Middle Eastern Conflict [General]

[Dingdongs]

I told you I conceded that the west caused problems in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Your particular case is not something I know much about but Sivis seems to have more than aptly fielded it.

 

I'm talking about the general notion you are constantly espousing that the West is the main cause, sole cause, whatever - of problems in the MENA region. Literally every other post you make on the Middle East is something to that effect. Specifically, I responded to a post you made making a general statement that we are destroying the region through power projection means. What I countered is with my argument that, at the end of the day, the West does more good than bad in the region through controlling the types of regimes that rise up, providing aid, etc. if it weren't for the West, you'd have radical Islamist governments running Morocco and Jordan right now without a doubt because the moderate governments there couldn't afford to operate without USUK strategic rents. And that is just two easily viewed answers I can give you that are all but indisputable. I could go into greater detail about the rest of the states in the region too.

 

The point is, there's simply no evidence you have offered that the region is in the state it is today solely due to the west. By and large the region has ruled itself for 81 years in some countries, and about 40 in others. Again, yes there was vying for influence on the parts of the soviets and the Americans, but I don't see any route for the region being some prosperous wonderland if it were just not for the big bad west.

[make total destroy]

I told you I conceded that the west caused problems in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Your particular case is not something I know much about but Sivis seems to have more than aptly fielded it.

 

The west has been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs long before the invasion of Iraq.

 

As much as I respect and genuinely like Sivi, his word is not gospel, and he's capable of being wrong.

 

I'm talking about the general notion you are constantly espousing that the West is the main cause, sole cause, whatever - of problems in the MENA region.

Western imperialism is the main cause of problems in the region. The U.S. literally funded the f*cking Taliban.

 

The point is, there's simply no evidence you have offered that the region is in the state it is today solely due to the west.

Even a cursory glance at history proves as much.

[Dingdongs]

 

I told you I conceded that the west caused problems in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Your particular case is not something I know much about but Sivis seems to have more than aptly fielded it.

 

The west has been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs long before the invasion of Iraq.

 

As much as I respect and genuinely like Sivi, his word is not gospel, and he's capable of being wrong.

 

I'm talking about the general notion you are constantly espousing that the West is the main cause, sole cause, whatever - of problems in the MENA region.

Western imperialism is the main cause of problems in the region. The U.S. literally funded the f*cking Taliban.

 

The point is, there's simply no evidence you have offered that the region is in the state it is today solely due to the west.

Even a cursory glance at history proves as much.Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Perhaps you should look at a map before you ask me to look at a history book.

 

Anyway, I even conceded that 19th century colonialism created the foundations of the region today. But, for the umpteenth time now, I've asked somebody to show me how the entire region has been ravaged and made the way it is today by the west. You want to blame it on western imperialism? Look at Iraq. The British back monarchy lasted like 3 years there until Ba'athist inspired rebels took it down. Same in Syria. Both these countries, where today's major issues in the Middle East lie, have been independent of client status from either the West or the Soviets (arguable with Syria/Sovies) for the entire second half of the 20th and first half of the 21st century. Iran, another problem state in the region today that has been free of foreign control since 1979. The Saudis, another big problem, do depend on US support, but they have so much money in oil rents they don't depend on and answer to the West the same way Jordan or Morocco do. Those two countries by he way, which are the most western influences in the region, are arguably the best off in terms of political freedom and general security.

 

Please, do tell me how the West is so terrible and is the reason for all the issues in the region. If not for the big bad west it would be great huh!

Edited October 6, 2015 by Irviding

[Clem Fandango]

Those two countries by he way, which are the most western influences in the region, are arguably the best off in terms of political freedom and general security.

Are Iran and Saudi Arabia not influenced by the West? The West basically props up Saudi Arabia, and Iran's current state of affairs is because the West overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator, later overthrown by Islamists. Iraq was an advanced society, now a real scary place.

 

The West also funded and encouraged Islamic extremism in order to fight secular Arab nationalism. I'm sure another ten years of this sh*t and the ME will be sorted! Yay America, miniature flag broaches for everyone!

[Dingdongs]

 

Those two countries by he way, which are the most western influences in the region, are arguably the best off in terms of political freedom and general security.

Are Iran and Saudi Arabia not influenced by the West? The West basically props up Saudi Arabia, and Iran's current state of affairs is because the West overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator, later overthrown by Islamists. Iraq was an advanced society, now a real scary place.

 

The West also funded and encouraged Islamic extremism in order to fight secular Arab nationalism. I'm sure another ten years of this sh*t and the ME will be sorted! Yay America, miniature flag broaches for everyone!

 

Saudi Arabia, very little. The Saudis have pursued policy that caused 9/11 and other radical Salafi inspired terrorist cells since their funding of global Salafism started in the 80s. I wouldn't say they really are that subservient to Western foreign policy, because again, they have so much money on their own that they don't have the same subservience to the West that Jordan/Morocco do. Which again, are in better shape than most of the region politically.

