“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Saturday, August 23, 2014

How close is Israel to destroying Palestinian resistance in Gaza?

Over 300 Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants Condemn Israel's ‘Massacre of Palestinians in Gaza’









The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) has released an open letter signed by 327 Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide “unequivocally” condemning the “massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine.”
The letter was written in response to Holocaust survivor, author and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel’s “manipulation of the Nazi Genocide to attempt to justify the attacks on Gaza.” The accusation that Elie Wiesel manipulates the memory of the Holocaust is an old one. In this case, it refers to his New York Times advertisement in which he claimed that “Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas’ turn,” using biblical imagery by comparing Gazan parents to the Molochites (ancient Canaanites who sacrificed children to their God, Moloch).
Besides his controversial positions supporting Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank, Wiesel was chairman of the IR David Foundation, which aims to “strengthen the Jewish connection to Jerusalem” (Hebrew) and create a Jewish majority in Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. He was notably accused by Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein in his book “The Holocaust Industry” of promoting the “uniqueness doctrines” whereas all genocides besides the Jewish Holocaust are downplayed.
The letter reads:
As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine. We further condemn the United States for providing Israel with the funding to carry out the attack, and Western states more generally for using their diplomatic muscle to protect Israel from condemnation. Genocide begins with the silence of the world.
We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. In Israel, politicians and pundits in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia.
Furthermore, we are disgusted and outraged by Elie Wiesel’s abuse of our history in these pages to justify the unjustifiable: Israel’s wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of more than 2,000 Palestinians, including many hundreds of children. Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.
We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!

Take a look at the letter on the IJAN's website to see the complete list of signatories. IJAN also recently announced that their letter will be posted in The New York Times as a half-page ad. Lee Gargagliano of IJAN wrote on Facebook:
We did it! We are placing the letter from survivors of the Nazi genocide and descendants of survivors and victims as a half-page ad in tomorrow's (Saturday 8/23) New York Times! Please spread it far and wide to help maximize the impact and please pass it on to journalists who you think might pick up the story. Thank you to those who signed; thank you to those who contributed; thank you to everyone who will help circulate!

At the time of writing, the death toll in Gaza stood at 2,039, including 540 children and 75 families. Seventy-two percent of Palestinians killed in this offensive are civilians, according to the UN. The death toll for Israel stood at 68, including one child. The percentage of civilians killed is 5 percent, with the majority of deaths being IDF soldiers.

142 comments:

  1. At the time of writing, the death toll in Gaza stood at 2,039, including 540 children and 75 families. Seventy-two percent of Palestinians killed in this offensive are civilians, according to the UN. The death toll for Israel stood at 68, including one child. The percentage of civilians killed is 5 percent, with the majority of deaths being IDF soldiers.

    LOL According to the UN? Where did they get their information? The Hamas Health Ministry?

    the fact is simple. there would be no deaths if Hamas did not start the rocket war...

    The number of deaths would be smaller if they had accepted the Egyptian cease fires and stuck by them..

    But Hamas wants war...

    And it shall get it...

    As for the Jews against the war? No surprise. How many Gazans support the idea that Hamas is wrong? Oh that's right if they speak out they are lined up against a wall and executed...

    Jews who disagree with Israel are not executed by Israel. However Jews who disagree with israel are STILL targets of Hamas for execution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. .

    Rufus IISat Aug 23, 08:29:00 PM EDT

    Carry on, Quirk. There's no use in taking our conversation any further.


    -----------

    Rufus IISat Aug 23, 09:18:00 PM EDT

    But, Quirk, there's just one thing you need to keep in mind...


    -----------

    Rufus IISat Aug 23, 09:47:00 PM EDT

    Or, maybe it was a larger contingent. 40 or 50...



    :o)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love this line...

    "We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people"

    Genocide... Wow...

    talk about crying wolf...

    In syria? 191 THOUSAND civilians are dead and that's not genocide.

    But somehow 1000 out of 2000 deaths in gaza becomes "genocide"

    The term "genocide" is being devalued.

    It is horrible? sure...

    But the execution of civilians by hamas is also horrible.

    3,600 attempted MURDERs by Hamas is horrible.

    War sucks. But if a Terrorist Group can be part of the government of the Palestinians it also must be held accountable for it's terror...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact is that no one knows the number of deaths. I did see a funny video where a bunch of alleged Gazan dead missed their cue and moved around. Those guys could have BS down to a science if they only had a brain.

      Delete
    2. Genocide is not to be conflated with mass murder.

      You English as a Second Language crowd, always confused with a language that utilizes vowels.
      Stay with it, fellas.

      Delete
    3. Is it possible that Israel’s goal is to make the people in Gaza so desperate they will blow the walls on the Egyptian border and flee in mass into Egypt? Al-Sisi’s irrational hatred of Hamas, may cause him to end up with him responsible for all the humans in Gaza or would he simply kill the millions of humans fleeing Israel’s oppression?
      Given the massive destruction of basic infrastructure, diseases such as cholera are very possible, leading to massive deaths.
      What does Israel hope to achieve?
      Right now Egypt and Saudi Arabia leaders are siding with Israel out of fear of being forcibly removed, but if there is massive starvation, disease or a mass refuge situation with Gaza, how will the leaders of Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia survive the backlash?
      I do not see this ending well for Israel, Abbas, Egypt or Saudi Arabia. I suspect Al-Sisi is going to deeply regret his deal with the devil called Israel.

      Delete
  4. Yesterday, 95% of Israelis support continued action in Gaza. The IDF favors swarming Gaza and destroying Hamas, according to polls. Gazans should give thanks everyday that Mr. Netanyahu is in charge. I continue to think his days numbered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    1. “Bigotry does not consort easily with free trade.”


      Delete
    2. While mouthing platitudes, EU governments and companies are doing deals in Israel in record numbers.

      Delete
  5. That civilian apartment block blown today had one heck of a secondary explosion - probably holy qurans.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A BBC poll in 2013 found that 57 per cent of Canadians believed Israel had a mainly negative influence on the world. Just one-quarter of Canadians viewed Israel as a positive influence.

    Those numbers were very similar to the same poll from 2012. In both cases, they saw below-average support in Canada, with an average of 52 per cent of people across 22 countries viewing Israel negatively, compared with Canada’s high-50s result.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Words Have MeaningsSun Aug 24, 01:47:00 AM EDT

    Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:

    1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and

    2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide."

    Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
    Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
    Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)

    "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Caroline Glick's book sales of, AN ISRAELI SOLUTION, should skyrocket. Clinton, Peres, Netanyahu, and others have finally bought into a single state solution argued brilliantly by her in 2013.

    http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/From-Hillary-to-Shimon-Two-states-is-no-solution-371627
    Remarks made by Clinton, Peres, Netanyahu and others indicate that Israel’s need to retain control of Judea and Samaria has become, at last, a mainstream position.

    In 2010, the chief prosecutor of the ICC refused cases brought by the PA because "There was no country of Palestine and never had been."

    In 2012, the ICC refused cases based upon the legal tenant that "even as a non-voting observing member of the General Assembly, war crimes complaints could not be heard by the ICC because the PA had no boundaries and therefore alleged war crimes lacked jurisdictional place."

    Glick argues that Israeli law should be imposed as it was in Jerusalem. Arabs in Jerusalem could apply for Israeli citizenship and most eventually did. She believes the Arabs of Judea and Samaria would do the same. Gaza should be returned to Egyptian law according to her.

    ReplyDelete
  9. QuirkSun Aug 24, 03:37:00 AM EDT
    .

