Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's too early to say that the Iraqi resistance is back, but the recent increase in violence -- including a series of horrific bomb attacks and a rise in small-scale attacks -- suggests that Iraq is not exactly a stable, post-civil war society. The question is: Is President Obama fiddling while Iraq burns?
Flashpoints include the Arab-Kurdish conflict over Kirkuk and other disputed areas, along with the still-simmering intra-Shiite conflicts. But the main fault line remains the divide between the mainly Shiite national government -- including Prime Minister Maliki's ruling bloc and various other pro-Iranian Shiite parties -- and the nationalist Sunni forces, including the now-disintegrating former Awakening (sahwa) movement, also known as the Sons of Iraq.
No one knows, for certain, who's behind the recent violence. But it seems likely that at least some of the former Awakening militiamen, who won American backing in 2006, have now fallen back into the underground resistance, perhaps linking up with unreconstructed Baathist partisans of Saddam Hussein and other ex-military and ex-intelligence officers.
Hillary Clinton, who made a surprise visit to Baghdad over the weekend, sounded a lot like Don Rumsfeld, who used to ask himself questions and then answer them. "Are there going to be bad days? Yes, there are," said Clinton, when asked about a wave of bombings that killed 160 people. And, echoing former Bush officials who put on rose-tinted glasses when asked about the insurgency, Clinton blamed unnamed "rejectionists" for the violence. Even the New York Times couldn't resist pointing out the irony:
At times, her analysis almost echoed that of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When the sectarian violence was relentless several years ago, Mr. Cheney spoke of the insurgency being in its "last throes," while Mr. Rumsfeld talked of "dead-enders" who kept fighting a lost cause.
On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Times described the state of the Awakening movement under the headline "Iraq's Awakening: Two tales illustrate force's birth and slow death." Reporter Ned Parker raised the key question: Is Maliki's Shiite-Kurdish regime serious about bringing the Sunnis into a power-sharing arrangement, or is he trying to divide and conquer the Sons of Iraq? Telling the stories of Abu Azzam and Abu Maarouf, two former Awakening leaders, he wrote:
The divergent fates of these two former Sunni insurgents highlight the major unknown about the intentions of Iraq's Shiite-led government: Is it reaching out to former Sunni insurgents such as Abu Azzam in the true spirit of "national reconciliation," or in hopes of splintering the movement?And will the government's campaign against men such as Abu Maarouf succeed in snuffing out potential rivals? Or is it planting seeds for a long-term Sunni revolt?
The crackdown also points to a significant change in the U.S. forces' onetime policy of nurturing and protecting the Sons of Iraq. As the Iraqi government has arrested some of the movement's leaders, forced others into exile and failed to deliver jobs for rank-and-file fighters, the Americans have regularly deferred to Baghdad's wishes as they hand over responsibility for the country's security.
It might seem that Clinton, and Obama, have abandoned any real effort to press Maliki forward on reconciliation and that, instead, they're backing Maliki to the hilt. True, Maliki is wheeling and dealing with some elements of the Sunni community, especially to cobble together provincial governments in the wake of February provincial elections whose results empowered Iraqi nationalists and dealt a setback to Iraq's pro-Iran religious parties. But an ominous crackdown -- including arrests, assassinations, and kidnappings -- aimed at members of the Awakening spells trouble.
The Awakening movement, once nearly 100,000 strong and backed by the US military, which paid their salaries, is falling apart. Since last fall, they've been gradually abandoned by the United States. Ostensibly, Maliki was supposed to continue to pay them $300 per month each and to bring eligible fighters into the Iraqi army and police, but in practice that hasn't happened. They're not getting paid, and very few have joined the security forces.
A bitterly pessimistic picture of the state of the Awakening was painted by Nir Rosen, writing in The National, a newspaper published in the United Arab Emirates. The article is entitled "The Big Sleep." Commenting on the arrest of Adil al Mashhadani, a former Sunni insurgent leader, Rosen noted that Maliki has turned tough guy, blasting the ex-Awakening movement and describing those who oppose his regime as war-hardened Baathists. Rosen wrote:
The arrest of Mashhadani and other Awakening leaders – and Maliki's remarks – would seem to mark the beginning of the end for what was a controversial and potentially dangerous component of the American strategy in Iraq, the creation and funding of Sunni militias outside the authority of the state.
Rosen, who interviewed Awakening leaders and former insurgents across the Baghdad region, says that the movement isn't capable of fighting back. He says that Maliki is now too strong, the Iraqi army too powerful, and the Sunni opposition too divided. He concludes:
The remaining Awakening men have burnt their bridges with their more radical former allies and are now hunted by them; the Iraqi Security Forces have improved their intelligence and strike capability and have little problem tracking those men they want to arrest. Sunni civilians have no interest in backing a new insurgency after their own bitter experience – and they no longer feel targeted by Shiite militias.The occasional al Qa'eda suicide attack can still kill masses of innocent civilians, but it has no strategic impact; in fact it is difficult to understand what motivates such attacks today, since their effect is almost nil. It would be naive to say that Iraq's future is certain, or even likely, to be a peaceful one, but the war between Sunnis and Shiites is now over.
But Rosen, a terrific reporter, may yet be premature in his judgment.
A recent report from the Middle East Report/MERIP warns that the civil war could restart:
The crackdown by Iraqi security forces on the Sunni Arab militiamen, known as the Awakenings (sahwat) in Arabic and referred to as the Sons of Iraq by the US military, pitted two ostensible US allies against one another. Together with arrests of other prominent militia leaders and the concrete timeline for the drawdown of US troops, the confrontations have raised questions as to whether some among these armed Sunni Arab factions are ready to return to insurgency in response to their treatment by Maliki's government. The fate of the sahwat is but one aspect of a larger struggle over the nature of the Iraqi state and its component parts -- a struggle in which the United States is increasingly relegated to a subsidiary role. This latest phase of the intra-Iraqi wrangling that dates back almost to the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, could tip the country back into sectarian civil war and complicate Obama's efforts to extricate the US military from Iraq.
Both Rosen's article and the MERIP report deserve to be read in full.
But is United States siding with Maliki? A very important April 25 storyin the New York Times -- which also deserves to be read in full -- suggests that the US has tried to work behind the scenes to rebuild ties between Maliki and the Baathists, but without success. The piece, by Sam Dagher, was called: "Iraq Resists Pleas by U.S. to Placate Baath Party." It says:
On April 18, American and British officials from a secretive unit called the Force Strategic Engagement Cell flew to Jordan to try to persuade one of Saddam Hussein's top generals -- the commander of the final defense of Baghdad in 2003 -- to return home to resume efforts to make peace with the new Iraq.But the Iraqi commander, Lt. Gen. Raad Majid al-Hamdani, rebuffed them.
After a year of halting talks mediated by the Americans, he said, he concluded that Iraq's leader, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, simply was not interested in reconciliation.
It adds, pointedly, that Maliki isn't in a mood to deal:
Mr. Maliki's pledges to reconcile with some of the most ardent opponents of his government have given way to what some say is a hardening sectarianism that threatens to stoke already simmering political tensions and rising anger over a recent spate of bombings aimed at Shiites.
And:
Mr. Maliki's retreat risks polarizing Iraqis again and eroding hard-fought security gains. One hundred sixty people died in bombings on Thursday and Friday alone. There is no evidence that Baathists were involved, but fears are rising that they and jihadi insurgents are increasingly cooperating in areas, Baghdad especially, that have been largely quiet over the last year.
Mr. Maliki has changed his tone despite American pressure to reconcile with some officials under Mr. Hussein, most of them Sunni Arabs.
So the question is: if the United States is working behind the scenes to pressure Maliki, and he's resisting, why is Secretary Clinton blaming "rejectionists" for the violence? Why isn't she blaming Maliki, equally? And the bigger question: Has President Obama forgotten about Iraq? Does he realize that the very criticisms that he made of the so-called surge -- that it didn't do anything to foster political reconciliation in Iraq -- are still true? One-sided support for Maliki jsut isn't an option for Obama. During the campaign, he promised to convene an international conference, sponsored by the UN, to rewrite Iraq's divisive, pro-Shiite/Kurdish constitution and to rebalance Iraq's political forces. We're waiting.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
The death toll in Iraq has been prodigious lately. BO wants Afghan surge and he doesn't even have control over Iraq. He better think twice, and thrice. To boot - he wants a hardline approach to Iran -- won't stand in the way of increased economic sanctions.
We need some sanity in our foreign policy, and so far, it doesn't look like we are going to get it. Dem progressive caucus thinks if we throw money at the problem instead of troops, the problems will go away. This is nonsense, and ties us to perpetual economic aid in far off places. Just take the Sunni Awakening payoff. Once the money is gone, so is the motivation.
Anybody still seriously think BO is going to significantly withdraw troops from Iraq?
