So Czer is ISIS really just a Saudi front created to mess w/Iran?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Utumno, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    There is brinkmanship going on that's not being broadcast through the news, while Netanyahu visits Putin in Russia and Iran's senior adviser is also there at the same time.

  2. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
  3. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
  4. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Iranian Supreme Leader's Adviser Hails 'Very Constructive' Meeting With Putin
    July 12, 2018

    A top adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he had a "very constructive and friendly" meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.

    An Iranian delegation led by Ali Akbar Velayati met Putin in the Russian capital on July 12, the Kremlin said.

    Velayati told Iranian state television from Moscow that Khamenei "values improving ties with Russia as a strategic partner" and that Moscow was "prepared to invest in Iran's oil sector."

    Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Velayati handed Putin letters from Khamenei and Iranian President Hassan Rohani, but refused to elaborate.

    Russia’s Interfax news agency reported that the meeting also involved Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, while the Iranian delegation included the head of Khamenei's board of advisers Ali Asghar Fathi Sarbangoli and Iran's ambassador to Russia, Mehdi Sanai.

    Velayati also said Iran and Russia would "continue to cooperate in Syria," where both countries support President Bashar al-Assad's forces in the seven-year civil war there.

    The meeting came as Iran braces for renewed U.S. economic sanctions after Washington pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal signed in 2015 between Tehran and world powers.

    Facing revived sanctions from the United States and the possible knock-on collapse of its business dealings with Europe, Iran is looking to Russia and China for investment and to purchase its oil.

    On July 11, Putin held talks at the Kremlin with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told the Russian leader that "Iran needs to leave Syria."

    The United States and Israel want Iran to pull out from Syria, but Russia has warned it would be unrealistic to expect Iran to fully withdraw from the country.

    The Iranian presence in Syria is expected to be on the agenda of a July 16 meeting in Helsinki between Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  5. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Now that the original area where the protests broke out that lead to war has been taken back, the mukhabarat are going to kill every single person supported by the west or other arab nations

    This won't be the end, Shia will push into the south and help ISIS cause chaos for the arab dictators

    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  6. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    US military drone documents are selling for $150 on the dark web
    Info on the Air Force's Reaper UAV is on sale, along with other sensitive documents.

    Last month, while tracking dark web marketplaces, threat intel team Insikt Group of the security firm Recorded Future discovered that someone was selling alleged US military documents. A hacker was asking for "$150 to $200" for non-classified yet sensitive materials on the US Air Force's Reaper drone, and posted an additional bundle of information on US Army vehicles and tactics for sale.

    According to Insikt's report, the team verified the documents after contacting the hacker. They learned that the intruder used an FTP vulnerability in Netgear routers that's been known for two years to break into a computer at the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. The hacker took documents about the MQ-9 Reaper drone, including maintenance course books and a list of airmen assigned to fly it. Again, those aren't classified documents, but they do provide insight to the unmanned aircraft.

    The hacker put a separate bundle of sensitive information up for sale, which included an M1 Abrams battle tank maintenance manual, training materials and IED mitigation tactics. While security firm Recorded Future didn't ascertain where the intruder secured this cache, they surmised it was stolen from the Pentagon or a US Army official.

    The hacker was able to access the Reaper documents through a computer whose FTP password hadn't been updated since its factory setting. It wasn't even the only flaw identified in Netgear's products that year, and it goes to show how a single unaddressed security weakness can be exposed to yield sensitive materials.
  7. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    I can't believe they are still working on the stupid sled (it looks like a black cone-sled, china has a variation of this, they are types of bombers) ramjet/scramjet bomber thing, enemies have the same exact weapons as we do at this point. I am trying to think of something we have that our enemies do not, besides variations of planes I can't think of a single technology.

    Remember when we had the technological edge...

    They have been working on prototypes of these things at each defense company for a long time now


    tiny picture:


    Chinese versions:



    China was rumored to make the first flight of a Mach 4+ test drone in September 2015. Launched from a H-6 carrier aircraft, the drone fired up its combined cycle turbo-ramjet engine to accelerate from subsonic to high supersonic speeds. If the yanked CNA report is accurate, the UAV's ability to land makes it the fastest recoverable air breathing aircraft in the world.
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  8. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
  9. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  10. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Amid Mueller probe, Blackwater founder pitches mercenary takeover of Afghan War
    Jul 12, 2018

    Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who is facing scrutiny in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election, is reprising his role as America’s most famous private military contractor, hawking a proposal to turn over U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan to mercenaries.

