Al-Nusra is seemingly getting tired of ISIS getting all the attention and is fixing to openly capture a major border crossing with Turkey in the western region (i.e. openly deploy at an already captured crossing point ), a little west of Allepo I think it is, if I remember where Allepo is, on what passes in the neighborhood as a main highway. Or so they were saying on PBS as I came in. They flashed a map in the background. ‘Bab al-Hawa’ I think it's called. If there were additional details I missed it. That'll give the Turks the opportunity to officially cooperate with al-Qaeda in the operation of a major border crossing and customs station. This could get interesting if ISIS decides to get indignant about the new relationship.
Yeah, ‘bout that… Khorasan is actually a region in northeastern Iran/western Afghanistan. The Syrian al-Qaeda cell was called ‘the Khorasan Group’ because of their ties to al-Qaeda Central (which the Obama administration wanted to emphasize). Some of the principals had served in Afghanistan before moving to Syria.
Oil opened about 3% down this morning. WTI at $77. If this lasts a few months, and there's every sign it could, there are going to be some countries with quite serious budgetary problems.
Seems to not be a happy time to be a Turk either. (Or, at least, the Turks don't seem very happy.) Erdogan appears to have had a plan for how he was going to manage all these moving pieces to the benefit of Turkey. So far it don't seem to be workin’ out for him, in no small part because ISIS is not meeting his expectations. It seems that the new Caliph, who began his career under the nom de guerre of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has demonstrated an inexplicable desire (inexplicable to Erdogan, apparently) to take the fight back to Iraq and even to Baghdad rather than finishing off the Alawite strongholds that Assad still governs.
On top of which the Kurds are not dying off in Kobani at anything approaching anything that Erdogan would consider only a minimal level of cooperation.
Perhaps the Muslim notion of what constitutes being "holy" is different from the Christian notion. It may be more a matter of following the ‘rules’ than of being a recognizably decent human being. I'm not sure the ‘do unto others as…’ philosophy ever had much traction in Islam.
Islam does have the Golden Rule, The problem is it loses its lustre unless universally applicable, and Surah 48:29 says "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other." I very much doubt IS feel obliged to apply the Golden Rule to Yezidi devil worshippers.
Lee: "I'm not sure the ‘do unto others as…’ philosophy ever had much traction in Islam."
It seems not. I did a Google on slavery in Islam, because I wanted to know whether there was religous consent whether this sort of thing was OK or rejected. I found that indeed there are scholars in Islam, especially in the Saudi-salafist school, who are OK with slavery as long as the slaves are non-muslims.
I also found that there are no muslim nation states that outright accept slavery, but some where slavery or "sort of"-slavery is practiced.
Pete: "Islam does have the Golden Rule, The problem is it loses its lustre unless universally applicable, and Surah 48:29 says "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.""
Interesting comment. It rhymes with what I found out myself.
Pete: "I very much doubt IS feel obliged to apply the Golden Rule to Yezidi devil worshippers."
It does seem you are right in that belief.
Are they devil worshippers though? They seem to me to be worshipping some peacock-deity but that that peacock is the devil... I just don't know.
For me worshipping a peacock is about as sane as worshipping a paedophile bandit from the 6'th century or some dude who "walked on water" and came out of a virgin 2K years ago. I mean, why not a peacock?
Marcus, I was being ironic about Yezidi devil worshippers. That's what ISIL call them. To me they are monotheists, in fact, with connections to the oldest monotheistic tradition on the planet.
Your example is of an Indonesian immigrant couple (who were admittedly naturalized citizens, but still…) enslaving another Indonesian immigrant. It mostly misses the fact that folks holding ‘slaves’ by any stretch of the terminology are consistently, universally, vigorously prosecuted in this country as soon as they are caught. (In the headlined case they were not caught; they were accused; she was outta there and made the accusation later, no telling how much later.)
However, given the hodge-podge of legal jurisdictions and overlapping prosecutors offices, it's probably a stretch to say any crime is "consistently and universally" prosecuted here. I probably overstated that. But, slavery comes close.
Your example is of an Indonesian immigrant couple...
Yes. In many of these cases, where it is forced labor, it seems to be immigrants who are doing the enslaving, and if there is enough evidence they are prosecuted.
There is, of course, sexual slavery via prostitution, which seems rather more common.
Your author of the article on ‘Idlib’ misses taking any consideration of American politics. (An oversight one may be assured neither ISIS nor al-Nusra are apt to make.) The original air attack on ‘the Khorasan Group’ named the al-Nusra cell by that name on purpose. Obama was trying to get his air attacks into Syria to somehow fit under the umbrella of the still not repealed Authorization to Use Force against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. (The administration was worried that litigious Republicans would take him to court over it, and that the currently highly unpredictable Supreme Court might rule that ISIS' very public break from al-Qaeda meant that ISIS' public declarations of having broken with al-Qaeda would control whether or not ISIS could still be bombed. This would give ISIS, al-Nusra, and any other al-Qaeda affiliates or splinter groups the power to declaire themselves off-limits to American air strikes with simple press releases.) You may be certain this was not lost on either ISIS or al-Nusra. They took note that the Obama administration called specific attention to the al-Nusra connection to al-Qaeda by specifically mentioning the attack on them and referring to them as ‘the Khorasan Group'.
(Of course, it turned out the Republicans didn't wanna have anything to do with actually staking out a Republican position on the issue, not that close to the mid-term elections, but, at the time, it wasn't clear that they could shut McCain and Graham and the rest of the unrepentant neo-cons down.)
By the way, folks are making much over whether or not the Obama administration will come out in public and endorse American supported attacks on the Assad regime. They ignore that the Congress conspicuously refused to take up Obama's original request for authorization to use force against Assad. So, the Obama administration keeps saying (publicly), "We're not going after Assad". That doesn't mean anybody with a lick of sense believes that the Syrian rebels we train won't be going after Assad as well as ISIS and al-Nusra. This is a friggin’ free-for-all, and the Obama administration knows that, no matter how stupid the political opposition seems to be on the subject.
That doesn't mean anybody with a lick of sense believes that the Syrian rebels we train...
See, the thing is, it's really hard to train dead people. It's also really hard to try to recruit other people to train when they see what happens to the aforementioned recruits.
