The Arab Summer: All Out War?

[brainpanhandler]

[lupercal]

keeping with the historical theme:



NATO refuses to rule out bombing Libyan Roman ruins
By the CNN Wire Staff - June 14, 2011 -- Updated 1243 GMT (2043 HKT)

(CNN) -- NATO refused to say Tuesday whether or not it would bomb ancient Roman ruins in Libya if it knew Moammar Gadhafi was hiding military equipment there.

"We will strike military vehicles, military forces, military equipment or military infrastructure that threaten Libyan civilians as necessary," a NATO official in Naples told CNN, declining to give his name in discussing internal NATO deliberations. I fail to see how Roman ampitheaters "threaten Libyan civilians."

But he said the alliance could not verify rebel claims that Libya's leader may be hiding rocket launchers at the UNESCO World Heritage site of Leptis Magna, a Roman city between the capital Tripoli and rebel-held Misrata. ..or rebel claims that monkeys are flying out of his butt.

Wing Commander Mike Bracken, a spokesman for NATO's Libya mission, later said it "would be a concern for us that Gadhafi and pro-Gadhafi forces would choose to contravene international law in hiding themselves in such a location."

And, he said, "If we were to take on any targets we would consider all risks." Like missing dinner, those risks.

But he underlined that NATO could not confirm suggestions that weapons might be placed at the heritage site. who needs confirmation?

The Bracken briefing came a day after a top British military officer admitted that the bombing campaign was straining British resources.

"If we do it for longer than six months, then we have to reprioritize our forces," Admiral Mark Stanhope said Monday. Six months should take care of that amphitheater but make it a year to be safe.

"That does not mean we won't be doing it," he added. We will.

NATO recently extended its mission -- officially to protect civilians in Libya from Gadhafi's efforts to crush an uprising that has left rebels in control of parts of the country -- for another 90 days, into September. Nice for Lockheed and those Brit arms dealers.

British Minister of Defence Liam Fox said Tuesday the Libya mission showed "how capable we are" and emphasized that the United Kingdom has the fourth largest military budget in the world. they're capable of taking out Roman ruins, I'm in awe.

Concerns over British capabilities came as Germany's foreign minister visited the de facto rebel capital of Benghazi and rebels reported progress against government forces in western mountain cities.

Guido Westerwelle said Germany formally recognized the rebel Transitional National Council as the representative of the Libyan people, putting Berlin in line with the United States, France, Italy and a handful of other countries.

As Germany recognized the rebel leadership, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged countries in Africa on Monday to kick out diplomats representing Gadhafi's government. or anyone else who thinks they can keep NATO from whacking their country.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/afric ... libya.war/

[brainpanhandler]

Damn! Thanks for posting this, I'll take a listen tonight. Surprised in all my years in parapolitics I never heard of this fellow. But he seems right on the money.

@8bit,

Just FYI, you might want to consider the source. Engdahl seems like a bit of a crackpot. Clearly his views on the abiotic origins of oil will skew his opinions about the geopolitics of the middle east.

In the past he was openly affiliated with American Statesman Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.

Engdahl stated in 2007 that he had come to believe that petroleum is not biological in origin, produced from remains of prehistoric zooplankton and algae, which had settled to a sea or lake bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions, which is a theory supported by the majority of petroleum geologists and engineers.[3] Instead he now believes the hypothesis that petroleum is geological in origin, produced deep underground from carbon, by conditions and forces of heat and pressure deeper down than the Earth's bioshpere. Engdahl calls himself an "ex peak oil believer", stating that peak oil is actually a political phenomenon.[4]

Engdahl argued that the Earth is cooling, not warming.[5] He claims that global warming, like peak oil, is merely a "scare" and an attempt "by powerful vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice [so] that they remain in control of the events of this planet".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl

[lupercal]

^ I wouldn't call wikipedia the ne plus ultra of deep research, and the LaRouche claim lacks a source, which even wikipedia admits doesn't meet it standard of "reliability," but let's accept that Engdahl had some connection and tread cautiously. I'd advise treading cautiously for any source, particularly in matters parapolitical.

As for abiotic oil and global warming skepticism: I don't buy either argument just now, but I read his oil article and find myself at least more willing to consider the possibility, thanks to his scholarly approach and liberal documentation, and that's as much as any good argument can do.

I haven't looked into his weather claims but I imagine he has good reasons for reaching them, and he's got lots of company, including Mr Assange, who if you'll recall made quite the spectacle of himself taking credit for the hacked CRU email leaks and claiming that they showed climate scientists conspired to "trick" the data, thanks Jules:



Speaking of whom, I don't need John Young to tell me wikileaks is a limited hangout any more than I need Jean Baudrillard to tell me Disneyland is a hyperreal simulacrum, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. Likewise, I've known those Ajax-style color revolutions in the Ukraine and MENA are spook jobs since Iran's TwitBook revolution, which had spook written all over it, and I said so on the very first page of a longish thread on the subject dripping with dewy valentines right here on RI.

