Juan. To your own question: "Did the US DIA see ISIL as a strategic Ally against al-Assad in 2012?" You answer NO. Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at that answer when point 8. C of the memo states quite clearly:
" IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHiA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)."
What part of "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT" don't you understand?
"The study, published by the law school’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and the school’s International Human Rights Clinic, shows that government informants egged on the Muslims to try to commit the acts of terror. While juries concluded the men committed the actions on their own accord, the judge overseeing one of the cases remarked that there was “something decidedly troubling about the government’s behavior” and that the informant went to great lengths to goad one defendant into taking part in the plot."
Its not just Baer. Dalton of Chatham House also doubts the story, as reported by UK Channel 4 News:
"Mr Dalton says an attempt by two freelance Iranians can't be ruled out, "or that the whole this has been made up to demonise Iran." link to channel4.com
What are you on Cole? "The Libyan intervention was legal in international law, authorized by the UN Security Council," This is a complete lie.
What was authorized was the protection of civilians, not carte blanche to take sides in a civil war, to kill the other side's civilians, to attack civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, TV stations, etc. as NATO have done.
According to your rule book, then every western journalist in Libya is a legitimate target, as are any medical faciities belonging to NATO.
"And I agree with this part of that claim: the terrorist Breivik is indeed insane. I think everyone can agree with that."
Uh, no. Sorry.
"The July 22 attacks were so carefully planned and executed that it would be difficult to argue they were the work of a delusional madman, said Dr Tarjei Rygnestad, who heads the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine", Brievik's assessment panel... link to telegraph.co.uk
Al-Tamimi asks a pertinent question but fails to answer it satisfactorily:
Question: "To what extent, if at all, should these various anti-Muslim blogs (they characterize themselves as “anti-jihadist”) — particularly the writings of Fjordman– that have so influenced Breivik be regarded as having a share of responsibility for the carnage?"
Answer: "In the end, responsibility lies with Breivik and his conscious decision to commit these atrocities."
To use an old British expression: what a load of old bollocks!
If any Muslim blog held the same position in public as say Fjordman (from the other end of the spectrum obviously), not only would they be closed down, but the authors hunted by the police and accused of incitement to terrorism, hate speech, etc.
Also, regarding any insanity. Breivik is as insane as any other terrorist who uses violence.
Wrong again. Legally, only states can declare war, and only on other states. Most normal countries use their police forces and legal extraditions to take care of terrorists. Spain, where I live has a terrorist problem with the Basque ETA organisation who have killed hundreds of Spanish and others over the years. If we were all to use the same methods as the Americans, that would mean the Spanish Special Forces conducting targeted assassinations into France, Mexico or Venezuela. If we were to apply the same criteria as the US it would mean bombing Bilbao or Toulouse or Mexico. It would give a green light to Cuban special forces to enter the US to take out Posada Carriles who blew up a Cuban airliner with over 70 people on board. It is anarchy.
Apart from anything else Cole is dead wrong here. The myth is that Bin Laden would ever have been taken alive. This was a hit squad sent to 'terminate' him. link to theatlantic.com
Even the Nazi hierarchy were tried in a court of law, and they murdered 6 million innocent civilians not 3,000. So we can all see for ourselves just how low the moral compass has fallen in the US, a nation that claims to be morally and ethically supefrior to the rest of us! That's a very sick joke.
One just has to see who has won the battle for hearts and minds. Most people on the planet now hate the US and all it stands for, and for good reason. The most violent nation ever to exist with the most violent psycopath population of all time, with the most violent TV, film and digital game industry in the world in a country where the poor are left to exist by living outside the law or die because they don't have health insurance. All th
In fact it's hghly instructive seeing how the American people generally use highly acrobatic linguistic and moral contorsions to justify the unjustifiable - the taking of another human life.
