Slashdot Mirror
US Intercepts Iranian Order For Attack On US Embassy In Iraq
cold fjord writes "Another NSA story? The Wall Street Journal reports, 'The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria ... U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf ... U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies. ... Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the "destruction of Israel." ... The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.' What's interesting is this Washington Post story from 2011: Iran's Quds Force was blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq."
Situation normal.
All Rupert Murdoch newspapers are warmongering tools.
As a US service member, I really don't want this to happen because I'll probably get sent there if this flares up and I've got less than 5 months left in the military. However, I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria.
No idea if it's legitimate or not, but the Zimmerman Telegram was the first thing that came to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram
Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.
And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.
One of the hazards of the news business is that occasionally you end up reporting unpleasant or disagreeable news like this. Even "rainbows and puppies" papers like USA today are carrying the story.
Do you prefer the news, or rainbows, puppies, and unicorns?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
First, look at the source. I'm sure that the US intelligence agencies will all run to the Wall Street Journal with leaked information. Next, there have been no facts presented for anything else they have been banging a war drum on. Not just for this, but for decades. Are we really supposed to keep trusting known liars and a corrupt media system?
We also have this one.
Not only do I not trust a corrupt media and politicians, I want them out of our country. Maybe a good first step in war is to start parachuting politicians into these foreign countries where they clamor for war?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details. Now a mystery communication putting Iran and Syria together if attacked. First of all if they had intercepted this, why would they tell every one about it. Now Iran is going to find another form of communication since this one is compromised. The whole scenario is playing out like a bad 80's conspiracy movie.
The day after Snowden reveals NSA snoops secure internet traffic ...
Do we even trust the media anymore? They are just a tool for beating the war drums now.
Wasn't the whole CIA-Iran coup thing started with planting false stories in the media. How do we know that we aren't being fed planted stories?
It's like they think we're suddenly going to believe them. Turn off the bullshit- and propaganda-machines, no one is listening.
Signature intentionally left blank.
PUPPIES!!!
Since I paid attention to the TV "news" as a teen or thereabouts, we (the west) have been at war with Iraq, then Iran, then Iraq, and now Iran is getting the propaganda treatment ready for another skirmish. Eric Blair must have used this for his 1984. I know people have short memories, aren't interested, claim it's god's will, or prefer "reality" TV to life beyond their sad lives, but come on, surely I'm not the only non-historian to see we're vacillating between these two?
We (the west, most likely US and UK) must be looking to supply Iraq (old UK territory) with a huge amount of expensive weaponry and military contractors, just like we did with Iran, and Iraq before them. It's not just the oil, it's the contracts, and it's not just the US. It's the old British and French regions constantly having to fight among themselves and the US led oil occupancy campaigns.
In an effort to make their spying program more palatable to the general public, the US today released the kind of lame "intelligence" they run across every day that was never going to amount to anything anyway. Similar to several "terror plots" the government "prevented" which were largely incompetent people ensnared by homeland security honey pots.
Nonsense. The WSJ (on the right) and NYT (on the left) are the two most intellectually solid papers in the US. Both have, over the last 20 years, been responsible for first breaking any number of very important stories.
Anybody who dismisses either of these papers because they happen to dislike the owners or the story being told doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
This may be PR of course. However, assuming that this is true, and given how it is coming at a spectacularly bad week, it's timeliness makes me suspicious. However, this is the sort of stuff we want our spooks to catch not deploy a dragnet over our own society.
---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
I dunno... it's from ColdFjord of all people. I mean, he's radically in favor of the NSA and anything that even remotely justifies their existance and current illegal activities is going to be spun as god's own truth. If he's involved in the discussion and the NSA is on topic, then I simply have to take everything with a fist-sized grain of salt. I'll just look elsewhere for information on who said what about Iran.
Isn't this just what the US wants? They know that if they escalate things in Syria, they will drag in Iran, and then they will have the mandate they want to hit Iran.
I have a feeling that this was the plan all along....
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
I think the US has lost all its credibility in the world since it became known where all of the 'credible documents' about Iraq came from. I'll believe there were chemical weapons used but most likely it was the rebels, trying to get other countries involved in their war.
