Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 12, 2014

Some Links On That "War On ISIS"

Just some snippets and headlines on that non-war on ISIS.

On training, arming the "moderate rebels" there is pessimism all around:

“We need to do everything we can to figure out who the non-ISIS opposition is,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former United States ambassador to Iraq and Syria. “Frankly, we don’t have a clue.”

 That's right. No clue at all. From a White House Briefing by a "Senior Administration Official":

"ISIL has been I think a galvanizing threat around the Sunni partners in the region. They view it as an existential threat to them. Saudi Arabia has an extensive border with Syria."

These clueless folks can't even read a map. But we saw that before with those neocons who didn't know that there were Shia in Iraq before they invaded it. There is anyway not much difference between those and the "liberal interventionist" in Obama's administration. As Melkulangara Bhadrakumar notes:

Obama’s presidency has come full circle by reinventing the neocon dogmas it once professed to reject. On the pretext of fighting the IS, which the US and its allies created in the first instance, what is unfolding is a massive neocon project to remold the Muslim Middle East to suit the US’ geopolitical objectives. Call it by whatever name, it is an imperial war – albeit with a Nobel as commander-in-chief.

But the other side has its own ideas. Food for thoughts in three tweets by Peter Lee aka Chinahand:

Westerners mock pretensns of IS Caliphate bt it seems 2 strike chord among quite a few Muslims: effort to reestablish theocratic rule in 1/3
heartland of Umayyad/Abbasid caliphates, turn page on disastrus century of colonial/postcolonial rule, replace fragmented/corrupt states 2/3
w/ united Islamic power. West passivty validates the caliphate & its transnational strategy. May be PRC/Rus that try 2 draw the line. 3/3

Is ISIS an anti-Imperial movement?

Posted by b on September 12, 2014 at 17:51 UTC | Permalink

next page »

There's - IMO - certainly a solution and his name is Muqtada Al Sadr. Muqtada is a iraqi nationalist. The last few years he resided in Qom, Iran. He doesn't have ties to the Maliki government and therefore can be an acceptable person for the sunnis.

As professor Juan Cole said ISIS is a coalition between the sunnis and jihadis. Once this coalition is broken then the jihadis are on their own. Then these jihadis can be "left hanging out to dry".

But are the people in the "West" (e.g. US & UK) willing to accept such a solution ?

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 12 2014 18:20 utc | 1


Muqtada would be accepting to sunnis?! I must misunderstand you?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 12 2014 18:28 utc | 2

Is ISIS an anti-Imperial movement?

- hardly, with its emphasis on ethnic cleansing, extortion, robbery and founding a caliphate, basically it is a competing imperial movement

- hardly, with its emphasis on a social media recruiting campaign - so easy to track compare to a group like Hezbollah

- hardly with its emphasis on attracting foreign jihadis

- connection with Iraqi ex-Baath - Baath used to fake a communist party, Saddam Hussein's CIA connections are well documented, ISIS fakes Islamism, whatever is the fashion

- Camp Bucca - no self respecting anti imperial movement would chose a leadership that has been tortured by the enemy - personal integrity is guaranteed to be destroyed after that experience

- ISIS ideology does not unite but split - anti imperial movements look for uniting people, divisions are imperial trade mark

Posted by: somebody | Sep 12 2014 18:34 utc | 3

Anti-imperialist might be technically correct, but it's certainly not the right flavor, given that anti-imperialist normally has some specter of liberation. If you assume an ISIS state would be something like Taliban Afghanistan and Chechen Ichkeria, there would be no liberation for women or minority groups.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 12 2014 18:35 utc | 4

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 12, 2014 2:28:33 PM | 2

I believe he would and after reading about and his boss I have no doubt. When is army was active it fought Amerikans

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 12 2014 18:39 utc | 5

I wouldn't be surprised to see that Muqtada has a backchannel open to the Sunnis.

"Islamophobia makes a comeback".

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 12 2014 18:42 utc | 6

Muqtada would be accepting to sunnis?!

Absolutely not! His militia ehtnically cleansed Baghdad of Sunnis. We're talking about driving ALL of them out. He was the one I was expecting to do genocide on all of Iraq's Sunnis with his Badr Corp. He was reined in by senior clerics, or he would have. He imo is being groomed for much higher office-status in Iraq. He comes from a family decended from the Prophet.

Posted by: okie farmer | Sep 12 2014 19:06 utc | 7


So again you are seriously saying Muqtada would be ok for sunnis? WHo told you that, Juan Cole?

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 12 2014 19:18 utc | 8

"Saudi Arabia has an extensive border with Syria."

this seems to epitomize the level of ignorance of senior usa admin officials.. it is either that, or their level of (self?) deception know no bounds..

and from the same link : "We are bringing unique capabilities to bear from the air,....., and we have been providing military assistance, of course, to the Syrian opposition who has been fighting against both ISIL and the Assad regime."

how does this differ from the usa's issue with russia in ukraine? how does one spell HYPOCRISY?

Posted by: james | Sep 12 2014 19:29 utc | 9

Yes, I truly believe that. No, that's not something Juan Cole said.

I consider the Alliance between the sunnis & jihadis to be a coalition of convenience. If there's a serious alternative (Muqtada ??) then I think the sunnis will drop the jihadis.

But such a major change also requires that the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran are willing to create more stability (instead of fomenting more unrest) in Iraq & Syria. E.g. iranian support of the Kurds does increase the violence as well. And changing the minds in all those countries is the hardest part. In that regard, Kerry still has to do A LOT OF work to do.

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 12 2014 19:43 utc | 10

ISIS is as anti-imperialist as John McCain, who publicly has had to deny allegations that he huddled with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi when the doddering senator from Arizona met with FSA leadership last year in Northern Syria:

Last month the rumors received new vitality when a left-leaning American veterans group asserted that the senator had posed for photographs “with ISIS militants.” The rumors were further bolstered with the news that an American recruit to ISIS shared the senator’s surname. And on Wednesday in Iran, where many people already believe ISIS is an American plot to destabilize their country, the state television asserted that Senator McCain was an ISIS cohort. As proof, it showed one of the photographs.

Brian Rogers, Mr. McCain’s communications director, was not amused. The man who was misidentified as Mr. Baghdadi in the photographs, Mr. Rogers said Thursday, was a commander of the Northern Storm Brigade, a group linked to the Free Syrian Army. Mr. Rogers declined to identify him by name, saying he feared for the man’s safety.

There was also a story the other day from the NYT's reporter in Tehran, Thomas Erbrink, pointing out that the McCain-ISIS connection is commonly accepted in Iran.

McCain's grabbing ass with neo-Nazis and rubbing elbows with the Salafis is coming back to haunt him.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 12 2014 20:05 utc | 11

@9 james
I agree. The USG/Saudi/Israeli/qatar/turkey plan is to foment total havoc in Syria in order to get rid of Assad. They want to legitimize their covert operation of training anti assad jihadi terrorists which is ISIL. They are now gonna attempt to do it overtly. This is an absolute desparate reckless and destructive proxy tactic .

These people are absolutely insane. Jordan and Lebanon are more than likely to be sucked into the chaos too. They are gonna burn the Syrian house down with the occupants inside, bulldoze and rebuild.

Posted by: really | Sep 12 2014 20:22 utc | 12

well, conjecture has it that ISIS's 5 year plan is to spread from greater Khorasan in present day Iran all the way to, say, Alhambra, in Spain. hardly an anti-imperial endeavour. course with a swathe of territory that vast they're gonna need a high-speed rail system too, or, better yet, their own airline company. at which point they're gonna have to have their own soccer team, and their own beer. non-alchoholic of course.

Posted by: john | Sep 12 2014 20:27 utc | 13

Sectarian violence not just in the ME. The US can't engineer the chaos everywhere at the same time, can they?

“According to a press conference held by the Majlis-e-Wahdatul Muslimeen in Karachi’s Soldier Bazaar Area, 160 Shia have been killed in the city this year, despite a military and police combined operation to crack down on the extremist groups that have made this their agenda.

They have included five lawyers, five doctors, five engineers, three professors and 21 traders.

The series of sectarian deaths come in spurts. This, most recent series began about a week ago, when on Saturday evening, Shia cleric Allama Ali Akbar Kumaili was shot dead. He had been going home with his children. From the shower of bullets directed his way, two found their way to his chest and one to his abdomen. He died at the scene.

Then on Wednesday, Dr Maulana Masood Baig, also a cleric (whilst not Shia) was shot dead in North Nazimabad. He had been driving to pick his children up from school when he was met with a barrage of bullets. He too, died at the scene. A Ph.D scholar, his dissertation had been entitled “Islam’s Philosophy of Brotherhood and Tolerance”. In a Karachi deeply ensconced in hatred, it seems, the propagators of such learning are destined for death.

In the midst of these two more high profile killings, and before and after, others more ordinary met their deaths.

On the Friday before Allama Kumaili’s death, gunmen opened fire outside a shop in North Nazimabad and killed a shopkeeper. On the same day as Maulana Masood Baig’s death, Imran Ali who was sitting outside his television repair shop was also killed by unknown gunmen. According to a spokesperson from the Majlis-e-Wahdat ul Muslimeen he had been involved in organising mourning processions for the city’s Shia community.

