What to do about ISIL/ISIS? [Archive]

Valley Oak

09-11-2014, 12:57 PM

Obama responded properly and accurately. I support his decision to destroy ISIS.

There is now the question of what to do afterwards, if afterwards ever comes. (There is a possibility that ISIS will only spread.) It's called the "end game." The end game is what McCain is trying to flog the Obama admin about regarding Iraq and ISIS. But what McCain refuses to admit (because he is not terribly smart and not terribly honest either) is that the American pull out of the US Armed Forces from Iraq was an agreement between the Iraqi government and the US government under Bush II. Furthermore, the pull out also respected the will of the American people, who also wanted the US the hell out of there.

But now we have ISIS. And as is always the case, it's the President's fault if it rains when it there should be sunshine. There should have been sunshine but the rain of ISIS appeared. That's just messed up. And it forces us to go back in because if we don't, the regional conflict will get far worse, quite possibly provoking an international war that could drag in Iran, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan, and in the worst case scenario, now that they are pissed off over Ukraine, the Russians, and who knows, maybe even China to some extent. It doesn't take too much to see where the lines will be drawn here. My only question is where Egypt would fall into place. My expectation and hope would be on the same side as Israel and the US.

Unlike with President Cheney and puppet Bush II, there is not only a legitimate reason for the US to go into the Middle East again, there are obvious and previously mentioned reasons that COMPEL us to go back into that stinky, venomous snake pit. We don't have a choice. We must go back in. Additionally, thanks to Cheney and company, we also have a logical and moral obligation to continue taking care of a massive regional crisis that the US started to begin with. (Remember that we invaded Iraq back in the early 1990s under papa Bush, Bush I.)

Furthermore, back in 1953, the US and the UK overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, because he nationalized the UK's petroleum interests by expropriating British Petroleum's property and crude oil possessions in all of Iran, which were substantial. And for the record, Mosaddegh did the right thing. It was the US and the UK who behaved VERY inappropriately by overthrowing a democratically elected government, which eventually culminated in all of this incessant filth.

I quote Wikipedia:
"Mohammad Mosaddegh, (16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was an Iranian Politician. He was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA.[4][5]

An author, administrator, lawyer, prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of progressive social and political reforms such as social security, rent control, and land reforms.[6] His government's most notable policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC / AIOC) (later British Petroleum or BP).[7]

Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of MI6, which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.[8]

While the coup is commonly referred to as Operation Ajax[9] after its CIA cryptonym, in Iran it is referred to as the 28 Mordad 1332 coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[10] Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, then put under house arrest until his death and was buried in his own home so as to prevent a political furor."

So, you can see for yourselves, folks, that the West has been fucking big time with the Middle East for a very, very, very loooong time. All of the bloody, gargantuan messes over there are our fault. It is our moral obligation to help clean it up. And, no, ignoring ISIS and leaving a devastated and impoverished region (because of us) is NOT an option. We have to accept responsibility and the costs, both in American lives and money--a lot of it.

wisewomn

09-11-2014, 06:44 PM

Here's another option, sent by a friend today:

<tbody>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzKZ1Tgr6dMHundreds of thousands dead. Millions displaced. The needs of a generation traded for massive investments in a global war on terror. Today, as we remember the victims of 9/11, we also remember the victims of the 13 years of war that followed.

What have we gained from these losses? Are the lives of Afghans and Iraqis better? Is the threat of violent extremism reduced? Is the Middle East more stable and prosperous?

Military approaches don’t work. Yet today, driven by fear, support for war is once again rising on the belief that violence can end violence.

There was no question in 2001 that the acts carried out on 9/11 were deplorable. There was no question that the Taliban was a cruel regime, or that Saddam Hussein was an authoritarian leader.

But the choice we made as a country and a global community—to use military means to “solve” these wrongs—has not worked.

There is no question that ISIS is a violent group, committing gross human rights abuses in Syria and Iraq. And there is no question that military action will perpetuate a devastating cycle of violence.

We can’t bomb Iraq and Syria into moderation. We can’t bomb them into stability. We can’t arm different factions to fight their way to peace.

Viable alternatives to violence exist. Sustained and transparent support for badly needed economic, political, and social changes are a start.

But before we can address the root causes of war, we need to stop feeding the cycle of violence. That means not only stopping direct U.S. military action, but also suspending all training, arming, and financing of government and non-government factions in Iraq and Syria.

We need to turn back to the global community—not to authorize another war through the UN, but to demand an end to all influx of weapons on all sides of these conflicts.

Tell your elected officials to stand strong in opposing U.S. military action in Iraq and Syria. (https://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50601/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=14800)Now is the time to dedicate adequate funding to developing non-military, multilateral approaches to building peace and preventing atrocities globally.

In Peace,

Peter Lems and Mary Zerkel

P.S. Alternatives to military action were the focus of Monday’s video briefing, see the attached video “Iraq and Syria: What next?”

</tbody>

American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
https://afsc.org

BobHeisler

09-12-2014, 05:10 PM

I didn't listen to Obama's speech, but I support the extermination of all ISIS members. When even Al Qaeda thinks these beings are crazy MF's, that's a good sign that the world has to be rid of these psycho- and sociopaths.

arthunter

09-12-2014, 10:27 PM

Another point of view ...

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2014/september/10/dennis-kucinich-us-lying-and-manipulating-fear-to-justify-war-on-isis.aspx

phredo

09-12-2014, 10:54 PM

Hooray more war, armaments manufacturers will be so glad. Somewhere I read " Violence is the last resort of the Incompetent"

Putin said recently:
Everything the U.S. touches turns into Libya or Iraq.

Just as true today as when Martin King spoke it in 1967,
"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."
-speech about Vietnam war on April 4, 1967 at Riverside Church, New York City

I think one will judge the actions the US is contemplating according to whether one believes or not in the essential goodwill of the US towards that part of the world. In my own opinion, there is very little evidence of such goodwill; on the contrary, I think the US is doing its utmost to fragment the Arab counties and destroy Arabic society. Seen that way, this latest adventure is just a new way to bring trouble to Iraq and find a really sneaky and clever way to step up attacks on Syria. It would take a lot of space to lay out my full thinking on the subject, so instead here are some recent articles and interviews that oppose the US position.

Medea Benjamin on today's "Democracy Now": https://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/12/insanity_codepinks_medea_benjamin_on_obama

Robert Parry
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/12/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan

(https://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/12/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan)(As is true in many articles on Common Dreams, the comments beneath the article are often the best part. I always sort them from "oldest first".)

Funny how videos of two guys getting beheaded have Americans up in arms but barely a squeak when Chelsea Manning released the video of American helicopters gunning down civilians and journalists in the street and then shooting the emergency workers come to help the wounded, while the pilots laughed and hooted. Obama says ISIS is too brutal but that seems like a matter of opinion. We easily forget our atrocities but they don't. Tit for tat. With over a million casualties in Iraq caused by the US I think we have taken "atrocities" to a new level.

-comment found in another article on Common Dreams

Alex

09-12-2014, 11:12 PM

Of course 'ISIL/ISIS' is just another CIA created and named so called terrorist group. This is business as usual.

With so much deception and media propaganda history to now learn from, it's scary to me that people are still willing to discuss the presidential puppet's carefully crafted lies and/or mainstream media's conscienceless manipulative reporting seriously and face value.

It takes a bit of time, effort and discernment, but with the internet, is there really any more excuse for ignorance? Why isn't anyone not caring to learn from the past not also a part of the problem? It sure feels like supporting liars lying in your name makes your soul partly responsible for the massive deaths of the innocent men, women and children who die because of it. True or not I refuse to do it.

Being 'conscious' to me instead would be to discuss the factors of who created ISIS by giving them the funds, equipment and arena - and probably a few agents provocateur to stir them up emotionally and why, and spreading awareness of this very repetitive American military scenario obviously happening again rather than sheepily going along with either the 'killing for that country's good' or the 'good of American freedom' trap again.

The usual scenario:

1. Create a problem by false flag or by arming and funding extremists to take down an opponent by proxy.

2. Incite a reaction from the public by demanding something be done about the bad guys the American military complex put into power.

3. Declare that the only solution to help whoever or protect American freedom and liberties involves a military invasion.

Even by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of world manipulative CIA or Military Industrial Complex covert operations and whitewashed by the many media infiltration/control mechanisms that were set in place including:
Operation Mockingbird, MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Operation Phoenix, Operation Northwoods, Iran/Contra, Al Queda, Operation Condor, Operation Chaos, countless documented violent overthrows of leaders.... Before the CIA in 1947 there was Operation Paperclip, oh and let's not forget that Prescott Bush funded Hitler.....

OF COURSE the president and media are lying now too.
War is only about power, making money, manipulation and control.
You are never told the whole truth. NEVER.
Time to stop forming opinions on what liars tell you.
If we don't grow up and learn from mistakes we'll deserve what we lose.

CSummer

09-13-2014, 02:58 AM

Any opinion based on the picture presented by "official sources" is likely to be misguided, as this picture is likely not a true or complete one. It is well known that official views are promulgated to "manufacture consent," i.e., to get the public to go along with what those in high office want to do. Their values and priorities are not mine and I place little credibility on what they say. War does not lead to peace until all the players are dead. It does, however, make large profits for those in the arms industries.

At some point, we need to stop believing a government that lies and misleads the public - sometimes at great harm or cost to citizens in this and other countries. I seek my information from those who care about their fellow humans rather than from those who care about the approval and support of the ultra-rich and powerful.

CSummer

theindependenteye

09-13-2014, 08:52 AM

jbox

09-13-2014, 09:39 AM

Obama responded properly and accurately. I support his decision to destroy ISIS....

Edward,

I fear you have fallen for the same old warmed over baloney served up to the American public over and over again since the days of Hearst and the Spanish-American war. Now you and the rest of the public are falling prey to the fear and hate propaganda as you goose-step into line with the silent majority. First of all, do you really feel threatened by ISIS? Second, haven't we learned our lesson to just stay out of the Middle East militarily? Third, what right do we have to insert ourselves in to the affairs of foreign nations and cultures? Fourth, why not let the countries in the region take care of ISIS if it is such a bad thing?

Why should we do all the dirty work for Saudi Arabia. Iraq, Syria, and Israel? Don't they have enough military might (suppied by Uncle Sam, of course)? What right do we have to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations and different cultures? A moral right? I think not.

Perhaps you still haven't learned the lesson of our military adventures over the last 13 years. Let me summarize it: An entire generation of young Muslims have learned to hate the US, trillions of dollars wasted on absolutely nothing, thousands of lives lost (just American, tens of thousands of local people killed), thousands of shattered lives and families, huge budget deficits, an erosion of trust in our government as an institution by both the Americn people and others around the world.

My attitude is simply this: Mind our own business.

Alex

09-13-2014, 05:38 PM

>>>Of course 'ISIL/ISIS' is just another CIA created and named so called terrorist group. This is business as usual.

How do you know that with such certainty?

I grant you that the CIA is often vile. That said, it feels to me like a weird variant of American Exceptionalism to ascribe *every* evil gopher who pops up in the world to American connivance? Can no foreigner be evil without the brilliant leadership of our agencies?

-Conrad

I didn't say 'every' but this is one of the more obvious ones. I know because I've done my homework and sometimes now the tipping point from wondering to knowing goes quickly. But I also know I can't condense 20+ years of the preponderance of evidence that got me here thru mountains of books, articles, interviews, discussions and the cross referencing of countless aspects of military/governmental history, agendas, weaponry, benefits/money, corporations involvement, players, plus the constant mind blowing rapid technological advances I've learned about into any simplistic answer that would be convincing to you.

I can only say, I am so not alone. There has now long been a massive and growing number of people doing the very deep digging on the very wide ranging aspects of controversial and non-mainstream subjects, constantly sorting the info/disinfo, and constantly discussing it all. A huge global community now exists who have gravitated to the same research and now view world events through a pretty similarly shared revised set of foundational truths which keep proving accurate and getting reinforced. It's also a never ending job of reassessing what/who to trust or not.

By the way, I said CIA to keep it simple, but I really meant plus who knows what other of the many factions of the military industrial complex, and it's frequently worthwhile to look out for any Mossad/Israeli complicity with the US too.

I do this both because it's fascinating and ultimately leads to all the big questions about human existence, but also because I hate being lied to or perpetuating lies, and the so called rabbit hole/trail of lies keeps getting deeper and deeper. For me it also feels like cleaning self to get rid of as many illusions as possible this lifetime.

Valley Oak

09-13-2014, 06:51 PM

The following video was published by The New York Times on September 3, 2014:

Escaping Death in Northern Iraq
(https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/middleeast/surviving-isis-massacre-iraq-video.html?_r=1)
28094 (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/middleeast/surviving-isis-massacre-iraq-video.html?_r=1)

theindependenteye

09-13-2014, 08:31 PM

>>>I know because I've done my homework and sometimes now the tipping point from wondering to knowing goes quickly. But I also know I can't condense 20+ years of the preponderance of evidence that got me here. . . into any simplistic answer that would be convincing to you. I can only say, I am so not alone. There has now long been a massive and growing number of people doing the very deep digging ...

You may be correct. Quite true, there's a huge pile of hard evidence and a lot of well-founded grounds of suspiciion of past shit. I'm only questioning the *certainty* of this assertion. A twenty-year record of robbing banks won't convict a bank robber of *this* bank robbery unless there's actual forensic evidence of it, and massive numbers of people convinced of his guilt isn't that. Thomas Aquinas spun out some brilliant theological arguments that have convinced many generations, but I don't think he could convict Satan in a secular court of law.