So if we're going to play our cards against al-Nusra this early in the game, we certainly should have had a hole card to play in defense of our possible allies. Apparently we were so caught up in our domestic legal issues that we failed to take into account that we are not the only ones in this game, and that the other players may be more desperate. This could have been predicted, if we had any credible analysts, or if we had anyone who listened to any credible analysts we may have. So far I'm not seeing where this has done anything to help our cause.
Just like I'm not seeing that waiting for the Iraqi government to get off their butts and work with the Sunni community is panning out too well. All I'm seeing there is more dead possible allies of ours. Again, hard to train dead people.
Sorry, but as the bodies pile up our policy, if you can call it that, is starting to irritate me.
" All I'm seeing there is more dead possible allies of ours. Again, hard to train dead people."
I don't think those people want to be our allies. They want us to be their ally. There is a difference. These are not nice folks. That they are not publicly reveling in their brutality like ISIS does not make them any less brutal. There are no nice folks in that mix. If they managed to become our allies, they'd likely just embarrass us somewhere down the line when they turned on the local Christians or wiped out another Alawite town, or whatever. The only reliable and marginally respectable allies in the region seem to be the Kurds, and half of them are officially Marxists.
In deference to Petes being a prude, I've decided I can afford to edit myself a little more closely; edited version:
"So far I'm not seeing where this has done anything to help our cause."
I think the difference here is that you and I see ‘our cause’ rather differently. I'm not a big fan of the ‘let's go whup ‘em’ movement. If we geared up to clean out that rat's nest, it would take us a few months to gear up, and a few more months to clear out all the rats or drive them far enough underground so's to be no particular threat for awhile (max, maybe less--the Taliban fell in just days, Saddam's regime went down in three weeks) Then the jihadi movement would move somewhere else and raise back up again under new leadership and possibly a new name.
What we have now is vastly preferable. ISIS has a territory to protect, and local powers to screw with and seems much less interested in screwin’ with the ‘far enemy’ (that'd be us) than was al-Qaeda before them, or even al-Nusra (who were plotting an attack on the U.S.A. if we believe the intelligence reports leaked along with the first bombing of ‘the Khorasan Group’ as the administration put it). Time for the Muslims to confront their bastard children. They raised these bastards; let them deal with the bastards for awhile. Maybe they'll eventually learn to not teach their children to be religious fanatics. The Euroweenies keep bashing us for meddling; let them look across the Bosporus at what's wanting to get at ‘em, without us distracting attention across the Atlantic to us. We can take these bastards out any time we need to take ‘em out. We don't need to take ‘em out now.
They raised these bastards; let them deal with the bastards for awhile. Maybe they'll eventually learn to not teach their children to be religious fanatics.
Do you really think it that simple? Without our intervention at Mt. Sinjar they would have ended up with a massacre.
What's to say that letting the chips fall where they may will result in anything positive in the region? I realize it's frustrating to deal with people who refuse to take any responsibility for the results of their actions and blame us for everything, but it's also difficult to watch as innocent people are killed or forced into slavery.
Hezbollah chief Nasrallah seems to think that folks are takin’ their eyes off the prize here of late; not ‘nuff screwin’ with the Jews goin’ on. Winefalcon translation.
These Takfiris will be defeated in all regions and in all states and in all countries and we will have the honor of being part of the side that will defeat them.
Well, as far as Nasrallah is concerned, ‘takfiri’ encompasses al-Nusra as well as ISIS. So, he's probably figuring on Assad's remaining forces, his Hezballah, Iran, maybe even cooperating with the Kurds and maybe even the Turks. (Figure he don't figure Israel in on the mix; his view is on the need to get over this little distraction and get back to screwin’ with the Jews.)
It seems to have been mostly missed in the breathless reporting over who's to ‘blame’ for the Republican mid-term election victories (or, alternately, who should get the credit), but, during his post-election press conference yesterday, Obama said he was going to ask Congress to formally authorize the use of force against the Islamic State. (Gotta wonder if they'll wanna step up to that question any more than wanted to actually take a vote on the use of force against Assad's Syrian regime?)
And, by the way, the Air Force put some serious whacks in on al-Nusra just yesterday, with the Obama administration still making much of the name ‘the Khorasan Group’
The Americans have singlehandedly created and are entirely responsible for the current quagmire in Iraq. It is in many ways similar to the way they went about slaughtering millions in Vietnam, only to retreat leaving nothing but a stench of embarrassment and failure.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which IS in Iraq took root.
Clearly the apes still require more training when it comes to mastering the art of regime change.
Hiya Canadian John, glad you came back. I don't think you can have missed the "no gratuitous cussin" rule slap bang above the comment box. Life's too short to keep explaining this, and although I don't wanna play god (or even mod) such posts will continue to get summarily deleted without explanation. You get a pass on the first sentence of your post above, 'cos apart from that little slip the rest of it makes a serious and cogent argument.
Except for the fact that Iraq's only substantial industry was then and remains oil production, and it's still owned by the government and thoroughly unionized.
Obama has approved another 1,500 military advisors and trainers for Iraq. That'll bring the number up to 3,000. I've not noticed anybody commenting on their ‘immunity’ status.
Just when I think you can actually debate somewhat intelligently you blow it with attack comments.
(Yes, I can see what Pete has deleted in my email.)
The Americans have singlehandedly created and are entirely responsible for the current quagmire in Iraq.
And yet you contradict yourself a short time later by saying this:
American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions...
If there were no sectarian divisions to begin with(ala the Kurds) that would not have been an issue that needed to be dealt with. While we may be accused of many errors in judgement, we are not alone in exacerbating this problem. And it is debatable whether it was our presence or our hasty withdrawal after the turn over of government to the Iraqis that was the problem.
Democracy and capitalism were two alien concepts to most Iraqis. It would have been helpful if we could have stayed and helped in the transition for both.
So I lay some of the blame for the rise of ISIS not just on the war, but on Iraqis themselves(Maliki & Co.) and those in the international community(Iran et al) who were so intent on removing us from Iraq.
The merits of capitalism versus socialism are a whole other debate.
"(Yes, I can see what Pete has deleted in my email.)"