The killings are not expected to stop.”

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 12 2014 20:34 utc | 14

I can see it now.
"Jihadi Airlines"

Actually there was a story on huffpo about Libya missing several passenger jets from the Libyan international airport. So the jihadists can probably check the airline off the list of things to attain.

Oh here it is..

Posted by: really | Sep 12 2014 20:36 utc | 15

SecState Kerry has refused to clarify how nations are willing to participate in President Obama's strategy.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 12 2014 20:49 utc | 16

Same old Imperialist movie, same spectators and villains, same old arguments, just a different era and different tribes...

Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.

Posted by: Warren Celli | Sep 12 2014 20:54 utc | 17

Maybe another reason The US is reluctant to put troops on the ground is because most of the military equipment and vehicles are in the possession of the local police departments across america. Gotta ramp up production for newer and more expensive war tools.

Posted by: really | Sep 12 2014 21:05 utc | 18

We need more Custers.

Posted by: Ben Franklin | Sep 12 2014 21:07 utc | 19

@okiefarmer um Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi fought Badr brigades during the war and whipped them hard. Badr were America's puppets during the occupation. Sadr was not.

Posted by: Historyrepeats | Sep 12 2014 21:08 utc | 20

ISIS is not a anti-imperialist movement it is a reactionary movement to reestablish an empire ideologically. Of course in reality it is no different than the other wahhabi pawns of the US,UK and Israel and is a pathetic, brutal gang used and soon to be abused like the Taliban or AQ which were anti imperialist movements ideologically.

Posted by: Historyrepeats | Sep 12 2014 21:12 utc | 21

These clueless folks can't even read a map.

Are you serious? You have a habit when you get burnt out of reporting on what they say and not what they do. What’s worse, you take the worst of what they say seriously. These posts -- if one ever goes through the archives, and I do -- never hold up to your usually high standards. And you love the incompetence meme. It’s far easier to report on something stupid than to expose the actual workings of empire.

It was obviously beneath you to follow my link to the Carter Center Syrian Project and watch the video: Using Technology to Map Conflict in Syria In reality, the conflict is mapped and tracked down to the street level. (You see, the West has discovered this thing called ”databases” -- like ‘Al Qaeda’ heh, heh...) Money is tracked just as carefully. Social media is used very effectively for verifiable reporting.

Someone smart could take that link, and a few others, and write something intelligent and revealing about how imperial destabilization really works. But its Friday blogging: “Frankly, we don’t have a clue.” Ho hum, let’s see if the gossip is any better over at the Saker. Oh, shit! Strelkov killed!

The Syrian destabilization plan (even if it has met stronger than predicted resistance from Assad) has been meticulously planned and executed. ISIS didn’t accidentally take the rivers and oil wells anymore than the Libyan jihaddis accidentally figured out how to set up a central bank. US studies show that 2/3 of all color revolutions/destabilizations fail. Countries have a right to resist, and many do. But that means that 1/3 succeed, which for the CIA and Mossad is pretty good odds -- and for short money, too.

Don’t forget that it wasn’t many years ago when Iraq was the strongest power in the Middle East, with by far the highest level of technical and social development. Syria was a very strong country too. And both stood in staunch opposition to Israel. I guess it was US “cluelessness” that made all the difference!

I’m not sure what the US strategy is right now (other than to continue to try to overthrow Assad), so I have nothing productive/predictive to add. But I’m sure it isn’t stupid and based on wrong maps (Anymore than those Ukrainian junta soldiers were “incompetently" sent to their deaths based on maps which showed Soviet-era buildings as fields.)

Politicians and spokespeople are not Imperial planners. It is irrelevant whether they know where Fredonia is on the map. They are salespeople. Why are you taking their knowledge as indicative of Imperial competence? Shit, I sold Hyundais for a living two years ago and never knew that the main Accent plant in Korea was on strike. They don’t want salespeople to know any more than they have to, to keep the shit in motion.

Is ISIS an anti-Imperial movement?

Yeah, financed by the People’s Republic of Saudi Arabia and the Revolutionary Qatari Workers International. Badda Bing, Badda Boom! Next Question. somebody #3 has your number here.

“Muqtada Al Sadr”

Always a possibility. No, his “death squads” did not engage in ethnic cleansing. He has always reached out to the Sunnis. And as a human being, he has always known his limits. Not the brightest light bulb in the chandelier, but he has integrity.

Anyone remember Steve Gilliard, the brilliant Kos spin-off blogger, who died so tragically young? I was a fan of his work, and he was a big fan of Al Sadr. Well, a moment of silent appreciation for Steve. And so it goes...

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 12 2014 21:31 utc | 22

thanks really @ 11, but i do agree with @21 malooga here who makes a very good point for skipping over the cheap shots and staying focused on the broad reality at work..

1 of out 3 colour revolutions panning out are very good odds.. this one is focused on regime change - getting rid of assad. nothing has changed, except the propaganda to make it happen... interesting map at the carter center.. i hadn't seen that before... thanks for staying focused and not being distracted by the trivial bs - which there is much of..

Posted by: james | Sep 12 2014 21:46 utc | 23

...those neocons who didn't know that there were Shia in Iraq before they invaded it.

I doubt very seriously that the neocons didn't know that there were Shiites in Iraq. It may be true that Bush didn't know that ("What's a Sunni? What's a Shiite?"), but he was just an empty-headed vehicle for their ambitions. Anyone who remembers Desert Storm in 1990-1, when the Shiites rose up in revolt against Saddam after his defeat in Kuwait, knew what was going to happen in Iraq after the Ba'ath fell from power. It was pretty obvious.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 12 2014 22:16 utc | 24

@Historyrepeats (Sep 12, 2014 5:08:48 PM | 19):

Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi fought Badr brigades during the war and whipped them hard. Badr were America's puppets during the occupation. Sadr was not.

Maybe I missed that report, but I remember the Mahdi Army fighting the Americans in Karbala and Najaf; I don't remember them ever fighting the Badr Brigades.

As far as the Badr Brigades are concerned, as I recall, they were the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which was founded in Iran in the 1980's when Iran and Iraq were at war. I think the standard view is that they were proxies for Iran, not the US.

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 12 2014 22:20 utc | 25

The Israel Lobby and Israeli leadership are not thrilled about Obama's plans to attack ISIS. Netanyahu spokes claims that ISIS is only a problem for 5 years, whereas Iran's non-existent nukes are a problem for the next 50. The NYT claims that those crazy paranoid Iranians think that ISIS is a creation of the CIA. So, is Israel dissing Obama's plan because Bibi hates Obama, because they don't want the PNAC plan of smashing the resistance axis derailed or because Mossad has some involvement in ISIS?

Posted by: Rusty Pipes | Sep 12 2014 22:31 utc | 26

@22 james

You are right. I find it interesting how the empire is always ready and willing to admit their so called "mistakes". I think that is their cover word for the actual successes of the overarching mission which is hegemony. Because their successful missions are a brought about by death, destruction, covert operations and color revelutions they always admit that it was just another faux pas, and the public swallows the "look we just had a brain fart" trick. All the while the hegemonic plan rolls on like malooga points outs @21. The empire worker drones hide behind faux-incompentence.

Posted by: really | Sep 12 2014 22:32 utc | 27

To the neolibcon Zionists,its all Saudi Arabia,the surrounding Arab nations,I doubt they differentiate between their neighbors.
And maybe SA backing Isis is an attempt to make it reality.But I don't believe the Israelis want or will permit that,divide and conquer is their game.Imperial nations usually have potentates at the head,at least figuratively,Faisal? the first?

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 12 2014 22:38 utc | 28

@really 26:

Of course. Perfect description of how things work. Without JSore around, we are now free to point this out in a non-hysterical fashion so hopefully more people will listen and get it.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 12 2014 23:03 utc | 29


I for one miss JSore. Banned? Or just dormant?

Posted by: coupdedes | Sep 12 2014 23:45 utc | 30

The "actual workings of Empire" can be a mixture of competency and incompetency, so the truth is somewhere between "b" and Malooga, to which side I would have to read Malooga's analysis of and from the inception of the Iraq War before opining.

Posted by: truthbetold | Sep 13 2014 0:12 utc | 32

@29 coupdedes

I too hope jsore has not been banned. Hopefully jsore is just taking a break.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 0:20 utc | 33

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 12, 2014 5:31:51 PM | 21

Yes thank you about Sadr and as some one who found Steve Gilliard late, Yes.

Posted by: jo6pac | Sep 13 2014 0:36 utc | 34

The steppes and the empty spaces of the middle eastern desert are the arc of survival of balloon empires, based upon the speedy conquest of the cities strung along roads by the mighty steeds of the conquering horde (Toyota currently).
Don't know if many Yale graduates (think Kerry) have the brains to play 13 dimensional chess.
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans gain in congress after epic boneheadedness.
Looks like Radio Shack is mincemeat.