I can entertain the distinct possibility that what you say is true. But until the same flood of hard evidence emerges here as with the Allende coup, I see it only as speculation. Even taking it as fact, where does that lead us in terms of the original question: what to do or not do from this point on? If it's our monster, as you suggest, do we let it run wild? I confess I have no idea.

Cheers—
Conrad

jbox

09-13-2014, 08:58 PM

The following video was published by The New York Times on September 3, 2014:

Escaping Death in Northern Iraq
(https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/04/world/middleeast/surviving-isis-massacre-iraq-video.html?_r=1)
If true, a heartbreaking story. But Edward, this is just nor our fight any more. We need to let the Iraqis mind their own business, and we need to mind ours.

comodin

09-14-2014, 09:11 AM

It is very difficult for any of us civilians to understand what to do about this. I believe that the US has always been a militaristic empire, and our number one industry is making war. Perhaps the Native people here could speak to this. Also, read David Icke..."problem, reaction, solution")

theindependenteye

09-14-2014, 09:23 AM

This week the Damned Fool inflicts his wisdom on the Middle East. He writes:

When there’s big ugly world crises, the best way to gain perspective is go to a bar. Not the ones where you might get slugged, but the ones with free pretzels or popcorn.

So what do we do about the Mideast fanatics that cut off people’s heads? They might all come back here and blow up our way of life. Plus they’re snotty.

There were lots of opinions at Smoky’s on Friday night. By Monday it might all change.

Ralph said we need to do more. More what? Just more.

Sharleen said just get the hell out and get all the Americans out except the ones that want their heads cut off for democracy and let it go at that.

Ed said bomb everything that moves, all over the place.

Miguel said whatever the President does he’s for it because it won’t work so we’ll know who to blame.

Darrell said we need to address the underlying causes by stopping oil. Park all our cars and ride bikes and bring the Arabs to their knees.

Flo said what if there was a time machine which maybe Apple or Google could do and go back in time and maybe like win the Crusades.

Carmella said the Communists are still out there, don’t think they aren’t!

Buddy counseled a very carefully calculated strategy.

Bette asked what about Scotland?

Some guy I don’t know laid out the case for America conquering the world, which would stop them pulling all this shit and also create a lot of jobs.

It went on like that till everybody was too drunk to talk, except Vernon who only drinks club soda and rambles on about the Dodgers.

(from DamnedFool.com - Bishop & Fuller)

podfish

09-15-2014, 09:35 AM

I believe that the US has always been a militaristic empire, and our number one industry is making war. Perhaps the Native people here could speak to this.the Native people's militaristic empires have been gone for more than a century. I don't know that their experiences in that realm are relevant to us anymore.

or is that not what you meant??

BobHeisler

09-15-2014, 10:31 AM

To all those stating that the U.S. should stay on the sidelines and do nothing about ISIS, would that have been your strategy in the 1940's when Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, untold numbers of Poles, gypsies and priests, embarking on a mission to over-run Europe and the rest of the civilized world?

I don't think the U.S. should be left to fight this battle single-handedly, but should be part of an international coalition of nations bent on fighting a common, tangible enemy.

arthunter

09-15-2014, 11:07 AM

This is a difficult problem and I don't underestimate the danger of the situation ... however, recently C-Span aired a revealing interview concerning 9/11 ... also, many Americans, including many members of this group are openly discussing " false flag" events, which points to almost radical changes in opinion and knowledge ...

If 9/11 was indeed a false flag event to get us into a war in the Middle East then thousands of innocent citizens were murdered when, in reality, the "War on Terror" was fabricated ... we can not, in my opinion, repeat these mistakes ...

I'm amazed that on one hand, it seems that every form of communication around the world is being monitored and catalogued ... US operatives and bases in every country ... etc, etc ... and yet we can't seem to catch and identify the bad guys without involving massive military strikes which wipe out thousands of innocent citizens at the same time ...

I thought that we were better then that ...

Alex

09-15-2014, 11:09 AM

Quite true, there's a huge pile of hard evidence and a lot of well-founded grounds of suspiciion of past shit. I'm only questioning the *certainty* of this assertion. .....

I bet you can think of instances in your life where due to your knowledge and experience were absolutely certain about something someone else was not sure of. My unhesitant certainty is just education.

I see this difference in our perspectives inside the phrasing of your questions:

....Even taking it as fact, where does that lead us in terms of the original question: what to do or not do from this point on? If it's our monster, as you suggest, do we let it run wild? I confess I have no idea.

The USA does not need to choose what to do or not in response, it is the doer. The monster does not have the potential to run wild, we ARE the monster in control of it's limits. The course is scripted to a T... except for the people having dinner, weddings or strolling down the street who happen to get in the way and get blown up.

It's comforting to believe another good guys getting the bad guys cartoon with a catchy name when you have no idea of the level of sophistication and technology, long term agenda and public deception tools of the military industrial complex. There are mountains of proof to find, (the psyche and weaponry technology is especially mind-blowing), but this mountain just makes you realize that what remains hidden is many times even more advanced, scripted and has ZERO to do with being a good guy.

What do you think public reaction would be to Obama saying: "Ladies and Gentlemen, I am announcing the next phase of our infiltration into and destruction of Middle East stability. We have created another enemy under our control and told our impressionable young soldiers that killing these other impressionable soldiers is protecting American Freedom, but we really could care less who from either side die or are ruined. Our elite however, are safe behind closed doors and will be enjoying the benefits and resources of the greater control of these foreign lands to make us even more powerful."

Unhesitant certainty.

Here's someplace to start, get clues, add your discernment.
The Covert Origins of ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI

Valley Oak

09-15-2014, 05:10 PM

The following article was published by the Huffington Post on September 9, 2014:

ISIS Is Attacking Women, And Nobody Is Talking About It (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/isis-attacks-on-women_n_5775106.html?cps=gravity)

"They usually take the older women to a makeshift slave market and try and sell them. The younger girls, basically they ... are raped or married off to fighters," Esfandiari said. "It's based on temporary marriages, and once these fighters have had sex with these young girls, they just pass them on to other fighters."

"[From] the abduction to turning them into slaves, to forcing them into forced marriages, to abandoning them in certain towns. These women who have been raped become pregnant, they give birth to babies, children are ostracized..."

Please watch the video provided in the article above by clicking here. (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/isis-attacks-on-women_n_5775106.html?cps=gravity)

Pic 1: Man holds his daughter's headless body, decapitated by ISIS for belonging to a Christian family.
Pic 2: ISIS Islamists killing a woman by slitting her throat and capturing her blood in a bowl.

podfish

09-15-2014, 05:32 PM

I bet you can think of instances in your life where due to your knowledge and experience (you) were absolutely certain about something someone else was not sure of. My unhesitant certainty is just education.sorry, but I don't recognize that definition of education. I can think of many instances in my life where due to my knowledge and education I'm pretty much certain that someone else is wrong. My education has taught me that absolute certainly is rarely warranted. It's way too easy to take bits and pieces that seem to be true, weave them together with some plausible glue and treat the whole bundle as fact.

That's pretty much how your theory sounds. Al-Masri likely interacted with western intelligence operatives as he rose to a leadership position in the jihadi movement. The role of the west in shaping the modern Middle Eastern nations is pretty incontrovertible. The role of the military-industrial complex has been so obvious for so long that even Eisenhower warned about it - though it's difficult to prove it functions as a single entity, rather than a loose association of corporations and bureaucracies with similar goals.

But the leap from accepting those premises as 'facts' to knowing absolutely that ISIL is a CIA-controlled operation isn't very defensible. It's an inference that only works if you believe in smoothly functioning straightforward conspiracies. The correct analogy to the Middle East turmoil is an anthill, not a clock. No designer weaves these threads together into a clear plan; instead it's a heap of independent entities pursuing individual goals. That's the lesson of history that I got from my education, anyway.
(does a clock have threads?? damn, it doesn't....)

theindependenteye

09-15-2014, 06:55 PM

Here's someplace to start, get clues, add your discernment.
The Covert Origins of ISIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMjXbuj7BPI

So I watched the video. It makes lots of associations, e.g. Obama likes Brzynski, Brzynski did stupid things in Pakisan, therefore we’re funding ISIS. We supported the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan, therefore we must be supporting ISIS. ISIS captured US-supplied weapons, therefore we were happy they did. A rebel commander supports Sharia law, therefore he's indistinguishable from rabid terrorists. More complex than that, certainly, but I didn’t hear anything in 22 minutes that directly connects the US with intentionally creating/funding ISIS. Though I’d certainly agree with the broad assertion that our Mideast policies have led to it, along with countless other factors, dating back to post-WWi partitions of the Ottoman.

Is the idea that we intentionally created this monstrosity in order to sell weapons to everyone? Or to keep the Mideast destabilized? Or to promote a continuation of US involvement? Or that we just fucked up and this is the consequence? Except for the last, that would go toward the interest of arms manufacturers but very much against the interests of Big Oil, I’d think, which wants to see the stability that allows making a ton of money. I suppose at least it'd be comforting to know they don't have the last word.

Finally, the video suggests the solution is to withhold all support from Syrian rebels and to send material support to the Assad regime. Presumably, the popular uprisings in Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain were pretty much US-inspired? And the best answer to what we do now is “Nothing.” Withdraw all support from anyone (except Assad) and the problems will disappear? That’s optimistic, certainly. I wish I were sufficiently educated to believe it.

We both do share a heavy heart with all this. Que sera, sera.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

podfish

09-15-2014, 07:51 PM

ISIS Is Attacking Women, And Nobody Is Talking About It (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/isis-attacks-on-women_n_5775106.html?cps=gravity)
I don't think it's really "nobody". There's been publicity about this group for years. For some weird reason it seems that video is suddenly even more of an influencer than it has been. Until there was video of Ray Rice actually swinging at his fiance, reaction was muted - even though there was video of him dragging her out of the elevator. And somehow, even though ISIL has been slaughtering people like livestock (not a figurative analogy, either) for a long time, the decapitation videos of three people made it urgent. I mean, I do remember the Maine and all, but really?? it's this dramatic a difference in public opinion - kind of a "nothing new to see here" before, and "oh my god!!! do something, anything!!!" after?

Valley Oak

09-15-2014, 08:30 PM

I would like to know why my photos were taken down. People need to see the ugly truth; otherwise they will simply continue with their diatribe and ignorance.

Edward

...
Pic 1: Man holds his daughter's headless body, decapitated by ISIS for belonging to a Christian family.
Pic 2: ISIS Islamists killing a woman by slitting her throat and capturing her blood in a bowl.

Barry

09-15-2014, 08:40 PM

I'm sorry but the pictures were disturbing enough that people who do not knowingly choose to see them should not be subjected to them. People have a right to determine what they want to be exposed to. You are welcome to edit in a link to where the pictures can be found.

Barry
Moderator

I would like to know why my photos were taken down. People need to see the ugly truth; otherwise they will simply continue with their diatribe and ignorance.

Edward

Alex

09-17-2014, 12:13 AM

To podfish and independenteye,
I really do appreciate the level and fair discourse from both of you and carefully read your responses.

podfish, I don't at all disagree with your logic in response to the way my use of the word education came off and what you thought I meant. I had to leave out a ton of things I wish I could have added and I tried to lump them all into saying I had accumulated a bigger education that I could write. Independenteye, thank you for taking the time to analyze that video and point out all the complexities and questions, and seemingly understand that I really did mean look for clues, not suggesting it was gospel, I don't think any source is.

I just feel so inadequate to be comprehensive enough to be clear in these short online discussions about very complex things. Then when you try to keep it simple, you attract an argument from those who know how not simple it is.

You bet it's not simple and for example, I suspect that one of the most crucial and unexplainable factors is the psychic weaponry. Meaning, it may be pretty confirmable that the CIA trained and armed Al Queda, which then morphed into ISIL/ISIS seemingly appearing out of nowhere huge, methodical and well supplied... But in terms of my 'CIA did it' statement, I didn't say I also meant that the ongoing/further control likely has factors of psychic weaponry. The rebels think they broke away but can still be individually monitored, directed and controlled. This is still just one of many other big not-simple factors.

I recently ran across something I saved a while ago. This was publicly stated 16 years ago by the Secretary of Defense but I'm aware it had already been perfected by then. I've heard of way more advanced stuff than this and probably don't have clue what they have now. You bet they're using it:

"One can envision the development of electromagnetic energy sources, the output of which can be pulsed, shaped, and focused, that can couple with the human body in a fashion that will allow one to prevent voluntary muscular movements, control emotions (and thus actions), produce sleep, transmit suggestions, interfere with both short-term and long-term memory, produce an experience set, and delete an experience set. It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, Defense Viewpoint, December 1, 1998
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century

Welcome to Star Wars level warfare.

podfish

09-17-2014, 06:50 AM

... , I suspect that one of the most crucial and unexplainable factors is the psychic weaponry. Meaning, it may be pretty confirmable that the CIA trained and armed Al Queda, which then morphed into ISIL/ISIS seemingly appearing out of nowhere huge, methodical and well supplied... But in terms of my 'CIA did it' statement, I didn't say I also meant that the ongoing/further control likely has factors of psychic weaponry.I'm still taking issue with reality vs. perception here. I get an implication that you think AQ is a creature of the CIA in the way that the monster was of Frankenstein. I don't think that's true, myself. I think the CIA weasels itself into pre-existing groups far more often, and does what it can to shape their goals. There's no shortage of candidate groups in the world, all eager to exploit the CIA and shape the CIA's goals to serve their own ends.
Also, the cliche of "overnight success after 30 years in the business" comes to mind. They only seem to come from no-where because we aren't omniscient, especially from this distance (physically and culturally).