Appears Petes didn't notice that I was more than capable of ignoring John's provokations
As for the ‘immunity’ question, I think that there's a difference now that an internationally recognized Iraqi government has formally asked for American military assistance. The leftover troops from the invasion of Iraq were there under what amounted to a declaration of war against Saddam's Iraq. The troops going back in are under a different legal scheme. I think the Obama administration is more comfortable with the idea that they can rely on (and enforce) a guarantee of immunity by the Iraqi government without a pariamentary vote, given that it was part of a freely given request for emergency military assistance. But, I still expect the Republicans to raise hell wherever they can, whenever they can. I'm just surprised they're on that already.
"It would have been helpful if we could have stayed and helped in the transition for both."
If ten years was not long enough, then how long? (I don't believe that's the base problem anyway. Maliki's approval rating went up among Iraq's voting Shia population after he proved himself to be a vindictive sectarian. He gave them what they wanted. We were simply not capable of making them not want what they wanted. We weren't gonna become capable of it with more time. They wanted what they wanted. It'll be facing the price that changes their minds, if their minds are gonna be changed.)
"Appears Petes didn't notice that I was more than capable of ignoring John's provokations"
Actually, I didn't even notice that it was directed at you, if it was. Only gave it about half a second of attention. Ain't about you. John can be civil or he can bugger off.
"I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy."
Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
Shameous, as much as I would enjoy commenting on your Blog, me thinks you are somewhat of a stringent taskmaster? I gave fair consideration to your gratuitous cussin' edict by opting for pleasuring, but now you're concerned about metaphors???
Mother, Mary and Joseph, the next absurdity will be you trying to defend your governments abusive 'right to life' edicts.
Given the number of times Republicans have reversed course in the last six years and opposed policies they used to support (in several cases reversing themselves so suddenly they had to vote against bills on which they were still listed as sponsors, having not had time to get their names off the sponsorship lists) just ‘cause Obama said he could live with that, I rather doubt that agreeing with Obama would be sufficient reason for them to forgo a chance to get in another shot.
Did he make any "official" appearances other than that Friday sermon thing? ... in which case the only upshot might be one less appearance next year. Can't see it particularly affecting IS, which I'd expect to be as Hydra-like as other terrorist/jihadi outfits.
The conventional wisdom is that a proven ability to whack their ‘Caliph’ will have a detrimental effect on recruitment, and that they're already short on the manpower needed to govern, police, and defend the territory they've staked out already.
Could go either way. Whan Zarkawi got whacked this Baghdadi guy stepped up. I don't know which one was worse but I think it's safe to say it wasn't that big an improvment. Who is waiting in the wings among those lunatics is, well probably another seriously bad hombre.
"Whan Zarkawi got whacked this Baghdadi guy stepped up."
He wasn't able to do much with it until they moved the operation to Syria. He took core of a couple dozen, maybe as many as a couple hundred ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) guys into Syria and rebuilt there with new recruits. They need the new recruits, need them rather badly. His declaration of the second coming of the Caliphate has brought him a flood of recruits from all over the Islamic world as well as Europe, (and to a lesser extent Canada, and to an even lesser extent, even some Americans). It has, however, made very unpopular with other Salafist elements, many of whom have denounced his audacity. If he gets killed, him in particular, they'll pronounce it Allah's will, and proof that his Caliphate was not favored by Allah. ISIS then becomes just another jihadi group in the eyes of many wanna-be jihadi types. (Or, so goes the theory.) They happen to be shot full of pathological bad hombres, sociopaths and psychopaths and misfits of all types. But, they don't all gather recruits as fast as the open declaration of the Caliphate along with the collapse of the Iraqi Army brought them to ISIS. (Turns out that ISIS' run on Mosul was originally supposed to just be a jail-break from a prison on the outskirts of town--they were as surprised as everybody else when the Iraqi Army contingent there faded completely away, but they quickly decided to capitalize on it.)
According to Islamic tradition, the Caliph must be ‘whole’ Al-Baghdadi can't be Caliph if he loses an eye, a hand, whatever. So, outright killing him won't be necessary to set off a succession fight, but it would allow him to hold a high position (perhaps he becomes Sultan, while the new Caliph gets to be a figurehead) and still preach Allah's destiny for ISIS.
According to the winefalcon, the Russians have decided they can send military aid and troops to the Ukrainian separatists out in the open for everybody to see, and then just deny it for the record. They don't have to actually try to conceal the troops and supplies, just deny doing it. Nobody's gonna do anything about it anyway. Pretty soon the Europeans will get tired of that fussing and begin to pretend not to see them. Makes things much easier.
One would think that eventually people will realize that the position of Caliph has certain inherent risks associated with it that would give them pause.
I hear that Al-Shabab is suffering from lack of a leader and seems to be fading away.
I'd say the only possibility, and even that's a slim one, for Iraq to remain as a nation state is federalisation. A fair distribution of the oil income coupled with extensive regional autonomy.
Or maybe that ship has sailed too, and Iraq as a state is now just simply an impossible idea.
Putin and Obama are both in China at the APEC summit (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). The Obama administration is making tough talk about Russia's newest wave of aid to the Ukrainian secessionists, although they are also saying that they don't want to make the Ukrainian issue a big deal in talks that are supposed to be about Asia. Presumably, however, Obama will get less raspberries from the locals in Asia than he'd receive making the same tough talk in Europe.
"In addition, Obama discussed Ukraine with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in talks in Beijing on Monday"
Have a look at a world map and see if you can realise the irony in that scentence.
It's like: The Mongolian president met with the president of Kongo in talks in Azerbadjan to discuss the recent developments in Kansas, and see how they could influence them to their liking.
I've said it before and say it again: get the FUCK off off our continent, warmongers!
Marcus, that's patent nonsense, as surely you know. Even the Wikipedia article on "the Western world" includes Australia as part of it, and mentions the lack of a geographic referent in the modern world.
What's "our" continent got to do with it? If we go by landmasses, we're all part of Eurasia along with all of Russia, but personally I'd prefer the Yanks to have more influence in the western half of it than the Russkis. I would definitely consider the latter to be the actual warmongers.
And going by culture, I'm afraid the Yanks would have much more connection here in the British Isles by virtue of speaking a close approximation to our language than, say, Sweden which features only in conversations about Volvos, well-insulated houses, and leftwing politics (even though that's an anachronism as you've let us know :-)
Looking at that map of yours, it's not readily apparent you're actually on the same continent with the Ukrainians except by a fairly charitable convention.