Posted by: Jay M | Sep 13 2014 0:39 utc | 35

Monsters Endgame

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 1:54 utc | 36

@really #32:

I just did a little experiment and tried to make a post with jsore's full name in it. The post got blocked. So you can stop hoping. And I think we can come to the same conclusion regarding another frequent contributor here.

Posted by: Demian | Sep 13 2014 2:18 utc | 37

@36 Demian

I will toss that hope in the bin which already contains Obama's 2008 hope and change rhertoric.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 2:39 utc | 38

WWIII aimed to redraw map ...

The end goal of the US and NATO is to divide (balkanize) and pacify (finlandize) the world’s biggest country, the Russian Federation, and to even establish a blanket of perpetual disorder (somalization) over its vast territory or, at a minimum, over a portion of Russia and the post-Soviet space, similarly to what is being done to the Middle East and North Africa. The future Russia or the many future Russias, a plurality of weakened and divided states, that Washington and its NATO allies see is/are demographically in decline, de-industrialized, poor, without any defensive capabilities, and hinterlands that will exploited for their resources.

The actual title ends in '... of Russia?' but it's all one. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has announced the 'official' beginning of WW III.

Posted by: john francis lee | Sep 13 2014 2:51 utc | 39

really@ 35: That York article mirrors the feelings of many. Sad, but true. Thanks for the link.

Posted by: ben | Sep 13 2014 3:35 utc | 40

The "moderate" FSA recruits won't be trained in Jordan any longer. They will be trained and equipped in -- this is great -- Saudi Arabia!! With half a billion dollars in new funding!!

Question: What is the basis for believing that "moderate" anti-Syria fighters trained by Wahhabis in radical Saudi Arabia will still be "moderate" when they return to Syria?

The Queen says to Alice: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 4:10 utc | 41

Posted by: Seamus Padraig | Sep 12, 2014 6:16:11 PM | 23

As a matter of fact the Neocons had a "Shiite strategy"

How Neocon Shiite Strategy Led to Sectarian War Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, 6 Feb (IPS) - The supreme irony of President George W. Bush's campaign to blame Iran for the sectarian civil war in Iraq, as well as attacks on U.S. forces, is that the Shiite militias who started to drive the Sunnis out of the Baghdad area in 2004 and thus precipitated the present sectarian crisis did so with the support of both Iran and the neoconservative U.S. war planners.

The U.S. policy decisions that led to the sectarian war can be traced back to the conviction of a group of right-wing zealots with close ties to Israel's Likud Party that overthrowing the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq would not destabilise the region, because Iraqi Shiites would be allies of the United States and Israel against Iran.

The idea that Iraqi Shiites could be used to advance U.S. power interests in the Middle East was part of a broader right-wing strategy for joint U.S.-Israeli "rollback" of Israel's enemies. In 1996, a task force at the right-wing Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, under Richard Perle advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that such a strategy should begin by taking control of Iraq and putting a pro-Israeli regime in power there.

The "El Savador option" for Iraq involved forming Shiite death squads against the Sunni insurgency.

With Steele and Coffman as his point men, Petraeus began pouring money from a multimillion dollar fund into what would become the Special Police Commandos. According to the US Government Accounts Office, they received a share of an $8.2bn (£5.4bn) fund paid for by the US taxpayer. The exact amount they received is classified.

With Petraeus's almost unlimited access to money and weapons, and Steele's field expertise in counterinsurgency the stage was set for the commandos to emerge as a terrifying force. One more element would complete the picture. The US had barred members of the violent Shia militias like the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army from joining the security forces, but by the summer of 2004 they had lifted the ban.

Shia militia members from all over the country arrived in Baghdad "by the lorry-load" to join the new commandos. These men were eager to fight the Sunnis: many sought revenge for decades of Sunni-supported, brutal Saddam rule, and a chance to hit back at the violent insurgents and the indiscriminate terror of al-Qaida.

Petraeus and Steele would unleash this local force on the Sunni population as well as the insurgents and their supporters and anyone else who was unlucky enough to get in the way. It was classic counterinsurgency. It was also letting a lethal, sectarian genie out of the bottle. The consequences for Iraqi society would be catastrophic. At the height of the civil war two years later 3,000 bodies a month were turning up on the streets of Iraq — many of them innocent civilians of sectarian war.

As it turned out, Shiites would not be Israel's but Iran's friend, the US has been "balancing" this policy by forming Sunni death squads ever since.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 13 2014 5:40 utc | 42

Westerners are joining ISIS:
Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 12, 2014 7:52:21 PM | 30

Yes - in inconsequential numbers.
The same bullshit is being imposed on "news" consumers in EVERY Western country with a pro-Israel & pro-US govt and MSM. It's done, very deliberately and specifically, to sanitise anti-Syria/Assad jihadis.

In Oz, and I suspect everywhere else in the West to which feeble-minded jihadis are returning, the culprits are detained, given a warning and released without penalty.

It's a Neocon two-fer. It reinforces the Moderate Jihadi myth (the ones we've detained have all been moderate/harmless/innocent) AND the Israel & America GOOD - Assad EVIL myth.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13 2014 5:40 utc | 43


That makes no sense, Muqtada is the last person that sunnis would accept.

Posted by: Anoynmous | Sep 13 2014 7:59 utc | 44

Well I have stated my opinion several times about this. This is just an attempt to get IS 'back on track', that is attack and overthrow the Syrian Govt and then attack Lebanon, not scare important people with all this Iraq stuff.

Carrots and sticks being offered on the table. If IS 'get with the program' the US will hammer the Syrian Army for them, give them money, weapons and training (over and above what they already get from the US, SA, Turkey, etc). If they don't comply and persist in doing 'what the big boys don't want them do' (like attack the Kurds), then they will be (pin pricked) bombed in Iraq.

Think of it an attempt at 'behavioural modification'. From the 'coalition of the stupids' point of view IS are just 'our boys' that have 'slipped the leash'.

Trouble is I expect IS have their own plans and hopes, that might not coincide with what their 'creators' want, when has that ever happened before?

Posted by: OldSkeptic | Sep 13 2014 8:07 utc | 45

Posted by: OldSkeptic | Sep 13, 2014 4:07:20 AM | 44
I agree.
For some reason, this is being discussed on the Gulf.

Will Iraq’s Sultan Hashem and Tareq Aziz be released?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 13 2014 9:33 utc | 46

Muslim Brotherhood relocating from Qatar to Turkey?

he Brotherhood is blacklisted in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and both countries withdrew their ambassadors from Doha partly over Qatar's support for the group.

With the leadership in Qatar likely to relocate to Turkey, where other Brotherhood figures are already based, Istanbul is poised to host the regional headquarters for the 86-year-old movement.

Other leaders are based in Britain, which has conducted an inquiry into the Brotherhood's alleged links to militants.

Turkey is a NATO country, they could not keep up this policy if not supported.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 13 2014 11:09 utc | 47

"...In stark contrast to the sparse coverage of the brutality of ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria over the past few years, there has recently been substantial coverage of the emergence of ISIS in Iraq and the terrorist acts that this US-backed and funded grou p has been committing. This surge of media focus on ISIS’ brutality in Iraq and particularly on the recent alleged be-headings of two American journalists is extensively considered, amongst independent political analysts, to be setting the stage for NATO and the Axis-of-Imperialists to“fight terrorism” in Iraq and Syria, aka destroy both countries (note there are valid doubts as to the legitimacy of the Foley video itself).

Glaringly absent from corporate media accounts of the proxy-war being waged on Syria is the fact that the very same terrorist group, as well as other Western-backed, al-Qaeda aligned terrorist organizations(like al-Nusra and the so-called “Free Syrian Army”), have been terrorizing Syrians for years—beheading them, flogging, crucifying amputating hands—to name but a few of their crimes agains thousands of Syrians..."

So the USG and political and military experts wish to cease having casual sex with jihadi groups like the FSA and Al Nusra, and want to "put a ring" on the fingers of these so called "moderate" terrorist groups in Syria, this time with US congress approved overt training in the terrorist incubator that is Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other western supported terror bases in the ME region. If you want chaos in Syria, this is the best way to achieve it. Now the empire is just brazenly doing in the open what it has been doing in Syria for the past 3+ years, which is to overthrow assad by proxy.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 11:26 utc | 48

Not really :-))

This here is the official Muslim Brotherhood website calling for a coalition with ISIS - in English!

"As for ISIS's modus operandi, it shed blood unjustly, cut off people's heads, forced people into allegiance under threats, and attacked non-Muslim citizens and asked them to choose between Islam or forced displacement. These are all behaviors contrary to the teachings of Islam. ISIS should refer to the Quran and Sunnah (traditions of the Prophet, peace be on him) to understand Islam correctly and improve its approach." In conclusion, Abu-Shaqqa said: "We ask God to guide us and them, and hope that everyone will cooperate, unite and close ranks to liberate Syria from the repressive despots and reclaim the people's freedom and dignity".