    In a new video posted on YouTube on Tuesday as this year’s NATO summit got underway in Brussels, Prince was sharply critical of the Pentagon’s strategy in the conflict, now in its 17th year, calling it a “stalemate” and proposing that CIA officers and 6,000 mercenaries should intervene.

    “The Pentagon does what it does and wanted to keep doing the same thing it has done for the last 17 years,” Prince said. Trump has “stayed the course” in Afghanistan so far, he added, but continuing to wage a conventional war there would be “reckless and it’s irresponsible.”

    Prince has plenty of experience building contractor forces in Afghanistan as well Iraq, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates as the former head of the controversial Blackwater firm and the current chairman of Frontier Services Group, a Hong Kong-based security company. But the timing of renewed efforts to push the proposal is, to say the least, interesting, providing Prince with an alternative headline to those announcing his public pledge of “cooperation” with Mueller’s Russia probe.

    J. Scott Applewhite/AP
    In this June 21, 2017, file photo, Special Counsel Robert Mueller departs after a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about Russian meddling in the election at the Capitol in Washington.more +

    In April 2017, the Washington Post reported that Prince, a Trump ally and donor whose sister Betsy DeVos is Trump’s education secretary, had traveled to the Seychelles following Trump’s election for a secret meeting with a Russian official with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Prince testified before the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in November that he hadn’t made the January 2017 trip "to meet any Russian guy,” describing his meeting with Kirill Dmitriev, the Putin-appointed head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, as a chance encounter “over a beer.”

    ABC News reported earlier this year, however, that Mueller has obtained evidence that calls that testimony into question. Sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News that George Nader, a key witness given limited immunity by Mueller, told investigators that he set up the meeting in the Seychelles between Prince and Dmitriev. Documents obtained by Mueller also suggest, sources said, that before and after Prince met Nader in New York, Nader shared biographical information about Dmitriev with Prince.

    Last month, a spokesperson for Prince told ABC News that Prince has provided Mueller with “total access to his phone and computer.”

    In an interview about the proposal with Britain’s Independent newspaper on Tuesday, Prince said that he has “no concern at all” about the special counsel’s scrutiny of his activities. He has proposed this strategy to Trump before, but senior members of administration turned him down, according to the Independent. With the recent restructuring of Trump’s national security team, Prince told the paper, he hopes this time might be different. A source close to Prince told ABC News the target audience for the video is “decision makers.”

    Ziar Khan Yaad/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
    Members of the Afghan security forces inspect the site of a suicide bomb attack targeting a convoy of U.S. forces near Nangarhar airport, Afghanistan, April 10, 2015.more +

    Whatever happens in the Russia investigation, Prince appears determined to push a plan that would almost certainly net him a hefty profit, if Trump were to adopt it.

    “We have to get it right. Pulling out of Afghanistan is not the answer,” Prince said in the video. “A smaller more unconventional approach is necessary.”

    Barnett Rubin, a former State Department official and a senior fellow at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, agreed that the current strategy in Afghanistan needs an overhaul but called Prince’s proposal “unacceptable.”

    “The video pitch is strong and on target when it argues that what we are doing isn’t working,” Rubin told ABC News. “It does not explain, however, what the 6,000 contractors would do or how they would do it.”

    Critics of Prince noted that the presence of private security forces have, at times, been counterproductive, exacerbating tensions with local populations, particularly in 2007 when his Blackwater soldiers gunned down more than a dozen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad.

    “The biggest single contentious issue in Afghanistan is civilian casualties,” said a former senior official with the U.S. command in Kabul. “Every dead civilian helps the Taliban recruit.”
  11. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Lol prince al waleed bin talal, dude got tortured and hobbled

  12. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  13. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:

    This Think Tank is Pushing Regime Change in Iran—and the White House is Listening
    The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies helped kill the nuke deal, but it’s not satisfied—it wants harsh new sanctions against any country doing business with Iran.

    The Trump administration is threatening America’s European allies with harsh sanctions—among them, exclusion from a principal component of the global financial system—should they decide to keep doing business with Iran.

    In early June, Sigal Mandelker, a previously obscure Justice Department and Homeland Security official now serving as acting deputy secretary of the Treasury Department, spoke before an audience at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), a Washington think tank, and fired a shot across the proverbial bow of European governments and businesses, warning, “Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks, and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions.”