    First, the Lobby defines what countries are Shia and which Sunni. Then they propose mass relocation and/or deportations. Now they define what is a child.


    Well Quirk you certainly have your own POV.

    The Sunnis and the Shiia are the one's doing the mass deportations, murder and ethnic cleansing.. Not Israel or the Jews or even Allen or I...

    As for what is a child? Numerous reports show that the "hamas ministry for health" plays loose and fast with death counts and definitions. The UN? EMPLOYEES 30,000 UNRWA folks who happen to work for HAMAS...

    The true death count? Noone really knows but if you take historic reporting into account it usually proves that the "civilians" and children counted by Hamas or the PLO/PA is grossly exaggerated..

    From Jenin to the last Gaza war there always seems to be the "child" death/civilian death card played...

    Now you have a good night... I am sure by morning there will be some interesting news coming out of the middle east..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      The Sunnis and the Shiia are the one's doing the mass deportations, murder and ethnic cleansing.. Not Israel or the Jews or even Allen or I...

      Again, you display an inability to read a simple sentence and understand. My comments weren't about what the Sunni and Shia does. They were not about Israel. They were about the specific words you and Obumble posted and the attitudes they reflect.

      You guys put up words and propose actions you would deploy in the 'other' and then try to justify it because of the actions of others. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you offer us another straw man. Were I not the gentle soul that I am I might accuse you of looking a lot like them.

      .

      Delete
  10. Ah... Iran is getting nervous..

    It ordered it's proxies to open fire from Lebanon and Syria...


    http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Rockets-from-Syria-land-in-Golan-Heights-after-Lebanese-Katyusha-strikes-Israel-372043

    Not to worry, only wounded a couple of jew kids...

    But here is an excellent video of that hamas operations center that was housed in an apartment building..

    remember Israel warned the folks to get out... No one got killed here...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1QOmbxvrw8#t=57

    But hamas lost another building...

    news reports that Hamas has stacked tunnels with fighters and is waiting to ambush the pussy IDF teenagers....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Five rockets from Syria landed across the border with Israel in the Golan Heights overnight between Saturday and Sunday.

      Now in Lebanon things are a bit dicier..

      Lebanon's official National News Agency, citing its correspondent in Tyre, said the rockets were fired towards Israel and that the Lebanese army had encircled the suspected launch area.

      The lebanese are not wanting to have another "victory" like last time over Israel due to Hezbollah....

      Charlie Scheen added "winning" to the story by cheering the warlocks of hezbollah on to victory...

      Delete
  11. Baghdad: Militants have launched a renewed push to seize Iraq's main oil refinery north of Baghdad, battling security forces backed by air support, a police officer and witnesses said on Sunday.

    The fighting, in which militants attacked the Baiji refinery from three sides, broke out on Saturday evening and continued into the next day, the sources said.

    Militants have repeatedly sought to overrun the refinery, which once accounted for some 50 percent of Iraq's supplies of refined oil products.

    While they have previously managed to enter the refinery compound, security forces were able to push them back.

    Jihadist-led militants launched a major offensive in June, overrunning large areas of five provinces and sweeping security forces aside.

    The unrest has hit northern oil production and shipments, but Iraq's massive southern fields and export terminals remain unaffected.

    AFP

    First Published: Sunday, August 24, 2014, 16:56

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is almost ten years since Saddam was hanged. I predicted then that it would result in another 500,000 killed. Are we there yet?

    2164thSat Dec 30, 11:38:00 PM EST
    The Shiites have made Saddam look like Nathan Hale (American Soldier and Revolutionary officer who attempted to spy on the British and was hanged. 1755-1776), “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

    They made his death easy. He went down cursing his enemies. He achieved martyrdom. It will probably cause another 500,000 or so dead on both sides.

    ReplyDelete


    ReplyDelete
  13. The memories are long in the ME. Every act of revenge, retaliation, injustice and human atrocity gets paid back in ways that are unknowable but guaranteed. The smiling vengeful fools of today will have their taunts and triumphalism answered to morrow. The absurd belief in god is the curse that keeps on giving to the murderers and the sadists.

    The circle widens, the numbers of deaths rise. I could not even guess to where.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Farmer RobSat Aug 23, 01:42:00 PM EDT

    So some have said, here at the Elephant Bar.

    The auto executives and graphic artists chose to demur.
    Referencing old wars, in jungle environments.

    Not even bothering to extol the tactical experiences garnered in Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya.
    Selective seeing, which leads to their own 'politically correct' policy formulations."


    Lordy, rat, you love to set up straw men and knock them down. Here straight from the first line of the article Deuce posted:

    "History has shown that air power can be a deciding factor in battles, if only the Arab states would use it against ISIS."

    21st Century thinking my ass! The rest of the article goes on to assess ISIS along historical lines noting the various countries in the regions ability to provide CLOSE AIR SUPPORT and has found them wanting.

    The main thrust of that article is:

    "Even though they have use of U.S. supplied equipment captured from fleeing Iraqis, their attack formations are an improvised mixture of tanks and armored vehicles and many more pickup trucks jerry-rigged as mobile artillery.They should be extremely vulnerable to a full-scale air attack."

    Now this is quite a step further than what you and Rufus have extolled. You two arm chair generals have assessed that IS is vulnerable to air attack therefore a few attacks from the air and IS will be on run. Have I correctly depicted your straw man?

    I think things are a good deal more complicated than that. Sure, I agree with the article that a "full-scale air attack" would be effective against IS but without corresponding boots on the ground to hold the territory there will be little efficacy in launching a FULL SCALE air attack. If you are hoping for 'locals' to provide the boots on the ground you have a very murky and shifting group to provide air support for. Are we supporting the Shia Iraqi army with a propensity to flee? The mighty Kurds who don't have the will or the manpower to hold such territory (heck neither do the Iraqis) because that territory includes a large portion of Syria. How about air support for our bud Assad and his pals in Iran? Turkey? Jordan? Israel hmmm, sticky wicket.

    So, the US seems to be doing what you and Rat want. A little bit here a little bit there or as Quirk says "drip drip drip".

    I also think hubris reigns yet again. The assessment that IS is an invading force of 10k (oh my, now the number has jumped 50% to 15k) like a German force invading Poland, or France, where they are different from an opposing local population could be a misconception. It may be true but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on the notion that pushing out IS in some of these places will cause the streets to be lined for US with flower throwing locals at the victory parade. No, the ME is a much more complicated place.

    p.s. Striking fear into you enemies (i.e. the executions and publishing it) is a practice that has been used in ME for much of its, dare I say the word, HISTORY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rat is a figment of your imaginationSun Aug 24, 10:04:00 AM EDT

      .

      Delete
    2. That's the best you can come up with?

      Delete
    3. Rat is still a figment of your imaginationSun Aug 24, 10:22:00 AM EDT

      You addressed a comment to someone that does not participate.
      Someone that did not write the missive you reference.

      Why would you expect a response to it?

      Delete
    4. I don't because you don't have a good response so divert the best you can.

      Delete
  15. A 2nd Israel should be set in an area of 1000 square along the Minesotta - Ontario border to complement the current Israel. The war wary Israelite s could rest and recuperate before heading back to Gaza to fight the Palestinians.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I want to start all over again.

    Obama has said that in the case of a true humanitarian crisis, and/or if the Shia/Sunni/Kurds will work together, he will supply some air power.

    After watching the effects of this type of precision action on and around Sinjal Mountain, and the Mosul Dam area, Rat and I think that what he's outlining is a workable solution.

    Ash, and Quirk seem to rabidly disagree.

