How different would the situation be with Iraq if we didn't arbitrarily shit all over Iran for no real reason? I'm sure they'd love the hegemonic cred that stabilizing Iraq, or at least the southern part, would give them, and we could probably trust them more not to abuse it than any of Iraq's other neighbors.
Do the Kurds actually have a significantly better track record? They lost most of their territory to ISIS last summer, lost the Mosul dam, and were on the verge of losing their capital Erbil until the US started doing airstrikes. They were able to defend Kobani but only with neverending US airstrikes. Since then they've managed to retake some territory ... with the help of US airstrikes.
In the Kurds' defense, I don't think they have as good equipment as the Iraqi army. But the Kurds couldn't stand up to ISIS on their own; nobody can.
Vicious religious fanatics, with years of practice fighting the US military, who are completely willing to blow themselves up for the cause, just seem like a really difficult enemy to face in warfare. Especially if you are not a religious fanatic yourself, and you know the US air force has your back if you need to retreat and save your skin/see your family/engage in other life-valuing pursuits.
Huh, I wasn't aware that the warlords were remobilizing on such a scale. This seems to imply a more rapid disintegration of the Afghan state than I had assumed, and I haven't exactly been optimistic about the situation there.
Do the Kurds actually have a significantly better track record? They lost most of their territory to ISIS last summer, lost the Mosul dam, and were on the verge of losing their capital Erbil until the US started doing airstrikes. They were able to defend Kobani but only with neverending US airstrikes. Since then they've managed to retake some territory ... with the help of US airstrikes.
In the Kurds' defense, I don't think they have as good equipment as the Iraqi army. But the Kurds couldn't stand up to ISIS on their own; nobody can.
Vicious religious fanatics, with years of practice fighting the US military, who are completely willing to blow themselves up for the cause, just seem like a really difficult enemy to face in warfare. Especially if you are not a religious fanatic yourself, and you know the US air force has your back if you need to retreat and save your skin/see your family/engage in other life-valuing pursuits.
The Kurds were still holding out better than the Iraqi army though.
They did not have the air strikes and were still holding parts of Kobane until we finally started the air strikes. Then they took back their territory with the aid of those airstrikes.
The Iraqi army has had those same airstrikes and is still forfeiting territory.
So yes the Kurds actually have a significantly better track record.
I would think that defending Kurdish territory, like defending Shia Arab territory, would be much easier than controlling Sunni Arab territory, which is what the government in Baghdad has failed to do. If the Kurds were trying to invade Anbar and Mosul I'm not sure how much better their track record would be, airstrikes or no.
I would think that defending Kurdish territory, like defending Shia Arab territory, would be much easier than controlling Sunni Arab territory, which is what the government in Baghdad has failed to do. If the Kurds were trying to invade Anbar and Mosul I'm not sure how much better their track record would be, airstrikes or no.
Which is a valid point.
But so is Qingu's that the Kurds are not as well equipped.
And IIRC Kirkuk was not Kurdish territory.
Though it was on their wish list.
I think a very solid argument could be made that the Kurds do have a better record than the Iraqi army.
The Iraqi army has historically been one of the most (if not THE most) inept, incompetent, and corrupt military forces in the Middle East.
There is no "changing the narrative" from a US policy failure to an Iraqi army failure. The policy failure was depending on the Iraqi army in the first place.
I would think that defending Kurdish territory, like defending Shia Arab territory, would be much easier than controlling Sunni Arab territory, which is what the government in Baghdad has failed to do. If the Kurds were trying to invade Anbar and Mosul I'm not sure how much better their track record would be, airstrikes or no.
Which is a valid point.
But so is Qingu's that the Kurds are not as well equipped.
And IIRC Kirkuk was not Kurdish territory.
Though it was on their wish list.
I think a very solid argument could be made that the Kurds do have a better record thanthe Iraqi army.
The Iraqi army has historically been one of the most (if not THE most) inept, incompetent, and corrupt military forces in the Middle East.
There is no "changing the narrative" from a US policy failure to an Iraqi army failure. The policy failure was depending on the Iraqi army in the first place.
