US policy of dishonesty and hypocrisy

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

Okay with hypocrisy and dishonesty? What data?

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

Okay with hypocrisy and dishonesty? What data?

Red herring. I don't have to be okay with one while not trying to stop it from happening here.
Data = shit the Russians try to steal.

Drowned Out

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

Hmmmm....not really sure how this relates to JC's post. You're admitting to a red herring fallacy, or accusing him of one?


I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.

Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

Okay with hypocrisy and dishonesty? What data?

Red herring. I don't have to be okay with one while not trying to stop it from happening here.
Data = shit the Russians try to steal.

And what data specifically were Putin and the Russian government trying to steal? What data did they steal?

mrussel1

Drowned Out said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

Hmmmm....not really sure how this relates to JC's post. You're admitting to a red herring fallacy, or accusing him of one?


I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.

Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:

I'm certainly in no position to argue that some member(s) of ISIS were in Syria. It's pretty well documented that they were. But I don't understand how this is evidence of some of your direct allegations and implicit ones:

1. How does this prove that the US Intelligence community orchestrated the civil war? Are you arguing that this ISIS leader was a CIA asset? The graphic certainly doesn't allege that, let alone prove it (no graphic/meme proves anything, btw).

2. Are you arguing that this person not only was there (I have no reason to believe otherwise) but he somehow stirred up the war and was some sort of messiah to some portion of the Syrians to get them to rebel?

3. And if #2 is true...well then so what? Why does it matter whether a foreigner was the intellectual leader of Free movement or if it was organic? At the end of the day, it's hard to argue that it was ONLY foreigners involved in the fighting and there was no opposition to Al-Assad.

And that was the core of my argument on page 6/7. To declare that a country that is 75% Sunni population supports a Shia "president" like Al-Assad with 90% of the vote is just a ridiculous statement. And that was the statement Polaris X was making/supporting. You would have to be completely ignorant of that religious split or completely ignorant of religious makeup of the country to think that was true.

Drowned Out

mrussel1 said:

Drowned Out said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

If we started going into the dozens of times the US has casually switched out other people’s governments since WW II, despite the lack of any direct threat to the United States, this would be a very long blog entry.

http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/those_times_the_nsa_hacked_americas_allies_20170107

So we should be okay with this, right? I mean why bother trying to stop it. In fact, we should all just decrypt our data

Hmmmm....not really sure how this relates to JC's post. You're admitting to a red herring fallacy, or accusing him of one?


I went back and read thru this entire thread...I am trying to find time to address some of your posts on page 6 and the start of page 7....there are some things people are really misinformed about regarding Syria...in the mean time, you might want to google Mahdi al-Harati and read about his history. The majority of senior Syrian 'rebels' are foreign mercenaries...many of them came straight from Libya to Syria. Many others were trained by US forces in Jordan, and entered Syria via Turkey.

Al-Harati's story is a pretty good indication of the way US / western intelligence has orchestrated the strife in Syria...and shows direct connections to Isis and al Qaeda. This little info graphic also shows either complicity or complete ineptitude in western media:

I'm certainly in no position to argue that some member(s) of ISIS were in Syria. It's pretty well documented that they were. But I don't understand how this is evidence of some of your direct allegations and implicit ones:

1. How does this prove that the US Intelligence community orchestrated the civil war? Are you arguing that this ISIS leader was a CIA asset? The graphic certainly doesn't allege that, let alone prove it (no graphic/meme proves anything, btw).

2. Are you arguing that this person not only was there (I have no reason to believe otherwise) but he somehow stirred up the war and was some sort of messiah to some portion of the Syrians to get them to rebel?

3. And if #2 is true...well then so what? Why does it matter whether a foreigner was the intellectual leader of Free movement or if it was organic? At the end of the day, it's hard to argue that it was ONLY foreigners involved in the fighting and there was no opposition to Al-Assad.

And that was the core of my argument on page 6/7. To declare that a country that is 75% Sunni population supports a Shia "president" like Al-Assad with 90% of the vote is just a ridiculous statement. And that was the statement Polaris X was making/supporting. You would have to be completely ignorant of that religious split or completely ignorant of religious makeup of the country to think that was true.

1. Of course it doesn't 'prove' anything. The graphic wasn't intended as a smoking gun, only a starting point for a little research. Al Harati was a CIA asset in Libya. He was a member of the LIFG, an Al Qaeda affiliated, state department listed terror group (which I believe was subsequently de-listed after John McCain requested funding for them to help overthrow Ghaddafi). After the regime change in Libya was complete, he was named leader of the Tripoli Brigade, then promoted to second in command of the Tripoli Military Council, under a guy named Abdelhakim Belhadj. Belhadj was a former Gitmo detainee who was released and reported to have become the leader of ISIS in Libya...the guy John McCain and Lindsey Graham met with in Libya - lots of photos of the meeting online (don't forget about the photos of the meeting between McCain and ISIS chief Al Baghdadi that are out there as well)..... Belhadj is the guy the late ambassador Chris Stevens was (alleged?) to be coordinating arms shipments with...Belhadj is reported to have had an office in a NATO base in Turkey.
Al Harati has reported ties to MI6 and French intelligence as well. There is reason to believe he was a CIA asset as far back as 2009, possibly longer. He was on the Gaza freedom flotilla, is wanted in Spain in connection with the bombings there, and was the leader of the mercenary squad that attacked the hotel in Tripoli. The guy is the Forrest Gump of terrorism. He holds duel Libyan and Irish citizenship....when he was away doing terrorist stuff in Libya, his apartment in Ireland was robbed and a quarter million pounds stolen...he openly told journalists reporting the story that he got the cash from the CIA to fund his actions in Libya. Bullshit? maybe. But his history of links to US-backed mercenaries certainly suggests this is possible, even likely. Al Harati became the early 'face' of the rebel groups after setting up a village in Syria in 2011 as a propaganda centre in the early stages of the 'revolution'. The last news I can find for Al Harati are reports from when he became the mayor of Tripoli (he is no longer...)
As for the US intelligence community orchestrating the civil war....wikileaks cables indicate that the US and Israel began orchestrating regime change in Syria as early as 2006. The cables also detail funding for anti-Assad, pro rebel propaganda via TV a London based TV station. General Wesley Clark had Syria on his list of 7 nations targeted for regime change. Eventually all of this stopped being done covertly....this was when the talk of 'moderate' rebels began. Belhadj is one of McCain's moderates....

I mean....you'd have to be a fool to know US history of regime change (including statements from insiders like Gen.Clark), to follow the flow of fighters from Libya and Iraq, the money from Qatar and Saudi, the training from Jordan, the access points and logistics from Turkey etc etc.....and still not be able to decide that the CIA has been involved from the start. What aren't they involved in?

2. yes, shit-stirrer extraordinaire. No, not a messiah...a pariah....as in outsider.

3. What does it matter?? It's the only thing that matters. If it is foreign-led regime change via proxy forces, the whole 'revolution' is an illegal act of war. If it is solely a grass roots uprising meant to overthrow the government (as sold by the US and their media mouthpieces), it is something that can be encouraged, but still not legally supported by the US under international law. Ok, maybe it doesn't matter. Either way, the US/NATO is in the wrong.

As for ignorance regarding the religious split in Syria....you realize that Assad is Allawite - a sect that has only relatively recently become associated with Shia islam? His party is Baathist; secular nationalists by political ideology. He has many Sunni supporters, and the majority of Sunnis do not support the extremist Wahhabi Salafist (sunni) rebel groups. Yes, there are Syrians who reject secular government, but this is part of the tightrope of governance in the middle east. From what I have read, the situation is nearly identical to Iraq under their Baathist leader (Saddam). He used a heavy hand against extreme religious movements that were a threat to him and to his country's unity. I agree with skepticism of any 90%+ vote...but it's important that people realize that the 75% sunni population does not equate to 75% opposition to Assad, nor majority support for the rebels. Not even close.

I've covered too much ground to back this all up with links....hopefully anyone interested can do their own searches based on this info.

JC29856

Showing the world how it's done!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4642712/senator-thom-tillis-81-us-interventions-elections

Senator Thom Tillis: There have been 81 US interventions in other countries' elections, not counting coups and military interventions



Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *


Q: Why will there never be a coup d’état in Washington?
A: Because there’s no American embassy there.

JC29856

Albright is very concerned about tweets 500,000 dead innocent children, not so much.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/313636-albright-im-very-concerned-by-trumps-tweets


http://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/

JC29856

Nostalgic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/05/21/us-officials-lists-aided-indonesian-bloodbath-in-60s/ff6d37c3-8eed-486f-908c-3eeafc19aab2/

polaris_x

more of the same from the US ...

http://www.mintpressnews.com/genocide-in-yemen-media-complicit-in-us-saudi-war-crimes/224106/

Halifax2TheMax

BS' splendid little war coming to fruition.

JC29856

Could this be the hypocrisy pinnacle?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/israel-netanyahu-donald-trump-travel-ban-muslim-ban-a7553141.html

Shocked by Donald Trump's 'travel ban'? Israel has had a similar policy for decades

Israel walls.... Israel torture policies...Israel Palestinian ban, sound familiar?

polaris_x

benjs said:

Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.

i know you didn't ask me ... but my two cents ...

the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...

* what is the motivation for intervention?
* which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations?
* which country has the capacity to intervene?
* remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's

JC29856

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/airstrikes-unreported-syria-iraq-afghanistan-islamic-state-al-qaeda-taliban

"We're not so innocent either"

The American military has failed to publicly disclose potentially thousands of lethal airstrikes conducted over several years in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, a Military Times investigation has revealed. The enormous data gap raises serious doubts about transparency in reported progress against the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban, and calls into question the accuracy of other Defense Department disclosures documenting everything from costs to casualty counts.

In 2016 alone, U.S. combat aircraft conducted at least 456 airstrikes in Afghanistan that were not recorded as part of an open-source database maintained by the U.S. Air Force, information relied on by Congress, American allies, military analysts, academic researchers, the media and independent watchdog groups to assess each war's expense, manpower requirements and human toll. Those airstrikes were carried out by attack helicopters and armed drones operated by the U.S. Army, metrics quietly excluded from otherwise comprehensive monthly summaries, published online for years, detailing American military activity in all three theaters.

Most alarming is the prospect this data has been incomplete since the war on terrorism began in October 2001.

benjs

polaris_x said:

benjs said:

Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.

i know you didn't ask me ... but my two cents ...

the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...

* what is the motivation for intervention?
* which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations?
* which country has the capacity to intervene?
* remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's

Thanks Polaris, and I apologize if these following comments or opinions are daft - I know there's a lot that I don't know. I hope you don't mind my asking questions in response to your questions for some of these, and please let me know if you think I'm off-base on any of these (which I know you will )

What is the motivation for intervention: Where possible, ensure that foreign politicians and their actions will contribute to your domestic gain.

Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations: Wouldn't that be all countries? Each and every country aspires to negotiate foreign policies in ways which benefit their people and their politicians before the foreign players. I'd think this would be intrinsically linked to how much power each country has though, as everyone is negotiating not for the global collective, but for their own nation. If I have something that you want, and we sit down to negotiate a trade deal, power is leverage and skews the ability to negotiate in my favour. What is it that Russia possesses that skews negotiations disproportionately in their favour compared to other nations? What immediately jumps to mind is the expansion of an empire with the intent of seizing power with the threat of war (nuclear or otherwise).

Which country has the capacity to intervene: That would depend on how cunning the two players are (if intelligence and deception are the method of intervention), how aligned the two players' goals are (if the pursuit of mutually beneficial initiatives is the method of intervention), or which country is more powerful (if display/exertion of strength is the method of intervention).