Posted by OneVote at 04/29/2009 @ 08:41am
We should have never gone into Iraq and we are not wanted there. We should leave. It was another administration that got us into Iraq. We should apologize for the mistakes of the Bush administration and pull out. If there are Iraqi citizens in danger because of sectarian violence that will accompany our departure, we should offer them safe haven in the United States or negotiate on their behalf for safe havens in neighboring Islamic states. Military action is the problem, not the solution. The only role for our military now should be ensure a safe exodus for those who want out of the country.
Posted by raaustin at 04/29/2009 @ 09:06am
three state solution looking better every day...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 09:18am
Maliki can only get tough with the sunni as long as he has american troops do the heavy lifting for him.
have we learned NOTHING from the Vietnam debacle?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 09:28am
three state solution looking better every day...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 09:18am
How about this. We grant the Iraqi citizens wanting a safe haven citizenship to the Republic of Texas and grant Texas it's own nationality back....in short, kill two birds with one stone. We get out of Iraq, allow Texas to walk it's talk....and house those people it's former governor wanted to fight so vigorously for.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/29/2009 @ 09:28am
The US will use increased resistance as reason to leave behind 50,000 troops for years & years. Great for the MIC, great for military careers, satisfying for Israel & US oil companies, disaster for We the People, hell for Iraqis.
Posted by sloper at 04/29/2009 @ 10:01am
the 3 state solution is no solution at all on account of the fact that the oil is not distributed equally.
war is not the answer.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 10:05am
President Obamanation that makes desolation and his Demoncrat minions are proving again that only they can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! As they are failing the nation they will smash the success in Iraq that was handed to them by the Bush administration! No one wants to see them do so, but fail they will!
Posted by comancheamerican at 04/29/2009 @ 10:38am
The article is very misleading (no surprise), and has also prompted the misinformed bias of anti-war leftists here. It fails to note that the primary source of the current violence is primarily from outside sources and is directed at Iranian pilgrims who have travelled to Iraq.
This is not an insignificant. This has occurred for over a 1000 years between Shiites and Sunnis. It has absolutely nothing to do with the US presence. It hasn't been targeted at US soldiers.
The only reaons this occurred with less frequency and fewer deaths under Saddam was because of his totalitarian control over the country. to leftists, that is preferrable to the risks suffered under liberty.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:51am
I'm not anti-war per se, just sick and tired and fed up with the cluster-fvck that is and has been Iraq.
Posted by Balrog at 04/29/2009 @ 11:04am
Iraq will be a disaster for a very, very long time to come. This was the result predicted by every clear-headed expert on the region prior to the invasion of Iraq. Even with "low" violence - meaning that Iraq endures a quasi-anarchy in which the most organized militias and insurgencies are either suppressed or quiescent - Iraq is a wreck held somewhat together by a US military occupation that is not sustainable and cannot go on much longer.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 11:12am
Where's PONTIFICUS telling us we "won in Iraq"?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 11:43am
Where's PONTIFICUS telling us we "won in Iraq"?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/29/2009 @ 11:43am
I don't know, but I still maintain that we have won in Iraq.
And no surprise that someone like yourself who supports the US losing around the world would refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 12:13pm
actually,
it's more like iraq fiddles while obama burns.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/29/2009 @ 12:56pm
Iraq is a wreck held somewhat together by a US military occupation that is not sustainable and cannot go on much longer.
yes. Iraq was a wreck held together by the iron fist of the Baath party under the leadership of Saddam.
now it's held together by the iron fist of the US.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 1:14pm
Posted by antisocialist at 04/29/2009 @ 10:51am
The most critical measure of US success wrt sectarianism in Iraq is whether or not the sectarian militias resurface. To date that has not happened. These suicide bombings only require a few dedicated operatives and thus in no way are an indicator of the health of Iraq's political reconciliation process.
Dreyfuss is more circumspect than some posters here and reflects the more general Arab commentary from Iraq news sources. I notice there that four of the recent suicide bombers are identified as Tunisian nationals. Whereas Dreyfuss treads softly softly by mentioning "Jihaddi insurgents", ME commentary has no such qualms about saying that they are al Qaeda operatives. Iraq is still the place to finish off al Qaeda.
They are the group Obama claims are being pursued in Pakistan and Afghanistan. My previous suggestion, that Obama is likely do the most good in discrediting this foe by concentrating on finishing the job in Iraq before heading off on a wild goose chase in Afghanistan/Pakistan, against a Pashtun resistance group, called the Taliban, that in no real way has threatened America, still stands.
Obama could have covered himself with glory by showing Bush how it is done in Iraq rather than risk Iraq and possibly get bogged down in a war that should be fought mainly by Pakistan, the beneficiary of a controlled more co-operative Taliban.
Having said that, the surprise is that the "weak Maliki" has turned out to be a strong leader with a few runs on the military as well as the political score board. The Basra operation against the pro-Iranian Shiite militias, against US advice, being one notable such dual success.
The democratic upside, in the new Iraq, is that Maliki can lose or keep his mandate at the ballot box.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/29/2009 @ 1:41pm
Self determination means that the Iraqis, for good or evil, have to figure out their own destiny. You can bet that they are going to do it the Iraqi way and not our way.
Posted by pjcasey at 04/29/2009 @ 2:59pm
Self determination?
that will come only after american troops have left.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 3:19pm
Remember when no one dared to use the term "civil war"? Those were the "good old days" when disguised Mossad agents were using their distinctive rifles (c/c Anderson Cooper at CNN) to shoot and kill US soldiers to make trouble and foment the civil war. Ah!! Those halcyon days!!
Posted by mystic at 04/29/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by mystic at 04/29/2009 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah right. another conspiracy nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 3:22pm
DREYFUSS: "It might seem that Clinton, and Obama....(are) backing Maliki to the hilt......why is Secretary Clinton blaming "rejectionists" for the violence? Why isn't she blaming Maliki, equally? And the bigger question: Has President Obama forgotten about Iraq?"
One geopolitical development that hurt (by a lot, IMO) McCain last fall, was Maliki's making camp with Magic by endorsing his Iraq Withdrawal Plan. Instead of helping to highlight the success of the hard-fought (by the GOP) Surge and emphasizing McCain's gutsy, and right, call on matters of war, the Iraq trump card was essentially waylaid, by Maliki.
Perhaps it was Gods' Will.....or Maliki is one f*&king sharp dude.....his helping BHO is now paying off......he is in control w/out major influence from the US.
Magic hasn't exactly forgotten Iraq........he threw it under the bus and leveraged it into $2 trillion worth of `budget' savings....part of his magic, don't you know it?
Posted by Happy at 04/29/2009 @ 4:33pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/29/2009 @ 09:28am | ignore this person | warn this person
and texas has the option to split into up to what 4 or 5 smaller states?
hmmm...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
Trust me
Some say trust is the root cause of secrecy and secrecy breeds corruption, but how childish.
So come let us be adult about it as Obama has bright white and shiny teeth. A sure sign of change and we must trust that all torture goons from Bush on down shall end up on death row, all Wall Street executives and zombie bank CEO's shall earn prison wages, high finance, GM and Chrysler shall be nationalized and resold for a profit when the economy recovers, all our troops shall come home and all war materials including those in Israel shall be recycled for peaceful use. And finally our fascist capitalist Republic shall overnight be transformed into a social democracy most perfect.
Now, am I a prophet or am I a prophet?
Posted by Alabama.John at 04/29/2009 @ 4:56pm
"yeah right. another conspiracy nutcase" (emile duBois)
Is Anderson Cooper on CNN the "nutcase" (=anti-Semite) or me? Heavens!! Wouldn't the world be a safer and more pleasant place without your kind to make trouble like you have for thousands of years. The rifle by the way is made by the Raphael Company. It's all on video. Have a nice day, Emile DooBwah.
http://www.rense.com/general74/ssno.htm
http://www.nogw.com/download/2006_il_snipers.pdf
Posted by mystic at 04/29/2009 @ 5:04pm
Islamic militants perceive that Obama is weak and are taking advantage of that. I know the left would love to see Iraq decend into barbarism but what else would you expect. At least if it happens it will be on Obamas watch and that will be his legacy. A legacy lives a long time. The worst part for America will be the encouragement it gives to AQ to have another try at us just when we are letting our guard down.
Posted by pyeatte at 04/29/2009 @ 5:44pm
you are a self described anti semite. I did not say you were. I will accept your judgement however.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 7:47pm
FYI: Semites are Palestinians Jews are not Arabs :^)
Posted by geo1671 at 04/29/2009 @ 8:26pm
Posted by mystic at 04/29/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Very interesting post Mystic. Of course Israel wants our presence there forever. Better the blood and treasure of US than their own.
Posted by OneVote at 04/29/2009 @ 9:24pm
Posted by mystic at 04/29/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
This notion that Israeli operatives are shooting US soldiers in Iraq is absolutely insane. The evidence present is also specious, unless we also want to believe that the Israelis "masterminded" the bombing of the OKC Alfred P. Murrah building.
It is very difficult to speculate as to how major national intelligence organizations operate, but, if for some crazed reason the Israelis wanted more violence against US soldiers in Iraq, they would probably try to use proxies and certainly not proxies armed with Israeli weapons. Iraq is rife with AK- weapons which is apparently what most average insurgent "snipers" use.
But the conspiracy theory itself is absolutely insane. Countries like Israel that depend on the US do not I really do believe engage their clandestine operatives in shooting matches with US soldiers.
Please de-program yourself.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by mystic at 04/29/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Just imagine, OK? If a single one of these Israeli agents was killed or captured in Iraq, without any knowledge on the part of the various intelligence components of the US Defense Department and/or civilian agencies operating in Iraq as to what the operative was doing, there would already be LOTS of questions asked. Allied countries make their operations in countries of great importance to their allies known to their allies to some degree. An Israeli killed or captured - especially shooting at US soldiers - now wouldn't that raise eyebrows, don't you think? Wouldn't that present a wee risk to Israel, that potential outcome, wherein one of their agents is killed or captured?
OK, out of time now, have to go -
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:45pm
<i>Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:41pm </i>
Fantastic; you point out, quite correctly, that the notion of Israeli soldiers engaging in a conspiracy that could be detected by reasonable observation is extraordinarily implausible at best. Cross-apply this to virtually ANY conspiracy allegation in which it is claimed that Israeli operatives destroyed something of ours or sabotaged something of ours. The extension of your own logic here requires that if Israel actually had done anything to us, they would be smart enough not to leave intelligence that someone posting on this thread would be able to cite. This, in turn, means that any conspiracy theory defended on these threads regarding Israeli agents is extremely implausible on its face.
I happen to think that such theories are virtually always wrong anyway, but you've (ironically) provided compelling reason not to give any credulity to arguments on these threads for said conspiracy theories.
Posted by Thrawn at 04/29/2009 @ 10:59pm
and texas has the option to split into up to what 4 or 5 smaller states?
hmmm...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/29/2009 @ 4:44pm
or, fall under the Mexican Drug Lords power! LOL Either way, not having to listen to the cowboy ranting would be a plus not to mention seeing Spanish rapidly become it's national language. LOL
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2009 @ 08:18am
But the conspiracy theory itself is absolutely insane. Countries like Israel that depend on the US do not I really do believe engage their clandestine operatives in shooting matches with US soldiers.
Please de-program yourself.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:41pm
You may be right, but Israel has it's inside operations trying to control U.S. policy. If you doubt that, perhaps you may want to see why to AIPAC folks are presently under indictment for giving secret U.S. information to Israel?
The whole Gonzo/congresswoman/AIPAC wiretapping fiasco is in the news presently.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2009 @ 08:25am
The whole Gonzo/congresswoman/AIPAC wiretapping fiasco is in the news presently.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 04/30/2009 @ 08:25am | ignore this person | warn this person
Good point WG. The whole notion of credulity must be measured by our history in dealing with Israel.
Israeli espionage, USS Liberty, Israeli arm sales to Iran, violation of US subsidized debt financing and economic aid to Israel being used for contruction in occupied territory, transfer of US arms technology to India, China, etc. via Israeli arms dealers, violation of use restrictions on US military aid, on and on. When has any of this crap had any effect on our unwavering support for Israel? Never would be the correct answer.
Any other country would be given the heaveho. Not Israel. These characters have virtual immunity from paying the price for their misdeeds.
The standard logic of credulity that Israel would never do anything contrary to US interest just doesn't hold water.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 09:04am
by most reports Mossad is one of the premier intelligence services in the world. that they would be so foolish to introduce agents into Iraq in order to kill american soldiers AND then give them easily traceable rifles is just laughable. let's just toss the nutcases into the trash.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 09:05am
Just imagine, OK? If a single one of these Israeli agents was killed or captured in Iraq...........
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Whew. The presumption here is that you would ever know about it. Giant leap of faith and logic. You think our military intelligence is an open book, not subject to politicization? Think again.
Remember Pat Tillman. It is a valuable lesson for you. This story got out. An exception to the rule.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 09:11am
Texas secede? what happened the last time some states attempted to secede?
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 09:13am
to blame just about everything here in america on AIPAC and the jews, is just more of the same. instead of accepting blame that americans have messed up our country, it' so much easier to blame, wait for it....
the tschutten.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 09:15am
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 09:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
FYI - Mossad is already in Iraq and Afghanistan. No introduction necessary.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 09:16am
that may or may not be so. I don't expect them to leave clumsy traces.
you are under the mistaken belief that standing on a soap box makes you a taller guy.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 11:03am
you are under the mistaken belief that standing on a soap box makes you a taller guy.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/30/2009 @ 11:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
for someone who is so anal retentive, and focuses on the every word of others, I would think that you would be gladly corrected.
clumsy traces are all over the place for those who care to look.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 11:19am
This sounds like Humpty Dumpty. Never really whole, but once broken, neither Bush nor Obama can put it together again. What is depressing is how close Obama's policy follows that of Bush at the end. And of course there continues the same line it is up to the US to fix it for the Iraqis regardless of their history. Not likely.
Charlie M.
Posted by cmsandia at 04/30/2009 @ 12:16pm
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 09:16am
OV, just so I'm clear on how far into the Abyss you've slipped...
you agreeing with syfriend that there are Mossad agents in Iraq killing or trying to kill American soldiers?
And please don't take the dopey way out and say BOTH "No" and "But you never know".
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:41pm This notion that Israeli operatives are shooting US soldiers in Iraq is absolutely insane. The evidence present is also specious..... But the conspiracy theory itself is absolutely insane. Countries like Israel that depend on the US do not....
Posted by syfriendly at 04/29/2009 @ 9:45pm An Israeli killed or captured - especially shooting at US soldiers - now wouldn't that raise eyebrows, don't you think? Wouldn't that present a wee risk....
yeah right. another conspiracy nutcase. Posted by emile duBois at 04/29/2009 @ 3:22pm Ah yes, one would think that it would raise eyebrows, except for the majority of the bought and paid for, by AIPAC, Congress. Conspiracy nutcases like, ummmm....those 171 sailors who were shot up by the Israeli navy in June of 1967 with 34 of their fellow navymen who payed the ultimate price. Great allies, those Israelis, are. Or how about this one: The Lavon Affair, where those bastions of liberty and democracy in the M.E. planted bombs in the Egyptian, UK, and USA owned entities; want more? O.K. How about the Pollard scandal? The Israelis turned our own Navy man against his country in order to spy? Or how about the NGO's who were shot in the face or outright killed for peaceful protest. Or something closer to home for you, maybe? The latest scandal that may implicate Jane Harman and her Israeli bud who was wiretapped by the FBI to help 2 AIPAC clowns get off from spying against (here we go again) their own nation-all for the glory of greater Israel. The examples are so numerous it would fill this blog over and over..... ad infinitum. And it's Mystic who needs deprogramming? Seriously ED & SF, I respect a good debate as much as the next person, but the truth is well documented.
Posted by Damascian at 04/30/2009 @ 2:05pm
Posted by Damascian at 04/30/2009 @ 2:05pm
what hole do these anti-semites crawl out of?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
And please don't take the dopey way out and say BOTH "No" and "But you never know".
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You mean Mystic?
I disagreed with the Sy's premise that Israel wouldn't do something against the interest of the US, and so they couldn't possibly be guilty of this.
Do read the Rense.com article. Now, it seems that Israelis have contracted to watch over weapons caches. We have lost weapons caches to the insurgents. Were Israeli contractors involved in this? Very strange.
Would Israel like us to stay in Iraq to guard their new embassy in Baghdad - and to be their if Iran threatens - yes, I think so.
But no - I don't think Israeli soldiers are sniping US soldiers.
However, it is clear that Israeli soldiers and agents are in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel is supporting Kurdish guerillas against Iran in northern Iraq, and are supporting Baluchistan separatists in southeastern Afghanistan whose territory spills over into southeastern Iran. Israel also infilitates across the Iranian border from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember, Israel admits that they have launched a program of assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists as well as general efforts to destablize the Iranian government.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 3:13pm
woops...southwestern Afghanistan...sorry
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 3:16pm
Selected Client List - Zapata Engineering,
AMEC Bank of America Bechtel Carolinas Health Care System Central Piedmont Community College Charleston Air Force Base Charlotte-Douglas International Airport Chevron Crosland Commercial Department of Veterans Affairs Duke Energy Corp. Earth Tech Federal Highway Administration Food Lion Fort Bragg, North Carolina Lincoln Harris Corporate Services Mecklenburg County, North Carolina National Park Service Northrup - Grumman Piedmont Asphalt Paving Company Pope Air Force Base Rea Contracting, LLC Science Applications International Corp. Tetra Tech Trammell Crow Company US Air Force US Army Corps of Engineers US Army Engineering & Support Center, Hunstville US Army Reserve Command US Department of Energy US Navy Wachovia Bank Weston Solutions, Inc.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 3:55pm
Iraq IED's: Mossad/ Zapata Engineering Conspiracy? by CLOAK & DAGGER
Washington, D.C. - Zapata Engineering, an offshoot of Zapata Oil with offices in North Carolina, Hawaii and Tel Aviv, have now been linked to the hiring of private Mossad contractors aka alleged Israeli Engineers in Iraq. Of course that is not the real story.
It can now be reported that Zapata Engineering has hired these Israeli Mossad-types into Iraq for the purposes of alleged counter-insurgency.
However, the alleged Israeli engineers have now been fingered for sniping at U.S. Soldiers and the murder of two female American Marines who had their throats slit and then placed in garbage dumps.
These female Marines had been investigating the origins of the I.E.D. (Improvised Explosives Devices). And of course it gets worse. It can now be reported that the origin of the I.E.D.'s, come not from Iran, but come from Zapata Engineering of North Carolina, Hawaii and Tel Aviv.
And now of course, it really gets worse. The projectiles discovered by American Special Forces have depleted uranium tips which connects directly to the Israeli company Rafael, which of course is owned by Zapata Engineering of North Carolina, Hawaii and Tel Aviv.
Conspiracy Planet
For what its worth. Also, as alleged:
Rafael is the maker of the sniper rifle with integral mount video camera - "video jumps every time a shot is fired" -- the video disk is removed and its digital content is then transferred to a computer just like a digital camera.
Not exactly a weapon that ragtag insurgents would have access to, but perhaps Israel to China to Iran to Insurgents?? Who knows.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 4:08pm
what hole do these anti-semites crawl out of?
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 2:07pm
Boy, you really live up to your name, don't you? Just so you know, I am semitic. Unfortunately, you obviously don't have a clue as to the definition of semitism. geo1671 posted it quite well:
FYI: Semites are Palestinians Jews are not Arabs :^)
Posted by geo1671 at 04/29/2009 @ 8:26pm
When you learn the differences between the differing Jewish sects, you will find out that the Ashkanazi Jew is anything by semitic. Hasidic and Sephardic Jews are every bit related to their semitic brothers and sisters (who are Arab and born in the fertal crescant) in ways that the Ashkanazi Jew isn't. It isn't my business to correct whether one is Jewish or not; truth is, anyone can claim to be Jewish if in their heart of hearts they feel that way, and if they do, good for them; I don't have a problem with that in any way. But one cannot say the same for semitism. One is born semitic and cannot simply attain it after birth. The same cannot be said for Judaism or for that matter, any religion. Try to broaden your mind and don't be afraid to admit that your country was, and still is, blindsided by a "friend" who continues to take advantage of the US in every way. As I said, the truth is well documeted. All you have to do is read it.
Posted by Damascian at 04/30/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by Damascian at 04/30/2009 @ 4:36pm
that response pretty cemented the fact that you are an anti-semite who relies upon anti-semitic literature. I'm more than happy to provide some light to your darkness.
<Nearly Half Of Ashkenazi Jews Descended From Four 'Founding Mothers' ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2006) -- Some 3.5 million or 40 percent of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from just four "founding mothers" who lived in Europe 1,000 years ago. The mothers were part of a small group who founded the Ashkenazi Jewish community, which was established in Europe as a result of migration from the Near East.
The studies that led to these findings were performed by Dr. Doron Behar as part of his doctoral thesis, and were done under the supervision of Prof. Karl Skorecki of the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine and Research Institute at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, and at the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa.
The researchers found that the mtDNA of some 3.5 of the 8 million Ashkenazi Jews in the world can be traced back to only four women carrying distinct mtDNA of a type virtually absent in other populations. Non-Ashkenazi Jews also carry low frequencies of these distinct mtDNA types, providing evidence of shared maternal ancestry of Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews. This is consistent with previous findings based on studies of the Y-chromosome, pointing to a similar pattern of shared paternal ancestry of global Jewish populations, originating in the Near East. The researchers concluded that the four founding mtDNA likely of Middle Eastern origin – underwent a major overall expansion in Europe during the last millennium.
http://tinyurl.com/a5w9j
If you look at Genesis 10:3, Ashkenaz was the son of Gomer, and the great-grandson of Noah.
Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 6:33pm
OV....pushing dopey with that one!
"And please don't take the dopey way out and say BOTH "No" and "But you never know".----Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 1:38pm |
"But no - I don't think Israeli soldiers are sniping US soldiers.
However....."----Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 3:13pm
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 7:32pm
If you look at Genesis 10:3, Ashkenaz was the son of Gomer, and the great-grandson of Noah.---Posted by antisocialist at 04/30/2009 @ 6:33pm
Gomer, git that gun outta yer mouth!
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 7:35pm
http://freepages.genealogy. rootsweb.com/~wrhurst/mtdna-k/kms750europemapsubs.jpg
I'll concede that Behar's paper is impressive, but the jury is still out on this subject. Not everyone is on board with Dr. Behar. As for your reference to Genesis 10:3, that part as you well know is the old testament, written by people of the Jewish faith. I'm not much of a believer in the Bible whether it is Old or New Testament since The Bible has been shaped and reshaped many times over. It is no wonder then that there are literally over 600 versions of the Bible. My quarrel is with Zionists, not those of the Jewish faith; and please don't tell me that they are one and the same. Even for you, that would be a disappointment. This comes from communication by a geneolagist, Dr. Bill Hurst. And I won't even try to explain much of the paper as my expertise is in Exercise Physiology, not genetics. By all means, bring up the communique, and happy reading. Just as Behar's work may be true,let's hope this also brigthens your darkness.
What follows is an excerpt.
"Nope, I don't have a way to determine non-Ashkenazi K2a2a, if there is such a thing.
>It is my suspicion, based on Behar's own tables, that >Ashkenazi K2 is of European origin, although Behar >states that all four of his "founding mothers," >including K2, are of ancestral Middle Eastern (ie, >ancient Israelite) origin. This seems extremely >unlikely to me."
Posted by Damascian at 04/30/2009 @ 9:12pm
However....."----Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 3:13pm
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2009 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry Maskie, couldn't help it. I did try to formulate a simple yes or no answer, but certain facts got in the way.
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 11:40pm
Posted by OneVote at 04/30/2009 @ 11:40pm
Well, of course...besides they're Israelis, so (to you) they HAVE to be doing SOMETHING nefarious, right?
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:31am
Mossad agents in Iraq killing american soldiers? absurd. what would be the point? weren't the Iraqis killing enough american soldiers.?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/01/2009 @ 09:26am
Well, of course...besides they're Israelis, so (to you) they HAVE to be doing SOMETHING nefarious, right?
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
Okay Maskie, your turn.
Tell me why you think it is good idea for US to be allowing Mossad to be in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell me your version of sniping video. If you have cites to Israeli denials of what was alleged in the rense.com article, that would be great. I didn't find any - but only took a quick look.
Fact checking on the rense.com article so far appears to be substantiated.
General Tommy Franks does indeed to appear to have Russian Jewish ancestry, and I note that there is a possibility that his self interest is front seat to his patriotism.
'In January 2008, ABC News and the Army Times reported that Franks charged $100,000 to the charitable Coalition to Salute America's Heroes to use his name to raise money for wounded soldiers. The charity has been criticized by Congressional investigators and watchdog groups because only 25% of the money found its way to wounded veterans, much less than the industry standard of 85%. Roger Chapin, president of the charity, and his wife collected $1.5 million in salary for two years, paid his $17,000 membership in a California golf club, reimbursed them for more than $340,000 in expenses for meals, hotels and entertainment, and purchased them a $444,600 condominium in northern Virginia. Because of these problems, Franks ended his support for the group in late 2005.[5][6][7][8] Bob Schieffer, host of CBS's Face the Nation, criticized Franks, saying, "What kind of PERSON would insist, or even ALLOW himself, to be paid to raise money for those who were wounded while serving under him?' Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 09:44am
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 08:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
Tell all the examples you know of wherein Israeli blood has been shed protecting US interests. Seems all we get is the bad news - like Jane Harman recently. Tell me the positives. AIPAC claims there are many positives but there just doesn't seem to be concrete examples.
Make your case.
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 09:48am
Roger Chapin: Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities Now Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:31pm EDT SAN DIEGO, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Roger Chapin, Founder and President of Make America Safe, has written an article for the Washington Times which advocates preemptive strikes on Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities at the earliest possible time.
Chapin wants the U.S. to act preemptively to head off an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel and an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) attack on the United States.
"And given Israel's warnings to Iran and its prior attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear targets, Iran will very likely try and nuke Israel first, especially with the very hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now in charge," Chapin wrote. "Since the U.S. would presumably retaliate, this makes an Iranian pre-emptive EMP attack on the United States all the more likely."
and
'And think of what Mr. Chapin told the House committee when asked what would happen if his charities ever told donors where their money went.
"If we disclose, which I'm more than happy to do," he said, "we'd all be out of business. Nobody would donate. It would dry up."
Editorial - NY Times ‘An Intolerable Fraud' February 8, 2008
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 10:01am
continued - cite to above and below
'Chapin explained that an EMP could be generated by detonating a single nuclear-armed missile 200 miles above the U.S., which could be launched from a freighter off the Gulf Coast. He cited a congressionally authorized EMP Commission report in April 2008 which said such an attack would render most computers inoperable, thereby knocking out the electric grid system with devastating consequences. He said most of the population would die from starvation or disease within a year.
"The American people must understand that no less than the survival of our nation as we know it today is at stake and that circumstances beyond our control could prompt a catastrophic EMP attack upon us at any moment," he wrote.
Chapin warned that the situation is grave.
"No matter how you figure it, it's an almost unbelievably scary situation, especially given the relative ease with which an EMP attack could be launched against our homeland and how utterly catastrophic it would be," he said. "Never before has an American president faced a more fateful decision."
Lamenting the lack of awareness by the public and the Congress of "the horrific menace we face," Chapin called for a national debate on this "all-important issue."'
Chapin's article in the Washington Times is online at http://tinyurl.com/cv4fl7 and http://tinyurl.com/de9t9g.
Now tell me Maskie - who is in the abyss again????????????????????????????????
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 10:11am
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 10:11am
Of course, OV. They're behind it all...
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
AIPAC! AIPAC!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
AIPAC! AIPAC!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
AIPAC! AIPAC!
(with apologies to The Simpsons. http://www.thesimpsonshomepage.com/stonecutters.html ) Who robs cave fish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night? We do! We do!
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by Mask at 05/01/2009 @ 11:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
I was looking for a little more than sarcasm Maskie....
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 1:25pm
Without wishing to flog a dead horse, let us review some known facts: Netanyahu aven admitted that (only)Israel benefitted from the Iraq war. It WAS in Israel's best interest (and NOT that of the US) to get rid of Saddam Hussein, because he was a threat to Israel (and not the US).Extrapolate that to the situation today: It is in Israel's best interest never to allow the US to leave Iraq, for the simple reason that once it does Iraq will quickly descend into some sort dictatorship that will again be a threat to Israel.Hence it is more than likely to suspect that operations are in play to create chaos again (perhaps sporadic, when it's convenient) to prevent the US from leaving. We are between "Iraq And A Hard Place". Figure it out.
Posted by mystic at 05/01/2009 @ 1:44pm
To those who say it's madness to even suggest the Mossad would kill Americans, this would not be the first time that has happened: Infamously, the USS Liberty 1967 false flag incident, that's exactly what happened to try and lure the US into hitting back on Egypt which Israel falsely tried to paint as the perpetrator of the bombing.Thirty four US crewmen were murdered. There are living witnesses who testify that Israel was at fault,despite the US covering it up and to this day has prevented a true investigation.Sound familiar?
Posted by mystic at 05/01/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by mystic at 05/01/2009 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Beirut comes to mind as well.
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 2:14pm
Bush, under advice from his Neo-con handlers, sent US officers to Israel to train with the IDF to prepare for Iraq. Now we learn the IDF is fighting within our ranks in Iraq.
A number of officers are questioning whether we have a fifth column operating behind the lines. There have been too many sophisticated ambushes, and the enemy seems to know every move isolated patrols make.
After Blackwater Security was ambushed twice, they want no part of any Israelis.
AIPAC and JINSA advised Bush on suitable Generals for our Iraq invasion, and our troops are paying the price.
http://judicial-inc.biz/Israel_in_Iraq.htm
From the same source, a confirmation of assertions in the rense.com article that General Natonski may be in fact a Zionist as asserted.
'Gen. Richard F. Natonski, the commander who led the 'Massacre of Fallujah', is a second generation Ukrainian Jew and a rabid Zionist.
Gen Natonski said: ... "Fallujah is a cancer. The Muslims use Mosques, and schools, to ambush Marines from. In almost every single mosque, in Fallujah, we've found an arms cache and IED factories."'
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 2:36pm
this is the best free entertainment on the planet. A column that does not mention Israel results in a long trail of paranoid conspiracy comments about Israeli snipers shooting American soldiers that lacks any credible rumor, much less any facts. Keep it coming men and women, you are the best.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 2:56pm
BTW, since the usual suspects are assembled, what should we conclude from the US moving to dismiss all charges against the 2 former AIPAC employees (for onevote, we'll also refer to them as "operatives.") Should we conclude that lot's of people jumped the gun and should reconsider their defamatory libel, or should we conclude that AIPAC and worldwide Zionism now controls the Justice Dept. (Onevote, we already know your opinion, but as always I look forward to your ranting analysis.)
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:01pm
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah....Gren.....the column is about Iraq - and how things are going there right?
If Israel wants us to stay there forever - how far would they go?
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:01pm
onevote --
I wish zionism did control everything. then we could make you disappear. LOL
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Jane Harmon ring a bell? JD = Jewish Department - right on, you pegged it.
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:04pm
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah - ADL was pretty good at that for awhile till they got their wings clipped - but with the new admin being so Jewish friendly (Passover at the White House - come on), ADL will no doubt have free reign to carry out their campaigns of defamation once again.
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:07pm
tell antisocialist --
nice post on the DNA issue.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:13pm
tell onevote --
I think I have you figured out. You're a zionist double agent. You make such ridiculous accusations that you discredit claims of worldwide zionist control, which actually are true. Brilliant.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:15pm
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 2:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
ze vays of ze thread are mysteriouss.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/01/2009 @ 3:29pm
'US District Judge T.S. Ellis III had made several legal rulings that prosecutors worried would make it almost impossible to obtain a guilty verdict. Among them was a requirement that the government would have to prove that Rosen and Weissman intended to harm the United States by trading in sensitive national defense information'
Charges dropped against AIPAC lobbyists
Associated Press Published: 05.01.09, 17:45 / Israel News
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:51pm
Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure - Part 1 Crimes - Chapter 37 Espionage and Censorsip
Section 798. Disclosure of classified information
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information - (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes -
Note the standard here is intent to harm US OR benefit a foreign nation to detriment of US. The mere provision of classified information to a foreign nation is slam dunk detriment to US. Thats why it is called "classified information."
Guess Israel isn't a foreign nation in th eyes of US law.
Just unbelievable.
We should just throw in the towel. AIPAC rules - plain and simple.
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:58pm
Onevote has me thinking about that JD thing. lawyers are JDs. they say it's Juris doctoris. But we know Jews become lawyers to control the government. JD is the code for Jewish Destiny.
It's all making sense now.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 3:58pm
Onevote --
resistence is futile. accept our domination. it will be easier for you that way.
BTW, are you a JD? All this statute citing. Seems suspicious.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 4:01pm
resistence is futile. accept our domination. it will be easier for you that way.
BTW, are you a JD? All this statute citing. Seems suspicious.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am ready - off to the reeducation camp.
But answer me this - why were these guys charged under the arcane Espionage Act of 1917 and not under Title 18? EA of 1917 carries a considerably higher burden of proof than Title 18. And why don't justice department attorneys file motion to amend charges - it is done all the time?
Is questioning permitted? Forgive me, if it is not.
Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 4:14pm
I don't know the answer. If I did I would tell you.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 4:19pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:01pm </i>
Wait, is your argument actually that Israel WANTS us to stay in Iraq? That doesn't even make sense.
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:04pm </i>
I love this. Gren tried to mock your argument away with a strawman...and then...you defend the strawman! You ACTUALLY DEFEND the "Israel runs the Justice Department" position? Seriously?
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 3:58pm </i>
I mean, the question here seems to be the grammatical intent of the statute; how much of the sentence is "willfully" supposed to modify?
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/01/2009 @ 4:14pm</i>
First of all, I just want to note that you could transport back to the 50s if you just subbed in "Communist" for Jewish and "Communist Party" for AIPAC. Second, here's the flaw in your logic: you identify something that seems out of kilter, and immediately jump to the conspiracy conclusion without factoring in the extremely high intrinsic improbability of that conspiracy explanation actually being true.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/01/2009 @ 5:11pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/01/2009 @ 5:11pm
All you have to do is check out the source he gave. It is a wacko anti semite site.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/01/2009 @ 5:47pm
I don't know the answer. If I did I would tell you.