    Now, we hear about this town of 20,000, Amerli, in which children, and women are dying due to a siege put upon them by the same group that we routed from the Mosul Dam.

    I guess my question is: If we can get the Peshmerga, or Iraqis to go in and mop up, are Ash, and Quirk against us using our drones, and F/A-18's to to "break the siege," and bring electricity (and food) back to Amerli?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about town x and y in Syria? Wash, rinse repeat?

      I am unfamiliar with the particular situation in Ameri. Has a team gone into to asses the situation as was done on the mountain? Have the Iraqis or the Kurds indicate they will move in hold and administer the area?

      Delete
    2. Deuce put this post up, Yesterday:

      Amerli, Iraq - 18000 Shiite Muslims face starvation, capture and execution by ISIS

      Delete
    3. The team sent to the mountain determined that increased US action was not required, how much do we know about Amerli, who will take care if the ground operations ?

      Delete
    4. We sent That team after we'd spent a full week bombing IS positions around Sindal Mountan, thereby keeping the headcutters off of the mountain, and allowing the Kurds to set up a "back door" for escape.

      Should we do the same thing, again?

      Delete
  17. Good comment. Fixing this based on our past performance is not encouraging . Who funded and armed Isis and the other Jihadist groups in Syria for the past 3 years? Maybe they have a plan. The only place that even has a chance are in the areas where the locals have the determination to resist if not the means. It is a huge undertaking. It can only be accomplished with the help of Iran, Turkey, Syria, Kurdistan and parts of Iraq. Israel is useless to US interests.The best you can hope for from them is that they minimize the damage.

    Saudi and the Gulf states can be intimidated to withdraw their support but I place them with Israel in their inability to provide any useful assistance to the US. Egypt is too wobbly.

    Then you have the Chinese and Russians who will do nothing to help but could be convinced to remain neutral.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The larger point is we have a huge responsibility in this carnage . We can place the blame but our fingerprints are everywhere. We have to assist in Amerli. If it works there we can use the model elsewhere, but all the military assistance will fail without the politics being right.

    ReplyDelete
  19. “The victims of genocide became themselves the source of it.” This is how Hedi Epstein sees the essence of the ruling against Israel. A German Jew who survived WWII, she lost her parents to a concentration camp. Epstein was a prosecution witness in the Nuremberg Trials. And in 1982, she learned that the Israeli Army occupied Lebanon and provoked mass executions in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. From that moment on, Epstein and hundreds of other Jews embarked on an anti-military and anti-Zionist campaign. However, Israel has refused to listen to their voices. They were labeled “self-hating” Jews and banned from the country which, incidentally, announced itself to be the homeland of all Jews in the world. Israel remained deaf to their warning that the Jews who survived genocide do not wish Israel to be committing genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people in their name.
    ...
    The first one involved Israeli soldiers who killed 29 members of the extended Samouni family in the Zeitoun neighborhood of the Gaza Strip during the 22-day Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and 2009.

    This is the most notorious crime against Palestinians over the last few years. Judge Goldstone incorporated it into his report, which he submitted to the UN after the operation was over.

    The Samounis were a large family of peaceful farmers. None of them had ever participated in armed resistance. They were some of the few Palestinians who got on well with the Israeli settlers and they were frustrated by the removal of the settlements from the Gaza Strip.

    In January 2009, an Israeli helicopter landed on their field. A few gunmen demanded that the Samounis turn in the Hamas militants to them. The next thing they did was bring the whole family under one roof and shoot them down dead, including the infants. Those who survived were found under the bodies of their relatives.
    ...
    The second story revolved around the mass shooting of women and children in the Sabra and Shatila camps in Lebanon in 1982.

    Other incidents included:

    - lethal firing of teargas canisters and rubber bullets by Israeli Defense Forces that resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians during the Intifada campaigns and subsequent protests;

    - intensive, indiscriminate aerial bombing and artillery shelling of civilian quarters in the Gaza Strip in 2008;

    - a university student who was shot without warning at a peaceful protest by an Israeli sniper, firing a fragmentary bullet that caused extensive and permanent damage to his internal organs;

    - a Christian resident of the West Bank who was repeatedly imprisoned and tortured on grounds of subversion;

    - a female resident of Nablus who suffered mental anxiety due to her imprisonment and subsequent social ostracism;

    - a Palestinian physician who conducted studies on the psychological trauma inflicted, particularly on children, as result of constant intimidation, massive violence and state terror during and following the second Intifada; and

    - Expert witness Paola Manduca, an Italian chemist and toxicologist, who found extreme levels of toxic contamination of the soil and water across the Gaza Strip, caused by Israeli weapons made of heavy metals and cancer-causing compounds.

    The Tribunal found the State of Israel guilty of genocide of the Palestinian people in each of these cases, blaming former general Amos Yaron for the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

    The Tribunal’s verdict reads as follows:

    “The Tribunal is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the first defendant, [General] Amos Yaron, is guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide, and the second defendant, the State of Israel, is guilty of genocide.”

    ReplyDelete
  20. Associated Press= BAGHDAD (AP) — Iran's foreign minister says his country sees no need to send fighters to help the Iraqi government battle the Islamic State group, even as Sunni militants inch closer to the Iraq-Iran border.

    Speaking Sunday at a press conference in Baghdad, Mohammed Javad Zarif said "we do not believe that we need to be present inside Iraq to help our Iraqi brothers. They are very capable of doing that themselves."

    An offensive by the Islamic State group across northern and western Iraq has plunged the country into its biggest crisis since the U.S. military pulled out in 2011.

    This month, the Sunni militant group pushed eastward, taking control of the town of Jalula in Iraq's Diyala province, located some 30 kilometers from the Iranian border.

    ReplyDelete
  21. TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said Sunday its forces shot down an Israeli drone as it approached an Iranian nuclear site, without offering further details. Israeli officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

    The statement comes as Iran negotiates with world powers over its nuclear program and hard-liners press moderate President Hassan Rouhani to demand more concessions before limiting its atomic capabilities. Israel has not ruled out taking military action against Iran's nuclear facilities if its capability to build an atomic weapon progresses.

    The Guards issued a statement Sunday on its website saying its forces fired a missile at the drone as it neared its uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, some 240 kilometers (150 miles) south of the capital, Tehran. The statement did not say when it shot down the drone, nor did it elaborate on how the Guards knew the drone was from Israel.

    Iran's nuclear program has been the target of espionage and sabotage efforts in the past. In 2010, the so-called Stuxnet virus temporarily disrupted operation of thousands of centrifuges, key components in nuclear fuel production, at Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment facility. Iran says it and other computer virus attacks are part of a concerted effort by Israel, the U.S. and their allies to undermine its nuclear program through covert operations. Israel has never commented on the allegations but is widely believed to have been involved in the Stuxnet attack.

    Since then, Iran has also said that it discovered tiny timed explosives planted on centrifuges but disabled them before they could go off. Authorities now claim the Islamic Republic is immune to cyberattacks.

    Meanwhile, world powers and Iran continue to negotiate on a final deal regarding Iran's nuclear program. A deal struck last November saw some sanctions eased in exchange for Iran limiting its uranium enrichment.

    The West fears Iran may be able to develop a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charges, saying its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity and medical research.

    Iran has said it captured several American drones that violated the country's airspace in the past. In 2011, Iran said it captured an advanced CIA spy RQ-170 Sentinel drone and later reverse-engineered it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cool, Israel can fly drones over Iran?

      excellent...

      Delete
  22. TRIPOLI (Reuters) - Unidentified war planes attacked targets in Libya's capital Tripoli on Sunday, residents said, hours after forces from the city of Misrata said they had seized the main airport.