Also, as a European, I'm getting ever so tired of hearing how 'America is the policeman of the world'. Why not let the Middle East countries clean up their own mess for once? The added bonus being a lot less angry Muslims giving the US the stinkeye.
> The U.S. has intercepted
Sounds right so far.
> an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy
Mm hmm...
> ...U.S. officials also fear...
They're more scared of us than we are of them! Right? Maybe that's spiders.
> the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike
I can't go on. I'm really feeling terrified now, so... Ahh. I think I'll go watch some F** N**** to learn more about this.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, this is a legitimate intercept that's been made public for the purposes of swaying public opinion in favor of the NSA's spying program. Were any of us upset that the US government is attempting to learn about the activities of other nations hostile to it? No, of course not.
But how does this supposedly justify any of the crap behavior we ARE upset about?
Do the Iranians use Verizon cell phones to give tactical orders to its sailors? Does Hezbollah use Gmail to coordinate its attacks? Maybe the G-20 ministers were going to kidnap an American right after the conference? Or perhaps its those NSA spooks' ex-wives that were going to aid and abet the Taliban in their next attacks?
#DeleteChrome
Who else, but Cold Fjord?
In regards to his continued efforts as the resident NSA Shill here at Slashdot, I respect his dogged determination to continue the fight, futile as it may be.
Keep it up--you've become a de facto inside-line on what the Feds want us to believe. It's like having our own mole inside the NSA.
I have two words on the timing of this intercept in relation to new countries to invade:
Convenient
The second word was intercepted.
You don't understand - the U.S. is like a cop. They're allowed to attack anyone they want, but you're a criminal if you resist in any way. The Syrians and their Iranian allies should just lay back, relax, and enjoy the pathetic reaming they're about to recieve.
What could they have against the US?
WSJ is simply reporting what the gov't reported, it isn't like WSJ intercepted this with its crack reporters. It is the US gov't that I don't trust.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
If Israel gets attacked. Its the cause of a large amount of Middle East unrest
More accurately: Sandniggers are the cause of Middle East unrest.
Close down the US embassies in Baghdad, Beirut, and indeed, elsewhere in the Middle East - Riyadh, Cairo, Tripoli, Khartoum, et al. Then they won't have to worry about Jihadi attacks on US embassies.
For the record, I'm against the US getting involved in either side, since there are no 'good guys' in this conflict. But if they insist on getting involved, they should evacuate all their embassies in the region, so that a rerun of the US embassy bombing in Beirut of 1983 or the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi more recently doesn't happen.
FFS, this is what they are supposed to be doing. Not screwing around, feeding the DEA the lowdown on pot deals or handing the IRS lists of overseas bank accounts.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually, while the WSJ's op-Ed staff is aligned right/libertarian, the news department is still pretty left. But it's much easier to just dismiss it without checking, isn't it?
"simply not bomb Syria"
Because of the way in which this whole conflict has been mismanaged if the US does nothing you will hear Iran, Syria, Russia, and Hezbollah claiming the US was scared. Since no one seems to care about the actual citizens being killed I will go the same route and say the US should at least destroy any airstrips being used by the Syrian air force, neutralize a section of their air defense systems, and destroy any jets or helicopters that happen to be in the air or sitting on the ground. This strike package would keep civilian deaths low. The strike won't actually help any civilians or end the conflict but since nobody seems to care about them it is really not a factor in making this decision. And last but not least give Putin a great big fuck you by loudly announcing how easy it was to render the Russian supplied air defense systems ineffective. The US did it in the first Iraq war and more recently in Libya. Israel has already hit targets inside of Syria 3 times in the past 6 months without losing a single plane. I find it hard to believe the Syrian radar officers just happened to be at lunch or in the bathroom every time Israel attacked. Russia and Iran have a lot to lose right now. If the US does strike despite Russia's warning Putin will look week and US-Russian relations would nosedive even further than they already are but who cares. If Iran or Hezbollah attempt to retaliate by shooting off a couple of missiles at Israel they would give Israel all the reason they need to finish off Hezbollah once and for all because the US will not step in and force any type of cease fire and Israel can finally take care of their problem. However, if the US does not attack then they should announce they are washing their hands of the entire matter. This includes no humanitarian aid or arms and refuse to participate in any worthless negotiations or summits that never accomplish a single thing. And finally announce the US will not help enforce UN declarations and international laws governing war behavior. Nobody else cares so why should the US?