Having been involved in training the Afghan Army - it's a horrifying thought that there is a more incompetent military force out there. It's could be an interesting case study why tribal and militia forces are more competent than the supposedly more well trained and well equipped national forces.
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides. They were so convinced of this that they really made no efforts to bolster their total ignorance of Iraqi internal politics, because everything was going to work out juuust greeeaaaat. Like, their "we'll be greeted as liberators" rhetoric wasn't just PR bull, it's an ever-present assumption throughout most of their internal discussions.
20th century style colonialism certainly doesn't have a ton to recommend it, but one positive was that it generally required a degree of realpolitik understanding of self interested sectarianism. The liberator shows up for freedom, the colonialist arrives with a business plan. Defending American interests and safety abroad and promoting democracy are not necessarily the same thing, and American leadership over the last decade plus has failed repeatedly to make that distinction. The sad truth is that the post-Saddam Iraqi state didn't fail because of American militaristic purfidy, it failed largely because of American naivety.
That's not to say the US should be going around founding kleptocracies, but there are real lessons to take away from colonial regimes. If you're going to create a vacuum of power you had better be ready to fill it.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides.
Democracy, and the Almighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market. That's why the 20-year-old RNC cadets running the occupation decided to de-nationalize Iraq's oil, electric power, banking, and public works sectors and other crucial infrastructure, to predictable results.
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides.
Democracy, and the Almighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market. That's why the 20-year-old RNC cadets running the occupation decided to de-nationalize Iraq's oil, electric power, banking, and public works sectors and other crucial infrastructure, to predictable results.
The most damning part of the whole affair. They couldn't even be cynically self-interested enough to do the whole thing with a degree of amoral semi-competantance.
+8
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides. They were so convinced of this that they really made no efforts to bolster their total ignorance of Iraqi internal politics, because everything was going to work out juuust greeeaaaat. Like, their "we'll be greeted as liberators" rhetoric wasn't just PR bull, it's an ever-present assumption throughout most of their internal discussions.
It's basically the domino theory, but in reverse. Just as stupid the second time through.
Do the Kurds actually have a significantly better track record? They lost most of their territory to ISIS last summer, lost the Mosul dam, and were on the verge of losing their capital Erbil until the US started doing airstrikes. They were able to defend Kobani but only with neverending US airstrikes. Since then they've managed to retake some territory ... with the help of US airstrikes.
In the Kurds' defense, I don't think they have as good equipment as the Iraqi army. But the Kurds couldn't stand up to ISIS on their own; nobody can.
Vicious religious fanatics, with years of practice fighting the US military, who are completely willing to blow themselves up for the cause, just seem like a really difficult enemy to face in warfare. Especially if you are not a religious fanatic yourself, and you know the US air force has your back if you need to retreat and save your skin/see your family/engage in other life-valuing pursuits.
I just read a history of them and their region up till the 90s, and the central-most lesson I got out of it is that they are completely unable to work together consistently. Outside powers have been arming the Kurds against various enemies since before the Ottoman Empire fell, and its been basically non-stop since then. In various rebellions and uprisings in Iran and especially in Iraq, one faction was always willing to work with the dictator at the time (including Saddam, after his gas attacks) for self-preservation or profit or power.
The two main factions in Iraq have held it together very well, but Barzani (KDP) and Talabani (PUK) have been at odds and sometimes full on civil war *for many decades. The power sharing deal that's kept Barzani as President (for an extra two years, against their constitution) expires in the summer. Talabani didn't mind Barzani being pres I guess because he himself got to be pres of Iraq (I don't actually know the Kurdish side to the last decade of events, need to do more reading).
And that's not even getting into the PKK in Turkey. After reading that book I full believe the Kurds will not get their state, except perhaps if the state is designed by outside powers to spite some other group.
The Iraqi army has historically been one of the most (if not THE most) inept, incompetent, and corrupt military forces in the Middle East.
There is no "changing the narrative" from a US policy failure to an Iraqi army failure. The policy failure was depending on the Iraqi army in the first place.