As for the USSR - can you clarify why you brought that up? My assumption is that you're trying to show that the earlier Soviet attempt of growing an empire resulted in the dissolution of that union and that their expansionism shouldn't be feared, but I'd like to make sure I'm not misinterpreting your comment.

polaris_x

benjs said:

polaris_x said:

benjs said:

Drowned Out, this is a common argument I've seen used in favour of US interventionism: if we don't do X, Russia will, and that will end up worse. I'm curious to hear how you'd respond to that statement. If this is truly the mentality people use to justify American interventionism, that's the only reason I can think of to even partake in the binary "who is worse" battle between the USA and Russia. Both nations appear to be opportunists more or less unconcerned with morality.

i know you didn't ask me ... but my two cents ...

the notion that if the US didn't intervene someone (Russia) will is absurd ...

* what is the motivation for intervention?
* which country is most likely to have interests associated with those motivations?
* which country has the capacity to intervene?
* remember the USSR collapsed in 1992 which is fairly recent considering the US has been intervening abroad since the early 1900's

Thanks Polaris, and I apologize if these following comments or opinions are daft - I know there's a lot that I don't know. I hope you don't mind my asking questions in response to your questions for some of these, and please let me know if you think I'm off-base on any of these (which I know you will )

What is the motivation for intervention: Where possible, ensure that foreign politicians and their actions will contribute to your domestic gain.

Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations: Wouldn't that be all countries? Each and every country aspires to negotiate foreign policies in ways which benefit their people and their politicians before the foreign players. I'd think this would be intrinsically linked to how much power each country has though, as everyone is negotiating not for the global collective, but for their own nation. If I have something that you want, and we sit down to negotiate a trade deal, power is leverage and skews the ability to negotiate in my favour. What is it that Russia possesses that skews negotiations disproportionately in their favour compared to other nations? What immediately jumps to mind is the expansion of an empire with the intent of seizing power with the threat of war (nuclear or otherwise).

Which country has the capacity to intervene: That would depend on how cunning the two players are (if intelligence and deception are the method of intervention), how aligned the two players' goals are (if the pursuit of mutually beneficial initiatives is the method of intervention), or which country is more powerful (if display/exertion of strength is the method of intervention).

As for the USSR - can you clarify why you brought that up? My assumption is that you're trying to show that the earlier Soviet attempt of growing an empire resulted in the dissolution of that union and that their expansionism shouldn't be feared, but I'd like to make sure I'm not misinterpreting your comment.

hey ... there are no daft comments or questions if you've taken the time to think about each critically ... i am, by no means, a guru or bastion of knowledge on this stuff ... all I ever ask anyone is to think everything through and do some research before coming to their own conclusions ...

Which country is likely to have interests associated with those motivations not all countries because not all countries economies are vested in all other countries resources ... also, unless you are a completely communist state where all industries are nationalized - when we talk economic gain, we are really talking about corporations ... so, you would have to look at corporations that not only would have an interest in foreign outcomes, you have to look at corporations that have the influence to achieve that affect ... you're really talking larger multi-nationals ... not all of them are american of course but many are ... i'm not quite sure i completely understand your question on what gives russia leverage ... Russia is an oil state with oil companies so they clearly are gonna have interests in the middle east especially when you consider access to pipelines and what not ... as far as empire building ... i'm not so sure I believe in empire building as much as I believe in strategic geography ... no nation really wants to take on more population that you have to go administer ...

Which country has the capacity to intervene not sure who you mean by two players? ... for sure, interventions now are not solely single state ... they do usually involve other states but in general ... regime change interventions are typically done by coups, "civil war" or fraud ... the first two options generally involve arming so called rebels and/or military such as US invasion of iraq ...

as for russia ... it's been brought up because the assertion is that the US is the most evil country ... and that they are responsible for the most suffering historically and present day ... others believe russia is ... the other argument is that if the US didn't fuck over these countries - some other country would (russia) ...