Damansarajaya
Damansarajaya's JournalQuestion--Did Team Bush ever turn over a whole shit load of e-mails?
The RepubliCons are combing through Hillary Clinton's e-mails . . . okay, good and fine.
So where're all the e-mails from the Bush years? Are they out there somewhere?
Anybody else find it odd that Roof was arrested without incident?
This is a known mass murder, a terrorist, armed and dangerous.
He's arrested without a mark on him.
Ditto for Timothy McVeigh, Mark Chapman, John Hinckley Jr., the Unabomber, BTK, and Ted Bundy.
Meanwhile we've seen what happens to unarmed blacks: Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Walter Scott, Freddy Gray, Eric Garner, John Crawford, Icarus Randolph, Ezell Ford, Dante Parker . . .
The real reason "cowardly" Iraqi troops cave before ISIS . . .
It's very simple: Sunni troops refuse to fight for a Shia gov't that treats them and their group like shit.
It's exactly what we anti-invasion folks warned against when we marched 2 million strong to stop the impending war, the invasion would de-stablize the region, cause Iraq to splinter, and make terrorism worse.
(quote) After all U.S. forces left in 2011, the Iraqi army basically fell apart because of the cronyism and corruption that took place under Nouri al-Malaki, Iraq’s prime minister from 2006 to 2014.
Those sectarian splits caused by Malaki’s government sapped the Iraqi forces “will to fight” to save Ramadi from being overrun by ISIS last month, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said. While training can give troops the skills needed to prevail on the battlefield, training can’t teach will. Nonetheless, U.S. troops who trained Iraqi forces the first time around say Iraqi forces, given decent leadership, are good fighters. (unquote)
http://time.com/3916866/isis-iraqi-army-training/
(quote) California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that more troops could "aggravate" the threat that ISIS already poses and risk further escalation of the fight.
He argued that the U.S. will not be able to sustain any victories in Iraq unless the government is able to resolve its political differences.
During the Iraq War, "We won Ramadi but it didn't stay won because the political problems that preceded the first Iraq war haven't been solved and that is the Sunnis have not been brought into the government (unquote)
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/defense-sec-carter-iraqi-forces-showed-no-will-to-fight-isis-ramadi/
(quote) US military man, General John Allen – officially the US' Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter IS – had been trying to contact the tribal factions and leaders who were his friends and allies when he was a soldier in Anbar, the source said. Allen was also the brains behind Iraq's “Awakening Movement”, a group of Sunni Muslim fighters, funded and formed by the US government, to get Al Qaeda out of their hometowns, post 2003.
“But it was surprising,” the source said. “Most of them [General Allen's former allies] refused to cooperate with us. And some of them are actually now living outside of Iraq because of the previous Iraqi government's policies.”
When the IS group took control of certain Sunni Muslim-majority areas in Iraq, long running disputes with, and locals' anger towards, the Shiite Muslim-led government in Baghdad meant that at first, the IS fighters were welcomed. Many locals in these areas saw them as liberators from the Iraqi army – which was heavily Shiite Muslim and which Sunni locals had accused of treating them unfairly, beating, imprisoning and arresting them - and basically “occupying” the Sunni-majority areas.
For both the locals, the various Sunni Muslim armed factions and the IS group, there was a common enemy: the government in Baghdad. (unquote)
http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/security/3558/Sunni-Muslim-Militias-Decide-They-Won't-Fight-With-IS---or-The-US-Alliance.htm
An appeal to move away from "identity politics" to achieving goals . . .
"This new understanding of social justice politics resembles what University of Pennsylvania political science professor Adolph Reed Jr. calls a politics of personal testimony, in which the feelings of individuals are the primary or even exclusive means through which social issues are understood and discussed. Reed derides this sort of political approach as essentially being a non-politics, a discourse that 'is focused much more on taxonomy than politics (which) emphasizes the names by which we should call some strains of inequality ( . . . ) over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them.' Under such a conception, people become more concerned with signaling goodness, usually through semantics and empty gestures, than with actually working to effect change.
"Herein lies the folly of oversimplified identity politics: while identity concerns obviously warrant analysis, focusing on them too exclusively draws our attention so far inward that none of our analyses can lead to action. Rebecca Reilly Cooper, a political philosopher at the University of Warwick, worries about the effectiveness of a politics in which 'particular experiences can never legitimately speak for any one other than ourselves, and personal narrative and testimony are elevated to such a degree that there can be no objective standpoint from which to examine their veracity.' Personal experience and feelings aren't just a salient touchstone of contemporary identity politics; they are the entirety of these politics."
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Mar 10, 2014, 06:36 PMNumber of posts: 625