 

Iran's current state of affairs is not because the West overthrew Mossadeq. In case you didn't know, in 1979, the goals of the revolution were to get rid of the Shah and replace him with a more moderate leader that wasn't so autocratic, and still was favorable with the West. That is what the intelligentsia in Iran wanted, along with much of the military. The Islamists won simply due to better organization, not unlike the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks.

 

Secular Arab Nationalism where? Are you talking about funding the Shiite rebels in Iraq in the 90s? Where specifically?

[Clem Fandango]

Iran's current state of affairs is not because the West overthrew Mossadeq.

Yeah I'm sure Iran would have had an Islamic revolution against their own democratically elected government at some point anyway! How can you blame the West for reactions to the leaders they install!?

 

 

 

Saudi Arabia, very little. The Saudis have pursued policy that caused 9/11 and other radical Salafi inspired terrorist cells since their funding of global Salafism started in the 80s.

And yet the West doesn't see fit to oppose this.

 

 

 

Secular Arab Nationalism where? Are you talking about funding the Shiite rebels in Iraq in the 90s? Where specifically?

I'm talking about Ba'athism. The West supported Islamic extremism in order to combat it.

[Dingdongs]

Yeah I'm sure Iran would have had an Islamic revolution against their own democratically elected government at some point anyway! How can you blame the West for reactions to the leaders they install!?

Because the leader they installed was a brutal idiot who ruled the country terribly. Why do you think he fell to an Islamic revolution, but King Hussein, similarly subservient to the West, lasted the entire 20th century and his son now maintains power? It's not a coincidence. There are so many other factors at play in the region than "lol the West is mean". If the government is effective, somewhat responsive to the peoples' needs, and fairly distributes rents amongst the populace, then you're not going to see a revolution whether the West chooses the leader or not.

 

 

 

And yet the West doesn't see fit to oppose this.

They do through backchannels, but the Saudis don't listen, because they don't have to. They don't' depend on the US for anything other than external security. They don't need our money. They can get away with giving us, say, 35% of what we want, as opposed to Jordan/Morocco, which have to give us 70%. (those numbers are arbitrary btw).

 

 

 

I'm talking about Ba'athism. The West supported Islamic extremism in order to combat it.

Again, where? Syria or Iraq? And if so, when? I don't know of any instances of the West making a great effort to fund Islamic radicals to destabilize the regimes there. The closet the West came in Iraq was supporting Chalabi in the 90s. Chalabi is not an Islamic extremist.

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Irviding

[sivispacem]

So I'm supporting a view just because it is supporting my narrative.

Yes. The fact you misrepresent your own sources is pretty compelling evidence of that.

 

Let's firstly note the absence of actual evidence in either of your sources, or scientific conclusions in either source, stating that these increased instances are unequivocally as a result of depleted uranium or white phosphorus. Let's also note that white phosphorus is neither a known carcinogen or a known mutagen, either in human or animal.

 

Let's note the complete absence of similar medically demonstrable correlation between apparent DU exposure and increased long-term illness in Kosovo and Bosnia, both of which saw extensive use of DU munitions, the former in far greater scale than the Battle of Fallujah- in fact, not only do most studies fail to establish sa causal link but several have found that the instance of cancers and leukaemia amongst those surveyed aren't actually higher than the baseline. Then there's the fact that many of the major studies on the after affects of depleted uranium, the largest I've seen being "Health Effects if Depleted Uranium on Gulf War Veterans" (on my mobile do can't link, but feel free to search yourself), don't actually seem to see correlation between instance of genotoxicity and level of exposure determined via uranium residue in urine. Animal studies have suggested tetrogenic properties but the carcinogenic and leukaemogenic properties are still largely hypothetical. It's interesting to note as well that most scientists have already dismissed DU as the cause for one set of illnesses with which it has been associated- Gulf War Syndrome- with which some of the same trends in long-term illness are speculated.

 

In fact the only thing that characterises the various scientific studies on the demonstrable harms of DU exposure is the complete lack of any coherent narrative. It's certainly not this catastrophically toxic superpoison that some people seem to claim it is. And, again, many of the same issues manifest themselves with other metals or ceramics in similar uses, such as tungsten, titanium and boron.

 

I don't doubt that some aspect of the conflict or combination of aspects has had a severe impact on the health of people living in Fallujah but the notion these are inarguably a result of either DU or WP borders on the ridiculous. There's absolutely no coherent scientific evidence to support that conclusion.

 

So what proof regarding the attacks and the giganic rise of birth defects and cancers have you actually looked into?

Enough to know there's no actual explanation for it currently. Enough to know that simply pinning it on DU and/or WP is basically untenable as a scientific conclusion. Enough to know there are a myriad of other potential factors, numerous reported illness trends which don't correlate with any of the known or suspected harms of either.

 

because actually looking into the research done on these birth defects and cancers would challenge your narrative.

Except it doesn't...as I've already pointed out, there's absolutely no coherent scientific narrative. You could probably fabricate one by selectively ignoring any piece of research which didn't confirm to your own view (most likely by claiming they were whitewashed or otherwise manipulated) but that would be a case of fitting evidence to a hypothesis, wouldn't it?

