@enoch,

If Israel is the only place you've seen evidence from then you are reading the wrong news sources. Al Jazeera's coverage and first whiff of the chemical weapon story originally came from reports by field medics in Syria observing huge numbers of dead in the area with no noticeable violent cause of death. Al Jazeera then reported on the UN inspection team set to go into the area to gather evidence of what happened, noting Assad's steadfast refusal to allow the team access to the area. When the team finally was granted much delayed access to the area they were shot at on the way by snipers within territory controlled by Assad. Now Putin is on television not to deny that chemical weapons were used, not even to deny there is sufficient evidence to conclude that they were used, but instead to make the sole denial that we lack evidence of who used the chemical weapons deployed against the civilians in a rebel stronghold. That is as much or more evidence than we had of the gassing of Iraqi Kurds or the Rwandan genocide while they were in progress. Sure, the world denied both of those as well until they were long over, but I resent that and want that willful contempt for civilian suffering to change.

As for your followup questions, I don't much care WHO goes in and punishes Assad's regime for it's crimes so long as it succeeds in discouraging him from continuing to do so. I'd support Putin sending in a limited strike against Assad's suspected chemical weapons supplies. I want to see ANYBODY step up and say using chemical weapons against civilians is sufficient crime to warrant a military response to ensure that dictators don't have more to gain than lose by doing so.

You seem to have a very perverted way of looking at things. You are so interested in America's past crimes of both action and inaction that you don't seem to actually give any though or consideration to what you'd actually WANT to see done. America supported Saddam while he waged a war with Iran that killed millions and saw extensive use of chemical weapons. America entirely ignored the genocide in Rwanda. You seem to share a contempt for those things with me. I at least assume so by you referencing the general idea behind them as a list of reasons America is no white knight or respectable global police force. If you agree those actions where horrifically wrong though, doesn't it follow that if you could turn back time, you'd be willing to advocate for American action in Rwanda? That you'd advocate for at the least American sanction on Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, if not outright military action to stop his excessive deployment of chemical weapons?

You can't have it both ways, if you decry American action and inaction in the past, that must amount to a call for taking a different and better course.

Oh, and he thinks the Iraq "problem" was created by America in the last decade. America's role started with support for Saddam, and from there 99% of the "problem" with Iraq needs be laid at Saddams feet for the decades of brutal repression destruction of Iraqi society that he committed. All that damage had everything to do with how horrific and ugly Iraq is today.

Julian Assange went front and center again with a piece in some new'ish Aussie news outlet called The Stringer. I wouldn't have noticed it, but Zero Hedge picked it up.

Assange's claim: Google and the US State Department have closer ties than anyone would be willing to admit, with Jared Cohen, Director of Google Ideas, acting as "Google’s director of regime change".

Hefty claims, although lacking in detail. "Don't be evil"... it had such a nice ring to it, back in the days.

Edit: And to put the icing on the cake, Foreign Policy released official documents showing how the Reagan administration gave target intel to the Iraqis, knowing full well it'll lead to a chemical attack. Great timing, all things considered.

They had his phones, computers tapped is a given. He pissed off a military general enough for that putz to lose his stride-The engines' behind a car that's burning in a hotter-than-normal pool and there's no skid marks. The accident occurred while he was leaving the club strip @ 4 a.m-ish??

Now go look at a picture of the general-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_McChrystal

Kinna looks like the kind of person who wouldn't flinch while twisting a recon-tanto into your guts in front of your entire family, eh? I believe I recognize the countenance of a sociopath when I see one-(beady-little fucking eyes, locked-jaw, Ohhhhh look, and he fought with pride in all the noble wars-

Operation Desert Shield
Operation Desert Storm
Operation Enduring Freedom
Operation Iraqi Freedom

What the fuck just happened?? What happened to Hastings is called a "hit" in one industry and a black operation in another. Orrrrr Hastings was partying harder than he ever thought possible and hit a palm tree at maximum speed causing his engine and drive train to shoot-out backwards and his car asploded??

Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

I'm boring? It took you the equivalent of a book to answer a few simple questions. Did I as for a lecture on the oath of office? No. Did I ask for a lecture on the forth estate? No.

You used one as an excuse the other as a reason but nether answered the questions.

Finely after all the dogma I get an answer. A piss poor answer but its better than you rehashing the same thing for a forth time.

So Lets look at what you provided.

First Article.
Shit.. An article repeating the same dogma again for a forth time.....

Second Article.
FINELY! Examples! was that so hard? Really?
and it shows. Nothing that was not already known. (My Opinion)

"A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times this week that under its procedure, when reports of Iraqi abuse were received the US military "notifies the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".