    “We will hold,” said Mandelker, “those doing prohibited business in Iran to account.”

    The venue at which Mandelker spoke was only too appropriate. Describedby the journalist Mark Perry as “perhaps the most powerful outside influencer of the Trump White House today,” FDD is credited, even by its opponents, as being among Washington’s most effective proponents of neoconservative ideas. In the estimation of Trita Parsi, the author of Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy, “FDD certainly punches above its weight.”

    Over the past several years, FDD had helped lead the opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear agreement, and is currently spearheading a push to wage economic warfare not only against Iran, but also against European countries too should they decide to part from the Trump administration’s policy on Iran.

    In his 2015 profile of the group, journalist and author John Judis explained that in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the former New York Timescorrespondent turned neoconservative publicist, Clifford May, rebranded a small pro-Israel nonprofit called EMET (which is Hebrew for “truth”) into FDD, which, according to its mission, “promotes informed debate about policies and positions that most effectively end the scourge of international terrorism.”

    May, who served as Republican National Committee communications director from 1997 to 2001, was recruited to head the new organization by Jack Kemp, the former GOP congressman and vice-presidential nominee.

    In its early years, FDD boasted board members from both parties, including Kemp, Democratic senators Frank Lautenberg and Chuck Schumer, Congressman Eliot Engel, and Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile. But, according to Judis, by 2008 the Democrats bailed once FDD’s new advocacy arm, Defense of Democracies, started running ads against Democrats.

    Today, FDD’s chief executive is Mark Dubowitz, a former financier who was once, according to the Israeli news site Ynet, a director of international business development for DoubleClick, which later was acquired by Google. He is said to have turned to policy advocacy after 9/11.

    Dubowitz is widely seen as “the architect of many of the sanctions that we have against Iran right now, who advised Congress on how to draft that legislation and has also advised Treasury and the White House on his opinions about sanctions.” The Washington Post’s neocon blogger Jennifer Rubin calls him a “sanctions guru.”

    In a recent profile, The New York Times described Dubowitz’s campaign to kill the JCPOA as “among the most consequential ever undertaken by a Washington think tank leader.” But, oddly, upon achieving his long-sought goal, Dubowitz began to furiously back-pedal, claiming he now felt “ambivalent” about Trump’s decision. Indeed, he now claims he wanted to “fix not nix” the deal all along.

    According to the foundation’s website, Dubowitz and May lead a team of around 40 policy analysts and fellows who have, over the past couple of years, churned out dozens of policy papers and op-eds critical of the JCPOA. FDD fellows frequently appear on Fox News, and in the 18 months before the signing of the JCPOA in 2015, FDD fellows testified against the deal before Congress 17 times.

    Among the most vocal opponents of the JCPOA has been FDD senior counselor John Hannah. Hannah, who once served as an aide to current National Security Adviser John Bolton, and later went on to become Dick Cheney’s national-security adviser, has been a tireless critic of the JCPOA. Testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in May 2016, Hannah declared that in the year or so after the JCPOA went into effect, “Iran’s bad behavior has only escalated.”

    “The US response to these repeated provocations,” Hannah complained, “has ranged from tepid to non-existent.” Therefore, said Hannah, “it is extremely important that Congress now hold the administration’s feet to the fire when it comes to its commitment to combat Iran’s continued aggression. At a minimum, Congress should do everything in its power to ensure that Iran receives no new sanctions relief in the absence of significant new Iranian concessions.”

    Hannah’s hard-line approach has apparently won him fans in the Trump administration (even though he served as a foreign-policy adviser to Jeb Bush). Reports circulated earlier this year that Hannah was close to being offered the role of US envoy to Syria but he ultimately declined.

    Perhaps the most prolific member of the FDD gang is Reuel Marc Gerecht, who served as a CIA case officer from 1985 to 1994 and went on to become a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard as well as a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute before joining FDD.

    Gerecht, who once quipped that he’s “written about 25,000 words about bombing Iran,” has criticized the Iran deal as being “as holey [sic] as Swiss cheese”; “the worst arms-control agreement since the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922”; and not “really an arms-control agreement; it’s just cover for American inaction.” In the days leading up to Trump’s announcement, Gerecht alone published three successive articles critical of the agreement, on May 4, 5, and 6 in The Atlantic.

