babyhueypnewton posted:the devotion to anarchism is more important than the actual importance of these movement or their effectiveness
unlike marxists, who uniformly evaluate actions based purely on their outcome/utility and never complain about ideological purity or anything silly like that
Individuals briefed on the secret letter, which is very secret, spoke to The Wall Street Journal about its secret contents, the paper reported to the mass public Thursday. Senior White House officials declined to comment on the story which speaks entirely for itself, but did not deny its secret existence when asked about it by foreign diplomats, The Journal reported.
The incredibly secret letter — the fourth secret letter that no one should know about (because that's what a secret is) known by the entire western press and publicly reported to have been sent since 2009 — is said to have also secretly stressed the importance of reaching a deal on Iran’s nuclear program by Nov. 24.
“There’s a sizable portion of political elite that cut their teeth on anti-Imperialism. Whether they can manage to say ‘Please do not (secretly) render our nation into a blasted hellscape’…is an open secret question,” Mr. Obama said Wednesday, about nothing in particular because he could not have possibly known that the very next day an extremely secret letter about this same topic would be leaked, The Journal reported.
Iranian military units have been operating in Iraq and Syria for months in efforts to destroy the Islamic State group, but U.S. officials not-secretly say they are not coordinating with Tehran.
“We’ve passed on (secret???) messages to the Iranians through the Iraqi government and Sistani saying our objective is against ISIL,” a senior U.S. official told The Journal. “We’re not secretly using this as a platform to reoccupy Iraq or to undermine Iran.”
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/6/obama-sent-secret-letter-to-irans-ayatollah-khamen/#ixzz3IJkKAcKM
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
content warning: CNN autoplay and CIA nonsense
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/obama-syria-strategy-review/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Jamie Allinson makes some false technical claims in his critique of Seymour Hersh (Letters, 8 May). What Hersh reports is entirely plausible, and consistent with facts that emerged from our more limited but irrefutable technical studies of the circumstances surrounding the nerve agent attack in Damascus on 21 August 2013. Our findings, which have become the basis for the ‘new’ arguments being made against Hersh by people like Allinson, and supposedly knowledgeable non-government organisations like Human Rights Watch and the New York Times, raise the most serious questions about whether the White House lied about technical intelligence associated with the attack.
Allinson is correct that the improvised rockets he calls Volcanoes each contained about fifty litres of sarin, but wrong in his claim that they were fired from a regime-held area ‘to the north’. These claims are not original, but repeat those of Eliot Higgins, a blogger who, although he has been widely quoted as an expert in the American mainstream media, has changed his facts every time new technical information has challenged his conclusion that the Syrian government must have been responsible for the sarin attack. In addition, the claims that Higgins makes that are correct are all derived from our findings, which have been transmitted to him in numerous exchanges.
Before we began reporting findings from our analyses, there were published reports estimating that the sarin load carried by the rockets was about five litres. We showed, from detailed engineering analyses of rocket debris, that the rockets contained as much as fifty litres. This finding was hailed by members of the US government and non-government organisations, such as Human Rights Watch and the New York Times, as proof that the Syrian government had executed the atrocity of 21 August. In a follow-up analysis, we found that it could not possibly have been the case that the deadly rockets were fired from Syrian government-controlled areas as far as ten kilometres away, as claimed by the US government and non-government organisations. We showed that the shape of the rockets resulted in extreme aerodynamic drag, limiting their range to about 2 to 2.5 kilometres. This finding was met with great resistance in the media.
We also analysed the impact debris from the single rocket for which data was available (there is no data for multiple rocket impacts despite Allinson’s claim). We showed that those who argued that the Syrian government had fired the rockets had incorrectly determined the direction of arrival as being from the northwest. We showed that the actual direction was from the north. This new technical insight quickly prompted a new ‘discovery’. There was a checkpoint to the north, close to the area controlled by Syrian government forces, from which the deadly short-range rockets could have been launched. However, if they had been fired from this location, the impact pattern of the rockets used in the attack would have required them to have a range well in excess of five kilometres – which we have shown cannot be the case.