I don't think this is true. Under Saddam Iraq had a very strong army. It wasn't great by Western standards but it was huge, pretty well equipped with a lot of real combat experience. It was constantly putting down Kurdish rebellions. It had a long, tough fight in the 80s against Iran where it got a ton of weapons and other help from outside, the West included. The force that rolled into Kuwait was over a million strong with a ton of tanks and a decade of fighting experience. And it was a national force, at least a bit. The Shia parts of Iraq didn't just turn to Iran's side, many of them did indeed fight to protect their nation. There was a lot of hand wringing about how well the US would fare against such a force during Desert Storm.
Then they got destroyed. Then sanctioned. Then destroyed again. Then, and this is what really did it, they were purged with the rest of the Ba'athists. So all the officers that knew how anything worked were out the door. Their replacements were the ones who were inept, incompetent and corrupt. That only continues today. It will take a generation to re-build that army.
Yeah, the way American occupation forces ran the de-baathification of Iraq was by far one of the biggest errors of the entire occupation.
If you want to run a country, you need to have people that know how to run the country. Debaathification went even further than denazification, and failed for exactly the reason that they had predicted such a program would in 1946.
Bush and co.'s greatest sin wasn't being evil con artists, it was being fucking incompetent.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides.
Democracy, and the Almighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market. That's why the 20-year-old RNC cadets running the occupation decided to de-nationalize Iraq's oil, electric power, banking, and public works sectors and other crucial infrastructure, to predictable results.
It still boggles my mind that these kids were more interested in setting up an Iraqi stock market than they were a functioning electric grid.
Like, I still can't believe that's what really happened and not bad dystopian fiction.
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides.
Democracy, and the Almighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market. That's why the 20-year-old RNC cadets running the occupation decided to de-nationalize Iraq's oil, electric power, banking, and public works sectors and other crucial infrastructure, to predictable results.
It still boggles my mind that these kids were more interested in setting up an Iraqi stock market than they were a functioning electric grid.
Like, I still can't believe that's what really happened and not bad dystopian fiction.
Maintaining infrastructure and society? Society is for plebs.
Yeah, the way American occupation forces ran the de-baathification of Iraq was by far one of the biggest errors of the entire occupation.
If you want to run a country, you need to have people that know how to run the country. Debaathification went even further than denazification, and failed for exactly the reason that they had predicted such a program would in 1946.
Bush and co.'s greatest sin wasn't being evil con artists, it was being fucking incompetent.
It's more why they were incompetent imo. They were true believers. They brooked no dissent. And they valued loyalty over skill or honesty. And they were unswayed by evidence.
They were essentially zealots for a particular ideology and that's why it didn't work.
I haven't read kaplans article yet, and I fully expect it to be stupid, but honestly one of the biggest failings of Bush's crowd wasn't their greedy neo-colonialism, it was their blind faith that democracy would magically heal all sectarian and economic divides.
Democracy, and the Almighty Invisible Hand of the Free Market. That's why the 20-year-old RNC cadets running the occupation decided to de-nationalize Iraq's oil, electric power, banking, and public works sectors and other crucial infrastructure, to predictable results.
It still boggles my mind that these kids were more interested in setting up an Iraqi stock market than they were a functioning electric grid.
Like, I still can't believe that's what really happened and not bad dystopian fiction.
Yeah, the way American occupation forces ran the de-baathification of Iraq was by far one of the biggest errors of the entire occupation.
If you want to run a country, you need to have people that know how to run the country. Debaathification went even further than denazification, and failed for exactly the reason that they had predicted such a program would in 1946.
Bush and co.'s greatest sin wasn't being evil con artists, it was being fucking incompetent.
It's more why they were incompetent imo. They were true believers. They brooked no dissent. And they valued loyalty over skill or honesty. And they were unswayed by evidence.
They were essentially zealots for a particular ideology and that's why it didn't work.