    The reason Gerecht and his FDD colleagues consistently engage in such rhetoric is easy enough to figure. As perhaps the nation’s leading critic of neoconservative foreign policy, Andrew Bacevich, told me, “fearmongering,” such as that coming from FDD and the American right wing generally, serves to “incite panic about Islamism, with Iran today having become the big bugaboo.”

    “In Washington,” says Bacevich, “promoting hysteria works.”

    It works, and it also pays. A review of FDD’s last publicly available IRS 990 (2016) reveals that this relatively tiny operation received more than $9 million in contributions, with May and Dubowitz each pulling in over $500,000 that year.

    And while information regarding the identities of recent FDD donors remains obscure (though an FDD spokesman did tell me the group receives no foreign funding), Home Depot founder Bernard Marcus and US Healthcare founder Leonard Abramson are listed as board members. Marcus and Abramson, along with the likes of Seagram heir Edgar Bronfman Sr. and Sheldon Adelson, have reportedly given generously to FDD in past years. For example, the Nation Institute’s Eli Clifton found that in 2011, Marcus alone had donated over $10 million to the Foundation.

    FDD is not only a staple on op-ed pages and cable news networks like Fox; it has diligently built up a network though its own National Security Fellows Program, a 12-month fellowship “for the next generation of U.S. national security leaders,” which was headed from 2009 to 2014 by none other than former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka (whose profile has since been removed from the FDD website).

    Part of the reason for FDD’s recent success is that it has, unlike many other think tanks and groups, been able to retain access to the White House.

    Its recipe for success, according to Trita Parsi, is that FDD “has not uttered a word of criticism of Trump and his policies—and it is a price they seem willing to pay in order to influence Trump.”

    An early example of FDD’s potential influence in Trump’s Washington was an event the group held last October at the St. Regis hotel on 16th St. that featured then–CIA director (now Secretary of State) Mike Pompeo and then–national-security adviser H.R. McMaster. According to Curt Mills of The National Interest, the two officials were given a “hero’s welcome,” and the sentiment was clearly reciprocated. Said McMaster, “We need FDD’s help.… We need organizations like FDD to continue their scholarship on the threats that we face.”

    There was a lot of love in the room that day. About his hosts, McMaster gushed, “I love FDD.” FDD’s Juan Zarate, who advised Pompeo during his confirmation hearing to be CIA director, proclaimed of Pompeo, “Frankly, I love the man.”

    Only days following the event at the St. Regis, the CIA provided FDD’s Long Wars Journal an advance copy of previously classified files obtained during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound which, claimed FDD’s Bill Roggio and Thomas Joscelyn, contained “new details concerning al Qaeda’s relationship with Iran.”

    Dubowitz’s disingenuous claims to be a “fixer” not a “nixer” to the contrary, it is clear that FDD has emerged as one of the leading cheerleaders of the Trump administration’s increasingly hard-line policy toward Iran.

    Prior to May 8, the day Trump announced he was going to violate the terms of the JCPOA, FDD helped lead the opposition to the agreement, issuing a flurry of “Chicken Little” warnings on everything from the inadequacy of the agreement’s “sunset” clauses to the looming threat of Iranian expansion and aggression. Testifying before the House Foreign Affairs’s Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, FDD senior adviser Olli Heinonen declared that “the time to act is now, and not six years from now when the sunset clauses begin to take effect. It will be far harder to fix the deal once sunset clauses help Iran to permanently establish itself as a threshold nuclear state.”

    Now, having won the battle over the JCPOA, FDD is on to bigger things, what Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council’s Future of Iran Initiative described to me as a “campaign of maximum pressure against the Iranian government and the Iranian people.” And one of the pressures that FDD is looking to apply on Tehran comes in the form of sanctions.

    Sigal Mandelker’s June 5 speech was only one example of how, over the past several weeks, FDD has begun proselytizing for harsher sanctions on Iran. On May 21, Dubowitz and FDD senior adviser Richard Goldberg took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to suggest that Trump place sanctions on “Iran’s mining, construction and engineering industries, and any other sector of strategic importance.” Goldberg and Dubowitz also urged the Europeans to take action by cutting off the Central Bank of Iran from the SWIFT financial network, a move opposed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    A month later, on June 20, Goldberg and Dubowitz returned to the Journal with a warning to the Germans and other European allies who want to keep Iran connected to SWIFT: Should European Union members use SWIFT to send direct payments to the Central Bank of Iran, Goldberg and Dubowitz believe the Trump administration should retaliate. Trump should designate the offending “European country’s central bank as a violator of sanctions, blocking its access to dollars and isolating it from the international financial system.”