 

It's really not surprising to see you posting a Guardian article which basically takes the opinions of a handful of ex-WHO individuals and attempts to use them as proof of a whitewash. The same allegations get made against just about every scientific study which fails to show a causal link between DU exposure and increased instance of certain illnesses, or which disputes narratives about higher instance of birth defect or long-term illness and involvement in conflicts where DU was used. But I'm rather more persuaded by the science than the hyperbole myself. I get that you're not, though. From a scientific perspective DU scaremongering is similarly comparable to anti-vaccination woo or claims about the dangers of fluoride in drinking water and mercury compounds in dental fillings.

 

 

Sorry Melc, the notion that the West supported Islamic extremism to undermine Ba'athism is simply untrue. Similarly, the notion that the US funded or supplied the Taliban is a fairly significant manipulation of the truth.

[Clem Fandango]

Because the leader they installed was a brutal idiot who ruled the country terribly.

Indeed. That is my whole point. I don't see how conceding that the West installed a brutal dictator and ousted a democratically legitimate government helps your point.

 

99% of people I've ever met who have heard of Operation Ajax, or the invasion of East Timor, or everything the US ever did in Latin America, consider it irrefutable evidence that Western foreign policy is indefensible. I don't know what's going on with that other 1%.

 

 

 

Why do you think he fell to an Islamic revolution, but King Hussein, similarly subservient to the West, lasted the entire 20th century and his son now maintains power? It's not a coincidence.

I don't see your point at all. Jordan is nicer than Iran, both are/were neocolonies. Who disagreed?

 

 

 

They do through backchannels, but the Saudis don't listen, because they don't have to. They don't' depend on the US for anything other than external security. They don't need our money. They can get away with giving us, say, 35% of what we want, as opposed to Jordan/Morocco, which have to give us 70%. (those numbers are arbitrary btw).

Yes, the US has looser control over Saudi Arabia than say, Panama. Britain once had more control over Australia than India, the existence of Australia doesn't preclude India from having been a colony. I don't understand what you're arguing.

 

Also you don't see the US being nominally opposed to Islamic extremism but supporting Saudi Arabia (even if they 'only' listen 35% of the time) as immensely deceptive, hypocritical and just generally mental? Like how can you say 'the West needs to raise the banners and fight Islamic extremism' with one breath and then be like 'well the US only supports Saudi Arabia a little bit, I mean they're not a full blown colony.'

 

 

 

I don't know of any instances of the West making a great effort to fund Islamic radicals to destabilize the regimes there.

It's not that they use them as soldiers (I think you'd have heard about that) it's that they generally err on the side of religious extremists. The West supports the (Islamic, authoritarian) monarchies, and Russia supports the republics, in simple terms. The US is also considered to have purposely stroked sectarianism to destabilise Iraq, and if they didn't then they are very stupid and incompetent, either way:

 

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Melchior

[sivispacem]

It's interesting you point to Russia supporting republics, because Russian support for and supplying of Iraq in the mid-1990s correlates with a marked lurch towards Islamism amongst Iraqi Ba'athists. Russian support for Ba'athism in general is a legacy of Soviet influence in Ba'athist ideology- the Socialism aspect of Arab Socialism- as well as from Russian involvement in the arming and training of states engaged in the conflict with Israel as part of the Soviet policy go counteract European and American influence in the region.

 

There's also the question of Russian support for political Shi'a Islam in Iran; Anwar Sadat aligning Egypt away from the USSR after the failure of the Yom Kippur war, and many of the regional monarchies such as Jordan also maintain very friendly and close relations with Russia.

[Eutyphro]

How can I misrepresent my own sources, when I make litteral citations from them Sivispacem? You really are a magnificent apologist and denialist for US crimes. So babies get born with two freakin heads, no skin, amazingly graphic birth defects.. there's a giant rise in cancers etc.. How the f*ck does it happen sivispacecem? Jesus, it's just completely f*cking ridiculous. The fact that three people actually liked your post amazes me.

[sivispacem]

How can I misrepresent my own sources, when I make litteral citations from them Sivispacem?

Because the quotations you used to furnish your response didn't actually corroborate the claim you'd made.

 

Firstly, you tell me to look into the "depleted uranium and white phosphorus used [in Fallujah]". Then you post two articles from newspapers, one only discussing the significantly elevated instance of illness in the city and the other alleging a cover-up in the WHO investigation, albeit with no actual evidence to support that allegation. Only one of these even makes passing reference to DU in this context, and even there only does so very generally and without any supporting evidence from the supposed " scientific literature" the author remarks on.

 

I don't know if you simply struggle with basic reading comprehension but nothing you've posted even remotely resembles a scientifically coherent argument to support the notion that DU and/or WP are responsible for elevated instance of long term illness and I have no idea why you think it does.

 

You really are a magnificent apologist and denialist for US crimes.

Don't be so utterly pathetic. If you want to have a debate on the subject, come back with some actual f*cking evidence instead of trying to poison the well like a desperate conspiracy theorist.