Loyalty indeed. The reason there were kids there putting back the country was because they were loyal to the republican party. So yeah they were incompetent, but the State Department had a ton of people, written plans and loads of experience with this sort of thing. Competence. But they were not perceived to be loyal.
Its funny (well, sorta), because this is the exact same sort of incompetence that shows up in the Iraqi army. It isn't that nobody knows how to do the job. Or that the people making the decisions are stupid. Its because the people making the decisions are filling the posts with people that are loyal to them and theirs, not their nation and not the mission. The Iraqis staffed their army just the way Bush staffed Iraq!
The Iraqi army has historically been one of the most (if not THE most) inept, incompetent, and corrupt military forces in the Middle East.
There is no "changing the narrative" from a US policy failure to an Iraqi army failure. The policy failure was depending on the Iraqi army in the first place.
Having been involved in training the Afghan Army - it's a horrifying thought that there is a more incompetent military force out there. It's could be an interesting case study why tribal and militia forces are more competent than the supposedly more well trained and well equipped national forces.
And the one guy that could actually side straddle hop was fucking Jaysh al Mahdi anyway.
I haven't actually read this piece yet, but NPR had a very interesting interview with the author on my drive home and I wanted to post it before I forgot.
It looks at the recruitment and subsequent recovery of a teenage ISIS recruit, how he and others are groomed for jihadi movements, and the politics that they respond to.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Iran accused Pakistan of allowing militants to enter its eastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan after an attack on Iranian border guards last week killed two border police officers and injured many others. This means that in the past few months, officials in all four of Pakistan’s neighbors – Afghanistan, China, India, and Iran – have accused Pakistan of allowing militants to enter their borders from its territory. It is unclear as to whether Pakistan has no control over militant groups on its border with Iran due to design or inability. Regardless, Iran is upset with Pakistan for allowing sanctuaries to continue to exist within its borders.
The said sources accuse also the Pakistani intelligence, in conjunction with the Saudi intelligence, of creating and activating this group. The sources say that the Saudi intelligence has spent recently huge amounts of money to fund the Jaish al-Adl group, but the weak human Saudi possibilities that do not allow the Saudi intelligence to take direct care logistically and militarily of this group forced the Saudis to employ the Pakistani intelligence to take care of the group that is controlling Jaish al-Adl and running it. The French sources confirm that the Pakistani intelligence was the first to up bring and create this group, as it created, trained, and guided the Jundollah organization in the past, but it abandoned it when its interest with Iran required so.
Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, defended the tactic as a way of forcing people to understand the seriousness of their political stands.
“Factually documenting who one’s adversaries are and making this information available is a perfectly legitimate undertaking,” Pipes wrote in an email. “Collecting information on students has particular value because it signals them that attacking Israel is serious business, not some inconsequential game, and that their actions can damage both Israel and their future careers.”
Israel is deathly afraid of boycotts gaining ground
On Tuesday, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin termed the ASA as a “radical leftist group”, but added that “we need to prepare for the danger that it (boycott call) will pass to other, more serious academic forums.”
He stated that Israeli officials were striving hard to discourage other American groups from following the ASA’s lead.
Elkin went on to say that the Foreign Ministry had established an advocacy group called the “Faces of Israel” to “work among those who wield influence exactly in order to prevent cases such as this.”
The Israeli parliament tonight passed a law in effect banning citizens from calling for academic, consumer or cultural boycotts of Israel in a move denounced by its opponents as anti-democratic.
The "'Law for Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott" won a majority of 47 to 38, despite strong opposition and an attempt to filibuster the six-hour debate. Prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not take part in the vote although the bill had the backing of the cabinet.
Under the terms of the new law, an individual or organisation proposing a boycott may be sued for compensation by any individual or institution claiming that it could be damaged by such a call. Evidence of actual damage will not be required.
"The things Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and they are intolerable," Mr Steinitz told reporters.
"Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests."
Naftali Bennett, the industry minister and leader of the far-Right Jewish Home party, said: "We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece."
His comments were echoed by Adi Mintz, a senior official in the Settler's Council, who accused Mr Kerry of "an anti-Semitic initiative".
