BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE
THAT CRAZY CRANKY CLINTON IS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE F.B.I. YET AGAIN.
REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY STOPPED CHEWING OFF THE HEAD OF A SMALL TODDLER LONG ENOUGH TO SNARL, "IT DON'T MEAN S**T! NO ONE CAN STOP ME! DID YOU NOT SEE MY LATEST TWEET?"
THESE REPORTERS DID SEE IT.
“The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining.”
WHEN THESE REPORTERS ASKED WHAT CRANKY HERSELF OWED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, LIKE THE TRANSCRIPTS TO HER WALL STREET SPEECHES, SHE LUNGED AT THESE REPORTERS WITH HER FANGS BARED BUT TRIPPED OVER HER OWN IMMENSE BELLY FAT AND FELL TO THE GROUND.
AT WHICH POINT, THESE REPORTERS HIGHTAILED IT OUT OF THERE.
Saif Hameed and Maher Chmaytelli (REUTERS) report, "Iraqi Shi'ite militias said on Friday they would launch an offensive against Islamic State west of Mosul imminently, a move which would block any retreat by the Sunni jihadists into Syria but is likely to alarm Iraq's northern neighbor Turkey."
This may or may not alarm Turkey.
Of greater concern should be the issue of the region which is not going to see these militias as 'helpers' or 'liberators' but as attackers and threats to their well being.
Then there's the US government.
Their bombings are not to be directed by these militias, they are not to support these militias.
These militias are accused of War Crimes.
There's also the concern that Hayder al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, has stated that these militias will not take part.
Is there any consistent in any of this?
Apparently not.
On that topic, Stephen Gowans (GLOBAL RESEARCH) explores the differences between the US government's views and actions in Iraq versus in Syria:
To recover Ramadi from Islamic State, Iraqi forces surrounded and cordoned off the city. [6] In addition, the US led coalition bombarded Ramadi with airstrikes and artillery fire. [7] The bombardment left 70 percent of Ramadi’s buildings in ruins. The city was recovered, but “the great majority of its 400,000 people” were left homeless. [8]
Iraqi forces also besieged the city of Fallujah, preventing most food, medicine and fuel from entering it. [9] Militias “prevented civilians from leaving Islamic State territory while resisting calls to allow humanitarian aid to reach the city.” [10] This was done “to strangle Islamic State” [11] with the result that civilians were also “strangled.” Inside the city, tens of thousands endured famine and sickness due to lack of medicine. [12] Civilians reportedly survived on grass and plants. [13] Many civilians “died under buildings that collapsed under” artillery bombardment and coalition air strikes. [14]
The current campaign to recover Mosul is based on the same siege strategy US forces and their Iraqi client used to liberate Ramadi and Fallujah. US and allied warplanes have been bombarding the city for months. [15] Iraqi forces, aided by US Special Forces, are moving to cordon it off. “Some aid groups estimate that as many as a million people could be displaced by fighting to recapture the city, creating a daunting humanitarian task that the United Nations and other organizations say they are not yet ready to deal with.” [16]
Writer and journalist Jonathan Cook commented on the utter hypocrisy of Westerners who condemn the Syrian/Russian campaign to liberate East Aleppo from Islamist fighters while celebrating the Iraqi/US campaign to do the same in Mosul. Targeting the British newspaper, the Guardian, beloved by progressives, Cook contrasted two reports which appeared in the newspaper to illustrate the Western heart beating for all except those the US Empire drowns in blood.
Report one: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the beginning of a full-throttle assault by Iraqi forces, backed by the US and UK, on Mosul to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS – an assault that will inevitably lead to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population.
Report two: The Guardian provides supportive coverage of the US and UK for considering increased sanctions against Syria and Russia. On what grounds? Because Syrian forces, backed by Russia, have been waging a full-throttle assault on Aleppo to win it back from the jihadists of ISIS and Al-Qaeda – an assault that has led to massive casualties and humanitarian suffering among the civilian population. [17]
Central to Western propaganda is the elision of the Islamist character of the Al Qaeda militants who tyrannize East Aleppo. This is accomplished by labeling them “rebels,” while the “rebels” who tyrannize the cities the United States and its allies besiege are called “Islamic State,” ISIL” or “ISIS” fighters. The aim is to conjure the impression that US-led sieges are directed at Islamic terrorists, and therefore are justifiable, despite the humanitarian crises they precipitate, while the Syrian-led campaign in East Aleppo is directed at rebels, presumably moderates, or secular democrats, and therefore is illegitimate. This is part of a broader US propaganda campaign to create two classes of Islamist militants—good Islamists, and bad ones.
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Iraq"
"Rigged?"
No comments:
Post a Comment