    The authors do allow that “such steps may seem draconian.”

    Indeed. Undermining the global financial system in order to sanction a country, Iran, that is in full compliance with a multilateral agreement, the JCPOA, that we ourselves are in violation of does seem a bit draconian.

    Of course, the ultimate goal of killing the nuclear deal and engaging in renewed economic warfare against Iran is, as a number of FDD analysts openly acknowledge, regime change in Tehran, a goal that Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (ret.), who served as Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff (2002–05), derides as “absurd.”

    Absurd, yes. Perhaps even delusional. But not so to M Street’s warrior kings, who informed the White House in a June 2017 memo that “the very structure” of the Iranian regime “invites instability, crisis and possibly collapse.” Nor to Gerecht, who believes that “everybody wants to see regime change in Iran.”

    And yet, as Wilkerson points out, the problem with regime change is that, “regardless of the nature of the regime in Tehran—theocratic or a Jeffersonian democracy or somewhere in between—that regime is going to have roughly the same foreign policy as the current one. It is just the nature of power and security.”

    Wilkerson points out that “the Shah wanted a nuclear weapon, for example, and we almost gave him one!”

    Despite what FDD’s analysts say over and over again, Parsi is skeptical that regime change is really what they’re really after—indeed, Parsi suspects their goal might be something worse: regime collapse.

    “If Iran becomes a successful democracy,” Parsi explains, “Iran’s power will likely grow significantly. Efforts to isolate and sanction it will become more difficult. The balance of power in the region would shift even further to its benefit. None of these are positive developments for FDD.”

    “Rather,” says Parsi, “their goal appears to be regime collapse and prolonged chaos and instability in Iran. Short of war, only that would shift the balance of power in the region toward Israel, whose interests FDD appear very concerned about.”

    Critics have often accused FDD of being little more than a stalking horse for Israeli interests in Washington. But Judis noted in his profile of the organization that he had seen “no evidence [Clifford] May and FDD ‘take instructions’ from the Israelis.”

    But what is clear is that FDD, awash in funding by stalwart advocates of Israel, has adopted policy positions that rarely—if ever—deviate from the preferred policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party. As one longtime Iran policy hand quipped to me recently, “They really should be called the Foundation for the Defense of Likud.”

    And it is true that FDD’s position on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestine as well as its enthusiastic reaction to Trump’s reckless decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem also reflect the predilections of the Israeli right wing.

    But nowhere else has FDD’s pronounced tendency to echo right-wing Israeli policies manifested itself more clearly than in its advocacy for greater American involvement in the war on Syria.

    Writing in (where else?) the New York Post in April, Goldberg complainedthat because Iran’s military presence in Syria has expanded, “America needs more than a once-a-year cruise-missile strike to defend the full range of our national-security interests.”

    For Goldberg, it is imperative that the United States, in his words, “re-establish a robust military deterrent toward Iranian expansionism in close collaboration with regional allies.”

    But the very concept of Iranian expansionism, says Wilkerson, “is a bugbear created by Bibi Netanyahu and [Israeli defense minister] Avigdor Lieberman to frighten Israelis.” Wilkerson then went on to note the great disparity in military spending between the United States and Israel (a combined $670 billion) and Iran ($6.3 billion).

    Like Goldberg, Gerecht sees Iran as the prime mover behind the Syrian conflict. Writing in The Atlantic on May 4, Gerecht criticizes Obama’s unwillingness “to do anything to brake the Islamic Republic’s rising Shiite imperialism, which in Syria led to the massive slaughter and flight of Syrian Sunnis who’d rebelled against Bashar al-Assad’s tyranny. And what happened in 2012-13 in Syria and Iraq—with the absence of America—triggered the rise of the Islamic State.”

    But Wilkerson says this is simply hogwash. “What led to ISIS, plainly and simply,” he says, “was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the attraction to Iraq of Al Qaeda because of the invasion, the selection by bin Laden of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to run Al Qaeda-in-Iraq, and the utterly stupid US decision to disband the Iraqi military which drove thousands of Sunnis to make common cause with Al Qaeda.”