"One can envision the development of electromagnetic energy sources, the output of which can be pulsed, shaped, and focused, ...
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, ...Welcome to Star Wars level warfare.I wouldn't be holding the door open for them. I can envision lots of things too, but don't bet on them being available anytime soon. I've worked with too many things that, for about fifty years now, have been two to five years away.

arthunter

09-17-2014, 09:55 AM

Podfish,

This technology has been around for a long time and it was used during the Iraq war ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

I'm still taking issue with reality vs. perception here. I get an implication that you think AQ is a creature of the CIA in the way that the monster was of Frankenstein. I don't think that's true, myself. I think the CIA weasels itself into pre-existing groups far more often, and does what it can to shape their goals. There's no shortage of candidate groups in the world, all eager to exploit the CIA and shape the CIA's goals to serve their own ends.
Also, the cliche of "overnight success after 30 years in the business" comes to mind. They only seem to come from no-where because we aren't omniscient, especially from this distance (physically and culturally).

I wouldn't be holding the door open for them. I can envision lots of things too, but don't bet on them being available anytime soon. I've worked with too many things that, for about fifty years now, have been two to five years away.

podfish

09-17-2014, 10:46 AM

Podfish,

This technology has been around for a long time and it was used during the Iraq war ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapona far cry from the claimed mind control beams. Those are the equivalent to firehoses, not surgical tools. And the effectiveness of even those is questionable, as well. There's a reason they're not all that widely used, despite their being touted as perfect tools for crowd dispersal.

I know there's a vibrant community of people who believe it's here and in frequent use, but all the evidence I've ever seen is either personal testimonial that seems awfully subjective, or comes from someone claiming inside knowledge of secret programs. There never seems to be objective, independently and widely verifiable proof that can't be otherwise interpreted.

Alex

09-24-2014, 11:34 AM

Ranking Member of Foreign Relations Committee grills Kerry September 17 on the Senate Floor
Sen. Bob Corker: "Worst judgement possible", and on moving ahead on flimsy premise w/o Senate approval..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUwMv1Snri0

-CORKER: "What Arab/Sunni country is going to be flying in and bombing and doing missle raids with an Arab insignia on the side?"
-KERRY: "Senator you will hear that at the appropriate time....as the team works with all these countries...".
-CORKER: "So we are going to have Arab/Sunni countries participating in the ground effort in Syria?"
-KERRY: "No, I didn't say ground effort."

Kerry further responds with evasive, grandiose, alluded to claims of supposed need of the US to be there with the implied support from other countries, and admits nobody is attacking ISIS but the US.... and that it is 'understood' the process to eliminate ISIS could take even 10 years.

arthunter

09-25-2014, 12:36 AM

a good read ...

https://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/world-buzzing-in-aftermath-of-isis-psyop.html

theindependenteye

09-25-2014, 01:29 PM

>>>a good read ... https://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/world-buzzing-in-aftermath-of-isis-psyop.html

The message being basically to wake up and take a stand against governmental psyop plots. Not sure how to do that, but it's a good idea. What I'm curious about, though, is a term I haven't heard before: "Zionist globalists." Is this about undue Israeli influence on US policy? International finance? The Elders of Zion? Any clues?

-Conrad

podfish

09-25-2014, 02:01 PM

"Zionist globalists."Palestine just isn't enough.

arthunter

09-25-2014, 07:02 PM

A very good question… it's extremely important to protect the good hearted, spiritual Jews by understanding the difference between Judaism and Zionism. I took part in a local Jewish celebration and felt nothing but warmth and peace at that event … Below you'll find a very good explanation of the two …

Regarding the use of psyops in our world, awareness is an important first step …disinformation is often used to persecute and murder innocent people, in fact it's become an epidemic in our world … just look at the state of the media and the silencing of journalists and whistle-blowers … there is a war on truth in this country so we all need to stay vigilant and do research …

https://www.nkusa.org/activities/speeches/li011401.cfm%20

>>>a good read ... https://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/world-buzzing-in-aftermath-of-isis-psyop.html

The message being basically to wake up and take a stand against governmental psyop plots. Not sure how to do that, but it's a good idea. What I'm curious about, though, is a term I haven't heard before: "Zionist globalists." Is this about undue Israeli influence on US policy? International finance? The Elders of Zion? Any clues?

-Conrad

theindependenteye

09-26-2014, 01:40 PM

>>>It's extremely important to protect the good hearted, spiritual Jews by understanding the difference between Judaism and Zionism. I took part in a local Jewish celebration and felt nothing but warmth and peace at that event … Below you'll find a very good explanation of the two … <https://www.nkusa.org/activities/speeches/li011401.cfm%20>

I'm quite aware that Judaism and Zionism are distinct entities, also that within the very broad realm of Judaism are radically different opinions about current Israeli policies. The article you cite is interesting, though, in being from an extremely fundamentalist rabbi who makes a case for Zionism being utterly anti-Jewish:

"In the nineteenth century many segments of European society began to throw off the yoke of heaven. Assorted heretical movements grew up, which attracted both Jew and Gentile. Communism, evolutionism, Bible criticism, assorted forms of religious and secular liberalism, the Jewish Reform movements and scores of others, lured millions away from G-d and His law."

He argues that the destruction of the 2nd temple and the Jewish diaspora were God's punishment for the Jews' sins, and that attempting to undo that punishment by returning to Palestine before the Messiah comes is directly contravening the Torah and the Divine. So too, presumably, are such evils as evolutionism, Biblical scholarship, liberalism, and Reform Judaism.

I'm always fascinated to see the many ways people think, though I'm not sure the writer is the best example of the good-hearted, spiritual Jews cited at the outset.

Cheers--
Conrad

arthunter

09-26-2014, 02:22 PM

Conrad,

Though it is an easy task to pick apart any description of Judaism ( or any other philosophy ), I think that the main points here are overwhelming ... Judaism embraces spirituality and brotherly love whereas Zionism does not ... this is the reason for the divisions in Israel right now concerning the attacks on Gaza ... these attacks go against the spiritual teachings of many Jews who are based in kindness and service to mankind, i.e. the Jewish Free Clinic .... https://jewishfreeclinic.org/ ... and I could post other links to this practiced philosophy ...

Many people on earth believe that the globalist Zionists are hiding behind the Jews to accomplish their murders and theft of resources around the world ... if this is true then the Jews are once again victims of this agenda because it appears that this bloodshed is being done in their name, and it isn't ... most Americans will relate to this as we watch our military in constant wars which are questionable ...

Here's another opinion ...

https://chasvoice.blogspot.com/2012/03/difference-between-judaism-and-zionism.html

<http: www.nkusa.org="" activities="" speeches="" li011401.cfm%20="">I'm quite aware that Judaism and Zionism are distinct entities, also that within the very broad realm of Judaism are radically different opinions about current Israeli policies. ...

</http:>

podfish

09-26-2014, 02:43 PM

... Judaism embraces spirituality and brotherly love whereas Zionism does not ...how 'bout "Judaism is a religion (thus concerned with spirituality and brotherly love) while Zionism is a political movement (and thus not so much)".

Not all Christians were crusaders, not all Moslems are jihadis, not all Jews are Zionists. Not all C of E members ate Irish babies. People with shallow understanding of the other cultures and religions do seem to fall into conflating religion/ethnicity/culture/politics so they have a simpler 'other' to reference. Only members of any given group have a firm grasp on their distinguishing characteristics.

But the idea that Zionists are hiding behind Jews is kind of weird. Zionists aren't known for hiding their intentions. They (insofar as there's a single "they", which there isn't, really) also don't pretend all Jews are Zionists. And Zionists are concerned with Zion. Tarring that whole movement by claiming they're really trying to take over the world is silly; some people who DO want to take over the whole world may be Zionists too, but they may also be vegetarians. There really is no connection. You are seeing propaganda that has usually been used to promote anti-semitism, not anti-zionistism, by masking the connection so as to appeal to people who would never willingly be anti-semitic or racist. It's pretty common to have a token reference to the mythical "good Jew" or "good Negro" or "good (member of group we're attacking)" worked in to such propaganda, just so there can be a claim that it's the sin we're attacking, not the sinner.

arthunter

09-26-2014, 03:55 PM

Podfish,

It's the Jews themselves pointing the finger at Zionism ... it can hardly be called anti-semetic ....

https://www.nkusa.org/

and not all Zionists are involved ....

how 'bout "Judaism is a religion (thus concerned with spirituality and brotherly love) while Zionism is a political movement (and thus not so much)"....

Valley Oak

09-26-2014, 06:13 PM

This thread has drifted COMPLETELY from its origins and the subject heading.

podfish

09-26-2014, 06:34 PM

It's the Jews themselves pointing the finger at Zionism ... it can hardly be called anti-semetic ...I guess I'm not expressing my point clearly. There's no such cohesive group as "the Jews". There are a wide range of attitudes about Zionism, and any individual Jew's attitude could be any of them. So of course some who 'point the finger' are Jewish. So are some dedicated Zionists. But even stating it as "the Jews themselves" reveals that you're not being critical enough of your fellow-travellers.

The problem with this issue is that you can't avoid saying, in effect, "but some of my best friends are Jewish". Cabals based on Zionism, or the Rothschild's secret economic empire, for that matter, have been historically used as an excuse for persecution. Most often it's a hunt for scapegoats and it's triggered by strong anti-semitic beliefs. What's the cliche, "when you lie down with the hogs, you don't get up clean" or something.. So, unfortunately, there's an extra burden if you do want to believe that some in the Zionist movement actually are trying to (or already do) run the world; because it's so clear that many making that claim have despicable motives, you need to be careful before accepting their thesis.
In many of your posts you're addressing the ways that the powerful oppress those who are weaker or in their way. I think you're misidentifying who goes in which group.

arthunter

09-26-2014, 07:48 PM

I think that it's important to do some research here … there are facts involved …not every accusation is the product of anti-semitism … that, in my opinion, is a very outdated idea, a kind of reverse prejudice, if you will …

There are many, many Jewish groups trying to distance themselves from the more extreme Zionists, and many less extreme Zionists feel that way too … I could post lots of links but, for the sake of returning the conversation to ISIS, I'll let it go, though I and others do believe that it is all connected ...

I guess I'm not expressing my point clearly. There's no such cohesive group as "the Jews". ...

arthunter

09-26-2014, 10:20 PM

Wow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESZN_YDE-TU

Jim Wilson

09-27-2014, 09:59 AM

One point I would like considered: We cannot trust the information coming from our government or from the mainstream media, such as the NY Times or the Washington Post, CNN, (and, of course, Fox -- goes without saying). Remember that all of these media and sources fed the people of this country with lies and deceptions in the lead-up to the second Iraq War. As far as I know, these media have never come to terms with their deceit and the consequences that deceit wrought upon Iraq, the Middle East in general, and to the body politic of the U.S. Many of the reporters and pundits who promulgated these deceits are still in their positions. It is true that a few, such as Andrew Sullivan, have publicly apologized for their role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But they are exceptional. And notice that Sullivan has gone off on his own and has some independence from the traditional media.

I do not think this point can be overemphasized -- it is very likely, given the recent past (not just the Iraq invasion, but also Libya and the Syrian civil war), that we are being deliberately manipulated. I do not think there is any good reason to take at face value the information coming from these sources. Until these sources go through some kind of public repentance over their recent past, until they establish new procedures for reporting on these kinds of events, I think it only reasonable to have a deep skepticism with regard to what we are being told.

podfish

09-27-2014, 10:12 AM

We cannot trust the information coming from our government or from the mainstream media, such as the NY Times or the Washington Post, CNN, (and, of course, Fox -- goes without saying). ...
I do not think this point can be overemphasized -- it is very likely, given the recent past (not just the Iraq invasion, but also Libya and the Syrian civil war), that we are being deliberately manipulated. I do not think there is any good reason to take at face value the information coming from these sources. .of course you can't trust it. But that doesn't lead directly to "deliberately manipulated", at least in any conspiratorial sense.

No information is context free. And people with agendas (ok, redundant. "and people") want to control, or at least influence, the way others view the world. So any implication that these particular sources of information are tainted, and other, more accurate or impartial sources, might arise to replace them, is mistaken. You have no better option than to glean information from as many sources as you can, and try to infer what reality is by understanding the beliefs, motives and constraints of those promulgating the information.

Jim Wilson

09-27-2014, 10:48 AM

You make a good point. I only want to point out that given our recent past, and the way our wars have been promulgated, I think it is likely that crucial information is not being offered.

In general, I agree with the AFSC's view as posted above. Is there any reason to think that our involvement in this war will end up improving the situation? Did our invasion of Iraq improve the chances for peace in the Middle East? Has our constant meddling in that region helped or simply exacerbated the tensions? My view is that the U.S. has not improved the region's difficulties, but has, in fact, made them significantly worse.

I would also like to add that the public beheadings of IS are morally repugnant and disgusting. But so are the civilian deaths by drone that the U.S. has initiated, which include the execution without trial of its own citizens. I suspect that the very public display of cruelty on the part of IS has influenced many Americans into believing that we 'have to do something'. In contrast, Americans do not see the civilian victims of their own drone warfare and for this reason do not seem to be unduly bothered by it.