We have reports that ISIS is scrounging fighters from other garrisons in Syria to bring in to Kobanê, where their offensive seems to have stalled out for now. (I've also heard reports that the Kurds are making methodical advances against the ISIS forces still inside the city as opportunities arise.)
Pete: "personally I'd prefer the Yanks to have more influence in the western half of it than the Russkis. I would definitely consider the latter to be the actual warmongers."
Great. Then give me a list, post 1991, of which of those two sides that has invaded/bombed other countries, and we'll compare.
Give me a list of who the Russkies have "regime-changed", bombed or invaded.
Give me then a list of who the Yanks have "regime-changed", bombed or invaded.
You prepare those lists Pete. And then we'll have a look at 'em. To see who's the real global aggresssor.
And why are you limiting your lists to ‘post 1991’? (As if it weren't obvious.) You sure you don't want to narrow that down even further, i.e. post 11 September 1991?
Lee: "You're willing to grant modern day Russia dominion over the Soviet Bolsjeviks' imperial holdings. Why's that?"
Dig up a quote where I said that, why dontcha.
Lee: "Among Swedes I believe this is taken as proof that the Turks are our ‘staunch allies’."
I always knew they weren't. It's YOUR side that's been churning out that fantasy as long as it was profitable.
I'M not dumb enough to believe that Erdogan with his increasingly Islamist regime is a true friend of the "west". So I'm not the one surprised when he sides with jihadists (in action if not in words).
YOU´RE the one caught with your NATO-pants down. Not me.
‘Cause it's totally unnecessary and a gigantic waste of my time. (I have no problem with you wasting your own time, but see no reason to let you waste mine on this.) I think everybody here remembers quite well enough your assertions that the Crimea properly ‘belonged’ to Russia.
Wiki say: "After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became a republic within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR."
"It's YOUR side that's been churning out that fantasy as long as it was profitable."
I do believe it's you who's having the fantasy attack here. (In fact, I recall asking you for a quote to that effect by an American policy maker long time back, when you tried to strut your stuff with that the first time, and being treated to utter silence in return.)
The Russians, of course, will tell you that Sweden is America's ‘staunch ally’ when they're not making the allegation that Sweden is, in fact, an outpost and vassal state of the imaginary American ‘empire’. We're getting used to the BS line that whomever somebody else happens to be pissed at today is America's ‘staunch ally’. Everybody uses that one.
Putin's a dangerously insecure a$$hole. I expect all presidents to be a bit narcissistic and power-hungry. Obama didn't exactly come across great, smooching that girl in Chicago. But Putin ...! Can you imagine the field day the papers would have if a 60+ year old US Prez regularly posed for the cameras stripped to the waist on horseback, released Judo DVDs, and went deep sea diving and big game hunting. Putin can't leave his machismo out of his leadership and foreign relations style.
Putin can't leave his machismo out of his leadership and foreign relations style.
I think all leaders bring bits and pieces of themselves into their leadership roles. Those with quality bits and pieces become the great leaders that we look back upon with admiration and respect. So far Putin has not done anything to earn that type of admiration or respect.
"Those with quality bits and pieces become the great leaders that we look back upon with admiration and respect. So far Putin has not done anything to earn that type of admiration or respect."
His approval ratings hover around 80% Lynnette. He's obviously earned the respect of his own people.
106 comments:
Al-Nusra is seemingly getting tired of ISIS getting all the attention and is fixing to openly capture a major border crossing with Turkey in the western region (i.e. openly deploy at an already captured crossing point ), a little west of Allepo I think it is, if I remember where Allepo is, on what passes in the neighborhood as a main highway. Or so they were saying on PBS as I came in. They flashed a map in the background.
‘Bab al-Hawa’ I think it's called. If there were additional details I missed it.
That'll give the Turks the opportunity to officially cooperate with al-Qaeda in the operation of a major border crossing and customs station.
This could get interesting if ISIS decides to get indignant about the new relationship.
I'm starting to wonder if al-Nusra isn't rather intent on getting back at the US for that earlier bombing in Khorasan.
Not a happy time to be a Kurd. ISIL nutters on one side torturing your children. Turks on the other, saying the only good Kurd is a dead Kurd.
"…earlier bombing in Khorasan."
Yeah, ‘bout that… Khorasan is actually a region in northeastern Iran/western Afghanistan. The Syrian al-Qaeda cell was called ‘the Khorasan Group’ because of their ties to al-Qaeda Central (which the Obama administration wanted to emphasize). Some of the principals had served in Afghanistan before moving to Syria.
Oil opened about 3% down this morning. WTI at $77. If this lasts a few months, and there's every sign it could, there are going to be some countries with quite serious budgetary problems.
"Not a happy time to be a Kurd."
Seems to not be a happy time to be a Turk either. (Or, at least, the Turks don't seem very happy.) Erdogan appears to have had a plan for how he was going to manage all these moving pieces to the benefit of Turkey. So far it don't seem to be workin’ out for him, in no small part because ISIS is not meeting his expectations. It seems that the new Caliph, who began his career under the nom de guerre of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has demonstrated an inexplicable desire (inexplicable to Erdogan, apparently) to take the fight back to Iraq and even to Baghdad rather than finishing off the Alawite strongholds that Assad still governs.
On top of which the Kurds are not dying off in Kobani at anything approaching anything that Erdogan would consider only a minimal level of cooperation.
Here's some footage of the brave jihadi fighters discussing bying female teenage slaves for themselves:
https://news.vice.com/article/video-shows-islamic-state-fighters-buying-and-selling-yazidi-slaves
They are apparently a VERY holy bunch.
Perhaps the Muslim notion of what constitutes being "holy" is different from the Christian notion.
It may be more a matter of following the ‘rules’ than of being a recognizably decent human being. I'm not sure the ‘do unto others as…’ philosophy ever had much traction in Islam.
Islam does have the Golden Rule, The problem is it loses its lustre unless universally applicable, and Surah 48:29 says "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other." I very much doubt IS feel obliged to apply the Golden Rule to Yezidi devil worshippers.
Khorasan is actually a region in northeastern Iran/western Afghanistan.
Thanks for clearing that up. I wrote that comment from memory and screwed it up.
WTI at $77. If this lasts a few months, and there's every sign it could, there are going to be some countries with quite serious budgetary problems.
There are going to be some oil companies not too happy as well.
Here's some footage of the brave jihadi fighters discussing bying female teenage slaves for themselves:
Some of those guys sound like they are drunk or high.