    Over the past year, FDD has shown that a relatively small, well-funded, and savvy interest group can help propel the administration to unapologetically implement a widely unpopular policy, like withdrawing from the JCPOA. Its ties to powerful administration insiders like Pompeo, combined with a seemingly open-ended invitation to testify before Congress, thanks to close ties to the GOP establishment and hawkish Democrats like Senator Bob Menendez, all translate into policy influence.

    FDD’s fearmongering and rank hysteria over Iran may fuel its bottom line and help shape the dominant narrative, but, as Bacevich notes, among the immediate casualties of such an approach “is reasoned discourse.” FDD’s advocacy also brings to mind Albert Camus’s observation that “mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed, but in every case it is someone else’s blood. That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything.”

    Meanwhile, in the face of recent history, evidence, and common sense, FDD continues its push for regime change in Iran. And, worryingly, it seems to be making progress toward that end.

  14. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Putin investing 50 billion in Iran

    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  15. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:

    Looks like Muqtada's people, don't know if this is revenge for the death of Mahdi army militia leader who was assassinated

    Attacking these groups is bad, they vastly outnumber the mahdi army (the political party is called sairoon)

    Dawa is Abadi the current leaders party, it's Shia, Badr is one of the main PMU militias, Hikma is Shia also, but so is Muqtada's (attacking badr is just bad for anyone)

    this is in the shia south from basra to najaf, impossible to know what's really happening until it's over
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  16. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Weird they left kataib hezbollah and asaib al haq alone, maybe they knew that would be an immediate fight

    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  17. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    SDF preparing for the Syrian states return

  18. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
  19. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Don't Let Trump Go to War With Iran
    Fifteen years after the U.S. entered Iraq, the president is inching us closer to another unnecessary fight.
    TIM KAINE 6:00 AM ET

    The decision of the United States to wage war against Iraq in 2003 was one of the worst mistakes our country has ever made. Was Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator? Yes, but he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, and toppling his regime had profound consequences—bringing the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, promoting deep instability in the region, inflicting lasting damage on American credibility, and imposing enormous costs on American taxpayers.

    Joining the Senate in 2013 as a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, I vowed to learn something from that mistake. My top priority is keeping Americans safe, which includes reducing the risk of unnecessary war and raising the likelihood of decisively winning any war we must fight. I owe that to the American public, and I owe it to our servicemembers.

    I fear the United States is on the verge of blundering into another unnecessary war with Iraq’s next-door neighbor Iran. The same warning signs are on the horizon, and I hope we will turn back from the foolish path we seem to be taking.

    The first warning sign is the Trump administration’s rejection of the prospect of diplomacy to reduce tensions. The U.S. led many nations in developing the 2015 comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran, which contained in its first paragraph the affirmation that Iran would never “seek, develop or acquire” nuclear weapons. The agreement contained specific commitments, including an inspection protocol designed to make sure that Iran complied and clear consequences if it didn’t. Donald Trump’s administration has backed out of the deal, even though our allies and the chief international nuclear inspection agency have verified that Iran is in full compliance with it. With the U.S. out, Iran might back away from its commitments and restart its nuclear-weapons program. As the present struggle to curb a nuclear North Korea demonstrates, giving Iran an excuse to resume its program is foolishly dangerous.

    Second, there has been an uptick in bellicose rhetoric from the Trump administration toward Iran. The president stated at the recent NATO summit that there might be an “escalation” between the U.S. and Iran. When he was a member of Congress, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo opposed the diplomatic deal to end Iran’s nuclear ambition and opined that a series of attacks could take out Iran’s nuclear capacity. Pompeo recently promised that “the world’s wrath” would fall on Iran should it resume a quest for nuclear weapons, omitting that his own boss had decided to tear up the deal preventing Iran from pursuing them. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, National-Security Adviser John Bolton, and the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have made similar belligerent comments about Iran. Israeli and Saudi leaders are also encouraging increased U.S. action against Iran. Axiosrecently reported that the U.S. and Israel have formed a joint working group focused on efforts to pressure the Iranian regime by provoking internal unrest and protests.

    Third, tensions between Israel and Iran in Syria and the potential for direct confrontation are on the rise. Iran has long been a backer of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Iran and Russia are currently propping up his butcherous regime, and both nations have a military presence in Syria. In mid-June, an Israeli air strike killed numerous Iranian-backed militia members deep in Syrian territory, along the Iraq–Syria border. Some press reports attributed this strike to the United States. These accusations raise the risk to U.S. forces in the region and represent an escalation in the Syrian war that could trigger a wider regional conflict.

