Αυτοκαθορισμός

Αυτοκαθορισμός

Κυριακή, 6 Νοεμβρίου 2016

Moon of Alabama/ Are We To Love Al-Qaeda Or Fear It? ( η άλλη όψη των πραγμάτων)


 

Even as Syria and Russia threatened an all-out assault on the rebel side of Aleppo, saying Friday was the last chance for people there to exit, they had been unable to put down a counteroffensive by a mix of Qaeda-linked and United States-backed insurgent groups.
Three Qaeda-linked suicide bombers attacked a military position with explosive-packed personnel carriers on Thursday, ...
Sources told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that U.S. intelligence has alerted joint terrorism task forces that al Qaeda could be planning attacks in three states for Monday.
...
Instead, they are trying to break the siege, with Qaeda-linked groups and those backed by the United States working together — the opposite of what Russia has demanded.
The source said there has been pressure on al Qaeda and its affiliates AQAP and AQIS (al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent) to regain relevance with its mission.
What is the message the U.S. government is sending with such accounts? Are we to love al-Qaeda or fear it?
Or are we to fall silent in awe of the sheer genius of Obama's strategic planning?
P.S. That AQ and CIA "rebels" mercenaries are one bunch is, of course, not new. We wrote about Your Moderate Cuddly Homegrown Al-Qaeda since October 2013. What is new is the NYT, the house organ of the U.S. government, now openly reporting it. What is the message in this?
Posted by b on November 5, 2016 at 02:41 PM | Permalink
 
 
Comments
more of the same crazy policy of supporting al qaeda while claiming to not support al qaeda.. ka ching, ka ching.. thank you wall st - all the way to the bank..
Posted by: james | Nov 5, 2016 2:53:39 PM | 1
"Genius" is not the term I would use to describe the thoughts and actions of Obama.
I hope he rots in hell.
Posted by: Perimetr | Nov 5, 2016 3:09:09 PM | 2
US must need a new 9/11. Perhaps things are not looking good for Clinton in the polls?
Posted by: Peter AU | Nov 5, 2016 3:12:50 PM | 3
In case anyone is missing the message here: The NYT article is by mouth-breathing trustworthy neocon shill Anne Barnard (often accused of being a journalist by the NYT).
Mark Ames adds this series of tweets for context:
"DC experts so brilliant at 3-D chess they've allied US with Al Qaeda in Syria. Can't understand why public doesn't adore them" "Rather odd that @nytimes reports US-Al Qaeda alliance in Syria six paragraphs down, as if it's not that newsworthy"
"My sense is reporter and her editor find US-AQ alliance newsworthy, but sneak it in to avoid a shitstorm. We have a very Soviet press"
Another reply sums up my thoughts exactly:
Oedipa Maas ‏@bridgietherease
@MarkAmesExiled it's telling that they aren't even bothering to try rebranding anymore & just assume they'll be able to bury the association
You know things are bad when the U.S. lügenpresse doesn't even put any effort into propping up the smelly narrative de jure.
Yeah... the fall of the Weimar Republic. We're smarter than the Germans - the same thing could never happen here in the U.S.
American citizens: Obey... Consume... Reproduce... Conform... Vote...
Move along folks. Nothing to see here.
Posted by: PavewayIV | Nov 5, 2016 3:19:56 PM | 4
ISIS and the Muslim immigration issue is linked in the Trump campaign. To use ISIS here would only help Trump.
Posted by: Les | Nov 5, 2016 3:25:57 PM | 5
Thanks for the posting b.
It lets me comment about my observation that fear mongering is one goal but another agenda for it is having preparations made to quell unsettled Trump backers if they really can override the real (s)election results.
All of this reminds me of some quotes from a book titled "At the Edge of History" written by William Irwin Thompson back in the early 70's....some quotes from it:
"
Between the cracked-open minds of the enthusiasts of lost tribes, lost continents, and flying saucers and the firmly shut minds of the scholars, it is a very difficult to find a healthy way of using one’s head.
"
"
When men are trained to strive for power over their environment [via science and technology], they are socially constrained to achieve that success through suppression of consciousness in which ambiguity, complexity, feeling, intuition and imagination are dismissed as irrelevant distractions….. And this is what “the aerospace syndrome” is all about. Operating with a strictly logical and mechanistic model of self, MIT training reduces the self’s truly complex nature to a few relatively standard industrial functions.
"
"
And what the adolescent engineer rehearses in miniature in his fantasied relations with women, he is even freer to do at large with nature, for the instinctive play of our technology is the exploitation of passive, female nature in a celebration of power and phallic dominance. In keeping with this sexual mythology of rational male dominance over irrational female nature we have constructed an ideology of progress that places our industrial culture at the pinnacle of human civilization.
"
"
When information is so immense that man cannot keep up with it and still be purely rational, he has a choice: he can freak out and become tribal again to attack the old naïve rational values in the guise of a Luddite-student; or he can effect a quantum leap in consciousness to re-vision the universe….re-vision the universe in the mystical, mathematical, and scientific forms of the new Pythagoreanism….
"
What I faulted WI Thompson for back then and to this day was the absence of any thoughts about the world of finance, and specifically the private finance that is, IMO, along with associate unfettered inheritance, the core cancer in our current form of social organization in the West.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5, 2016 3:33:04 PM | 6
ALL BS & puppet theater, repeated in an endless merry-go-round.
Example, here's the "branded" official 2 minutes of hate dude they tried to re-cast in the aura of super villain Binny, & failed badly.
I bet a poll on any street would show 99% never heard of him.
Some say he was offed these past few weeks in a battle there in either Iraq or Syria...who cares! All fabricated fairy tales.
Maybe he'd have caught on if they had dressed him in some homeland gang colors & tattoos, instead.
TEHRAN (FNA)- Security sources in Nineveh province said the alleged voice message of ISIL Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is only a media sham to provide the ground for Turkey's incursion into Iraq.
"Al-Baghdadi's voice has been recorded by ISIL's voice recording experts and it has been done over two weeks ago or concurrent with the start of the Mosul liberation operations," the Arabic-language al-Sumeriya news channel quoted an unnamed security source as saying on Saturday, rejecting the claims that the message has been recorded recently.
http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950815000988
Posted by: schlub | Nov 5, 2016 3:45:15 PM | 7
# 2 & 4 Thanks
Thanks b
Posted by: jo6pac | Nov 5, 2016 3:51:58 PM | 8
Buried or not, it's encouraging that the NYT is publishing some facts about the rebels at all. I wonder, why now?
Posted by: Tircuit | Nov 5, 2016 3:54:57 PM | 9
Pepe Escobar has reported that the upper echelon of the "Masters" no longer agrees with Imperial Middle East policy, and calling out the illegal alliance between the Outlaw US Empire and al-CIAda is one way to light a bon fire--against--HRC without saying as much in so many words. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/365204-clinton-us-investigation-justice/
As I wrote previously, NY Times confirms my hypothesis of Outlaw US Empire supporting terrorists against both domestic and international law thus legalizing the withholding of taxes from said government.
Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 5, 2016 4:17:04 PM | 10
As soon as AQ takes over the government of Syria, Assad gets the rectal treatment and Hizbullah is destroyed, AQ will either disband or become pro-Western. At that point they will give up any claim to the Golan, the Russians will leave and Syria will have no air defences. So goes the thinking. If they choose to continue their wicked ways they will be bombed.
Posted by: dh | Nov 5, 2016 4:27:30 PM | 11
@11 We came, we saw, etc.....haw, haw.
Posted by: dh | Nov 5, 2016 4:31:37 PM | 12
About the fear thing.....I wonder what sort of fear led to this
http://denverguardian.com/2016/11/05/fbi-agent-suspected-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-apparent-murder-suicide/
Nastiness all around. Lets hope it gets resolved soon w/o too much more bloodshed.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5, 2016 4:34:05 PM | 13
I've been saying for some time that victims of terrorism are simply 'collateral damage'.
One can not understand what is going on unless one draws the distinction between the ruled led and the rulers.
The cult-like neolibcon rulers in the West are allied with terrorism. It is useful for destabilizing regimes that they don't like and manipulating domestic populations - especially wrt acceptance of a police state.
Those who point the finger at "the West" or faults of the "American people" are completely off-base. They are blaming the victim. And cursing the darkness instead of lighting a candle.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 5, 2016 4:47:19 PM | 14
@13 psychohistorian.. thanks.
Posted by: james | Nov 5, 2016 5:15:48 PM | 15
6
I like Fukuyama better:
"It was the Canaanite's continuing desire for recognition that was the motor which propelled history forward, not the idle complacency and unchanging self-identity of the Pharaohs.”
"For Hillary, Freedom was not just a psychological phenomenon, but the essence of what was distinctively called Order. Order does not mean the freedom to live in according to natural laws; rather, Order begins only where Liberty ends."
"The Nation-State will continue to be a shiney-object pole of identification for the Proletariat, even as more and more nations are subsumed under common economic and political forms of un-elected supra-national Oligarchy.”
Now you must vote, you must accept the outcome, then get back to work.
That's an Order. This is the End of History.

Posted by: chipnik | Nov 5, 2016 5:22:31 PM | 16
11
As pointed out years ago, the moment the Syrian defenses are gone, and UN 'peace keeping' troops occupy the military bases and disable the radars, at that precise moment, on that New-Moon of Sharon night, Israel will launch their dark-alley nuclear attack on Tehran, and claim the reactor at Anarak blew up.
They will use the bunker-busters and be refueled by air tankers Biden sold them.
Then Deep State will shudder slightly, pause, and metastasize even larger still.
Posted by: chipnik | Nov 5, 2016 5:37:47 PM | 17
Fifteen years after 9/11, the NY Times casually drops that the US is supporting/allied with al Qaeda. The implications are staggering--not least that the fuckers would let it drop so casually.
Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | Nov 5, 2016 5:46:33 PM | 18
Tidy little summary of the process at 'Arab Spring' and the Washington-Brussels-Riyadh Axis, highlighting Obama-Brennan's 'embracing and extending' al-CIAduh as the tool of Western imperialism.
The NYTimes is in the vanguard of the plutoteriat. They've just come out of the closet. Al-CIAduh are 'good' : they are the one half of the proletariat we've hired to kill the other half. Interesting to see how long it takes CBS to catch the drift in the breeze.
Posted by: jfl | Nov 5, 2016 6:15:44 PM | 19
@20
... the one-half we use abroad. We've got the cops on the same case at home.
Posted by: jfl | Nov 5, 2016 6:18:23 PM | 20
@ chipnik
Thanks for the Fukuyama quotes.
I am working continuously.........at being a martyr for humanity in our current context.....the Private Finance owners don't like folks talking about the social control tools they have that none ever talk about in public.....I was brow beat from commenting at ALMOST naked capitalism for my strident comments in this regard.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 5, 2016 6:24:01 PM | 21
The NYT is no longer read by "the people" as if it was ever read by the unwashed masses. It is there for the elites and only the elites or those people who think they are members of that elite IE Clinton supporters. Which is why its revenues dropped 95%.
People who support Obama and Clinton do not care if we are aligned with Al Qaeda as long as Trump is not President and the United States is not annexed by Russia. A Clinton surrogate made the latter assertion on NPR and Fox today. There was ZERO push back by the hosts or Trump surrogates.
Human Rights activists and their affiliate identity politics warriors are not concerned with the alliance since they are forever stuck defining more bullshit like LatinX or attacking Russia based on some bullshit Al Qaeda/White Helmet, DC/London/Paris propaganda.
White Helmet propaganda spreads like wildfire on Facebook and other social media. The few people who see through the shadows are fucked since so many more are stuck watching the flickers on the wall.
We essentially created The Cave using social media and TV.
And I agree with PavewayIV's assessment.
Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Nov 5, 2016 6:28:55 PM | 22
I caught the NYT actual admission that "insurgents" attacked and killed civilians in Aleppo and wondered what the take would be here. Then again, most of the article is about the government attacks.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/05/world/middleeast/ap-ml-syria.html?_r=0
It looks like NYT makes the attacks on western Aleppo seem justified because they're trying to "break the siege."
"An insurgent alliance known as the Army of Conquest, which includes the al-Qaida-linked Fatah al-Sham Front, has led the attack on western Aleppo. It is the second time insurgents have tried to break the siege imposed on the territory since July. An earlier offensive that breached the siege in August for a few weeks was repelled."

Posted by: Curtis | Nov 5, 2016 6:42:34 PM | 23
anne barnard has been lying for the empire for a long time.. i guess she gets paid really well for it.. every once and a while the truth slips out as it did here..
http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/21/dateline_baghdad?pg=full
Posted by: james | Nov 5, 2016 7:18:33 PM | 24
Very good article, interview with Bulgarian Boyan Chukov, linked by Dean @16 in the Open thread 2016-37 ...


The true goals are revealed. The world press openly writes about the risk of direct confrontation between Russians and Americans. Authoritative “experts”, who were previously publicly saying that terrorists are independent of Washington, today are explaining how Americans are supplying jihadists with arms against Assad and are threatening to incite them to be used against Russian cities. It became obvious that there is no coalitions against DAESH. There is the Russian army and its Syrian, Iranian, Chinese and other allies. They fight real international terrorism, which is used as a tool to solve geostrategic goals by those who cultivate, arm, fund and treat wounded jihadists.

Those who cultivate, arm, fund, and treat wounded jihadists are the US-Brussels-TelAviv-Riyadh Axis. The NYTimes has always been on their side. Their support has become more and more open since the neo-con putsch in the USA and the rise of the 'young' Sulzberger at the NYTimes. As @22 AEF points out, the NYTimes has always been writing in what amounts to a foreign language in the USA, and now, knowing that its readers are in the same position that it is in, it speaks outloud, openly voicing their common concerns, careless of their 'secrets'.
Posted by: jfl | Nov 5, 2016 7:22:31 PM | 25
This an interesting and relevant excerpt from Syrian War Update blog from last year:
https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/
(11/09/2015) SYRIAN WAR UPDATE: TERRORISTS R US.
There is no denying a fact that US, EU [Turkey]and Golf States are, as they openly admitted themselves, conducting proxy war against Assad, Syrian people and now Russians, blocking all diplomatic efforts for peace, allowing US pilots to attack directly Russian and Syrian air force, supplying the terrorists with weapons via Turkey and ceasing of all bombing raids against ISIS and another terrorists’ targets starting in October.
Do you remember certain unelected Dubya guy calling the world, in the name of shocked New Yorkers: Are you with us or are you with terrorists?
The western establishment chose to stand with terrorists long time ago. Not until recently that the West, so clearly, openly and unequivocally expressed its ideological, political, and military support for brutal terror of rape, murder, intimidation and slavery as well as acquiesced to a delusional dream of medieval global Sunni Caliphate which is to be founded on direct violations of every single modern western value you can think of.
The western leadership or rather an abhorrent usurpers in Armani suits, have finally show their true dark faces of death and enslavement that are unleashed unto confused population, relieved of further need for any nonsensical narratives and/or contortionist arguments of horny MSM presstitutes, soon to be discarded as useless like the rest of us.
In fact, we are dealing with situation of utter collapse of local, state and global rule of law as well as cultural customs and political traditions where ALL western governments incessantly violate all the anti-terrorist laws they have on the books as well as their own constitutions, and in the process destroying any notion of intellectual freedom of speech, assembly and political descent as well as reveal fallacy of independence of any social institution and fundamental rule of law within so-called democratic system of propaganda and deceit.
Once again a raw power emerges from under a razor thin veneer of western civilization pushing human race into barbaric neo-feudal servitude or death.
It is not to say that eastern or other traditions are not barbaric, however, it was the West that developed and began implementing, fundamental concepts of personal privacy, individual sovereignty and other basic human rights in context of social contract negotiated between the state and the people, concepts truly new and original within the history of human civilization and now being abandoned or brutally suppressed by the western regimes.
I am not a subscriber to an apocalyptic view, or Hegelian ultimate struggle between good and evil. And hence I do not see this reignited confrontation building up between East and West into hot proxy war in Ukraine and Syria as some pivotal event or critical historical moment but rather as preprogrammed regression process of the civilization back into old social systems predominately based on brutal power and imperial domination of society and culture rather than an illusion of democratic process.
Such emerging barbarism shows its face also through official government statements spewed by propaganda stooges of MSM where short minded, little moral worms draw disgusting orgasmic pleasure from events like Russian airliner tragedy and appallingly wish for more of innocent people’s pain, suffering and blood, paralleling worst ISIS psychotic rants and implicitly rationalizing the horrendous reign of terror.
Barbarians are not at the gates. They are already inside.

Posted by: Kalen | Nov 5, 2016 7:31:04 PM | 26
If there are in fact "terrorist" attacks before the election, those will certainly be done by the real believers in terror, the Hillary crowd and their supporters in the dark state and State dept., as no one else has the motive to influence the election in her direction.
Posted by: Joe | Nov 5, 2016 8:21:05 PM | 27
Just think....the Moo silums in America can form Fire depts,
And it's Tammany Hall/Gangs of NY all over again!
Then the ISIS will get into the Insurance** business. ...
Maybe Catholic Priest leads the boys out in the 5 points vs the Immam and the
40 thieves.
Posted by: Brad | Nov 5, 2016 8:31:07 PM | 28
Re: Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 5, 2016 4:17:04 PM | 10
I think that qualifies as wishful thinking on Pepe's part. I simply see no logical reason to agree with that theory.
Posted by: Jules | Nov 5, 2016 8:53:00 PM | 29
The NYT is no longer read by "the people" as if it was ever read by the unwashed masses. It is there for the elites and only the elites or those people who think they are members of that elite IE Clinton supporters. Which is why its revenues dropped 95%.
Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Nov 5, 2016 6:28:55 PM | 22
Hence the unseen, but obvious government subsidies in place of lost revenue. How else can you explain stenographic, creative writing...? And I guess we shouldn't be so surprised at the decay. We'll all look back and see the creative destruction the internet caused in a different light.
Posted by: MadMax2 | Nov 5, 2016 8:56:18 PM | 30
It is right to point out the glaring inconsistencies in MSM reporting (again and again and again).
However, it is no news for MSM readers that jihadis, Islamists, AQ are somehow "there" among "rebels" (US-backed). On the level of mere reporting you could, if attentive to details "buried" somewhere down, get a relatively adequate picture from MSM. Surprisingly.
Exceptions are:
- early support for insurgents in 2011 and even before
- everything about Ghouta false-flag attack
- casualties (reasons, proportion of military to civilian casualties etc)

The spin comes partly from one-sided emphasis, but more so from a simple moralistic frame: good vs bad.
So, Assad was painted as the baddie right from the beginning.
So the good side was first "the insurgents" in form of the FSA.
As the FSA logo didn´t work any more, it was just "rebels", sometimes mixed with "Islamists".
When in 2014 some of those Islamist rebels declared a caliphate, well - big surprise, totally unforeseen, but the solution was easy: clearly another baddy, which could easily be kept apart from the good rebels (though those might be mixed with some Islamist elements).
The irreparable crack in the Western narrative came one year ago when Russian Air Force started bombing "terrorists". Islamist terrorists - full stop. MSM were busy every day (!) blaming Russia for not (or not only) targeting ISIS, - but to no avail. The question who these rebels were could only be postponed for so long. Putin successfully called the Western bluff.
This was the time the phrase "moderate rebels" came in vogue. Its ingenuity is that it is a comparative term: moderate in comparison to --? Note that we don´t have to claim these moderate rebels fight for democracy or any Western catch-word. No, they are just "moderate" - eg in comparison to ISIS. Certainly true. And they also are moderate in comparison to AQ´s official branch, the Nusra front. Also true (mostly, unless they stupidly put decapitation vids on youtube).
So this is the morality game that is still being played: all evidence of "immoderateness" (pretty abundant by now) is still put into the bad basket AQ, or explained away as a consequence of "moderates" having to play along with AQ. (Read Charles Lister.)
In this way the label "moderate" keeps the narrative flexible and shields it from scrutiny why we should support them, and more importantly whether they present any viable alternative to Assad.

This is how the crumbling Western narrative is kept alive. And this way, the contradiction pointed out by b can still be upheld: well, it is not AQ in Syria which poses a threat to the US ...
Which is true, they have given up "external operations", any attempts at plotting foreign attacks are swiftly dealt with by US, -> Khorasan group, also some AQ individuals in Syria have been recently droned.
Posted by: Qoppa | Nov 5, 2016 9:00:14 PM | 31
The outrageous pretense is that Western democracies can do no wrong. And the faith in the cherished 'free press' was believed... because Democracy!... because free markets!
Most people in the West have yet to realize how much they have been had - despite bloggers saying the same for years. But as they 'wake up' they are rightly pissed.
Thus, we have Brexit and the Trump phenomenon.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 5, 2016 11:16:20 PM | 32
@14, Jackrabbit
"Those who point the finger at "the West" or faults of the "American people" are completely off-base. They are blaming the victim. And cursing the darkness instead of lighting a candle."
No, not completely off-base. The American people, or the "West" writ large, may be in the dark, but they have to accept some responsibility for their ignorance. Even the slightest real curiosity would turn over enough critical stones... No?
"Always better to light a candle than curse the darkness." Quite right.
Posted by: Castellio | Nov 5, 2016 11:17:55 PM | 33
I sometimes get asked why I post over on MoonOfAlabama, "That leftist blog". That always strikes me as funny because, in my ignorance, I never knew MoA was historically some kind of a lefty blog. b's intelligent and sensible writing and the thoughtful comments brought me here - that's it. I never thought of it as 'leftist' in the maybe two years I have been aware of it. It always stuck me as anti-neocon. And neocons are, in fact, 'new conservative' liberals. So I apologize to all the old-school non-neocon leftys/liberals that still lurk here - there was no flashing warning sign above the front door and I was terribly thirsty, so I just stumbled in for a drink.
But here's why I was so thirsty: the New York Times (and most of Western MSM) claims they are unbiased, but this somehow means to them a balance of left/liberal- and right/conservative-leaning reporting. Maybe there is (or was) such a thing, but they have confused the idea of balance by simply morphing the two sides together into a kind of bizarre Franken-unbiased stance that we clearly see as the scourge of neo-conservatism. If Monsanto made 'unbiased', it would look like the New York Times. The result is seeing the world through a beer-goggles version of a simplistic good/bad moralistic frame that Qoppa@31 calls out.
The demise of the New York Times to the influence of neocons was news in itself. They should put more reporters on THAT story. But this isn't just an American/NYT phenomenon, is it? It must apply in some wider context to most other Western MSM. I don't know the specifics of other countries, but their has been similar observations of (at the very least) the Canadian, British and German press. The Aussie press seemed like it was always broken like this, but everyone there already knew that. The problem with MSM's Franken-unbias is that they no longer appeal to... well, most people.
Here's what Liz Spayd, the newest public editor of the New York Times said last summer. Her comment is about U.S. elections, but it reveals a far deeper mortal flaw in most MSM thinking: [bolding is mine]
"...she was taken aback by the deluge of email criticizing the newspaper for “one-sided reporting” and “relentless bias against Trump.” Her inquiries in the newsroom were met “with a roll of the eyes,” Spayd said, and the claim that all sides hate the Times because they are even-handed in their reporting.
“That response may be tempting, but unless the strategy is to become The New Republic gone daily, this perception by many readers strikes me as poison,” Spayd said candidly. “A paper whose journalism appeals to only half the country has a dangerously severed public mission.”
She went on to muse that a fracturing media environment, with people seeking out the news they want to hear, might be pulling the Times to the left, which is where two-thirds of its readers are. This would be bad, she said, because of the stories that would be missed — such as the “surprising” triumph of Donald Trump in capturing the Republican nomination.
“Imagine a country where the greatest, most powerful newsroom in the free world was viewed not as a voice that speaks to all but as one that has taken sides,” she said, before grimly asking, “Or has that already happened?”...
And why the snarky comment about the NYT turning into a daily The New Republic by Liz? For non-Americans, this description of the weekly The New Republic from a Robert Parry piece in ConsortiumNews will help: [bolding mine]
"...Though The New Republic still touts its reputation as “liberal,” that label has been essentially a cover for its real agenda: pushing a hawkish foreign policy agenda that included the Reagan administration’s slaughter of Central Americans in the 1980s, violent U.S. interventions in Iraq, Syria and other Muslim countries for the past two decades, and Israel’s suppression of Palestinians forever. Indeed, the magazine’s long-ago-outdated status as “liberal” has long served the cause of right-wingers. The Reagan administration loved to plant flattering stories about the Nicaraguan Contras in The New Republic because its “liberal” cachet would give the propaganda more credibility. A favorite refrain from President Ronald Reagan’s team was “even the liberal New Republic agrees ”