Posted by: somebody | Sep 13 2014 11:41 utc | 49

And there is a new move to declassify those 28 pages

“There’s nothing in it about national security,” Walter Jones, a Republican congressman from North Carolina who has read the missing pages, contends. “It’s about the Bush Administration and its relationship with the Saudis.” Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts Democrat, told me that the document is “stunning in its clarity,” and that it offers direct evidence of complicity on the part of certain Saudi individuals and entities in Al Qaeda’s attack on America. “Those twenty-eight pages tell a story that has been completely removed from the 9/11 Report,” Lynch maintains. Another congressman who has read the document said that the evidence of Saudi government support for the 9/11 hijacking is “very disturbing,” and that “the real question is whether it was sanctioned at the royal-family level or beneath that, and whether these leads were followed through.” Now, in a rare example of bipartisanship, Jones and Lynch have co-sponsored a resolution requesting that the Obama Administration declassify the pages.

So - not all is well between the Gulf and the Empire.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 13 2014 11:47 utc | 50

"...To the extent that the U.S. public is newly, and probably momentarily accepting of war — an extent that is wildly exaggerated, but still real — it is because of videos of beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff When 9-11 victims were used as a justification to kill hundreds of times the number of people killed on 9-11, some of the victims’ relatives pushed back.

Now James Foley is pushing back from the grave. Here is video of Foley talking about the lies that are needed to launch wars, including the manipulation of people into thinking of foreigners as less than human. Foley’s killers may have thought of him as less than human. He may not have viewed them the same way.

The video shows Foley in Chicago helping Haskell Wexler with his film Four Days in Chicago — a film about the last NATO protest before the recent one in Wales.  I was there in Chicago for the march and rally against NATO and war. And I’ve met Wexler who has tried unsuccessfully to find funding for a film version of my book War Is A Lie...."

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 11:48 utc | 51

Malooga @ 28 said:

Without JSore around, we are now free to point this out in a non-hysterical fashion so hopefully more people will listen and get it.

yeah folks, feel the freedom?

well, if JSore has indeed been banished from moa i think you should step forward and take a bow, 'cause it would be in no small part your doing.

and i guess we could then all rest reassured that that new, collective, multipolar world you're always pining about will be constrained by the same old insecure authoritarian tripe that has plagued us since, well, forever.

and i'm not just picking on you. i'm really appalled at all the calls around here to ban this commenter or that one just for speaking his mind. it's really fuckin' ugly.

Posted by: john | Sep 13 2014 12:41 utc | 53

Information on the success rate of color revolutions:

Electoral Protests and
Beyond the Color Revolutions
Katya Kalandadze
Syracuse University, New York
Mitchell A. Orenstein
Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC

Comparative Political Studies
Volume 42 Number 11
November 2009 1403-1425
© 2009 SAGE Publications
hosted at

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 13 2014 12:54 utc | 54

@ 52 john

I personally had no problem with jsore. I tend to get a little passionate myself at times. Some are more passionate than others but as long as their intentions are admirable I find no harm it whatsoever. Who wants to consume madagascar vanilla ice cream all the time? I like different flavors.

Posted by: malodorous cloud | Sep 13 2014 13:01 utc | 55

@42 hoarsewhisperer

Excellent summation.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 13:07 utc | 56

@52 john

I liked reading jsores input. Maybe b will reconsider recinding his banishment.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 13:10 utc | 57

I would add Pragma was great giving Russian perspective. Lots of good posters were banned :(

Posted by: Harry | Sep 13 2014 13:47 utc | 58

ISIS is the only vehicle still on the road that satisfies the popular desire to fight US imperialism. All the authentic vehicles have long since been drone bombed by the US, and ISIS the charlatans are the only folks left. You hope they'll transform themselves into something populist, more reflective of the people's will, but bet against it. 100% infiltrated by Saudi operatives ... sad. Maybe over a period of decades it would move closer to the people? Hamas came from similar despicable beginnings and seems to have gone through a lot of positive changes.

Posted by: fairleft | Sep 13 2014 13:54 utc | 59

Posted by: john | Sep 13, 2014 8:41:33 AM | 52

Agree! Can people please start to grow a thick skin? They're necessary in a democratic society.

Posted by: fairleft | Sep 13 2014 13:56 utc | 60

I have no knowledge or say in whether Jsore was banned or not, but I will say this: Jsore insulted other people's intelligence, understanding, and knowledge, as well as their contributions to a collective process, namely this blog, on a regular basis. He disrupted any conversation which did not revolve around him. He went out of his way to demean others. He repeated himself ad infinitum, as if we were all too dumb to learn the first time around. He monopolized whole threads with his endless posts (20 or more on a thread), often hijacking the intended topic. He did not listen to b’s warnings and modify his behavior after ten or more regular posters complained. In other words, he was intentionally divisive -- which is a troll-like pattern of behavior that greatly damages a blog’s long-term readership and level of engagement.

But the worst of Jsore’s behaviors was how dishonestly he argued. There is a way to argue if you want to further understanding, and a way to argue if you want to further misunderstanding. Jsore always chose the later. The basic rules of argument have been encapsulated here and here, in Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement. In a nutshell, if want to further misunderstanding, as Jsore did, you will keep to the bottom of the pyramid: name calling, ad hominems, finding fault with the other’s tone, etc. All, of course without substantiation. If you want to advance an argument so that it moves towards mutual understanding, you will keep to the top of the pyramid: refuting the central point of your opponent, and finding mistakes in fact and logic. Jsore never did that with me or others.

I should add that I hurriedly wrote a post on this blog. The next morning I found it elevated to the front page, with a note that it was originally just a comment. I did not know that was going to happen, and did not take the time to polish it up, or clarify my rapid-fire stream of conscious thoughts. Jsore never addressed my central argument, he never addressed individual points for fact or logic errors, rather he just called my piece an “ode to Fascism” and me a fascist. Later that day, I found five places on the web referring to me as a fascist who was unmasked -- all from people who hadn’t even taken the time to read my piece. Who needs that kind of heartache?

Let me now compare that with my experiences arguing with b. I’ve been on this blog for over ten years now (Yikes!) and have publicly disagreed with b on many occasions. When we did disagree, because we argued like adults, this is the kind of reponse we got:
Great stuff guys. I am most appreciative the both of you can hash it out and not get defensive or upset. Good show. I urge everyone to go back and read my post and b’s responses to see the kind of in depth information and insight one might find here. If you still think that Jsore was better, perhaps standards have fallen, or you are in the wrong place. Of course, Jsore is free to start his own blog, as are we all.

I am not arguing with the positions Jsore took. In point of fact, I agreed with most of what he said, and I said that on several occasions. But, I do disagree with how he said it, and how he tried to maliciously damage other people, and impugn their motives. Nobody wants to be called an idiot by someone who doesn’t take the time to understand them, or address their arguments.

Finally, let me say that I fought Jsore and the related trolls in his wake for one reason, and one reason only: Not for myself, because I generally ignore trolls, but because over the years I have seen most of my favorite bloggers driven off this blog by incessant attacks (again from the bottom of the pyramid of argument) by trolls like Jsore, who feel they can only score points by insulting another person. I admire b and all the work he has put into this blog over the years -- really, he has poured his heart and soul into this place -- and I want to see it continue to succeed for as long as he has the energy and will. I will admit that I was shocked when b closed this place down for a while several years ago, and I was overjoyed when he re-opened it. We are all so involved in our personal trials and tribulations, that we take a good thing like this place for granted. Sure, I lose my temper with b, or other bloggers from time to time, and I get sick of this place an need a respite too, on occasion -- but I have always come back. Indeed, this blog has always been set as my homepage on my browsers. So, this blog is a small treasure to me, and I will fight for its preservation.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 13 2014 14:02 utc | 61

re DB 40. The "moderate" FSA recruits won't be trained in Jordan any longer. They will be trained and equipped in -- this is great -- Saudi Arabia!! With half a billion dollars in new funding!!

I don't suppose the extra funding will make them any better. The guys trained in Jordan have achieved precisely nothing so far. Hard to see that moving the training to Saudi is going to make them any better.

Posted by: Alexno | Sep 13 2014 14:27 utc | 62

Hamas came from similar despicable beginnings and seems to have gone through a lot of positive changes.
Posted by: fairleft | Sep 13, 2014 9:54:51 AM | 58

Could you be more specific (keeping in mind that "Israel" has no right to self-defense against Palestinians, from whom it been stealing land and murdering and maiming their children, in International Law).

HAMAS Despicable? Tell us about it...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13 2014 14:45 utc | 63

@ 60 Malooga

here in italy they abolished mental hospitals back in the late 70s and let all the 'nutjobs' out onto the streets.

check out Franco Basaglia, the founder of Democratic Psychiatry.

why there are even a few here in my town and yeah, while they can be annoying, you know, screaming and gesticulating and whatnot, they certainly aren't dangerous and their inclusion in society is nothing less than a boon to our greater humanitarian awakening.

grow up!

Posted by: john | Sep 13 2014 15:12 utc | 64

@Malooga #60
I agree with your assessment on Jsore, and any others who follow that path.

Facts rule, and slander not only gets in the way but obscures the value of facts and drives readers away, readers who may have something important to say which might differ from others' beliefs (It's possible).