    Tripoli residents heard jets followed by explosions at dawn but no more details were immediately available.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Again, I ask the question, should the United States supply the same type of help that we provided at Sindal Mountain, and Mosul Dam, to the besieged residents of Amerli if it can be done under the same type of cooperative conditions?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mosul Dam cooperated wonderfully in that effort. If the Amerlicans would do the same, why yes, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  25. O my, what a dream.....I dreamed......of Quart sitting, chilling, on an iceberg.....surrounded by seven seals......the iceberg.....a chip off the old Ross Ice Shelf.......was this prophetic? metaphorical of an inner reality?.....there sat Quart surrounded by seven seals on a melting iceberg, a chip off the old Ross Shelf......headed north towards the equator......the waters warming......the ice berg melting........

    ReplyDelete
  26. Let me ask again:

    Did our efforts at Sindal Mountain and Mosul Dam yield a "Good" result, and

    Should we repeat those actions in other places where they meet Obama's criterions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I repeat: Where they meet Obama's criterions


      For ex.: Mount Sindal was a humanitarian operation, whereas

      Mosul Dam was an Integrated Iraqi/Peshmerga operation.

      Delete
  27. Come on, anyone can blindly criticize the President; let's get on record:

    Was Sindal Mountain / Mosul Dam a success?

    If so, should we do it again in a place like Amerli?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, no problem if it will only take a few runs by F18's and the odd drone. That is all it will take, right?

      wash, rinse, repeat and peace will reign throughout the land. Ain't air power wonderful?

      Delete
    2. Is that all it took at Sindal Mountain, and the Mosul Dam?

      Delete
    3. Why aren't the Turks running the air mission?

      Delete
    4. Two questions:

      1) Do you think the Turks have the same precision strike capability that we do?

      2) And, do you think anyone really wants the Turks running air operations in Iraq?

      Delete
    5. The Amerli being Turkmen Shia would like it. Would anyone want the US running air operations? Anyone in the ME is happy with anyone running air operations if it does it in support of them. Why are you so.keen on America being the arbiter of who wins and loses over there while shouldering all the costs of that privilege?

      Delete
    6. Do you think we Should Not have taken the actions we took at Sindal Mountain, and Mosul Dam?

      Delete
    7. No, the US should stop picking the winners and losers over there.

      Delete
    8. Enough with American exceptionalism.

      Delete
    9. Because the Turks will not do it. Will not fund it, have no 'national interest', there.

      Now, Ash, if you would like to debate the political justification for taking action ... the History of US/British involvement in the region, dating from ... 1776 or just from the 1916 Sykes-Pikot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Declaration or the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 .. and how those past actions create a 'Western' responsibility for the current situation.

      Then given what ever status of 'Western" responsibility is ...
      What the 'best' policy for the US to pursue would or should be.

      That would be interesting.

      Delete
  28. Answer to #1 is yes, ... if.
    The 'if' being ... the US supplies the munitions.

    No one wants Turkey running anything in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know, Rat; do you think the Turks have the same "drone targeting" capabilities as the U.S.?

      Delete
    2. Btw, this is a question, not an argument. I'm skeptical, but I really don't know.

      Delete
    3. Probably not the drones, but they have the F16 and the entire munitions package that it can carry.
      NATO capable. Just like US.

      Delete
  29. You see, This is the type of response that I don't understand:

    "wash, rinse, repeat and peace will reign throughout the land. Ain't air power wonderful?"


    No one said, "Peace will reign throughout the land."

    What Rat, and I, have both said is that there is hardly any territory occupied by ISIS in Iraq that a semi-competent Iraqi, and/or Peshmerga ground force, and U.S. air capability cannot, fairly easily, take back.

    I have stipulated that it will be more difficult in the larger cities, such as Mosul, and Fallujah - and, to some extent, Tikrit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since Iraq or Kurds haven't been able to take back anything, by your critera, they aren't semi-competent.

      If peace won't reign throughout the land why are you so keen to hop back in that mess? Saddam was billed as the EVIL one now you are saying IS is the evil one and we must act.

      Delete
    2. The Iraqis and the Kurds Have taken back a little gound on their own. That said, the Kurds need an infusion of modern weapons, and the Iraqis definitely need some competent leadership.

      Delete
    3. And, I didn't say that a "semi-competent" force could take back ground "on its own."

      I said that a semi-competent force And American Air Power could take back most of the lost ground fairly easily.

      Delete
  30. http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/PA-slams-Hamas-executions-372087
    Top Fatah official calls executions "cold-blooded," says they don't comply with law.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I asked above, and I'll ask, here: Is there anyone who thinks that

    We Should Not Have Taken the Actions That We Took at Sindal Mountain, and Mosul Dam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, nor should have the US decided to oust Saddam. The USA is not the arbiter of right and wrong in the ME, or the world.

      Delete
    2. Now, Ash, if you would like to debate the political justification for taking action ... the History of US/British involvement in the region, dating from ... 1776 or just from the 1916 Sykes-Pikot Agreement, the 1917 Balfour Declaration or the Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919 .. and how those past actions create a 'Western' responsibility for the current situation.

      Then given what ever the status of 'Western" responsibility is, for the actions of the past 100 years...
      What the 'best' policy for the US to pursue would or should be.

      That would be interesting.

      Delete
    3. Okay, there you go. Ash is on the record. We Should Not Have Helped Those People on the Mountain, nor Should We Have Helped Kick ISIS Off the Dam.

      Quirk, what about You? Where do You stand?

      Delete
    4. .

      Rufus IISun Aug 24, 10:07:00 AM EDT

      I want to start all over again.


      Well, I guess you do.

      The little kerfuffle that started her a couple weeks ago (some have called it the War of the Generals vs. the Bilateral Alliance (or more prosaically the auto executive and the graphic artist, sorry if that is wrong Ash, going from memory here) began with the following exchange.

      Rufus IIMon Aug 11, 12:27:00 PM EDT

      Wars are made Easier by the addition of Drones, and FA-18's to the boots on the ground.

      (esp. when the other side doesn't have drones, and FA-18's)
      Reply
      Replies

      1.
      Rufus IIMon Aug 11, 12:29:00 PM EDT

      Not to mention B-1's, B-2's, and F-22's in Reserve.

      2.
      QuirkMon Aug 11, 01:32:00 PM EDT
      .

      The boots on the ground will have to be the Iraqi. US air attacks might provide time and space at certain points but the biggest advantage of the US presence will likely be supporting logistics through providing real-time intel on IS troop movements.

      The Kurds have to defend a 900 mile front.


      These simple statements soon devolved into an argument over the relative importance of air power in the current engagement in Iraq. The argument eventually took two paths . The first involved the relative value of air power vs. boots on the ground in taking and holding territory in this war. The second involved the issue of national interests and mission creep.

      .

      Delete
    5. .

      I won’t speak for Ash; although, I think we generally agree. But stating my position from the beginning, it has always been: air power is great, it can provide time and space for embattled troops through close air support for the troops and taking out heavy weapons, and in a case such as the one in Iraq today where you have a relatively small enemy force spread over thousands of square miles it can provide intel that can help focus responses to enemy actions. This is a point I have stated numerous times beginning with my first statement on the subject. That being said, I have also repeated my main position that whatever the advantages of air power, it will ultimately be the troops on the ground that take and hold towns, cities, territory

      The Generals on the other hand, have proselytized that US air power is the number 42 of modern day warfare. In the current engagement with IS, they speak of ‘death from the air’, of ’10,000 dead men walking’, of ‘one of the greatest one-sided massacres in the history of warfare’, of the ‘greatest shooting gallery in the history of warfare’, of the ‘slaughter of the millennium’, and ‘No worries, mate.