Thanks for your comments.

of course you can't trust it. But that doesn't lead directly to "deliberately manipulated", at least in any conspiratorial sense....

podfish

09-27-2014, 11:25 AM

.. Is there any reason to think that our involvement in this war will end up improving the situation? Did our invasion of Iraq improve the chances for peace in the Middle East? Has our constant meddling in that region helped or simply exacerbated the tensions? My view is that the U.S. has not improved the region's difficulties, but has, in fact, made them significantly worse..I suspect we agree more than we disagree on what the situation has been, but if I'm correctly interpreting your point of view, I'm less of an isolationist. However, I don't know that it's all that easy to say the U.S.'s involvement has made it worse. As you point out, we don't get a clear picture of the region from our news sources. But it's easy for me to believe that the various despotic regimes they've had in charge, at least since Peter O'Toole's day (ok, maybe the west is at fault at that...) aren't really any better in terms of allowing peace and freedom for their citizens. Maybe a slow peaceful process of improving human rights there would have happened if the west had left it alone, it's not possible to know. If Obama's intentions are to keep knocking down the most inhumane forces while waiting for (and attempting to create an environment for) more legitimate leaders to take control, then I'd agree he's on the only possible track. I want my government involved in resisting oppressive regimes; refusing to be involved is immoral. Most ethical traditions oppose ignoring the suffering of others. And while it's certainly true that the military-industrial complex, and the bankers, and the 1%, and lots of others, have their own motivations, as well as more influence about how the U.S. will proceed, that doesn't change the necessity to try to bring change there. And here, for that matter.

arthunter

09-27-2014, 02:29 PM

How about these ideas? ….

Killing innocent people is wrong … if it was you holding your dead child, how would you feel?

Occupying someone else's country without invitation, without being attacked by that country, and without global agreement about this action is wrong …

Destroying someone else's property is wrong …

Compromising someone else's resources is wrong …

Buying up all of the press and controlling what news is presented to the people is wrong….

And yes Jim, attacking Americans without any due process is very wrong …. thank you for mentioning that … it's a cause that's dear to my heart ...

With all of our technology, drones, surveillance, infiltration, bases, and allies it seems ridiculous that we can't identify these very public terrorists and wipe them out one by one …

What's happened to this country? … what happened to the “Golden Rule”? … do we just believe whatever the bought and paid for media tells us? … do we actually stand behind our military actions around the world? …do we actually support torture and murder based on possibly compromised information?

Do we really want peace or is that just some worn out slogan from days gone by? ... Can we ever just take the high road? … When all of our human rights leaders were murdered did we just let it go?

Once again, I thought that we, as a people, were better then that ….

wisewomn

09-27-2014, 07:44 PM

Ed Mendoza thinks we've gotten away from the original thread with all this back and forth about Judaism and Zionism, so this letter to the editor (somewhere in England) seems timely:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10698593_10152545177683859_2069573128680326549_n.jpg?oh=5d876608d954e472e2da4191dd35c7fa&oe=54C464DF&__gda__=1421685690_22105289e4377949c2547db2511cec82

Jim Wilson

09-28-2014, 06:42 AM

We see things differently. First, I don't think there is any evidence that supports the idea that our government is motivated to 'resist oppressive regimes'. Saudi Arabia is one of the most oppressive regimes on earth; I think North Korea is the only regime that surpasses it. Yet our government has very intimate ties with the Saudi regime and is constantly touting it as 'moderate'. There are numerous examples of the U.S. working to install and support oppressive regimes in the Middle East and in South America. This has been going on a long time.

Generally speaking, I'm an anti-interventionist. In most instances I think that refraining from being involved is the most moral stance. For example, refraining from involvement in Iraq would have been vastly preferable to the U.S. invasion. I think the same applies to the recent incursions by the U.S. in Libya and I also think it is the best position to take in Ukraine. It is not a 100% of the time rule; but non-interventionism is a good rule of thumb and I believe it would work far better, as a general principle, than the constant interference anywhere and everywhere that seems to be the general rule today and which has generated so much animosity towards the U.S.

I honestly believe that non-interventionism would be of benefit not only to the U.S. but to the nations that we meddle with as well. I would suggest that constantly 'getting involved' is the immoral choice; letting nations and peoples have their own destiny is, I believe, morally preferable. On an individual basis I think most people can see this. No one likes someone who constantly interferes in their life, telling them what to do, insisting that they know what is best for them. I'm not talking about friendly advice which is asked for. I mean that kind of person who is what we call a 'busybody'. The U.S. is an international busybody (and often a bully as well) and just can't mind its own business. And the predictable consequence is that resentment against the U.S. continues to build.

I want my government involved in resisting oppressive regimes; refusing to be involved is immoral. Most ethical traditions oppose ignoring the suffering of others. And while it's certainly true that the military-industrial complex, and the bankers, and the 1%, and lots of others, have their own motivations, as well as more influence about how the U.S. will proceed, that doesn't change the necessity to try to bring change there. And here, for that matter.

podfish

09-28-2014, 12:35 PM

.. I don't think there is any evidence that supports the idea that our government is motivated to 'resist oppressive regimes'.... There are numerous examples of the U.S. working to install and support oppressive regimes in the Middle East and in South America. This has been going on a long time.can't disagree there... the question is what to do about ISIL, and I don't think there's a preferable alternative to what it looks like Obama's decided to do.

In general, I'd like a U.S. government that acted according to its stated vision of itself - as a beacon of freedom and human rights. I'm not suggesting that past involvements in foreign affairs has often lived up to that standard. There are a few examples (Kosovo, as far as I can tell) that come close. And several government officials of various ranks have expressed sorrow over their failure to help in Rwanda. I'm also a tiny bit sympathetic with Kissinger and Machiavelli. There's no hope that the idealistic views expressed by some on this thread will ever match reality, at least until after the second coming. So I'm not particularly put off when a lesser evil prevails over a greater one.

dzerach

09-28-2014, 11:02 PM

I guess I'm not expressing my point clearly. There's no such cohesive group as "the Jews". There are a wide range of attitudes about Zionism, and any individual Jew's attitude could be any of them....

You forgot to mention the Erev Rav here. An odd omission considering the Bay Area is one of their "good-hearted" strongholds.

Anti-Semitism amusingly visible when a discussion of the absolute catastrophe in the Middle East (caused BY the Brits and the Americans: ONGOING perversions that originated w/ the ignorant, arrogant, imperialistic meddling w/Ottoman Empire by the British... now manifesting as "The Islamic State") -- quickly turns into opinions about Jews (!) and unspoken subtext: whether Israel even has a right to exist.

It's not complicated: If you are a Zionist, you believe Israel as a Jewish state has a right to exist. Israel's policies and how they go about trying to continue to exist while surrounded on all sides by hostile nations are a separate matter. I wonder why this basic understanding of Zionism is so difficult to grasp? Or why it comes up under " What to do about ISIL/ISIS? " Along with "How to Sew in 20 Easy Steps"? All of this would be a separate discussion. Glad everyone got back on track.

arthunter

09-28-2014, 11:33 PM

all people have a right to exist ... in peace ... has our intervention in the region accomplished that goal? ... what does history tell you?

and can I not criticize the actions of the Israeli government without being labeled anti-semitic? ... if not, what other country on earth is beyond criticism?

and btw, while we spend billions fighting these wars, our own country is falling apart ... our infrastructure is crumbling, poverty is increasing, our soldiers are killing themselves in record numbers, students can't repay their debts, etc. etc. etc. ....

You forgot to mention the Erev Rav here. An odd omission considering the Bay Area is one of their "good-hearted" strongholds. ...

Valley Oak

09-29-2014, 09:33 AM

Please explain what the "Erey Rav" is/are.

Thank you.

You forgot to mention the Erev Rav here...

podfish

09-29-2014, 09:54 AM

Please explain what the "Erey Rav" is/are.

Thank you.

DZerach is referencing yet another malevolent force behind the world's events, one that's a modern bastardization of an old cultural boogieman. I wasn't going to post on it, because I think I've made it clear that I find the constant parade of candidates for nemesis-of-the-day to be a distraction, and that the mode of thinking that causes people to search for them and believe in them is fatally flawed. I find it the adult equivalent of looking for monsters under the bed. Apparently for many people true random, emergent human societies seem too hard to accept. They insist that there really are rational actors directing world events. They don't accept the 'invisible hand' in the way Adam Smith used the term - they think it's invisible because the person attached to it is hiding from us.
Ordered systems arising from chaos seem to be the norm in the biological and physical realms, and I think in the realm of social behavior too. Obviously many others disagree.
Kinda off topic by now, huh??? I thought we wanted to define our policies toward ISIL!

(oh yeah, one more thing: the other mode of thinking that I dislike is the pigeon-holing of other people by characteristic or membership in an amorphous group. So I pointed out the anti-semitic foundation of the claims about Zionists and Rothschilds. This quote below also feeds that mode of thought. We clearly are endangered by those who "pursue passion and fornication", right??)

===========
a representative description was on this site: (https://neshamaart.com/Newsletter/ErevRav.htm)

"You should know that there are five kinds of `erev rav. The first kind are argumentative and libelous people; the second kind are those who pursue passion and fornication; the third kind are those who are deceitful, who pretend to be righteous but whose hearts are not whole. The fourth kind are those who pursue honor in order to make a name for themselves; the fifth kind are those who pursue money... and the argumentative kind are the equivalent of all of them: they are called `Amalekim, and the son of Dovid will not come until they have passed out of this world.."

arthunter

09-29-2014, 11:48 AM

Podfish,

Let me refresh your memory ...

Many people on this thread have expressed the idea that the public display of terrorism by ISIS was actually a false flag event meant to provoke another US military attack in the Middle East ... if you remember, most Americans were against a war in Syria and then ISIS appeared publicly beheading Americans ...

I am suspicious about this and I posted a thread warning about psyops ... another Wacco member questioned me about the reference to Zionists in that thread and I responded with what I know ... actually drawing my information from Jewish authors to make sure that it wasn't anti-semitic ...

If the idea that ISIS is engineered to justify our involvement in the Middle East, then the next question is "who would do this?" ... who benefits from this action? ... so a discussion of who's involved and who might benefit is not outside of the topic of ISIS ...

Regarding the rest of your comment stating that citizens are just looking for fictional boogymen under the bed ... are you serious? ... tell that to the Jews who died in the holocaust ... that was a psyops operation ... tell that to the millions around the world who have died and suffered because of misinformation and covert agendas ... vigilance is not paranoia, it is born from experience ...

It would be nice if one could discuss all possibilities and all those who might be involved with ISIS without being called paranoid and anti-semitic ....

DZerach is referencing yet another malevolent force behind the world's events, ...

dzerach

09-29-2014, 12:07 PM

I wasn't going to post on it,...d

I agree that you shouldn't post on it because it only makes sense when a fuller context is understood. A Jewish context. Because The Erev Rav are Jews. It's a question for religious Jews, seemingly, but concerns anyone who identifies as Jewish. Amazing how tribalism is inherently a bad word unless it's used in a context we personally enjoy, such as shamanistic studies or the various tribes indigenous to North America upon whom genocide was also attempted and has ALSO succeeded in many ways.

Of what concern is it to those who are not Jewish? This is true for much of what gets predictably bantered about in the familiar snake pit.

Anyone can convert to Judaism. I wish everyone so interested in Jews and Judaism would do so.

The Erev Rav are not only divisive and sow the seeds of disunity but "seek to engineer their own destruction." The Bay Area's Jewish Voice for Peace organization is a prime example. They distort and select facts, spread propaganda and are not working for peace. Other, genuinely religious Jews do the same.

(Coincidentally, highly relevant essay just now on "Zionism and Jews" - a topic everyone enjoys!!
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/on-jewish-anti-zionism/ )

"The Erev Rav can take an activist role on behalf of some cause, or even specifically, a Jewish cause. But, if you truly analyze what they are doing, no matter how well-intentioned they make themselves appear on the surface, it is their personal mandate that they attempt to fulfill, not the national one of the Jewish people."

"If they had their own flag, the golden calf would be their emblem in its middle."

"...the golden calf represented man's desire to never grow up and take responsibility for himself and the world. And, when Moshe Rabbeinu came back down the mountain caring the antidote for such a lifestyle, what he found going on in the camp below was a wild party. "

"...the ongoing challenge of the Jew, indeed of all mankind. We are caught in an ongoing internal battle between the drive for immediate pleasure and satisfaction, and long term gain."

Pleasure and satisfaction here: ego-gratification because we gain pleasure only by rooting for who we perceive is the underdog instead of engaging in serious study and analysis; or the easy bonding with others based on like-minded opinions.

https://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5770/kisisa.html

I am also merely pointing out cultural appropriation: how people do not know what they are talking about yet will proceed anyway when they feel self-righteous and superior, knowing nothing about a tradition, a culture, a religion, a country, the profoundity of historical facts and present day realities. This holds true for learning the facts about Israel as a nation, not just Jewish history/traditions. And yes, very much includes so much of history, cultural and religious attitudes that have brought us to current state of affairs in Middle East. How can we talk about it without understanding them, the actual specifics - which is different from our need to apply our cultural/belief/values lens over it.

arthunter

09-29-2014, 01:53 PM

Thank you for this …I welcome all information and well-documented apposing viewpoints …

I can also relate to the frustration that you feel … I too have started threads on this forum only to have the information which I presented commented on without any research being done … often those discrediting me haven't even read the links which I've presented … we all do seem to have strong opinions without having the time to do thorough research ...