 

So babies get born with two freakin heads, no skin, amazingly graphic birth defects.. there's a giant rise in cancers etc.. How the f*ck does it happen

I don't know, and based on the amount of discourse on the subject in the scientific community nor does anyone else. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to jump to whatever conclusion fits my narrative regardless of whether there's actually any evidence to support it, or claim any scientific study which contradicts my own opinion must be rigged. Funny you seem to think you're better placed to draw conclusions from this that the international staff whose job it is...

 

As I've already said once, there's likely to be a myriad of factors influencing factors, one of which may be the munitions used. But there's no solid causal link there, and doesn't it strike you as funny that these instances of illness seem isolated to Fallujah and not present elsewhere in Iraq where exactly the same weapons were used? Or in Bosnia, or Kosovo, or Kuwait. It's almost as if you're oblivious to the idea of actually critically analysing anything.

[Eutyphro]

Then you post two articles from newspapers, one only discussing the significantly elevated instance of illness in the city and the other alleging a cover-up in the WHO investigation, albeit with no actual evidence to support that allegation. Only one of these even makes passing reference to DU in this context, and even there only does so very generally and without any supporting evidence from the supposed " scientific literature" the author remarks on.

How according to you should you convincingly prove a WHO/US cover-up then Sivispacem?

 

 

Dr. Keith Bavistock of the Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, is a retired 13-year WHO expert on radiation and health. He told me that the new 'summary document' was at best "disappointing." He condemned the decision from "the very outset to preclude the possibility of looking at the extent to which the increase of birth defects is linked to the use of depleted uranium", and further slammed the document's lack of scientific credibility.

 

"This document is not of scientific quality. It wouldn't pass peer review in one of the worst journals. One of the biggest methodological problems, among many, is that the document does not even attempt to look at existing medical records in Iraqi hospitals - these are proper clinical records which document the diagnoses of the relevant cases being actually discovered by Iraqi doctors. These medics collecting clinical records are reporting higher birth defects than the study acknowledges. Instead, the document focuses on interviews with mothers as a basis for diagnosis, many of whom are traumatised in this environment, their memories unreliable, and are not qualified to make diagnosis."

 

 

According to Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary general and UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, the gap between previous claims made by MOH researchers about the study, and the new 'summary document', justified public scepticism.

"I served in Baghdad and was confronted with the reality of the environmental impact of DU. In 2001, I saw in Geneva how a WHO mission to conduct on-spot assessments in Basra and southern Iraq, where depleted uranium had led to devastating environmental health problems, was aborted under US political pressure."

 

Who are you to say these people are lying Sivispacem? An apologist and denialist of US crimes maybe?

As I've already said once, there's likely to be a myriad of factors influencing factors, one of which may be the munitions used. But there's no solid causal link there, and doesn't it strike you as funny that these instances of illness seem isolated to Fallujah and not present elsewhere in Iraq where exactly the same weapons were used?

So the US disclosed exactly where they used depleted uranium, to what extent, and where they didn't right? Oh sh*t, they didn't really.. But being an apologist/denialist let's assume that it was used on multiple places to a similar extent and thus the birth defects and cancers in Fallujah must be caused by something different.

Lets once more look what Dr. Chris Busbey, who did two studies on the Fallujah heath crisis, concluded:

 

Dr Chris Busby, the author and co-author of two studies on the Fallujah health crisis, has called this "the highest rate of genetic damage in any population ever studied".

 

"to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened".

 

"Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields."

 

[sivispacem]

How according to you should you convincingly prove a WHO/US cover-up then Sivispacem?

There's been plenty of research on the effects of exposure to DU dust over long-term periods in the wake of the Gulf War. A logical, reasonable person would correlate the findings of those various reports with the findings of the WHO report and see if they were fundamentally contradictory. Have you done that? Have you, for instance, read the paper I referred to a couple of posts ago which surveyed individuals exposed to DU dust during the Gulf War and found no correlation between genetic damage and measurable levels of uranium? Or are all of these studies simply whitewashes too?

 

This is exactly my point. You'll believe any claim, no matter how tenuous, as long as it correlates with your preferred narrative. Any counterargument, regardless of its basis in empiricism; any attempt to question your narrative or even to dig deeper into the actually evidentiary basis for it is met with hostility and accusations of apologism. It's astonishingly hypocritical, especially given your own inability to vet your sources, but we'll come onto that later.

 

 

In 2001, I saw in Geneva how a WHO mission to conduct on-spot assessments in Basra and southern Iraq, where depleted uranium had led to devastating environmental health problems, was aborted under US political pressure."

Now this is perplexing. This individual alleges that there was a cover-up regarding extensive use of DU munitions in and around Basra specifically in 2001. That would logically mean that these engagements must have occurred during the first Gulf War. This strikes me as odd, as Basra doesn't fall inside the areas of catalogued strikes using DU munitions when investigations were done into the possible causes of Gulf War Syndrome. In fact, it was almost entirely outside of where operations were conducted in that conflict. See below:

 

 

Now, logically speaking, if there were indeed actually an increased instance of certain long-term illness in Basra, it's unlikely to be DU related according to the maps of where DU was used, of of where military operations even took place.