      When the Bilateral Alliance has the temerity to question this unbridled confidence in a single aspect of the arsenal, to view the generals thinking as tactical rather than strategic, it is accused of 20th Century thinking and urged to jump on the drone train.

      Well, we shall see when we get to Mosul as it seems we might which brings us to the second aspect of the argument.

      .

      Delete
    6. .

      The second aspect of the argument involves the determination of exactly what are the US national priorities in the current fight against IS. From that discussion, flows the obvious issue of mission creep.

      Obama has said that in the case of a true humanitarian crisis, and/or if the Shia/Sunni/Kurds will work together, he will supply some air power.

      After watching the effects of this type of precision action on and around Sinjal Mountain, and the Mosul Dam area, Rat and I think that what he's outlining is a workable solution.

      Ash, and Quirk seem to rabidly disagree.


      Pure nonsense. You conflate issues and come up with a straw man. Again, I won’t speak for Ash. As for me, I have not argued with the limited role Obama initially established. All I argued with was your cockeyed optimism and the belief that drones were the number 42 of warfare.

      What I started to question with the talk we have seen after the Mosul operation was what appears to me like a familiar morphing of objectives, something we have seen numerous times before, something colloquially expressed as mission creep.

      .

      Delete
    7. .

      Now, we hear about this town of 20,000, Amerli, in which children, and women are dying due to a siege put upon them by the same group that we routed from the Mosul Dam.

      I guess my question is: If we can get the Peshmerga, or Iraqis to go in and mop up, are Ash, and Quirk against us using our drones, and F/A-18's to to "break the siege," and bring electricity (and food) back to Amerli?


      My answer is yes, I am against it.

      My questions to you are:

      Are you aware of how many similar towns IS has taken and is continuing to take in this war?

      Are you aware the Iraqi air force was also engaged in the battle over the Mosul damn?

      Are you aware that we invaded Iraq in March, 2003 and in May, 2003 Bush declared ‘mission accomplished’ and that it was the end of 2011 when the final US troops left Iraq?

      Drip, drip, drip.

      .

      Delete
    8. Fine, but, the question of the day Is:

      Do you agree with the President's actions at Sindal Mountain, and Mosul Dam?

      Ash voted "No." What say you?

      Delete
    9. .

      Dam not damn.

      Perhaps, a Freudian slip.

      .

      Delete
    10. .

      As stated above, I did not question the action on the Sindal Mountain. At the time. From the pictures we saw it was hard to ignore the humanitarian crisis.

      However, my views started to change with the Mosul damn. It was an expansion of the initial objective. The rationale they gave was ludicrous (i.e. to save American personnel in the Green Zone in Baghdad). In addition, in our patriotic fervor and belief in air power, it is easy to think it was American air support that swung the balance in taking the dam. Perhaps I am overly critical in questioning that. I read articles and see the US raids took out some vehicles. I read articles stating the Iraqi air force was also involved. I see articles that say that it was Kurdish and Iraqi army forces that did the hard work, moving in and eliminating bombs and booby traps.

      Then I see talk of sending in more US troops.

      Then I see talk from you today of expanding the war to save 'the women and children' and I see drip, drip, drip.

      Saving women and children, taking down a dictator, humanitarian reasons, spreading democracy, American national interest, security interests, all wonderful sounding rationales for going to war. The only problem, we have proven that we are piss-poor in enunciating a strategy and even worse in implementing it with the end result that at the expense lives and treasure we end up making things worse.

      It amazes me that two weeks ago, you were arguing that we had no place in the ME and now you are proselytizing for our return. And using the same propaganda techniques that got us in over there in the first place.

      .

      Delete
  32. To what degree should the past actions by the US and England be ignored, the responsibility for the outcomes of those decisions be dismissed?

    After breaking the china, didn't the US and England 'buy it'?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Whitehouse: "We will not be restricted by borders"

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  34. Okay, I just realized that it's only fair that I go on the record, also.

    I think Obama did the right thing, both at Sindal Mountain, and the Mosul Dam.

    Bob is on the record with an "Aye."

    Who's next?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "Ayes" are up 2 - 1, so far.

      Delete
    2. How do You vote, Quirk?

      Did the President do good?

      Delete
    3. Bob, and I agree that the President did good.

      Ash votes his principles with a resounding "No."

      Come on, Quirk; what do you think?

      Delete
    4. This is Not a hard question. Do you approve of the President's actions, so far, or not?

      Ash voted No.

      Are you incapable of saying, "Yay," or "Nay?"

      Delete
    5. .

      Fuck you, you dumb hick.

      I answered up above.

      .

      Delete
    6. No, you didn't. You managed to be equivocal about the Sindal Mountain operation, negative on the Mosul Dam campaign, and a Loud, and Vociferous NO on any further actions in Amerli, or similar humanitarian situations.

      Would it be fair to put you down alongside Ash, as a NO?

      Delete
    7. .

      Add to this the fact that on an issue as important as this, you are now taking a straw poll as if that means a flying fuck.

      The 'democracy fallacy' thy name is Rufus.

      And this is lovely, Bob, and I agree .... What a friggin endorsement.

      .

      Delete
    8. So "important" that you can't say whether you Agree, or Disagree with the President's actions.

      You just want to bitch.

      Delete
    9. I ask your opinion, and I'm a "dumb hick."


      What would I be if I "Didn't" ask your opinion?

      Delete
    10. But, in the interest of fairly representing your opinion:

      You weren't virulently against saving the Yazidi women and children, but you absolutely can't get on board with saving the Shiite, Turkomen women and children. Is that right?

      Delete
    11. Let me ask you another question, Quirk.

      What if I could guarantee you that the proposed action in Amerli would go off just as "painlessly, and hitch-free" as the action of Sindal Mountain - would you still be against it?

      Delete
    12. .

      No, you didn't.

      How stupid are you? You say I didn't and then go on to repeat (kind of) how I did answer.

      You managed to be equivocal about the Sindal Mountain operation,

      I was not equivocal. I was initially supportive of the operation and the limited objectives Obama outlines. By the time I started to question it the operation was over.

      ...negative on the Mosul Dam campaign..

      True. I feel the justification given by the US was silly and that the operation could have been handled by the Kurds and Iraqi forces on their own.

      , and a Loud, and Vociferous NO on any further actions in Amerli, or similar humanitarian situations.

      True, but that had nothing to do with your initial question.

      Would it be fair to put you down alongside Ash, as a NO?

      Not exactly. I agreed with the initial operation in Sindal. There is no doubt the humanitarian aid we supplied, food, water, etc. was necessary. It was only later that I questioned whether the air strikes there were necessary for the stated objective of relieving the humanitarian crisis.

      However, there is another aspect you have not mentioned. The air attacks there and in Irbil stalled the general IS advance to the North and gave the Kurds and later the Iraqi Army the time and space needed to to reform and counter attack. That part of Obama's plan was limited but beneficial to our pushing forward our current policies in Iraq.

      Do you agree with the President's actions at Sindal Mountain, and Mosul Dam? is a question that is a little broad for a yes or no answer.

      .

      Delete
    13. .

      Gee, sorry it takes a little time to answer your questions, Rufus.

      You do engage in pithy repartee. On the other hand only the simple expect simple answer to complicated questions.

      And yea, you are a 'dumb hick'.

      .