    Exacerbating these warning signs, the administration has shown that it believes it can take military action without even coming to Congress to seek permission. President George W. Bush came to Congress months before his administration took military action in Iraq, but the Trump administration has twice struck Syria with missiles and also directed U.S. air attacks against Syrian military positions even though it did not have specific legal authority to do so. When pressed on how those military actions comply with domestic and international law, the administration simply asserts that the president can use military force if it is in the “national interest.” The view that the president can just assert “national interest” as a magic password and bypass the constitutional requirement that Congress declare war should worry every American. There is little doubt that this president might use the same rationale to justify military action against other nations, including Iran.

    Is Iran a threat to the Middle East? Yes, and President Trump’s shortsighted rejection of the nuclear deal should make the U.S. even more worried about Iran’s aggression in the region. The U.S. should do what it reasonably can to punish Iran’s bad behavior and help our allies protect themselves. That’s why I have advocated tough sanctions in response to Iran’s support of proxy groups, its human-rights abuses, and its violations of UN resolutions, and also why I’ve supported robust American military assistance to Israel, Jordan, and other key partners in the region. But Iran does not pose an existential threat to the United States. We should not get pulled into another offensive war in the Middle East.

    I hope I am wrong about what I see coming. But watching this administration tear up a diplomatic deal with Iran, use increasingly belligerent rhetoric about that nation, and assert that it can wage war without coming to Congress leads me to sound an alarm. We cannot afford another unnecessary war, and Congress and the public must be vigilant to stop it.


    I find it interesting Democratic senators will not talk about BlackCube or Psyops targeting them over this.

    ohhhhh that's why

    Congress May Declare the Forever War
    A proposed law with bipartisan support would dramatically weaken the ability of legislators to extricate the United States from perpetual armed conflict.
    JUN 12, 2018

    A rising generation of Americans has never known peace.

    Very soon, in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria or Somalia or Libya or perhaps elsewhere, an 18-year-old man or woman will be deployed by the United States military to risk his or her life in a War on Terror that began before they were even born.

    Already, every single spring, roughly 3.5 million high-school graduates reach adulthood with no memory of a time when their country wasn’t waging multiple wars.

    This undemocratic Forever War is a civic disaster.

    The United States is at war in so many places, against so many groups, that the majority of citizens would struggle to name half of them—and no reader can name all of them, unless an official with access to highly classified information is among us, because the identities of some of the groups the United States is fighting are state secrets.

    Last year, when four American fighters died in Niger, multiple United States senators declared their surprise that the military they oversee had troops deployed in that country.

    The American public elected successive presidents, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, who expressed skepticism of foreign wars that they did not then end. Members of the U.S. Congress have been unwilling to endorse several of the wars that successive presidents waged anyway, despite their unpopularity and illegality. Last Friday, one American was killed and four wounded in fighting in Somalia, though it is unlikely that a proposal to put boots on the ground there would pass.

    The need for Congress to act—to rein in the president, to protect American blood and treasure, to preserve republican government, and to reassert its lawful, constitutional authority over war—has never been more urgent, with the single exception of the years of fighting in Vietnam, another conflict that began without a declaration of war and stretched across multiple presidencies, resulting in the deaths of 58,220 Americans.

    To avert a like catastrophe, prominent Republicans and Democrats have been urging Congress to reassert itself on the matter of where the president is permitted to wage war and expressing their belief that the status quo undermines the rule of law.

    President Trump’s saber-rattling only adds urgency to the question.

    But incredibly, the most widely supported effort to improve on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that Congress passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a resolution that has been stretched past the breaking point by successive presidents, would actually legalize war in all of the places it is presently being waged and radically increase the president’s ability to legally expand the Forever War.

    Proposed by Senators Tim Kaine and Bob Corker, its radicalism approaches that of a constitutional amendment. Their new AUMF would subvert an article at the core of the Constitution, gutting a vital protection against tyranny devised by the Framers. It would authorize multiple existing wars without even debating them individually. It would empower Trump and his successors to unilaterally wage war in new countries, expand their ability to indefinitely detain prisoners without charges, and empower them to unilaterally kill individuals even inside the United States.

    In opposition, the ACLU has declared, “It would be hard to overstate the depth and breadth of the dangers to the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights that the Corker-Kaine AUMF would cause … The Corker-Kaine AUMF would cause colossal harm to the Constitution’s checks and balances, would jeopardize civil liberties and human rights at home and abroad, would lead to a broad expansion of war without meaningful oversight, and would represent a sharp break from adherence to international law, including the United Nations Charter.”