We all know that company owners have no say-so with their own companies right?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That was a good reply -- you should have posted as a real user :).
Correct. Ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?
No worries there Mate. That ain't happening.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
At least this week.
I think America has finally realized they're being lied to; hell, Obama doesn't even look like he believes what he's saying, and that's suicide for a politician.
This will not end well, however it goes.
I advocate a full Nuclear Strike; It makes as much sense as everything else.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Apparently written by someone that has never really looked into politics in the US. The US has a full political spectrum, including communists* and socialists just like Europe. The thing is that most Americans won't vote for communists if they understand that is who is running for office.
SEIU drops mask, goes full commie
William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire (Who is BILL AYERS ?
*Including the "eliminationist" variety. See William Ayer's manifesto above.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Pwnies
Only the US could launch an unprovoked attack with the simultaneous expectation that no-one would be motivated to retaliate.
Kittens. And unicorns need to fart rainbows if they want my time.
good let someone else do something for a change.
Let iran and syria claim the west was scared. the USA has literally marched and rolled over countries in the blink of an eye.
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
The problem is not the initial strike and devastating military blow but the aftermath. the long term engagement planning. the USA simply doesn't plan for more than 6 months into the future. It is why we keep getting bogged down into quagmires. We remember the revolutionary war and bam George washington was president, and we had a constitution. What is often forgotten is the articles of confederation lasted for the better part of ten years before we got it right and we didn't have Britain, or France breathing down our backs trying to "help" us. while the French supported us we forced the british out we started the fight and we finished the fight. you can not build nation from the outside it must be built inside. these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other. Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other. You can't change their mind so you might as well not get your hands bloody.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
How about Sunshine, Lollipops And Rainbows?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Of course this might be one reason why we continue to bomb the shit out the middle east:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/making_the_world_safe_for_banksters_syria_in_the_cross-hairs_20130905/
Both do a good job at reporting the news without fear or favour, and both are world renowned for their investigative skills..
They are about as good as it gets from an "old media" in terms of accuracy and impartiality. The opinion columns of both papers are heavily stacked with their sponsors shills and extremists who are sympathetic/useful to the "cause", that's where both papers political leaning can best be seen. The political tilt is most noticeable (to me) with the WSJ on environmental issues such as AGW and fracking, the opinion columns often directly contradict their own news department, yet the two independent news departments often match.
Both papers continue the (almost extinct in the US) tradition of clearly separating news and opinion. The WSJ in particular deserves credit for not going down the usual Murdoch route of blurring the two together into a continuous stream of hearsay and political propaganda.
As an example of why newspapers would print extremist, Google "Australia's most read column". Now realise he is not just an independent subversive with a big mouth, he's chief executive shill for the world's richest woman.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
We can at least capitalise on the public's fear that we get everything, and use that plausibility to say what ever the hell serves our agenda!
Ladies and gentlemen I remind you this comes from agencies that are PAID to LIE.
I'll say this. If they had factual intercepts of private Iranian military communication wit this level of detail? They'd find more value in HIDING this capability, then by showing the hole poker-hand. Instead, they release this as a PR move to push a war agenda.
You can bet, when an unnamed official source produces actual evidence of this eavesdropping capability? He will be prosecuted as a traitor - and probably hounded to Moscow.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
I dismiss these papers because they hire nincompoops and frauds. They promote plagiarized stories, and take stenography from "official sources" to present as if that were the equivalent of factual reporting.
You can tout your Izvestia and Pravda, as "intellectual". If you apply that term to drivel and misinformation from Krauthamer and Friedman, you really need an education in critical thinking skills.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Get me another, independent, source. Otherwise, I don't care.
If the Government said this, I probably would accept it. A Murdoch paper, not so much.
"You read it here first."
No.
I've read this same song multiple times whenever there's even the possibility of use of force going all the way back to Vietnam. There's always a report that it's all some vaster conspiracy (that never comes to fruition, somehow).
Like all the rumors of secret oil finds off of Vietnam that were "the real reason" for that war? I remember them well.
Funny. No one ever developed those vast deposits. (Or maybe they kept it secret by keeping the oil they paid millions to extract in tanks to artificially boost prices.)
Or, the oil in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was more than happy to sell the west already? Heck, he sold us a fair piece of the oil we used to power the army that invaded.
If it was all some global game to destroy Iran,then why was Obama in such a hurry to get our army out of Iraq? It was sitting right across the border from Iran. There were operating airbases there. Sure seems like if this was the great plan all along then it sure wasn't well executed.
I think your theory is horse hockey. We may get into it at some point with Iran, but it won't be because of some great vast plan. It'll be something that comes up that has an impact on US politics like the chemical weapons and the perceived "red line".
WSJ is simply reporting what the gov't reported, it isn't like WSJ intercepted this with its crack reporters. It is the US gov't that I don't trust.
That is precisely what I see no reason to believe. WSJ is Murdoch, and the Murdoch press is totally unreliable, not to mention (to put it mildly) an unlikely target for an Obama administration leak, not that they would leak this anyway. This smells like another fake scandal, of the sort that the Murdoch press are continually promoting, and frankly, not worth serious consideration.
Drop a nuke on the region and then use the money saved from not having the war to figure out how to remove radiation from oil.
winning!!!
You know it's funny how important maintaining credibility by refraining from bullshitting people turns out to be.
The Iranian Revolutionary Islamic Leader and his puppet "President" could step in front of a camera, arm in arm, and announce they have nuclear weapons and are about to launch them on the United States, and put it on every television network on Earth, launch missiles and bombers, and when the planes hit US air space, Barrack Obama could go on national television and announce the impending strikes, and outline the need to defend the nation and to launch an immediate counter attack, and...
at this point, I'm not sure anyone would believe him!
AND, (if I may be forgiven for staring a sentence with a coordinating conjunction,) THAT IS WHY IT'S BEST NOT TO LIE!
good let someone else do something for a change.
Let iran and syria claim the west was scared. the USA has literally marched and rolled over countries in the blink of an eye.
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
The problem is not the initial strike and devastating military blow but the aftermath. the long term engagement planning. the USA simply doesn't plan for more than 6 months into the future. It is why we keep getting bogged down into quagmires. We remember the revolutionary war and bam George washington was president, and we had a constitution. What is often forgotten is the articles of confederation lasted for the better part of ten years before we got it right and we didn't have Britain, or France breathing down our backs trying to "help" us. while the French supported us we forced the british out we started the fight and we finished the fight. you can not build nation from the outside it must be built inside. these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other. Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other. You can't change their mind so you might as well not get your hands bloody.
I think what you are trying to say is that the US military is really good at devastating an enemy's infrastructure, but that the US government is inept at nation (re-)building.
The US should only be getting in wars that it intends to win via annihilation of the opponent's military capability. The US hasn't yet mastered the art of regime change, so it should avoid it. I don't mean this as an insult, Russia can't do it either. In fact, killing part of population and then attempting to convince the survivors to do what you say during an occupation may just not be a tractable approach to nation building.
With the US's currently capabilities, it's really a binary choice: completely destroy or leave alone.
Heard Rep. Tommy Williams on talk radio today, and he didn't seem satisfied with his security briefing since it didn't seem to answer three questions: What's the mission, what's the exit strategy, and what's it going to cost? While exit strategy and cost are valid questions, before we do ANYTHING, we need to have a clear, achievable, defined mission before we put our sons and daughters at risk. And if Obama is waffling on who's drawing the 'red line', especially in the absence of any other country giving a crap about that 'red line', you need to tell me what this 'Mission' is about before we go jumping in all by ourselves here.
The US has nothing to lose by just stepping back and letting that entire region sort themselves out by themselves. The sad thing is I don't see anyone or anything that could bring peace to that region. The US have no interests in Syria, Lebanon, or Iran. The US does have some interests in Israel but Israel is more than capable of protecting themselves if necessary. The last thing any of the countries in the region want is a real shooting war with Israel.