The Kurdish government has paid $1.5 million to free some of the Yezidis taken by ISIL.
Lee: "I'm not sure the ‘do unto others as…’ philosophy ever had much traction in Islam."
It seems not. I did a Google on slavery in Islam, because I wanted to know whether there was religous consent whether this sort of thing was OK or rejected. I found that indeed there are scholars in Islam, especially in the Saudi-salafist school, who are OK with slavery as long as the slaves are non-muslims.
I also found that there are no muslim nation states that outright accept slavery, but some where slavery or "sort of"-slavery is practiced.
Pete: "Islam does have the Golden Rule, The problem is it loses its lustre unless universally applicable, and Surah 48:29 says "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.""
Interesting comment. It rhymes with what I found out myself.
Pete: "I very much doubt IS feel obliged to apply the Golden Rule to Yezidi devil worshippers."
It does seem you are right in that belief.
Are they devil worshippers though? They seem to me to be worshipping some peacock-deity but that that peacock is the devil... I just don't know.
For me worshipping a peacock is about as sane as worshipping a paedophile bandit from the 6'th century or some dude who "walked on water" and came out of a virgin 2K years ago. I mean, why not a peacock?
BTW: The real slavery in muslim lands I found was i Mauretainia. They abolished slavery in 1981 but the practice is ongoing.
The "sort of"-slavery I found were in the Gulf states where guest workers often end up in slave like conditions but are not slaves as such.
Marcus, I was being ironic about Yezidi devil worshippers. That's what ISIL call them. To me they are monotheists, in fact, with connections to the oldest monotheistic tradition on the planet.
Modern slavery doesn't just happen in the third world. We have the problem here too.
Your example is of an Indonesian immigrant couple (who were admittedly naturalized citizens, but still…) enslaving another Indonesian immigrant. It mostly misses the fact that folks holding ‘slaves’ by any stretch of the terminology are consistently, universally, vigorously prosecuted in this country as soon as they are caught. (In the headlined case they were not caught; they were accused; she was outta there and made the accusation later, no telling how much later.)
What Went Wrong in Idlib?
However, given the hodge-podge of legal jurisdictions and overlapping prosecutors offices, it's probably a stretch to say any crime is "consistently and universally" prosecuted here. I probably overstated that. But, slavery comes close.
Your example is of an Indonesian immigrant couple...
Yes. In many of these cases, where it is forced labor, it seems to be immigrants who are doing the enslaving, and if there is enough evidence they are prosecuted.
There is, of course, sexual slavery via prostitution, which seems rather more common.
Your author of the article on ‘Idlib’ misses taking any consideration of American politics. (An oversight one may be assured neither ISIS nor al-Nusra are apt to make.) The original air attack on ‘the Khorasan Group’ named the al-Nusra cell by that name on purpose. Obama was trying to get his air attacks into Syria to somehow fit under the umbrella of the still not repealed Authorization to Use Force against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. (The administration was worried that litigious Republicans would take him to court over it, and that the currently highly unpredictable Supreme Court might rule that ISIS' very public break from al-Qaeda meant that ISIS' public declarations of having broken with al-Qaeda would control whether or not ISIS could still be bombed. This would give ISIS, al-Nusra, and any other al-Qaeda affiliates or splinter groups the power to declaire themselves off-limits to American air strikes with simple press releases.) You may be certain this was not lost on either ISIS or al-Nusra. They took note that the Obama administration called specific attention to the al-Nusra connection to al-Qaeda by specifically mentioning the attack on them and referring to them as ‘the Khorasan Group'.
(Of course, it turned out the Republicans didn't wanna have anything to do with actually staking out a Republican position on the issue, not that close to the mid-term elections, but, at the time, it wasn't clear that they could shut McCain and Graham and the rest of the unrepentant neo-cons down.)
By the way, folks are making much over whether or not the Obama administration will come out in public and endorse American supported attacks on the Assad regime. They ignore that the Congress conspicuously refused to take up Obama's original request for authorization to use force against Assad. So, the Obama administration keeps saying (publicly), "We're not going after Assad". That doesn't mean anybody with a lick of sense believes that the Syrian rebels we train won't be going after Assad as well as ISIS and al-Nusra. This is a friggin’ free-for-all, and the Obama administration knows that, no matter how stupid the political opposition seems to be on the subject.
O.M.G (as the young folk say) ... I want to have this lady's babies.
That doesn't mean anybody with a lick of sense believes that the Syrian rebels we train...
See, the thing is, it's really hard to train dead people. It's also really hard to try to recruit other people to train when they see what happens to the aforementioned recruits.
So if we're going to play our cards against al-Nusra this early in the game, we certainly should have had a hole card to play in defense of our possible allies. Apparently we were so caught up in our domestic legal issues that we failed to take into account that we are not the only ones in this game, and that the other players may be more desperate. This could have been predicted, if we had any credible analysts, or if we had anyone who listened to any credible analysts we may have. So far I'm not seeing where this has done anything to help our cause.
Just like I'm not seeing that waiting for the Iraqi government to get off their butts and work with the Sunni community is panning out too well. All I'm seeing there is more dead possible allies of ours. Again, hard to train dead people.
Sorry, but as the bodies pile up our policy, if you can call it that, is starting to irritate me.
Pete...all I can say is...Wow! That lady can play! :)
" All I'm seeing there is more dead possible allies of ours. Again, hard to train
dead people."
I don't think those people want to be our allies. They want us to be their ally. There is a difference. These are not nice folks. That they are not publicly reveling in their brutality like ISIS does not make them any less brutal. There are no nice folks in that mix. If they managed to become our allies, they'd likely just embarrass us somewhere down the line when they turned on the local Christians or wiped out another Alawite town, or whatever. The only reliable and marginally respectable allies in the region seem to be the Kurds, and half of them are officially Marxists.
In deference to Petes being a prude, I've decided I can afford to edit myself a little more closely; edited version:
"So far I'm not seeing where this has done anything to help our cause."
I think the difference here is that you and I see ‘our cause’ rather differently. I'm not a big fan of the ‘let's go whup ‘em’ movement. If we geared up to clean out that rat's nest, it would take us a few months to gear up, and a few more months to clear out all the rats or drive them far enough underground so's to be no particular threat for awhile (max, maybe less--the Taliban fell in just days, Saddam's regime went down in three weeks)
Then the jihadi movement would move somewhere else and raise back up again under new leadership and possibly a new name.