Obviously, this is a very complex issue with a great deal of history behind it …honestly, I would rather not be involved in the Middle East … I feel that those cultures are intelligent and mature enough to workout their own problems and our meddling has only exacerbated those problems … but we are involved and Israel welcomes our support …this support. which takes the form of the blood of our soldiers and massive amounts of money which we don't have, draws the American public into age old debates which are really none of our business ...

I do see many different opinions coming from Jews and Zionists and it is very confusing ... I also feel that there are bad guys and good guys in any culture and what determines the scope of oppression and power that they have seems to be money and propaganda, …. and most would agree that there's plenty of that going around, so we grope with ridiculous amounts of information as best as we can …

My own personal philosophies regarding human rights are simple … they involve diplomacy, co-operation and mutual respect for all races and religions above all else … perhaps this is childish and unrealistic but it's what I would like to see … these endless wars are just crippling any real advancement in our world when we really need our attention to be on saving the planet …

As they say, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind ...

I agree that you shouldn't post on it because ...

arthunter

09-29-2014, 02:49 PM

A friend of mine just posted this on FaceBook ... I think that there's some wisdom to it ... we're all running around arguing with each other while our resources are being stolen and our people are being murdered and controlled ... it's not Israel, it's not Muslims, or Christians, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Russians, or gays, or blacks, or women that are the problem ... it is those who reap the benefits of war ...

"It's ALL Decent Human Beings, against Ruling PSYCHOPATHS. It's really THAT SIMPLE. The Parasites on top of the Global Disorder we're up against don't follow ANY of the religions sold to the enslaved masses of humanity who are made to do the dirty work of hating & killing each other. Don't short circuit & waste energy on horizontal blaming of human peers."

Barry

09-29-2014, 04:10 PM

Here's a good conversation recently aired on Moyer's and Company. What a mess! (The bearded guy is really good!)

I still think containment might be the least bad option. I feel for Obama who, I think against his better judgement, was pushed into the ill-advised war because of political necessity based on the emotional impact of the beheading (despite the many beheading that happening in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere) and the fear mongering of Republican party, and even some nervous Democrats. So, so unfortunate.

My only hope is that the futility of our participation will become widely apparent during the 2016 campaign and it will help to support some candidate the calls for withdrawal. I doubt that will be HRC, and even Rand Paul has not had the courage to support his isolationist convictions in the current hysteria. Maybe he'll come to his sense, or better yet another young promising Democrat will arise propelled by the nation's war weariness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjoEdLHlM0w&feature=em-uploademail-ctrl

phredo

09-29-2014, 04:39 PM

Read a report on "Democracy Now" about how the feared Khorasan group made its debut appearance just in time for the bombing of Syria to begin and then was retired soon after serving its purpose: How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along (https://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/29/how_the_us_concocted_a_terror).
----------
I can't help musing a bit over dzerach's last post. Always ready to enjoy myself, I took her suggestion and read the "highly relevant essay just now on "Zionism and Jews" - a topic everyone enjoys!!
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/on-jewish-anti-zionism/", which states that, because having a state of their own has so far been the only effective safeguard for Jews,
anti-Zionism — rejection of the existence of Israel, not criticism of government policy — is inherently anti-Semitic." There is, however, an exception:
Unlike gentile anti-Zionists, ready to subject hapless third-parties to the risks of their own ideological mission, Jewish anti-Zionists would at least pay some personal price for their own miscalculations (Diaspora anti-Zionists, admittedly, less than Israelis). Their opposition to Zionism might make them misguided or naïve – I would say useful idiots, or traitors – but it need not make them self-hating or prejudiced against their people.

In her last paragraph
I am also merely pointing out cultural appropriation: how people do not know what they are talking about yet will proceed anyway when they feel self-righteous and superior, knowing nothing about a tradition, a culture, a religion, a country, the profoundity of historical facts and present day realities. This holds true for learning the facts about Israel as a nation, not just Jewish history/traditions.dzerach seems to be making the same point about Israel as the article makes about Zionism, that, really, only Israelis are in a position to be able to criticize Israel. And the first part of her article suggests that only Jews should discuss matters Jewish.

While I in principle agree with, "you need to first walk a mile in another man's moccasins...", all the above seems a bit too restrictive. May only elderly Germans talk about how Germans behaved in the 1930's and '40's? Or only North Koreans talk about the North Korean government? I prefer to point out this, albeit somewhat unusual for them, op-ed in Saturday's New York Times, "How Israel Silences Dissent (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/opinion/how-israel-silences-dissent.html?_r=0)".

From this morning's "Up Front" you can listen to an interview between Brian Edwards-Tiekert and his guest, Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé. Hear it at kpfa.org/archive/id/107086 (https://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/107086) , read about Pappé at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappé (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Pappé) . It's pertinent to the idea that Zionism is the only refuge for the Jews.

Valley Oak

09-29-2014, 06:17 PM

After seeing this video and reading the opposing views not only in this thread but also in many non-wacco venues, I'm beginning to rethink my position on the US strategy against Daesh (what the French govt calls ISIS).

I am entertaining the idea of abandoning Iraq to its own destiny. But my fears are: what if Daesh does succeed in founding a stable country? What if they consolidate half of Syria and half of Iraq into a permanent terrorist state? Will they acquire nuclear weapons? Will they use mustard gas against the Kurds? Will they attack what is left of Iraq? Will they attack Iran? Will Iran invade and annex the future country of Daesh? Will they attack Israel? Will they drag Turkey into a regional conflict where even Russia and/or China might get involved (although unlikely)? Might there be a full-scale war with 10 to 20 countries?

One of the most impressive points made by the bearded guy was that a strategy of our enemies is to precisely bait the US and exhaust it economically, etc. If this is the case, and I'm beginning to think it is true, we are currently sinking in quicksand because it is indeed working very well.

Although I hate to say this, but despite all of the beheadings of children and women simply because they are not Sunni Moslems, I'm beginning to feel that the only possible solution is to leave that region to its own demise. History will naturally find a new balance, however tragic it might be.

It would be ironic if an up and coming state, such as China or Russia decided to invest heavily, as the US has, in introducing itself into the region. But, as Obama said, there is no military solution.

Another idea that I think is looong overdue is the establishment of a Kurdish state and recognized by the UN. And perhaps we should also help the creation of a Shiite state, to the south of Iraq. Those countries will be easier to defend against Daesh, both now and in the future. It might even be possible to establish another Kurdish state in Syria but this is less realistic. I think Obama should have talks with the Turkish prime minister, Erdogan, about taking definitive steps towards the rapid foundation of the Republic of Kurdistan (or they can call it whatever they want since it would be their nation). The creation of new nations and governments is a good partial solution. Those new countries and peoples will be far more motivated to defend what is newly theirs, which historically and culturally had been theirs for hundreds if not thousands of years, just without a formal state, flag, or government. For over a decade, the Turkish authorities have stubbornly refused to support the constitution of a Kurdish state; indeed, they have vehemently opposed it because of their long-standing fears of the Turkish Kurdish rebel militants raising bloody hell inside Turkey for decades. I read somewhere that the Turks might actually be willing to support such a move now; a bold one for the Turks. I hope it happens and that it happen soon!

Here's a good conversation recently aired on Moyer's and Company. What a mess! (The bearded guy is really good!)

dzerach

09-29-2014, 07:13 PM

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/on-jewish-anti-zionism/
...only Israelis are in a position to be able to criticize Israel. And the first part of her article suggests that only Jews should discuss matters Jewish.

... "How Israel Silences Dissent"

Who is trying to silence dissent or informed criticism? Not me. What have I shared that has asserted that sentiment? I am neither an Israeli nor have I been there nor am I Jewish. I have Jewish heritage. I am informed.

The Erev Rav -- no, not mere dissenters! I was remarking on how Jews and Israel suddenly appeared while in discussion of ISIL. It astounds me. No one wishes to either directly or indirectly address that.

I'll add for perspective: Be honest, how does it feel when someone who is not an American criticizes our country? On points we might all well agree on! Yet it feels quite different when coming from someone who is not an American, does it not? What if they haven't even lived here? Especially then. One can understand their interest as a "human rights tourist" or that they may have been victimized? But from where really does this unique quality of scorn, open hostility & freely-flung bitter contempt arise? Surely they would not feel this way about their own country, however disillusioned. I could understand if we talked about how much money Hamas' rockets have extracted from American taxpayers by way of the need for an Iron Dome. Every time a rocket is intercepted, the cost is huge - who is paying for all of that? And why are we not demanding positive, productive, effective strategies on the part of Palestinian people? Too grounded of a concern to be of concern.

Sorry that you feel a comparison of a people to an age/sex subset of a country is honorable or even worthy. Of course you would choose Germany! So tiresome. Or that comparing Israel to North Korea is meaningful. I can't help you to be motivated to learn about Israel. I can only point you to other news sources. And question your interest since these comparisons you enjoy show you have not taken the time to be fully informed and they leave you open to have your interest questioned.

podfish

09-29-2014, 08:42 PM

I was remarking on how Jews and Israel suddenly appeared while in discussion of ISIL. It astounds me. No one wishes to either directly or indirectly address that. .you could have found the explanation - just back up in the thread. One of the earlier posts linked to a conspiracy-fomenting page (https://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/world-buzzing-in-aftermath-of-isis-psyop.html?PageSpeed=noscript)that had these lines:

"ISIS is now a full creation of the Western mainstream media, CIA, Mossad and allies...."
then, anticipating that the author of this might not be widely believed:
". <followed by="" an="" explanation="" of="" why="" this="" isn't="" just="" a="" wild="" conspiracy="" theory,="" and="" pre-emptively="" addressing="" the="" expected="" attack=""> ... Another example of how anyone who opposes the U.S. Empire and the Zionist globalists is accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" across the board. Look for this pattern and question it. "

At which point we took a turn toward "what the hell is a global Zionist anyway?" and it went downhill (and off-topic) from there. I helped with that, sorry....</followed>

Barry

09-29-2014, 08:50 PM

y<followed by="" an="" explanation="" of="" why="" this="" isn't="" just="" a="" wild="" conspiracy="" theory,="" and="" pre-emptively="" addressing="" the="" expected="" attack="">At which point we took a turn toward "what the hell is a global Zionist anyway?" and it went downhill (and off-topic) from there...</followed> Thanks for the archeology, Podster!

Here's to hoping it goes back up the hill, and returns to the topic at hand: ISIS! :waccosun:

arthunter

09-29-2014, 09:16 PM

I and others in this thread would not rule out the possibility that this was a false flag event ... it's just very convenient that terrorists showed up publicly attacking Americans after we the people decided that we did not want to have a war with Syria ...

That being said, the discussion then shifts to look at who might have been involved ...

Do we want to consider all possibilities or just the official story?

you could have found the explanation - just back up in the thread. One of the earlier posts linked to a conspiracy-fomenting page (https://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/world-buzzing-in-aftermath-of-isis-psyop.html?PageSpeed=noscript)that had these lines:

"ISIS is now a full creation of the Western mainstream media, CIA, Mossad and allies...."
then, anticipating that the author of this might not be widely believed:
". <followed by="" an="" explanation="" of="" why="" this="" isn't="" just="" a="" wild="" conspiracy="" theory,="" and="" pre-emptively="" addressing="" the="" expected="" attack=""> ... Another example of how anyone who opposes the U.S. Empire and the Zionist globalists is accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" across the board. Look for this pattern and question it. "

At which point we took a turn toward "what the hell is a global Zionist anyway?" and it went downhill (and off-topic) from there. I helped with that, sorry....</followed>

dzerach

09-29-2014, 09:50 PM

you could have found the explanation - just back up in the thread. One of the earlier posts linked to a conspiracy-fomenting page (https://www.activistpost.com/2014/09/world-buzzing-in-aftermath-of-isis-psyop.html?PageSpeed=noscript)that had these lines: "ISIS is now a full creation of the Western mainstream media, CIA, Mossad and allies...." then, anticipating that the author of this might not be widely believed:

". ... Another example of how anyone who opposes the U.S. Empire and the Zionist globalists is accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" across the board. Look for this pattern and question it. "

At which point we took a turn toward "what the hell is a global Zionist anyway?" and it went downhill (and off-topic) from there. I helped with that, sorry....

Sorry, Barry, knock this out, but I can't believe people are reading that article and not understanding all of the aged code words, and the article links to ISIS. I believe that readers are in fact doing so -- but, incredible!

Yes, podfish, I DID see and understand the context of that deeply conspiracy-driven, anti-Semetic phrase, "Zionist globalists, "

I was responding to you only b/c I knew you wouldn't take my post into five other different directions, Mister "Palestine isn't enough." Very funny. Not.

Look, read the article again. It's ALL about opposing the "New World Order," which is oddly SOMEHOW never complete for these people without FIRST understanding that Jews run the world (!):

"Bernie Suarez...has concluded that the way to defeat the New World Order is to truly be the change that you want to see. Manifesting the solution and putting truth into action is the very thing that will defeat the globalists."

Who the hell do you think he means by the globalists? The Zionist globalists. You mean you and others didn't know the big secret that isn't even a secret anymore: Jews run the world (the deeper point is that they are to blame for everything bad due to their extreme over-entitlement)

https://vaticanassassinsarchive.com/The%20Jesuits%20And%20The%20Protocols%20Of%20The%20Learned%20Elders%20Of%20Zion.pdf

"Anyone who opposes [the Zionist Globalists and U.S. EMPIRE - Super-Jewy U.S.] is accused of being a 'conspiracy theorist' across the board."

