“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, April 05, 2015

The Republicans own the unexpected consequences of the last optional war against Iraq and should study this article before they precipitate the next optional war against Iran

The hidden hand behind the Islamic State militants? Saddam Hussein’s.

CONFRONTING THE ‘CALIPHATE’| This is part of an occasional series about the militant group Islamic State and its violent collision with the United States and others intent on halting the group’s rapid rise.

 April 4 at 8:41 PM  WASHINGTON POST

 — When Abu Hamza, a former Syrian rebel, agreed to join the Islamic State, he did so assuming he would become a part of the group’s promised Islamist utopia, which has lured foreign jihadists from around the globe.
Instead, he found himself being supervised by an Iraqi emir and receiving orders from shadowy Iraqis who moved in and out of the battlefield in Syria. When Abu Hamza disagreed with fellow commanders at an Islamic State meeting last year, he said, he was placed under arrest on the orders of a masked Iraqi man who had sat silently through the proceedings, listening and taking notes.
Abu Hamza, who became the group’s ruler in a small community in Syria, never discovered the Iraqis’ real identities, which were cloaked by code names or simply not revealed. All of the men, however, were former Iraqi officers who had served under Saddam Hussein, including the masked man, who had once worked for an Iraqi intelligence agency and now belonged to the Islamic State’s own shadowy security service, he said.
His account, and those of others who have lived with or fought against the Islamic State over the past two years, underscore the pervasive role played by members of Iraq’s former Baathist army in an organization more typically associated with flamboyant foreign jihadists and the gruesome videos in which they star. 
Even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group.
They have brought to the organization the military expertise and some of the agendas of the former Baathists, as well as the smuggling networks developed to avoid sanctions in the 1990s and which now facilitate the Islamic State’s illicit oil trading.
In Syria, local “emirs” are typically shadowed by a deputy who is Iraqi and makes the real decisions, said Abu Hamza, who fled to Turkey last summer after growing disillusioned with the group. He uses a pseudonym because he fears for his safety.
“All the decision makers are Iraqi, and most of them are former Iraqi officers. The Iraqi officers are in command, and they make the tactics and the battle plans,” he said. “But the Iraqis themselves don’t fight. They put the foreign fighters on the front lines.”
The public profile of the foreign jihadists frequently obscures the Islamic State’s roots in the bloody recent history of Iraq, its brutal excesses as much a symptom as a cause of the country’s woes. 
The raw cruelty of Hussein’s Baathist regime, the disbandment of the Iraqi army after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the subsequent insurgency and the marginalization of Sunni Iraqis by the Shiite-dominated government all are intertwined with the Islamic State’s ascent, said Hassan Hassan, a Dubai-based analyst and co-author of the book “ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.”
“A lot of people think of the Islamic State as a terrorist group, and it’s not useful,” Hassan said. “It is a terrorist group, but it is more than that. It is a homegrown Iraqi insurgency, and it is organic to Iraq.”
The de-Baathification law promulgated by L.­ Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American ruler in 2003, has long been identified as one of the contributors to the original insurgency. At a stroke, 400,000 members of the defeated Iraqi army were barred from government employment, denied pensions — and also allowed to keep their guns.
The U.S. military failed in the early years to recognize the role the disbanded Baathist officers would eventually come to play in the extremist group, eclipsing the foreign fighters whom American officials preferred to blame, said Col. Joel Rayburn, a senior fellow at the National Defense University who served as an adviser to top generals in Iraq and describes the links between Baathists and the Islamic State in his book, “Iraq After America.”
The U.S. military always knew that the former Baathist officers had joined other insurgent groups and were giving tactical support to the Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate, the precursor to the Islamic State, he said. But American officials didn’t anticipate that they would become not only adjuncts to al-Qaeda, but core members of the jihadist group. 
“We might have been able to come up with ways to head off the fusion, the completion of the Iraqization process,” he said. The former officers were probably not reconcilable, “but it was the labeling of them as irrelevant that was the mistake.”
Under the leadership of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, the former officers became more than relevant. They were instrumental in the group’s rebirth from the defeats inflicted on insurgents by the U.S. military, which is now back in Iraq bombing many of the same men it had already fought twice before. 
Shared traits
At first glance, the secularist dogma of Hussein’s tyrannical Baath Party seems at odds with the Islamic State’s harsh interpretation of the Islamic laws it purports to uphold. 
But the two creeds broadly overlap in several regards, especially their reliance on fear to secure the submission of the people under the group’s rule. Two decades ago, the elaborate and cruel forms of torture perpetrated by Hussein dominated the discourse about Iraq, much as the Islamic State’s harsh punishments do today. 
Like the Islamic State, Hussein’s Baath Party also regarded itself as a transnational movement, forming branches in countries across the Middle East and running training camps for foreign volunteers from across the Arab world. 
By the time U.S. troops invaded in 2003, Hussein had begun to tilt toward a more religious approach to governance, making the transition from Baathist to Islamist ideology less improbable for some of the disenfranchised Iraqi officers, said Ahmed S. Hashim, a professor who is researching the ties at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.
With the launch of the Iraqi dictator’s Faith Campaign in 1994, strict Islamic precepts were introduced. The words “God is Great” were inscribed on the Iraqi flag. Amputations were decreed for theft. Former Baathist officers recall friends who suddenly stopped drinking, started praying and embraced the deeply conservative form of Islam known as Salafism in the years preceding the U.S. invasion.
In the last two years of Hussein’s rule, a campaign of beheadings, mainly targeting women suspected of prostitution and carried out by his elite Fedayeen unit, killed more than 200 people, human rights groups reported at the time.
The brutality deployed by the Islamic State today recalls the bloodthirstiness of some of those Fedayeen, said Hassan. Promotional videos from the Hussein era include scenes resembling those broadcast today by the Islamic State, showing the Fedayeen training, marching in black masks, practicing the art of decapitation and in one instance eating a live dog
Some of those Baathists became early recruits to the al-Qaeda affiliate established by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Palestinian Jordanian fighter who is regarded as the progenitor of the current Islamic State, said Hisham al Hashemi, an Iraqi analyst who advises the Iraqi government and has relatives who served in the Iraqi military under Hussein. Other Iraqis were radicalized at Camp Bucca, the American prison in southern Iraq where thousands of ordinary citizens were detained and intermingled with jihadists.
Zarqawi kept the former Baathists at a distance, because he distrusted their secular outlook, according to Hashim, the professor.
It was under the watch of the current Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, that the recruitment of former Baathist officers became a deliberate strategy, according to analysts and former officers.
Tasked with rebuilding the greatly weakened insurgent organization after 2010, Baghdadi embarked on an aggressive campaign to woo the former officers, drawing on the vast pool of men who had either remained unemployed or had joined other, less extremist insurgent groups.
Some of them had fought against al-Qaeda after changing sides and aligning with the American-backed Awakening movement during the surge of troops in 2007. When U.S. troops withdrew and the Iraqi government abandoned the Awakening fighters, the Islamic State was the only surviving option for those who felt betrayed and wanted to change sides again, said Brian Fishman, who researched the group in Iraq for West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center and is now a fellow with the New America Foundation.
Baghdadi’s effort was further aided by a new round of de-Baathification launched after U.S. troops left in 2011 by then Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who set about firing even those officers who had been rehabilitated by the U.S. military. 
Among them was Brig. Gen. Hassan Dulaimi, a former intelligence officer in the old Iraqi army who was recruited back into service by U.S. troops in 2006, as a police commander in Ramadi, the capital of the long restive province of Anbar. 
Within months of the American departure, he was dismissed, he said, losing his salary and his pension, along with 124 other officers who had served alongside the Americans.
“The crisis of ISIS didn’t happen by chance,” Dulaimi said in an interview in Baghdad, using an acronym for the Islamic State. “It was the result of an accumulation of problems created by the Americans and the [Iraqi] government.”
He cited the case of a close friend, a former intelligence officer in Baghdad who was fired in 2003 and struggled for many years to make a living. He now serves as the Islamic State’s wali, or leader, in the Anbar town of Hit, Dulaimi said.
“I last saw him in 2009. He complained that he was very poor. He is an old friend, so I gave him some money,” he recalled. “He was fixable. If someone had given him a job and a salary, he wouldn’t have joined the Islamic State.
“There are hundreds, thousands like him,” he added. “The people in charge of military operations in the Islamic State were the best officers in the former Iraqi army, and that is why the Islamic State beats us in intelligence and on the battlefield.”
The Islamic State’s seizure of territory was also smoothed by the Maliki government’s broader persecution of the Sunni minority, which intensified after U.S. troops withdrew and left many ordinary Sunnis willing to welcome the extremists as an alternative to the often brutal Iraqi security forces.
But it was the influx of Baathist officers into the ranks of the Islamic State itself that propelled its fresh military victories, said Hashem. By 2013, Baghdadi had surrounded himself with former officers, who oversaw the Islamic State’s expansion in Syria and drove the offensives in Iraq. 
Some of Baghdadi’s closest aides, including Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, his deputy in Iraq, and Abu Ayman al-Iraqi, one of his top military commanders in Syria, both of them former Iraqi officers, have since reportedly been killed — though Dulaimi suspects that many feign their own deaths in order to evade detection, making its current leadership difficult to discern. 
Any gaps however are filled by former officers, sustaining the Iraqi influence at the group’s core, even as its ranks are swelled by arriving foreigners, said Hassan. 
Fearing infiltration and spies, the leadership insulates itself from the foreign fighters and the regular Syrian and Iraqi fighters through elaborate networks of intermediaries frequently drawn from the old Iraqi intelligence agencies, he said. 
“They introduced the Baathist mind-set of secrecy as well as its skills,” he said.
The masked man who ordered the detention of Abu Hamza was one of a group of feared security officers who circulate within the Islamic State, monitoring its members for signs of dissent, the Syrian recalled. 
“They are the eyes and ears of Daesh’s security, and they are very powerful,” he said, using an Arabic acronym for the Islamic State.
Abu Hamza was released from jail after agreeing to fall into line with the other commanders, he said. But the experience contributed to his disillusionment with the group. 
The foreign fighters he served alongside were “good Muslims,” he said. But he is less sure about the Iraqi leaders.
“They pray and they fast and you can’t be an emir without praying, but inside I don’t think they believe it much,” he said. “The Baathists are using Daesh. They don’t care about Baathism or even Saddam. 
“They just want power. They are used to being in power, and they want it back.”
‘They want to run Iraq’
Whether the former Baathists adhere to the Islamic State’s ideology is a matter of debate. Hashim suspects many of them do not. 
“One could still argue that it’s a tactical alliance,” he said. “A lot of these Baathists are not interested in ISIS running Iraq. They want to run Iraq. A lot of them view the jihadists with this Leninist mind-set that they’re useful idiots who we can use to rise to power.”
Rayburn questions whether even some of the foreign volunteers realize the extent to which they are being drawn into Iraq’s morass. Some of the fiercest battles being waged today in Iraq are for control of communities and neighborhoods that have been hotly contested among Iraqis for years, before the extremists appeared.
“You have fighters coming from across the globe to fight these local political battles that the global jihad can’t possibly have a stake in.” 
Former Baathist officers who served alongside some of those now fighting with the Islamic State believe it is the other way around. Rather than the Baathists using the jihadists to return to power, it is the jihadists who have exploited the desperation of the disbanded officers, according to a former general who commanded Iraqi troops during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he fears for his safety in Irbil, the capital of the northern Iraqi region of Kurdistan, where he now resides.
The ex-Baathists could be lured away, if they were offered alternatives and hope for the future, he said. 
“The Americans bear the biggest responsibility. When they dismantled the army what did they expect those men to do?” he asked. “They were out in the cold with nothing to do and there was only one way out for them to put food on the table.”
When U.S. officials demobilized the Baathist army, “they didn’t de-Baathify people’s minds, they just took away their jobs,” he said. 
There are former Baathists with other insurgent groups who might be persuaded to switch sides, said Hassan, citing the example of the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, usually referred to by its Arabic acronym JRTN. They welcomed the Islamic State during its sweep through northern Iraq last summer, but the groups have since fallen out.
But most of the Baathists who actually joined the Islamic State are now likely to have themselves become radicalized, either in prison or on the battlefield, he said. 
“Even if you didn’t walk in with that vision you might walk out with it, after five years of hard fighting,” said Fishman, of the New America Foundation. “They have been through brutal things that are going to shape their vision in a really dramatic way.”
Read more on the Islamic State:


  1. Voice of America - ‎

    Houthi rebels in Yemen continue to gain ground in the southern city of Aden Sunday, despite a Saudi-led airstrike campaign. The French news agency AFP reported the rebels have taken the provincial government headquarters, including the governor's office ...

    Without local forces, on the ground, the Saudi airstrikes will be of little consequence.
    Much like the Coalition's air campaign in Syria.
    Smoke and fury, but of little strategic value, if the air strikes are not coordinated with troops on the ground.


  2. ISIS fortifies Mosul, relocates food supplies

    MOSUL, Mosul province - Militant has begun building concrete walls in the city of Mosul, while moving out supplies of agricultural products out of the surrounding province, reports a political organization based in the ISIS-held city.

    “To prevent potential attacks from Iraqi forces against [ISIS militants], the gunmen have been building concrete walls inside the city and around the main entrance ways,” Sido Chito, head of Coalition of Brotherhood and Coexistence of Mosul Province, told Rudaw on Friday.

    Chito added that “the group has been moving farming products, including wheat, out of the province over the past several days using their trucks.”

    Iraqi defense minister announced in March the Islamic State had begun digging trenches and erecting other fortifications for the defense of the city.

    Baghdad has vowed to retake Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, in coming months.


  3. Airstrikes kill two ISIS leaders in Mosul

    ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – US-led coalition airstrikes killed two ISIS leaders in southern Mosul, a well-placed source inside the city told

    Salim Khalaf Sauleh, head of the ISIS Sharia Court in southern Mosul, was killed together with Nuri Saeed Agab, the head of security for the general directorate of southern Mosul, the source said.

    Other casualties include Hasan Saud, governor – or wali – of Mosul’s Dijlah district. He was wounded and rushed to Mosul’s Republican Hospital, where he remains in critical condition.

  4. The ISIS in Mosul, and in fact all of Iraq, will be gone by Memorial Day, 2015 - the 25th of May.

    ISIS is fortifying Mosul to no purpose whatsoever.

    I have this inside info from a 'military expert'.

    1. I'm sure i that 'expert' had been in command of the forces on the ground, that would have been the objective.
      But, reality is ...

      The people in command, on the ground in Iraq, they have a different objective than did anyone that you may have consulted with, Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson.

    2. Aaaahh, I see.

      So the date certain of May 25, 2015 depended on that 'expert' - you - being in command of the forces on the ground.

      Now I see, and that makes perfect non-sense as a way out of your quagmire of an idiotic prediction.


      Why not just admit you were dead wrong, like Rufus ?

  5. >>>The Republicans own the unexpected consequences of the last optional war against Iraq <<<

    No they don't.

    Obama owns it, for taking the troops out too soon.

    Fools like Rufus who got grubbered and voted for him own it.

    After the Surge there were three years of relative peace in Iraq. Then Napoleon on the Potomac got elected, took the troops out, and the lid hit the ceiling.

    And O'bozo was warned by the Generals, and Bush too.

    And also, shall we recall ?, many Democrats voted for this effort, including Hillary. And, I think, IIRC, Kerry.

    The first war was supported overwhelming by Congress, to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

    You've got some type of new Republicophobia, balanced by an odd Iranophilia.

    You often drift away from the facts of recent history. Even though I remind of them every once in a while.

    I'm concerned you might hit some soft gravel on the edge of the road and do a real rollover into the ditch.

  6. I was up all night preparing my spirit for this morning's Sunrise Easter Service at the oldest Lutheran Church in Idaho.

    It was kinda fun.

    I see it as an example of the monomyth, therefore I can sit there with the best of them, and sing wholeheartedly, too.

    But's it nap time now.

    Cheers !!!

  7. You have spent your entire life building a wall between fact and fantasy. There is no expectation from anyone here for a conversion.

    1. You often drift away from the facts of recent history. Even though I remind of them every once in a while.

      I’ll stick to my truth. You keep your facts.

    2. Some truth: Iran is fighting for civilization.

      That certainly is a truth unique to yourself.

      I'll keep my facts.

      This is interesting:

      April 5, 2015
      Game on? Qatar newspaper reports Israel air strike on weapons depot supplied by Iran
      By Thomas Lifson

      A report by Al Watan newspaper in Qatar indicates that Israel has conducted air strikes on a weapons depot supplied by Iran in southern Libya. Arutz 7 reports:

      Arab news sources reported at week's end that an unidentified jet believed to be Israeli destroyed warehouses in southern Libya that held weapons bought by Iran for Hamas.