What we have now is vastly preferable. ISIS has a territory to protect, and local powers to screw with and seems much less interested in screwin’ with the ‘far enemy’ (that'd be us) than was al-Qaeda before them, or even al-Nusra (who were plotting an attack on the U.S.A. if we believe the intelligence reports leaked along with the first bombing of ‘the Khorasan Group’ as the administration put it).
Time for the Muslims to confront their bastard children. They raised these bastards; let them deal with the bastards for awhile. Maybe they'll eventually learn to not teach their children to be religious fanatics.
The Euroweenies keep bashing us for meddling; let them look across the Bosporus at what's wanting to get at ‘em, without us distracting attention across the Atlantic to us.
We can take these bastards out any time we need to take ‘em out. We don't need to take ‘em out now.
"Pete...all I can say is...Wow! That lady can play! :)"
She's playing in Minneapolis tomorrow night :)
They raised these bastards; let them deal with the bastards for awhile. Maybe they'll eventually learn to not teach their children to be religious fanatics.
Do you really think it that simple? Without our intervention at Mt. Sinjar they would have ended up with a massacre.
What's to say that letting the chips fall where they may will result in anything positive in the region? I realize it's frustrating to deal with people who refuse to take any responsibility for the results of their actions and blame us for everything, but it's also difficult to watch as innocent people are killed or forced into slavery.
She's playing in Minneapolis tomorrow night :)
I'll look for the reviews. :)
"…at Mt. Sinjar…"
And Baghdad Airport, and Erbil, Mosul Dam, Kobanê; there will be more. We should wait for opportunities; bide our time; pick our shots.
Hezbollah chief Nasrallah seems to think that folks are takin’ their eyes off the prize here of late; not ‘nuff screwin’ with the Jews goin’ on. Winefalcon translation.
I have no problem with picking our shots, I just hope that we actually do. Because there is an opportunity cost to everything.
And the fact that our intervention in those places was necessary tells me that those on the ground really cannot handle ISIL alone, yet.
These Takfiris will be defeated in all regions and in all states and in all countries and we will have the honor of being part of the side that will defeat them.
I wonder if he understands what he just said?
He said ‘Takfiris’ by which he means Sunni fanatics, not including his own Shia fanatics.
Yes, and he said they will have the honor of being on the side that defeats them. So, who exactly is fighting ISIL?
Well, as far as Nasrallah is concerned, ‘takfiri’ encompasses al-Nusra as well as ISIS. So, he's probably figuring on Assad's remaining forces, his Hezballah, Iran, maybe even cooperating with the Kurds and maybe even the Turks. (Figure he don't figure Israel in on the mix; his view is on the need to get over this little distraction and get back to screwin’ with the Jews.)
Yup, you're probably right. He too is conveniently overlooking the odd alliance that has formed to fight ISIL.
Hmmm...strange, I lost my cookies.
It seems to have been mostly missed in the breathless reporting over who's to ‘blame’ for the Republican mid-term election victories (or, alternately, who should get the credit), but, during his post-election press conference yesterday, Obama said he was going to ask Congress to formally authorize the use of force against the Islamic State. (Gotta wonder if they'll wanna step up to that question any more than wanted to actually take a vote on the use of force against Assad's Syrian regime?)
And, by the way, the Air Force put some serious whacks in on al-Nusra just yesterday, with the Obama administration still making much of the name ‘the Khorasan Group’
Obama said he was going to ask Congress to formally authorize the use of force against the Islamic State...
I wondered if he wouldn't do something after the election was over.
Yeah, I saw that about the French bomber the other day. Apparently whatever was going on was serious.
Shameous, quit deleting my fucking comments.
The Americans have singlehandedly created and are entirely responsible for the current quagmire in Iraq. It is in many ways similar to the way they went about slaughtering millions in Vietnam, only to retreat leaving nothing but a stench of embarrassment and failure.
In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which IS in Iraq took root.
Clearly the apes still require more training when it comes to mastering the art of regime change.
"quit deleting my f^(&^* comments"
Hiya Canadian John, glad you came back. I don't think you can have missed the "no gratuitous cussin" rule slap bang above the comment box. Life's too short to keep explaining this, and although I don't wanna play god (or even mod) such posts will continue to get summarily deleted without explanation. You get a pass on the first sentence of your post above, 'cos apart from that little slip the rest of it makes a serious and cogent argument.
"…a serious and cogent argument…".
Except for the fact that Iraq's only substantial industry was then and remains oil production, and it's still owned by the government and thoroughly unionized.
I was careful not to say it was right :)
"I was careful not to say it was right.
But, you did deem it a ‘serious’ argument.
Obama has approved another 1,500 military advisors and trainers for Iraq. That'll bring the number up to 3,000. I've not noticed anybody commenting on their ‘immunity’ status.
John,
Just when I think you can actually debate somewhat intelligently you blow it with attack comments.
(Yes, I can see what Pete has deleted in my email.)
The Americans have singlehandedly created and are entirely responsible for the current quagmire in Iraq.
And yet you contradict yourself a short time later by saying this:
American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions...
If there were no sectarian divisions to begin with(ala the Kurds) that would not have been an issue that needed to be dealt with. While we may be accused of many errors in judgement, we are not alone in exacerbating this problem. And it is debatable whether it was our presence or our hasty withdrawal after the turn over of government to the Iraqis that was the problem.
Democracy and capitalism were two alien concepts to most Iraqis. It would have been helpful if we could have stayed and helped in the transition for both.
So I lay some of the blame for the rise of ISIS not just on the war, but on Iraqis themselves(Maliki & Co.) and those in the international community(Iran et al) who were so intent on removing us from Iraq.
The merits of capitalism versus socialism are a whole other debate.
I've not noticed anybody commenting on their ‘immunity’ status.
Wasn't that settled before the first advisers were sent in?
"(Yes, I can see what Pete has deleted in my email.)"
Appears Petes didn't notice that I was more than capable of ignoring John's provokations
As for the ‘immunity’ question, I think that there's a difference now that an internationally recognized Iraqi government has formally asked for American military assistance. The leftover troops from the invasion of Iraq were there under what amounted to a declaration of war against Saddam's Iraq. The troops going back in are under a different legal scheme. I think the Obama administration is more comfortable with the idea that they can rely on (and enforce) a guarantee of immunity by the Iraqi government without a pariamentary vote, given that it was part of a freely given request for emergency military assistance.