No one really does care. That's the problem. A Fourteen hundred civilians die because of a chemical weapon, a hundred thousand have died because there is a civil war going on and building, bombs and bullets are exploding all around them. What is so special about the few thousand people who got gassed that wasn't special about the hundred thousand of people who got caught in between the battle lines? I mean they are all (mostly) civilians, woman and children too.
The formatting on your post makes it a little difficult to read but you should know that Russia has sent a team of investigators in to inspect the site. They have tendered a 100 page report to the UN claiming the grade of the chemicals used and the delivery device is not military grade and doesn't match what it knows about Syria's chemical weapons programs. They instead link the gassing to one of the rebel groups and posit the theory that it was used to coax the US into taking action which would end up helping them. That being said, I don't really disagree with what you mentioned, it's just that we are assuming the Syrian government is behind the chemical weapons when it may be something different.
Here is a fun fact. Syria has not signed on to the UN chemical weapons convention which is what is usually referenced when the "international norms" is trotted out. This means that since 1993, we have known that Syria was not going to follow "international norms" but didn't care until chemical weapons were claimed to have been used. But that also goes back to the hundred thousand innocent civilians dieing and not caring enough to do anything until chemical weapons became involved too.
Maybe we should just impose Obamacare on them.
I dunno, maybe that's too heinous.
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
And the meek shall inherit the earth...I mean, if that's OK with you...
"Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
Anyone who dismisses them outright, maybe. But there *are* systemic biases in even the most solid newspapers. Both the NYT and WSJ are capitalist institutions, and (despite the New York Times left-leaning editorial content) are for the most part decidedly conservative in their journalism. I don't mean conservative in the left-wing/right-wing political sense, but they are major pillar of the established power structure in our country and have a significant incentive ($$$$$) to continue in that role.
They don't want to rock the boat *too* much, and they often are hesitant to go after those in positions of authority unless public sentiment is clearly behind them. This becomes more readily apparent in times of war. For example, the New York Times did not cover the start Iraq War in a way consistent with their reputation and abilities. They have admitted such and apologized for that mistake, but the system that has allowed it to happen is largely unchanged.
Two of my favorite news sources are the Christian Science Monitor and Al-Jazeera, because at least their biases are obvious. Because of that they offer a slightly different perspective than most mainstream American outlets.
Sorry, I think you're missing the point.
Iran is sitting on trillions of dollars worth of oil.
Weapons manufacturers will sell trillions of dollars of weapons to all sides.
The same people who are going to make all this money just happen to be the same people controlling your elections and your congress.
What chance does Iran have?
That wasn't intercepted. It was directed at us in a manner they knew we'd intercept. How do I know that? I'm omniscient. Seriously though, it is in their interest for us to know that because it could serve as a deterrent. Its not like our relations with iran are anything but horrible right now... and they've been horrible for longer then I've been alive. SOO... why do the iranians care?
Look, I'm done with the middle east at this point. I'll back up israel to a point because they have a real democracy and they're some of the few comprehensible people you'll find in that region of the world. However, the rest of the middle east? Let it do as it will. The US is neither capable nor responsible for acting as a global police force. We cannot do it even if we want to do it... and I really think a majority of americans do not want to do it. So lets not.
Does that mean that some horrible dictator somewhere is going to start eating his own people or making torture gardens of their bones? Sure... terrible people have always been around and when you get a psychopath on the throne then you're going to get horrors all over. What are we supposed to do about it? Fight them? All of them? And keep doing it? Forever?
I'll tell the global community something... if you want my blood, I want something for it. I'm not interested in doing the right thing. Morality is cheap. If they want us to fight, I want territory. Then I'll actually bother defending the land because it will be mine.
Does this mean I actually want this land or that I covet their territory? Not at all. But if you want my blood, I want something for it. I want something I can give future generations. And simply ridding the world of one scumball dictator only to have the same idiots in that region of the world appoint another scumbag dictator isn't good enough.
So... how badly do you want me to liberate your country? Because were it up to me, the price would be getting turned into a US territory under the permenant aegis of the American people. Taxes, laws, culture... total transfusion. Hey, you'd all be Americans instantly.