Particularly nuts was the incessant degradation of Americans, who have zero control or influence over US foreign policy. It's all decided elsewhere. Some domestic policy too.

Some lazy people can't deal on the higher levels, with basic ideas and facts, so they play dumb schoolyard games at a low mentality level. Others take some facts and mix them with unsubstantiated opinions (which we all do, to some extent) but then attack others for not toeing the line they establish.

Let's work with facts and opinions based on facts, as we see them, and avoid the name-calling. "Let us settle ourselves, and work and wedge our feet downward through the mud and slush of opinion, and prejudice, and tradition, and delusion, and appearance, that alluvion which covers the globe, through Paris and London, through New York and Boston and Concord, through church and state, through poetry and philosophy and religion, till we come to a hard bottom and rocks in place, which we can call reality, and say, This is, and no mistake;" --Henry David Thoreau, Walden

--Anybody who doesn't agree with this is a douchebag. ....ooops.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 15:19 utc | 65

'Turkey directly supported al-Qaeda in Syria'

Turkey has directly supported al-Qaeda's wing in Syria, in defiance of America, the former US ambassador has disclosed.

The Turkish authorities thought they could work with extremist Islamist groups in the Syrian civil war and at the same time push them to become more moderate, Francis Ricciardone, who was until late June the US ambassador to Ankara, told journalists in a briefing. That led them to work with Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda offshoot, as well as hardline Salafi Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham. Mr Ricciardone said that he tried to persuade the Turks to close their borders to the groups, but to no avail.

"We ultimately had no choice but to agree to disagree," he said. "The Turks frankly worked with groups for a period, including al-Nusra, whom we finally designated as [being groups] we're not willing to work with." Turkey allowed its borders to be used as a conduit for aid, weapons and volunteers heading to support Syrian rebels from the start of the uprising, and there have long been accusations that it did not do enough to distinguish between "moderate" groups and extremists.

But this is the first time a senior American official - albeit one no longer in service - has said openly that Turkey was working with al-Qaeda. Ironically, the Turkish policy has been effective in one way - Jabhat al-Nusra is now seen as relatively moderate compared with its splinter group, Islamic State. But in other respects, it has backfired.

Posted by: Virgile | Sep 13 2014 15:41 utc | 66

@ 63 john

Agree! Those who fight against diversity may simply lack a healthy measure of empathy and grace.

@60 Malooga

Artists often live outside society's arbitrary, hierarchical "rules"(of disagreement in this instance), it's often what makes them artists. I see the artist in JSore. He makes me laugh. Look again, you may see what I see -- a lot of yourself, but without the "high seriousness." Embrace the uncanny similarities if you can. My .02.

Posted by: sk | Sep 13 2014 15:49 utc | 67

'replace fragmented/corrupt states 2/3
w/ united Islamic power. West passivty validates the caliphate & its transnational strategy.'

Nonsense and poppycock! An ISIS pseudo-Islamic State will be fascistic in nature, hence, totally corrupt. Western passivity? Who has trained them, transported them, paid them, covered for them, advocated for them? Western puppet cut-outs, of course! What fantasy world does Peter Lee live in?

These clueless folks can't even read a map.

Completely false, there are literally hundreds of videos on the web showing ISIS meetings and planning sessions with the most detailed of maps and objectives. The Carter Center link I posted earlier only shows the other side of the interaction. There is a close working relationship, with US planners in Washington, Incirlik and Jordan. If they need any more help, John McCain is happy to come over with some cash and a pep talk.


The "actual workings of Empire" can be a mixture of competency and incompetency, so the truth is somewhere between "b" and Malooga, to which side I would have to read Malooga's analysis of and from the inception of the Iraq War before opining.

Well, yes, of course.

So let’s first address the "actual workings of Empire," and exactly what its plans are, in order to ensure that we all understand how it works, and to what purpose. Then, and only then, can we decide how important the role that “incompetency” plays in the Empire being unable to achieve its plans.

First, it is important to realize that, despite claims to the contrary, Empires are not accidental occurrences, like a tree falling in the woods. They are consciously created by men with certain goals in mind, namely, power over the less organized and less protected, and control of their resources. Because empires are long-term (often lasting centuries) intentional structures, they, by necessity, have long-term strategic plans, which are both continuous and persistent, often over generations. The details of these plans are obviously not publicly announced to their adversaries, but the goals are quite clearly stated. I'm sure any student of American Empire is aware of the famous quote from the US's first post-war planner, George Kennan in Memo PPS23:

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

It is hard to state US long-term plans any clearer than that. More recently, Paul Wolfowitz, in the Defense Planning Guidance document of 1994, stated this (already far more accommodating of our ”partners”):

“The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.'

Now, any student of recent history can see the US plans to remain world hegemon involves more than just mollifying our “potential competitors.” They also involve preventing the emergence of new competitors, or even smaller states powerful enough to run an independent foreign policy, lest they set an example which other nations should aspire to. John Perkins, in “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” made explicit the tactics: In ascending order of severity, they are bribery and blackmail of leaders, coup, debt slavery, assassination, and finally, warfare.

Newer, less expensive, tactics short of open military intervention involve the use of color revolutions and destabilizations. Appeals to identity politics and human rights are used to split larger, stronger, more independent nations into smaller, more pliable vassal states. In other words, to balkanize all potential centers of resistance.

There is little space to go over the list of nations so affected here, but suffice it to say that it averages approximately one nation per year in direct intervention, and at least several more in bribery, blackmail, coup, debt slavery, and assassination.

While not heralded from the mountains to the seashore, that is the basic plan of Empire in a nutshell, and it is backed up by the historical record as evidence. To deny the basic methodology of Empire because the Empire did not present you with a personal plan autographed by the Nobel Laureate himself, is the ultimate in willful ignorance.

Yugoslavia, located in the Balkans -- the very namesake of the plan of destroying nations -- the country which united East and West, the strongest, most industrialized country in the area was smashed to pieces and rendered impotent. This was the first major post-Soviet project. The West had no problem in taking ten years to complete the huge task while minimizing public discontent, either. Nor was the long-term plan ever announced, as the public would never have gone along with it. Instead, we got a litany of missed opportunities, misunderstandings, excuses, obfuscations, and the incompetence of our leaders and theirs too, etc.

But once you understand the plans of empire, and the reasoning behind the plans, then the pattern becomes clear as day. You no longer need to talk nonsense about “incompetance” and “not being able to read a map.” Sure, some mistakes are made, but they do not take the imperial planners eyes off the long-term prize.

Take the case of the Sudan. For years George Soros funded huge movements for Western humanitarian aid and involvement in solving the “crisis” in Darfur, the western part of the Sudan. Every college campus in America had a group. You couldn’t even talk to these earnest but brainwashed young college activists without being accused of being Hitler, and complicit in genocide. Believe me, I tried. Then, through the use of pseudo-terrorists (Western funded agitators -- funded, trained, armed and run through deniable cut-out countries), we were able to cleave South Sudan away from the Sudan. All of a sudden, all of these college groups around the country seemingly so concerned with Darfur closed, and the groupie kids moved on to the next “crisis” for the US to “solve.” No one mentioned Darfur anymore -- it went straight down the memory hole.

Next on the list of projects for the empire, we have the Middle East and the Ukraine to balkanize. Russia could take Novorussia in two days, but it is bending over backwards to preserve the unity of the Ukraine. Why? Because balkanized states are generally weaker, more pliant, and easier for the empire to control.

European banks lost fortunes in the US financial crisis of 07-08. This lead to a scaling back of the social welfare state in Europe, and mass unemployment. Result: Calls for the balkanization of Europe. The ideal of “Small is Beautiful” does not work well when the empire has endless ways to corrupt a country’s leaders. Yesterday, I demonstrated how financially feasible it was to buy off the entire leadership of a continent, and no one on this blog even remarked on it.

Back to the Middle East. I’m not going to bore you with information we have covered here many times before: Zbigniew Brzezinski's “Grand Chessboard” book, the ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’paper, Ralph Peter’s new map -- you can read all that, and ten times more here: Is the “New Middle East” Off the Table? and here, Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East.” Included is which countries and why. Two great and informative reads.

However, I would like to just touch briefly on a few more points. First, Cheney had a famous interview, the “Dark Side” interview shortly after 9-11, which I remember watching live. In that interview, he disclosed that we would probably be at war in the Middle East for 20-30 years. In other words, since 9-11 took several years to plan and put in place, plans had been drawn up for the empire by the mid-to-late 90‘s for an extended war to destroy the independent States of the Middle East. Think about the implications of this. It doesn’t mean there wont be resistance, and tactics won’t be changed. But it does mean that, baring unforseen major threats to the Empire, a multi-generational Grand Area strategy was in place twenty years ago to begin to move incrementally forward towards the final realization of the plan.

Now, as long as you have all of in mind, you can argue “incompetence” about some minor detail until the cows come home: everyone likes being an armchair manager or umpire. But, if you lose track of the long-term strategy -- the real game plan -- then you begin to argue minor details without context. And without context, you can never understand what is really happening, and therefore, you cannot productively resist the goals of the Empire. It should be obvious that if you don’t know the plan, trying to stop it can only be hit-or-miss, at best.