 

 

Who are you to say these people are lying Sivispacem?

I'm not saying they're lying, though the latter of the two makes some pretty odd comments. What I'm saying is thst you've done nothing to actually demonstrate they're telling the truth. Your own conclusion also don't correlate with theirs; even if there were a cover-up, our esteemed friend at the University of Eastern Finland stops well short of saying it's because DU is this evil superpoison as you seem to believe.

 

How about a nice metanalysis done by four Iraqi surgeons in the wake of Desert Storm?

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1752-1505-6-3.pdf

 

And another failing to find a link between DU exposure and cancer in humans:

http://www.pdhealth.mil/downloads/Chem-Rad-DU.pdf

 

And just because I love citing Rational Wiki at any given opportunity:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

 

 

So the US disclosed exactly where they used depleted uranium, to what extent, and where they didn't right?

It's not hard to work out. Well, not hard if you're actually endowed with critical thinking abilities instead if just mindlessly parroting sh*t.

 

It's basically anywhere Apache and Longbow helicopters, MBTs firing antitank ammunition, US Harriers and A-10s, LAV-25s and M2 Bradleys were used. Which is damn near the entire country. See, if you'd bothered to actually do the first bit of research into what hardware was using what kind if ammunition you would probably come across as something other than completely ignorant.

 

So, major battles of the initial invasion where MBTs using anti-tank rounds were common were Baghdad and Nasiriyah. Harriers and LAV-25s will have been used anywhere that the USMC were involved, so mostly Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi, Nasiriyah and Najaf. Apaches/Longbows, A-10s and Bradleys, basically everywhere, including by British forces around Basra.

 

 

Lets once more look what Dr. Chris Busbey, who did two studies on the Fallujah heath crisis, concluded:

It's interesting you quote Dr Busby. Perhaps you should do a little due diligence regarding his theories about Second Event Theory, which have been roundly criticised by CERRIE where he was part of a board which rejected his own theory by a 10-2 majority. Also his Photoelectric Effect theory specifically related to DU, which computer modelling proved was fundamentally incorrect. Both his (self-published, non-peer-reviewed) books have been derided by the Journal of Radiological Protection as "erroneous". The same individual who claimed that he detected enriched uranium in the bomb craters of guided munitions used by Israel in Lebanon, even though they don't, and never have, contained Uranium of any kind.

 

So, what you've done here is publish the views of a scientist whose not only had his views derided as "biologically implausible" by his own peers, but actually has a vested personal interest in attempting to inflate the potential harms of DU to try and bolster his own theories.

 

I love Rational Wiki so much, I'll cite it twice!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

 

Some other bits:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/28/1/001/pdf

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0952-4746/24/4/E02/meta

 

And a nice bit of anti-radiation quackery on the side, reported by none other than his biggest supporters The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/21/christopher-busby-radiation-pills-fukushima

 

Nice job! You've cited a crank as if they're an authoritative source and finally completed your metamorphosis into full blown conspiracy theorist!

[Eutyphro]

I'll respond tomorrow. Right now I don't really have time. But thanks for an actually insightful post in stead of one which just completely dismisses what I posted, and in stead gives a list of irrelevant information. I'll look into it.

Even if you are right, and depleted uranium does not cause birth defects and cancers, then it is interesting what did cause these incidents right after the major offensive of 2004. In that case, it's a f*cking mystery... Similar to if unicorns would suddenly be running around Iraq after 2004..

But I'll properly respond tomorrow, right now I'm going out.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Eutyphro

[sivispacem]

For future reference, you're less likely to get abrupt replies if you were a little less antagonistic in the first place. Apart from tarring the reputation of the good doctor Bushby, I've not said anything there that I hadn't already

[Eutyphro]

The thing is, I made a good reply, and you responded with a bunch of complicated information which just didn't address what I said at all, and combined it with the notion that I was "only looking at things supporting my own narrative", and "misrepresent my sources", which would piss off any healthy human being. But glad we're getting something actually insightful out of this in stead of a sh*t flinging contest.

[sivispacem]

Think the initial "Hiroshima" quote is from our friend Dr Busby though. Apologies if my reply was a little sense but it's a really, really complicated subject. It's a shame really because the association of Busby with the anti-DU side tarnishes much of what they have to say.

 

It's worth noting as well that I've not actually claimed that DU isn't carcinogenic or mutagenic, only claimed there's currently no human evidence to support the argument it is. Similarly, we can't entirely discount the notion that it may have contributed to the rise in birth defects or long-term illnesses. There's also a great deal of confusion on all sides regarding the veracity of statistics from Fallujah. All sides appear to think the others are misrepresenting reality so even the existence of a significant statistical trend towards long-term illness is up for debate.

 

I wouldn't be enormously surprised if the root causes turn out to be something entirely unrelated. There's a slight but significant statistical upward trend for birth defects in Basra which started, oddly, in the late 1990s (and well away from any battlefields). The biggest contributors to things like cancers and birth defects have historically been organophosphate pesticides, aromatic hydrocarbons like benzene, polychlorinated compounds like TCDD and PCBs which are found in myriads of different things from plastic tubing to dielectric oils and have been extensively used in the petroleum industry. There are marked clusters of increased elevation of serious illnesses, birth defects and cancers in Southern Italy where the various Mafia-like groups have dumped toxic waste; actually the similarities in reported illnesses are quite striking. The same is true of some of the big American environmental tragedies like Love Canal and Times Beach, and interestingly enough very similar trends have been reported in downtown New York since 9/11, particularly amongst workers involved in the cleanup.

[Dingdongs]

Indeed. That is my whole point. I don't see how conceding that the West installed a brutal dictator and ousted a democratically legitimate government helps your point.

It absolutely does. Confirm or deny, but your argument is basically that the West has decimated the Middle East and that it would be better off without the West. I've shown that actually, the West has supported leaders that are both effective and ineffective in terms of taking care of the population and functioning as a regime that accomplishes basic goals. The point I'm making is that the West is not the only thing to consider here. You have to look at the individual cases of the leaders, and remove the external influence for a second. Kuwaitis and Jordanians would by and large tell you that they are pretty happy with their government the way it is currently, i.e. Western propped up leaders.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see your point at all. Jordan is nicer than Iran, both are/were neocolonies. Who disagreed?

See above. Again, point is, the West has accomplished both good and bad in the region. Look at the individual leaders and countries. You argued that the people of Iran hated the Shah because he was a Western puppet and tried to get rid of him for that reason. And yet, there are Western puppets all over the region who remain in power and are beloved by the population because they get stuff done. In short, Western backed or not, if the leader sucks, he's going to be opposed. Remember, the Iranian revolution was not Islamic, it was about getting rid of the Shah. I'll repeat myself too, the intellectuals and much of the military wanted to remain a Western client, but wanted rid of the Shah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you don't see the US being nominally opposed to Islamic extremism but supporting Saudi Arabia (even if they 'only' listen 35% of the time) as immensely deceptive, hypocritical and just generally mental? Like how can you say 'the West needs to raise the banners and fight Islamic extremism' with one breath and then be like 'well the US only supports Saudi Arabia a little bit, I mean they're not a full blown colony.'

I don't agree with supporting Saudi Arabia the way the US currently does. I am against that. However, I was pointing it out as it is extremely relevant to this conversation. If you don't see that, then I can't help you.

 

 

 

 

It's not that they use them as soldiers (I think you'd have heard about that) it's that they generally err on the side of religious extremists. The West supports the (Islamic, authoritarian) monarchies, and Russia supports the republics, in simple terms. The US is also considered to have purposely stroked sectarianism to destabilise Iraq, and if they didn't then they are very stupid and incompetent, either way:

 

That's just wholly incorrect as a generalization. The West supported Mubarak, a republic. The West supported Algeria and Tunisia, republics. The West supported Lebanon, a republic. I don't know where you even got that from.

 

Edited October 6, 2015 by Irviding

[acmilano]

First trial in my country (Bosnia and Herzegovina) for joining ISIS. One man got 3,5 years,one 1,5 and two man only 1 year in prison. Not much,but at least state start doing something.

 

 

Erdić gained 3.5 years in prison, Trako 1.5 years, and Keserović and Hušidić per year prison sentence. Tapes and Erdić will penalties be given for time spent in prison.

According to the judgment, Husein Erdić is, with the aim of joining the foreign paramilitary group that operates out of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in early February 2015, organized and managed, and agreed with persons known to him from Turkey to the territory of BiH to the war in Syria and Iraq is organizing two bh. nationals Nevada HUSIDIC and Merima Keserovic with a view to their joining the unlawful terrorist organization ISIS and the accused Midhat tape, by prior arrangement with the accused Erdić, gave the accused Keserovic and HUSIDIC funds necessary to purchase plane tickets for the relation Sarajevo - Istanbul.

Members of the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA) arrested on 18 February Erdić, tape, and HUSIDIC Keserovic the BiH Court's indictment against them was confirmed on 15 April.

Prosecutor Dubravko Campara said that the State Prosecution satisfied with the verdict because this is the first such case in the history judged. From reading the verdict convicted attended only Erdić.

Communicate via Skype

As Judge Biljana Ćuković stated, Erdić and tapes were the organizers, while Hušidić and Keserović aimed to join the Idul-in, an organization that is the decision of the UN Security Council and on May 30, 2013, as a terrorist.

The verdict says that the Hušidić and Keserović 12/02/2015. The bus from Buzim come to Zenica, where they met with ALAUDIN Ibrahimovic who brought their money from strips, about 500 euros, to buy airline tickets for Istanbul. That day they purchased tickets for the day 17/02/2015. The flight at 20:40 hours, and then returned to Buzim where they met with Erdić. With him are communicating via cell phone, and Erdić gave them the code "servant of God" of Skype profile to communicate. Also, by sending them international number NN of the person who was supposed to wait in Istanbul and returned to Syria.

On 17 February 2015, Hušidić and Keserović bus from Velika Kladusa arrived to Zenica where it is Tabakoivć transported to Sarajevo and were arrested at the International Airport.

In making the judgment, Judge Ćuković said they are taken into account any mitigating and aggravating circumstances and thus to Keserovic mitigating circumstances for which there are less than 19 years, admitting a crime and contributed to the investigation and the criminal offense was not conducted. Erdić the mitigating circumstance that the father of two young children and they had no prior convictions. Tapes are mitigating circumstances as an older person and the father of two minor children, but it is an aggravating circumstance that he was convicted and Hušidić.

There is no evidence to go to Syria

Lawyer Senad Bilić defending Keserovic, said he would appeal.

"Let me remind you that my client is 18 years old, he was arrested and that is three in the morning gave a statement without a lawyer present, and that is the basis of the statement issued Ruling judgment. All the evidence points to the path of Istanbul and from Istanbul to continue there is no evidence. It's all about construction. All the experts were saying 'most likely assume', no one claims that my client and the other connected with the paramilitary formations in Syria and those that are advertised terrorist organization, "said Bilic.

Senad Dupovac representing HUSIDIC said he was pleased that he got a sentence below the minimum, but that he expected an acquittal.

"Many of the procedural steps Prosecution skipped and did not do that. I can only say that Hušidić hit a flick Prosecution so that when arresting him that he was told 'Admit that you're going to Syria and we'll let you." In this context it is and released but it is illogical that the guys who allegedly went to Syria on the battlefield at large, and those who are preparing them as time, stay there. If they are found guilty can be happy that he got a sentence below the minimum, and I'm not satisfied he was found guilty, they are not resolved complaints legality of evidence. When my client gave this recognition did not have a defense attorney and had him under pressure, "said Dupovac and said it will appeal.

 

http://www.klix.ba/vijesti/bih/sud-bih-huseina-erdica-i-druge-osudio-za-pridruzivanje-i-saradnju-s-idil-om/151006072

[G's Ah's]

Western imperialism is the main cause of problems in the region. The U.S. literally funded the f*cking Taliban.

 

The Taliban didn't exist in the 1980's. And the Mujahadeen were not exclusively a bunch of Islamist militants. In fact, many of them opposed the Islamist factions within the Mujahadeen.

 

If you claim to know as much as you do, you would already know that the United States gave financial and material aid to the Mujahadeen, with no distinction made as to what factions within the Mujahadeen received said assistance. The actual job of the distribution of weapons, ammunition and financial assistance was not actually done by the United States but by Pakistan, who had a separate agenda of creating an Islamist puppet state within Afghanistan. That was, more or less, achieved once the Taliban took power during the Afghani Civil War in the 1990's. And Pakistan still aided the Taliban during the invasion in 2001.

 

So you want a country to thank for the rise of the Taliban? Thank Pakistan.

 

 

Are Iran and Saudi Arabia not influenced by the West? The West basically props up Saudi Arabia, and Iran's current state of affairs is because the West overthrew their democratically elected government and installed a dictator, later overthrown by Islamists. Iraq was an advanced society, now a real scary place.

 

The West also funded and encouraged Islamic extremism in order to fight secular Arab nationalism. I'm sure another ten years of this sh*t and the ME will be sorted! Yay America, miniature flag broaches for everyone!

 

 

In what way does "the West" prop up the Saudi government? The Saudis can afford to buy their own weapons, elected officials, etc. The Saudis also prop up governments around the Middle East, not the other way around.

 

Secondly, the overthrow of Mossadegh was not an overthrow of the entire Iranian regime. Mossadegh was just the Prime Minister, with the Shah still holding ultimate control over all domestic affairs in government. Mossadegh was not replaced with a brutal dictator, as the Shah was already in power before. Rather, the Shah became more autocratic after the coup had taken place and said authoritarianism was necessary in order to institute his "White Revolution", where the Shah tried to modernize Iran and introduced substantial land reforms. You know who opposed the White Revolution and the modernization of Iran? Ruhollah Khomeni, the Ayatollah himself.

 

The reason why the Shah was overthrown is basically similar to the reasons why the Mujahadeen became a prominent force in Afghanistan: because of the vast difference in attitudes between the more liberal politicians in the cities and the conservative, rural peasants who basically opposed all of the government's proposals and reforms. Consider it like those people who bomb abortion clinics and you get a sense of the scale of the opposition against these reforms.

 

There's also something interesting that you failed to mention with regards to the overthrow of Mossadegh: it was supported by the Shia clergy. The clergy had immense influence over the vast majority of Iranians who lived in rural areas and had little to no formal education. What Mossadegh's election did was scare the clergy into thinking that Iran was on the cusp of transition from a largely fedual state into a communist one. That mean land appropriations and even the rejection of religion altogether, which could be seen as oppression of Shia Muslims. Yes, the British and the Americans engineered a coup to overthrow Mossadegh but people, such as yourself, who regularly trot out said coup as evidence of American meddling and it turning pear shaped routinely ignore the popular support said coup had within Iran and that it was only enabled thanks to the influence of the Shia clergy.

 

My point, convoluted as it is, is not that you are wrong, but you are not telling everyone the full story.

Edited October 8, 2015 by G's Ah's

[Clem Fandango]

None of that contradicted anything I said. If you think 'the Clergy supported the coup' means anything to me then you've got another thing coming. You didn't really contradict anything mtd said either, you just think you're pointing out nuance but all you're doing is pointing out mundane details.

 

They only overthrew the Prime Minister lads! And it was necessary (f*cking lol) to modernise Irain! And some robe wearing dudes supported it, these are vital facts, the people need the full story!

 

Also you aren't really telling the full story either. Operation Ajax was a response to the nationalisation of Iran's oil supply, they weren't answering the pleas of the clergy to come and modernise their savage land for them out of pure altruism.

[Dingdongs]

None of that contradicted anything I said. If you think 'the Clergy supported the coup' means anything to me then you've got another thing coming. You didn't really contradict anything mtd said either, you just think you're pointing out nuance but all you're doing is pointing out mundane details.

 

They only overthrew the Prime Minister lads! And it was necessary (f*cking lol) to modernise Irain! And some robe wearing dudes supported it, these are vital facts, the people need the full story!

 

Also you aren't really telling the full story either. Operation Ajax was a response to the nationalisation of Iran's oil supply, they weren't answering the pleas of the clergy to come and modernise their savage land for them out of pure altruism.

I mean you ignored everyone's responses to the other claims you've made, so I would say a lot of stuff has contradicted what you've been arguing in here.

 

The point of bringing up that the clergy supported the coup is relevant insofar as disproving you, MTD, and eutypro's arguments that the West just shows up in these places and meddles in stuff without real legitimacy/support.

 

That being said, none of us have argued the West was being altruistic in these pursuits.

[G's Ah's]

None of that contradicted anything I said. If you think 'the Clergy supported the coup' means anything to me then you've got another thing coming. You didn't really contradict anything mtd said either, you just think you're pointing out nuance but all you're doing is pointing out mundane details.

 

They only overthrew the Prime Minister lads! And it was necessary (f*cking lol) to modernise Irain! And some robe wearing dudes supported it, these are vital facts, the people need the full story!

 

Also you aren't really telling the full story either. Operation Ajax was a response to the nationalisation of Iran's oil supply, they weren't answering the pleas of the clergy to come and modernise their savage land for them out of pure altruism.

 

I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said but I was simply demonstrating your oversimplification of the events. But given that you're assumed that the coup was necessary to modernize Iran (hint, it was actually the opposite and that the clerics actually opposed the Shah when he did begin his reforms) shows that you really lack the understanding of Iranian history to make any argument whatsoever.

 

And given that basically everyone knows the coup was about control over Iranian oil, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make about the whole "I'm not telling the fully story". I guess ignorance really is bliss.

[Spaghetti Cat]

While all this talk of 1979 and years earlier is nice and all, I'm just going to post some more recent events:

 

Like:

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/warfare/2015/10/09/us-to-end-syrian-train-and-equip-program/73644236/

 

and

 

http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/10/09/syria-halt/73662556/

 

 

While I don't necessarily agree with Mel and others assertion of western aggression, I would say that not having a cohesive policy and clear actions do lead to more trouble down the line.

[acmilano]

Two blasts kills 86 people in Ankara,Turkey's Capital.

Rest in Peace to victims.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/10/middleeast/turkey-ankara-bomb-blast/index.html

 

 

(CNN)Two powerful bombs exploded near the main train station in Ankara on Saturday morning, targeting a peace rally and causing carnage, killing at least 86 people and injuring 186 others in the deadliest attack in the Turkish capital in recent memory.

The explosion, which caused chaos and bloodshed, took place during a peace march involving, among others, the pro-Kurdish HDP, or People's Democratic Party.

The casualties, reported by the interior ministry, consisted primarily of people gathered outside the main train station to attend a lunchtime demonstration to call for an end to the renewed conflict between the Kurdish PKK organization and the Turkish government.

About 14,000 people were in the area. Two suicide bombers are believed to have caused the blasts, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a televised address to the nation.

The attack came before national elections scheduled for November 1.

[sivispacem]

It's tragic, but given the current political situation in Turkey hardly surprising. The Turkish government have been pandering to the Islamists for years now; their attacks on the Kurdistan region of Iraq have only served to further destabilise the region and actually strengthened ISIS. Bet the bombings get blamed on the Kurds though.

[make total destroy]

Bet the bombings get blamed on the Kurds though.

Turkish state media is already blaming this on PKK.

 

I'm almost certain this was sponsored by the state. ISIS has yet to claim responsibility. They never claimed responsibility for the Suruc bombing, either.

Edited October 10, 2015 by make total destroy

[Dingdongs]

Let's wait and see about it being sponsored by the state. Remember that both the Kurdish separatists and Islamic terrorists have used suicide attacks like this before. My gut tells me this isn't a state sponsored thing. I can't see even Erdogan doing that

[Spaghetti Cat]

Speaking of Turkey...

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-jet-shot-down-by-turkish-forces-after-entering-turkish-air-space-1523426