      According to the reports in Al Watan and other news outlets, the warehouses were completely destroyed. The weapons that were inside them had allegedly been purchased by Iran, by means of weapons dealers in Sudan and Chad, and were supposed to be smuggled to Hamas through Egypt, by means of the smuggling tunnels between Sinai ands Gaza.

      The report indicates that Egypt coordinated with Israel on the attack and opened its airspace to the Israeli jets flying to Libya.

      Whatever else you may say about Iran, its active intervention into the Arab world has forced Sunni Arab countries into a de facto alliance with Israel. The ultimate consequences are impossible to fathom, but surely it is a historic moment when the majority body of Muslims finds itself allied with a former sworn enemy. Perhaps this is one crisis that won’t go to waste (if it doesn’t provoke Armageddon).

      out, just wanted to get that in about Israel and Egypt co-operating as I just noticed it

    3. That Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson only just now noticed ISrael and Egypt were cooperating ...
      An indication of just how far behind the learning curve he is.

      Ms Caroline Glick wrote about it, more than a year ago.
      The link made available on numerous occasions ...

      Understanding the Israeli-Egyptian-Saudi alliance

      There can be no level of cognizant conversation that can be considered applicable when dealing with Robert "Draft Dodger" Peterson, he denies the realities that Ms Glick and others have observed for well over a year, now.

    4. I probably posted her article a year ago.

      I read her all the time.

      This is the first time I'm aware of that Israeli jets have been invited to use Egyptian air space.

      How is that Memorial Day Iraq Free of ISIS prediction of yours coming along, General 'Military Genius'?

      Will the military genius of the "rat Doctrine" get 'er done in time ?

      The entire world is breathlessly awaiting.

      Those who actually know something are falling asleep.

      Memorial Day - bwabwabwabwahahahahahahaha

      You're an idiot.

  8. Concrete walls as a defense against J-Dams, and Hellfire missiles?

    Good luck with that one, boys. :)

    1. Meanwhile:

      WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. and allied forces conducted 15 air strikes in Syria and Iraq against Islamic State militants during the past 24 hours, the combined joint task force said on Sunday.

      Three of the strikes, part of a continuing operation against Islamic State, targeted militants in Syria. Twelve strikes were aimed at targets in Iraq, including five near the city of Mosul, the joint task force said in a statement.

      Deader, and Deader - Less Walking


  9. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the leading Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, reported the nuclear framework deal with Iran was greater than she had expected, and she criticized Israeli Primary Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call for continuing sanctions on Iran.

    Beneath the framework deal declared last week, Iran agreed to limits on nuclear amenities and to worldwide inspections. Feinstein noted that the inspection of Iran's mines, mills, facilities and other elements of its nuclear provide chain would last up to 25 many years. The surveillance and inspections are vital, she explained.

    "It is really a better settlement, candidly, than I assumed it was at any time going to be. I imagine that it can be a really serviceable, realistic agreement, and it can signal a new day," Feinstein said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday. "Usually, we hold this dynamic going, which is not effective of something that's positive for the area."

    Netanyahu appeared on CNN just before Feinstein and criticized the deal as not going significantly ample. The solutions are not confined to agreeing to the deal or going to war, he explained. A third option is "standing firm, ratcheting up the pressure until you get a improved offer," the Israeli chief reported.

    Netanyahu reported the deal does not roll back again Iran's nuclear method, and he was from any sanctions currently being lifted. He explained the deal does not put long-lasting limitations on Iran and will "pump up Iran's terror equipment in the course of the environment."

    "What is illegitimate is staying legitimized," Netanyahu explained, referring to Iran's nuclear method. "There is nevertheless time to get a superior offer and utilize pressures on Iran."

    Feinstein claimed Netanyahu has not offered a "genuine alternative" and warned that his stance could backfire on him.

    1. Sen. Feinstein is retiring, and doesn't have to depend on AIPAC money for her next election.

      This is a hell of a deal, and can only be opposed by someone that flat-out wants war.

    2. I would really, truly hate to be a headcutter in Mosul, and be contemplating the prospect of 4 or 5 Precision Strikes / Day, indefinitely.

    3. They are building walls, Rufus ....

    4. :) Yeah, like I said, "Good Luck wit dat." :)

  10. GORKI, April 3. /TASS/. Agreements on Iran’s nuclear program as well as steps to lift international sanctions offer new prospects for economic projects between Moscow and Tehran, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said on Friday.

    "The removal of any sanctions opens up additional opportunities," Dvorkovich told journalists. "We have never stopped working with Iran. Neither have other countries, including Europe, stopped cooperating with Iran. They simply did it more carefully."

    “There are opportunities and there are contacts," he said, noting Russian companies’ interest in joint projects with Iran.

    “I think our companies will propose projects that can be implemented in the near future," Dvorkovich added.

    After eight days of talks in Switzerland, Iran and six world powers — the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany — on Thursday night reached a framework agreement on curbing Iran’s nuclear program.

    The framework clears the way for talks on a comprehensive deal with Iran by June 30 under which it would curb nuclear activities for at least a decade in exchange for an end to sanctions imposed by the United Nations, European Union and United States on Iran’s energy and financial sectors.

  11. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday defended the preliminary framework of a nuclear deal with Iran, which he described as “a pretty remarkable deal.”

    Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. could not simply return to the negotiating table and demand more restrictions – as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has urged - because other world leaders are in support of the deal.

    “With this deal on the table, it would be hard to get Russia and China to go back to sanctions,” Murphy said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

    “It's easy to say that we should just continue to negotiate and effectively sanction iran into submission, but I don’t think that’s the deal that the rest of our negotiating partners signed up for."

    He rattled off ways that the preliminary deal is stronger than what he and his colleagues had initially thought possible.

    “We’ve increased ‘breakout time’ to a year. We’ve significantly rolled back enrichment capacity. We have an inspections regime that is absolutely unprecedented,” he said.

    He also dismissed criticism that the deal does not go far enough to address other criticisms of Iran’s current regime.

  12. China’s foreign minister has said that a framework deal reached Thursday between Iran and world powers would help boost relations between Beijing and the United States.

    Official news agency Xinhua reported Saturday that FM Wang Yi had made the comments in a telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday.

    On Thursday, negotiators from Iran and the P5+1 group concluded nine-day nuclear talks in the Swiss city of Lausanne, in which they reached solutions to outstanding issues prior to a comprehensive deal by June 30.

    Xinhua cited Yi as telling Kerry that China would continue coordination with Iran and the P5+1 countries and remain playing a constructive role during the process.

    “China and the United States, both taking on major responsibilities in safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation system, maintained good contact with each other during the negotiations, while instilling ‘positive energy' into bilateral relations,” China's foreign ministry said in a statement.

    Meanwhile, Kerry thanked China for its role in the nuclear talks and said he hoped for further cooperation to complete the deal.

  13. GOP Headquarters in Tel Aviv could not be reached for comment on the previous posts.

  14. Ken Taylor, Canada’s celebrated former ambassador to Iran, says that Canada needs to thaw its frosty relationship with Iran in the wake of the new nuclear deal with the international community or risk being out of step with global affairs.

    Taylor became a household name in American in 1979 when, as Canada’s ambassador to Iran, he helped six American diplomats escape from Tehran during the Iranian revolution in a plan labelled the ‘Canadian Caper.’

  15. .

    After the Surge there were three years of relative peace in Iraq. Then Napoleon on the Potomac got elected, took the troops out, and the lid hit the ceiling.

    Will you please stop this? You embarrass yourself. You confuse correlation with causation and even beyond that you miss the boat.

    At the end of 2006, before the surge began in 2007, the moves that eventually led to a reduction of the violence in Iraq were already put in place by George Casey and John Abizaid, two generals who wanted as small a footprint as possible in order to tap down Iraqi nationalism. They ended up taking out key al-Qaeda leaders including Zawkawi in 2006. They forced the relocation of Sunni, Shia, and other militias within Baghdad, separating them and cutting down the rampant sectarian violence. They paid off Sunni sheiks in Anbar which led to the awakening there which many feel was the one most important reason for the decline in violence in Iraq. Also, al-Sadr pulled his militia out of the fighting by the end of 2006. When it became clear that the US would be completely out of Iraq by day certain, he kept them out. Other militias did the same once Bush ended up signing the final status of forces agreement to get 'all' the troops out of Iraq by 2012. All of these things would have happened with or without the surge.

    The 'surge' was useless. The US had 160,000 troops in Iraq before the surge. Contractors doubled that number. Then add in the Iraqi forces. 30,000 additional troops saved the day? Nonsense. The surge happened to coincide with the positive effects from the actions noted above and allowed Bush an excuse to sneak out of Iraq.