    The Fox News host Andrew Napolitano declared in testimony to Congress that “the legislation would give the president far more powers than he has now, would directly violate Congress’s war-making powers by ceding them away to the president, would defy the Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of giving away core governmental functions, would commit the U.S. to foreign wars without congressional and thus popular support, and would invite dangerous mischief by any president wanting to attack any enemy—real or imagined, old or new—for foreign or domestic political purposes, whether American interests are at stake or not.”

    That would be nice. The oft-violated War Powers Resolution ought to do the trick already; still, a new law that forced public disclosure of all warring might prove useful. But even as the Corker-Kaine bill attempts to wrest new information about where the president is waging war, it undercuts Congress’s ability to do anything about it, as if gaining a bit of transparency is worth trading away the war power itself.

    Senator Rand Paul has rightly objected that the bill flips the Constitution on its head. “This authorization transfers the power to name the enemy and its location from Congress to the president,” Paul observed. “Worse yet,” he added, “this authorization changes the nature of declaring war from an affirmative vote of a simple majority to a negative, supermajority vote to disapprove of presidential wars. So if the president defines a new associated force that our military will attack, Congress can only stop that president with a two-thirds vote to overcome his veto.”

    Napolitano sharpened the point in testimony to Congress. “So a president with one-third plus one vote in either House of Congress can wage war on any target at any time the president chooses,” he fumed. “That is so contrary to what Madison intended, so contrary to the plain meaning of the Constitution, so violative of the separation of powers as to be a rejection of the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. And none of you wants to reject that oath.”

    The legal scholar Jonathan Turley most effectively underscored how anathema the proposal would be to the Framers who so deliberately vested the war power in Congress.

    “This is one of the few points on which there was almost unanimity [at the Constitutional Convention],” he explained. “I say almost because Pierce Butler actually proposed to give this entire power to the president of the United States. He didn’t receive a second. He spoke to a room of Framers and made that proposal, and not a single one seconded that motion. That was one of the most important moments of our republic. That silence, the absence of a sound, shows where we began.”

    And one needn’t care at all about the views of the Framers to see the dangerous implications of empowering the president today as the Corker-Kaine bill would do.

    “Do I want my son going to war with al-Shabbab in Somalia?” Christopher Anders of the ACLU asked. “My son can’t find Somalia on a map,” he declared. “Probably very few people in this room know what al-Shabbab is.” Yet under the law being considered, “if the president wants to send 200,000 troops there and go all out in house-to-house fighting, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq, he can do that.”

    At Just Security, Tess Bridgeman offers several changes to the legislation that would allow Congress to retain more control. “First and foremost,” she writes, “a new AUMF could explicitly state that it does not authorize the use of force against ‘associated forces’ beyond those named in the statute, and that the President must come back to Congress and seek authority to use force when necessary.”

    The same should go for combat in new countries. And rather than requiring mere congressional debate on ongoing wars every four years, “the new AUMF should sunset in 4 years,” Bridgeman writes. “Congress can reauthorize force just as it reauthorizes other extraordinary authorities, and a decision not to do so should be taken seriously.” She concludes that “if Congress truly wants to reassert its role in authorizing military force, which I strongly believe it should do, it should not hand the President the permanent authority to expand the conflict unless a veto-proof supermajority can be mustered to stop him.”

    There are those in Congress who agree. Representative Barbara Lee, the lone member of Congress to predict the Forever War that the post-9/11 AUMF ushered in, warned in an open letter, “I have grave concerns about the current proposal authored by Senator Bob Corker and Senator Tim Kaine that would continue our state of perpetual war.” Paul organized a hearing against the bill, where Senators Sanders, Lee, Udall, Peters, and Merkely shared their misgivings. But the fate of the proposal remains unclear.
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018
  20. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Muqtada (Leads Mahdi Army AKA peace company, and Sairoon) is mad, Ameri (leads Badr Organization) and Muhandis (leads Kataib Hezbollah) are going to punish him if Qais Khazali (leads asaib al haq) doesn't kill him

    However Dawa got the worst

    If this threatened Iran they would crush it, Sadr and Sistani will not stop Khamenei/Suleimani. I don't believe they would ever take action against Sistani, he's 87, but Sadr would get taken down

    Last edited: Jul 13, 2018