US Intercepts Iranian Order For Attack On US Embassy In Iraq 433
cold fjord writes "Another NSA story? The Wall Street Journal reports, 'The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria ... U.S. officials said they are on alert for Iran's fleet of small, fast boats in the Persian Gulf ... U.S. officials also fear Hezbollah could attack the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. While the U.S. has moved military resources in the region for a possible strike, it has other assets in the area that would be ready to respond to any reprisals by Syria, Iran or its allies. ... Israel has so far been the focus of concerns about retaliation from Iran and its Lebanese militant ally Hezbollah. The commander-in-chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps said last week that an attack on Syria would lead to the "destruction of Israel." ... The Iranian message, intercepted in recent days, came from Qasem Soleimani, the head of Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, and went to Iranian-supported Shiite militia groups in Iraq, according to U.S. officials.' What's interesting is this Washington Post story from 2011: Iran's Quds Force was blamed for attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq."
Keep the Distraction Machine Running (Score:5, Insightful)
Situation normal.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, they intercepted; but did they run it back for a--oh crap! The distraction is working.
Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least this week.
I think America has finally realized they're being lied to; hell, Obama doesn't even look like he believes what he's saying, and that's suicide for a politician.
This will not end well, however it goes.
I advocate a full Nuclear Strike; It makes as much sense as everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Now This "Snowden" Shit Has Hit the Fan (Score:4, Insightful)
We can at least capitalise on the public's fear that we get everything, and use that plausibility to say what ever the hell serves our agenda!
Ladies and gentlemen I remind you this comes from agencies that are PAID to LIE.
I'll say this. If they had factual intercepts of private Iranian military communication wit this level of detail? They'd find more value in HIDING this capability, then by showing the hole poker-hand. Instead, they release this as a PR move to push a war agenda.
You can bet, when an unnamed official source produces actual evidence of this eavesdropping capability? He will be prosecuted as a traitor - and probably hounded to Moscow.
Re:Keep the Distraction Machine Running (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole story is an outright lie - to set up a desired chain of events, where striking Syria illegally will create an incident that can be trumped up as Iranian in origin, thus justifying an attack on the actual desired target.
You folks were all played REALLY badly, on the Iraq bait-n-switch. If you want to go for this one, will you at least walk down my Carnival Midway, first?
I have some "P.T. Barnum" theories, I'd like put to test...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Iraq bait-n-switch? You need to spend less time getting third hand information and more time finding it yourself.
Here is the Iraq war resolution. Pay special attention to the whereas lines. They lay out the official reasons we went to war and to the best of my knowledge, the only one that has turned out to be untrue was the continuing WMD programs and stockpiles. Those reasons were the ones argued going into the war by Bush and Company.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm [gpo.gov]
Re:Keep the Distraction Machine Running (Score:5, Insightful)
You may have hoped for a massive TL;DR response, but I read some of it. Several other lines were untrue: Al-Qaida in Iraq (it came during the war to support the insurgents, was not there to begin with), the fact that 9/11, I quote, "underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations" (a few knives are hardly a WMD; if anything, 9/11 underscored how easy it is to pull off a terrorist plot with simple tools and some out-of-the-box thinking), the possibility that Iraq would use WMDs in a surprise attack against the US or pass them to terrorists.
I asked myself, and I answered myself that the sheeple would not care if no WMDs were not found after the war was started. Who started the war needed an excuse to get it started, not to justify himself afterwards. No WMDs were found, yet I don't see Bush, Rumsfeld and all other war criminals (because that's what they technically are) being brought to court and sentenced to death by hanging (which is what was normally dished out for the crime of war of aggression [wikipedia.org] at Nuremberg).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This has as much to do with Obama as the Iraq war had with Bush. Obama is not calling the shots.
If you think this has any relation to a "red line" remark, you've been reading far too much American media. The U.S. media has been systematically ratcheting up public support by pollutin
Re: (Score:3)
Really? So Syria is going to open up its doors to international investors and operators (currently France, Turkey, Britain, U.S.) to allow ownership of the pipelines from Nothern Iraq and Southern Iraq to Turkey and Israel to be fed on the global market in U.S. dollars? And to compete directly with Iran and Qatar? That's news to me.