      Delete
    14. Rufus, you were wrong about wanting to invade Iraq and take out Saddam, you were wrong about the severity of the financial crisis and you ate wrong about urging US to reengage in Iraq now. Rat gave a nice listing of the length of US/British involvement in the region and look at the clusterfuck that has been created. Ironically that is his reason for doing more.

      Look to Tunisia, no US involvement and it is a relative success. Similarly one can look to Central America - Costa Rica no US involvement and it is a success. All the rest with a long history of US meddling - clusterfuck.

      Delete
    15. .

      Let me ask you another question, Quirk.

      What if I could guarantee you that the proposed action in Amerli would go off just as "painlessly, and hitch-free" as the action of Sindal Mountain - would you still be against it?



      Another hypothetical. The fact that you could base your premise on "guaranteeing' that he next operation would go off " "painlessly, and hitch-free" shows what a dumb hick you are, general. With all due respect, of course.

      .

      Delete
    16. It worked in Libya...

      No problems at all.
      Very low cost, almost no blood, very little treasure.

      Place is still in turmoil, no longer exporting terrorism, as Libyan strongman Colonel Q had a history of doing.
      No more negotiations with Russia for naval docking rights.
      The majority of the Libyan oil production is still off-line, to the benefit of the Saudi benefactors.

      It's all good.
      If one buys into the benefits to the "Western World" extolled by the Zionists in an overview of an "Arab Winter". A prospect that "O"rdure announced with some relish, but the Israeli will not cut the mustard, without US.

      Just as the Turks will not.

      Delete
    17. I was wrong about the extent of the housing bubble. Most of us civilians assumed that the bankers still knew how to "bank."

      Once the MBS disaster became apparent, I was actually one of the very few that predicted that this recession would go on for a decade, or more.

      I was, Absolutely, wrong about the Invasion of Iraq. It was stupid policy, and it was being implemented by a stupid leader. And, I was the stupidest of all, because I supported it w/o having anything to gain from it.

      Delete
  35. While I certainly oppose any audacious entry of conventional US ground forces into Iraq, there is a place for Advisers and tactical air support. If it were decided that the further advance or even the maintenance of the "Islamic State" was not in US interests.

    If US interests coincided with those of the Iraqi government, well, what should the US do?
    Walk away or help those that we empowered to defend themselves and the people of Iraq.
    On the down-low, small footprint, big impact, over time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, if the decision is made to combat ISIS, in Iraq, the lessons learned in Vietnam would tell US that we cannot fford the ISIS sanctuary behind borders that they do not acknowledge.

      So, if the US were to become 'fully' committed to the destruction of the ISIS, militarily ....
      Operation would have to include parts of Syria, and possible cooperation with those forces loyal to the Assad regime

      Delete
    2. Rat wants to ally with Iran and Assad's Syria if it coincides with US interest. What is US interest in this fight? Oil? Humanitarian? Good vs Evil?

      Delete
    3. .

      That's your position, rat.

      Ash and I have stated ours. There should be no more misunderstanding about that from this point on.

      In the future, all we need to do is watch the progression of events and see how this evolves.

      Not, that there won't be plenty of 'discussion' about that evolution along the way.

      :o)

      .

      Delete
    4. But, right now, I want to keep it simple. Has the President made correct decisions on Sindal Mountain, and the Mosul Dam operations?


      (as for "destroying ISIS," we can no more "destroy" ISIS than Israel can destroy Hama, or we can destroy Al Queda.)

      Delete
    5. I make no prognostications on what will be found to be in the "National Interests" of the US.

      Just that if the US does 'fully' commit to the destruction of ISIS, then the targeting and destruction of ISIS assets in Syria will follow. Or there is no real commitment, it would then be "Window Dressing".

      The debate, discussion, is not about the applicability of air power on the battle fields of Iraq and Syria. The discussion that Ash wants to have, the Quirk is itching for, i the policy debate. A policy of nonintervention tht most of US favor, in general. But when specific cases are presented, and six limited airstrikes save the lives of 50,000 or so folks.
      Well, who but a nihilist would cast the first stone?

      Delete
    6. " A policy of nonintervention tht most of US favor, in general. But when specific cases are presented, and six limited airstrikes save the lives of 50,000 or so folks.
      Well, who but a nihilist would cast the first stone?"


      and, there it is.

      Delete
    7. So when it is decided that the US "Must Do Something", what is it that it should do?

      The idea of coordinating with the locals, to provide that support that they cannot supply for themselves ...
      The course that has been set.

      Implicitly when the US held up the arms shipments of F16s to Iraq.
      The US promised they'd have their own air support, then reneged.
      So does the US not have a responsibility to make up for its past errors?

      Delete
    8. .

      The discussion that Ash wants to have, the Quirk is itching for, i the policy debate.

      The policy debate that Quirk and Ash want to have?

      Who asked the friggin question?

      That you don't recognize that the question posed, do you support Obama in his air attacks on Sindal and Mosul, is a political question is telling. That you don't recognize that the question itself contains two separate questions, one on Sindal and the other on Mosul, both of which can result in two separate answers both of which are by their nature political is also telling.

      Your ignoring of the political aspect of Rufus' question is further telling in that you follow up with a totally political question,

      So when it is decided that the US "Must Do Something", what is it that it should do?

      When it's decided that the US "Must Do Something"? Who decided the US must do something, that gerbil in your pocket? Who decides 'what is it that it should do?' Of course these are political questions.

      .

      Delete
  36. BTW, Quirk, This

    "As stated above, I did not question the action on the Sindal Mountain. At the time. From the pictures we saw it was hard to ignore the humanitarian crisis."

    is Not support.

    That is Equivocation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      When you indicated you were dissatisfied with my response, I expanded my answer and gave you a more nuanced one.

      Now, as you are constantly reminding both me and Ash, 'you are just being argumentative'.

      .

      Delete
    2. No, you said that you "did not equivocate" on the Mt. Sindal question, and you most assuredly did.

      Delete
  37. I would like to go on record and say the choice is more broad. Can we tolerate a new state like ISIS? We certainly had a hand in its creation. Can we really stop it if we wanted to do so? I think it is too great a risk to go Darwinian if Iran, Iraq, turkey and Syria are willing to cooperate with ground troops. We helped create this onset when we removed saddam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Right now, I 'm opposed to a further escalation on our part in Iraq. Initially, we did what I thought was prudent, we aided a humanitarian crisis while at the same time, and more importantly, we stopped the IS blitzkrieg long enough for the Iraqis to get their shit together. Now, I believe we should restrict our role to providing arms through the Iraqi government and providing logistical aid and intelligence intel on enemy movements.

      Ironically, there are those here who have objected to US forces being deployed almost anywhere and especially in the ME who now argue for an expanded role based mostly on US air power. The justification, 'This time it is and will remain different'. Since there are indications that the US role may expand, I truly hope they are right. If they are right, it may change my mind to a degree.

      However, I base my current objections on our history over the past couple decades. That history involves a number of instances where we have taken actions that have failed (by any objective measure) not because of a lack of military resources but because of unclear policy objectives and incompetent leadership. We have seen situations where the initial goals have morphed from going after a single perp, to humanitarian crisis, to regime change, to helping people achieve a democratic state, to protecting US from existential threats, to advancing US interests, to 'saving the women and children', etc. In most of these cases we have done more harm than good.

      We have already seen our mission in Iraq begin to morph and expand. I can hear that drip, drip, drip in the background. Maybe I'm wrong.

      .