But then they've been in that business since the country's inception. Let's not forget the holocaust of the Native American Indians - in fact how could we forget when the code word for the Bin Laden operation was 'Geronimo' showing the world that this "is basically the continuation of the wars against indigenous people", as Native American activist and writer, Winona LaDuke put it: "The reality is that the military is full of native nomenclature,” says LaDuke. "You’ve got Black Hawk helicopters, Apache Longbow helicopters. You’ve got Tomahawk missiles. The term used when you leave a military base in a foreign country is to go 'off the reservation, into Indian Country.' So what is that messaging that is passed on? It is basically the continuation of the wars against indigenous people."
Let's also not forget the million dead civilans in Iraq, the UN cover given b y the US to that other murderous rogue nation, Israel, it's continuous support for dictators while preaching democracy, etc., etc., etc.
Does it? I don't think so. It specifically forbids occupation, which is a different thing entirely: "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"
As Robert Chesney comments at Lawfare: "it does not actually exclude the use of ground forces; it only excludes “occupation forces,” which is not co-extensive with ground forces in general (much of the media coverage seems to be skipping over this nuance, implying that only air power has been authorized)." link to lawfareblog.com
Also how can you still buy into the line that the UN is going "to the rescue" in Libya, and that a greed-driven 'international order' can spill blood for decades in the name of power and profit and then revolutionise itself by its bootstraps - in the absence of any observable causal factors accounting for the revolution - and become a force for democracy and compassion?
As someone else comments, either you're very naive or this is simple propaganda.
Of course, as they say: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Palin could be as thick as a brick.
This would tie in nicely with what British philosopher John Stuart Mill had to say:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Islamic Front and Daesh are allies.
Juan. To your own question: "Did the US DIA see ISIL as a strategic Ally against al-Assad in 2012?" You answer NO. Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at that answer when point 8. C of the memo states quite clearly:
" IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHiA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)."
What part of "THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT" don't you understand?
No Israeli explosions You mean they developed a bomb without testing?
Spot on!
Oh yes and I forgot this one:
Homegrown Terror Threat “Manufactured”: NYU Study
"The study, published by the law school’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice and the school’s International Human Rights Clinic, shows that government informants egged on the Muslims to try to commit the acts of terror. While juries concluded the men committed the actions on their own accord, the judge overseeing one of the cases remarked that there was “something decidedly troubling about the government’s behavior” and that the informant went to great lengths to goad one defendant into taking part in the plot."
Exactly what happened here...
link to therightperspective.org
Its not just Baer. Dalton of Chatham House also doubts the story, as reported by UK Channel 4 News:
"Mr Dalton says an attempt by two freelance Iranians can't be ruled out, "or that the whole this has been made up to demonise Iran."
link to channel4.com
Genn Greenwald:
The “very scary” Iranian Terror plot
link to politics.salon.com
Iranian Terror Plot: Fake, Fake, Fake
link to original.antiwar.com
What are you on Cole? "The Libyan intervention was legal in international law, authorized by the UN Security Council," This is a complete lie.
What was authorized was the protection of civilians, not carte blanche to take sides in a civil war, to kill the other side's civilians, to attack civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, TV stations, etc. as NATO have done.
According to your rule book, then every western journalist in Libya is a legitimate target, as are any medical faciities belonging to NATO.
Spot on!
"And I agree with this part of that claim: the terrorist Breivik is indeed insane. I think everyone can agree with that."
Uh, no. Sorry.
"The July 22 attacks were so carefully planned and executed that it would be difficult to argue they were the work of a delusional madman, said Dr Tarjei Rygnestad, who heads the Norwegian Board of Forensic Medicine", Brievik's assessment panel...
link to telegraph.co.uk
Al-Tamimi asks a pertinent question but fails to answer it satisfactorily:
Question: "To what extent, if at all, should these various anti-Muslim blogs (they characterize themselves as “anti-jihadist”) — particularly the writings of Fjordman– that have so influenced Breivik be regarded as having a share of responsibility for the carnage?"