    Bush was being pressured to get out of Iraq by 2008. The surge provided the excuse for him to stay there an additional three years, three years in which 1,000 more US troops died and there were more than 100,000 more Iraqi casualties. Good job, Brownee.

    To judge the surge without all the propaganda and bullshit, all we have to do is look at what happened when the same strategy was tried in Afghanistan. Total FUBAR.

    You argue that Obama should have kept troops in Iraq after 2011 as if it all he had to do is snap his finger. Pure nonsense. By the time we left Iraq, Iran had already gained tremendous influence in Iraq. Your childish assumption that al Malicki would have allowed US troops to stay in Iraq has no basis. We see this in the fact that even when heavily threatened by ISIS he still resisted having US troops in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that the US was fed up with Iraq and the public wanted all our troops home.

    The GOP argues that had we left 10,000 US troops there ISIS would have never gotten a foothold in Iraq. That's an easy to say but how do you prove it? During Bush's war, less than 7,000 al-Queda was holding their own against 160,000 US troops, possibly more than that number in contractors, and eventually the Iraqi army. Though they might have slowed or even stopped the ISIS push it would have meant US troops on the ground in combat. And if they did get involved in combat, you could count on their numbers quickly increasing three fold as support was shipped in. The costs in blood and treasure would have gone through the roof and the US public would have screamed bloody murder.


    1. Please stop it yourself. Especially your b.s. about correlation and causation. You're just trying to fancy dance when the relationship is crystal clear in this case.

      The other horse shit too. I simply will not tolerate it any longer.

      Stop it.


    2. .

      It's been said there are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.

      Glorying in his foolishness, Obumble hedges his bets not only embracing that which is untrue but also by refusing to accept the truth when it is presented to him.


  16. So Deuce, when Tel Aviv is nuked by Iran will you toast with red or white wine?

  17. Tel Aviv has a better chance of being hit by a comet.

  18. You have more to worry about from your Christian supporters who are hoping for the Day of Rapture and The Second Coming of Christ which means You and yours are toast. I’m not big on Celestial wrath but your supporters are awfully keen on seeing the whole place go up in flames because it is written.

    1. Personally I would rather take my chances with the Iranians than those that are all out to experience their back to Jesus moment in your chosen real estate.

    2. My kind of Jews believe in science, good wine, good music, humanity and social justice. They believe in enjoying the riches of life and not the insanity of getting off when it all goes up in flames and they lift off to heaven.

    3. "your kind of jews"?

      You mean those that would put up with be 2nd class citizens in America?

  19. Aaaaha !


    Deuce ☂Sun Apr 05, 03:47:00 PM EDT

    Personally I would rather take my chances with the Iranians than those that are all out to experience their back to Jesus moment in your chosen real estate.


    There you have it folks, Deuce has gone muzzie on us.

    He chooses the end times of the Mahdi rather than the end times of the Living Christ !

    What he doesn't seem to realize is that according to correct and guided belief these two dudes return together. It's a twofer.


    There is much discussion now, and in years past, about the identity of the mahdi.

    Could he be among us even now ?

    My stunning answer, after much research and deep meditation, is yes, he is among us now.

    Care to identify him you ask ?

    Sure - and the answer is Quirk.

    Whose post at

    QuirkSun Apr 05, 01:36:00 PM EDT

    is so convoluted, irrational, disjointed and confusing it could only have been written by a dude whose brain is totally dessicated from hiding out in a dry desert well for 1400 years.

    1. .

      I was in a bit of a hurry today around 1:36 PM. In the future, on posts directed to Obumble, I will try to find time to translate my common English prose into Idahoese, a primitive language made up primarily of single syllable words and low grunts, difficult to translate but still less confusing to the Bumster.


  20. Anyone up for a little grim humor ? -

    April 5, 2015
    Palestinian Hamas leader reportedly beheaded by ISIS
    By Thomas Lifson

    The war between Sunni ISIS and Shiite Iran is taking a toll on Hamas, allied with the mullahs. ISIS has taken control of 90% of a Palestinian “camp” (really just a district of Damascus) that once housed half a million people, but which, in the wake of the civil war in Syria, now houses 18,000 people. And once in control, ISIS turned its savagery against a sworn enemy of Israel. Erika Solomon of the Financial Times reports on the background:

    Militants from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isis) have seized nearly all of a Damascus district just outside the city centre, activists said, amid reports of atrocities in the besieged neighbourhood.

    Activists on Saturday said the jihadi group may succeed in cementing a foothold in the Syrian capital, a move that would increase pressure on President Bashar al-Assad’s seat of power as he tries to fight a four-year revolt against his rule. (snip)

    “Reports of kidnappings, beheadings and mass killings are coming out from Al-Yarmouk,” said Saeb Erekat, an member of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s executive committee, based in the West Bank. “The priority must be to save the Palestinian refugees in the camp by creating a safe passage for them out of the death trap that Al-Yarmouk has become.”

    Arutz 7 provides the detail:

    On Saturday, senior Israel Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toumeh posted agraphic image which appeared to show the severed head of Sheikh Abu Salah Taha, held aloft by an ISIS fighter in Yarmouk.

    A Turkish news site supplies the grisly picture:

    One can get dizzy trying to follow the connections and rivalries that animate this Islamic religious civil war. If it doesn’t engulf humanity in a catastrophe, at least it has the possibility of distracting the militants from destroying Israel.

    Israel would never behave in such a manner, but can you imagine the world outcry if Israel behaved so barbarically toward those sworn to genocide against it?

    The ISIS savages have beheaded a Hamas savage.

    Ha, ha.

    If you don't get a grim chuckle out of this you've exited the human race.

    1. .

      It is funny. Not ha ha funny but rather odd funny.

      Ironic in light of the foolish claims by some here that Hamas = ISIS, ironic in light of the fact that it is Hamas keeping ISIS from gaining a foothold in GAZA.


    2. quirk, it's not so clean cut. Hamas is a type of ISIS, and a type of al queda.

      When the terrorists of Hamas took over the Gaza Strip from the terrorists from the PA they threw them off of roof tops...

      Hamas has vice police that has killed palestinian women that were out in public without proper escorts, JUST LIKE ISIS.

      The good news? ISIS, the Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah el Islam, the PA, Islamic Jihad? Are all cut from the same cloth and each one of these savages wants to rule the roast.

      When Hamas executed scores of palestinan kids? Just like ISIS

      When Hamas drags their opponents from the back of motorcycles? Just like Hezbollah...

      When Hezbollah is used in Iran as rape squads? Just like ISIS..

  21. On the morning of April 3, the day following the news of the agreement, Al-Monitor spoke with Maj. Gen. (Res.) Amos Yadlin, formerly the head of military intelligence. Yadlin was the Zionist Camp’s candidate for defense minister, but after the party’s loss he has gone back to his job as head of the Institute of National Security Studies. Yadlin has dealt during his career with three nuclear programs of states considered Israel’s bitter enemies. He was one of the pilots to bomb the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981; head of military intelligence at the time that Israel destroyed, according to foreign media reports, the secret Syrian nuclear reactor at Deir ez-Zor in 2007; and head of military intelligence in 2006-10, the peak years of the secret war between Israel and Iran over the Iranian nuclear program.

    In those years, Israel was apparently several times on the verge of attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

    Al-Monitor asked Yadlin whether the agreement was good or bad. “It depends on how you look at it,” he said. “If we aspire to an ideal world and dream of having all of Israel’s justified demands fulfilled, then of course the agreement does not deliver. It grants Iran legitimacy as a nuclear threshold state and potential to eventually achieve nuclearization. It leaves Iran more or less one year away from a nuclear weapon, and Israel will clearly not like all of this.

    "But there’s another way to look at it that examines the current situation and the alternatives. In this other view, considering that Iran now has 19,000 centrifuges, the agreement provides quite a good package. One has to think what might have happened if, as aspired to by Netanyahu and Steinitz, negotiations had collapsed. Had that happened, Iran could have decided on a breakout, ignored the international community, refused to respond to questions about its arsenal, continued to quickly enrich and put together a bomb before anyone could have had time to react. And therefore, with this in mind, it’s not a bad agreement.”

    Read more:

    1. The text of the rest of the interview follows:

      Al-Monitor: Jerusalem has been ranting and raving about the agreement in the past hours. Do you agree with this tone?