"The anti-Semites have always resorted to a very simple method - hit the Jews in their pockets," he told Israel's Channel 10 TV station.
Mr Netanyahu was more restrained, telling Sunday's cabinet meeting that efforts to impose a boycott were "immoral and unjust" and doomed to fail.
Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, defended the tactic as a way of forcing people to understand the seriousness of their political stands.
“Factually documenting who one’s adversaries are and making this information available is a perfectly legitimate undertaking,” Pipes wrote in an email. “Collecting information on students has particular value because it signals them that attacking Israel is serious business, not some inconsequential game, and that their actions can damage both Israel and their future careers.”
Just another check in the column of why I dislike Israel in general and the Israeli intelligence services in particular.
Posts
How do Iraqi Shiites tend to feel about Iran?
In the Kurds' defense, I don't think they have as good equipment as the Iraqi army. But the Kurds couldn't stand up to ISIS on their own; nobody can.
Vicious religious fanatics, with years of practice fighting the US military, who are completely willing to blow themselves up for the cause, just seem like a really difficult enemy to face in warfare. Especially if you are not a religious fanatic yourself, and you know the US air force has your back if you need to retreat and save your skin/see your family/engage in other life-valuing pursuits.
The same exact pattern is playing out in Afghanistan, by the way: the Afghan army is failing to stop the Taliban and now they're relying on warlords and militias to do their fighting for them.
The Kurds were still holding out better than the Iraqi army though.
They did not have the air strikes and were still holding parts of Kobane until we finally started the air strikes. Then they took back their territory with the aid of those airstrikes.
The Iraqi army has had those same airstrikes and is still forfeiting territory.
So yes the Kurds actually have a significantly better track record.
Which is a valid point.
But so is Qingu's that the Kurds are not as well equipped.
And IIRC Kirkuk was not Kurdish territory.
Though it was on their wish list.
I think a very solid argument could be made that the Kurds do have a better record than the Iraqi army.
Of course so do the Mariners. @Preacher
There is no "changing the narrative" from a US policy failure to an Iraqi army failure. The policy failure was depending on the Iraqi army in the first place.
Oh god the rare someone else invoking the mariners to make an off color point. UPS!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Having been involved in training the Afghan Army - it's a horrifying thought that there is a more incompetent military force out there. It's could be an interesting case study why tribal and militia forces are more competent than the supposedly more well trained and well equipped national forces.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198004484595
From one of the asshole pundits who brought you the Iraq War, it's a total lack of self-reflection.
call the queen, america's over
Question: Has Robert Kaplan ever been right about anything in his life?
White Man's Burden.
20th century style colonialism certainly doesn't have a ton to recommend it, but one positive was that it generally required a degree of realpolitik understanding of self interested sectarianism. The liberator shows up for freedom, the colonialist arrives with a business plan. Defending American interests and safety abroad and promoting democracy are not necessarily the same thing, and American leadership over the last decade plus has failed repeatedly to make that distinction. The sad truth is that the post-Saddam Iraqi state didn't fail because of American militaristic purfidy, it failed largely because of American naivety.
That's not to say the US should be going around founding kleptocracies, but there are real lessons to take away from colonial regimes. If you're going to create a vacuum of power you had better be ready to fill it.
The most damning part of the whole affair. They couldn't even be cynically self-interested enough to do the whole thing with a degree of amoral semi-competantance.
It's basically the domino theory, but in reverse. Just as stupid the second time through.
The Kurds have a pretty terrible track record.
I just read a history of them and their region up till the 90s, and the central-most lesson I got out of it is that they are completely unable to work together consistently. Outside powers have been arming the Kurds against various enemies since before the Ottoman Empire fell, and its been basically non-stop since then. In various rebellions and uprisings in Iran and especially in Iraq, one faction was always willing to work with the dictator at the time (including Saddam, after his gas attacks) for self-preservation or profit or power.