Answer: "In the end, responsibility lies with Breivik and his conscious decision to commit these atrocities."
To use an old British expression: what a load of old bollocks!
If any Muslim blog held the same position in public as say Fjordman (from the other end of the spectrum obviously), not only would they be closed down, but the authors hunted by the police and accused of incitement to terrorism, hate speech, etc.
Also, regarding any insanity. Breivik is as insane as any other terrorist who uses violence.
I don't think the families and friends of those killed in Norway woukd agree with you in describing the white Christian terrorist as 'irrelevant'....
'Iraq misaadventure'? Good God man, it was the 'supreme crime'. Why can't you bring yourself to use those terms?
Wrong again. Legally, only states can declare war, and only on other states. Most normal countries use their police forces and legal extraditions to take care of terrorists. Spain, where I live has a terrorist problem with the Basque ETA organisation who have killed hundreds of Spanish and others over the years. If we were all to use the same methods as the Americans, that would mean the Spanish Special Forces conducting targeted assassinations into France, Mexico or Venezuela. If we were to apply the same criteria as the US it would mean bombing Bilbao or Toulouse or Mexico. It would give a green light to Cuban special forces to enter the US to take out Posada Carriles who blew up a Cuban airliner with over 70 people on board. It is anarchy.
Apart from anything else Cole is dead wrong here. The myth is that Bin Laden would ever have been taken alive. This was a hit squad sent to 'terminate' him.
link to theatlantic.com
Even the Nazi hierarchy were tried in a court of law, and they murdered 6 million innocent civilians not 3,000. So we can all see for ourselves just how low the moral compass has fallen in the US, a nation that claims to be morally and ethically supefrior to the rest of us! That's a very sick joke.
One just has to see who has won the battle for hearts and minds. Most people on the planet now hate the US and all it stands for, and for good reason. The most violent nation ever to exist with the most violent psycopath population of all time, with the most violent TV, film and digital game industry in the world in a country where the poor are left to exist by living outside the law or die because they don't have health insurance. All th
In fact it's hghly instructive seeing how the American people generally use highly acrobatic linguistic and moral contorsions to justify the unjustifiable - the taking of another human life.
But then they've been in that business since the country's inception. Let's not forget the holocaust of the Native American Indians - in fact how could we forget when the code word for the Bin Laden operation was 'Geronimo' showing the world that this "is basically the continuation of the wars against indigenous people", as Native American activist and writer, Winona LaDuke put it: "The reality is that the military is full of native nomenclature,” says LaDuke. "You’ve got Black Hawk helicopters, Apache Longbow helicopters. You’ve got Tomahawk missiles. The term used when you leave a military base in a foreign country is to go 'off the reservation, into Indian Country.' So what is that messaging that is passed on? It is basically the continuation of the wars against indigenous people."
Let's also not forget the million dead civilans in Iraq, the UN cover given b y the US to that other murderous rogue nation, Israel, it's continuous support for dictators while preaching democracy, etc., etc., etc.
Does it? I don't think so. It specifically forbids occupation, which is a different thing entirely: "excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory"
As Robert Chesney comments at Lawfare: "it does not actually exclude the use of ground forces; it only excludes “occupation forces,” which is not co-extensive with ground forces in general (much of the media coverage seems to be skipping over this nuance, implying that only air power has been authorized)."
link to lawfareblog.com
Also how can you still buy into the line that the UN is going "to the rescue" in Libya, and that a greed-driven 'international order' can spill blood for decades in the name of power and profit and then revolutionise itself by its bootstraps - in the absence of any observable causal factors accounting for the revolution - and become a force for democracy and compassion?
As someone else comments, either you're very naive or this is simple propaganda.
"I wonder whether Sarah Palin is dyslexic."
Of course, as they say: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Palin could be as thick as a brick.
This would tie in nicely with what British philosopher John Stuart Mill had to say:
"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."