But, I still expect the Republicans to raise hell wherever they can, whenever they can. I'm just surprised they're on that already.
"And it is debatable whether it was our presence or our hasty withdrawal…"
I'd say it was neither. The Iraqi were committed to this; it was gonna happen.
"It would have been helpful if we could have stayed and helped in the transition for both."
If ten years was not long enough, then how long? (I don't believe that's the base problem anyway. Maliki's approval rating went up among Iraq's voting Shia population after he proved himself to be a vindictive sectarian. He gave them what they wanted. We were simply not capable of making them not want what they wanted. We weren't gonna become capable of it with more time. They wanted what they wanted. It'll be facing the price that changes their minds, if their minds are gonna be changed.)
"The merits of capitalism versus socialism are a whole other debate."
And it's an entirely hypothetical debate, given that Iraq didn't actually make any significant move away from socialism towards capitalism.
Spotted a typo: "I'm just surprised they're not on that already."
"Appears Petes didn't notice that I was more than capable of ignoring John's provokations"
Actually, I didn't even notice that it was directed at you, if it was. Only gave it about half a second of attention. Ain't about you. John can be civil or he can bugger off.
Perhaps you need to consider adding a line about ‘being civil’.
"I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy."
Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
Shameous, as much as I would enjoy commenting on your Blog, me thinks you are somewhat of a stringent taskmaster? I gave fair consideration to your gratuitous cussin' edict by opting for pleasuring, but now you're concerned about metaphors???
Mother, Mary and Joseph, the next absurdity will be you trying to defend your governments abusive 'right to life' edicts.
Sunni tribes, Shia militias, Iraqi military and USAF join forces to try to retake Hit
"I'm just surprised they're not on that already."
Possibly a rare occasion where they agree with Obama and so are not going to rock that boat.
Given the number of times Republicans have reversed course in the last six years and opposed policies they used to support (in several cases reversing themselves so suddenly they had to vote against bills on which they were still listed as sponsors, having not had time to get their names off the sponsorship lists) just ‘cause Obama said he could live with that, I rather doubt that agreeing with Obama would be sufficient reason for them to forgo a chance to get in another shot.
Rumor's going ‘round that that they may have taken out Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed Caliph, in an air-stike in Mosul.
Yes, I saw that about al-Baghdadi. It would be a stroke of very good luck if they did.
Don't wanna over play it's significance if they did get ‘im. There have been many Caliphs. But, it damn near can't be bad news.
Did he make any "official" appearances other than that Friday sermon thing? ... in which case the only upshot might be one less appearance next year. Can't see it particularly affecting IS, which I'd expect to be as Hydra-like as other terrorist/jihadi outfits.
The conventional wisdom is that a proven ability to whack their ‘Caliph’ will have a detrimental effect on recruitment, and that they're already short on the manpower needed to govern, police, and defend the territory they've staked out already.
Could go either way. Whan Zarkawi got whacked this Baghdadi guy stepped up. I don't know which one was worse but I think it's safe to say it wasn't that big an improvment. Who is waiting in the wings among those lunatics is, well probably another seriously bad hombre.
"Whan Zarkawi got whacked this Baghdadi guy stepped up."
He wasn't able to do much with it until they moved the operation to Syria. He took core of a couple dozen, maybe as many as a couple hundred ISI (Islamic State in Iraq) guys into Syria and rebuilt there with new recruits. They need the new recruits, need them rather badly. His declaration of the second coming of the Caliphate has brought him a flood of recruits from all over the Islamic world as well as Europe, (and to a lesser extent Canada, and to an even lesser extent, even some Americans).
It has, however, made very unpopular with other Salafist elements, many of whom have denounced his audacity. If he gets killed, him in particular, they'll pronounce it Allah's will, and proof that his Caliphate was not favored by Allah. ISIS then becomes just another jihadi group in the eyes of many wanna-be jihadi types. (Or, so goes the theory.) They happen to be shot full of pathological bad hombres, sociopaths and psychopaths and misfits of all types. But, they don't all gather recruits as fast as the open declaration of the Caliphate along with the collapse of the Iraqi Army brought them to ISIS. (Turns out that ISIS' run on Mosul was originally supposed to just be a jail-break from a prison on the outskirts of town--they were as surprised as everybody else when the Iraqi Army contingent there faded completely away, but they quickly decided to capitalize on it.)
Post Script:
According to Islamic tradition, the Caliph must be ‘whole’ Al-Baghdadi can't be Caliph if he loses an eye, a hand, whatever. So, outright killing him won't be necessary to set off a succession fight, but it would allow him to hold a high position (perhaps he becomes Sultan, while the new Caliph gets to be a figurehead) and still preach Allah's destiny for ISIS.
According to the winefalcon, the Russians have decided they can send military aid and troops to the Ukrainian separatists out in the open for everybody to see, and then just deny it for the record. They don't have to actually try to conceal the troops and supplies, just deny doing it. Nobody's gonna do anything about it anyway. Pretty soon the Europeans will get tired of that fussing and begin to pretend not to see them. Makes things much easier.
One would think that eventually people will realize that the position of Caliph has certain inherent risks associated with it that would give them pause.
I hear that Al-Shabab is suffering from lack of a leader and seems to be fading away.
Pentagon sources say they're not picking up any of the ‘chatter’ they'd expect to occur if al-Baghdadi had been killed or even seriously injured.
Supposed to be a twitter line going that ISIS has confirmed the death of al-Baghdadi. (I don't twitter.)
Interesting article about shiite militias VS ISIS:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/11/11/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iraq-shiite-militias.html?_r=0
I'd say the only possibility, and even that's a slim one, for Iraq to remain as a nation state is federalisation. A fair distribution of the oil income coupled with extensive regional autonomy.
Or maybe that ship has sailed too, and Iraq as a state is now just simply an impossible idea.
Putin and Obama are both in China at the APEC summit (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation). The Obama administration is making tough talk about Russia's newest wave of aid to the Ukrainian secessionists, although they are also saying that they don't want to make the Ukrainian issue a big deal in talks that are supposed to be about Asia. Presumably, however, Obama will get less raspberries from the locals in Asia than he'd receive making the same tough talk in Europe.