O.K., so now that we have the plan straight, let’s talk about Iraq. It should be obvious now with our new mental Empire decoder rings on that everything the US did (under the guise of incompetence) served to fracture the unity of the country: We started out in the first War -- Gulf War I, under Bush Sr. by bombing the fleeing Shiite army on the highway to death. Then we encouraged them to rebel. Then we abandoned them to Saddam’s revenge. Then we set up a no-fly zone which gave the Kurds great autonomy. We used the no-fly zone to destroy the country’s wealth and infrastructure. Then we set up a sanctions regime which completely corrupted the country and killed half a million kids (Albright: “The price was worth it.”) By then, we had everybody hating everyone else in the country, and recriminations flying around like stones from a slingshot. All of this was twenty years ago, thus proving how long a complete destabilization and demoralization actually takes. If this was all accidental, or incompetant, why was no one punished or held to account?

Now, on to the post 9-11 invasion. We stole the oil plans. We destroyed and stole the entire country’s cultural heritage. We let go of Saddam’s entire Army. We replaced them with an Iranian Shia proxy army. We found and humiliated Saddam Hussein, not exactly endearing us to Sunnis. We had Western special agents running false flag attacks against anyone and everyone. (Remember the British special agents caught in Basra, and sprung from jail?) We funded death squads on both sides. We ensured that there was no security and that most of the educated classes were murdered or forced to flee. We “allowed” the attack on the Al-Askari Shrine in 2006. We set up endless attacks on Mosques, shrines, and schools. We stole the reconstruction money, and left the country in abject poverty. We polluted the country with deadly depleted Uranium, causing huge spikes in the cancer rates. We practically destroyed an entire city, Fallujah, as an example. We tortured prisoners and then turned them into traitors and mercenaries. We allowed entire neighborhoods and cities to be ethnically cleansed. We bought off the now dispossessed Sunnis and tribesman and set them against the Shia. We gave the Kurds autonomy and set them against the rest of the nation. We used Turkomen, Yazidis, and every other minor group as pawns in this game. We destroyed the Army and ensured that it was never strong enough to protect the nation from internal destabilization.

I could go on for paragraphs, but I trust my point has been made: Over a period of over twenty long years, we patiently ground the country and its people (who heretofore had the greatest social and technological development in the region, and the highest level of PHDs in the world) into dust, turning them more against each other with our every act. We did everything possible to destroy the people’s will to resist, and we did everything possible to foment schisms in the social structure that were barely existent beforehand. And we didn’t care who got blamed for “incompetence.” Indeed, like on 9-11, the more “incompetent” the leader was, the faster he got promoted. Gee, how come I never managed to land a job like that?

If, after all I have said, and with the soon to be Vice President Biden (the person who really manages the government on a day-to-day basis, while the sales manager, POTUS, jets around giving speeches) running around publicly advocating for partition of the country, if you still cannot see the master plan, then allow me one last point.

This is from Raed Jarrar, from 2006:

Shia and Sunni Iraqis have lived in harmony for centuries. Historically the two sects have lived in the same areas, intermarried, worked together and have had few conflicts based on religious beliefs. Arab Iraqis, especially in contemporary history, have not prioritized their religious or sectarian belonging over national identity. Iraqi nationalism united Iraqi Shia against Iranian Shia for eight years during the 1980s in the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraqi tribal systems have also integrated Sunni and Shia communities as many Shia tribes have Sunni branches among them and vice versa. In addition, lines between the sects have been blurred in Iraq. One of the core concepts in Shiaism worldwide is glorifying Muhammad’s descendents. Anyone who is in the prophet’s line of descent is called Sayyed (pl. Sadah). Therefore, being a Sayyed implies that one is a Shia Muslim. Iraq is the only case in the world where there are Sunni Sadah.

Also, according to Jarrar, before the US intervention, the intermarriage rate between the two
sects was 40%. In other words, almost every family had both Shia and Sunni members. There is nothing like that level of closeness between religious sects either in Europe, in areas where Catholic and Protestant intermingle, or in the US, where many groups co-habitate. That is how close Iraqis really were to each other before they were destabilized.

Even the center of US power itself, the US Council on Foreign Relations, in their glossy multi-media, multi-page apologia for engineered religious conflict, The Sunni-Shia Divide -- Origins of the Schism can barely come up with either an example or reason for the divide before the US invasion of Iraq. (The best they can do is Iran’s Mullahs.) So, they hope no one will notice and go all Juan Cole on their audience, delivering a veritable treatise on theological Islam, and the entire history of the schism from a theological point of view. I doubt that 99% of their target Christian reading audience knows that much about their own religion, about the details of the Catholic/Protestant split, or even bothers to wonder why Catholics and Protestants are not car-bombing each other daily in their neighborhoods over the finer details of the "five Solas." How many Christians even know what the five solas are, while they are busy studying the finer points of Islam?

The entire report is filled with Orwellian contradictory double-talk, like this:

Islam’s schism, simmering for fourteen centuries, doesn’t explain all the political, economic, and geostrategic factors involved in these conflicts, but it has become one prism by which to understand the underlying tensions.

Followed a paragraph later by this:

Sunni and Shia Muslims have lived peacefully together for centuries. In many countries it has become common for members of the two sects to intermarry and pray at the same mosques. They share faith in the Quran and the Prophet Mohammed’s sayings and perform similar prayers, although they differ in rituals and interpretation of Islamic law.

The point I am attempting to get across, is that an artificial schism was created, like some sort of 19th century blood-feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys. The process has been studied carefully by social scientists. And the techniques for manipulating others into these engineered wars are well understood by the US military and CIA planners. Gregory Bateson, who certainly had intelligence connections, first called this process, “schismogenesis.” By the way, it should be obvious to all by now that the techniques for propagandizing the greater public to believe that the schism is real and has internal and unsolvable, rather than external solvable causes (remove the Empire and its influence), are also well known and easily implemented.

If you have any doubts by now where US “rights” policy is going with regard to religion as a tool for furthering the goals of the Empire, read this announcement from last year with the healthy dose of skepticism that any critic of power should have: Engaging religion at the Department of State

The US Department of State announced the creation of a new office that “will focus on engagement with faith-based organizations and religious institutions around the world to strengthen US development and diplomacy and advance America’s interests and values.” Citing widespread religious persecution and violence overseas, proponents of the new office of “religious engagement” hope to further institutionalize an official US commitment to globalize religious freedom, marginalize extremism, and promote interfaith dialogue and religious tolerance. There is great excitement in some quarters about the prospects for new partnerships among the US government, for the increasingly vast array of sub-contractors that work on its behalf, and for the various faith-based religious and civil society actors and institutions abroad. Yet this initiative also raises concerns regarding the intersection of religious freedom, religious establishment, and foreign policy.

Remember, playing around -- or social engineering, as it is more properly called -- with the stable order of another society, bestowing new “rights” upon one group, inevitably takes away what another group felt were its established “rights.” Most academics, lacking the big schema of Empire which we now have after our little class today, will buy into this project, as an example of the wise US benevolence and inherent goodness in helping other societies achieve the justice they were unable to achieve on their own. (The French called their Imperialism ”the civilizing mission.”) But we now know better, and can see how this “harmless” little pry-bar of policy inserted in the spot of maximum leverage can wrench open an entire social order for 1 Billion people, resulting in war and deaths on an unimaginable scale.

Fortunately, one academic, Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Departmental Lecturer in Forced Migration, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford, was wise enough to envision some of the potential problems this harmless, benevolent legislation could cause:

The Department of State’s proposed establishment of an office of religious engagement arguably lays the foundations to further institutionalize existing Department of State political priorities by constituting new avenues and arenas for interventions under what we can refer to as a “religionized” model of good governance. Such a scheme raises a number of critical questions, including, firstly, whether such an initiative offers a shift in discourse, policy or practice, or merely offers a consolidated bureaucratic platform from which to continue pursuing long-standing foreign policy aims, as opposed to “humanitarian” concerns per se (although, of course, humanitarianism is itself inherently political). The parallels with existing foreign policy frameworks such as the Lautenberg Amendment (which prioritizes the provision of assistance to religious minorities seeking asylum from Iran or from the former Soviet Union) and the Office of International Religious Freedom (which the US Department of State notes “has the mission of promoting religious freedom as a core objective of U.S. foreign policy”) are numerous. While such a continuation may appear to be an extension of what the United States already considers to be its “good offices” towards Others, this consolidation risks further accentuating, rather than mitigating, tensions and mistrust between different actors on diverse levels.

I think we already know this woman will have a hard time getting tenure anywhere.