That's why I launched: That whole damn article is pointedly deeply anti-Semetic, using all of the code words. Except they aren't even code words anymore.

There are a number of conspiracy theorists on wacco - a lefty trait shared with the far right! -- I understand a few may lightly entertain the thought that the Rothchilds are highly representative, "real Jews" (!), they control everything, and somehow are in veiled cahoots with all of the other "Jews." I wish. Would any discussion of this vein ever include Qatar? Probably not. Anyhoo.

arthunter

09-29-2014, 10:08 PM

This is my take on the whole thing, already stated near the beginning of this thread ...

"Many people on earth believe that the globalist Zionists are hiding behind the Jews to accomplish their murders and theft of resources around the world ... if this is true then the Jews are once again victims of this agenda because it appears that this bloodshed is being done in their name, and it isn't ... most Americans will relate to this as we watch our military in constant wars which are questionable ..."

and I thought that we were getting back to ISIS and away from Zionists? ... where is the outcry to return to the thread topic?

and since we're off of the thread again :wink: ... you might be interested in this study ...

https://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/0...vs-govt-dupes/ (https://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/)

phredo

09-29-2014, 11:27 PM

Who is trying to silence dissent or informed criticism? Not me. What have I shared that has asserted that sentiment? That seems to me to have been the general point of your entry. Perhaps I misunderstand you. And by linking to The New York Times op-ed, "How Israel Silences Dissent" I was more interested in showing something about Israel, although it does seem to me from your remarks that you would prefer that people do not criticize Israel or the Zionist movement.

The Erev Rav -- no, not mere dissenters! I was remarking on how Jews and Israel suddenly appeared while in discussion of ISIL. It astounds me. No one wishes to either directly or indirectly address that. I know absolutely nothing about "the Erev Rav" -- this thread is the first time I have heard the expression. But I think it's appropriate to bring the subject of Israel into many conversations about the situation in the part of the world where Israel lies. And that's because I think Israel has much influence on events there, especially where the US is also involved. I think "neo-conservatives", a sort of shorthand or code word, if you will, for United Statesers with strong ties to Israel's government and its policies, have had and continue to have a strong influence on US foreign policy. I would be glad to discuss that farther if anyone cares to.

Be honest, how does it feel when someone who is not an American criticizes our country? On points we might all well agree on! Yet it feels quite different when coming from someone who is not an American, does it not? Quite true. Good point. What can I say?

But from where really does this unique quality of scorn, open hostility & freely-flung bitter contempt arise? Surely they would not feel this way about their own country, however disillusioned. Surely you are extrapolating greatly from anything I wrote, but perhaps you are talking about someone else's comments. As it happens, though, I do feel a great deal of scorn and contempt for many features of the US government.

I could understand if we talked about how much money Hamas' rockets have extracted from American taxpayers by way of the need for an Iron Dome. I don't know what to say to that, only that the pinprick responses of Hamas are so dwarfed by the Israeli crime.

Sorry that you feel a comparison of a people to an age/sex subset of a country is honorable or even worthy. Of course you would choose Germany! So tiresome. Or that comparing Israel to North Korea is meaningful. Those were examples to make a point. Of course I picked the most extreme cases I could readily think of. If I wanted to actually compare Israel to a historical case I might pick apartheid South Africa. Hopefully, in some future time we will be able to talk about "apartheid Israel" and be glad that it's no longer the case.

Glia

09-29-2014, 11:50 PM

A reference or post to this piece may have been made elsewhere; it seems pertinent to this thread so here goes:

Bill Moyers Essay: What We Can Learn From Lawrence of Arabia
https://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/learning-from-lawrence-of-arabia/
As fears grow of a widening war across the Middle East, fed by reports that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) envisions a region-wide, all controlling theocracy, we found ourselves talking about another war. The Great War – or World War I, as it would come to be called — was triggered one hundred years ago this month when an assassin shot and killed Austria’s Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Through a series of tangled alliances and a cascade of misunderstandings and blunders, that single act of violence brought on a bloody catastrophe. More than 37 million people were killed or wounded.

In America, if we reflect on World War I at all, we think mostly about the battlefields and trenches of Europe and tend to forget another front in that war — against the Ottoman Empire of the Turks that dominated the Middle East. A British Army officer named T.E. Lawrence became a hero in the Arab world when he led nomadic Bedouin tribes in battle against Turkish rule. Peter O’Toole immortalized him in the epic movie, “Lawrence of Arabia.”
You may remember the scene when, after dynamiting the Hijaz railway and looting a Turkish supply train, Lawrence is asked by an American reporter, “What, in your opinion, do these people hope to gain from this war?”

“They hope to gain their freedom,” Lawrence replies, and when the journalist scoffs, insists, “They’re going to get it. I’m going to give it to them.”

At war’s end, Lawrence’s vision of Arab independence was shattered when the Versailles peace conference confirmed the carving of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine into British and French spheres of influence; arbitrary boundaries drawn in the sand to satisfy the appetites of empire – Britain’s Foreign Office even called the former Ottoman lands “The Great Loot.”

The hopeful Lawrence drew his own “peace map” of the region, one that paid closer heed to tribal allegiances and rivalries. The map could have saved the world a lot of time, trouble and treasure, one historian said, providing the region “with a far better starting point than the crude imperial carve up.” Lawrence wrote to a British major in Cairo: “I’m afraid you will be delayed a long time, cleaning up all the messes and oddments we have left behind us.”

Since 2003, as the reckless invasion of Iraq unfolded, demand for Lawrence’s book, “Seven Pillars of Wisdom” increased eightfold. It was taught at the Pentagon and Sandhurst — Britain’s West Point — for its insights into fighting war in the Middle East. In 2010, Major Niel Smith, who had served as operations officer for the US Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center, told The Christian Science Monitor, “T.E. Lawrence has in some ways become the patron saint of the US Army advisory effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

But then and now, Lawrence’s understanding of the ancient and potent jealousies of the people among whom he had lived and fought generally was ignored. In 1920, he wrote for the Times of London an unsettling and prophetic article about Iraq – then under the thumb of the British. He decried the money spent, the number of troops and loss of life, and warned that his countrymen had been led “into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information…. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It… may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster.”

Not for the last time in the Middle East would disaster come from the blundering ignorance and blinding arrogance of foreign intruders convinced by magical thinking of their own omnipotence and righteousness. How soon we forget. How often we repeat.

arthunter

09-30-2014, 12:05 AM

and then there's this .... the facts, the graphs, ... read it please .... basically it states that people who are denied a peaceful existence become terrorists ... No! ... ya think?

U.S. “War On Terror” Has INCREASED Terrorism

Posted on October 21, 2013 (https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/u-s-war-on-terror-has-increased-terrorism.html) by WashingtonsBlog (https://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog)
Charts Show that U.S. Policy Has Increased Terror Attacks

The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) Global Terrorism Database – part of a joint government-university program on terrorism - is hosted at the University of Maryland.
START is the most comprehensive open source terrorism database, which can be viewed by journalists and civilians lacking national security clearance.
A quick review of charts from the START database show that terrorism has increased in the last 9 years since the U.S. started its “war on terror”.

https://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/u-s-war-on-terror-has-increased-terrorism.html

podfish

09-30-2014, 08:38 AM

U.S. “War On Terror” Has INCREASED Terrorism

A quick review of charts from the START database show that terrorism has increased in the last 9 years since the U.S. started its “war on terror”.absolutely true. The "War on Drugs" has been similarly successful.
To have a war, you really do need a nation-state or reasonable facsimile as an opponent. If the apparent strategy against ISIL has any hope of working, it's that ISIL has indeed become a revolutionary government with need to maintain a military and a civilian infrastructure. Such infrastructure is what can be bombed, and what armies can be sent to destroy. You can't use a military approach at attacking an ideology, or even an organization that's more akin to a criminal group than a nation state. Several countries besides ours have been spending a lot of money recently to prove that.

dzerach

09-30-2014, 10:00 AM

But I think it's appropriate to bring the subject of Israel into many conversations about the situation in the part of the world where Israel lies.

Yes, they are all-powerful. And "the creation of Israel by the British have caused all of these problems." That's the subtext & full-out propaganda that is being bought into. Enjoy!

I think "neo-conservatives", a sort of shorthand or code word, if you will, for United Statesers with strong ties to Israel's government and its policies, have had and continue to have a strong influence on US foreign policy. I would be glad to discuss that farther if anyone cares to.

And apparently there's a problem with that. Start a new thread. Evil Israel and everything fishy going on. Why would U.S. ever support Israel. I can't imagine.

I don't know what to say to that, only that the pinprick responses of Hamas are so dwarfed by the Israeli crime....If I wanted to actually compare Israel to a historical case I might pick apartheid South Africa. Hopefully, in some future time we will be able to talk about "apartheid Israel" and be glad that it's no longer the case.

I'm sure you would! Wonder where "the brown Jews" of Israel who were expelled from Arab lands fit into that. Tell the West Bank "occupiers" who were ambushed and slaughtered in their home about pinprick responses. Let's have Israel return all of the land they won in wars that Palestinian leadership started by attacking Israel. Or you could set aside the propaganda momentarily and read more widely, including outside of the U.S. media, start not with opinions but w/all of the relevant, documented facts for a balanced perspective, not just shards, and engage in this balanced perspective w/critical thinking. Hamas used the concrete that was allowed into Gaza not to do anything productive but to build tunnels into Israel, one directly below a children's school. The usual kidnapping/intentional murder plan. What a way to build trust for negotiations for real change. How about examining what is motivating Hamas politically. Why they feel they were victorious. What are their actual values and beliefs? It's extremely sad how the Palestinian people are being exploited. If you want to transpose your values onto another people, let's also ask, "At what point are they going to start in on being productive for prosperity and peace instead of seeking Israel's destruction?" Follow what is going on in the U.N. etc.

dzerach

09-30-2014, 10:53 AM

A reference or post to this piece may have been made elsewhere; it seems pertinent to this thread so here goes:

Bill Moyers Essay: What We Can Learn From Lawrence of Arabia
https://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/learning-from-lawrence-of-arabia/
As fears grow of a widening war across the Middle East, fed by reports that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) envisions a region-wide, all controlling theocracy, we found ourselves talking about another war. The Great War – or World War I...

Not for the last time in the Middle East would disaster come from the blundering ignorance and blinding arrogance of foreign intruders convinced by magical thinking of their own omnipotence and righteousness. How soon we forget. How often we repeat.

Thank you, y'know, as a general response to the thread: can we figure out what to do about ISIL at this stage if we don't look at the reasons and causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

A lot of people just don't enjoy history is all that I can figure out. Lawrence of Arabia isn't a hero to Muslims. He was in fact a spy for the British. He earned friendship and then egregiously betrayed, I think that's how they feel.

The bottom line is they had no business being there in the first place. If people can backtrack enough to see that part.

In my opinion, there is a wide diversity of Muslims who are similar to Germans post WWI in that there is a deep wound in the present from the loss of power and pride. In the case of Muslims, the Ottoman caliphate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah The Ottoman Empire. We can thank British imperialism. Recently, Turkish leadership has even changed.

The Brits also sought to humiliate the Germans w/the "Treaty" of Versailles -- as a strategy to stop their militarism instead of seeking to understand the real causes behind it. A huge miscalculation from a war-weary Europe. It FULLY backfired. Fast forward... the land lost in that treaty and the impossible reparations demanded, the misery imposed were an open wound...fully informed the forces behind Naziism (Hitler was not elected to power by a majority of Germans but appointed in a highly political dance)...and disrespectful, patronizing miscalculations are how we ended up w/Israel btw - an fyi for those who hate the place.

Again, as a response to the thread, once someone is clear that A Jewish Homeland has not caused the problems in the Middle East (but that it's true that Jews are hated for being Jews) it becomes easier to understand what is going on. Yes, land in the Middle East wasn't rightfully the Brits to give to the Zionists in the first place. But that doesn't cancel out that a small amount of land was rightfully-- not wrongly-- returned to natives stripped of their rights to be the Europeans they had become (and had been for centuries) but could be no longer. The U.S. Idiot called Bush I and II did not bomb countries to protect the Jews. U.S. citizens are easily lured and duped. What is the role of the Saudis -- their relationship to U.S.? The questions not being asked are endless. There's really no room to think when everything becomes about Israel.

I've been watching Dr. Yasir Qadhi's video lectures if anyone wants to google him. The backstory is huge; satisfying; not "American;" and intimately relevant to today. There's no place for all of these relevant facts and this kind of analysis in the U.S media (!)

Here is another article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timreuter/2014/09/12/from-lawrence-of-arabia-to-isis-history-repeating-itself-as-tragedy-and-farce/

arthunter

09-30-2014, 11:53 AM

We could argue about history and who did what to whom for the rest of our days ... yes, there were massive injustices and most in the MIddle East were affected ...

but let's bring it back to today ... you say that it's not about Israel and that those seeking to blame Israel are simply anti-semitic ... and I'm sure that there's some truth in that ... I'm sure that there are those who simply do not like Israel and what it's doing right now and might possibly blame all Jews for their actions ... and I'm sure that there are those who blame America and all Americans for the actions of the American military in the region ... consequently, I'm sure that there are those who hate Americans, though we don't have a name for that ... but as an American, I feel that that hate is justified ...