      Yadlin: No. Let’s not forget that Israel dubbed the interim deal reached in Geneva a “tragic agreement,” and eventually it turned out to be a good interim deal. When there was talk of its abrogation, Israel was opposed. And another thing must be said: Contrary to Israeli assessments, the Iranians have adhered to all the conditions of the interim agreement, in letter and spirit, down to the last detail. That’s something one should also keep in mind. If they implement the principles of the agreement presented yesterday in the same way, then for the next 15 years they will be frozen at a point of being one year away from a nuclear bomb, and I think this is not a negligible achievement.

      Al-Monitor: There are already several disagreements about some of the articles. The Iranians are already claiming that President Obama distorted the issue of sanctions relief. There are some difficult issues down the line.

      Yadlin: Right. First, I'm not at all certain that these principles will get by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah [Ali] Khamenei. Second, they also have to get congressional approval. Let’s not forget that we’re talking about framework principles and not a final agreement. Many other obstacles can be expected on the road to an agreement, but all in all, I don’t think we’re dealing with a tragedy here, and not with a second Holocaust. Yes, we would have been happy if not a single centrifuge were to remain in Iran, and if possible, had it also been possible to change the ayatollahs’ regime. But none of these are achievable objects. Let’s think: After all, even a US attack will not distance Iran for 15 years from a nuclear bomb, so why not freeze it in place for the same time — without a war?

      Read more:

  22. Al-Monitor: One must admit that the Americans conducted themselves in these negotiations like dilettantes. You yourself asked President Obama that question at the Saban Forum two years ago, when he said in his own words that the Iranians don’t need a heavy water reactor, nor an underground uranium enrichment facility, and now the reactor is to remain in place and the underground enrichment facility will not be dismantled.

    Yadlin: True. But my criticism of the Americans is of their negotiating tactics. I listened yesterday to the president’s comments. When he said emphatically that the US does not want to attack Iran and that additional sanctions won’t help because the Iranians know how to withstand them, he weakens his position and comes to the negotiating table without bargaining chips or leverage. I don’t know why one has to say and admit these things in advance. In my opinion, he should have done the exact opposite. After all, the only time the Iranians stopped their military nuclear program of their own accord was immediately after the US invasion of Iraq.

    Al-Monitor: What should Israel do now?

    Yadlin: If we had a prime minister who knew how to talk to the Americans and enjoyed the president’s trust, this would have been the time to jump on the band wagon and demand clarification of all the points that require clarification. There are still things that can be achieved in this agreement. At the same time, this is the time to reach understandings with the Americans, and perhaps even to reach a parallel Israeli-US agreement, providing Israel with clarifications, assurances and perhaps even defense compensation for the risks it is taking. We did things like that after the peace agreement with Egypt and at different points in time, too.

    Read more:

    1. Finally, one must not forget the North Korean precedent, either, and that is the greatest risk that Israel and the world are taking now: To wake up one morning with a blatant violation by Iran, which turns it overnight into a nuclear state. One has to clarify, between us and the US, what happens if the Iranians violate the agreement and a few other important things. I would dedicate the next three months mostly to that and not to moaning and groaning.

      There’s no reason for panic. Israel’s fate has not been sealed, our freedom is not in danger and all in all, we’re talking about an agreement with quite a few achievements.

      Read more:


    2. .

      At the same time, this is the time to reach understandings with the Americans, and perhaps even to reach a parallel Israeli-US agreement, providing Israel with clarifications, assurances and perhaps even defense compensation for the risks it is taking.

      Lordy, that didn't take long.


  23. The writer of this good article is obviously, perhaps unconsciously, a democrat, as he hits on Sarah, and never mentions Liz Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Patty Murray or dozens of other lesser dimbo dems.

    Brain flapping
    Democracy v Psychology: why people keep electing idiots (dicks, in Quirkian terminology)

    >>>However, the Dunning-Kruger effect reveals that less-intelligent people are usually incredibly confident. More intelligent people, by contrast, aren’t at all. Self-appraisal is a useful metacognitive skill, but one that requires intelligence; if you don’t have much of it, you don’t consider yourself flawed or ignorant, because technically you don’t have the ability to do so.<<<

    >>>This is also demonstrated by Parkinson’s law of triviality, where people will spend far more time and effort focussing on something trivial that they do understand than something complicated that they don’t. The former offers far more scope for contribution and influence. And people do love trivial things, ergo less-intelligent people condensing down the big issues into brief (but inaccurate) snippets is a potential vote-winner.<<<

    >>>The majority of people are prone to numerous subconscious biases, prejudices, stereotyping and prefer their own “groups”. None of these things are particularly logical and invariably are not supported by actual evidence and reality, and people really don’t like being told things they don’t want to hear. People are also keenly aware of social status; we need to feel we are superior to others in some way to maintain our sense of self-worth. As a result, someone more intelligent saying complicated things that contain uncomfortable (but accurate) facts isn’t going to appeal to anyone, but someone demonstrably less-intelligent is not challenging to someone’s perceived social status, and if they’re going to say simple things that support inherent prejudices and deny uncomfortable facts, then so much the better.

    It’s an unfortunate situation, but it just seems to be the way people’s minds work. There’s a lot more to it than what’s mentioned here of course, but including that would make the whole thing more complicated, and that’s no way to get people to like something, as should be obvious by now.<<<

    Dean Burnett thinks democracy would be perfect if it weren’t for all the people involved. He’s on Twitter, @garwboy

    1. >> the Dunning-Kruger effect reveals that less-intelligent people are usually incredibly confident. More intelligent people, by contrast, aren’t at all<<


      >>less-intelligent people condensing down the big issues into brief (but inaccurate) snippets<<


      >>People are also keenly aware of social status; we need to feel we are superior to others in some way to maintain our sense of self-worth<<


      That's it !

      It's the rat !

      "The Israelis/Jews are the scum of the earth" -d, rat

      Casino Time

      Cheers !!

  24. Happy Easter.

    See you in a couple of days, gents. :)


  25. The Vikings in Ireland

    A surprising discovery in Dublin challenges long-held ideas about when the Scandinavian raiders arrived on the Emerald Isle


    Tuesday, March 10, 2015

    (Courtesy Linzi Simpson)

    An impressive ax head is one of hundreds of Viking artifacts found during excavations under the streets of Dublin.

    When Irish archaeologists working under Dublin’s South Great George’s Street just over a decade ago excavated the remains of four young men buried with fragments of Viking shields, daggers, and personal ornaments, the discovery appeared to be simply more evidence of the Viking presence in Ireland. At least 77 Viking burials have been discovered across Dublin since the late 1700s, some accidentally by ditch diggers, others by archaeologists working on building sites. All have been dated to the ninth or tenth centuries on the basis of artifacts that accompanied them, and the South Great George’s Street burials seemed to be four more examples.

    Yet when excavation leader Linzi Simpson of Dublin’s Trinity College sent the remains for carbon dating to determine their age, the results were “quite surprising,” she says. The tests, performed at Beta Analytic in Miami, Florida, and at Queen’s University in Belfast, showed that the men had been buried in Irish soil years, or even decades, before the accepted date for the establishment of the first year-round Viking settlement in Dublin—and perhaps even before the first known Viking raid on the island took place.

    (Courtesy Linzi Simpson)

    All across Dublin at sites such as South Great George’s Street (above), archaeologists have uncovered dozens of Viking burials. These graves are now contributing to a picture of the city as a successful trading outpost of the Viking world.
    Simpson’s findings are now adding new weight to an idea gaining growing acceptance—that, instead of a sudden, cataclysmic invasion, the arrival of the Vikings in Ireland and Britain began, rather, with small-scale settlements and trade links that connected Ireland with northern European commerce for the first time. And, further, that those trading contacts may have occurred generations before the violent raids described in contemporary texts, works written by monks in isolated monasteries—often the only places where literate people lived—which were especially targeted by Viking raiders for their food and treasures. Scholars are continuing to examine these texts, but are also considering the limitations of using them to understand the historical record. The monks were devastated by the attacks on their homes and institutions, and other contemporaneous events may not have been recorded because there was no one literate available to do so. “Most researchers accept now that the raids were not the first contact, as the old texts suggest,” says Gareth Williams, curator of medieval coinage and a Viking expert at the British Museum. “How did the Vikings know where all those monasteries were? It’s because there was already contact. They were already trading before those raids happened.”

  26. Question on correlation and causation for Master Quirk CC-PhD -

    There is a correlation between the prosecution of Bob 'BM' Menedez and his criticisms of President Obama and his threat to vote against the Iran 'Deal', and his recent indictment by the Justice Department for various serious offenses. Both are happening at the same time.

    Three years ago there was no correlation between these two as he was not criticizing President Obama at that time about the Iran ''Deal' which was still in the future. And he was not charged at that time, though the allegations were well known to the public and to Justice.

    Do we need further evidence to assert that this is a political prosecution to silence and intimidate other Democrats, and Obama's political enemies ? Or do we have enough here ?

    Curious because you were denying that Obama's taking the troops out too soon and the collapse of Sunni Iraq a few months later was insufficient evidence to assert the first caused the second but was merely a correlation.

    Is there a general rule the befuddled student can use to see these situations more clearly ?


    1. Sidelining Menendez

      By Post Editorial Board

      April 2, 2015 | 8:07pm

      Sidelining Menendez

      Sen. Bob Menendez Photo: Getty

      It’s telling that the federal bribery indictment of New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez landed the same day the Justice Department announced it won’t prosecute IRS serial stonewaller Lois Lerner for contempt.

      The net message isn’t subtle: Hold President Obama’s feet to the fire, as Menendez has done on Iran, and you’ll pay a price.

      Keep quiet when it comes to implicating the White House, and Justice will play hands-off.

      We don’t claim Menendez was targeted specifically because he’s taken the lead on Iran. This probe started years ago, and we’ve referred to the senator as “ethically challenged” several times.

      But the timing seems suspicious, to say the least — especially when prosecutors could face a tough road to a conviction.

      They accuse Menendez of accepting lavish gifts from Dr. Salomon Melgen in return for political favors.

      But the two men have been friends for decades, and both say any gifts came about from that friendship.

      Proving a quid pro quo won’t be easy. Justice has lost several of its most recent high-profile attempts to do so.

      Besides, whatever gifts Menendez got from Melgen pale next to the millions in foreign cash Hillary Clinton’s family foundation took while she was secretary of state. (Should’a used a nonprofit, Bob!)

      And if Menendez is suspect for helping three Melgen girlfriends get US visas, what of the 230 visas that Sen. Harry Reid pressured the Homeland Security Department to grant for overseas investors in a casino that hired his son, Rory Reid, as counsel?

      The prosecutors’ brief makes Bob Menendez look pretty bad — but that’s what indictments do.

      And everything done by Obama’s Justice Department must be viewed in light of how nakedly political it has become.

    2. .

      Do we need further evidence to assert that this is a political prosecution to silence and intimidate other Democrats, and Obama's political enemies ? Or do we have enough here ?

      Whether true or not, there is plenty of evidence to at least assert that the Menendez situation amounts to a political persecution. I personally wouldn't argue with that assertion. We have numerous examples to support that view. There is not one department within the Obama administration (Secret Service, HHS, FBI, CIA, State, FEC, HS, DOJ, IRA, and on and on) that hasn't been stained by scandal or malfeasance and yet as far as I know there has been no prosecution of anyone of note. In addition to the examples the author cites in the article above we only have to look at how Obama treats those who cross him, reporters for example.

      Defining the prosecution is of course only one, and likely the least important, aspect of this affair. The other is of course whether the guy is guilty. The indictment is long, numerous quid pro quos, influence peddling, sex with underage prostitutes. Menendez deserves the benefit of the doubt but if guilty of any of these charges does it really make a difference why he is being prosecuted (except for dolts looking for political talking points)? Actually, I would love to see more of this. If this is the only way we can bring these guys to justice, I say let both parties do it. It will probably be the only way we can get to most of these guys.

      Curious because you were denying that Obama's taking the troops out too soon and the collapse of Sunni Iraq a few months later was insufficient evidence to assert the first caused the second but was merely a correlation.

      Once again, you seek to prove that the term English Major is an oxymoron. You did admit that the position I stated regarding Bush and Iran left you 'confused' so at least you have some level of self-awareness, a good thing. However, I still doubt you realize the extent of your impairment. Your inability to read a simple statement and logically separate its various elements is truly amazing given the fact that you are allowed access to a computer. My post was in response to your statement,

      After the Surge there were three years of relative peace in Iraq. Then Napoleon on the Potomac got elected, took the troops out, and the lid hit the ceiling.

      There are two sentences there. My comment on correlation/causation referred to your first sentence and previous statements by you either implying or stating outright that the surge somehow won Bush's Iraq War. Most of my post was devoted to showing that your position is absurd. First, we never won the Iraq war. In fact, when we left Iraq, it was in worse shape than when we first arrived, as was our reputation and standing in the world. Also, any relative calm that existed when we finally departed was more a function of our leaving than of our arriving in the first place or staying any longer.

      The second sentence referred to Obama taking the troops out and the eventual IS march into Anbar. I gave you the rationale for my opinion opinion of your position. I despair of your seeing the logic behind it given that you are so easily 'confused' and that you can't seem to clearly recall a conversation we had only a day ago.


  27. What You Heard About “Allahu Akbar” Is WRONG
    April 6, 2015 by Dom the Conservative

    Bombing, beheading, hijacking, mosque sermons — these are just a few of the instances where the proclamation “Allahu akbar” is shouted. But what does it really mean?

    The mainstream media tells us that the Islamic statement is a pledge of allegiance to the god of the Prophet Muhammad and is an admirable demonstration of faith and piety. It’s portrayed as a humble utterance of praise that is too often misused by jihadists during acts of terror. However, the real meaning behind the most controversial term of our time is much more sinister than the liberal left would have you believe.

    Recently, Jamie Glazov of The Glazov Gang interviewed Daniel Greenfield, a writer with the Freedom Center, about the truth behind the infamous expression that both moderate Muslims and devout jihadists shout.

    Although the literal translation of “Allahu akbar” is “Allah is great,” Greenfield explains that the intended meaning is “Allah is greater than your god. Allah is supreme; he’s supreme to your god, he’s supreme to all other gods, he’s supreme to you.”

    The real meaning of the declaration is that Islam, its god, and its followers are supreme to all other beliefs, gods, and humans. This cliché is often shouted, not as a humble attribution or praise to Allah, but a warning directed at non-Muslims, to whom the declarer is expressing that the infidel will submit, either by law or by sword.

    Greenfield explains that the origin of the statement goes back to when Muhammad and his troops attacked a Jewish tribe, intimidating them with shouts of “Allah is the greatest!” This original usage details the sinister and violent meaning behind the boisterous term we so often hear.

    This same superiority complex has been found throughout history in the most nefarious regimes, most notably Nazi Germany, which believed that Hitler’s political ideology was elite enough to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people. This belief is not only reiterated in the Quran, it is passed down through generations of Muslims, fueling their inherent hatred for Jews, Christians, and any other who refuses to submit to Islamic rule.

    Greenfield adds that the true message of “Allahu akbar” is outlined in the Quran 61:9, which reads, “He [Allah] it is who has sent his messenger [Muhammad] with guidance and the religion of truth to make it victorious over all religions, even though the infidels may resist.”

    Resistance of the infidels, or refusal to convert to Islam, is the reason for Allah’s command to behead, enslave, and conquer. Until the Caliphate is established, implementing Sharia law in every nation on earth, Muslims must not rest, but are required to continue violent jihad.

    Until the left will acknowledge that Islam is not a religion, but is a political ideology hellbent on conquering the world, terrorist groups like ISIS will continue to slaughter and expand their tyranny, resulting in the defeat of the West by our own political correctness.

    Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

    1. Why would anyone in their right mind support the creation of a state with a political ideology hellbent on conquering the world, a supremist state, a male supremist state, that wishes to kill all Jews, Christians or anyone else who stands in their way, or force them into dhimmihood ?

  28. The Republicans must be reading their mail and seeing some polls

    But Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a possible Republican presidential candidate, said it was “probably the best deal that Barack Obama could get with the Iranians” and that he would wait to see how the final agreement looked before passing judgement.

    1. It probably is the best deal Obama could get with the Iranians because they don't really care and, therefore, the deal stinks.

      Think of it ! A Senator wants to see what's really in the deal before passing judgement. He doesn't want to do a Nancy Pelosi, passing ObamaCare so we can see what's in it. :)

      "In your view, who should have the final authority for approving any nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran: Congress or President Obama?"