The reason we're talking about a "red line" is to drum up support for the populace. It's
Re: (Score:3)
Once you relax and take a deep breath, you will realize that not everything is about evil corporations. You are reading bullshit into bullshit in order to keep an inaccurate ideology alive. In some circles, they call that delusional.
America would deserve it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former U.S. service member, I'm with this guy. Both sides of the Syrian civil war are equally "bad guys". Sometimes going to war is warranted, getting involved in Syria isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't matter what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got less than 5 months left in the military.
You're worried they'd send you home before you'd get a chance to grin in the photo of raising a US flag on the roof of the Sa'dabad Palace?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a US service member, I really don't want this to happen because I'll probably get sent there if this flares up and I've got less than 5 months left in the military. However, I think the US fully deserves it if they do carry out this attack on Syria.
Now you know how it felt in Vietnam. The funny (as in odd) thing is, the profiteers of that war are the same profiteers of this war. The funnier (even odder yet) the bought dog politicians of that war are the AIPAC bought dog politicians of this war.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How is this a troll?
It's not - cold fjord is our resident boot-licking statist, and you just stepped on his dick with your honest account.
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:5, Insightful)
And here I thought you'd got control of yourself, cold fjord; all the submissions have been bumping up your karma rating, and I hadn't seen anything inflammatory from you lately.
Being unsurprised at tit-for-tat has nothing to do with being an Anti-US sympathizer. What you'll find though is that there are a growing number of people who are against the US government's foreign policy, because it costs lives, often without appearing to have any benefit to the US as a whole (only to businesses who have a vested interest in some foreign country).
When Israel says "let the Muslim world handle this" and the UN almost unilaterally takes a "don't touch this" attitude, then some nation issues orders to retaliate if the US conducts an unprovoked assault on another nation, when said nation is known to be high on the list of "next targets", WHY IS THE US GOVERNMENT IGNORING THE REST OF THE WORLD, INCLUDING MANY OF ITS OWN CITIZENS, TO CONSIDER ATTACKING, AND THEN IS IN A HUFF WHEN ANOTHER NATION GIVES ITS OPERATIVES SIMILAR INSTRUCTIONS?
You can't have it both ways, as your comments about 9/11 so clearly indicate.
Show me the number of Americans killed by terrorists, averaged over the past decade -- I'll show you the number of Americans and non-Americans killed by American corporate and governmental greed and negligence. Neither have much of anything to do with this discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, I've got a question for you. I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the 9/11 attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference?
Building seven called, there is something wrong with the party line. Architects and Engineers have additional questions. [ae911truth.org] Of course you may not want facts to get in the way of your absurd level of delusion. Either that or your masters will be mad if you look at facts (I'm not so sure after reading many of your posts)
Is there any point where you think too much American blood can be shed in slaughter instead of battle? Or is every American killed at work or shopping by terrorists another tick mark toward "liberty" to you - the more Americans murdered the "freer" you feel?
Last time I checked, more people die from accidental slip and falls in the bathtub than die by terrorism. You repeat an appeal to emotion argument handed down to sheep, goodie for you. Many
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a troll?
Your claim as US service personnel on /. sets off real or imaginary Troll Klaxons among the readership. Keep in mind, this is situation normal for /.
I work with and have worked with US service personnel, one of our current admins is Reserve, but was in fire control support, two tours in Iraq. I'm sure he's thinking the same things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes you did. If you had any brains you should have known the US acts like the worlds bully. If you were too blinded by your idea of "patriotism" too see it, now's the wakeup call.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:4, Insightful)
The really sad part about it is that you are actively not protecting your family. You're doing them a disservice by being involved and serving a morally corrupt institution. That enemy combatant that you so wantonly wish to kill? He has his own family and friends. And guess what, he wants to KILL YOU to protect his family and friends, because in his eyes, you are the evil enemy soldier that's out to get his family.
Protect your actually family first, from real and immediate harm. Instead of from the fictional boogey-man that the government tells you is out to harm your loved ones. In reality, war is between governments. And if you choose to be a decent human being, you'll realize that the only real war you need to fight is the one against those who will take your freedom to be a good human, and turn you on your fellow man.
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America would deserve it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Any man who is a slave to orders is a weak link to humanity. A true warrior always considers the value of those orders and only obeys them if they are appropriate, if those orders represent a threat to that warriors society than that warrior is duty and honour bound to act upon the threat and not act out those orders, that is the law, look it up.
Zimmerman Telgram (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the actual leak is a true leak or not, it certainly matches a likely reality. It's also foolish to assume it is a reason to
BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu (Score:5, Insightful)
Within the last 10 years, both the United States and Israel have been busted for faking intelligence for supporting military strikes. The IDF, all of three years ago, was caught dubbing hair on fire anti-semitic [maxblumenthal.com] slurs onto tapes from the Freedom Flotilla.
And, of course, remember that the U.S. and Israel have already committed multiple acts of war upon Iran, whether by Stuxnet or assassinating their nuclear scientists.
Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey now, haven't you learned that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu (Score:4, Funny)
Hey now, haven't you learned that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic?
Nah, see, it's cool - we balance it with a good helping of love for John Stewart.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One or two nutjobs that nobody cares about have labeled legitimate anti-israel criticism as anti-semitic.
Yet people like you make it sound like some big widespread thing so that you can feel like oppressed victims.
Re: (Score:2)
One or two nutjobs? Really? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Self determination is not robbing other people's land. But it is understandable the US and Israel are such close friends, the US originated in the same way by robbing the land of the indians (or native Americans if they are now often called).
Re: (Score:3)
Zionism is the word given to describe the national liberation movement of the Jewish people
What's a national liberation movement? Free a nation? If by 'Jewish people' they mean Jewish by religion, then it's a theocratic movement and deserves all the hatred it gets. If they mean Jewish by race then it's implicitly racist.
How about a movement to set up a free Israel, irrespective of the race or religion of its inhabitants?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm... not that I want to justify the US in doing all their nastiness in the middle east but Iran hasn't exactly been laying olive branches at our feet. As bad as our government is, I'm under no delusion about what's going to happen once the psychopaths in charge of that country have nukes. In my opinion Israels justified in doing just about anything they want to prevent that from happening because I doubt there will be an Israel anymore after it does.. or an Iran for that matter. I think the only thing tha
Re: (Score:3)
Gee I wonder how those psychopaths got into power. It's not like the CIA overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed their own lap dog leading to revolution a decade later instilling anti american feelings in the region or anything.
Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu (Score:5, Interesting)
Gee I wonder how those psychopaths got into power. It's not like the CIA overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed their own lap dog leading to revolution a decade later instilling anti american feelings in the region or anything.
A few problems in this oft-quoted assumption:
1. The mullahs who later supported overthrowing the Shah also hated Mossadegh. It wasn't until after the Shah pissed off the mullahs (see item 2) that Mossadegh's overthrow became a talking point with them. They (as did the US) saw Mossadegh as having Marxist sympathies -- a very bad thing given Marxism's hostility towards religion. Grand Ayatollah Broujerdi (who Khomeini was a clerk for at the time) strongly supported the coup. This attitude continued despite a temporary alliance during the 1978-79 revolution, and a lot of Marxists were executed after Khomeini's rise to power. Even after the revolution, Khomeini continued to condemn Mossadegh, refusing to allow his birthday to be celebrated, stating that "if the US imperialists had not slapped Mossadegh in the face, then Mossadegh would have slapped Islam."
2. What really pissed off the mullahs (and their followers) was the Shah's attempts as liberalizing and secularizing Iran, in particular the elimination of official government privileges and funding for the clergy, removing religious influence from the schools (fx. by teaching evolution), and extending voting rights to women. You need to distinguish with what was grievances against the Shah were emphasized by the people in Iran, and what grievances were emphasized for external consumption to undermine support for him internationally.
3. A large segment in Iran were pissed off about it, but it certainly didn't instill anti-American feelings "in the region" as you put it. The peninsular Arabs did not want to wind up staring across the Gulf at a Soviet sympathizer, as they feared Mossadegh of being or at least becoming.
Also, while it's not a part of the cause/effect discussion, I have yet to see any of the folks who condemn Operation Ajax whenever the topic of US/Iranian relations comes up similarly condemn Operation Countenance (the earlier Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran).
Re: (Score:2)
Gee I wonder how those psychopaths got into power. It's not like the CIA overthrew their democratically elected leader and installed their own lap dog leading to revolution a decade later instilling anti american feelings in the region or anything.
A few problems in this oft-quoted assumption:
1. The mullahs who later supported overthrowing the Shah also hated Mossadegh. It wasn't until after the Shah pissed off the mullahs (see item 2) that Mossadegh's overthrow became a talking point with them. They (as did the US) saw Mossadegh as having Marxist sympathies -- a very bad thing given Marxism's hostility towards religion. Grand Ayatollah Broujerdi (who Khomeini was a clerk for at the time) strongly supported the coup. This attitude continued despite a temporary alliance during the 1978-79 revolution, and a lot of Marxists were executed after Khomeini's rise to power. Even after the revolution, Khomeini continued to condemn Mossadegh, refusing to allow his birthday to be celebrated, stating that "if the US imperialists had not slapped Mossadegh in the face, then Mossadegh would have slapped Islam."
2. What really pissed off the mullahs (and their followers) was the Shah's attempts as liberalizing and secularizing Iran, in particular the elimination of official government privileges and funding for the clergy, removing religious influence from the schools (fx. by teaching evolution), and extending voting rights to women. You need to distinguish with what was grievances against the Shah were emphasized by the people in Iran, and what grievances were emphasized for external consumption to undermine support for him internationally.
3. A large segment in Iran were pissed off about it, but it certainly didn't instill anti-American feelings "in the region" as you put it. The peninsular Arabs did not want to wind up staring across the Gulf at a Soviet sympathizer, as they feared Mossadegh of being or at least becoming.
Also, while it's not a part of the cause/effect discussion, I have yet to see any of the folks who condemn Operation Ajax whenever the topic of US/Iranian relations comes up similarly condemn Operation Countenance (the earlier Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran).
Doh. Sorry, new computer, didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
Re:BS Detectors at Maximum, Mr. Sulu (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering past history, Iran has not started any wars in the region. The US-backed Iraq has. Iran with nukes will probably only use them to prevent US and Israeli attacks. Even better if they get rocket technology to deliver them: hey, US, you attack and we'll probably loose but some of your cities will be finished too. I think it would actually promote peace since it would prevent US agression.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problem with a nuclear Iran is that it would cause Saudi Arabia, as their regional rival, to go nuclear.
Fortunately, US intelligence indicates Iran isn't building a bomb.
Re: (Score:3)
Get real, Iran has a history of openly supporting terrorism that goes back for decades. Iran has used proxies to attack the United States and Israel for years in any number of environments. This is exactly the kind of thing that Iran has done and would do. You sound like the person claiming the neighborhood bully might not have beaten the class nerd, even though they have done so the last 78 times.
Re: (Score:2)
More like the last 200 years. Well, maybe just ~60 years for Israel.
I'm supposed to trust this? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, look at the source. I'm sure that the US intelligence agencies will all run to the Wall Street Journal with leaked information. Next, there have been no facts presented for anything else they have been banging a war drum on. Not just for this, but for decades. Are we really supposed to keep trusting known liars and a corrupt media system?
We also have this [cbslocal.com] one.
Not only do I not trust a corrupt media and politicians, I want them out of our country. Maybe a good first step in war is to start parachuting politicians into these foreign countries where they clamor for war?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe a good first step in war is to start parachuting politicians into these foreign countries where they clamor for war?
Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria [theonion.com]
The fishy smell just got worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The fishy smell just got worse. (Score:5, Insightful)
So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details.
Well, that bit would make sense. If you divulge too many details, you leave clues as to how to came by your information which puts your spies and methods at risk. Which leads me to the next part...
Now a mystery communication putting Iran and Syria together if attacked. First of all if they had intercepted this, why would they tell every one about it. Now Iran is going to find another form of communication since this one is compromised. The whole scenario is playing out like a bad 80's conspiracy movie.
Agreed, releasing this doesn't make much sense from a US standpoint, IMO; if we had this info, why the hell would we make it public knowledge that we had it !? Seems it would've been smarter if we had played dumb and covertly made preparations to thwart any such attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Take tissue/DNA/blood/whatever samples from bunch of people who are from a very large bunch of people who've been exposed to some chemical and run scientific tests for that chemical. It's basic medical science; I can't believe there'd be anything sensitive or classified about the procedure itself, and there's prob
Re:The fishy smell just got worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if the message was authentic and there was a reason to release that information WHY is this going through the WSJ instead of from The White House?
The next question is WHO will call for the prosecution of the journalist at the WSJ who published this.
And WHO will call for the investigation and prosecution of who leaked that information.
Re:The fishy smell just got worse. (Score:5, Interesting)
So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details.
Conversely, Russian officials are claiming that they've found evidence [rt.com] that the rebels had used sarin, but instead of keeping it on the D/L, they're passing the info along to the UN inspectors.
FWIW.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the great thing about having big stockpiles of chemical weapons - there are plenty to go around, capture, and use. But do keep in mind that the Syrian government has a bit more practice and training for this sort of thing.
Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about [abovetopsecret.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Big on the propaganda? From wiki.org: In August, September and November 1981, the Brotherhood carried out three car-bomb attacks against government and military targets in Damascus, killing hundreds of people, according to the official press. On 2 February 1982, the Brotherhood led a major insurrection in Hama, rapidly taking control of the city; the military responded by bombing Hama (whose population was about 250,000) throughout the rest of the month, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 people. The traged
Re: (Score:2)
I say we nuke it from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You should note that is only possible if the Iranian government gives in to its general inclination towards terrorism [cfr.org] and hatred of the United States. (Talk about low hanging fruit.)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy. I'm guessing that you should study up on who the CFR is, and what they are about before you believe that they have the USA in their best interests.
Remember that most criminals will not tell you that they are criminals. When you have money and are a criminal, you get to pay people to never see you in the spotlight and make bad stories disappear.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy.
The question of whether or not Iran engages in terrorism is a question of fact, not of foreign policy. It is well established that Iran engages in terrorism, both directly and indirectly.
Re:Angling to get Iran too (Score:5, Informative)
I have been on the Earth for quite a while now. Ever since the Shah was overthrown, I keep hearing about how bad Iran is and how they plan to rule the world. I have seen the US, UK, and Israel bully them. On more than one occasion Israel has bombed Iran. I saw Iraq instigated into war with Iran by the US and UK, the US arm Iraq, and offer intelligence so that Iranians could be killed. I saw the US sit silent while they knew that Saddam had used Sarin, Cyanide, and Mustard gas on his own people as well as the Iranian soldiers.
All of this time, the CFR and their puppets have been claiming that "Iran is Evil".
What I have not seen in this time is Iran retaliate, start a war, or massacre their allegedly sworn enemies.
The story line is played out, and so full of false information that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry when people like you repeat propaganda without doing any fact checking. Worse, this does not require much in the way of fact checking. Just open your eyes and ask some basic questions.
Re: (Score:2)
So does the US, bombing civilians in Pakistan for example.
Re: (Score:3)
My take is that the proposed retaliatory attacks are probably just an Iranian tactic to discourage US intervention in Syria and were intended to be intercepted by US intelligence. There
Re: (Score:2)
So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details
Does this help?
Sarin gas was used in Syrian chemical weapons attack, says David Cameron [theguardian.com]
The positive tests for sarin were completed this week and made on clothes and soil taken from the site of the attack in Ghouta, eastern Damascus on 21 August. The tests were carried out in the past seven days by British scientists at the Porton Down facility, and will be deployed by Cameron in a fresh attempt to persuade the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, to do more to force the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to the negotiating table.
The samples brought to the UK from the Syrian borders are different to the hair and blood samples tested in the US. Details of those test results were released by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, four days ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, third comment in the thread along the same line. Are you a government puppet?
Your statement does not present facts, it states what we already knew. "Chemical Weapons were used." It does determine who used them, and you provided no facts to even begin to make an implication. Cameron could not convince the British he had any evidence which is why their parliament voted "NO" on military action.
Yes it does matter who used them. Bombing Assad (in reality thousands of innocent citizens) if the rebels u
Re: (Score:2)
So supposedly the US and British found evidence that Syria had used sarin, but refused to divulge the details
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/03/happening-now-lawmakers-grill-obama-officials-on-syria/ [cnn.com]
2:45 p.m. ET - Sen. Bob Menendez: "We know that chemical weapons personnel from the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center – subordinate to the regime’s Ministry of Defense – were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18th until early in the morning on Wednesday August 21st near an area the regime uses to mix chemical weapons including sarin and human intelligence as well as signal and geospatial intelligence have shown regime activity in the preparation of chemicals prior to the attack, including the distribution and use of gas masks.
We have multiple streams of intelligence that show the regime launched a rocket attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21st and satellite corroboration that the attacks were launched from a regime-controlled area and struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred clearly tying the pieces together. That is what we know in terms of who may have deployed these weapons.
Timing is suspect (Score:5, Insightful)
The day after Snowden reveals NSA snoops secure internet traffic ...
Do we even trust the media anymore? They are just a tool for beating the war drums now.
Wasn't the whole CIA-Iran coup thing started with planting false stories in the media. How do we know that we aren't being fed planted stories?
The U.S word is no good (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran / Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
Since I paid attention to the TV "news" as a teen or thereabouts, we (the west) have been at war with Iraq, then Iran, then Iraq, and now Iran is getting the propaganda treatment ready for another skirmish. Eric Blair must have used this for his 1984. I know people have short memories, aren't interested, claim it's god's will, or prefer "reality" TV to life beyond their sad lives, but come on, surely I'm not the only non-historian to see we're vacillating between these two?
We (the west, most likely US and UK) must be looking to supply Iraq (old UK territory) with a huge amount of expensive weaponry and military contractors, just like we did with Iran, and Iraq before them. It's not just the oil, it's the contracts, and it's not just the US. It's the old British and French regions constantly having to fight among themselves and the US led oil occupancy campaigns.
Fine but leave my tranny wombat porn alone (Score:3)
This may be PR of course. However, assuming that this is true, and given how it is coming at a spectacularly bad week, it's timeliness makes me suspicious. However, this is the sort of stuff we want our spooks to catch not deploy a dragnet over our own society.
Re:Fine but leave my tranny wombat porn alone (Score:5, Interesting)
My first thought reading this was (assuming the story is true), "this is exactly what the NSA is *supposed* to be doing." They should be focusing on gathering foreign intelligence, NOT collecting bazillions of phone records of Americans and coercing American companies (Google/Microsoft/etc) to build backdoors and weaknesses into their software and servers.
I dunno... it's from ColdFjord of all people. (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno... it's from ColdFjord of all people. I mean, he's radically in favor of the NSA and anything that even remotely justifies their existance and current illegal activities is going to be spun as god's own truth. If he's involved in the discussion and the NSA is on topic, then I simply have to take everything with a fist-sized grain of salt. I'll just look elsewhere for information on who said what about Iran.
No credibility (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the US has lost all its credibility in the world since it became known where all of the 'credible documents' about Iraq came from. I'll believe there were chemical weapons used but most likely it was the rebels, trying to get other countries involved in their war.
Also, as a European, I'm getting ever so tired of hearing how 'America is the policeman of the world'. Why not let the Middle East countries clean up their own mess for once? The added bonus being a lot less angry Muslims giving the US the stinkeye.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, as an American I am tired of America being policeman of the world, too. Especially when it comes to paying taxes for things like having military bases in Europe and the Middle East. WTF is that about? Europe is capable of paying for it's own defense and has been for a long time.
There was a time when America really depended on the Middle East for oil, and a time when Europe was recovering from WWII and was incapable of defending itself. When those are the realities then foreign entanglements are justifi
So? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say, for the sake of argument, this is a legitimate intercept that's been made public for the purposes of swaying public opinion in favor of the NSA's spying program. Were any of us upset that the US government is attempting to learn about the activities of other nations hostile to it? No, of course not.
But how does this supposedly justify any of the crap behavior we ARE upset about?
Do the Iranians use Verizon cell phones to give tactical orders to its sailors? Does Hezbollah use Gmail to coordinate its attacks? Maybe the G-20 ministers were going to kidnap an American right after the conference? Or perhaps its those NSA spooks' ex-wives that were going to aid and abet the Taliban in their next attacks?
Who else, but Cold Fjord? (Score:3)
Who else, but Cold Fjord?
In regards to his continued efforts as the resident NSA Shill here at Slashdot, I respect his dogged determination to continue the fight, futile as it may be.
Keep it up--you've become a de facto inside-line on what the Feds want us to believe. It's like having our own mole inside the NSA.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Close down the US embassies in Baghdad, Beirut, and indeed, elsewhere in the Middle East - Riyadh, Cairo, Tripoli, Khartoum, et al. Then they won't have to worry about Jihadi attacks on US embassies.
For the record, I'm against the US getting involved in either side, since there are no 'good guys' in this conflict. But if they insist on getting involved, they should evacuate all their embassies in the region, so that a rerun of the US embassy bombing in Beirut of 1983 or the attack on the US consulate in
So now ... (Score:2)
FFS, this is what they are supposed to be doing. Not screwing around, feeding the DEA the lowdown on pot deals or handing the IRS lists of overseas bank accounts.
Sense of entitlement (Score:2)
Only the US could launch an unprovoked attack with the simultaneous expectation that no-one would be motivated to retaliate.
Re:WSJ is not exactly a credible source (Score:4, Insightful)
All Rupert Murdoch newspapers are warmongering tools.
Re:WSJ is not exactly a credible source (Score:5, Funny)
One of the hazards of the news business is that occasionally you end up reporting unpleasant or disagreeable news like this. Even "rainbows and puppies" papers like USA today are carrying the story.
Do you prefer the news, or rainbows, puppies, and unicorns?
Re:WSJ is not exactly a credible source (Score:4, Funny)
PUPPIES!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Kittens. And unicorns need to fart rainbows if they want my time.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Sunshine, Lollipops And Rainbows? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense. The WSJ (on the right) and NYT (on the left) are the two most intellectually solid papers in the US. Both have, over the last 20 years, been responsible for first breaking any number of very important stories.
Anybody who dismisses either of these papers because they happen to dislike the owners or the story being told doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I dismiss these papers because they hire nincompoops and frauds. They promote plagiarized stories, and take stenography from "official sources" to present as if that were the equivalent of factual reporting.
You can tout your Izvestia and Pravda, as "intellectual". If you apply that term to drivel and misinformation from Krauthamer and Friedman, you really need an education in critical thinking skills.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apparently written by someone that has never really looked into politics in the US. The US has a full political spectrum, including communists* and socialists just like Europe. The thing is that most Americans won't vote for communists if they understand that is who is running for office.
SEIU drops mask, goes full commie [pjmedia.com]
William Ayers' forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire [zombietime.com] (Who is BILL AYERS [discoverthenetworks.org]?
*Including the "eliminationist" variety. See William Ayer's manifesto above.
Re: WSJ is not exactly a credible source (Score:2)
Actually, while the WSJ's op-Ed staff is aligned right/libertarian, the news department is still pretty left. But it's much easier to just dismiss it without checking, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
WSJ is simply reporting what the gov't reported, it isn't like WSJ intercepted this with its crack reporters. It is the US gov't that I don't trust.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"simply not bomb Syria"
Because of the way in which this whole conflict has been mismanaged if the US does nothing you will hear Iran, Syria, Russia, and Hezbollah claiming the US was scared. Since no one seems to care about the actual citizens being killed I will go the same route and say the US should at least destroy any airstrips being used by the Syrian air force, neutralize a section of their air defense systems, and destroy any jets or helicopters that happen to be in the air or sitting on the ground
Re:And if they do this, we have to do that, and... (Score:5, Interesting)
good let someone else do something for a change.
Let iran and syria claim the west was scared. the USA has literally marched and rolled over countries in the blink of an eye.
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
The problem is not the initial strike and devastating military blow but the aftermath. the long term engagement planning. the USA simply doesn't plan for more than 6 months into the future. It is why we keep getting bogged down into quagmires. We remember the revolutionary war and bam George washington was president, and we had a constitution. What is often forgotten is the articles of confederation lasted for the better part of ten years before we got it right and we didn't have Britain, or France breathing down our backs trying to "help" us. while the French supported us we forced the british out we started the fight and we finished the fight. you can not build nation from the outside it must be built inside. these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other. Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other. You can't change their mind so you might as well not get your hands bloody.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has nothing to lose by just stepping back and letting that entire region sort themselves out by themselves. The sad thing is I don't see anyone or anything that could bring peace to that region. The US have no interests in Syria, Lebanon, or Iran. The US does have some interests in Israel but Israel is more than capable of protecting themselves if necessary. The last thing any of the countries in the region want is a real shooting war with Israel.
Re:And if they do this, we have to do that, and... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?"
And how many days did it take America to "roll over" Vietnam?
America is the World's pre-eminent super power but as soon as their boys start returning home in body bags, they lose the taste for war. Do you think Iran doesn't know this?
You can't compare Iran with Iraq. Iran is 4 times as large, over twice as populated and (unlike Iraq) largely ethnically homogenous and pretty unified. They lost between 300 000 and 600 000 in their war with Iraq and suffered chemical attacks but they still repelled the invaders (who were being assisted by the US). Can you image America taking even a small percentage of those casualties?
I don't want to sound down on America, but if you think this is going to be a walk in the park, you're going to get your asses kicked.
Re:And if they do this, we have to do that, and... (Score:4, Informative)
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
There was no "full on assault" in Libya, just air strikes.
I don't think Iran would last even 30 days against an actual full-on assault - but only provided that US is willing to accept casualties far beyond what it saw in Iraq. The big difference is that Iraq had rather ancient Soviet tech (and emasculated export models at that - e.g. Iraqi tanks didn't have NVDs). Iran boasts some more modern stuff, such as S-300, so any air strike will be more like real war, with some planes downed and all, and not the usual turkey shoot. On the ground, the big difference with Iraq is that Iran has a larger, better trained and equipped, and considerably more loyal army. In Iraq, the only troops that were willing to fight for Saddam were his Fedayeen, and they were a tiny minority. Iran has Basij, and the general populace would not view any foreign aggression kindly, with a lot of volunteers signing up for the army. Again, US certainly has enough firepower to deal with this all efficiently and quickly, but it will not be a walk in the park like Iraq; it will entail actual considerable casualties.
So it all hinges on whether American voters are ready to accept a significant surge in flag-draped coffins coming home or not. My bet is on not - at least not for the sake of Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct. Ever heard the story about the boy who cried wolf?
"If they actually told the truth..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mm hmm...
Mm hmm indeed. Short of that order being cryptographically signed with a private key that is known to be valid, and secure, and in sole possession of a specific Iranian official, how would anyone to know who was communicating with who? Anyone can call anyone else, say whatever they want, and that call will be carefully recorded and paraded in front of UN. That would be worth about nothing. I wouldn't be surprised if a mail server