This is my plan to stop to stop the jihadists.. stop bombing their countries Stop droning wedding parties Stop escorting their oil deliveries Stop re electing the leaders who Finance them Finally Unleash the dunecats right in their own back yards
« Last Edit: Sep 1st, 2016, 11:09pm by Sys_Config »
This is my plan to stop to stop the jihadists.. stop bombing their countries Stop droning wedding parties Stop escorting their oil deliveries Stop re electing the leaders who Finance them
Stop bombing ISIS? Maybe negotiate with them? Let Russia take over Afghanistan? Yeah that would have worked.. Let Iran take over Syria and Iraq and spread Islam across all borders? Let Pakistan and Syria devolve into human hell holes with refuges in the millions? Let Hamas take over Lebanon and over throw Israel? Let Al Qaeda proliferate with satellite groups whose main aim is global jihad?
Dont distort my words. stop bombing their countries does not equal stop bombing Isis
The Russians who you dont like took care of that..and it will sadly get worse for the Kurds..who I like...thanks to the US abandoning them...The US lost the ME.. US is out of the loop now..Israel Turkey and Russia have deals on a gas line going..Syria will stay essentially intact..Nothing will happen to Israel.who do you think was buying stolen oil from Isis..you give all the public statements and posturing too much credence..
it has only Africa and The Pacific and SA left..which is still a repectable amount of vassals states and resources.. Turkey is in the same spot Mussolini was when Hitler saved his bum..he is now beholden to Putin. I dont see Turkey in Nato Much longer.. when you look at it from a power matrix standpoint instead of sectarian things make more sense
« Last Edit: Sep 2nd, 2016, 03:47am by Sys_Config »
A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories
In Crimea, eastern Ukraine and now Syria, Mr. Putin has flaunted a modernized and more muscular military. But he lacks the economic strength and overall might to openly confront NATO, the European Union or the United States. Instead, he has invested heavily in a program of “weaponized” information, using a variety of means to sow doubt and division. The goal is to weaken cohesion among member states, stir discord in their domestic politics and blunt opposition to Russia.
“Moscow views world affairs as a system of special operations, and very sincerely believes that it itself is an object of Western special operations,” said Gleb Pavlovsky, who helped establish the Kremlin’s information machine before 2008. “I am sure that there are a lot of centers, some linked to the state, that are involved in inventing these kinds of fake stories.”
Whatever the method or message, Russia clearly wants to win any information war, as Dmitry Kiselyev, Russia’s most famous television anchor and the director of the organization that runs Sputnik, made clear recently.
Speaking this summer on the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Information Bureau, Mr. Kiselyev said the age of neutral journalism was over. “If we do propaganda, then you do propaganda, too,” he said, directing his message to Western journalists.
“Today, it is much more costly to kill one enemy soldier than during World War II, World War I or in the Middle Ages,” he said in an interview on the state-run Rossiya 24 network. While the business of “persuasion” is more expensive now, too, he said, “if you can persuade a person, you don’t need to kill him.”
(NOTE: Please see the Activism Update regarding this alert.)
In a New York Times article (9/5/06) on George W. Bush’s September 5 speech concerning terrorism and Iraq, reporters David Sanger and John O’Neil included a striking revision of Bush’s reasoning for going to war: The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq.
Of course, the drive to war rested firmly on Bush’s repeated and emphatic claim that Hussein had already developed WMDs, which he possessed and was prepared to use—a bogus claim that the mainstream media, led by the Times‘ own Judith Miller, largely accepted as an article of faith and bolstered with credulous reports based on faulty information. (See Extra!, 7-8/03.)
Bush’s charges that Iraq concealed chemical and biological weapons were unequivocal. “Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons,” Bush told the U.N. (9/12/02).
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons,” Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati (10/7/02). “We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.”
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” Bush said in a March 17, 2003 address to the nation.
The New York Times‘ editorial page unskeptically accepted these claims and incorporated them into the paper’s own arguments. In a September 18, 2002 editorial, the paper declared: What really counts in this conflict…is the destruction of Iraq’s unconventional weapons and the dismantling of its program to develop nuclear arms…. What makes Iraq the subject of intense concern, as Mr. Bush noted, is Mr. Hussein’s defiance of the Security Council’s longstanding instructions to dismantle Baghdad’s nuclear weapons program and to eliminate all its biological and chemical weapons and the materials used to make them.
After the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution on inspectors returning to Iraq, the Times editorialized (11/9/02): The unwavering goal is to disarm Iraq, enforcing a string of previous Security Council resolutions that Baghdad has contemptuously ignored. The cost of letting that happen has been diminished authority for the United Nations and a growing danger that Iraq’s unconventional weapons will be used in war or passed on to terrorists. Mr. Bush has galvanized the Security Council to declare that its orders must now be obeyed and those dangers eliminated.
When the inspectors returned, the paper stated (12/6/02), “Iraq has to get rid of its biological and chemical arms and missiles and the means to make them, and abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons.” When the inspectors failed to find any evidence of banned weapons, the Times insisted (2/15/03): “The Security Council doesn’t need to sit through more months of inconclusive reports. It needs full and immediate Iraqi disarmament. It needs to say so, backed by the threat of military force.”
As the invasion approached, the editorialists endorsed (3/13/03) British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s six-point ultimatum to Iraq as the “last hope of forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm voluntarily.” The first point: “Mr. Hussein would have to acknowledge that he has hidden unconventional weapons and pledge to stop producing or concealing such weapons.”
The New York Times‘ revision of the record, maintaining that Bush only presented Iraqi WMDs as a “possibility,” threatens to erase one of the most significant chapters of recent history, in effect clearing the Bush administration—and the Times—of their role in misleading the country into war.
ACTION: Tell the New York Times to correct the record on the Bush administration’s prime reason for invading Iraq.
New York Times
Byron Calame, Public Editor
« Last Edit: Sep 2nd, 2016, 11:05am by Sys_Config »