      Congress 62%

      Obama 29%

  29. >>>Clare Lopez, the heroic former CIA officer, believes that Iran already has nuclear weapons, in collusion with North Korea. Some of those North Korean “fizzles” may be Iranian “fizzles.” When Iran wants to show its nuclear power it will explode a real bomb.<<<

    April 6, 2015
    Israel must explode a nuclear device
    By James Lewis

    I'm with heroic Clare. I can't believe that after all this time Iran doesn't have the materials for some nuclear weapons. Having the material all they need do is put it together, which, Dr Bill Wattenberg used to say, any nation with the machine tool capacity of Las Vegas can easily do. Having the materials, he said, is the hard part. The rest can be done by anyone who can build a Volkswagen car.

  30. You make so sense. You just defined the logic to making a deal with Iran. Please don’t answer. Think.

  31. Elizabeth Warren claimed to be part American Indian ...

    Jeb Bush Claimed He Was Actually Hispanic In 2009 Voter Registration Application. - The New York Times.

    Read the whole story @

  32. Iran has sent Hamas’s military wing tens of millions of dollars to help it rebuild the network of tunnels in Gaza destroyed by Israel’s invasion last summer, intelligence sources have told The Sunday Telegraph.
    It is also funding new missile supplies to replenish stocks used to bombard residential neighbourhoods in Israel during the war, code-named Operation Protective Edge by Israel.
    The renewed funding is a sign that the two old allies are putting behind them a rift caused by the conflict in Syria, where Shia Iran is backing President Bashar al-Assad against Hamas’s mainly Sunni allies.
    Iran has sponsored Hamas’s military operations for years, despite the contradiction that Hamas is part of the worldwide, Sunni-supremacist Muslim Brotherhood, while Iran is Shia.
    Hamas’s leader, Khaled Meshaal, who left Damascus for Qatar after falling out with the Assad regime, has often fought with Hamas’s military wing over the strength of the Iranian connection.
    However, with the Sunni Arab world joining forces against Iran, led by Saudi Arabia and President Abdelfattah el-Sisi of Egypt, who are both hostile to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group has been left little option but to accept the Iranian largesse.
    At the same time, Iran’s overseas operations arm, the Al-Quds force, led by its charismatic general Qassem Suleimani, has been consolidating a broad hold over the Middle East.
    It is backing the Shia Houthi rebels fighting the internationally recognised government in Yemen, and actively supporting the Shia-dominated Iraqi government’s attempts to recapture the northern city of Tikrit, the former stronghold of Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, from Islamic State (Isil) fighters.

    So more Palestinians will die, thanks Obama..... thanks Iran...

    And Deuce will rally against Israel and not care than 5x as many are killed by Iran in Syria....

    1. So, the ISraeli, Saudi Arabian and Egyptian Alliance has strengthen Iran's position in occupied Palestine.
      Whether or not the move by those that support the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, while bombing the adherents of the same ideology in Libya, is of consequence, time will tell ...

      To tell us that it was not the goal of the ISraeli, Saudi and Egyptian Alliance, why that would be a stretch, but to tell us it was 'unforeseen', that Iran's rise in political stature within parts of ISrael was an 'unintended consequence', now that would be unbelievable.

      There is no way that Bibi, al-Sisi and the new King could be so stupid as to not to know the consequences of their actions.

    2. The legitimate government of Syria is under attack from the radical Islamic State, and our little "O"rdure blames the Syrians for the conflict.

      Just as he blames the Palestinians for the civil war in ISrael.

      He is always blaming the victim.

    3. The "legitimate" government of Syria that has butchered over 300,000 of it's own civilians?

      Jack, give a rest.

      You have been exposed as an agent for Iran and the Hamas.

    4. But the good news?

      Jack's friends? The Iranians and the Syrians? Have killed over 10,000 palestinians in the last 36 months..

      You go Jack!

    5. Why, "O"rdure, it has nothing to do, with me.
      I am merely an observer.

      I observe that ISrael is providing material support to al-Qeada and its progeny, the Islamic State.
      I observe that the ISraeli, Saudi Arabian and Egyptian Alliance has increased the influence of Iran, in portions of ISraeli controlled real estate in Palestine.

      These things I observed, reading some data sets, here.

      The observations of Ms Glick, have been confirmed.

      The Zionists have formed an alliance with the Wahhabi.

  33. (Rand) Paul is set to declare his candidacy during a speech in his home state of Kentucky on Tuesday. Expect Paul to outline a vision for America that doesn’t fit any of the traditional Republican molds.

    He would alter the scale and mandate of the federal government in more radical ways than other members of the GOP. And he bucks party ideology in standing against government surveillance, for deep cuts in military spending and in questioning the wisdom of harsh sentences for drug offenders who cost government billions to imprison.

    Those libertarian impulses resonate with people on the left as well as the right, though they can be hard for many mainstream Republicans to swallow. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who was his party’s 2008 presidential nominee, called Paul and others “wacko birds” of the Senate when they unsuccessfully tried to block the nomination of John Brennan as CIA chief in a dispute over the use of drones.

    “He can appeal to a broader spectrum of voters,” said Eliott West, a student at Michigan’s Spring Arbor University who led a pro-Paul delegation to a recent conservative conference near Washington. “He is about more freedom, less government. And if Republicans are going to win, that’s what we need.”

    Paul also plans to seek out support from those who might not necessarily think a Republican deserves their vote. Among 2016 GOP rivals, Paul alone has made a point of visiting college campuses, historically black universities and minority communities. For instance, after the protests over police violence in Ferguson, Missouri, Paul visited the city and urged black residents to vote.

    Immediately after his Kentucky speech on Tuesday, Paul will visit counties in the first four early nominating states that favored Obama over GOP nominee Mitt Romney in 2012. In three of Rand Paul’s destinations, his father, Rep. Ron Paul, came in second in his longshot 2012 bid for the Republican presidential nomination.


  34. Pakistan says Saudi-led coalition in Yemen wants troops

    ISLAMABAD — A Saudi-led coalition targeting Shiite rebels in Yemen has asked Pakistan to contribute soldiers, Pakistan’s defense minister said Monday, raising the possibility of a ground offensive in the country.

    Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif made the comments as Pakistan’s parliament debates whether to contribute militarily to the campaign against the rebels, known as Houthis. Pakistan previously offered its verbal support for the mission, but hasn’t offered any military assistance.

    Days of Saudi-led airstrikes have yet to halt the Houthi advance across Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country, fuelling speculation that there could be a ground operation launched in Yemen. Saudi Arabia and other coalition members have not ruled it out.

    1. .

      Where are the Saudi troops? Until they put a little skin in the game, this looks like the Saudi MO. The Saudis don't work. They hire laborers and expertise from abroad, the former from Somalia and eastern Africa and the latter from anywhere they can get it. Now it looks like they will hire mercs from other countries starting with Pakistan.


    2. .

      The Saudi have troops on the border with Yemen. I would like to see them move troops in. It is time they see the results of their actions first hand.


    3. A large portion of the Saudi Army, the men in the boots, they are from Yemen.

  35. I can't understand why I'm supposed to be rooting for the dictator, and against the anti-Al Queda (they say,) Houthis.

    1. One thing we do know: Al Queda controls a large part of Yemen, and neither the Yemeni Dictator, nor Saudi Arabia have seemed to be too worried about it. I don't really see how the Houthis can be worse.

    2. Also, all of a sudden the usual suspects are starting to talk about Iran's help in fighting ISIS in Iraq as if it was a "bad" thing. What's up with that?

    3. .

      The State Department told people not to travel to Yemen last July. They pulled embassy personnel out in February. However, Americans are still in Yemen, maybe thousands of them, and the US says it has no current plans to help evacuate them. Though those remaining were previously warned, I have the feeling that the US should be trying to do something to help the Americans get out.


    4. >>> I have the feeling that the US should be trying to do something to help the Americans get out.

      God Bless You Brother.

      A Catholic in need is a catholic indeed !

      (i can see i've to pay the credit cards down now in anticipation of the inevitable)

    5. Bless You Quirk !!!

      I will walk your mutt to the fire hydrant I promise.

  36. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces targeted Islamic State militants in Iraq with eight air strikes and conducted five air strikes in Syria, the U.S. military said on Monday.

    The air strikes, conducted since Sunday morning, hit near Bayji, Mosul and Ramadi, in Iraq, destroying fighting positions, mortar positions and a sniper position, the Combined Joint Task Force said in a statement.

    In Syria, the air strikes destroyed eight fighting positions an Islamic State tunnel system and a vehicle near al Hasaka, a vehicle near Ar Raqqa and two buildings in Kobani, it said.

    (Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Lisa Lambert)

    From the location of these airstrikes, and those in the last week or so, I still think there's a chance that the Iraqis' next move will be Mosul.

    Dead Men, Everywhere

  37. The 3rd Affair

    A mortician was working late one night.