      Delete
    2. Deuce,

      do you really think a grand bargain with Iran and Syria is possible, or even a good thing? How would it look? We do the air bit on IS and they take the ground? Assad gets his dictatorship and Iran our blessing on nukes? Turkey gets, what, Kurdistan? Do e give the Sunni crowd anything?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. 1. do you really think a grand bargain with Iran and Syria is possible,

      It is easier with Iran, certainly less so with Syria but there is precedent with US cooperation with the Soviet Union fighting the Nazis. Iran offered us great support after 911, but that offer was interfered with by the Israeli firsters and the Neocon plan to destabilize the ME for the supposed benefit of Israel.

      2. or even a good thing?

      Yes. Under the current situation it is a low bar to get under. Dare I say, any port in a storm?

      3.How would it look? We do the air bit on IS and they take the ground?

      I am not a tactician but the heavy ground work would have to come from the indigenous forces. It would be foolish of us not to be prepared to augment special situations with US ground forces, but US air power and superiority would dictate that role.

      4. Assad gets his dictatorship

      Assad gets a life line for another day, nothing else. Nothing else is necessary.

      5. Iran our blessing on nukes

      Iran as a potential nuclear power is no threat to the US. Israel attacking Iran to prevent Iran doing unilaterally what Israel did unilaterally is a greater threat. As I have said many times, Israel is a spectacular failure as a US partner for peace in the ME. It is a constant source of tension and disruption in the ME and a sink of US political and diplomatic assets.

      6. Turkey gets, what, Kurdistan?

      Turkey has already lost Kurdistan. Kurdistan becomes a buffer state.

      7.Do we give the Sunni crowd anything?

      That is why need Syria.

      Delete
  38. In the meantime, we have conducted 93 Airstrikes . . . .

    Oh, btw, an "airstrike" isn't, necessarily, One missile, or bomb.

    And "Airstrike" can be, and probably most often is, one or more aircraft completely "Unloading" on one target - a pickup, a mortar, an artillery piece, etc - blowing the living shit out of Everything, living or dead, within a fairly wide radius.

    Anyway, we've knocked out 93 "Targets," and probably killed somewhere between 500 and 1,000 Headcutters.

    We've lost no aircraft, not even a drone, and suffered no loss of life - or limb.

    We've saved quite a few innocent peoples' lives, and gotten rid of some truly horrid assholes.

    And, it looks to me to be very repeatable. I'm have a hard time finding the downside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      A lot of probables there.

      A link is always helpful.

      .

      Delete
    2. I have no chance of pleasing you, Quirk, So, I'm not going to scurry around looking for links to support anything on your request.

      The only "guesswork," there, is in the number of casualties. Those that are so disposed can accept my guesstimate, and those that aren't can ignore it.

      Delete
    3. .

      Ah, the old WiO gambit, You don't deserve to know my sources. Love it.

      :o)

      That's ok, my wife is on my ass about her 'honey-do' list. I better try to knock off a couple items.

      .

      Delete
    4. No, that's not it at all. The 93 number is all over the internet. The multiple explosions on a single target videos are, also.

      I might be able to find something, somewhere that would shed some light on my casualty guesstimate, but it hardly seems worth the time.

      Anyone who thinks that we could have knocked out 93 targets without inflicting casualties numbering somewhere over 500 is welcome to their belief.

      Delete
    5. QuirkSun Aug 24, 04:37:00 PM EDT
      .

      Ah, the old WiO gambit, You don't deserve to know my sources. Love it.



      OLD?? Did that the 1st time in all these years just 2 weeks ago…

      Quirt's new motif, "mr exaggerator"

      Delete
    6. Quirk's e-mail address is:

      mrexaggerator@turdonet.com

      Delete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You are going to desist with your pre-senility inanities or you will be keeping me busy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  41. While you shit kickers have been arguing all day, I won a jackpot at the CdA Casino. I am sending the "Winner" T-Shirt to my Niece.


    Yes, I think Obama did fine with retaking Mosul Dam.

    If we had kept some troops and air in Iraq no one would have ever gotten near Mosul Dam in the first place. ISIS would still be fucking around in Syria. Those roads out there in the desert.......they must be something like the two lanes out in Nevada.......endless straight stretches with zero cover........they couldn't have moved an inch if we had been up in the air......

    ReplyDelete
  42. Gregg is an old Marine like Rufus - Old girl friend's fourth husband.......

    "The Obama painting I believe is titled "Nero Fiddled While Rome Burned". JonMcNaughton.com & Facebook

    Gregg can't discuss the "O" word without the "F" word! It's beyond unbelievable that this "O" man is our President. We will do what we can with our air power but we should have had troops left behind! What we had accomplished was pretty much lost. ISIS is frightening! The be-header is thought to be an British citizen. That from some of the fellows at Guantanamo. Recently I saw photos of Muslims in Marseille, France, which is the second largest city in France. It was disgusting photos with protesters and filth in the streets as well as their homes taking over the city. Not the nice Muslims. Europe is in big trouble. Far worse off then us but we are next. The only country who seems to have it right is Australia. American's as a whole aren't going to see the light till we are hit again on our own ground. We fear that is coming sooner rather than later. Gregg thinks Obama will have no choice but to send ground troops. Gregg thinks he quietly has some present already such as Special Forces. Problem is Obama has downsized our military. Here at Nellis AFB we have the famous Aggressor Squadron dismantling. What about our missiles? Obama is putting American's in harms way! Putin made Obama take down the missile base in Poland which protected us. It goes on and on! Frightening!"

    I like Gregg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama Fiddled While Rome Burned

      http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread980271/pg1

      Her first husband was a fighter pilot at Nellis. Turned into a functioning alcoholic. Her second beat the shit out of her for about five years. The third had mental problems. The fourth.....bingo !!!!

      Delete
  43. Hey Quart, before you join the Gaza 'Resistance' I urge you to recall they don't drink much.

    This is for you, Quart:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/24/the-most-powerful-liquor-in-the-world.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quart firing missile while sober:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghMSvAQljuQ


      Quart taking out tank with TOW missile after having had a couple quarts:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xlOFavFZDQ



      "I drive better drunk than sober."

      Quart

      Delete
  44. Farmer RobSun Aug 24, 02:41:00 PM EDT
    It worked in Libya...

    No problems at all.
    Very low cost, almost no blood, very little treasure.

    Place is still in turmoil, no longer exporting terrorism, as Libyan strongman Colonel Q had a history of doing.
    No more negotiations with Russia for naval docking rights.
    The majority of the Libyan oil production is still off-line, to the benefit of the Saudi benefactors.



    So I guess all those weapons that were smuggled out of Libya and into the hands of Hamas and ISIS was a success? (to name a few)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Muslim Brotherhood has been causing Egypt from western Libya. Egypt has never been satisfied with the boundaries separating it and Libya. In years gone by some bloodshed has been the result.

      Egypt would, naturally love to get its hands on the oil producing plants and ports in western and northwestern Libya. One of the world's great aquifers lies under southwestern Libya and part of Sudan (another problem for Egypt). Obviously, Egypt's agricultural and energy shortfalls could be solved by its occupation of western Libya. Just as obviously, the Muslim Brotherhood would be grievously wounded by the loss of the region.

      To make its occupation stick, Egypt is going to need friends. The first coming to mind is China. It is China's wish for Gaza to come under Egyptian governance. China wants Egypt in Gaza to protect two Israeli ports and a high-speed commercial rail network from attacks by Hamas. China also wants the Egyptian Army en masse in the Sinai to protect a third Israeli port and container shipping through the Red Sea. To get the Egyptian Army into the Sinai at the levels needed to meet the objectives will require the amendment of Israel's peace treaty with Egypt. Given the stakes, Israel would assuredly agree.

      Delete
  45. Deuce's foreign policy could be described as a "Iran firster"

    Deuce ☂Sun Aug 24, 06:43:00 PM EDT
    1. do you really think a grand bargain with Iran and Syria is possible,

    It is easier with Iran, certainly less so with Syria but there is precedent with US cooperation with the Soviet Union fighting the Nazis. Iran offered us great support after 911, but that offer was interfered with by the Israeli firsters and the Neocon plan to destabilize the ME for the supposed benefit of Israel.

    2. or even a good thing?

    Yes. Under the current situation it is a low bar to get under. Dare I say, any port in a storm?

    3.How would it look? We do the air bit on IS and they take the ground?

    I am not a tactician but the heavy ground work would have to come from the indigenous forces. It would be foolish of us not to be prepared to augment special situations with US ground forces, but US air power and superiority would dictate that role.

    4. Assad gets his dictatorship

    Assad gets a life line for another day, nothing else. Nothing else is necessary.

    5. Iran our blessing on nukes

    Iran as a potential nuclear power is no threat to the US. Israel attacking Iran to prevent Iran doing unilaterally what Israel did unilaterally is a greater threat. As I have said many times, Israel is a spectacular failure as a US partner for peace in the ME. It is a constant source of tension and disruption in the ME and a sink of US political and diplomatic assets.

    6. Turkey gets, what, Kurdistan?

    Turkey has already lost Kurdistan. Kurdistan becomes a buffer state.

    7.Do we give the Sunni crowd anything?

    That is why need Syria.





    "Iran as a potential nuclear power is no threat to the US"

    Apparently Deuce lacks the ability to actually LISTEN to what Iran has been calling he USA since 1978.

    GREAT SATAN...

    If Deuce thinks playing nice with Iran is going to give the USA ANY security is naive.

    Deuce totally ignores the fact that the entire problem in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria AND the Gaza strip is Iran's doing...

    But keep blaming Israel and those that see and understand Iran for the evil that it actually is....

    ReplyDelete
  46. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/24/237522_islamic-extremists-seize-syrian.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1
    World
    Islamic extremists seize Syrian military base then behead captured Assad soldiers

    1/2 Iraq and 1/3 of Syria now under IS control. This is either one of the world's most motivated and well led armies or there are many more of them than currently accredited. It could also be the case that IS men form the nucleus of operations and draw additional fighters from proximate tribes as needed. If this is the case, IS is going to be a hard nut to crack because their popular support gives them great depth of reserves.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Iran was a great help to the US military medical staffs in training. Its sophisticated munitions wreaked havoc on American vehicles, leaving thousands of American troops dead or maimed. We should send them a shrubbery.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He seems to think we can negotiate some meaningful nuclear deal with Iran.

      This is hallucinations.

      Delete
    2. Iran's state long term goal:

      A world without the great and little satans.

      A world without the USA and Israel.

      Delete
  49. My sister used to live in a beautiful old two story house south of Oakland on the edge of a great gully with a fault line exactly underneath it. There it was, right over the line on the fault line maps.

    I was there a lot. Always wondered whether I'd end up in the gully in the morning.

    In the time I was there I never felt a thing but I sighed a sigh of relief when they moved to Santa Cruz.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Chinese eye supersonic sub as future of underwater travel...

    Shanghai to San Fran in 100 minutes!..................drudge

    They must plan on using the SUN to power this sucker !

    What happens when you hit a whale at, oh, say, 9,000 miles an hour?

    ReplyDelete
  51. If IS attempts to use American equipment conventionally (order of battle) they are going to lose some of their captured equipment. If they remain mobile, taking advantage of the large area of territory they govern and can continue to rely on the loyalty of local tribesmen, they will continue to dictate the where, when, and how of the battlefield. Why they chose to deploy as they did in three engagements is perplexing -- they are certainly not stupid and had to understand the risks. My guess is that IS command misjudged Mr. Obama, assuming he would dither in decision making in order to avoid US involvement.

    American air power will not regain the lost territory of Baghdad; that is going to require boots on the ground -- Iraqi boots.

    There is a good chance that American air power will be used in Syria. This will have the effect of supporting the Assad regime. This is the Assad we wanted removed from power a year ago. Our de facto support of Assad will create a whole new bunch of American enemies and will change the political landscape of Syria. It is possible that America's new enemies will become IS's new friends. I nearly forgot: Mr. Assad's regime has driven a very large number of Syrians into Iraq. IS may acquire a large heretofore untapped anti-American/anti-Baghdad,recruiting pool.

    How many carrier groups have we/will we have on station to help keep control of two unrelated and highly complex sets of problems in what were once two very different countries? How long will the American public and Congress accept the rubric, "IS is evil"? Hmm... This war business gets troublesome fast.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What happens when you hit a whale at, oh, say, 9,000 miles an hour?

      Your windshield is covered by a substance having the texture of frozen yogurt. We should ask Stephen Hawking.

      Delete
  52. August 24, 2014
    Obama Must Resist ISIS and Hamas
    By Michael Curtis

    Everyone sickened by ISIS’s acts of genocide and ruthless destruction, and now the brutal beheadings of Foley and others, should be equally horrified by the disregard of human life demonstrated by Hamas. The comparison between ISIS and Hamas in their objectives, their apocalyptic vision, and ruthlessness, show their similarity: differences are a matter of degree. Understandably, less attention has been paid to Hamas activities than to ISIS since the murder of Foley. Yet, on August 22, 2014, Hamas executed 18 Palestinians in Gaza suspected of “collaboration with Israel.” Seven of them were executed in public exhibition in a Gaza square; their heads were covered and their hands were tied.

    Hamas supporters echo its bloodthirsty behavior. A demonstration on July 20, 2014 in Miami, Florida, mostly sponsored by a number of Muslim associations, supposedly about the Gaza war, flaunted the slogan “We are jihad…we are Hamas.” The response to support of Hamas, and to anti-Semitic attitudes and behavior has been shown by two events in London in August 2014........

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/obama_must_resist_isis_and_hamas.html#ixzz3BMfoYfxK
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


    The article argues the similarities and basic equivalence of ISIS and Hamas, as the few enlightened on this blog have done for some time.

    "The brutality of ISIS must be ended, and so must Hamas’s aggression against the State of Israel, and the accompanying disease of anti-Semitism. Palestinians, including people from Fatah and the Palestinian Authority as well as Hamas, are prone to compare actions of Israel with those of the Nazis. Speeches by their leaders and news reports speak of Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza as a Holocaust, and of the Israeli Nazi mentality. This rhetoric provides the excuse for Palestinian violence against Israeli citizens, and for anti-Semitic actions.

    American and European leaders are dramatically aware of the horror of ISIS and are preparing to take some further action against its rise. They must now assess the aggressive nature of Hamas and act accordingly. Both ISIS and Hamas must be defeated."



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just more agiprop trying to link Hamas and ISIS.

      Foolishness, but typical of the Zionist propaganda that Robert spews, tirelessly.

      Delete
  53. Our little "O"rdure ...
    Thinks that 'weapons' smuggled out of Libya are somehow a greater threat to US interests than those weapons were ...
    ... while they were in Libya.

    Libya was an active terrorist threat against US interest in Europe. Had been assigned responsibility for attacks against US personnel and civilian aircraft. The 'weapons' in the Colonel's arsenal were an active threat. Those weapons, now dispersed, are no longer a strategic threat. They may be part of a tactical situation, elsewhere in the world, but as part of a strategically viable threat against US, they have been neutered.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Israel disinformation tying Hamas with ISIS justifies the Israeli assault against Gaza and is probably good for another billion from the Conga Line

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete