John Wear's excellent website

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
zionist-occupation
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear's excellent website

Post by zionist-occupation » Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:22 pm

List them, the U.S.'s activities and we'll see.
Burden of proof is on the claimant, you claim they weren't free. You need to prove it. So far the evidence still points to the fact the U.S undermines elections, which is undemocratic. Even if such an assertion were true, interfering in an election is still undemocratic. Therefore, my claim is still correct.

Recall:
Secondly, contra to Corstange and Marinov’s (2012: 658) suggestion, no evidence exists that countries with fragile democratic institutions are more likely to be the targets of such interventions than ‘‘full’’ democracies.
&
Also this:
However, as can be expected from Table 2, only seven (or 6.3%) of the intervened elections in PEIG are cases of a double electoral intervention—i.e. that the US was backing one side while the USSR/Russia was backing another side during the same election.31 This percentage of double interventions is only slightly higher (7.8%) if only Cold War interventions are counted.
American countering the Russians was very minimal, only making up 6.3% of all election interventions.
LBJ also said this:

"There is no issue of States' rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights," passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. He was referring to the fact that Greece was becoming more and more unaligned with U.S. and NATO interests, while seemingly being more and more disjointed from the Communist threat.
Yes and are you just going to take his word as gospel? He said it that in public. He showed his true self in private in a private conservation. Greece was also a democracy during that time to, only later to be overthrown in a coup in which the U.S helped create their secret police and other aid. More red-baiting fallacies and McCarthyism, Greece was a liberal democracy at the time.
Hence, a far-right (temporary) dictatorship was necessary. Key word: TEMPORARY!
I have never heard of a "temporary" dictatorship, you just made that up. A dictatorship should never be necessary if the U.S is concerned about spreading democracy like you claim.
You think an interference in an election, regardless of what was done or in which one, constitutes an anti-democratic activity. That's why it isn't a strawman.

See above.
You continue to justify your fallacious reasoning.
You tried to claim that they were better because of literacy, education, healthcare, etc. I've shown why that isn't the case, you backtrack.
You haven't proved why the Islamic fundamentalists were better than the DRA, instead you keep committing strawmans against me by comparing Soviet domestic policy to American domestic policy even though I have never taken such a position. There is no backtracking here.
Proving my point that you think any interference in an election means anti-democratic activities. When Russia did it in 2016, it was anti-democratic, as there were no key democratic stakes in it. When America does it, there are.


See above.
Unevidenced claims, which of the 85 elections were not free? Countries such as Israel, U.K, West Germany, even Malta are on the list, where those elections not free? All I see here is more mental gymnastics.
You claimed they were involved in more armed conflicts post-1945 than the Soviets and I wanted to show the nature of these conflicts until the end of the Cold War.
Yes, America has involved itself in more armed conflicts than the Soviet Union such as coup d'etats and wars.
It was a just in case issue, everyone could see that the Soviets were bound to invade sooner or later. The U.S. correctly anticipated Soviet involvement and went at it.
Speculative claim not based on any evidence. The Soviets only invaded after the president was assassinated. The U.S started the agression by financing the mujahideen before the Soviet invasion.
They funded rebels, not jihadists, and some of them happened to be jihadists. Thing is, the U.S. is currently dealing with jihadists and has altogether stopped funding rebels. It's important to mention that they went to war against them as merely mentioning their funding gives the idea that the U.S. just funded these guys for destabilizing purposes, when they didn't.
[...]
If you give money to a group and don't know what they will do with that, it isn't funding terrorism, it's misusing of funds.
[...]
No, they just gave money to whoever opposed, provided they didn't have a history of jihadism before, and well, one incident isn't the end of the world.
[...]
They weren't 'all extremists.' Just because I say 'Assad sucks' and a terrorist says 'Assad sucks' doesn't mean I'm a terrorist. Guilt by association, much?
[...]
You ignore the fact that a plan of attack was formulated against the very same terrorists the U.S. may have potentially funded.
Ad nauseam fallacy. Evidence has been provided that the U.S knowingly armed terrorists in Syria and here it is again.
US funded FSA kills together with ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra


A Rebel Rift Is Brewing On Syria’s Southern Front
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a38 ... hern-front
As regime planes and helicopters ratchet up a massive offensive now in its second week, alliances in southern Syria’s rebel-held ground are beginning to shift under the weight of increasing foreign support and long-simmering ideological differences.

The relationship between al Qaeda franchise al Nusra Front and the moderate, secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) has, at least in the southwestern city of Daraa, been fairly high functioning. The two groups have long fought alongside one another against the Syrian regime. They also have close family ties: in Daraa, many of the men who fight with the FSA have friends and kin who fight with Nusra.
There is No FSA, There is Only Al-Qaeda
https://libertarianinstitute.org/foreig ... -al-qaeda/

Britain and US 'neglected alert to Iraq jihadist takeover’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... eover.html

'I gave the US trucks and ammunition to Al Qaeda': The chaotic US effort to arm Syrian rebels
https://www.foxnews.com/world/i-gave-th ... ian-rebels

A Bosnian signs off weapons he says are going to Saudi Arabia – but how did his signature turn up in Aleppo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy ... 51841.html
Five-hundred mortars is a massive shipment of weapons – most European armies don’t have that many in their individual inventories – and some of them at least appear to have ended up in the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s Islamist Nusrah Front/al-Qaeda enemies in northern Syria within six months of their dispatch from Bosnia 1,200 miles away.
[...]
All our production after the [Bosnian] war is under the control of the Americans and Nato who are always coming here… and they know each and every piece of our weapons which go outside our factory.” Krnjic, who lives in the tiny village of Potok Krnjic, Bosnian hamlets sometimes carry the names of extended families, south of Novi Travnik, describes how he recognised Nato officers visiting the plant, one of them “a Canadian officer, a black guy whose name is Stephen”. Ikanovic, the BNT-TMiH boss, confirms that all weapons shipments, including those to Saudi Arabia, were checked by the European Union Force Althea (EUFOR), the successor to Nato’s SFOR, and set up under the 1995 Dayton accords which ended the Bosnian war. Ikanovic says an Austrian general visits his factory for inspections, identified to me by other employees as Austrian two star Major General Martin Dorfer, the EUFOR commander. Krnjic says weapons from the plant are exported by Tuzla airport or through Sarajevo.
[...]
The Saudis, Krnjic tells me, “were never complaining because we have had a very good reputation for a long time, not only for our weapons but for who can give the shortest delivery date… I know I should not say all of this, but Nato and the EU have given us the green light to do this.
The CIA’s Syria Program and the Perils of Proxies
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-cias- ... of-proxies
Because of Nusra’s strength, CIA-backed factions have entered what has been called a “marriage of necessity” with the jihadist group, which is exploiting its position to gain access to American weapons.
[...]
But such subterfuge notwithstanding, at this point it is impossible to argue that U.S. officials involved in the CIA’s program cannot discern that Nusra and other extremists have benefited. And despite this, the CIA decided to drastically increase lethal support to vetted rebel factions following the Russian intervention into Syria in late September.
Blowback: ISIS Got A Powerful Missile The CIA Secretly Bought In Bulgaria
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ar ... .wxrynXZg4
A guided anti-tank missile ended up in the hands of ISIS terrorists less than two months after the US government purchased it in late 2015 — highlighting weaknesses in the oversight and regulation of America’s covert arms programs, according to information published Thursday by an arms monitoring group called Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Though the report says the missile was purchased by the US Army using a contractor, BuzzFeed News has learned that the real customer appears to have been the CIA. It was part of the spy agency’s top secret operation to arm rebels in Syria to fight the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The missile ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq, according to the report.

The CIA declined to comment on the Obama-era program to back Syrian rebels, which was canceled by President Trump in July. The Pentagon did not provide information in time for publication.

The missile is one piece of a critical puzzle that is being solved only now, with ISIS on the run: How did the vast terror group arm its war machine? CAR spent three years tracking ISIS weapons as they were recovered by Iraqi, Syrian, and Kurdish forces — and found that what happened to the missile was no aberration. Indeed, the terror group managed to divert “substantial quantities of anti-armour ammunition” from weapons provided to Syrian opposition forces by the US or Saudi Arabia.
Why Assad Is Losing
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/05/wh ... sts-saudi/
Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
[...]
Despite the improved cooperation on the battlefield, Syrians still remain deeply suspicious of Jabhat al-Nusra’s objectives in Syria, and U.S.-backed factions still engage warily with Islamists. Of course, public rhetoric is not always an accurate indicator of battlefield action: In southern Syria, for instance, factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mo ... 65776.html
The entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in Washington
DIA in 2012 wrote:THE GENERAL SITUATION:

A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.

B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.



3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…



4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.



7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:

A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.



8.C. 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)

8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
The director of the DIA at the time, Micheal Flynn confirmed the accuracy of the report, that the intelligence was "very clear" and that it was a "wilful descision" by the Americans.

HASAN: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

FLYNN: I think the administration.

HASAN: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

FLYNN: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

HASAN: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

FLYNN: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
Kerry also admits that Al-Nusra and ISIS are connected with the "opposition" (although he downplays it as "some"). The same rebels the Americans are funding.

3:48 - 4:01
"Nusra and Daesh both make it hard because you have this extreme element and unfortunately some of the opposition has already chosen to work with them"

Hillary Clinton Email Archive
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em ... #efmAGIAHu
See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria.
[...]
AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION
(U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL, Turkey, or the United States for assistance.euters)
U.S armed groups that would've committed massacres against the Alawites.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/maga ... -fall.html
“In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area. . . Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as ‘catastrophic success
US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria
https://thenewsrep.com/63764/us-special ... -in-syria/
“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’
[...]
Meanwhile, in Turkey, a similar quagmire unfolded. Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, “A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,” a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, “A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.” Like the militias being trained in Jordan, the rebels being trained in Turkey were not ready for combat. “It is not in their blood to be fighters. A large majority of them are criminals,” a Green Beret said. Many were foreign fighters, some from Iraq. One even turned out to be a Lebanese drug smuggler.

“The majority of these guys have been coached on what to say at the training site and give cookie-cutter answers,” the Special Forces soldier told SOFREP. They would portray themselves as being secular, but the Americans could tell who the hardliners were because they didn’t smoke (jihadis follow Wahhabi Islam, which does not permit it) and looked at the Green Berets with disdain.
[...]
Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.
[...]
Targeting the Khorosan Group was one of the CIA’s early successes in the Syrian Civil War. Tracking signals intelligence (SIGINT), the CIA was able to positively ID senior al-Qaeda leaders from those who formed the nucleus of Khorosan. Intercepting their cell phone conversations, the CIA targeted the group, eventually wiping them off the face of the earth with airstrikes. However, CTC “didn’t even track ISIS worth a damn,” a CIA officer said.
You do though, for destabilizing purposes. I used All-Caps because the facepalm was too high.
You continue to justify your fallacious reasoning.
See, that's my point. No harm done, if they didn't do it again, it was forgiven.
There is a lot of harm in funding a bombing campaign. You continue to defend the indefensible.
Not to mention, the U.S. didn't pay, again proving that they condemned such attacks.
[...]
1k missing is a lack of funds.
They did pay, they just proved they were cheap. They didn't condemn anything, you just made that up.

You ignored:
An American intelligence officer who worked with Dr. Allawi in the early 1990's noted that ''no one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then,'' adding, ''I don't think anyone could have known how things would turn out today.''
Millions dead as opposed to only thousands dead? Yeah, the latter is much better.
I don't know what this is referring to. Can you please learn to quote and space properly thanks, I haven't mentioned anything about "millions being dead as oppose to thousands".
A U.N. resolution is pretty damning if I say so myself, but fine, I'll concede that the West supported Iraq, for the same reasons as the U.S.
No it's not, if anything it just shows the hypocrisy and just how useless the U.N is at times. The U.S and other Western countries supported both sides at the same time.
If Americans didn't use realpolitik, they would went to war with the SU, or with Red China, but they didn't. Realpolitik is smart politik.
Irrelevant to my claim of lack of American morality during Iran-Iraq war and many other conflicts not even involving the Soviet Union or China. Realpolitik was used by the Americans and Soviet Union see: solution to Cuban Missile Crisis. But, it wasn't used in the examples you tried to list, that's just how America operates when it comes to foreign policy.
It was a necessary evil, see SU vs Germany in WW2. Stalin caused the Holodomor, but that didn't stop the Allies from supporting him.
False equivalence, the West supported both sides. The Allies only support the Soviet Union.
Before 1979? Sure. All transactions after were for hostage purposes or simply because they were of mutual interest to both parties.
It was to fund another Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Another group backed by the U.S known for their human rights abuses. Therefore America armed both sides and thus caused more destruction.
As opposed to giving them to communism to be enslaved? The U.S. later dispatched these dictators, so argument invalidated.
Red-baiting fallacy. Many dictators propped up by the U.S replaced democratic regimes. And it's really no different if they were communist authoritarian regimes because America would usually just end up replacing it with a right-wing authoritarian regime. Same tyranny different name
They hated the U.S. more than the SU. The SU is the U.S.'s enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

See above.
OK, so no concrete evidence. More speculation, got it. No evidence Iran was "more of a Soviet ally", hating one country less than the other does not make you an "more of an ally".
What they're doing in Syria, and what they did in Iraq would like to have a word with you.
Iraq War was an illegal invasion and they knowingly funded terrorists to try to overthrow the Syrian goverenment.
They dealt with this genocidal dictator, shouldn't you be approving that?
Not because he was a genocidal dictator, he was their agent going back all the way to 1959. He outlived his usefulness to the Americans.
Necessary evil.
Excuses, excuses.
They are helping the Kurds now finally establish their own state. I'd say they made up.
Personal gain, nothing more.
The Shah? A tyrant? LOL! What were his tyrannical acts?
You show your lack of knowledge once again.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL REPORT 1974-1975
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/001/1975/en/
A year of growth. Amnesty International has grown further in 1974-75, both in membership and in the scope of its operations. But, sadly, it has also been a year of another kind of growth: of politically motivated persecution, long-term detention without trial, brutal torture and executions. A year, then, of growing need for the work of Amnesty International.
Terror in Iran
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1976/1 ... r-in-iran/
No historian of the Middle East and Iran will deny that the CIA overthrew the legally elected government of Dr. Mossadeq in August 1953, brought back to the country the Shah
[...]
The CIA re-created the monarchy, built up the SAVAK and trained all its prominent members, and stood by the Shah and his secret police as their powerful ally. Iran became the police state it is now.
[...]
Thousands of men and women have been summarily executed during the last twenty-three years. More than 300,000 people have been in and out of prison during the last nineteen years of the existence of SAVAK; an average of 1,500 people are arrested every month. In one instance alone, American-trained counterinsurgency troops of the Iranian Army and SAVAK killed more than 6,000 people on June 5, 1963. According to Amnesty International’s Annual Report for 1974-1975 “the total number of political prisoners has been reported at times throughout the year [1975] to be anything from 25,000 to 100,000.”1 Martin Ennals, secretary general of Amnesty International, reports in his introduction to the above book: “The Shah of Iran retains his benevolent image despite the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.
You mean how it's illegal not to be a Muslim in Iran? Or how Sharia Law is supreme there? That way? Oh wait, that's after 1979...
Strawman, I haven't claimed that the regime after 1979 was good.
The U.S. saw the Shah as a better alternative than the other guys. The Shahs governed Iran for quite some time before, and if you want to talk of interference, need no further than to look at the removal of Reza Shah before.
The U.S overthrew a democratic regime and installed a tyrant. No need to deny this.
They don't, terrorists kill whoever, not just the designated target. Dictators at least have a mind...
I was referring to U.S foreign policy. Same tried and tested geo-poltiical tactics, whether a brutal dictator or an extremist group.
They overthrew Saddam Hussein and tried to establish democracy there.
[...]
The Americans only made the situation worse, not better. America doesn't care about spreading democracy, only their geopolitical aims.
[...]
They wanted to deal with Assad, an anti-democratic tyrant. They are very much interested in democracy.
[...]
I condemn Hussein, and am thankful the U.S. liquidated him in the 2000s, same with Qaddafi. While the lesser evil, they were still an evil. In the 1930s, Austria was governed by fascists, but Germany was governed by National Socialists. Although neither democratic, it would be stupid to insinuate that backing the former was anti-democratic.
Sorry, but the U.S doesn't get to nor have any moral high-ground to decide who gets to be in power and who does not in any sovereign nation. America's history of propping up dictatorships, undermining elections, funding terrorist groups all prove they are a horrible candidate for being the "world police-man" U.S claims of establishing democracy are farce, there is always a hidden motive.
Complete 180, how will the U.S. supposedly destabilize Syria now?
The country is is in ruins and has been in a civil war for the past 8 years a lot thanks to Western-Gulf-Turkish support for terrorism, staging false-flag attacks and bombing the SAA who are actually fighting ISIS.
The DRA would have done more harm, but they were taken out before they got a chance to do so. The Mujahideen got time to spread their tyranny, and so naturally, you will claim that they are worse than the DRA. Hitler only got 12 years, but killed a lot of men. Imagine he got the same amount of years as Stalin, or Mao(!).
Speculative claim, not based on any evidence. The DRA did more good than what came after despite being in power for much less, that's just a fact. Afghanistan is now in stone ages, largely thanks to American intervention.
The Soviets thought it was just a show for the next wave of Molotov-Rippentrop pact agreements, and didn't decide to preemptively strike the Germans. The U.S. thought that Assad will turn to the West for help. Both were willful decisions, and both were blunders.
Soviets was a blunder, American was a tried and tested political tactic. Wrong, Kerry never mentioned "help", America from day one has wanted to overthrow Assad. Also, Assad has never turned to the West for help, he even knows the West armed terrorists to try to overthrow him.
I am too.
My points are factual, sorry.
You think that Kerry is supposed to represent Obama's policy, but so is every single elected representative in history.
Yes, it's his job to do that.
Kerry wasn't supposed to mimic the President's thoughts.
He mimics Obama's policy. I haven't claimed he mimics his exact thoughts, that's a strawman.
Doesn't prove anything.
Denial.
Not as much evidence as misinterpretation, dodgy facts and false use of logical fallacies.
Denial. I have shown you U.S intelligence, eye witness testimony and a plethora of other sources.
Who are the Zionists, then? Who do they work for? I'll let you answer that.
Zionists can be gentile or Jewish. They work for Zionist interests. Will you ever provide evidence that I said "Jews rule the world"? I have already said that they don't.
No, my 'work' is debunking Holocaust Denial, not discussing U.S. policy.
Ironic, you claim to debunk "Holocaust Denial", but you deny the immoral and self-contradicting actions of U.S foreing policy. Speaks volumes.
This discussion wears me out and significantly hinders that
No one is forcing you to reply, the more you reply the more you embarrass yourself really.
but I appreciate the fact that you deliberately strawmaned here to score a cheap victory.
No strawman here, just my observation and personal opinion.

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: John Wear's excellent website

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun » Sat Mar 02, 2019 5:42 pm

zionist-occupation wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 5:22 pm
List them, the U.S.'s activities and we'll see.
Burden of proof is on the claimant, you claim they weren't free. You need to prove it. So far the evidence still points to the fact the U.S undermines elections, which is undemocratic. Even if such an assertion were true, interfering in an election is still undemocratic. Therefore, my claim is still correct.

Recall:
Secondly, contra to Corstange and Marinov’s (2012: 658) suggestion, no evidence exists that countries with fragile democratic institutions are more likely to be the targets of such interventions than ‘‘full’’ democracies.
&
Also this:
However, as can be expected from Table 2, only seven (or 6.3%) of the intervened elections in PEIG are cases of a double electoral intervention—i.e. that the US was backing one side while the USSR/Russia was backing another side during the same election.31 This percentage of double interventions is only slightly higher (7.8%) if only Cold War interventions are counted.
American countering the Russians was very minimal, only making up 6.3% of all election interventions.
LBJ also said this:

"There is no issue of States' rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights," passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. He was referring to the fact that Greece was becoming more and more unaligned with U.S. and NATO interests, while seemingly being more and more disjointed from the Communist threat.
Yes and are you just going to take his word as gospel? He said it that in public. He showed his true self in private in a private conservation. Greece was also a democracy during that time to, only later to be overthrown in a coup in which the U.S helped create their secret police and other aid. More red-baiting fallacies and McCarthyism, Greece was a liberal democracy at the time.
Hence, a far-right (temporary) dictatorship was necessary. Key word: TEMPORARY!
I have never heard of a "temporary" dictatorship, you just made that up. A dictatorship should never be necessary if the U.S is concerned about spreading democracy like you claim.
You think an interference in an election, regardless of what was done or in which one, constitutes an anti-democratic activity. That's why it isn't a strawman.

See above.
You continue to justify your fallacious reasoning.
You tried to claim that they were better because of literacy, education, healthcare, etc. I've shown why that isn't the case, you backtrack.
You haven't proved why the Islamic fundamentalists were better than the DRA, instead you keep committing strawmans against me by comparing Soviet domestic policy to American domestic policy even though I have never taken such a position. There is no backtracking here.
Proving my point that you think any interference in an election means anti-democratic activities. When Russia did it in 2016, it was anti-democratic, as there were no key democratic stakes in it. When America does it, there are.


See above.
Unevidenced claims, which of the 85 elections were not free? Countries such as Israel, U.K, West Germany, even Malta are on the list, where those elections not free? All I see here is more mental gymnastics.
You claimed they were involved in more armed conflicts post-1945 than the Soviets and I wanted to show the nature of these conflicts until the end of the Cold War.
Yes, America has involved itself in more armed conflicts than the Soviet Union such as coup d'etats and wars.
It was a just in case issue, everyone could see that the Soviets were bound to invade sooner or later. The U.S. correctly anticipated Soviet involvement and went at it.
Speculative claim not based on any evidence. The Soviets only invaded after the president was assassinated. The U.S started the agression by financing the mujahideen before the Soviet invasion.
They funded rebels, not jihadists, and some of them happened to be jihadists. Thing is, the U.S. is currently dealing with jihadists and has altogether stopped funding rebels. It's important to mention that they went to war against them as merely mentioning their funding gives the idea that the U.S. just funded these guys for destabilizing purposes, when they didn't.
[...]
If you give money to a group and don't know what they will do with that, it isn't funding terrorism, it's misusing of funds.
[...]
No, they just gave money to whoever opposed, provided they didn't have a history of jihadism before, and well, one incident isn't the end of the world.
[...]
They weren't 'all extremists.' Just because I say 'Assad sucks' and a terrorist says 'Assad sucks' doesn't mean I'm a terrorist. Guilt by association, much?
[...]
You ignore the fact that a plan of attack was formulated against the very same terrorists the U.S. may have potentially funded.
Ad nauseam fallacy. Evidence has been provided that the U.S knowingly armed terrorists in Syria and here it is again.
US funded FSA kills together with ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra


A Rebel Rift Is Brewing On Syria’s Southern Front
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a38 ... hern-front
As regime planes and helicopters ratchet up a massive offensive now in its second week, alliances in southern Syria’s rebel-held ground are beginning to shift under the weight of increasing foreign support and long-simmering ideological differences.

The relationship between al Qaeda franchise al Nusra Front and the moderate, secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) has, at least in the southwestern city of Daraa, been fairly high functioning. The two groups have long fought alongside one another against the Syrian regime. They also have close family ties: in Daraa, many of the men who fight with the FSA have friends and kin who fight with Nusra.
There is No FSA, There is Only Al-Qaeda
https://libertarianinstitute.org/foreig ... -al-qaeda/

Britain and US 'neglected alert to Iraq jihadist takeover’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... eover.html

'I gave the US trucks and ammunition to Al Qaeda': The chaotic US effort to arm Syrian rebels
https://www.foxnews.com/world/i-gave-th ... ian-rebels

A Bosnian signs off weapons he says are going to Saudi Arabia – but how did his signature turn up in Aleppo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy ... 51841.html
Five-hundred mortars is a massive shipment of weapons – most European armies don’t have that many in their individual inventories – and some of them at least appear to have ended up in the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s Islamist Nusrah Front/al-Qaeda enemies in northern Syria within six months of their dispatch from Bosnia 1,200 miles away.
[...]
All our production after the [Bosnian] war is under the control of the Americans and Nato who are always coming here… and they know each and every piece of our weapons which go outside our factory.” Krnjic, who lives in the tiny village of Potok Krnjic, Bosnian hamlets sometimes carry the names of extended families, south of Novi Travnik, describes how he recognised Nato officers visiting the plant, one of them “a Canadian officer, a black guy whose name is Stephen”. Ikanovic, the BNT-TMiH boss, confirms that all weapons shipments, including those to Saudi Arabia, were checked by the European Union Force Althea (EUFOR), the successor to Nato’s SFOR, and set up under the 1995 Dayton accords which ended the Bosnian war. Ikanovic says an Austrian general visits his factory for inspections, identified to me by other employees as Austrian two star Major General Martin Dorfer, the EUFOR commander. Krnjic says weapons from the plant are exported by Tuzla airport or through Sarajevo.
[...]
The Saudis, Krnjic tells me, “were never complaining because we have had a very good reputation for a long time, not only for our weapons but for who can give the shortest delivery date… I know I should not say all of this, but Nato and the EU have given us the green light to do this.
The CIA’s Syria Program and the Perils of Proxies
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-cias- ... of-proxies
Because of Nusra’s strength, CIA-backed factions have entered what has been called a “marriage of necessity” with the jihadist group, which is exploiting its position to gain access to American weapons.
[...]
But such subterfuge notwithstanding, at this point it is impossible to argue that U.S. officials involved in the CIA’s program cannot discern that Nusra and other extremists have benefited. And despite this, the CIA decided to drastically increase lethal support to vetted rebel factions following the Russian intervention into Syria in late September.
Blowback: ISIS Got A Powerful Missile The CIA Secretly Bought In Bulgaria
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ar ... .wxrynXZg4
A guided anti-tank missile ended up in the hands of ISIS terrorists less than two months after the US government purchased it in late 2015 — highlighting weaknesses in the oversight and regulation of America’s covert arms programs, according to information published Thursday by an arms monitoring group called Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Though the report says the missile was purchased by the US Army using a contractor, BuzzFeed News has learned that the real customer appears to have been the CIA. It was part of the spy agency’s top secret operation to arm rebels in Syria to fight the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The missile ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq, according to the report.

The CIA declined to comment on the Obama-era program to back Syrian rebels, which was canceled by President Trump in July. The Pentagon did not provide information in time for publication.

The missile is one piece of a critical puzzle that is being solved only now, with ISIS on the run: How did the vast terror group arm its war machine? CAR spent three years tracking ISIS weapons as they were recovered by Iraqi, Syrian, and Kurdish forces — and found that what happened to the missile was no aberration. Indeed, the terror group managed to divert “substantial quantities of anti-armour ammunition” from weapons provided to Syrian opposition forces by the US or Saudi Arabia.
Why Assad Is Losing
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/05/wh ... sts-saudi/
Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
[...]
Despite the improved cooperation on the battlefield, Syrians still remain deeply suspicious of Jabhat al-Nusra’s objectives in Syria, and U.S.-backed factions still engage warily with Islamists. Of course, public rhetoric is not always an accurate indicator of battlefield action: In southern Syria, for instance, factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mo ... 65776.html
The entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in Washington
DIA in 2012 wrote:THE GENERAL SITUATION:

A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.

B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.



3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…



4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.



7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:

A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.



8.C. 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)

8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
The director of the DIA at the time, Micheal Flynn confirmed the accuracy of the report, that the intelligence was "very clear" and that it was a "wilful descision" by the Americans.

HASAN: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

FLYNN: I think the administration.

HASAN: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

FLYNN: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

HASAN: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

FLYNN: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
Kerry also admits that Al-Nusra and ISIS are connected with the "opposition" (although he downplays it as "some"). The same rebels the Americans are funding.

3:48 - 4:01
"Nusra and Daesh both make it hard because you have this extreme element and unfortunately some of the opposition has already chosen to work with them"

Hillary Clinton Email Archive
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em ... #efmAGIAHu
See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria.
[...]
AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION
(U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL, Turkey, or the United States for assistance.euters)
U.S armed groups that would've committed massacres against the Alawites.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/maga ... -fall.html
“In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area. . . Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as ‘catastrophic success
US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria
https://thenewsrep.com/63764/us-special ... -in-syria/
“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’
[...]
Meanwhile, in Turkey, a similar quagmire unfolded. Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, “A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,” a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, “A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.” Like the militias being trained in Jordan, the rebels being trained in Turkey were not ready for combat. “It is not in their blood to be fighters. A large majority of them are criminals,” a Green Beret said. Many were foreign fighters, some from Iraq. One even turned out to be a Lebanese drug smuggler.

“The majority of these guys have been coached on what to say at the training site and give cookie-cutter answers,” the Special Forces soldier told SOFREP. They would portray themselves as being secular, but the Americans could tell who the hardliners were because they didn’t smoke (jihadis follow Wahhabi Islam, which does not permit it) and looked at the Green Berets with disdain.
[...]
Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.
[...]
Targeting the Khorosan Group was one of the CIA’s early successes in the Syrian Civil War. Tracking signals intelligence (SIGINT), the CIA was able to positively ID senior al-Qaeda leaders from those who formed the nucleus of Khorosan. Intercepting their cell phone conversations, the CIA targeted the group, eventually wiping them off the face of the earth with airstrikes. However, CTC “didn’t even track ISIS worth a damn,” a CIA officer said.
You do though, for destabilizing purposes. I used All-Caps because the facepalm was too high.
You continue to justify your fallacious reasoning.
See, that's my point. No harm done, if they didn't do it again, it was forgiven.
There is a lot of harm in funding a bombing campaign. You continue to defend the indefensible.
Not to mention, the U.S. didn't pay, again proving that they condemned such attacks.
[...]
1k missing is a lack of funds.
They did pay, they just proved they were cheap. They didn't condemn anything, you just made that up.

You ignored:
An American intelligence officer who worked with Dr. Allawi in the early 1990's noted that ''no one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then,'' adding, ''I don't think anyone could have known how things would turn out today.''
Millions dead as opposed to only thousands dead? Yeah, the latter is much better.
I don't know what this is referring to. Can you please learn to quote and space properly thanks, I haven't mentioned anything about "millions being dead as oppose to thousands".
A U.N. resolution is pretty damning if I say so myself, but fine, I'll concede that the West supported Iraq, for the same reasons as the U.S.
No it's not, if anything it just shows the hypocrisy and just how useless the U.N is at times. The U.S and other Western countries supported both sides at the same time.
If Americans didn't use realpolitik, they would went to war with the SU, or with Red China, but they didn't. Realpolitik is smart politik.
Irrelevant to my claim of lack of American morality during Iran-Iraq war and many other conflicts not even involving the Soviet Union or China. Realpolitik was used by the Americans and Soviet Union see: solution to Cuban Missile Crisis. But, it wasn't used in the examples you tried to list, that's just how America operates when it comes to foreign policy.
It was a necessary evil, see SU vs Germany in WW2. Stalin caused the Holodomor, but that didn't stop the Allies from supporting him.
False equivalence, the West supported both sides. The Allies only support the Soviet Union.
Before 1979? Sure. All transactions after were for hostage purposes or simply because they were of mutual interest to both parties.
It was to fund another Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Another group backed by the U.S known for their human rights abuses. Therefore America armed both sides and thus caused more destruction.
As opposed to giving them to communism to be enslaved? The U.S. later dispatched these dictators, so argument invalidated.
Red-baiting fallacy. Many dictators propped up by the U.S replaced democratic regimes. And it's really no different if they were communist authoritarian regimes because America would usually just end up replacing it with a right-wing authoritarian regime. Same tyranny different name
They hated the U.S. more than the SU. The SU is the U.S.'s enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

See above.
OK, so no concrete evidence. More speculation, got it. No evidence Iran was "more of a Soviet ally", hating one country less than the other does not make you an "more of an ally".
What they're doing in Syria, and what they did in Iraq would like to have a word with you.
Iraq War was an illegal invasion and they knowingly funded terrorists to try to overthrow the Syrian goverenment.
They dealt with this genocidal dictator, shouldn't you be approving that?
Not because he was a genocidal dictator, because he outlived his usefulness to the Americans.
Necessary evil.
Excuses, excuses.
They are helping the Kurds now finally establish their own state. I'd say they made up.
Personal gain, nothing more.
The Shah? A tyrant? LOL! What were his tyrannical acts?
You show your lack of knowledge once again.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL REPORT 1974-1975
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol10/001/1975/en/
A year of growth. Amnesty International has grown further in 1974-75, both in membership and in the scope of its operations. But, sadly, it has also been a year of another kind of growth: of politically motivated persecution, long-term detention without trial, brutal torture and executions. A year, then, of growing need for the work of Amnesty International.
Terror in Iran
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1976/1 ... r-in-iran/
No historian of the Middle East and Iran will deny that the CIA overthrew the legally elected government of Dr. Mossadeq in August 1953, brought back to the country the Shah
[...]
The CIA re-created the monarchy, built up the SAVAK and trained all its prominent members, and stood by the Shah and his secret police as their powerful ally. Iran became the police state it is now.
[...]
Thousands of men and women have been summarily executed during the last twenty-three years. More than 300,000 people have been in and out of prison during the last nineteen years of the existence of SAVAK; an average of 1,500 people are arrested every month. In one instance alone, American-trained counterinsurgency troops of the Iranian Army and SAVAK killed more than 6,000 people on June 5, 1963. According to Amnesty International’s Annual Report for 1974-1975 “the total number of political prisoners has been reported at times throughout the year [1975] to be anything from 25,000 to 100,000.”1 Martin Ennals, secretary general of Amnesty International, reports in his introduction to the above book: “The Shah of Iran retains his benevolent image despite the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.
You mean how it's illegal not to be a Muslim in Iran? Or how Sharia Law is supreme there? That way? Oh wait, that's after 1979...
Strawman, I haven't claimed that the regime after 1979 was good.
The U.S. saw the Shah as a better alternative than the other guys. The Shahs governed Iran for quite some time before, and if you want to talk of interference, need no further than to look at the removal of Reza Shah before.
The U.S overthrew a democratic regime and installed a tyrant. No need to deny this.
They don't, terrorists kill whoever, not just the designated target. Dictators at least have a mind...
I was referring to U.S foreign policy. Same tried and tested geo-poltiical tactics, whether a brutal dictator or an extremist group.
They overthrew Saddam Hussein and tried to establish democracy there.
[...]
The Americans only made the situation worse, not better. America doesn't care about spreading democracy, only their geopolitical aims.
[...]
They wanted to deal with Assad, an anti-democratic tyrant. They are very much interested in democracy.
[...]
I condemn Hussein, and am thankful the U.S. liquidated him in the 2000s, same with Qaddafi. While the lesser evil, they were still an evil. In the 1930s, Austria was governed by fascists, but Germany was governed by National Socialists. Although neither democratic, it would be stupid to insinuate that backing the former was anti-democratic.
Sorry, but the U.S doesn't get to nor have any moral high-ground to decide who gets to be in power and who does not in any sovereign nation. America's history of propping up dictatorships, undermining elections, funding terrorist groups all prove they are a horrible candidate for being the "world police-man" U.S claims of establishing democracy are farce, there is always a hidden motive.
Complete 180, how will the U.S. supposedly destabilize Syria now?
The country is is in ruins and has been in a civil war for the past 8 years a lot thanks to Western-Gulf-Turkish support for terrorism, staging false-flag attacks and bombing the SAA who are actually fighting ISIS.
The DRA would have done more harm, but they were taken out before they got a chance to do so. The Mujahideen got time to spread their tyranny, and so naturally, you will claim that they are worse than the DRA. Hitler only got 12 years, but killed a lot of men. Imagine he got the same amount of years as Stalin, or Mao(!).
Speculative claim, not based on any evidence. The DRA did more good than what came after despite being in power for much less, that's just a fact. Afghanistan is now in stone ages, largely thanks to American intervention.
The Soviets thought it was just a show for the next wave of Molotov-Rippentrop pact agreements, and didn't decide to preemptively strike the Germans. The U.S. thought that Assad will turn to the West for help. Both were willful decisions, and both were blunders.
Soviets was a blunder, American was a tried and tested political tactic. Wrong, Kerry never mentioned "help", America from day one has wanted to overthrow Assad. Also, Assad has never turned to the West for help, he even knows the West armed terrorists to try to overthrow him.
I am too.
My points are factual, sorry.
You think that Kerry is supposed to represent Obama's policy, but so is every single elected representative in history.
Yes, it's his job to do that.
Kerry wasn't supposed to mimic the President's thoughts.
He mimics Obama's policy. I haven't claimed he mimics his exact thoughts, that's a strawman.
Doesn't prove anything.
Denial.
Not as much evidence as misinterpretation, dodgy facts and false use of logical fallacies.
Denial. I have shown you U.S intelligence, eye witness testimony and a plethora of other sources.
Who are the Zionists, then? Who do they work for? I'll let you answer that.
Zionists can be gentile or Jewish. They work for Zionist interests. Will you ever provide evidence that I said "Jews rule the world"? I have already said that they don't.
No, my 'work' is debunking Holocaust Denial, not discussing U.S. policy.
Ironic, you claim to debunk "Holocaust Denial", but you deny the immoral and self-contradicting actions of U.S foreing policy. Speaks volumes.
This discussion wears me out and significantly hinders that
No one is forcing you to reply, the more you reply the more you embarrass yourself really.
but I appreciate the fact that you deliberately strawmaned here to score a cheap victory.
No strawman here, just my observation and personal opinion.


The irony, you yourself said that your claim is technically correct, so by your own standards, you should prove your claim first. You claim the U.S. undermines democracy by interfering in elections. I doubt the U.S. really wants to overthrow a democratic government and give it to dictators, and so I ask you the list of these elections. You then reply that since I claimed they weren't free, or that the affected member was communist-affiliated, I need to prove it. Hypocrisy much?


You furthermore use that point to show that Russia is more 'democratic' than the U.S. since it supposedly interfered in less elections. No mate, the Russians interfered in way less elections, but why would they need to do so, when they have militaries that can crack down rebellions (1956), walls to divide populations (Berlin), regimes that oppress citizens (USSR), cause famines (China), or devastate populations (Cuba) and more? Whereas the U.S. recognizes that between communism and pretty much everything else aside from Nazism, there is no greater evil, and so it 'interferes' in said country's elections, for a democratic purpose. If Russia was so keen on being democratic, why bother with having only one party? Compare that to America, which has multiple parties, although granted, only two popular ones. The U.S. doesn't have a secret police, they don't have men policing your every thought, your every action and your every writing(s). You guys are lucky to even live there!


An alliance with the SU was never necessary if the Allies were so keen on liberating Europe from Nazi Germany, but yet here they were. You seem to not understand the concept of lesser evils, and certainly not that of diplomacy. In a moral, perfect world, the U.S. would have immediately declared war on the SU after WW2, but it didn't. Why, even though it had previously supported a government responsible for the Holodomor?


You continue to erroneously use fallacious reasoning and then deflect them upon me, the argumentum ad pseudo-logicum.


"Not even close to the lesser evil. Atleast the communists tried to to reduce illiteracy, reform education and give women equal rights." This is a direct quote from you. With that, you insinuate that the USSR was better than the U.S. Naturally, as I come from the USSR and had first seen it oppressive nature, I took offense and explained why that was inaccurate. You are either lying, forgetting too much or simply having amnesia. Take your pick. Second, the DRA was communist and hence enacted communistic policies similar to that of the USSR. Starvation, prohibition on freedom of speech, restrained economics, and more made it worse than some jihadists, but THIRD, taking out said regime (directly) would be harder, as they would have the USSR as an ally, whereas everyone wants to take down terrorists. If the U.S. helped the DRA, then they would have a free hand, and the U.S. couldn't have taken out the DRA, as now, it has to be direct. Hence, they helped terrorists, who would be easier to deal with. It's a no-brainer, mate.



Which countries are on the list and who was the target? That is what matters, not that 85 countries have had their elections interfered with. All I seeis argumentum ad labelum.


Coup d'etats and wars that opposed communism, you mean. The Soviets needed to consolidate their own holdings, so no sweat there.



The Soviets were going to invade. It wasn't sudden, you can't invade in the middle of the night, obviously, a plan of attack/contingency was formulated, and later executed. The aggressors were the Soviets, for the U.S. never actually declared war.


You ignore the fact that the U.S. formulated plans of attacks against these rebels. If 90% of funding goes to my allies, and 10% to my enemies, it's still a worthwhile investment.


You continue to fallaciously accuse me of fallacious reasoning.


If a nation were to abandon one of the only groups they have in overthrowing a brutal, genocidal (in your words) regime all for an isolated incident, then their leaders would have to be seeing things 10 or 11 times.


They had to, but they never had to pay the full amount. You call the lack of funding cheap, a clever way to obfuscate the underlying evidence that it was a show of disapproval. Unless the U.S. did more of these stunts, I rest my case.


Obvious mention to lesser evil is obvious, unless you're the one reading.


What hypocrisy? Can you please evidence your claim here? You don't double-deal with your enemies/allies, that's illogical. The intrinsic point is that the West backed Iraq, as you yourself admitted it, against Iran for strategic purposes.


Realpolitik means exactly the lack of morality when making a political decision and more of an appeal to reasoning and predicting the outcome of a policy, while being cold and calculating. The Cuban Missile Crisis was less realpolitik and more like the US and the USSR not being complete idiots.


You claimed the West supported Iraq, now you claim they support Iran? Newsflash, you can't support both sides in a open conflict.

That falls under the former. The Contra rebels protested, surprise surprise, a communist regime. Nicaragua nowadays is retarded in terms of economic development and HDI, you can thank the commies for that.


These R-W Authoritarian regimes were better than their counterpart.

It does. The SU and the US were both trying to get as much influence as possible around the World, and for Iran to hate the US more than Iraq means everything.

Illegal but necessary. Necessary but irrelevant.


Why not both?


More like pragmatism, idealists don't get far in politics.


There is no personal gain in helping the Kurds for the U.S, unless it was because the U.S. helps its allies and respects democracy.



Eh, I should have seen that one coming, but he was still better than the 1979 revolutionaries. Life in Iran, unless you criticized the Shah, was a paradise compared to the one post-1979. BTW, the Shah was overthrown in 1941, by the Anglo-Soviet invasion, so...


Then don't try and justify the 1979 Revolution made by Radical Islamists by claiming the Shah was a tyrant.


They overthrew a democratic regime and installed a guy who was more authoritarian but would permanently secure democratic interests in the region, as opposed to a regime who was increasingly being sympathetic to the Soviet Union.


Not really, the U.S doesn't unleash terrorists to terrorize populations on purpose.


The hidden motive is always that of realpolitik, and the latter's motive is that of securing democracy through rough but calculating diplomacy, and actually, he did. BTW, the West shouldn't try and deal with terrorists if they're using them to overthrow Assad.


The U.S. is also 'actually' fighting ISIS bro. The Civil War was due to Assad being a tyrant, don't blame the protesters for merely venting their anger.


You mean more bad?


They aren't.



It's the job of any self-respecting individual to not mimic the thoughts of his superior. Obviously, Kerry was more in line with Obama's thinking than with Bush's thinking. He's after all with the Democratic Party, but then again, didn't the Secretary of Defense resign not too long ago?


Never claimed it was his exact thoughts. Strawman while accusing of strawmaning? LOL!



No, u.


Out of context, with false interpretations and erroneous reasoning.


Zionism means working for a Jewish homeland. It's impossible to be a Zionist and not work for the Jews, at least in conspiracy thinking. You also linked to Stormfront as if Putin was 'controlled' by the Jews. Needless to say, that thread says a lot about Zionists.


I justify what is right.


I'd the same about you.


Poor word choice, when it practically means the same thing.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

zionist-occupation
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:08 pm
Contact:

Re: John Wear's excellent website

Post by zionist-occupation » Sat Mar 02, 2019 8:37 pm

The irony, you yourself said that your claim is technically correct, so by your own standards, you should prove your claim first.
[...]
You then reply that since I claimed they weren't free, or that the affected member was communist-affiliated, I need to prove it. Hypocrisy much?
It is your claim, the burden of proof is on the claimant. My claim is that the U.S undermines elections, this has been backed up by Doc Levin's study. Your claim that these 85 elections were not free is unsubstantiated.

I repeat my questions you dodged:
1. Which elections were not free and did they make up a vast majority?
2. America has intervened in elections in Italy, U.K, West Germany and even Malta. Were those elections not free?

You continue to ignore what I've already posted:
Recall:
Secondly, contra to Corstange and Marinov’s (2012: 658) suggestion, no evidence exists that countries with fragile democratic institutions are more likely to be the targets of such interventions than ‘‘full’’ democracies.
&
Also this:
However, as can be expected from Table 2, only seven (or 6.3%) of the intervened elections in PEIG are cases of a double electoral intervention—i.e. that the US was backing one side while the USSR/Russia was backing another side during the same election.31 This percentage of double interventions is only slightly higher (7.8%) if only Cold War interventions are counted.
American countering the Russians was very minimal, only making up 6.3% of all election interventions.
&
LBJ behind closed doors:
Fuck your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good ... We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long ...
You claim the U.S. undermines democracy by interfering in elections. I doubt the U.S. really wants to overthrow a democratic government and give it to dictators, and so I ask you the list of these elections.
Whether you doubt it or not is irrelevant to the evidence.
You furthermore use that point to show that Russia is more 'democratic' than the U.S. since it supposedly interfered in less elections. No mate, the Russians interfered in way less elections, but why would they need to do so, when they have militaries that can crack down rebellions (1956), walls to divide populations (Berlin), regimes that oppress citizens (USSR), cause famines (China), or devastate populations (Cuba) and more? Whereas the U.S. recognizes that between communism and pretty much everything else aside from Nazism, there is no greater evil, and so it 'interferes' in said country's elections, for a democratic purpose. If Russia was so keen on being democratic, why bother with having only one party? Compare that to America, which has multiple parties, although granted, only two popular ones. The U.S. doesn't have a secret police, they don't have men policing your every thought, your every action and your every writing(s). You guys are lucky to even live there!
Complete misrepresentation of my arguments, you continue to bring it back to domestic policy when I'm not arguing about domestic policy. And yes, I'm quite aware of the repression and undemocratic doings behind the Iron Curtain. Still doesn't change the fact that America has undermined more elections then the Soviet Union and thus America is not interested in spreading democracy. Just because the facts say that America does it more, doesn't discredit that Russia also undermines democracy as well.
An alliance with the SU was never necessary if the Allies were so keen on liberating Europe from Nazi Germany, but yet here they were.
[...]
You seem to not understand the concept of lesser evils, and certainly not that of diplomacy. In a moral, perfect world, the U.S. would have immediately declared war on the SU after WW2, but it didn't. Why, even though it had previously supported a government responsible for the Holodomor?
[...]
Obvious mention to lesser evil is obvious, unless you're the one reading.
[...]
These R-W Authoritarian regimes were better than their counterpart.
[...]
More like pragmatism, idealists don't get far in politics.
Argument from repetition and faulty reasoning. Your concept that that Americans supported the "lesser evil" during the Cold War and beyond is just your opinion and not backed by any evidence the U.S backed dictatorships also caused just as much horror and violence as a communist regime. No need to continue to flaunt your opinion as if it were fact, it's dogmatic. The historical fact is that America has sponsored human rights violating groups and dictatorships. If America is propping up dictatorships instead of democracies they are not interested in spreading democracy, simple logical conclusion based on the evidence provided.

35 countries where the U.S. has supported fascists, drug lords and terrorists
https://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_cou ... e_partner/

List of Atrocities committed by US authorities
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/bl ... ocities.md
You continue to erroneously use fallacious reasoning and then deflect them upon me, the argumentum ad pseudo-logicum.
[...]
You continue to fallaciously accuse me of fallacious reasoning.
No I don't, you misrepresent my claims and when I call you out on it you try to justify it.
"Not even close to the lesser evil. Atleast the communists tried to to reduce illiteracy, reform education and give women equal rights." This is a direct quote from you. With that, you insinuate that the USSR was better than the U.S. Naturally, as I come from the USSR and had first seen it oppressive nature, I took offense and explained why that was inaccurate. You are either lying, forgetting too much or simply having amnesia. Take your pick.
[...]
Second, the DRA was communist and hence enacted communistic policies similar to that of the USSR. Starvation, prohibition on freedom of speech, restrained economics, and more made it worse than some jihadists, but THIRD, taking out said regime (directly) would be harder, as they would have the USSR as an ally, whereas everyone wants to take down terrorists. If the U.S. helped the DRA, then they would have a free hand, and the U.S. couldn't have taken out the DRA, as now, it has to be direct. Hence, they helped terrorists, who would be easier to deal with. It's a no-brainer, mate.
Since I was comparing the DRA to the mujahideenn and the governments that came after your argument is still invalid no matter how much you try to justify, as I haven't drawn any comparison between Soviet or American domestic policy. Your quote is out of context as I was clearly referring to the DRA against the Western-Gulf backed Islamic extremists. I have also never denied that there were repressions by the DRA, they were not perfect.
Which countries are on the list and who was the target? That is what matters, not that 85 countries have had their elections interfered with. All I seeis argumentum ad labelum.
I already gave you the list, there is no fallacy in play here.
Coup d'etats and wars that opposed communism, you mean. The Soviets needed to consolidate their own holdings, so no sweat there.
Communism was a pretext, nothing else. Even after communism, the U.S continued to support undemocratic terrorists to fulfill their geopolitical agenda. Your claim that all coup d'etats were opposing communism is also unsubstantiated, many coups overthrew democracies.

"Our fear that communism might someday take over most of the world blinds us to the fact that anti-communism already has" – Michael Parenti

America had to make up straight up lies to justify their actions were in the name of "anti-communism" writers such as William Blum have proven this.

A brief history of the Cold War and anti-communism
https://williamblum.org/chapters/killin ... troduction
&
Pages 6-19: Killing Hope
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-y_8iHigC3Ms5TngF
At the same time, the American public, as we have seen, has been soundly conditioned to react Pavlovianly to the term: it means, still, the worst excesses of Stalin, from wholesale purges to Siberian slave-labor camps; it means, as Michael Parenti has observed, that "Classic Marxist-Leninist predictions [concerning world revolution] are treated as statements of intent directing all present-day communist actions." It means "us" against "them". And "them" can mean a peasant in the Philippines, a mural-painter in Nicaragua, a legally-elected prime minister in British Guiana, or a European intellectual, a Cambodian neutralist, an African nationalist—all, somehow, part of the same monolithic conspiracy; each, in some way, a threat to the American Way of Life; no land too small, too poor, or too far away to pose such a threat, the "communist threat". The cases presented in this book illustrate that it has been largely irrelevant whether the particular targets of intervention—be they individuals, political parties, movements or governments—called themselves "communist" or not. It has mattered little whether they were scholars of dialectical materialism or had never heard of Karl Marx; whether they were atheists or priests; whether a strong and influential Communist Party was in the picture or not; whether the government had come into being through violent revolution or peaceful elections ... all have been targets, all "communists".
[...]
This is the primary focus of this book: how the United States intervened all over the world to combat this conspiracy wherever and whenever it reared its ugly head. Did this International Communist Conspiracy actually exist? If it actually existed, why did the Cold Warriors of the CIA and other government agencies have to go to such extraordinary lengths of exaggeration? If they really and truly believed in the existence of a diabolic, monolithic International Communist Conspiracy, why did they have to invent so much about it to convince the American people, the Congress, and the rest of the world of its evil existence? Why did they have to stage manage, entrap, plant evidence, plant stories, create phony documents? The following pages are packed with numerous anti-commiespeak examples of US government and media inventions about "the Soviet threat", "the Chinese threat", and "the Cuban threat". And all the while, at the same time, we were being flailed with scare 18 stories: in the 1950s, there was "the Bomber Gap" between the US and the Soviet Union, and the "civil defense gap". Then came "the Missile Gap". Followed by "the Anti-ballistic missile (ABM) Gap". In the 1980s, it was "the Spending Gap". Finally, "the Laser Gap". And they were all lies. We now know that the CIA of Ronald Reagan and William Casey regularly "politicized intelligence assessments" to support the anti-Soviet bias of their administration, and suppressed reports, even those from its own analysts, which contradicted this bias. We now know that the CIA and the Pentagon regularly overestimated the economic and military strength of the Soviet Union, and exaggerated the scale of Soviet nuclear tests and the number of "violations" of existing test-ban treaties, which Washington then accused the Russians of.32 All to create a larger and meaner enemy, a bigger national security budget, and give security and meaning to the Cold Warriors' own jobs.
Former CIA officer John Stockwell says that most feared their own ambassadors rather than the Soviets:
Actually, at least in more routine operations, case officers most fear the US ambassador and his staff, then restrictive headquarters cables, then curious, gossipy neighbors in the local community, as potential threats to operations. Next would come the local police, then the press. Last of all is the KGB—in my twelve years of case officering I never saw or heard of a situation in which the KGB attacked or obstructed a CIA operation.
&
It isn't done. If a CIA case officer has a flat tire in the dark of night on a lonely road, he will not hesitate to accept a ride from a KGB officer—likely the two would detour to some bar for a drink together. In fact CIA and KGB officers entertain each other frequently in their homes. The CIA's files are full of mention of such relationships in almost every African station
Historian Roger Morris:
Architects of U.S. policy would have to make their case "clearer than the truth," and "bludgeon the mass mind of top government," as Secretary of State Dean Acheson ... puts it. They do. The new Central Intelligence Agency begins a systematic overstatement of Soviet military expenditures. Magically, the sclerotic Soviet economy is made to hum and climb on U.S. government charts. To Stalin's horse-drawn army—complete with shoddy equipment, war- torn roads and spurious morale—the Pentagon adds phantom divisions, then attributes invasion scenarios to the new forces for good measure. U.S. officials "exaggerated Soviet capabilities and intentions to such an extent," says a subsequent study of the archives, "that it is surprising anyone took them 17 seriously." Fed by somber government claims and reverberating public fear, the U.S. press and people have no trouble
Enoch Powell, British Politician
International misunderstanding is almost wholly voluntary: it is that contradiction in terms, intentional misunderstanding—a contradiction, because in order to misunderstand deliberately, you must at least suspect if not actually understand what you intend to misunderstand. ... [The US misunderstanding of the USSR has] the function of sustaining a myth—the myth of the United States as "the last, best hope of mankind." St. George and the Dragon is a poor show without a real drag-on, the bigger and scalier the better, ideally with flames coming out of its mouth. The misunderstanding of Soviet Russia has become indispensable to the self-esteem of the American nation: he will not be regarded with benevolence who seeks, however ineffectually, to deprive them of it.
The Soviets were going to invade. It wasn't sudden, you can't invade in the middle of the night, obviously, a plan of attack/contingency was formulated, and later executed. The aggressors were the Soviets, for the U.S. never actually declared war.
Unsubstantiated claim. The Soviets were reluctant to invade when the president was asking them for help, they only invaded once he was killed in a coup. America started the aggression by funding Islamist extremists prior to any Soviet invasion possibly as a way to draw the Soviet Union into intervening. Many times have I repeated this, yet you continue to ignore them.
You ignore the fact that the U.S. formulated plans of attacks against these rebels. If 90% of funding goes to my allies, and 10% to my enemies, it's still a worthwhile investment.
[...]
The U.S. is also 'actually' fighting ISIS bro. The Civil War was due to Assad being a tyrant, don't blame the protesters for merely venting their anger.
[...]
Not really, the U.S doesn't unleash terrorists to terrorize populations on purpose.
Argument from repetition. You ignored the evidence that the U.S knowingly armed Islamic Jihadists as a means to "isolate the Syrian regime" to directly quote from the DIA memo from 2012, before ISIS had even declared their caliphate. The U.S fight against ISIS is no different from the fight against Al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, etc. they were all propped up by the Americans. Again, America artificially creates its own enemies.

I shall continue to repost the evidence you ignore.
US funded FSA kills together with ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra


A Rebel Rift Is Brewing On Syria’s Southern Front
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a38 ... hern-front
As regime planes and helicopters ratchet up a massive offensive now in its second week, alliances in southern Syria’s rebel-held ground are beginning to shift under the weight of increasing foreign support and long-simmering ideological differences.

The relationship between al Qaeda franchise al Nusra Front and the moderate, secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) has, at least in the southwestern city of Daraa, been fairly high functioning. The two groups have long fought alongside one another against the Syrian regime. They also have close family ties: in Daraa, many of the men who fight with the FSA have friends and kin who fight with Nusra.
There is No FSA, There is Only Al-Qaeda
https://libertarianinstitute.org/foreig ... -al-qaeda/

Britain and US 'neglected alert to Iraq jihadist takeover’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... eover.html

'I gave the US trucks and ammunition to Al Qaeda': The chaotic US effort to arm Syrian rebels
https://www.foxnews.com/world/i-gave-th ... ian-rebels

A Bosnian signs off weapons he says are going to Saudi Arabia – but how did his signature turn up in Aleppo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy ... 51841.html
Five-hundred mortars is a massive shipment of weapons – most European armies don’t have that many in their individual inventories – and some of them at least appear to have ended up in the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s Islamist Nusrah Front/al-Qaeda enemies in northern Syria within six months of their dispatch from Bosnia 1,200 miles away.
[...]
All our production after the [Bosnian] war is under the control of the Americans and Nato who are always coming here… and they know each and every piece of our weapons which go outside our factory.” Krnjic, who lives in the tiny village of Potok Krnjic, Bosnian hamlets sometimes carry the names of extended families, south of Novi Travnik, describes how he recognised Nato officers visiting the plant, one of them “a Canadian officer, a black guy whose name is Stephen”. Ikanovic, the BNT-TMiH boss, confirms that all weapons shipments, including those to Saudi Arabia, were checked by the European Union Force Althea (EUFOR), the successor to Nato’s SFOR, and set up under the 1995 Dayton accords which ended the Bosnian war. Ikanovic says an Austrian general visits his factory for inspections, identified to me by other employees as Austrian two star Major General Martin Dorfer, the EUFOR commander. Krnjic says weapons from the plant are exported by Tuzla airport or through Sarajevo.
[...]
The Saudis, Krnjic tells me, “were never complaining because we have had a very good reputation for a long time, not only for our weapons but for who can give the shortest delivery date… I know I should not say all of this, but Nato and the EU have given us the green light to do this.
The CIA’s Syria Program and the Perils of Proxies
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-cias- ... of-proxies
Because of Nusra’s strength, CIA-backed factions have entered what has been called a “marriage of necessity” with the jihadist group, which is exploiting its position to gain access to American weapons.
[...]
But such subterfuge notwithstanding, at this point it is impossible to argue that U.S. officials involved in the CIA’s program cannot discern that Nusra and other extremists have benefited. And despite this, the CIA decided to drastically increase lethal support to vetted rebel factions following the Russian intervention into Syria in late September.
Blowback: ISIS Got A Powerful Missile The CIA Secretly Bought In Bulgaria
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ar ... .wxrynXZg4
A guided anti-tank missile ended up in the hands of ISIS terrorists less than two months after the US government purchased it in late 2015 — highlighting weaknesses in the oversight and regulation of America’s covert arms programs, according to information published Thursday by an arms monitoring group called Conflict Armament Research (CAR).

Though the report says the missile was purchased by the US Army using a contractor, BuzzFeed News has learned that the real customer appears to have been the CIA. It was part of the spy agency’s top secret operation to arm rebels in Syria to fight the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The missile ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq, according to the report.

The CIA declined to comment on the Obama-era program to back Syrian rebels, which was canceled by President Trump in July. The Pentagon did not provide information in time for publication.

The missile is one piece of a critical puzzle that is being solved only now, with ISIS on the run: How did the vast terror group arm its war machine? CAR spent three years tracking ISIS weapons as they were recovered by Iraqi, Syrian, and Kurdish forces — and found that what happened to the missile was no aberration. Indeed, the terror group managed to divert “substantial quantities of anti-armour ammunition” from weapons provided to Syrian opposition forces by the US or Saudi Arabia.
Why Assad Is Losing
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/05/wh ... sts-saudi/
Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
[...]
Despite the improved cooperation on the battlefield, Syrians still remain deeply suspicious of Jabhat al-Nusra’s objectives in Syria, and U.S.-backed factions still engage warily with Islamists. Of course, public rhetoric is not always an accurate indicator of battlefield action: In southern Syria, for instance, factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mo ... 65776.html
The entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in Washington
DIA in 2012 wrote:THE GENERAL SITUATION:

A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.

B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.



3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…



4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.



7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:

A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.

B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.



8.C. 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)

8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
The director of the DIA at the time, Micheal Flynn confirmed the accuracy of the report, that the intelligence was "very clear" and that it was a "wilful descision" by the Americans.

HASAN: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?

FLYNN: I think the administration.

HASAN: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?

FLYNN: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.

HASAN: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?

FLYNN: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
Kerry also admits that Al-Nusra and ISIS are connected with the "opposition" (although he downplays it as "some"). The same rebels the Americans are funding.

3:48 - 4:01
"Nusra and Daesh both make it hard because you have this extreme element and unfortunately some of the opposition has already chosen to work with them"

Hillary Clinton Email Archive
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em ... #efmAGIAHu
See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria.
[...]
AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION
(U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL, Turkey, or the United States for assistance.euters)
U.S armed groups that would've committed massacres against the Alawites.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/maga ... -fall.html
“In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area. . . Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as ‘catastrophic success
US Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria
https://thenewsrep.com/63764/us-special ... -in-syria/
“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’
[...]
Meanwhile, in Turkey, a similar quagmire unfolded. Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, “A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,” a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, “A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.” Like the militias being trained in Jordan, the rebels being trained in Turkey were not ready for combat. “It is not in their blood to be fighters. A large majority of them are criminals,” a Green Beret said. Many were foreign fighters, some from Iraq. One even turned out to be a Lebanese drug smuggler.

“The majority of these guys have been coached on what to say at the training site and give cookie-cutter answers,” the Special Forces soldier told SOFREP. They would portray themselves as being secular, but the Americans could tell who the hardliners were because they didn’t smoke (jihadis follow Wahhabi Islam, which does not permit it) and looked at the Green Berets with disdain.
[...]
Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.
[...]
Targeting the Khorosan Group was one of the CIA’s early successes in the Syrian Civil War. Tracking signals intelligence (SIGINT), the CIA was able to positively ID senior al-Qaeda leaders from those who formed the nucleus of Khorosan. Intercepting their cell phone conversations, the CIA targeted the group, eventually wiping them off the face of the earth with airstrikes. However, CTC “didn’t even track ISIS worth a damn,” a CIA officer said.
If a nation were to abandon one of the only groups they have in overthrowing a brutal, genocidal (in your words) regime all for an isolated incident, then their leaders would have to be seeing things 10 or 11 times.
No, they abandoned such a plan because it had no effect in toppling the Iraqi government. The articles I've linked relating to this topic earlier in the thread confirms this. So, they turned to other tactics such as lies and deception to start a war in Iraq which brings us to to 2003.
They had to, but they never had to pay the full amount. You call the lack of funding cheap, a clever way to obfuscate the underlying evidence that it was a show of disapproval. Unless the U.S. did more of these stunts, I rest my case.
No, it's not "underlying evidence" because no one has openly condemned the bombing, that's once again your attempt at mental gymnastics to justify the indefensible.

You ignored this quote from one my articles I posted:
An American intelligence officer who worked with Dr. Allawi in the early 1990's noted that ''no one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then,'' adding, ''I don't think anyone could have known how things would turn out today.''
What hypocrisy? Can you please evidence your claim here? You don't double-deal with your enemies/allies, that's illogical. The intrinsic point is that the West backed Iraq, as you yourself admitted it, against Iran for strategic purposes.
Your hypocrisy that Soviet backed authoritarian regimes are bad, while American ones are a "lesser evil"
Realpolitik means exactly the lack of morality when making a political decision and more of an appeal to reasoning and predicting the outcome of a policy, while being cold and calculating.
Yes and American foreign policy for the most part isn't that, it's actually self-contradicting and outright dishonest in many ways.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was less realpolitik and more like the US and the USSR not being complete idiots.
No it was realpolitik on both sides. Both sides set apart their ideological differences and chose the more practical solution by coming to a mutual agreement; Soviets remove the nukes from Cuba and the Americans agree not to invade Cuba.
You claimed the West supported Iraq, now you claim they support Iran? Newsflash, you can't support both sides in a open conflict.
The U.S and many other Western countries did, I've always told you they overtly supported Iraq while covertly supported Iran. These are facts you can look up on Wikipedia, no need for dispute.
That falls under the former. The Contra rebels protested, surprise surprise, a communist regime. Nicaragua nowadays is retarded in terms of economic development and HDI, you can thank the commies for that.
[...]
Illegal but necessary. Necessary but irrelevant.
The Contras armed and trained by the U.S were a human rights violating terrorist group. The Americans also covertly tried to get the Contras to attack civilians while at the same time whitewashing their terrorism.

Contras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras
During their war against the Nicaraguan government, the Contras committed a large number of human rights violations and used terrorist tactics, carrying out more than 1300 terrorist attacks. These actions were frequently carried out systematically as a part of the strategy of the Contras. Supporters of the Contras tried to downplay these violations, particularly the Reagan administration in the US, which engaged in a campaign of white propaganda to alter public opinion in favor of the contras, while covertly encouraging the Contras to attack civilian targets.
The Sandinistas had actually won in the elections.
1984 Nicaraguan general election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Nica ... l_election
Impartial observers from international groupings such as the European Economic Community, religious groups sent to monitor the election, and observers from democratic nations such as Canada and the Republic of Ireland concluded that the elections were completely free and fair.
Therefore the U.S chose the more undemocratic side and only further proving my point that they aren't interested in spreading democracy and arms terrorists.
It does. The SU and the US were both trying to get as much influence as possible around the World, and for Iran to hate the US more than Iraq means everything.
Still no concrete evidence for your claim.
There is no personal gain in helping the Kurds for the U.S, unless it was because the U.S. helps its allies and respects democracy.
Yes there is. They buy weapons, offer free military bases to the U.S and create jobs for the Americans (many business ventures in Iraqi Kurdistan are done by American/Western companies). America certainly didn't help their "ally" when they were supporting and arming the same guy that was committing genocide against them. It didn't help it's "ally" when Iraqi Kurdistan tried to get independence in 2018. It didn't help it's ally when Trump has said he wanted pull out of Syria which was seen as an act of betrayal according to the Kurds because it exposed them to be slaughtered by the Turks. Nope, their relationship is only for personal gain.
Eh, I should have seen that one coming, but he was still better than the 1979 revolutionaries. Life in Iran, unless you criticized the Shah, was a paradise compared to the one post-1979. BTW, the Shah was overthrown in 1941, by the Anglo-Soviet invasion, so...
But, I'm talking about the democracy in Iran. Logical conclusion is that, America sponsored a tyrant after they overthrew a democracy and thus proving my point that America is not interested in spreading democracy across the globe.
Then don't try and justify the 1979 Revolution made by Radical Islamists by claiming the Shah was a tyrant.
I haven't, the Shah being a tyrant is a verifable fact. The Shah's tyranny and the fact that he was a Western plant was a pretty big factor in why the 1979 revolution succeeded. Also, the Iranian Revoltuion weren't only made up of Radical Islamists, there were also pro-democracy opposition groups as well that were later crushed by Khomeini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehdi_Bazargan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ont_(Iran)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Movement_of_Iran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(Iran)
They overthrew a democratic regime and installed a guy who was more authoritarian but would permanently secure democratic interests in the region
Mental gymnastics. Overthrowing an elected PM and replacing him with a dictator isn't securing democracy. I guess Iranians don't get a say about their elected officials because they contrast with American interests.
as opposed to a regime who was increasingly being sympathetic to the Soviet Union.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson says otherwise:
Throughout the crisis, the "communist danger" was more of a rhetorical device than a real issue—i.e. it was part of the cold-war discourse ...The Tudeh was no match for the armed tribes and the 129,000-man military. What is more, the British and Americans had enough inside information to be confident that the party had no plans to initiate armed insurrection. At the beginning of the crisis, when the Truman administration was under the impression a compromise was possible, Acheson had stressed the communist danger, and warned if Mosaddegh was not helped, the Tudeh would take over. The (British) Foreign Office had retorted that the Tudeh was no real threat. But, in August 1953, when the Foreign Office echoed the Eisenhower administration's claim that the Tudeh was about to take over, Acheson now retorted that there was no such communist danger. Acheson was honest enough to admit that the issue of the Tudeh was a smokescreen.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090629004 ... n-CIA.html

Even if such an assertion were true, a sovereign nation establishing friendly diplomatic relations is not a good enough reason to overthrow a democracy. U.S was in no moral grounds to overthrow what Iranians had voted for. What happened to self-determination?
They aren't.
Denial.
It's the job of any self-respecting individual to not mimic the thoughts of his superior. Obviously, Kerry was more in line with Obama's thinking than with Bush's thinking. He's after all with the Democratic Party, but then again, didn't the Secretary of Defense resign not too long ago?
Therefore, Kerry was representing Obama politics because that's his job. No need for more quibbling
Never claimed it was his exact thoughts. Strawman while accusing of strawmaning? LOL!
You claimed:
Kerry wasn't supposed to mimic the President's thoughts.
I only added an adjective, I never never said that Kerry mimics Obama thoughts, he mimics Obama's foreign policy. Yes, your strawman is still there.
Out of context, with false interpretations and erroneous reasoning.
Not at all, you critique Holocaust denial despite engaging in a form of denial yourself. Contradiction.
It's impossible to be a Zionist and not work for the Jews, at least in conspiracy thinking.
No conspiracy, you can be a self-proclaimed Zionist and work for anyone doesn't have to be a Jew. Christian Zionist groups are a good example.
You also linked to Stormfront as if Putin was 'controlled' by the Jews. Needless to say, that thread says a lot about Zionists.
Yes, Putin is surrounded by a disproportionate amount Jewish oligarchs as well as gentile oligarchs. Still no evidence being provided that I claimed "Jews run the world", therefore you lied about me.
I justify what is right.
Clearly not based on your denial.
I'd the same about you.
Not really, you're the one adhering to fallacious reasoning and engaging in ad nauseam.
Poor word choice, when it practically means the same thing.
No, because it wasn't meant to be an argument, just my observation and opinion.
Last edited by zionist-occupation on Sun Mar 03, 2019 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 2213
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 2:43 am
Location: USA, West of the Pecos
Contact:

Re: John Wear's excellent website

Post by Scott » Sun Mar 03, 2019 6:12 pm

Lock the thread. The debate has currently has shifted off-topic from John Wear's site and Holocaust Revisionism and onto U.S foreign policy.


Hmmm, I haven't followed the entire thread yet, but I went to John Wear's website as suggested in the original post, and the first John Wear article that I saw was about Treblinka.

https://wearswar.wordpress.com/2018/12/ ... tion-bill/

Featured in this article, Wear quotes Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament and a member of the German SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland), or as I might say, a "Commie Lite" at best.

Wear's source for the Schulz quote is from Haaretz by Avraham Burg (14 FEB 2016), so I am guessing that the EU President's name (((echoes))) in the hallowed halls of Zion, hence triple parentheses may be in order here, but I'll reserve judgements other than Herr Schulz's SPD and EU affiliations, since I have not really read any of it yet.


Anyway, Herr Schulz is quoted as saying :

" For me the new Germany exists ONLY [my emphasis] in order to ensure the existence of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. "



Hitler put traitors like this SPD guy into camps, and rightly so.

But the point is, that it is almost impossible to discuss certain issues--here even in an article about Treblinka--without discussing politics, foreign policy, and Globalism.

Many (((Neoconservatives))) are so called because they advocate the full measure of American diplomatic and military power to be used to advanced Zionist interests and to wield this hegemony especially against Germany and other European nations in case they might deviate from the Globalist agenda.

Even President Trump--who was elected on an "America First" platform that resonated with the Heartland--has to defer obsequiously to the Zionist Lobby, and of course to his creepy Jewish son-in-law.

Therefore, I don't think that such matters as American political attitudes, the Zionist/Holocaust Lobby, Globalism, and Foreign Policy, are off topic.

John Wear seems to be making this point himself, i.e., that the German nation-state is en thrall to Israel and the Diaspora.

If anybody disagrees, I will defer to Depth Check or wait for opinions from others about whether the thread should be locked or split.

But it looks to me like the John Wear website is indeed very interesting and, like I said, I have not really perused it or the thread yet.

:)

Image

“Now we have forced Hitler to war so he no longer can peacefully annihilate one piece of the Treaty of Versailles after the other.”
~ Major General J.F.C. Fuller,
historian – England

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests