A horrific amateur video appeared on YouTube, apparently showing an atrocity against public service workers in Syria. The footage displays a crowd of people callously throwing the bodies of slain postal workers from a post office rooftop.
Who would be assassinating Syrian Government postal workers and throwing their dead bodies from the roof?
More information at the link:
Comments
Things are seldom what they seem
I think we need to put together a round-up of known instances of U.S. intelligence agencies committing atrocities or providing material support to those who do in order to sway public opinion. Those videos from Libya begging for help were probably the most powerful persuader of good-hearted liberals that intervention there was for a worthwhile cause. Of course, emotion shuts down reasoning.
Reporting from Libya
seems strangely quiet now that the planned regime change has been made. I hear bits and pieces that there is still fighting going on and that oil production is still below pre-intervention levels.
I wonder how those good-hearted liberals would have reacted if the intervention had been carried out by a Republican administration. For these reasons I believe the oligarchy would prefer to have the Democrats remain in the White House for the coming 4 years.
Certainly the antiwar movement would rev up if a
republican beat Obama. The liberal hypocrites would come out of their shells and get all righteous.
Ya, Obama has it in the bag, no way they would let Romney in there. Not only for war, but for Medicare and SS. The wolf in sheep's clothing works better every time.
One big reason I've been saying....
..... for some time now that we'd be better off if Obama loses. Romney might not be any better, in fact he could be a little worse. But at least we would FIGHT against the garbage he wants to pull, rather than making excuses for, and even SUPPORTING Obama doing pretty much the same stuff. Also, the policies Obama has championed are now there to stay (barring a revolution or something). We all assumed that no matter what Bush did, the world could see that they were just the actions an arrogant, childish little blood-thirsty freak... and so SURELY as soon as he was gone, things would be reversed. But now that Obama does the same?.... that's FAR more dangerous in the long run. Most people see Obama as an intelligent, thoughtful person, who wouldn't do anything unless there was a good reason.
So yeah, Obama is more dangerous. And IF Romney should win, and suddenly all these so-called liberal OBots start complaining about what Romney is doing re. foreign poliicy, I hope the rest of us will stand up a point directly at them.... point out that THEY are to blame.... THEY are nothing but hypocritical phonies.... and THEY have blood on their hands.
Would Romney appoint new people?
Along these lines, I was just reading about Petraeus and thinking about that photo of Bush and Petraeus sitting in the Oval Office. I was thinking of a photo essay entitled, "Change That's Hard to See, Much Less Believe in."
Just a series of photos: Bush with Petraeus, then Obama with Petraeus. Bush with Geithner then Obama with Geithner. Bush with Gates then Obama with Gates. Etc. I'm a lightweight on details, and I actually don't know how far we could go with this, but it seems to me that at least in the area of military, intelligence, and economics, the new team is pretty much the same as the old team.
Simple captions: George W. Bush obscuring the line of civilian control of the military by portraying Pertraeus as the face of policy. Barack Obama ensuring continuity with the previous administration in a meeting with Petraeus.
Yes Viriginia, it is bipartisan economic and foreign policy in
US. "Washington consensus" - the term used for neo-liberal economics could easily apply to the (neo-con) foreign policy.
Neocon Elliot Abrams was consulted by the Obama team before blowing up libya.
From Libya :
http://angryarab.net/2012/08/14/forcing-the-veil-in-libya/
Mustafa Abdul-NATO = Mustafa Abdul-Jalil
More news from Libya
From IPS 14 August 2012: http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/08/gaddafi-loyalists-up-in-arms/
The security situation in Libya remains tense as violence by way of car bombings, political assassinations of high-ranking government and military officials, attacks on foreign diplomatic staff and NGOs, and young men sorting out minor disputes with AK-47s continues unabated.
IPS spoke with armed Gaddafi loyalists who vowed they will step up their fight. Government sources alternately claim the perpetrators are former President Muammar Gaddafi loyalists or Islamists bent on revenge.
This murky situation is further exacerbated by a clamp down on the dissemination of information in the local media, and Libyan security forces preventing foreign journalists from covering the scenes of attacks first-hand or taking pictures.
The IPS article goes on to say that during the last three weeks more than two dozen high-ranking military or government officials have been assassinated in Benghazi. Some were former Gaddafi loyalists who had defected to the rebels.
More details in the article.
I am in complete agreement
It is disgusting listening to people support drone attacks simply because the attacks are being ordered by Obama. If your principles depend on who is in office then you have none.
I have a whole lot more respect...
.... for the scumbags who supported Bush's actions, than I do for the "liberals" who condemned Bush but now support Obama for doing pretty much the same thing. ALL of them are blood-thirsty scum.... but the OBots can also add the label "hypocrite" to their resumes.
AAaaaahhhhhhh for the joys of enlightened, compassionate liberal
-s vs the ignorant, murderous conservatives......
Remember when liberals excoriated conservatives for chering Perry who was crowing about death penalty in a primary debate? Or when Ron Paul said uninsured sick people should die? Hypocrisy at its best...
I can't watch that video.