Putin has been accused of ‘flirting’ with Xi Jinping's wife. Apparently the Chinese leader was not amused.
Yeah, Pete, but that's just tabloids makin' a duck out of a feather.
Lee: "Putin and Obama are both in China at the APEC summit..."
I get the feeling that those two really do not like eachother. Not sure if it's the case but I get that feeling.
From Lee's article:
"In addition, Obama discussed Ukraine with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott in talks in Beijing on Monday"
Have a look at a world map and see if you can realise the irony in that scentence.
It's like: The Mongolian president met with the president of Kongo in talks in Azerbadjan to discuss the recent developments in Kansas, and see how they could influence them to their liking.
I've said it before and say it again: get the FUCK off off our continent, warmongers!
Marcus, that's patent nonsense, as surely you know. Even the Wikipedia article on "the Western world" includes Australia as part of it, and mentions the lack of a geographic referent in the modern world.
What's "our" continent got to do with it? If we go by landmasses, we're all part of Eurasia along with all of Russia, but personally I'd prefer the Yanks to have more influence in the western half of it than the Russkis. I would definitely consider the latter to be the actual warmongers.
And going by culture, I'm afraid the Yanks would have much more connection here in the British Isles by virtue of speaking a close approximation to our language than, say, Sweden which features only in conversations about Volvos, well-insulated houses, and leftwing politics (even though that's an anachronism as you've let us know :-)
Looking at that map of yours, it's not readily apparent you're actually on the same continent with the Ukrainians except by a fairly charitable convention.
We have reports that ISIS is scrounging fighters from other garrisons in Syria to bring in to Kobanê, where their offensive seems to have stalled out for now. (I've also heard reports that the Kurds are making methodical advances against the ISIS forces still inside the city as opportunities arise.)
Pete: "personally I'd prefer the Yanks to have more influence in the western half of it than the Russkis. I would definitely consider the latter to be the actual warmongers."
Great. Then give me a list, post 1991, of which of those two sides that has invaded/bombed other countries, and we'll compare.
Give me a list of who the Russkies have "regime-changed", bombed or invaded.
Give me then a list of who the Yanks have "regime-changed", bombed or invaded.
You prepare those lists Pete. And then we'll have a look at 'em. To see who's the real global aggresssor.
And why are you limiting your lists to ‘post 1991’? (As if it weren't obvious.)
You sure you don't want to narrow that down even further, i.e. post 11 September 1991?
That should have been 2001, of course, not 1991.
Huh! I think I fixed that video issue. Gone for a day and things just disappear...
Update on Kobane
Back in Anbar
Lee: "And why are you limiting your lists to ‘post 1991’? (As if it weren't obvious.)"
Can't really hold modern day Russia responsible for the crimes of the Soviet Bolsjeviks, who above all else tortured Russias themselves.
You're willing to grant modern day Russia dominion over the Soviet Bolsjeviks' imperial holdings. Why's that? Why the one but not the other?
Three US Sailors attacked in Istanbul
Hmmm...this may not affect our military relations, but perhaps I'd think twice about going to Turkey on vacation.
Among Swedes I believe this is taken as proof that the Turks are our ‘staunch allies’.
Lee: "You're willing to grant modern day Russia dominion over the Soviet Bolsjeviks' imperial holdings. Why's that?"
Dig up a quote where I said that, why dontcha.
Lee: "Among Swedes I believe this is taken as proof that the Turks are our ‘staunch allies’."
I always knew they weren't. It's YOUR side that's been churning out that fantasy as long as it was profitable.
I'M not dumb enough to believe that Erdogan with his increasingly Islamist regime is a true friend of the "west". So I'm not the one surprised when he sides with jihadists (in action if not in words).
YOU´RE the one caught with your NATO-pants down. Not me.
"Dig up a quote where I said that, why dontcha."
‘Cause it's totally unnecessary and a gigantic waste of my time. (I have no problem with you wasting your own time, but see no reason to let you waste mine on this.) I think everybody here remembers quite well enough your assertions that the Crimea properly ‘belonged’ to Russia.
Wiki say:
"After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Crimea became a republic within the Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic in the USSR."
"It's YOUR side that's been churning out that fantasy as long as it was profitable."
I do believe it's you who's having the fantasy attack here. (In fact, I recall asking you for a quote to that effect by an American policy maker long time back, when you tried to strut your stuff with that the first time, and being treated to utter silence in return.)
Post Script:
The Russians, of course, will tell you that Sweden is America's ‘staunch ally’ when they're not making the allegation that Sweden is, in fact, an outpost and vassal state of the imaginary American ‘empire’. We're getting used to the BS line that whomever somebody else happens to be pissed at today is America's ‘staunch ally’. Everybody uses that one.
Sounds like the Russians are determined to get noticed. They are going to start flying long range bomber flights into the Gulf of Mexico.
Waste of gas and money, if you ask me.
"Waste of gas and money, if you ask me."
Worth it to Putin for the posturing for his voters. (Also probably helps him to impress Marcus.)
NBC is reporting that al-Baghdadi is not dead, and is not happy.
Putin's a dangerously insecure a$$hole. I expect all presidents to be a bit narcissistic and power-hungry. Obama didn't exactly come across great, smooching that girl in Chicago. But Putin ...! Can you imagine the field day the papers would have if a 60+ year old US Prez regularly posed for the cameras stripped to the waist on horseback, released Judo DVDs, and went deep sea diving and big game hunting. Putin can't leave his machismo out of his leadership and foreign relations style.
Apparently al-Baghdadi has released an audio tape mocking the US airstrikes as ineffective. Kind of reminds me of OBL.
So still alive. My guess is that he will be reported dead any number of times in the future. One day it may be true.
Putin can't leave his machismo out of his leadership and foreign relations style.
I think all leaders bring bits and pieces of themselves into their leadership roles. Those with quality bits and pieces become the great leaders that we look back upon with admiration and respect. So far Putin has not done anything to earn that type of admiration or respect.
"Those with quality bits and pieces become the great leaders that we look back upon with admiration and respect. So far Putin has not done anything to earn that type of admiration or respect."
His approval ratings hover around 80% Lynnette. He's obviously earned the respect of his own people.
Approval ratings come and go, Marcus. In the end where Putin's policies lead Russia will be the deciding factor.
Post a Comment