Again... I do not covet their land. They can do as they please where ever forever. But you ask me to spill my blood on your soil? Then its mine. I won it by right of conquest. You couldn't hold it. I could. Its mine the same way any country belongs to any people. No ruling people on earth were the first to take the land they live upon. Every nation and culture got their land from someone else one way or another.
My nation took their land from the native americans and truth be told many of them took the same land from each other over the years. Welcome to humanity... we do that.
I am tired of the US going to various hellscapes the world to fight for causes that often have nothing to do with American interests. Often we do it for allies. Often we do it for vague geopolitical reasons that tend to boil down to bullcrap.
That's fine. If we're going to keep playing that game then keep playing it. But bring something home. You can't eat nobility. Nothing we've ever done in any conflict has ever earned us any honor or respect as a nation. Even WW2 got us very little. We profited more by the destruction of our industrial rivals then through the gratitude of our allies.
So that's fine. From now on, I want something if we kill and die.
The Saudis etc said they'd pay for our war with Syria in full. Not good enough. If we're going to be their mercenaries then I want to make a profit. Not interested in paying what the best military in the history of the human race is worth? Fine. We don't need to fight your silly regional pissing contests. You go fight Syria. I'm tired of my nation being referred to as the great Satan when always we operate in a network of relationships that push us towards these choices. Why must we be the international sin eaters? Suffer your own calamities. The US has more then enough of its own.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. It was an authentic, secret order.
2. Iran deliberately let that message get intercepted (either to discourage an attack or to goad the US into striking).
3. Some other nation planted the message (same as above, or to increase tensions between the US and Iran).
4. The US made it up to get domestic support (either for a strike against Syria, or a future war with Iran).
"The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?"
And how many days did it take America to "roll over" Vietnam?
America is the World's pre-eminent super power but as soon as their boys start returning home in body bags, they lose the taste for war. Do you think Iran doesn't know this?
You can't compare Iran with Iraq. Iran is 4 times as large, over twice as populated and (unlike Iraq) largely ethnically homogenous and pretty unified. They lost between 300 000 and 600 000 in their war with Iraq and suffered chemical attacks but they still repelled the invaders (who were being assisted by the US). Can you image America taking even a small percentage of those casualties?
I don't want to sound down on America, but if you think this is going to be a walk in the park, you're going to get your asses kicked.
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other.
While I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, I think you're underestimating how thoroughly nasty the European religious wars really were. The only think restraining them relative to now was a lower level of technology.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
There was no "full on assault" in Libya, just air strikes.
I don't think Iran would last even 30 days against an actual full-on assault - but only provided that US is willing to accept casualties far beyond what it saw in Iraq. The big difference is that Iraq had rather ancient Soviet tech (and emasculated export models at that - e.g. Iraqi tanks didn't have NVDs). Iran boasts some more modern stuff, such as S-300, so any air strike will be more like real war, with some planes downed and all, and not the usual turkey shoot. On the ground, the big difference with Iraq is that Iran has a larger, better trained and equipped, and considerably more loyal army. In Iraq, the only troops that were willing to fight for Saddam were his Fedayeen, and they were a tiny minority. Iran has Basij, and the general populace would not view any foreign aggression kindly, with a lot of volunteers signing up for the army. Again, US certainly has enough firepower to deal with this all efficiently and quickly, but it will not be a walk in the park like Iraq; it will entail actual considerable casualties.
So it all hinges on whether American voters are ready to accept a significant surge in flag-draped coffins coming home or not. My bet is on not - at least not for the sake of Iran.
actually i am not underestimating how nasty those religous wars were. I want to stay out of isalm as it is going to do something even worse.
Let iran have nukes. Iran will use nuclear weapons but the first target won't be the "west" it won't be Isreal . No Iran's first target will either be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia , or some other islamic country that won't bow down to their ayatollah.
let them kill each other you can't stop it, and you can't reason with religious fanatics. might as well contain them and let them kill each other like they want to.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
That bullshit doesn't fly any more. Zionism, like Manifest Destiny before it, was a neat little idea to carve (or re-carve) a nation out of a piece of land, when it was just an idea. When it was put into practice, of course it became the definition of a racist policy.