In other words, the magazine became the neocon wolf advancing the slaughter of Central Americans in the sheep’s clothing of intellectual liberalism. Similarly, over the past two decades, it has dressed up bloody U.S. interventionism in the Middle East in the pretty clothes of “humanitarianism” and “democracy.”
The magazine which has given us the writings of neocons Charles Krauthammer, Fred Barnes, Steven Emerson, Robert Kagan and many more has become a case study in the special evil that can come from intellectualism when it supplies high-minded rationalizations for low-brow brutality.
In the world of the mind, where The New Republic likes to think it lives, the magazine has published countless essays that have spun excuses for mass murder, rape, torture and other real-world crimes. Put differently, the magazine afforded the polite people of Official Washington an acceptable way to compartmentalize and justify the ungodly bloodshed.
Robert Parry's explanation fits the present-day NYT like a glove: High-minded rationalizations for low-brow brutality. NYT [adjusting moralistic beer goggles]: "Al Qaeda alliances? Well, you see... sometimes, it's necessary. Necessary for the U.S. in order to save brown people from evil rulers we don't like. Sometimes, we have to pal up with head-choppers, drone a few civilians or apply punishing trade sanctions. It's really OK - trust us... Unless the Russians do it - then it's a war crime."
Posted by: PavewayIV | Nov 5, 2016 11:38:42 PM | 34
@ PavewayIV
If I could buy you a drink in Portland, OR I certainly would. Instead we will need to toast our gracious host in cyberspace......salute!
I think that the myth memes of liberal and conservative have been and continue to be intentionally created and maintained to keep folks from seeing the reality meme of separation between us/them.....those that have and those that don't.....again back to my incessant drum about the global plutocrats that own private finance and everything else and their hangers on versus the rest of us controlled by the God of Mammon religion they push.
Who have you been told to hate today? I don't hate people but do hate the idea of private finance and its adjunct unfettered inheritance that keeps the elite families in control of the liberal/conservative myth.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Nov 6, 2016 12:10:55 AM | 35
I'm not following the election but a sensational claim has broken. I've summarized @170 on the election thread.
Posted by: Penelope | Nov 6, 2016 2:14:41 AM | 36
A good article from Daniel Lazare in Consortium News points out the US strategy in Syria about taking Raqqa makes no sense.
“What possible assurances could the United States give to the Kurds,” Davis writes, “that upon successful liberation of Raqqa, the Turkish army isn’t going to turn on them? Why would the Turks bomb the Kurdish troops one day and then work with them the next, or allow the Kurds to maintain a presence after liberating Raqqa? There is no recognizable logic in these unsubstantiated hopes.”
Davis is correct. But, then, there is no recognizable logic in the Obama administration’s intervention in Syria in general. Why insist that Assad step down, for example, when the only effect will be to clear a path for Al Qaeda and Islamic State straight through to the presidential palace in Damascus?
Why back a Turkish incursion into northern Syria when the only result is to infuriate Kurds who are the only effective anti-ISIS fighting force that the U.S. has on its side? Why insist that the U.S. wants a democratic solution to the Syrian civil war when the countries backing the anti-Assad forces, i.e. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab oil monarchies, are some of the most undemocratic societies on earth?
None of it makes sense. But since the Israelis, Turks and Saudis all want Assad to go, the Obama administration feels that it has no choice but to comply. How else can it keep a fractious empire together if not by catering to its client states’ whims and desires?
When empires are strong, they can afford to say no. But when they are weak and over-extended, they do as they are told. This is why the U.S. is frozen with regard to Raqqa. It can’t disappoint its allies by calling an assault off, and it can’t push ahead with a plan that doesn’t add up. So it dawdles.https://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/03/americas-rocky-road-to-raqqa/
Posted by: harrylaw | Nov 6, 2016 4:59:04 AM | 37

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου

Ιωάννης Τζανάκος - Ιστολόγια

  • φράσεις [23] - Η (αυτο-)θυσία είναι ένα αίνιγμα το οποίο δεν θα μπορέσω να λύσω ποτέ. Από τη μιά προκαλούσε ή ίσως προκαλεί ακόμα έναν δεδομένο σεβασμό, ακόμα κι όταν γ...
    Πριν από 15 ώρες
  • Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism - The New York Times - Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism - The New York Times Photo A woman working at a collective farm near Moscow in 1955. Credit Mark Redkin/FotoSo...
    Πριν από 5 εβδομάδες

Δρεπάνι

Δρεπάνι
Δρεπάνι..

Αρχειοθήκη ιστολογίου

Kurdistan

Nichts

Nichts

Πολιτική και Γεωπολιτική..

Στα όρια..

Ουρανός

Ουρανός

Ερμηνείες της ιστορίας..

Επιστημονικά και επιστημονικοφανή..