We do not claim to know who was actually behind the attack of 21 August in Damascus. But we can say for sure that neither do the people who claim to have clear evidence that it was the Syrian government. The mainstream American media have done a disservice to the public by allowing politically motivated individuals, governments, and non-government organisations to misrepresent facts that clearly point to serious breaches of the truth by the White House.
Richard Lloyd; Ted Postol
Spokane, Washington; Massachusetts Institute of Technology
getfiscal posted:so obama is now pivoting to regime change in syria. but like whole hog. he said he's giving up on taking on isis without taking out assad.
content warning: CNN autoplay and CIA nonsense
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/obama-syria-strategy-review/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
oh cool the thing they were already planning on doing and was being done is now in the stage of planning to be done even though it's a thing that was a thing before CNN made it A Thing
getfiscal posted:so obama is now pivoting to regime change in syria. but like whole hog. he said he's giving up on taking on isis without taking out assad.
content warning: CNN autoplay and CIA nonsense
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/politics/obama-syria-strategy-review/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
A nice example of the classic 'miscalculation' gambit
President Barack Obama has asked his national security team for another review of the U.S. policy toward Syria after realizing that ISIS may not be defeated without a political transition in Syria and the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, senior U.S. officials and diplomats tell CNN
lmao
shriekingviolet posted:remember how back in the day you could make up a wikipedia article for some ridiculous bullshit that didn't exist, source it with some blog entries that you just wrote, maybe one fraudulent newspaper page, and the sadbrained editor drones would be all like "this well sourced article deserves our protection against those nasty trolls who claim it's not real"
for me, it was tuesday
Anyway, each chapter looks at a different country in the Middle East of 1958, its leadership (including his personal interviews with key figures), its relationship with foreign powers, etc. For example, I just finished the chapter about Syria, which gives a good insight into the genesis of its relationship with Russia: they needed foreign loans to build the nation after shaking off French colonialism, and unlike the US, Russia offered more than reasonable interest rates with no imperialist strings attached. They were very clear about the fact that Communism didn't interest them at all, it was just a matter of anti-imperialism and pragmatism.
So you get those sort of historical insights. I definitely feel I'm beginning to understand more about the background of US imperialism in the region, and how Suez was a real turning point, when the US took the opportunity to take over the role the UK had been playing (badly) for some time. Obviously the book isn't perfect, there is of course an undercurrent of orientalism to the whole thing. But as a work of western journalism, it's a damn sight better than the rabid ahistorical garbage we get these days.
wasted posted:I'm glad we've made the jump to people thinking irl cartoon villain organizations exist within my lifetime.
what do u think the cold war was framed as in mainstream us discourse
According to a Syrian opposition official speaking in Turkey, the meeting where the deal was reached took place Nov. 2 in the town of Atareb, west of Aleppo, starting at around midnight and lasting until 4 a.m. The official said the meeting was closely followed by members of his movement, and he is certain that an agreement was reached. The official said about seven top militant leaders attended.
A second source, a commander of brigades affiliated with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army who is known as Abu Musafer, said he also had learned that high-ranking members of Nusra and ISIS met on Nov. 2. He did not disclose the exact location, but said it was organized by a third party and took place in an area where the FSA is active.
According to Abu Musafer, two decisions were reached: First, to halt infighting between Nusra and ISIS and second, for the groups together to open up fronts against Kurdish fighters in a couple of new areas of northern Syria.
thats one hell of a Curveball
middle east conflict orchestrated by embattled and isolated regional government in coalition with rebel groups fighting the government and each other: the only sensible explanation, what are you some sort of conspiracy nut??
daddyholes posted:now newsweek is citing the same FSA sources claiming that khorasan group set up the negotiations ahaahhhahaha, did Hitler make the sandwiches or was it that guy from Silence of the lambs who threw cum at people
FSA: al Baghdadi 'can smell Hillary's cunt'
... Constable added that the lack of airstrikes is not an indication that the airstrikes aren't working. Forcing the enemy to hide weapons it was previously using offensively constitutes progress, he said.
1. they blew up a large bulldozer
2. they blew up a single piece of artillery