Because just as extending the Untied States across the plains to the Pacific was impossible without ethnic cleansing and land theft on a massive scale, perpetuated by immigrants on the native population, so was the creation of modern Israel. By a bunch of European immigrants dispossessing the native population of their land.
Zionism is the word given to describe the national liberation movement of the Jewish people
What's a national liberation movement? Free a nation? If by 'Jewish people' they mean Jewish by religion, then it's a theocratic movement and deserves all the hatred it gets. If they mean Jewish by race then it's implicitly racist.
How about a movement to set up a free Israel, irrespective of the race or religion of its inhabitants?
Mr leading hand coder that was taken pity on by HR after many years service and awarded a title irrelevant outside of your workplace - please refrain from pretending to be an engineer when civil or mechanical engineering matters are being discussed. Such behaviour is highly dishonest and blackens then reputation of the profession when you attempt to drag us into your pathetic conspiracy theories.
It was considered OK for Oliver North to sell weapons to Hezbolla so Republicans had better try another tack or admit a bit of high treason in the ranks.
You are still posting this shit after my reply refuting your idiocy about cold fires. You are blackening the reputation of engineers everywhere. Of course pointing out a liar is an "attack", why whine about it? If you deliberately tell lies you should be enough of a man to put up with a bit of criticism about it. If you can't take the "attack" then don't commit the offence.
Awesome video. Thanks.
these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
Yeah great, and when they want and get freedom and democracy the US overthrows their governments and installs dictators like they did to Iran. Leave Iran alone and let the people deal with the Ayatollahs. Every threat to the country only makes the dictators stronger. The bottom line is the US, Russia, and lately the Chinese have been fucking with the middle east on an industrial scale for generations. My guess is it will end with Iran taking over most of the surrounding countries and forming a new power bloc, which these three countries will do everything possible to prevent, but which will probably work out for the best for everyone except the powermongers who deal in blood.
Again with the "painful to read" shtick, eh? Since when does existence equate to relevance? Okay, so you can join the Communist Party in the United States - what are your chances of getting elected to a position above dog catcher or passing a law stripping capitalists of the ownership of the means of production. Buttkiss, that's what.
the cynical/sarcastic part of me says "Oh wow, look how useful the NSA is being..."
or "Number of Americans spied on to capture this intelligence: 350,000,000."
But in all seriousness, this IS the sort of thing the NSA is supposed to discover.
they just dont need to spy on 100% of Americans 100% of the time to do it.
So good on them, job well done.
Now stop violating the rights of your own citizens.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/syria-battle-maaloula_n_3872906.html
President Obama today announced he will no longer prevaricate (for the American audience: lie like Hell!) on the Syria matter, but instead offer them the "olive branch" of peace.
"If Syria and Iran will finally sign onto the WTO's Financial Services Agreement, thus allowing the banksters in, we will refrain from unleashing a leviathan deluge of cruise missiles against them," said an annoyed Barack Obama.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/05/making-the-world-safe-for-banksters/
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry-summers-and-the-secret-end-game-memo
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-09-07/high-level-us-intelligence-officers-syrian-government-didn%E2%80%99t-launch-chemical-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-07/obamas-missing-link-no-direct-connection-between-assad-and-gas-attack
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/syria-battle-maaloula_n_3872906.html
Continued willful stupidity just insults your own intelligence as well as ours. Powerball winners obviously exist, but they are an insignificant portion of the population - as are communists.
I merely speculated a bit on where the title had come from based on posts you have made here yourself about you being a leading hand in a coding shop. Either way your workplace title has zero meaning here or just about anywhere outside of your workplace - posting it here is an act of deception and you have used it many times to shout down others in arguments by pretending to come from a position of authority. By doing so you are giving those that earned the title a bad name, especially when you tie it to 9/11 conspiracy crap which is frankly borderline evil fire in a crowded theatre stuff. It's about stirring up rebellion with an excuse of a string of coincidences that rely on the existence of magic superspies instead of simple stuff like buildings falling down due to fire damage. It's pure sociopathy. :)
Your disgusting conspiracy crap of the US government setting up a fake disaster truly does dishonor the dead and it sickens me every time you excrete such material here. Having such a thing being given more credibility by being associated with a title that I have earned and you are merely splashing about to look more important than you are sickens me even more and makes me glad that I never took the petty step of putting it into my sig.