    He examined the body of Mr. Schwartz,
    about to be cremated,
    and made a startling discovery.
    Schwartz had the largest private part
    he had ever seen!

    'I'm sorry Mr. Schwartz,' the mortician
    commented, 'I can't allow you to be cremated
    with such an impressive private part.
    It must be saved for posterity.'

    So, he removed it,
    stuffed it into his briefcase,
    and took it home.

    'I have something to show
    you won't believe,' he said to his wife,
    opening his briefcase.

    'My God!' the wife exclaimed,
    'Schwartz is dead?'

  38. Deuce ☂Mon Apr 06, 09:39:00 AM EDT

    You make so sense. You just defined the logic to making a deal with Iran. Please don’t answer. Think.


    Good God, Deuce you have to be joking.

    You are really really far gone.

  39. I am tired now, as older men do.

    I will reply in length later.

    Deuce, you are absolutely nuts.

    You wish to create a State out of killers.

    1. I won $4000 thousand dollars at the Casino today.

      This goes to my Divine Niece at the Max Planck Institute of Brain

      I am blessed.

      I even have a veto over her choice of partner !!!!!


      You don't know how lovely she is !!!

    2. Best international relationship I've ever been involve in......

      Holy Shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  40. The fallout from last week's nuclear framework agreement between world powers and Iran has seen proponents and critics of the deal loudly sounding off on its supposed merits or flaws. On Monday, 30 top nuclear nonproliferation experts took sides in the debate by issuing a joint statement that strongly endorsed the agreement.

    Describing the framework as a "vitally important step forward," the statement breaks down the positive aspects of the proposed deal from a security and nonproliferation standpoint.

    The statement's authors claim that among other benefits, the deal will:

    - significantly reduce Iran's capacity to enrich uranium to the point that it would take at least 12 months to amass enough uranium enriched to weapons grade for one bomb;

    - require Iran to modify its Arak heavy water reactor to meaningfully reduce its proliferation potential and bar Iran from developing any capability for separating plutonium from spent fuel for weapons;

    - put in place enhanced international inspections and monitoring that would help to deter Iran from attempting to violate the agreement, but if Iran did, increase the international community's ability to detect promptly and, if necessary, disrupt future efforts by Iran to build nuclear weapons, including at potential undeclared sites; and

    - require Iran to cooperate with the IAEA to conclude the investigation of Iran's past efforts to develop a nuclear warhead and provide transparency sufficient to help ensure that any such effort remains in abeyance.

    The statement also contains a line that directly contradicts one of the talking points of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed over the weekend on NBC's "Meet The Press" that a deal "would spark an arms race among the Sunni states, a nuclear arms race in the Middle East."

    The nuclear security experts contend just the opposite, stating that "the agreement reduces the likelihood of destabilizing nuclear weapons competition in the Middle East, and strengthens global efforts to prevent proliferation."

    Written by mostly American specialists on nuclear security, the signatories to the statement also include former diplomats and government officials as well as prominent authors on arms control.

    1. Dr. Ali Vaez, a senior analyst on Iran for the International Crisis Group; Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey; and former U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering are among the authors.

      The statement ended by putting pressure on politicians to see the agreement through, stating: "We urge policy makers in key capitals to support the deal and the steps necessary to ensure timely implementation and rigorous compliance with the agreement."

      Elsewhere on Monday, a separate statement was released by the nonprofit advocacy group The Iran Project. In a letter signed by analysts and former top officials, including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the authors welcomed the framework agreement.

      The authors also warned Congress against interference in the process, saying: "We call on the U.S. Congress to take no action that would impede further progress or undermine the American negotiators’ efforts to complete the final comprehensive agreement on time."

      <a href="'>Nuclear Experts Endorse Iran Deal</a>

    2. I don't even want to read it.

      You are endorsing Zbigniew "The Big One" Brzezinski as an 'expert' ?

      I got to go take a shit.


  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. I self censored.

      Got really pissed at our Host.

      Warning: It may happen again

    2. I favor the creation of a State out of the dregs of any group that shits on their women, loves genocide, dreams of death and writes no poetry.

      Long live the State of Palestine !!!

    3. There was a slogan during the Spanish Civil War shouted at times by the Fascists.

      It was:

      "Long Live Death"

      Miguel Unamuno, the Dean of intellectual life there at the time took this to task in print and voice.

      >>>Miguel de Unamuno y Jugo (29 September 1864 – 31 December 1936) was a Spanish essayist, novelist, poet, playwright, philosopher, and Greek professor and later rector at the University of Salamanca.

      His major philosophical essay was The Tragic Sense of Life (1913), and his most famous novel was Abel Sánchez: The History of a Passion (1917), a modern exploration of the Cain and Abel story.<<<

      Here the good thoughtful fellow is --;_ylt=A86.JyN5VyNVlWUAAM0nnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--?_adv_prop=image&va=Miguel+Unamuno&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002

      He was weak on philosophy but very good on getting along together.

      He hated the Fascists.

    4. He and Deuce would not have had a pleasant lunch.

  42. It's all bull shit.

    Only Deuce, and Rufus, would give it any credence..........

    April 6, 2015
    Experts: Iran nuke deal will not be verifiable
    By Rick Moran

    Any agreement between Iran and the U.S. that would be able to verify Tehran's compliance isn't possible, say several arms control experts.

    Bill Gertz, one of the best national security correspondents in Washington for a couple of decades, writes in the Washington Free Beacon:

    Despite promises by President Obama that Iranian cheating on a new treaty will be detected, verifying Tehran’s compliance with a future nuclear accord will be very difficult if not impossible, arms experts say.

    “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable,” said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009.

    Obama said Saturday that the framework nuclear deal reached in Switzerland would provide “unprecedented verification.”

    International inspectors “will have unprecedented access to Iran’s nuclear program because Iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world,” he said in a Saturday radio address.

    “If Iran cheats, the world will know it,” Obama said. “If we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. So this deal is not based on trust, it’s based on unprecedented verification.”

    But arms control experts challenged the administration’s assertions that a final deal to be hammered out in detail between now and June can be verified, based on Iran’s past cheating and the failure of similar arms verification procedures.

    The key to verification lies in the "Additional Protocols" to be negotiated with the IAEA. In the past, Iran has consistently balked at intrusive inspections, and the framework deal reached last week is sufficiently vague that Iran has set about interpreting the deal in its own way.

    The centerpiece for verifying Iranian compliance will be a document called the Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to the White House.

    However, the State Department’s most recent report on arms compliance, made public in July, states that Iran signed an IAEA Additional Protocol in 2003 but “implemented it provisionally and selectively from 2003 to 2006,” when Tehran stopped complying altogether.

    1. “The framework claims that Iran will once again execute an Additional Protocol with IAEA,” said William R. Harris, an international lawyer who formerly took part in drafting and verifying U.S. arms control agreements. “This might yield unprecedented verification opportunities, but can the international community count on faithful implementation?”

      Harris also said Iran could cheat by shipping secretly built nuclear arms to North Korea, based on published reports indicating Iran co-financed North Korea’s nuclear tests, and that Iranian ballistic missile test signals reportedly showed “earmarks” of North Korean guidance systems.

      “So what would prevent storage of Iranian nuclear weapons at underground North Korean sites?” he asked. “If there is to be full-scope inspection in Iran, the incentives for extraterritorial R&D and storage increase.”

      U.S. intelligence agencies, which will be called on to verify the agreement, also have a spotty record for estimating foreign arms programs. After erroneously claiming Iraq had large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence community produced a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that falsely concluded that Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003.

      The IAEA, in a restricted 2011 report, contradicted the estimate by stating that Iran continued nuclear arms work past 2003, including work on computer modeling used in building nuclear warheads.

      The bottom line: verification takes a certain amount of cooperation from Iran, and if past is prologue, we are not likely to get it.

      It should be noted that not only were no Iranian facilities shut down, but Iran continues to refuse inspections at their military facility outside Parchin. This complex has some underground facilities that may have been used in the past to conduct weapons research. We don't know for sure, because the Iranians have refused all entreaties by the IAEA to examine it.

      The Additional Protocols do not include Parchin as a site for verification.

      The more we learn about this deal, the more we are able to conclude that 1) the Obama administration is lying about what's in it; and 2) the key elements that are supposed to limit Iran's nuclear work are unverifiable.

      Damn the nuclear bombs, and full speed ahead.

      Read more:
      Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    2. Quirk wavers on the issue.

      He is still researching the problems of correlation and causation.