Posted by gren at 05/01/2009 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
FYI - curious the judge denied defendents' motion to dismiss - but BO justice department does? WTF is going on here.
'AIPAC espionage case won't be dismissed
Aug. 11, 2006
NATHAN GUTTMAN , THE JERUSALEM POST A US federal district judge in Virginia Thursday denied the request of two former employees of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to dismiss the espionage charges against them.
Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman stand accused of obtaining national defense information from a Pentagon analyst and communicating it to Israeli diplomats and the press.
In his ruling, Judge T.S. Ellis of the district court in Alexandria, Virginia, wrote, "It must be said that this is a hard case," since it involves questions relating to rights provided by the first and fifth amendments to the US Constitution.
Ellis denied that prosecuting the two men under the 1917 Espionage Act was too vague and that the fact that they had only passed on oral information as opposed to documents made it difficult to prosecute them. "Information relating to the national defense, whether tangible or intangible, must necessarily be information which if disclosed, is potentially harmful to the United States," the he said.
The court also rejected the argument that charging Rosen and Weissman for obtaining and passing on government information infringed on their right to free speech.
However in his conclusion, Ellis did call on lawmakers to consider updating the Espionage Act to reflect the changes that have taken place in the 90 years since it has been approved....'
The Jerusalem Post
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:12am
I mean, the question here seems to be the grammatical intent of the statute; how much of the sentence is "willfully" supposed to modify?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/01/2009 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well...the grammatical intent of the statute was pretty clear to the judge who denied defendants' motion to dimiss. See above. "it's a dfficult case so we are going to drop it" just doesn't cut it as far as a Justice Department standard of prosecution. We are spending billions to bailout Wall Street and we can't try a "difficult case."
Nope....there is monkey business going on here.....Monkey business AIPAC influence style.
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:44am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/01/2009 @ 5:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Israel doesn't want us in Iraq? Thats a good one Thrawn. Your reasoning please?
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:46am
All you have to do is check out the source he gave. It is a wacko anti semite site.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/01/2009 @ 5:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
A website that is critical of Israel is anti-semite? Only to a Zionist bootlicker I suppose. Get off knees man and onto your feet.
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:48am
A website that is critical of Israel is anti-semite? Only to a Zionist bootlicker I suppose. Get off knees man and onto your feet.
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:48am
Let's take the site as the source of your false charge that General Franks may have been a Russian Jew. He was adopted as an infant by the Franks family. He was born Tommy Bentley. No one has any information on his biological parents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Franks
this was one of your anti-semite links
http://judicial-inc.biz/Israel_in_Iraq.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 07:58am
Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 07:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
Is this a question of biology or inculcated ideology?
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 09:35am
Is this a question of biology or inculcated ideology?
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 09:35am
No, it's proof that your anti-semitic links are filled with the usual lies that spring from all bigots
Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 09:51am
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]
Wikipedia -
Ask a Zionist if they would agree to move Israel to the United States.
The biblical (religious) foundation of Zionism will dictate their answer.
Ask a Zionist what is most important - establishing and safekeeping of their biblical homeland, or preservation of our constitutional democracy here in America, and once again the biblical foundation of Zionism will dictate their answer.
'In Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, veteran defense and Pentagon reporter Thomas E. Ricks echoes criticism from officers who had served under Franks who put forth that, while tactically sound, he lacked the strategic mindset and overall intellect necessary for the task. Some close to him argued he was more thoughtful than he seemed, was aware that Secretary Rumsfeld and his staff were unable to discuss the Iraq War in military terms and had an obligation to put forth stronger objections to the civilian control of military planning. While demanding and goal oriented he was also criticized for being unwilling to countenance alternate viewpoints and for detaching himself from day-to-day affairs when the ground war ceased and he prepared for retirement.' - Wiki
Catch the meaning in the above - "civilian planning" of military adventure - that would be your Zionist/Neoconservativee chickenhawks
also - coutenanced failures of our civilian military planners to elucidate proper military objectives, and would not permit alternative viewpoints. - Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 10:11am
No, it's proof that your anti-semitic links are filled with the usual lies that spring from all bigots
Posted by antisocialist at 05/02/2009 @ 09:51am | ignore this person | warn this person
So you believe that a person can not convert to Zionism? It is in their DNA?
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 10:16am
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:44am</i>
So you're claiming the judge shifted meanings of the statute between the motion to dismiss and now?
In fact, there's a question...if you think the judge is "in the arms of AIPAC"...why not just grant the motion at the outset? Or would that be too obvious to make your conspiracy theory credible?
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 12:46am </i>
The only interest Israel could possibly have in us staying in Iraq is if our presence was necessary to keep it stable. If that were the case, though, I have confidence that Obama would be rational enough not to suddenly and prematurely pull troops out. In fact, your theory doesn't even make sense. If Obama really thinks our troops need to leave, do you really think having a few more people shoot at them would change that impression, rather than backfiring?
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 10:11am </i>
This establishes nothing!
Arrgh, this is frustrating because I've seen you make good arguments on other threads, so it's painful to see arguments that are this patently bad. You have yet to respond to perhaps the most crucial response to your position thus far:
Your analysis relies on a massively distorted understanding of probability. Though you consider the improbability of X thing happening (prosecutors letting a case go, which if they don't think they can win, they'll ACTUALLY DO), but NEVER put into the calculation the intrinsic improbability (extraordinarily high) of the Justice Department being run by AIPAC. That flaw runs through your entire argument and has NEVER been dealt with.
Plus, the Franks stuff is just creepy. Seriously? "He's a Muggle-born...he's not like us"? Come on...
Posted by Thrawn at 05/02/2009 @ 12:03pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/02/2009 @ 12:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
At least I make an argument rather than conclusory statements of subjective opinion that are backed up by nothing.
Do check out the NY Times article today on the espionage case.
So it has been customary for our government to trade classified information with AIPAC and Israel, and this is supported by precedent of it happening all the time? Wonderful. The only country that would be true of is Israel, of course.
FBI was incensed.
I am sure there will be much jubilation at the AIPAC Policy Conference this weekend, and Nitwityahu will be beaming with pride when he arrives.
Our Justice Department is a mockery of justice. Note the judges change of position between 2006 and current date, and also note that our Justice Department drops a case that has political ramifications.
As for Israel - Israel idea of a stable Iraq is an Iraq that is friendly and compliant with Israel. Iraq was stable under Saddam, but Israel didn't like the fact that Saddam didn't like Israel. Israel's threats to nuke Iran show it to be a country that has little interest in stability except by leveling an enemy, and Israel is quite prepared to send the world into economic and political chaos to maintain its hegemony over nuclear weapons.
I will the same question to you that I did Mask (never answered because he can't answer). What has Israel done for the United States, and when has Israeli blood been shed to protect American interests.
We have a laundry list of Israeli offenses against US interests. What do you have?
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 7:07pm
"These sentences are the culmination of an extensive federal, state and local law enforcement operation," said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. "While these defendants were not members of an international terrorist organization, their homegrown plot to murder U.S. military personnel at Fort Dix was no less serious or potentially deadly."
Two Additional Defendants Sentenced for Conspiring to Kill U.S. Soldiers Wed Apr 29, 5:24 pm ET
To: NATIONAL EDITORS
Contact: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs;
Do note the vigor of David Kris in prosecuting "conspiracy" charges against homegrown Islamist sympathizers.
Mr. Kris was responsible for much of NSA wiretapping and Patriot Act support during his time with the Bush administration. He later recanted from these positions after it appeared that the tide was turning against Bush, and that it looked like the Democrats would take a majority in Congressional elections in 2006, and likely the Presidency in 2008.
For a man so worried about security, he seems awful complacent about the easy exchange of classified information between AIPAC lobbyists and our government officials. This is just plain out foolish, and hypocritical to boot.
'Kris had been a high-ranking DOJ lawyer in the Bush administration for several years, and had appeared before Congress to advocate for the administration's positions regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA PATRIOT Act. [7] He had furthermore previously appeared before Congress in his personal capacity, after leaving the DOJ, to continue advocating for the government to have enhanced flexibility under FISA and the PATRIOT Act.' - Wikipedia.
BTW-5.5 days of jury deliberation, a "tough case" for JD.
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 7:42pm
'Boente cited "the additional intent requirements imposed by the court" in his statement this morning. "When this indictment was brought," he said, "the government believed it could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the statute. However, as the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted, the District Court potentially imposed an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by statute."
The AIPAC case has always been controversial, and it came to public attention again with the recent disclosure that a prominent House lawmaker, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif), had been recorded in 2006 on FBI wiretaps allegedly offering to use her influence on behalf of Rosen and Weissman.
Harman strongly denied the allegations and accused the government of an "abuse of power" in wiretapping her conversations. Law enforcement sources have said the review of the case was triggered by the recent court rulings and was unrelated to the revelations about Harman.
If the high-profile trial had gone forward, it was expected to feature testimony from a number of senior Bush administration officials, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, former national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, and former high-level Defense Department officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith.'
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=52&threadid=2299256
Oh my......"an additional burden of proof not mandated by statute"? Sounds like the lowly District Court is making the law rather than applying the law. Where is the outrage? This should be going directly to the Supreme Court for ruling.
And we certainly wouldn't want to put Hadley, Feith, and Wolfowitz (AIPAC classified informational sources) on the stand. See Court of Appeals ruling.
Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 8:13pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/02/2009 @ 7:07pm </i>
I'm not making conclusory statements that lack support; what you're forgetting is where the burdens lie. If you're defending an expansive conspiracy theory, you have the burden to establish it. Your apparent assumption that my burden is to affirmatively disprove it is plainly mistaken.
Moreover, having an argument doesn't prevent that argument from being bad. What I keep pointing out, and you NEVER respond to, is that your argument has no legs; it IGNORES the extremely high intrinsic improbability of a conspiracy of the magnitude you're describing; absent that consideration, TONS of conspiracy theories that we would BOTH describe as nuts would be far more credible than they really are. It's literally "so Justice is doing this, and isn't this weird? AIPAC!!" That's not a real argument! And the Specter stuff is even worse; "maybe we can't trust him, he's partly Jewish." Seriously? After trotting that out, you have no basis to attack anyone else for allegedly "not making arguments."
And the Iraq stuff...really? So you have two forces: insurgency, which tries to destabilize, and US forces, which try to stabilize (whatever you think of their success). In what universe does Israel have an interest in helping the destabilizing forces?? Especially since instability in Iraq benefits Iran! The few attempts you've made to actually justify this argument got devastated by Syfriendly. Plus, don't forget the "smart enough for conspiracy but dumb enough to be found out by bloggers?" point that's still gotten virtually ignored.
Thus far, your position has lacked any coherent rational defense. Could it be that this is because none is possible?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/02/2009 @ 11:56pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/02/2009 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Still waiting Thrawn.
Lay out your premise that Israel has and would never do anything against US interest. There are numerous historical examples of Israel acting in manner detrimental to US interest, none of which you have disputed.
Israel has a vested security interest in keeping US forces in Iraq as barrier to Iran, and to police whatever government ultimately assumes legitimate power. Iraq is a Muslim nation. You seem to be denial about what the purpose of the occupation of Iraq was to begin with.
Specter? I think you are confused.
The absence of any factual refutation from you belies the notion that you have none other than a self serving hear no evil see no evil agenda, whose inconvenient truths keep popping up all the time.
I care little about the Kangaroo Court of Zionists, of which you are one. If you want to dispute an argument, get off your ass and do some research.
Your lack of factual response is more proof positive of the closed door of Zionist belief. Don't pretend it is otherwise with all your verbal dilly dallying. It is mind numbing nonsense that may fool some folks, but it doesn't fool me.
Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2009 @ 09:13am
The 'Creative Chaos' in Iraq at its best, is a madness and insanity that reflects the neoconservatives' doctrine in Washington. It is designed to control the "Middle East" in an effort to rip it apart further more, to weaken it, and to turn the region into insignificant sectarian and ethnic powerless mini states.
There are two reasons for creating such chaos: First to protect the Zionist entity, known as the "Israeli State," not because Iraq posed a threat to the United States. The illegal attack on Iraq and occupying it was one of these two reasons. Zelikow made statements about 'the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the President. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda.
The second reason is to control the oil. Mr. Bush always states that he will never leave Iraq unless the "mission is complete." He also declared on Thursday August 24, 2006, that "to leave without finishing our mission will create a terrorist state in the heart of the Near East, in a country with enormous resources of petroleum, which the terrorist network can take for them." To accomplish his scheme, the President has conceived a planned chaos in Iraq by creating a sectarian regime in the "Green Zone," a small fortified section of Baghdad. '
Al-Jazeerah, 12/13/06 - Ebeid
Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2009 @ 09:50am
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2009 @ 09:13am </i>
First off, with Specter. Sorry, for some reason my memory got confused late last night. I was talking about the Franks stuff you put out, none of which had any real impact. Honestly, I think it also made your position seem a lot weaker, because, frankly, the "he has Jewish blood, therefore there's reason for some concern" argument is just nuts.
Here's the core of what my argument is going for: there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, a LOT of them. I'm willing to bet that most of us, including you, believe few if any of them. Why is that? It's not because they have no evidence whatsoever; most of them can cite a flurry of facts that seem to support their position. The real problem with these theories is that none of those sets of facts can overcome the incredibly high intrinsic implausibility of what they're claiming. That's the problem you never grapple with; if you're defending a conspiracy theory, it's your burden to prove it, unless you actually think people must systematically disprove every conspiracy theory that's thrown at them in order to reasonably disbelieve it.
None of your arguments has even come close to passing that barrier, or even to being established under NORMAL standards of proof. Until you can reach that point, no one has the burden to systematically disprove every strained accusation you make.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2009 @ 12:31pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2009 @ 09:50am </i>
First off, I would question the extent to which al Jazeera can be classified as a neutral source on this.
Getting into the substance, though, why is the concern about a nuclear attack on Israel a problem? Presumably, that would be a pretty bad thing. Moreover, the "oil control" theory seems problematic on a couple of levels. First, it's hardly an obviously true premise. Second, though, chaos is still a problem under that theory; it still hampers whatever our goals would be, in part because it allows terrorism to continue festering (and unless Israel is completely irrational, they wouldn't want that). If you want to control the oil, order is a good thing.
Moreover, your theory (NOT defended by this article, btw) has another gaping hole: it's a gigantic risk. Your premise that Israel wants American troops in undercuts your theory about helping the insurgency because it risks backlash:
1) More American troops die= more call to have them pulled back
2) If the US discovers Israel's alleged cover-up, how much support do you think we'll keep giving in Iraq??
I should add, by the way, a flaw that is especially devastating to IR conspiracy theories: your theory requires us to believe that Israel is doing all of this, and the US government is blissfully unaware of it, but you know all about it. Unless you're able to pile conspiracy theory atop conspiracy theory by suggesting that our government is either directed or blinded by AIPAC (piling implausibility on implausibility), your theory here has no legs.
So I just want you to tell me two things:
1) Why Israel would prefer chaos to stability
2) Why we should treat this conspiracy differently from any other one
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2009 @ 12:42pm
*2) Why we should treat this conspiracy THEORY differently from any other one
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; When the government fears the people, there is liberty.'
Thomas Jefferson
1) Creative Chaos Doctrine is part of Neoconservative Doctrine, and any informed person know that. Al Jazeerah is just stating obvious. The idea here is creat instability for that your enemy destroys themselves and when they are finished, you mop up their blood and take over.
2) Conspiracy Theories - I've got one for you. WMD - how about that one? 4,300 dead American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi. And you have the gall to suggest that these characters have any morality or would never do anything to harm Americans or American interests.
Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2009 @ 4:55pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/03/2009 @ 4:55pm </i>
I completely agree with what Jefferson is saying. That doesn't mean that any given conspiracy theory should have automatic credibility, particularly not if there's a reasonable alternative explanation.
On Creative Chaos...I get the idea, but I don't get how it makes any sense here. Setting your enemies against each other is classic theory, but that was part of the rationale for propping up Saddam Hussein in the first place (balance Iran). Your argument only makes sense if helping the insurgency woul make the Americans likely to stay longer than they otherwise would, and I'm arguing that it just wouldn't do that. If it doesn't, you have Iran as the primary power in the region, plus substantial instability in an area not ridiculously far away from WMD's. This sounds like awful strategy. Moreover, since the U.S. is the primary pro-Israel entity in the world, actively harming our forces sounds like a pretty idiotic move for them.
As for conspiracy theories...OK? One, an explanation of Iraq doesn't even come close to requiring anyone to think AIPAC is pulling all the strings. Two, it doesn't even require much of a conspiracy theory. The chain of intelligence screws up, you have people who are emphatically in favor of spreading democracy and will push aside facts that don't fit that nice picture, a President who doesn't like asking questions, etc. That also doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that everyone who helped orchestrate Iraq is without any moral sense. Being wrong and being amoral or morally corrupt are completely different things.
Finally, every single inference of yours has yet to be warranted.
And...Franks...seriously?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2009 @ 6:48pm
re: the case that was dropped.
this was not a case of spying in the sense that the two defendants attempted to buy or steal information. Government officials leaked information to them -- just as government officials do all the time re: all topics to journalists and lobbyists. These two former AIPAC employees shared the information with AIPAC, journalists and Israeli officials. It is only the sharing of information with Israeli officials which provided any arguable basis for criminalization of this incident. However, it would defy reason that it was legal for the two defendants to share the information with other Americans, including journalists, but illegal to share it with Israelis. Moreover, the judge's prior rulings would have allowed the defendandants to prove that the information in question was not in fact a state secret or related to national security. Allowing defendants to prove their innocence would have resulted in an expose of how the US (and presumably all) government abuses the confidential / national security labeling. That is why the case was dismissed.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 09:05am
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 09:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes - the defense wanted to show that for our government officials, giving AIPAC classified information which it relays to Israel is business as usual. The defense wondered why these "two" had been "singled" out for prosecution.
Everybody does it defense.
We are on the slippery slope.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 09:19am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/03/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You do need to read a little more carefully.
1) I stated that I did not think that Israeli IDF or Mossad was sniping US soldiers in Iraq.
2) My disagreement with Sy's contention was solely on the basis that Israel would do anything against US interest.
3) Franks has receive alot of criticism for cavorting with NEOCON/ZIONIST elements - largely civilian calling of shots for our military. Franks sold out his name for $100,000 to Roger Chapin, who defrauded donors who thought their money was going to help veterans. Chapin was known to be a whack job, very much interested in nuking Iran.
4) The rense.com article references the sniping video which was broadcast on CNN TV Anderson Cooper nationwide, and I have yet to see refutation by Israel or anyone in the administration. My fact checking of the article thus far seems to lend credence to it.
5) The present government in Iraq is Shiite friendly, and Iran friendly. Israel will not let our troop reductions jeopardize this government getting more cozy with Iran. Obama has already pledged that he will leave 50,000 troops. If things are going well in Iraq, Obama gets pressure to bring troops home. If things go badly, we need to stay. This is the converse of your assertion that if things go bad we pull out, and if things go well we stay. I believe that my premise is based on justifications for staying and escalating troop strength to date.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 09:34am
tell onevote
my 2 cent opinion is that the discussion here would be more productive and useful, and less personally vindictive, if the focus was US policy, what it is and what it should be, and why, instead of zionist world supremacy conspiracies. Just a suggestion. (Interestingly, I bet that on a substantive basis, there probably isn't a fundamental difference between us concerning what a Israeli / PA peace should look like and what US policy should be.)
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 09:49am
I bet that on a substantive basis, there probably isn't a fundamental difference between us concerning what a Israeli / PA peace should look like and what US policy should be.)
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 09:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
From the moderate camp....likely not. But this thread is about Iraq no? The moderate camp - can you call BO administration that?
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 10:11am
Assuming BO is the president, yes I think he's a pragmatic liberal.
I don't assume you to be a moderate, but my statement included you.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 11:45am
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 09:34am </i>
On (1)...does this mean that Israel isn't doing anything in Iraq? I'm not completely sure what you're defending, then.
On (2)...clearly Israel can do things that are against US interest; I don't deny that. As they say, though, the devil is in the details. Are they running our government by proxy? Controlling the Justice Department? Hardly.
On (3)...two things. First of all, you could have just made that argument and left any nonsense "Jewish blood" (a plainly racist concept) out of the discussion. Second, frmo everything I've seen, it doesn't sound like Franks KNEW the whole thing was a scam; he seems to have assumed it was a legitimate charity.
(4)...how does this comport with (1)? Since your argument has to be that Israeli agents are either sniping or paying someone else to do it, they're either sniping US forces, resistance forces or government forces. What are you defending? My response to (5) will wait for that as well.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 12:29pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
1) No - Israel is in Iraq. Does Israel have a different agenda in Iraq than does the US? Yes, I think it does, vis a vis Iran. Iran is not an enemy, and in fact, aided our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
2) Okay...we are in agreement that Israel can do things against US interest, and I'll take that that is a historical perspective on both our parts. You are taking my argument to extremes....our Justice Department is a political animal, and AIPAC and Israel exert influence on that political animal - a splendid example of which is the spy case. Another recent example is Ted Stevens.
3) As to Franks, the complaints against him go beyond his association with Chapin. But, it is uncouth of him to selling his name an endorsemet to a charity to help wounded veterans. Secondly, Chapin's ideology and corruption were well known before Franks arrangement (see NY Times) and you would think that Franks would not have lent his name unless he was sympathetic and friendly to such ideology. Is Franks just dumb and negligent? If so, how did he become a General? Well, in Fiasco, military insiders say he is dumb and negligent, but with a tinge that favors Neocon/Zionist civilian policy makers.
4) I am defending my position that the Israeli sniping incident can not be defended on the basis that Israel would not do anything against American interests, based on fear of repercussions. It is not in Israel's interest to kill American soldiers, but it is in their interest to keep the insurrection alive, because Israel wants a permanent and significant US troop presence in the Middle East.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 2:23pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 2:23pm </i>
(1) OK, so Israel is in Iraq. The next part of the question, then, is what Israel is currently doing. You've said you don't think they're sniping US soldiers. All right; so if they're deviating from US interests in Iraq (i.e. doing something other than steadily fighting the insurgency), in what respect are they deviating from US interests in Iraq? Put another way...what is it they are doing that deviates from US interests in Iraq?
(2) Basic premise...fine. Specific implementation...blatantly unwarranted. You have still provided NO BASIS to believe that AIPAC has pulled strings in the spy case. All you have there are assertions and blind speculation.
(3) I'm hoping this means you've kicked the "also, he has Jewish blood so we should worry" nonsense. On the organization...if he thought the group helped wounded veterans, and he turned out to be wrong, there's nothing uncouth about it; since when do you have to agree with everything a founder believes if you think the group helps veterans? Were all the contributors to Madoff dumb? And since when did being a General give you in-depth understanding of a financial swindle?
On the "military insiders" thing, what does a "twinge that favors Neocon/Zionist civilian policy makers" even mean? He goes to bat for conservatives? And if he supports them...so what? One really conservative guy does not a conspiracy make.
(4) See (1). Are you saying Israel is actively helping the insurrection? If so, what in the world makes you think the US would either not know about it or freely tolerate it?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thrawn.....did you read Sy Hersh's piece about Israel arming and supporting Kurdish guerillas in northern Iraq who cross into Iran to attack? What about Israel in Afghanistan arming and supporting Baluchistan separatists fomenting trouble for Iran at its southeastern border?
So, provoking Iran is part of US policy in Iraq? I don't think so. I thought we were supposed to be making overtures to Iran about helping with stabilization in Iraq and helping to fight and contain Taliban in Afghanistan?
Is issue of Jewish had to do with the rense.com article which asserted that Franks was a Zionist Jew. The purpose here was to try to factually verify what was asserted in the rense.com article. It appears that that assertion is correct.
So you've got no problem with a General who is paid handsomely in retirement making a little extra money ($100,000) on the side by allowing his Zionist buddy to use his name for a fraudulent charity? So you think Franks is like a movie star or athlete - he can use his former military status as a commercial endorsement? Whew man, who was your mama? She sure didn't impart a moral compass in you.
Franks has access to security information US citizens anytime he wants to, and there was plenty of advanced intel on Chapin that should have guided his decision making. Franks thought he could get away with it. What Chapin did with money was to support his lavish lifestyle and I am betting, that he made a few contributions to causes that he really supports like Zionist causes. Chapin obviously doesn't support our war veterans - like so many of our Neocon/Zionist policy makers who just consider our soldiers to be tools of the trade.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 5:25pm
continued:
Your statement about the US not knowing should be self evident. We don't know what the hell we are doing! That is why we are there. Furthermore, I previously posited the Pat Tillman story and I'll remind you about the story about Jessica Lynch as well. You think if Israel solidiers took down an American soldier it would make the press through normal channels? Baloney.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 5:29pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 5:25pm </i>
First, on Franks. He has access to security information on US citizens anytime he wants it? What? First off, he worked with the Army, not with the CIA. Second, I'm not even sure the CIA has that, particularly since the information you describe would probably be in the hands of the FBI. The assumption that he could get it is a bit of a stretch. You still have no grounds to assert that he knew what that charity was.
Second, on Israel. To start off, Israel's opposition to Iran actually hurts your case because if Israel actually controlled our policy, you would expect us to have at least some likelihood of attacking Iran. Clearly that isn't the case. Moreover, if all you're saying is that Israel is helping people go after Iran, I'm not entirely sure I disagree with you in that this might not be entirely consonant with US interests. So long as you're not saying that Israel is actually shooting at US soldiers, this seems to rob your argument of most of its impact.
Finally, if Israel's soldiers took down an American soldiers, would it make the press through normal channels? Maybe not, but you better believe the government would raise hell to Israel about it. Especially if it was intentional rather than an incidental effect. No way that would induce us to stay.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 10:30pm