So now, present day, outside of who's wrong and who's right, put yourself in the place of almost any country on earth when facing two of the most powerful armies in the world ... Israel and America ... do you have any chance at all? ... do you have any way to protect yourself? ... is there humanitarian aide to evacuate the innocent? ...

Here's how the world works right now, right or wrong ... when you exercise your power against innocent civilians, those abuses are seen worldwide ... right now Israel is being tried for war crimes and protesters around the world are initiating boycotts of Israeli goods ... on our own coast protesters have organized and stopped Israeli cargo ships from docking and unloading ... so at this point in their history, the Israeli government is actually hurting their own citizens and provoking anti-semiticim in the same way that the American government is provoking anti-Americanism ... you can not conduct constant military intervention around the globe without inviting fear and scorn from most countries ... this is seen as an abuse of power in spite of any justification ....

What does this have to do with ISIS? ... if you like I can go on about Israel's role in America's foreign policy ... there are lots of factual links about this ...

phredo

09-30-2014, 01:17 PM

[ This is the first many posts on this hot thread today.
You can remove this thread from future digests by clicking the
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2014-10-01_10-49-12.png (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/subscription.php?do=excludesubscription&t=107396)
button here or below.
- Barry :waccosun:]

I just got around to watching the Moyers discussion with the two anti-interventionists, for lack of a better word to describe the two. At the end Moyers says, to paraphrase, "Gee, I don't know if I should have invited you two on -- I get from both of you that there isn't anything the US can do to help create "peace on earth, goodwill toward Man" in the mid-east. And the "guy with the beard" said, to paraphrase, "Yeah, well that's the big lesson to learn." My sentiments, pretty much.

--------------
I really liked dzerach's last post (except for the usual "poor Israel" and "everyone hates the Jews" stuff, which I am trying to learn to discount) for all the good information. I read the Tim Reuter article in Forbes and learned a lot. I've been reading some about WWI in that region.

One book, "Birds Without Wings" by Louis de Bernieres, is a novel set in an Anatolian town where, before the rise of Turkish nationalism, ethnic Greeks and Turks lived together peacefully, with little to distinguish the two groups. The novel traces the rising of tensions and the ultimate expulsion of the Greeks as the society more-or-less disintegrates. But alternate chapters follow the political life of Kemal Ataturk, so it's a very historical and political novel overall. Highly recommend.

Then I recently re-read "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom", T. E. Lawrence's description of his time in Arabia. It's worth reading for the sensitive and learned descriptions of the land and people. But his overall imperialist and racist views are apparent, and, although he hopes, and tries to tilt towards, the Arabs win their independence, he makes it clear that British domination over Germany is his most important goal, and that he is willing to sacrifice the Arabs towards that goal, if necessary. So Reuter's article filled in for me the machinations leading up to the point where the book begins.

And, finally and most recently, I read "The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East" by Sandy Tolan, a carefully researched history of Palestine, followed through the lives of two real people. One is a Palestinian man whose family had lived for twelve centuries in an area that became Israel in 1948, and the other a Jewish woman from Bulgaria who, as a child, emigrated with her parents to the same town and came into possession of the house previously occupied by the Palestinian's family which had been driven out by the conquering Israeli army only weeks before. The two become first acquaintances and then friends over the years, the one living in exile and becoming a lifelong struggler for the "right of return" and the other a peace activist who eventually donates the house as a school for young multi-ethnic children. It goes up to the present day, almost, and is a great story with a super amount of information. Available in the Sonoma County Library or A____n.

I looked up Dr. Yasir Qadhi in Wikipedia and Youtube. He seems to mostly be interested in Muslim doctrine. Which talks or subjects do you find interesting, dzerach?

rossmen

09-30-2014, 10:04 PM

your history is full of holes. us had far more to do with the creation of israel than the uk. your links are a scattershot of bias. zionism is a form of racism according to the un. and is is as much a creation of us as israel. both serious mistakes which have and will create decades of death and war in the cradle of civilization... you are the fear of jewish nationalists and cultural preservers; heritage, but not. the power of the melting pot. keep trying to make sense of it all, you seem to be halfway there to consciously choosing your guiding beliefs.

Thank you, y'know, as a general response to the thread: can we figure out what to do about ISIL at this stage if we don't look at the reasons and causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

A lot of people just don't enjoy history is all that I can figure out. Lawrence of Arabia isn't a hero to Muslims. He was in fact a spy for the British. He earned friendship and then egregiously betrayed, I think that's how they feel.

The bottom line is they had no business being there in the first place. If people can backtrack enough to see that part...

phredo

09-30-2014, 10:23 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10sez20KHcI
The Debate : ISIL funded by US to break up region
This debate is a bit dated, being from way back in July, but I thought it might be of interest to those who have never seen presstv.com, the Iranian news site, or Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Wisconsin Muslim. noliesradio.org covers his several hours a week of interviews with guests over a wide variety of interests, but his favorite subject is 9/11 conspiracy, with "the evils of Zionism" running a strong second. Here he is arguing that ISIS is a creation of "deep state" activities of the US and its allies. This debate may not be highly informative but is presented here to show points of view (that is, Iranian and Kevin Barrett -- the other debater is rather mainstream) that are not usually seen in US media.

-------------------------------------------------------------
<header> In a similar vein, Robert Parry from yesterday's consortiumnews.com (https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/29/neocons-noses-into-the-syrian-tent/). (It's rather long, and you may get the drift without reading all of it.)

Neocons’ Noses Into the Syrian Tent

<time class="published updated" datetime="2014-09-29">September 29, 2014</time>

</header> Exclusive: The neocons say the next step in President Obama’s bombing raids inside Syria must be to move from attacking the terrorist Islamic State to destroying Syria’s air force and air defenses, all the better to achieve the neocons’ long-sought “regime change,” reports Robert Parry.

Now that President Barack Obama has begun airstrikes inside Syria against the terrorist Islamic State – with the tacit but not explicit approval of Syria’s government — Official Washington’s ever-influential neoconservatives hope they can pressure Obama into a major “mission creep,” to also attack and destroy the Syrian air force.
Like the proverbial camel with its nose into the tent, the neocons are trying to push beyond the U.S.-led attacks on the Islamic State and other Sunni extremist groups operating in Syria into a broader “regime change” operation against the government of President Bashar al-Assad, who has been a longtime target of the neocons.

For instance, Jackson Diehl, the deputy editorial-page editor of the neocon Washington Post, called the failure to attack Assad’s military “the hole in Obama’s strategy (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jackson-diehl-obama-cannot-keep-ignoring-bashar-al-assad-in-syria/2014/09/28/c947967e-44c8-11e4-b437-1a7368204804_story.html)” and urged that Assad’s air defenses and air power be taken out by the U.S. military as a crucial step toward Assad’s ouster, even though Assad’s military has been the principal bulwark against the Islamic State and al-Qaeda’s affiliate, al-Nusra Front.
Diehl wrote on Monday: “The problem is that ignoring Assad is likely to lead to even worse consequences. Already, the regime and its spokesmen are exulting in the U.S. bombing raids and doing their best to portray the United States as a de facto ally, while Syrians in rebel-held areas are demonstrating against the U.S. strikes because they are seen to be weakening the resistance to Assad.

“Meanwhile, the regime appears to be stepping up its own bombing raids against the non*-extremist opposition. A failure of the United States to respond could destroy U.S. relations not only with its only on-the-ground allies in Syria but also with the Sunni nations that have joined the campaign against the Islamic State. …

“Create a no-fly zone for Syrian aircraft over areas held by the rebels. With U.S. planes already operating in the area, this would be far simpler than it would have been before.” Of course, much of what Diehl says is untrue. The idea that a viable “moderate” rebel force exists is a fiction. A year ago, many of these “moderate” rebels – trained, funded and armed by the CIA and U.S. Arab allies – repudiated the Syrian political front (https://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/26/syrian-rebels-embrace-al-qaeda/) that the Obama administration had cobbled together and instead embraced al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front.

Obama himself – just last month in an interview with the New York Times – dismissed (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/09/opinion/president-obama-thomas-l-friedman-iraq-and-world-affairs.html) the notion of relying on “moderate” rebels as a “fantasy” that was “never in the cards” as a workable strategy. But it is a fantasy that the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” allies have long found useful, portraying the civil war in Syria as a black-and-white conflict between the evil Assad and the saintly “pro-democracy” rebels...

To continue reading, go here: (https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/29/neocons-noses-into-the-syrian-tent/) https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/29/neocons-noses-into-the-syrian-tent/

dzerach

09-30-2014, 10:44 PM

on our own coast protesters have organized and stopped Israeli cargo ships from docking and unloading

The "successful" blocking of the private Israeli ZIM only happened at the Port of Oakland (no other port) and had everything to do with that union and that port and nothing to do with the "200 angry protestors" or their cause. Can you imagine The Port of Oakland genuinely being forced by 200 people to interrupt their business to that extent? Dang, just think of the potential for other situations if "200 angry protestors" can easily accomplish that! We should all be encouraged.

You know, call the cops, get them out of here. That's how that goes.

No, it was a case of sheltered liberals being used as tools. A few radicals in ILWU Local 10 saw fit to meet some unrelated objectives w/port management by refusing to work. ILWU Local 10 blocked Zim for their own self-defeating purposes unrelated to the ZIM.

Apparently in the world of ports or whatever you call it, the Port of Oakland has a reputation for weak, disorganized management. They certainly did not protect their business. Which is a little frightening since they also run the Oakland International Airport.

What does this have to do with ISIS? Indeed. I already tied it in. Don't worry; done.

arthunter

09-30-2014, 11:09 PM

sorry, but you should look again ...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/28/pro-palestine-protesters-israeli-cargo-ship-oakland
(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/28/pro-palestine-protesters-israeli-cargo-ship-oakland)
https://revolution-news.com/israeli-shipping-company-zim-faces-block-boat-protests-la-tacoma-seattle/

The "successful" blocking of the private Israeli ZIM only happened at the Port of Oakland (no other port) and had everything to do with that union and that port and nothing to do with the "200 angry protestors" or their cause. Can you imagine The Port of Oakland genuinely being forced by 200 people to interrupt their business to that extent? ...

dzerach

09-30-2014, 11:22 PM

..."Birds Without Wings" by Louis de Bernieres...
"The Seven Pillars of Wisdom", T. E. Lawrence's description of his time in Arabia....
"The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East" by Sandy Tolan...

Your book recommendations (and descriptions) sound very interesting. Intriguing and worthwhile - thank you.

I looked up Dr. Yasir Qadhi in Wikipedia and Youtube. He seems to mostly be interested in Muslim doctrine. Which talks or subjects do you find interesting, dzerach?

Yes, he's a learned, deeply religious man. He's both a cleric and a scholar. I'm impressed with his ability to teach. He's based in Memphis and this is his organization https://muslimmatters.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ammaar_Yasir_Qadhi

I recommend the first video, the Part One:
"1914:The Shaping of the Modern Muslim World (Balfour, Sykes-Picot,T.E. Lawrence, Sherif of Makkah, Al Saud, and more)" Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh9awD5KwNY

Part Two:
1914: The Shaping of the Modern Muslim World Part 2 - Yasir Qadhi & Nabil Bayakli
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQjDeRcBbzo

I haven't viewed these:
"Latest khutbah Extremism in Islam: From Kharijism to ISIS"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sixliGz9zhI
and
"The Modern Jihadists: Khawarij or Mujahideen? ~ Dr. Yasir Qadhi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lezIO8yg2r4

dzerach

09-30-2014, 11:27 PM

arthunter

10-01-2014, 12:02 AM

"The action originated in Oakland (https://electronicintifada.net/tags/oakland), California, which set a high bar for others to follow. Protestors there successfully prevented the unloading of the Zim Piraeus container shipfor nearly four full days (https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/israeli-ship-blocked-unloading-oakland-four-straight-days).But other cities’ more modest demonstrations were nevertheless successful in temporarily delaying the Zim ships from unloading, costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, building momentum and signalling widespread support for such actions.

After Zim Piraeus departed Oakland on 20 August (https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/477634800), two different Zim container ships were scheduled to dock in Tacoma and Seattle, Washington and in Long Beach, California. Weeks earlier, organizers in Oakland had reached out to Palestine solidarity groups in those cities to plan a coordinated shut-out of Zim cargo ships along the West Coast.

In Tacoma, the Zim Chicago was supposed to arrive at port on 18 August but was delayed from offloading until 23 August — which local organizer Nada Elia (https://electronicintifada.net/people/nada-elia) describes as a victory for the Northwest Block the Boat Coalition. "

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/protestors-block-and-delay-israeli-ships-and-down-us-west-coast?utm_content=buffer40c70&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

It's only successful at the Port of Oakland. I explained why.

dzerach

10-01-2014, 10:51 AM

It's another thread. Why aren't you starting another thread instead of continuing to dump into this one?

The action is called Block the Boat, not Delay the Boat. It means to fully prevent the boat from unloading its cargo. Who do you think is being harmed by the cost of a delay? The Port of Oakland and mayoral candidates are engaging the usual drink of dysfunctional Norcal politics we are all familiar with.

What do you think they are trying to accomplish? Please read about it if you are interested. Attempting to block commerce (and succeeding in the Bay Area) is asinine & only hurts California's reputation (for many obvious economic and political reasons that will not be easily picked up on by many readers on wacco even when someone takes the time and energy to engage). Start a new thread and enjoy yourselves.

