologically subsequent to possession of a territory (i.e. the Jewish nation was formed through possession of the territory of ancient Israel), becomes logically and conceptually prior to it once it is established. This sounds nonsensical, but the sense of nationhood is a collective cognitive process. Cognitions are often chronologically subsequent to, but once established logically prior to, their preconditions. A scientific axiom, for instance, may be the last thing to be established, but once it has been established it assumes logical and conceptual priority over previous hypotheses, which become mere corollaries of it. The sense of nationhood is like that.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 8 2013 6:53 utc | 142

Rowan Berkeley

I get your point and understand your argument. In the end though it's as arbitrary as mine. Yes, maybe we should say "khazars" or yet something else.
I also understand that israel malevolently and intentionally plays with the associated confusion.

Nevertheless though the established meaning of "jewish" is religiously connotated and that's the way I use it.

This btw isn't an attack on you nor is it arguing - it's merely explaining myself, what I mean and to a degree why I do it that way.
I happen to know some jews who are very critical (to put it mildly) concerning israel, and their political views and leanings are well within the normal range of the country/society they live in.

You are right in that "jewish" can be a misleading term and that it is often abused for diverse purposes. I want, however, to somehow differentiate between a heinously criminal people on one side and persons that just happened to belong to a certain religious belief, ancestry, country, or alike.
In other words: One is not evil merely because one happens to be a jew or a muslim.

But, not to be misunderstood, I *do* see that certain groups (that many would call "jews") are bluntly overrepresented, basically control media, finance and so on. And I detest those rats as much as anyone. I also see, however, that there are "innocent jews" and that there is conspicable bio-waste like mc cain't, blair, or hollande that is not jewish.

Again, I didn't mean to accuse you but rather to ask for some differentiation. If only because some of us "goyim" *do* have human quality and are not drawn down by zio-scum to their level.

Posted by: Mr.Pragma | Sep 8 2013 7:41 utc | 143

I appreciate that, Mr P. But fundamentally, you're thinking polemically while I am thinking analytically (or at least trying to). Accurate and thorough analysis is the necessary condition for sound policy. That may necessitate redefining things so that the true conceptual structure of the phenomenon can be understood. And I should conclude that a person possessed of the sense of Jewish nationhood is not necessarily possessed of an evil spirit, as e.g. my Mr Gurvitz, who incidentally is well worth watching for his wonderful demolition of the military theology of the settlers and their supporters in the IDF and elsewhere: here (with english subtitles). And here's an article by him on the same topic, but more closely applied to the army, this being my copy because it's neater and faster than the original at +972.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 8 2013 8:39 utc | 144

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.