So code monkey that never even read about enough simple chemistry to learn about a fire, that is why I'm going to keep rubbing your face in your lies every time you spout them here.
One last thing - if you are going to wave "ad hominem" around it does not look credible if you then go and write "go back to the porn channel" or similar such one yourself
Judism is uniquely more than a religion, it's also culture, a shared history, a "Nation".
Tribalism is not unique.
> these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy
Hehe. You say that as if western freedom and democracy is really freedom and democracy. I can give you a really long list of every time freedom has been overran and democracy not being democracy. I can also give you a long list of western hypocrisy.
> they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
No they do not want these. USA and it's allies have always intervened in middle east, stirring up fights and creating chaos. Most of these dictators, ayatollahs, have been put in power by your great nation that loves freedom & democracy.
> Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other
This has nothing to do with chemical weapons. USA have since a long time planned to remove Assad. Chemical weapons was an excuse to pretend they want to invade for humanitarian reasons. But it is not humanitarian reasons. It is all about money, power & world politics.
For example, why do you think the civil war is so bloody? USA and it's allies have provided the rebels (contentiously) with weapons, non-lethal equipment, intelligence support etc.
Come on, stop pretending you are the angels of this world.
So, observe:
a) Who stood to gain from using sarin gas on the population? Not the Syrian govt as that was guaranteed to draw unecessary attention from the intl community while accomplishing very little tactically. BUT the rebels had everything to gain and a demonstrated willingness to do anything to anyone to further their cause;
b) Iran is getting uncomfortably close to having its own nuclear strike capability. With covert and semi-covert deterents exposed, all that is left is an overt action, say a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities;
c) Iran has been out of the public eye. They haven't been doing anything that would make them look 'strike worthy' to the general public EXCEPT they are an ally of Syria.
So how to strike at Iran without it looking like a pure bullying action?
a) Get in to a war in Syria
b) Draw Syria's allies into the war
c) Strike at Iran, move in with occupying forces, dismantle nuclear infrastructure
d) Declare peace and leave a token force to draw the fire of grass roots terrorists (like in Iraq, it keeps the terrorists from trying to hit targets in the US/UK because it is a much easier target).
This latest 'intelligence' from a less than trustworthy agency serves to prepare the public to increasingly begin looking anew at Iran as a 'bad guy' - ' ... not only are they allies with the gas-wielding Syrian despots but they have also instigated attacks against our people!"
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The US should stay out of Syria totally. No attacks, no aid of any kind, and no participation in what passes for diplomacy. Just disappear and make it harder for those in the region to blame the US for all it's troubles. The US government is totally incapable of dealing with that region of the world. Let Syria and the rest of the middle east just disappear off the active radar scope. And also warn the region that when one of the countries or armed groups in the region does something stupid like lobbing a couple of missiles at Israel on a semi-regular basis the US will not reign in the Israelis or force them into any premature ceasefire. And emphasize that the only thing the US will do in those circumstances is resupply the Israeli military if needed.
I am doubtful you understand correlation, but lets see how slow you really are.
There have been numerous books and movies about JFKs assassination showing the Government did not tell the truth about what happened. None of those movies or books claim "The Government did it!" They use facts and evidence to point out that the story released can not be correct.
The same exact situation exists with groups like ae911truth.org. There are thousands of architects, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, and physicists presenting facts and evidence to show that what the Government released is not correct. They have run simulation after simulation and can't get similar results. None of them claim that "The Government did it!". I personally have never claimed that "The Government did it." either. Go back through post history. In fact I'm positive we have had this same argument before. You are either too ignorant to realize that you are a liar when you falsely state people blame the government, or you are a puppet spewing propaganda.
You have never refuted a single fact I showed, in fact you repeatedly claim " truly does dishonor the dead ". You live in a fantasy land refusing facts!
Again, you repeat an ad hominem instead of refuting facts. Your lies about refuting evidence that you refused to review are disgusting.
Since you are now a liar, as well as full of ad hominem kindly go fuck yourself.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.