"The action originated in Oakland (https://electronicintifada.net/tags/oakland), California, which set a high bar for others to follow. Protestors there successfully prevented the unloading of the Zim Piraeus container shipfor nearly four full days (https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/israeli-ship-blocked-unloading-oakland-four-straight-days).But other cities’ more modest demonstrations were nevertheless successful in temporarily delaying the Zim ships from unloading, costing the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, building momentum and signalling widespread support for such actions.
After Zim Piraeus departed Oakland on 20 August (https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/477634800), two different Zim container ships were scheduled to dock in Tacoma and Seattle, Washington and in Long Beach, California. Weeks earlier, organizers in Oakland had reached out to Palestine solidarity groups in those cities to plan a coordinated shut-out of Zim cargo ships along the West Coast.
In Tacoma, the Zim Chicago was supposed to arrive at port on 18 August but was delayed from offloading until 23 August — which local organizer Nada Elia (https://electronicintifada.net/people/nada-elia) describes as a victory for the Northwest Block the Boat Coalition. "

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/protestors-block-and-delay-israeli-ships-and-down-us-west-coast?utm_content=buffer40c70&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

arthunter

10-01-2014, 12:23 PM

the point was that armed aggression against innocent people can be counter-productive and that those countries that engage in it could be compromised by global protest ...

it is you derailing this thread at the moment by arguing with facts and bringing in the economic consequences of boycotting protests ...

It's another thread. Why aren't you starting another thread instead of continuing to dump into this one?

The action is called Block the Boat, not Delay the Boat. It means to fully prevent the boat from unloading its cargo. Who do you think is being harmed by the cost of a delay? The Port of Oakland and mayoral candidates are engaging the usual drink of dysfunctional Norcal politics we are all familiar with.

What do you think they are trying to accomplish? Please read about it if you are interested. Attempting to block commerce (and succeeding in the Bay Area) is asinine & only hurts California's reputation (for many obvious economic and political reasons that will not be easily picked up on by many readers on wacco even when someone takes the time and energy to engage). Start a new thread and enjoy yourselves.

rossmen

10-02-2014, 12:08 PM

every journey begins with a small step... boycott, divestment and sanction of israel, a rogue state we massively support is important in dealing with tribal wars important to global oil supply. you might be filling up your car with is oil. zionism claims support from a tribal religion. how insulting that those of the faith who question the dominant political paradigm are dismissed as worshipers of the golden calf. mossiest would be pissed!

It's another thread. Why aren't you starting another thread instead of continuing to dump into this one?

The action is called Block the Boat, not Delay the Boat. It means to fully prevent the boat from unloading its cargo. Who do you think is being harmed by the cost of a delay? The Port of Oakland and mayoral candidates are engaging the usual drink of dysfunctional Norcal politics we are all familiar with.

What do you think they are trying to accomplish? Please read about it if you are interested. Attempting to block commerce (and succeeding in the Bay Area) is asinine & only hurts California's reputation (for many obvious economic and political reasons that will not be easily picked up on by many readers on wacco even when someone takes the time and energy to engage). Start a new thread and enjoy yourselves.

arthunter

10-02-2014, 02:19 PM

More of the killing citizens to protect citizens agenda ...

House exempts Syria airstrikes from tight standards on civilian deaths

https://news.yahoo.com/white-house-exempts-syria-airstrikes-from-tight-standards-on-civilian-deaths-183724795.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory

phredo

10-03-2014, 12:24 PM

I receive periodic emails from Tikkun (definition on the masthead below). On Sept. 1, they sent out "What to do about ISIS", consisting of an article from David Swanson preceded by an introduction and comments by Rabbi Michael Lerner, the founder of Tikkun, who operates out of Beyt Tikkun, "A S.F. Bay Area Jewish Renewal Synagogue for Spirituality and Social Transformation." It's easy to discuss Lerner as an impractical idealist, but I find I agree with him more often than not. And I think in this case Lerner and Swanson have got it pretty much nailed:

https://www.spiritualprogressives.org/%7Ensp001/tikkun_banner_plain.jpg

Editor's Note: Tikkun seeks to present a range of views that you wouldn't hear in the mainstream media, without necessarily endorsing those perspectives. Please remember that Tikkun's own position is articulated only in our editorials.

In my view, the important article by David Swanson that I’m sharing below may be underestimating the venality and murderous nature of the ISIS coalition that he describes. Unlike Hamas and unlike the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, ISIS appears to have genocidal intent toward Christians and Shia Muslims (and possibly also toward Sunnis who don't share their perspective and almost certainly toward Jews).

On the other hand, I know that I don't know who they really are or even what they are really doing. I've read enough lies about previous run-up to wars in the Western media to know not to believe anything I read, but only to consider that the media's account is one possible way of viewing the reality.

I also know that the gruesome accounts of murders committed by ISIS are shocking to a U.S. audience in part because the far greater number of people killed by the U.S. interventions in the Middle East, South East Asia, Central and South America have never been presented in an honest way to the American people. Most of us have not heard the gruesome details or stories of the families that have lost loved ones as a result of U.S. military and CIA actions.

Accounts of how ISIS members used waterboarding on their captives have been told in a way that dramatizes the inhumanity of a tactic that was used on many, many of those held by the United States in Guantanamo and in more secret detention and torture facilities run by or contacted by the United States around the world.

Yet U.S. feelings of rage about waterboarding were never directed at those who perpetrated and those who approved that torture, so people like George W. Bush and former vice president Cheney and the many under them in the chain of command who carried out these outrageous acts have never been brought to trial.

When it's ISIS that commits these abuses, we are encouraged to think of their actions as reasons for war; when it's our U.S. leaders who commit the same abuses, we don't even think it sufficient reason to put them in prison!

On the other hand, my outrage at acts that we in the U.S. have committed does not diminish my outrage at what ISIS is doing, if the media accounts are even partially correct, and my desire to want to stop them before more people are murdered. But how? Not in a way that will have even worse consequences, in the way that the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein’s (who should have spent the rest of his life in prison) led to the growth of ISIS.

Our inclination always at Tikkun is to ask the following question of any group espousing hateful ideas (including haters among Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist fundamentalist movements; followers of secular right-wing or fascist groups; and those who adhere to the ultra-nationalistic, ultra-militaristic tendencies within American and Israeli nationalism, as well as any other kind of nationalism): What are the underlying needs that these movements are speaking to that might be legitimate needs of the people who respond to them? And how do we then develop strategies to separate those legitimate needs from the fascistic, racist, or irrational ways that people seek to meet those needs through these hateful and sometimes violent movements?

These are the questions that I've answered in some detail in my books The Politics of Meaning, Spirit Matters, and The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right. The goal is not to excuse outrageous and murderous acts, but to figure out how to disempower the murderers, whether they be American, Iraqi, Chinese, Russian, Israeli, or from Hamas. The goal is to ensure that their followers don't move on to some other equally terrible movement or murderous sect or religion or nationalism once these particular murderers are gone.

If you read those books you'll see why I’m inclined to think that Swanson is moving in a good direction but lacks some of the psychological and spiritual tools necessary to make his strategy successful. One of those tools is a Global Marshall Plan (please download it at tikkun.org/GMP (https://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7hYIhz9zwcTumCAEJL6jhI130n%2FunZny) and read the full 32-page brochure). The problem with mentioning the GMP is that people immediately think it's primarily about giving money. But it's not. It is predicated on a strategy of showing respect and genuine caring for the well-being of all people on the planet. This caring would be conveyed partly through money, but more importantly through a fundamental transformation brought about by the Western world in adopting the New Bottom Line laid out in detail at tikkun.org/covenant (https://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=s3HgsYBlH61UZcK1IJO5bY130n%2FunZny).

Without that approach, the United States will have no tools for dealing with ISIS, and so inevitably the people of this country will fall back onto violence and war making.

“Fine,” you may say, “but what are we supposed to do NOW? Don't you realize that these people are a real menace?” That may be true, but the reason it’s true is because people always go to that formulation—the one that led us into a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in the first place without having any idea of what could replace him. Without that alternative, Swanson's point is that we created the preconditions for the rise of ISIS.

So, truth is, I don’t know what we should do with ISIS in the short run, except to follow some of the steps that Swanson proposes, other steps that are defined in the Global Marshall Plan and in the Network of Spiritual Progressives' Spiritual Covenant at spiritualprogressives.org (https://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MH2OHj29j%2B6gttmEXbWsyY130n%2FunZny), and yet others that I'll propose in a subsequent article within the next few weeks.
While these steps may not be sufficient, I know for sure that taking any other path that doesn't also include these steps is bound to simply recreate the set of circumstances that have led us into the current mess. The one thing I'm sure about: if some kind of intervention is justified, and I think it may be, it should be genuinely led by the United Nations and not by the United States. And it should not occur solely at the initiative of the United States.

If the people of the world are ready to take some action, let us follow their leadership rather than intervene alone—U.S. hands are, as they say in law, “dirty hands” and hence not able to provide ethically credible leadership. So please do read Swanson’s insightful article. And then please also read David Sylvester’s post on Tikkun Daily (https://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=SZMJN%2FQMdzCu9Fg7aToJ0Y130n%2FunZny) with its call for the Abrahamic religions to lead an international summit of religious forces to develop a response to the increasingly murderous realities we face.

Meanwhile, have a joyous Labor Day 2014! Wouldn’t it be great if this year working people used this day off to figure out how to take back control of our country from the super-rich and powerful so that we too could participate in the discussions that the elite have about which wars to drag us into? Maybe next year?
—Rabbi Michael Lerner
([email protected] (https://legacy-webmail.sonic.net/src/[email protected]))

What to Do About ISIS
by David Swanson

Originally published on warisacrime.org (https://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=JnqqxhMeT4zFP5bYycT%2B1suz5lxsjoBt)

Start by recognizing where ISIS came from. The U.S. and its junior partners destroyed Iraq, left a sectarian division, poverty, desperation, and an illegitimate government in Baghdad that did not represent Sunnis or other groups. Then the U.S. armed and trained ISIS and allied groups in Syria, while continuing to prop up the Baghdad government, providing Hellfire missiles with which to attack Iraqis in Fallujah and elsewhere.

ISIS has religious adherents but also opportunistic supporters who see it as the force resisting an unwanted rule from Baghdad and who increasingly see it as resisting the United States. It is in possession of U.S. weaponry provided directly to it in Syria and seized from the Iraqi government. At last count by the U.S. government, 79 percent of weapons transferred to Middle Eastern governments come from the United States, not counting transfers to groups like ISIS, and not counting weapons in the possession of the United States.

So, the first thing to do differently going forward: stop bombing nations into ruins, and stop shipping weapons into the area you've left in chaos. Libya is of course another example of the disasters that U.S. wars leave behind them—a war, by the way, with U.S. weapons used on both sides, and a war launched on the pretext of a claim well documented to have been false that Gaddafi was threatening to massacre civilians.

So, here's the next thing to do: be very skeptical of humanitarian claims. The U.S. bombing around Erbil to protect Kurdish and U.S. oil interests was initially justified as bombing to protect people on a mountain. But most of those people on the mountain were in no need of rescue, and that justification has now been set aside, just as Benghazi was. Recall also that Obama was forced to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq when he couldn't get the Iraqi government to give them immunity for crimes they commit. He has now obtained that immunity and back in they go, the crimes preceding them in the form of 500-pound bombs.

While trying to rescue hostages and discovering an empty house, and racing to a mountain to save 30,000 people but finding 3,000 and most of those not wanting to leave, the U.S. claims to know exactly whom the 500-pound bombs are killing. But whomever they are killing, they are generating more enemies, and they are building support for ISIS, not diminishing it. So, now the U.S. finds itself on the opposite side of the war in Syria, so what does it do? Flip sides! Now the great moral imperative is not to bomb Assad but to bomb in defense of Assad, the only consistent point being that "something must be done" and the only conceivable something is to pick some party and bomb it.

But why is that the only conceivable thing to be done? I can think of some others:

1. Apologize for brutalizing the leader of ISIS in Abu Ghraib and to every other prisoner victimized under U.S. occupation.

2. Apologize for destroying the nation of Iraq and to every family there.

3. Begin making restitution by delivering aid (not "military aid" but actual aid, food, medicine) to the entire nation of Iraq.

4. Apologize for role in war in Syria.

5. Begin making restitution by delivering actual aid to Syria.

6. Announce a commitment not to provide weapons to Iraq or Syria or Israel or Jordan or Egypt or Bahrain or any other nation anywhere on earth and to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from foreign territories and seas, including Afghanistan. (The U.S. Coast Guard in the Persian Gulf has clearly forgotten where the coast of the U.S. is!)

7. Announce a commitment to invest heavily in solar, wind, and other green energy and to provide the same to democratic representative governments.

8. Begin providing Iran with free wind and solar technologies -- at much lower cost of course than what it is costing the U.S. and Israel to threaten Iran over a nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

9. End economic sanctions.

10. Send diplomats to Baghdad and Damascus to negotiate aid and to encourage serious reforms.

11. Send journalists, aid workers, peace workers, human shields, and negotiators into crisis zones, understanding that this means risking lives, but fewer lives than further militarization risks.

12. Empower people with agricultural assistance, education, cameras, and internet access.

13. Launch a communications campaign in the United States to replace military recruitment campaigns, focused on building sympathy and desire to serve as critical aid workers, persuading doctors and engineers to volunteer their time to travel to and visit these areas of crisis.

14. Work through the United Nations on all of this.

15. Sign the United States on to the International Criminal Court and voluntarily propose the prosecution of top U.S. officials of this and the preceding regimes for their crimes.