I really wish there were an alternative to letting this play out, but I don't think there is. A western intervention would be a disaster.
Syria
from The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/13/syria-opposition-groups-nati...
What is it that allows some countries to fund, train, supply and support proxies to overthrow the governments of countries that stand in their way, "undermine the interests of", those plotting the regime changes? Never mind the death, destruction and misery they bring to those caught up in the middle of it all.
To refer to such interventions as "humanitarian" is mind boggling, and yet, people suck it up.
It is painful to watch
I want to know what "has been diverted" means, as in
"Has been". That's passive case, isn't it? "Has been diverted" by whom or what? What did the diverting? And who exactly is surprised to see this happening?
Here's a lazy question. Iran is run by Sunni, correct? I'll go look it up.
Lazy reply
No, Iran is mostly Shiite. Al Qaeda is primarily a Sunni organization. KSA is mostly Sunni with some Shiites in the areas where much of the oil is.
Iraq is a mixture, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish. Now with a Shiite led government in Iraq it has strengthened ties to Shiite Iran.
Syria is the last remaining Secular government in the region. Many religious and ethic groups there, making it relatively easy to stir up animosity among them, thereby weakening the central government.
This is one of the tactics planned by those who wish to destroy Syria if a regime change cannot be accomplished. Thus, so goes the thinking, Syria would be weakened and would no longer be a threat to Israel. Only Iran would remain as a competitor for regional hegemony with Israel.
Sunni vs. Shia
The exact percentages are difficult to obtain, however, it is generally accepted that 85-87% of the world's Islamic population is Sunni. Iran is about 90% Shia, about 8% Sunni and the rest is a smattering of other religions.
The fight between Sunni and Shia is more political in nature than religious. I'm not a Muslim but as I understand it the basic argument between the two factions boils down to who is God's choice to lead the Islamic world after Mohammed. Shia think that only God can appoint a leader and that He would have chosen from the prophet's own family. The Shia believe that Mohammed's son in law (Ali) was chosen by Him to take over for Mohammed. Shia think that only God can appoint a leader, not man. The Sunni believe that the next leader should be chosen from among those most qualified. After the death of Mohammed there was a huge power vacuum that needed to be filled. Several of Mohammed's companions were eager to become the next leader and they were supported by several believers. Others wanted God to appoint the next leader. Sunni = we vote for our leader, Shia = God chooses our leader.
More information on the Sunni - Shia divide
Three paragraphs from a recent piece at Asia Times: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NH16Ak01.html
Saudi Arabia's reaction to dissent among its Shi'a population provides insight into the way it interprets its evolving geopolitical position in a rapidly changing Middle East. In a broad sense, the Saudi regime perceives the popular demands for freedom and democracy being voiced by Arabs as a serious threat to its long-term sustainability. Saudi Arabia also sees an Iranian hand behind Shi'a-led activism in the region. As evidenced by its decision to deploy security forces in neighboring Bahrain in March 2011 to crush an uprising led largely by a marginalized Shi'a majority that is agitating for greater freedoms under a Sunni-led, pro-Saudi monarchy, the kingdom worries that its own Shi'a community will rise up in turn.
Saudi Shi'a, many of whom maintain tribal and familial links with their Bahraini counterparts, organized protests in solidarity with Bahrainis while calling on Riyadh to remove its military from Bahrain. In this regard, Saudi Arabia views the organized and sustained political opposition among its Shi'a community in the context of its regional rivalry with Iran.
and
Saudi Arabia is well known for its status as the world's top exporter of crude oil and its strategic alliance with the United States. It is also one of the world's most culturally and politically repressive countries. The rigid brand of ultraconservative Sunni Islam espoused by the kingdom treats Shi'a Muslims as apostates and differing schools of Islam as heretical. ... Estimated to represent approximately 10-15 % of Saudi Arabia's population of around 28 million, the Shi'a minority is concentrated in Eastern Province, a region where the majority of the kingdom's oil reserves are located.
This "heretical" Shi'a sitting on oil
reminds me of the "savages" who stood in the way of Manifest Destiny.
I appreciate this thread of informative comments. If we were a serious country, this would be common knowledge, but I learned a lot.
Somewhat related - "Leaked Israel memo"
This is a growing concern. Refer to article in BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19272737 "Propaganda or Iran war plan"
The document itself is striking in both the scale and scope of the military operation that it proposes.
It also employs a range of technologies, many of which we have known that the Israelis are developing, but this document suggests that they are battle-ready and fully operational.
The leaked text suggests that an Israeli operation would begin with a massive cyber attack against Iran's infrastructure, to "paralyse the regime and its ability to know what is happening within its borders".
Propaganda or plan? 60/40 in my view. It could be a ploy to lure Iran into making a first strike thereby justifying a full scale attack on Iran. I don't think Iran will bite. If it were a real plan would great care not be taken to make certain there were no leaks.
More details at the link.
How would this not fit the definition of "aggressive war", a war crime? What would be the reaction in the rest of the world?
Yeah, pretty good guess
Like macho school boys strutting around the playground. You know they'll be in a fight sooner or later, just a question of how it'll start.