The two main factions in Iraq have held it together very well, but Barzani (KDP) and Talabani (PUK) have been at odds and sometimes full on civil war *for many decades. The power sharing deal that's kept Barzani as President (for an extra two years, against their constitution) expires in the summer. Talabani didn't mind Barzani being pres I guess because he himself got to be pres of Iraq (I don't actually know the Kurdish side to the last decade of events, need to do more reading).
And that's not even getting into the PKK in Turkey. After reading that book I full believe the Kurds will not get their state, except perhaps if the state is designed by outside powers to spite some other group.
I don't think this is true. Under Saddam Iraq had a very strong army. It wasn't great by Western standards but it was huge, pretty well equipped with a lot of real combat experience. It was constantly putting down Kurdish rebellions. It had a long, tough fight in the 80s against Iran where it got a ton of weapons and other help from outside, the West included. The force that rolled into Kuwait was over a million strong with a ton of tanks and a decade of fighting experience. And it was a national force, at least a bit. The Shia parts of Iraq didn't just turn to Iran's side, many of them did indeed fight to protect their nation. There was a lot of hand wringing about how well the US would fare against such a force during Desert Storm.
Then they got destroyed. Then sanctioned. Then destroyed again. Then, and this is what really did it, they were purged with the rest of the Ba'athists. So all the officers that knew how anything worked were out the door. Their replacements were the ones who were inept, incompetent and corrupt. That only continues today. It will take a generation to re-build that army.
If you want to run a country, you need to have people that know how to run the country. Debaathification went even further than denazification, and failed for exactly the reason that they had predicted such a program would in 1946.
Bush and co.'s greatest sin wasn't being evil con artists, it was being fucking incompetent.
It still boggles my mind that these kids were more interested in setting up an Iraqi stock market than they were a functioning electric grid.
Like, I still can't believe that's what really happened and not bad dystopian fiction.
edit- The initial title honestly had little to do with the article (which wasn't very insightful but wasn't wholly off base) in the first place.
It's more why they were incompetent imo. They were true believers. They brooked no dissent. And they valued loyalty over skill or honesty. And they were unswayed by evidence.
They were essentially zealots for a particular ideology and that's why it didn't work.
It's both mind-boggling and totally believable.
These were college republicans after all.
Loyalty indeed. The reason there were kids there putting back the country was because they were loyal to the republican party. So yeah they were incompetent, but the State Department had a ton of people, written plans and loads of experience with this sort of thing. Competence. But they were not perceived to be loyal.
Its funny (well, sorta), because this is the exact same sort of incompetence that shows up in the Iraqi army. It isn't that nobody knows how to do the job. Or that the people making the decisions are stupid. Its because the people making the decisions are filling the posts with people that are loyal to them and theirs, not their nation and not the mission. The Iraqis staffed their army just the way Bush staffed Iraq!
Minus the click-bait title and his suggestions for US action, I agree with almost this whole article.
And the one guy that could actually side straddle hop was fucking Jaysh al Mahdi anyway.
I haven't actually read this piece yet, but NPR had a very interesting interview with the author on my drive home and I wanted to post it before I forgot.
It looks at the recruitment and subsequent recovery of a teenage ISIS recruit, how he and others are groomed for jihadi movements, and the politics that they respond to.
What has the Queen done to you, that you would saddle her with that dysfunctional pile of bozo's.
Article in The Diplomat discussing rising tensions between Iran and Pakistan last year.
Al Manar News article concerning the Sunni group Jaysh al/ul Adl.
The Economist article about conflict between military and civilian leadership. This conflict is likely part of the problem when it comes to Pakistan effectively dealing with these groups (ISI historical involvement in facilitating and financing groups).
Also, isn't it unconstitutional to deny someone a job due to political views?
I want to say it's illegal to ask, but good luck ever proving it.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/israel-passes-law-boycotts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10613055/John-Kerry-labelled-anti-Semite-for-warning-of-possible-boycott-of-Israel.html
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/crushing-defeat-israel-lobby-anti-boycott-litigation-fails-uk?utm_source=EI+readers&utm_campaign=3694c5ac0b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
Just another check in the column of why I dislike Israel in general and the Israeli intelligence services in particular.