If you know a better way?


So what did his leaks really do?

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Martin Nehring, a classification expert who submitted written testimony, said that upon reviewing the information Manning released, he discovered that it included techniques for neutralizing improvised explosives, names of enemy targets, names of criminal suspects and troop movements, according to The Guardian.

Navy Reserve Lt. Cmdr. Thomas Hoskins also reviewed the documents and found potentially damaging information, including codewords, tactics and techniques for responding to roadside bombings, weapon capabilities, and assistance the U.S. military had received in tracking down suspects from foreign nationals, The Guardian reported.

These are just some of the reasons I consider him a traitor. This put people at risk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/bradley-manning-wikileaks-trial-prosecution


He should of just released documentation on what he thought were the crimes or corruption. Not all of it and defiantly not that information.

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Lost in Translation - Iraqi Translators. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

No, nothing is the only thing the UN ever does. It similarly did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide. It similarly did nothing to stop Saddam's genocide of the Kurds. It similarly did nothing to stop Saddam's genocide of Shia Iraqis. Seems perfectly consistent that it continue it's track record without requiring any manner of puppet/fear conspiracy theory.

Well apparently you just can't fucking read. I addressed that in my post, The West, meaning America and Britain primarily has carved up and destroyed the Middle East several times over. The Atrocities that happen in the wake of that happen in the context of previous wars and atrocities. So if you destroy a country and suddenly there's no food and people are killing eachother for food, it's YOUR Fault. You created the conditions in which this horrible shit can happen.

That is exactly what The Nazis were found guilty of, waging a war of aggression. That is what we did in Iraq, it is not surprising to any knowledgeable person that this created power issues and ignited other tensions. In fact most Iraqis agree it was the US that caused the civil war and escalated the violence.

Next time try to read and maybe do some research. It is about Western Powers destroying and trying to create Nations and failing miserably, helping to start and escalate a cycle of violence in those regions.

Long story very short...I KNOW MORE THAN YOU ABOUT THIS ISSUE.

Coolest quick reaction from a world leader since Bush dodged that Iraqi guy's shoes.

In the video Galloway also goes on to say that he's had several Israeli citizens on his show and who he's on platform with. Galloway specifically states that he doesn't consider every Israeli citizen the problem

2:45 in Gorillaman's video, "I don't debate with Israelis", again at 8:44 and again at 11:08. Galloway only declares that his problem is not with Jewish people, he repeatedly declares that he absolutely will not debate Israeli's.

What is your response to the gorrilaman video which Galloway explains his reasoning.

My response is disgust, outrage and disbelief. Galloway declares that on principle, his boycott of Israel extends to the point of refusing to even engaging any Israeli in debate. I had hoped that much was clear, and if that point isn't agreed let me know. I don't know how Galloway could make himself any clearer but apparently some still don't hear him.

On the face of it, his position on that isn't even what I find most offensive, though I do find it so. I insist it is no different than any other nationality I've mentioned up thread. What is intolerable is Galloway's own past record.

Saddam Hussein committed genocide against his own people not once, but twice. Killing nearly a half million people across the two. George Galloway did NOT refuse to engage Saddam(let alone Iraqis) in debate. In fact, George went to Baghdad and met Saddam, telling him "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability. I can honestly say when I was speaking with my comrades about coming here, each one wished me to extend their fraternal greetings and support."

Bashir al Assad is continuing on the work of his father, brutally repressing and killing his own people. Galloway again went to Damascus, to praise Syria and tell the people how lucky they were to have Assad. He even squeezed in praise for the Iraqi suicide bombers then blowing up Shia mosques and neighbourhoods.

Galloway's moral 'high' road towards Israel is revealing in the extreme when looking at his eagerness to not only engage, but actively praise other war criminals in the region.

*dead -- "'US Soldier Vs Iraqi in ...' The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement..."

Well they're both Wars committed by the same Empire but they're not really that similar at all. Noam Chomsky talks about it a lot, you can find a talk about it if you google it. Off the top of my head though the Protesting is completely different. We outright attacked Vietnam and there was no protest for around 5 years. Iraq had major protests before the war even began, that's something that's never happened in history and it really helped. Iraq could've been much much worse, but protests around the world and within Iraq itself prevented the US from completely owning the country. They had to concede and let them have their own free election, which they had no intention of doing on the Iraqis terms.

You should do the research though, it's pretty interesting, there's not really too many parallels though.

When did any Iraqis or Afghans?

Judging by the articles published by the Guardian, amongst others, Colonel James Steele sounds an awful lot like Colonel Raymond Shreck, a fictional character in Stephen Hunter's "Point of Impact".