So I don't need Engdahl to tell me which way the wind is blowing in North Africa, but as with cryptome and Baudrillard, I appreciate that he does it so well.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I haven't looked into his weather claims but I imagine he has good reasons for reaching them (doubt it - jh), and he's got lots of company, including Mr Assange, who if you'll recall made quite the spectacle of himself taking credit for the hacked CRU email leaks and claiming that they showed climate scientists conspired to "trick" the data, thanks Jules:

Thats an example of something thats a big "weakness" for wikileaks. The information released is always suspect till it checks out. (Have a look at whats checked out tho, quite a bit apparently.) But if anything the lack of actual damning evidence in the climategate emails has shown that even that sort of data dump is a good thing. If it was a conspiracy between Al Gore, Maggie T and the Green Leftist misanthrope machine that some people claim then perhaps the climategate emails would have shown that. As it i they showed that climate scientists are just like everyone else - but not that there was some secret plan to sell carbon taxes to gay marriage chasing, heroin-using, economic asylum seekers (???) or whatever it is...

[8bitagent]

Seeing footage from Greece and Vancouver canada...the media and public has an addiction to scenes of the public rioting, perhaps cathartic.

[brainpanhandler]

If it was a conspiracy between Al Gore, Maggie T and the Green Leftist misanthrope machine that some people claim then perhaps the climategate emails would have shown that. As it i they showed that climate scientists are just like everyone else

Exactly.

[barracuda]

^ I wouldn't call wikipedia the ne plus ultra of deep research, and the LaRouche claim lacks a source, which even wikipedia admits doesn't meet it standard of "reliability," but let's accept that Engdahl had some connection and tread cautiously.

How about we just dispense with the supposed unverifiability of Engdahl's LaRouche connections by viewing the masthead of LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review publication where Engdahl was for years prominently listed as the "Intelligence Director for Energy Issues":

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1 ... 800826.pdf

One of many such issues available on the 'net. Okay? So we're done with the hedging and "maybe he was, maybe he wasn't", right? He was.

[lupercal]

^ that's an interesting link but let's be clear here, that journal was published 31 years ago. Nevertheless, "let's accept that Engdahl had some connection and tread cautiously," as I've said, several times in fact, in several threads. That doesn't make an unsourced wikipedia claim any less unsourced or bedpanhandler any less lazy and stupid for relying on it.

As to LaRouche: no I'm not a secret fellow traveler, and your link shows him playing the same role at the 1980 Dem convention, disaster that it was, that he played in my one and only close encounter with LaRouche Inc, which wasn't all that close, when he tried to take over a small third party here in Calif that I had some connection to, leading to a similarly contentious nominating convention, strangely enough, but on a much smaller scale. I never saw LaRouche and in fact his outfit never mentioned him but it was made abundantly clear to me that LaRouche was pulling their strings. Basically it weakened an already ridiculously weak party. Apparently he did it in other states too.

Does that make LaRouche an intel disrupter? It's possible, tho I've not seen any concrete evidence that he is/was, and disruptive spoilers have a long history here and include luminaries like Ralph Nader. But it's not an unwarranted suspicion, and one I've heard many times, so if you happen to have some confirming evidence or experience of an intel connection I'd like to read it.

[jingofever]

Speaking of whom, I don't need John Young to tell me wikileaks is a limited hangout any more than I need Jean Baudrillard to tell me Disneyland is a hyperreal simulacrum, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate it.

John Young's opinion on Wikileaks:

“I’m a member of WikiLeaks. I’m an insider of WikiLeaks. I’m a devotee of WikiLeaks. I’m a critic of WikiLeaks,” he said. “My current shtick is to pretend that I am an opponent of WikiLeaks. It’s called friendly opposition. Praising each other is so insipid. Your parents praise you. Your friends never do. They know it’s a con job, so praise is manipulation. Criticism is more candid. [Assange] hasn’t returned the favor."

[lupercal]

^ as reported by Thomas Golianopoulos in an interview published in the New York Observer. And if you've ever been interviewed by a reporter, even a "friendly" one, you were no doubt astonished to read the things they thought they heard, or at least I've been. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it either.

Anyway, what Young said in his own e-mail to wikileaks, as published on his own website cryptome.org, is "Wikileaks is a fraud," which of course it is.

He also said "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy," and you can read all about it right here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30479

[jingofever]

^ as reported by Thomas Golianopoulos in an interview published in the New York Observer. And if you've ever been interviewed by a reporter, even a "friendly" one, you were no doubt astonished to read the things they thought they heard, or at least I've been. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it either.

One thing you can do about it is complain about the reporter on your website, which John Young never did. If you are suspicious of that quote why not e-mail John Young and ask it if is accurate?

Anyway, what Young said in his own e-mail to wikileaks, as published on his own website cryptome.org, is "Wikileaks is a fraud," which of course it is.

That is from over four years ago. More recent opinions are given here and here. Note in particular this part:

9. My critique of Wikileaks -- earliest and latest -- is intended to be constructive and to guard against praising a fledging operation due the weakening effect of excessive praise. Instead I believe Wikileaks needs greater, well-thought-out critique to assure it survives excessive glorification and demonization -- which I warned about in the earliest days and which will become more intense in the future. (I have given OpenLeaks the same advice.)

[Joe Hillshoist]

Engdahl was publishing stuff in EIR during the Asian Financial Crisis - not just 30 years ago. The CEC was publishing his stuff 5 years ago. He's not credible, and anyone who writes this:

the idea that 19 barely-trained Arabs armed with box-cutters could divert four US commercial jets and execute the near-impossible strikes

Is either a racist piece of shit or pandering to racists or both.

Otherwise he would have said "the idea that 19 barely-trained people".

He didn't, but thats cos we all know those dirty sand monkeys can't operate complicated machinery right. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

[lupercal]

To jingofever: needless to say, Young got it right the first time, needless because he says it himself in your first link:

Pessimistically, it is too late, the [wikileaks] initiative never had a chance of surviving due to conflicted goals of being a unique public service and becoming rich at it. George Soros and the CIA jointly make that work, but it cannot be done without their kind. So I said in December 2006 and still believe.

http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm

Bolding mine. And my original point here was that my view of wikileaks for the most part parallels, but doesn't depend on, Young's, which is colored by his association with it or rather its association with him, as proto-wikileaks made the initial contact with Young, before they dumped him for protesting when they put themselves on offer to spooks. From your second link:

3. An unknown person posted a message on that mail list suggesting a target of up to $5 million dollars to be raised in 6 months. I objected to that stating that such a sum of money could only come that quickly from an organization like Soros or the CIA.

http://cryptome.org/0003/wikileaks-stoned.htm

In these and other comments Young consistently supports the wikileaks concept but rejects Assange's opportunistic exploitation of it. Anyway further discussion of Young and wikileaks should probably take place in the thread discussing them which is here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30479

[brainpanhandler]

^ that's an interesting link but let's be clear here, that journal was published 31 years ago. Nevertheless, "let's accept that Engdahl had some connection and tread cautiously," as I've said, several times in fact, in several threads.

No doubt you have, but not before others raised concerns I'll wager. I don't care nearly enough to take on the onerous task of reviewing all your posts to confirm that, though presumably you do. So there's your "homework". Have at it.

That doesn't make an unsourced wikipedia claim any less unsourced or bedpanhandler any less lazy and stupid for relying on it.

1) PPFFttss


2) Good on you. Like all trolls you managed to get what you want, a response. I really couldn't resist. Shame on me.


3) Honestly, when I called Engdahl a crackpot I was more referring to his Abiotic oil quackery and his anti AGW stance, both of which are sourced in the wikipedia article with links to Financial Sense where you can read him in his very own words. I just threw the LaRouche quote in to remind readers on the 3rd page what was said on the first page. Frankly I was relying more on this:

I can think of even dodgier pasts that don't seem to trouble most here one whit. . .

True enough, depending upon who you might be suggesting. But it's always worth noting when someone such as Engdahl is a Larouchite, and possibly COINTELPRO.

Not that Barracuda is infallible, which I'm sure he'll readily agree to, but I've read enough in the wikileaks threads and elsewhere to satisfy my curiosity about Engdahl.

I used wikipedia because I wanted to illustrate just how few clicks were required to have red flags popping up all over the place. It really would be the height of laziness to not at least start with wikipedia and proceed from there. Get it? There are only a few possibilities that remain wrt to your purposes and effects here at RI and none of them are good. There's no way around it at this point. When I wrote to 8bit, "you might want to consider the source.", I wasn't just talking about Engdahl.

You'd have to be a lazy idiot to use him as a source. Oops.

4) In nearly 5 years here I don't think I can recall anyone with whom I was in an adversarial position ever stooping to the level of mocking my username in earnest. In fact, I think I've rarely see it done at all, ever. I think most people understand that it is really juvenile behavior and even if they're tempted they are too embarrassed to sink to that level. Not you though. You're made of different "stuff".

5) Your mother was a hamster.