So let’s recapitulate:
*The empire, by its nature, seeks dominion over others, and their resources.
*It achieves this by making and actualizing plans which render their opponents powerless by divide and conquer strategies, often using religion.
*These plans are often longstanding in duration and secretive in nature.
*We have many historical and recent examples of this behavior.
*The Middle East is an area of US concern, hence, by definition, an area to be dominated.
*Iraq and Syria are intended to be dominated by balkanization.
*The empire might make mistakes, and feints along the way but, unless a stronger power comes along to stop it, or global situations change enough for the empire to modify its plans and priorities, the empire will proceed incrementally and inexorably forward with its plans until completion, and the beginning of the next major project.

Alright, now, within the above framework, I’m prepared to discuss US mistakes, such as b’s ridiculous notion that State Department spokesmen cannot read maps, or Peter Lee’s naive conceit that the US is about to “turn page on disastrus century of colonial/postcolonial rule.”

Besides the fact that he cant spell “disastrous,” we all know by now that what is disastrous for others is propitious for the Empire, and therefore the empire is unlikely to turn against its own interests as hegemon.

Posted by: Malooga | Sep 13 2014 15:54 utc | 68

Ben Franklin@18
We need Crazy Horse! Oglala Nation

Posted by: Jim T | Sep 13 2014 15:56 utc | 69

@ Malooga #67
The point I am attempting to get across, is that an artificial schism was created, like some sort of 19th century blood-feud between the Hatfields and the McCoys.

Exactly, and the decisive US divide-and-conquer move was the destruction of the Shiite al-Askari shrine in (Sunni) Samarra on Feb 22, 2006 which caused substantial violence. A short time later, on May 12, 2006, Senator Biden, a professed Zionist, proposed that Iraq be divided into three separate regions — Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni — with a central government in Baghdad. It's essentially been done.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 16:42 utc | 70

I suspect that ISIL is controlling a majority of the municipalities and infrastructure by threatening unbridled horrific violence. If ISIL is recruting from the areas it illegally occupies, that too is probably at the butt and or barrel of a gun. I don't think that future fighters are joining ISIL just because they like its violently destructive religious dogma and cash. The USG and allies should not be carpet bombing ISIL occupied territories. The potential blowback bis enormous and will endanger american and its allies citizens around the world.

Responsible urban warfare requires soldiers on the ground, to avoid mass civilian casualties. As we all saw recently the amount of civilian deaths and infrastructure damage inflicted on the gaza strip, due to the IDF's reluctance to engange in door to door urban conflict. The ISIL occupied populations will need somwhere to live and to potentially displace thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Syrians in addition to the massive numbers already previously displaced by the "civil war" in Syria would be cruel and irresponsible, such action as carpet bombing or even 100s of repetitive "surgical" bombings of densely populated areas imo should be equivalent to war crime.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 16:44 utc | 71

@67 malooga.. excellent post. i didn't comment on your mention of how much it would cost to buy off the entire leadership of a county, as i didn't feel it needed to be commented on.. i see it as the present situation in the usa too fwiw.. you've gotten a lot of mileage off 'b's observation regardless!

Posted by: james | Sep 13 2014 17:04 utc | 72

@60 malooga.. thanks for that post too. i am reading the posts backwards here. i like how you've explained much with the use of a pyramid and operating from the top or bottom. i too found myself agreeing with much of jsores insight, but totally opposed to the way he delivered it..

speaking of mia posters - is bevin ever coming back?

Posted by: james | Sep 13 2014 17:16 utc | 74

- No, US involvement with Iraq already started around 1960 when one Saddam Hoessein (SH) was placed on the payroll of the CIA.
- The seeds of the destruction of Iraq were already sown in 1979 when the US started to feed SH false information which led SH to believe he could destroy the iranian army within say a year. But that supposedly short war lasted 8 years (1980-1988).
- No, an Empire will crumble because the (financial) foundations start to crumble (See England, Soviet Union, Ottoman Empire, Spain). And NOW the US Empire is about to collapse (financially).

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 13 2014 17:36 utc | 75

"...- No, an Empire will crumble because the (financial) foundations start to crumble (See England, Soviet Union, Ottoman Empire Spain). And NOW the US Empire is about to collapse (financially)."

Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 13, 2014 1:36:24 PM | 74
I agree. IMO, the US appears to be trying to prop up its hobbling false economy by using "war stimulus". Meanwhile the BRICS need only sit back, take care of realistic economic business and deftly react to the empire created geopolitical concerns and watch the Empire's STAY-PUFT™ marshmallow man "economy" melt and deflate at the same time.

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 17:56 utc | 76

Here was my favorite line from a Reuters piece. It is a quote by Francis Ricciardone, who recently left the post of US ambassador to Turkey:

The Turks frankly worked with groups for a period, including al Nusra, whom we finally designated as we're not willing to work with," he said.

Emphasis mine because look at that last line. "whom we finally designated as..." we all know that the real finish to that sentence - the accurate one which was in the press repeatedly at the time it happened is:whom we finally designated as a terrorist organization".

But this shows the slipperiness of the government and the media - from "terrorist" to "someone were not willing to work with".

Quite a leap - and the American people are none the wiser that Turkey has been and is working with groups that are designated as terrorist organizations by the United States.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 18:04 utc | 77

Francis Ricciardone, who was until late June the U.S. ambassador in Turkey, said on Thursday Ankara had supported groups including the Nusra Front, al Qaeda's Syrian branch, in the fight against Assad, much to the dismay of Washington.

"We ultimately had no choice but to agree to disagree," Ricciardone told a conference call arranged by the Atlantic Council think-tank on Thursday, in comments which highlighted the challenges of building a coalition.

"The Turks frankly worked with groups for a period, including al Nusra, whom we finally designated as we're not willing to work with," he said.

Designated as "not willing to work with"? And here I thought the designation was a terrorist organization.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 18:06 utc | 78

"Is ISIS an anti-Imperial movement?" I'm not sure what the Chinahand is smoking.

Who could possible believe this.

An organization that wants to kill maim or exclude more than half the population of Iraq, destroy Syria's millenia's old multi-cultural existence - and all at the behest of FUKUSIKSA?

Even if they *think* they are anti-Empire, they're merely the Empire's foot soldiers. They don't have to even know it for it to be true.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 18:28 utc | 79

@9 James

My experience with people in American government is that a good portion are true believers. They really think America is Doing Good whenever they instigate color revolutions and forment civil war. The ideology subsumes their senses.

It's similar to washington consensus in economics. People who buy in cannot imagine anything other than neoliberalism everywhere, and see objections to it the way a 12th century pope sees heresies.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 13 2014 18:29 utc | 80

@68 Malooga

Would you mind pointing me to some information about these activities in Sudan? I'm completely ignorant.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 13 2014 18:33 utc | 81

Malooga 68

Get a blog, no offense.

Posted by: Anoynmous | Sep 13 2014 18:53 utc | 82

I would say it's way too soon to tell (since their economy is not up and running by any means) -- by indications, given their ties to KSA and Qtar, I'd say no, although one of the problems for all economies based on "extraction" is the size and power of the "customer base" going to be foreign, whether multinational or, in fact, governments/national industries. As I recall, KSA has been "trying" to bring more of the nuts and bolts management and production of its oil industry in-country, but I'm not sure how far they've gotten with that. Iraq, Libya both have seen foreign-corporation dependent, but I'm not sure -- either how independent they were before the removal of Saddam/Gadafi or might have become (plus/minus) since their ouster.
However, as Zizek put it -- rather well, imho -- this is NOT some "radical emancipatory movement" -- it's not emancipatory at all, even for its supporters who, by and large, will not now acquire previously-denied freedoms, in contras to, for example, the Mormons who in establishing Utah gained more individual and collective security -- having been persecuted and harassed (pogrom like) in other America states where they had attempted to establish communities.
ISIL sucks for anyone who is the wrong brand of Muslim -- but it sucks worse for anyone not Muslim and for all women, and all homosexuals or non-heterosexual "variants." I'm not sure how spelled out it all is.
The Guardian article of a month or so ago, suggested that ISIL as salafi might be more inclined towards "pragmatic" management of the population, that all this talk about genocide might well be useful in getting minority populations to flee , making actually genocidal killing less likely, unlikely but the threat remaining.
Conquering and governing are different skill sets and different realities. Again, too soon to know.
The world community's (even in the theoretically threated Arab part) lack of enthusiasm for Obama's proposal has surprised me -- and remarkably "novice-like" of Team Obama to have not had those ducks in a row -- it looks a lot like a rebuke, even rejection (raising the question again of some politically "necessitated" prematurity in the announcement)

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Sep 13 2014 19:10 utc | 83

@75 willy2/@76 really - re financial collapse.. predicting when this will happen is a fools game.. it could be a long ways off outside our lifetime.

@80 crest.. i see it that way too which makes it more scary. it is much like any type of fundamentalism where people believe something unquestioningly.

@81 anonymous.. i disagree.

Posted by: james | Sep 13 2014 19:21 utc | 84

Will NATO liberate Jihadistan?

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 19:33 utc | 85

"@75 willy2/@76 really - re financial collapse.. predicting when this will happen is a fools game.. it could be a long ways off outside our lifetime.."
Posted by: james | Sep 13, 2014 3:21:29 PM | 84

Well here is a possible intial puncture in the hegemons fiat armor...

Where is the color revolution in switzerland....

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 19:56 utc | 86

@: guest77 #77
Turkey has been and is working with groups that are designated as terrorist organizations by the United States.

The US has long supported Turkey's stance and in fact participated in the same strategy. Any enemy of Iran and its allies -- Syria, Hezbollah and now Iraq -- is a friend of the US. This has been recently evidenced by the US allowance of ISIS to expand into Iraq, until the brouhaha over the Sokoloff beheading forced a backlash in Congress which caused Obama to make a big show about fighting ISIL.

The Redirection, by Seymour M. Hersh, Mar 5, 2007

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran.

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

This "redirection" came in 2006-2007 as a follow-on to the US divide-and-conquer effort I commented on at #70 above. This also serves as as an add-on to Malooga's narrative at #68.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 20:23 utc | 87

One guy says "Where is JSore?" and four posts later its been turned into "JSORE WAS BANNED OMFG FREE SPEECH!"? Seems there are people here who can't even decipher what happens on a blog, but want to pontificate on world events.

No one has ever been "disappeared" from MoA. B is always upfront about those things.

As for "john" looking for "freedom of speech" on blogs, that's just some bullshit trolls say who want to make it seem like banning troublemaking clowns is some kind of immoral act. That's bullshit. B can do what he wants in his own damn house - this isn't a public park, a street corner, or even the NYTimes.

I saw JSore on InformationClearningHouse for those who need their dose of that.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 20:26 utc | 88

I love it.

Someone says "Where is Poster J?" and four posts later its "Poster J was banned! Tyranny!"

This is... stupid.

B has never disappeared a poster. Public hangings? Sure. But never disappeared anyone.

As for free speech on a blog - I think this is a point mostly pressed by those who want to disrupt - who have repeatedly been banned for making trouble (sound familiar, "john"?). This isn't a streetcorner, a public park, or even the NYTimes. This is a place for people to come together and share ideas and if someone is such a pain in the ass that they are the 1-in-100 who gets banned? So be it.

That said, I do think Pragma's ban was ridiculous but still - it is b's house.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 20:34 utc | 89

BTW, for those who want a dose of the J. Sorrentine brings - I saw him having a fit over at Information Clearing House within the last couple of days.

It is more his style anyway.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 20:38 utc | 90

@ #87
The US "redirection" in Iraq came after the first Iraq elections in 2005. While the 'purple finger' elections were extolled as a wonderful product of Operation Iraq Freedom, democracy which allowed majority (Shiite) rule was not what was planned.

The first plan called for putting U.S. officials in charge of Iraq under the name of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq led by former U.S. general Jay Garner. The next plan included L. Paul Bremer and his Iraqi Interim Governing Council and then Iraqi Interim Governing Council. All of which was disrupted by mass demonstrations encouraged by Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani who promoted democracy in Iraq -- which hadn't been a US objective.

So Iraq had to be broken up, as it has been, and cooperating with various Islamic Sunni radicals has not been a problem for the US.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 20:48 utc | 91

So when Obama says -- "America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding" -- he's full of crapola. But you knew that.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 20:56 utc | 92

HAMAS Despicable? Tell us about it...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 13, 2014 10:45:46 AM | 63

Of course, "despicable beginnings" is what I said; don't lie in your paraphrasing.

I thought it was common knowledge that the growth and empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood (that right-wing misogynist movement) in Gaza was very likely an Israeli project:

With its takeover of Gaza after the 1967 war with Egypt, Israel hunted down secular Palestinian Liberation Organization factions, but dropped the previous Egyptian rulers' harsh restrictions against Islamic activists. In fact, Israel for many years tolerated and at times encouraged Islamic activists and groups as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the PLO and its dominant faction, Fatah.

Among the activists benefited was Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza, who had also formed the Islamic group Mujama al-Islamiya, a charity recognized by Israel in 1979. Israel allowed the organization to build mosques, clubs, schools, and a library in Gaza.

I'll assume Israel did much more than that, but all I have at hand is the Israeli-controlled Wikipedia; sorry I don't have time to find better sources. So, despicable beginnings means Muslim Brotherhood and Israel. Obviously Hamas since the early 90s has honorably resisted Israel, but I'm still a hater of their anti-female b.s.

Posted by: fairleft | Sep 13 2014 21:01 utc | 93

"My experience with people in American government is that a good portion are true believers. They really think America is Doing Good whenever they instigate color revolutions and forment civil war."

I think this is true, and this is why IMHO it makes little sense to say "The Government" is in on this or that (though, certainly, "the government" is the source of a great many awful, awful things). It just doesn't fully describe the reality.

The fact is I would suspect that most of the spokespeople for the government are in fact victims of the same propaganda that the American people are. The people read the NYTimes as their bible, when the CIA carries out a black op they see the front of it - not the back. That's how these people are picked. That's how you get a witch like Sam Powers put into a job where you have to be a completely crazy dispenser of propaganda and be blind to anything but a very narrow field of vision - because that's who she is. She certainly believes it - if only because if she is handed a memo full of lies that is stamped "CIA" then, for her, there is no reason to question. Even though for the average person "CIA" means violence and lies, to her it means "truthful America savers" and thats exactly why she got the job.

It is interesting - in Douglas Valentine's "The Phoenix Program" and Ralph McGehee's "Deadly Deceptions" you have many examples of the "Provincial Reconnoissance Units" (death squads put together by the CIA, comprised of criminals from Saigon jails) going out and doing black ops which was often torturing and murdering people and then blaming it on the Communists to generate anti-Communist sentiment in a local village. Then, later in the book you hear of not one but two CIA officers who, having just arrived in country, are taken to the scene of a "Viet Cong murder, where the fetus was cut out of a murdered pregnant woman" and you hear for both of these men how "that was the moment I knew what we were up against" or something like this.

So - it isn't a stretch to think: Okay - there are black ops happening that are used not just to influence the local population, but also US officials. And though it isn't stated that that was the exact case with the pregnant woman, it seemed pretty obvious that that was the case. And you have to think... one black op can go a long way and can fool a lot of people. All the way to the top. And we have seen this in this case (a rare case where it was exposed) that the US Army was using psyops on congressional delegations.

This doesn't excuse these people, because it is possible to know these things - we know them after all. Honest people like us who aren't paid to see one side and one side only. Who aren't paid to make sure that PNAC becomes a reality. So even if they don't know it -they ought to. So I'm not saying they should be left off the hook.

I'm saying - though - that these kinds of dark crimes like Ghouta or the MH17 downing... once the "official" story comes out - these people are paid to defend it and they know it. It isn't their job to question it - and people who would question it would never get that job.

That's a little long and probably kind of incoherent. I'm just trying to say that I think that the government is a sort of self-referencing ball of murder and lies. And one part lies and the others by definition repeat it, and government officials are chosen precisely for their "loyalty to America". That's why on the background checks for government jobs - even at the Smithsonian, something as apolitical as that - they'll ask people who went to high school with you if "you've ever made a statement that could be construed as 'anti-american'". Because they look for people who don't question these things and who are predisposed to see only "good" in everything the US does.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 21:03 utc | 94

@86 really.. i don't know where the switz gold is now, but bringing it back to switzerland seems like a non event.. all the fiat currencies are in it together in a fiat financial system that wants to control the world.. it seems to be working until it doesn't..

Posted by: james | Sep 13 2014 21:09 utc | 95

@Don Bacon: From Europe to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity

Wow. That's just such a bogus falsehood. This is exactly why the US has no business running the world. Because this is a bald-faced lie and turns reality on its head - but this is apparently what makes the US think it is suited to run the globe.

If there was an election for president, and a nominee stood up an said: "I want to be class president because I personally embody freedom, justice, and dignity, and always have. And I'm exceptional in this way" see, he'd be laughed out of the room. But the US can make this claim and no one can say "boo" because the US is taking its position at the head of the world on a platform of "silver or lead" - "Just take America's money, sell out your people, and keep your mouth shut and you can have your nice little life. You're other option is that we're just going to kill you and take everything. You're choice."

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 13 2014 21:17 utc | 96

@ guest77 #93
I think it's really important to distinguish between being anti-American and being anti-US, the former indicating the land and its resources including its people, and the latter indicating the government.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep 13 2014 21:19 utc | 97

@93 guest77
"...The fact is I would suspect that most of the spokespeople for the government are in fact victims of the same propaganda that the American people are. The people read the NYTimes as their bible, when the CIA carries out a black op they see the front of it- not the back"...

We can only guess at the magnitude of what guest77 said above....

Posted by: really | Sep 13 2014 21:21 utc | 98

@guest77 93

That's very well put.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 13 2014 21:25 utc | 99

guest77 @ 88 said:

As for free speech on a blog - I think this is a point mostly pressed by those who want to disrupt - who have repeatedly been banned for making trouble (sound familiar, "john"?).

no, whatever you're insinuating, and i doubt if you know yourself, it doesn't sound familiar, so why don't you just spit out whatever's on your little mind, or fuck off.

Posted by: john | Sep 13 2014 21:25 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.