Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

[GRG55]

Once again, betting against the USA ultimately proves lousy odds.

The USA embassy in the district of Zinj, Bahrain was only a short distance from my villa. I was in the country in April, 2002 and heard the loudspeakers of the mob heading towards it when that embassy compound was attacked. At that time Bahrain was not considered a high security threat and the wall around the compound was not equipped with anti-climb provisions. The protesters were not well organized, the embassy building within the compound was not compromised (any real threat of that would have resulted in live fire from the US Marines charged with protecting it), but the rest of the compound was largely trashed including most of the vehicles which were set on fire.

What's been going on in Baghdad in recent days is another matter entirely. Pompeo had re-tweeted pictures of al-Muhandis at the US embassy attacks on Dec 31, two days ago. US Intelligence in the Middle East is far more comprehensive than it usually gets credit for.

And now we know what the US Administration's response is:

Iran's Qassem Soleimani killed in US air raid at Baghdad airport

Pre-dawn raid also killed Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a major escalation of regional tensions.

15 minutes ago

General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force and architect of its regional security apparatus, has been killed following a US air raid at Baghdad's international airport on Friday.

The White House and the Pentagon confirmed the death of Soleimani in Iraq, saying the attack was carried out at the direction of US President Donald Trump and was aimed at deterring future attacks allegedly being planned by Iran...

...Iraqi officials and the state television reported that aside from Soleimani, Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was also killed in the pre-dawn raid.

[Mega]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

The US needed to "Draw the line" with Iran.

Trump is not Carter !

[Mega]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

[Woodsman]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

Once again, betting against the USA ultimately proves lousy odds...

This is a disaster. It's all we serfs will get by way of a declaration of war. But war it is and war we'll get.

Surely this is a delight of those hoarding gold and oil, though our soldiers, whose value is measured in blood might be less enthused in the duties that lie ahead of them. My oldest, dearest friend sent his daughter off to serve in the sandbox a few weeks back. Yesterday she celebrated her 22 birthday and her soldiers threw a grand party for their LT. This morning, her husband of 5 months and a butter bar infantry LT himself, deploys into the pending storm.

I take what little solace their is wherever I can. Here it's the likelihood that the assassination of a commander of Soleimani's weight demands an Iranian reaction of at least a similar size. So I expect as a first gambit that all U.S. generals or high politicians traveling in the Middle East or elsewhere would be wise to get their affairs in order as nobody will be able to guarantee their safety anywhere. Of course, the company and field grades and the soldiers they command have no such illusions. All they have is their duty.

In the short term, this stupid act accomplishes nothing but an inviting an inevitable counter-attack. Iran will tie its response to the political calendar. Trump will go into his reelection campaign with our soldiers under threat everywhere. We can probably expect incidents like the Beirut barracks bombing to repeat themselves when he is most vulnerable - "our blood, his guts." And we have soldiers stationed in many countries around Iran. From now on none of them will be safe.

We will feel the consequences of this idiocy for decades to come. Iran's policies and support for foreign groups will intensify. No Iraqi politician will be able to argue for keeping U.S. forces in the country. The Houthi in Yemen, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, the paramilitary forces in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere all take actions to revenge this man. Our position in the Middle East will be severely constrained. And others will move in to take our place.

When will our leadership learn that killing the enemy is the easy part of a war? The difficulties come after that happened. And if 19 years of geopolitical disaster has taught us nothing, are we even capable of learning? One has to wonder. When did they stop teaching strategy at our war colleges and elite universities?

[jk]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

hezbollah in particular has global reach, and has been implicated in actions as far away as argentina. and i think [not sure] i read that they are currently active in venezuela. i expect the proxies to become much more active, so it's not just in the middle east that u.s. military and other u.s. assets, private and public, will be attacked.

also, do we have any info on soleimani's #2? one piece i read on 4G warfare proposed that there is natural selection among guerrilla leadership- as leaders get killed they are replaced by new leaders who have learned from their predecessors' mistakes. of course the irgc are not guerrillas, but i have no confidence that we are better off from this action.

[Mega]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

Look on the bright side, we know how to teat returning troops:-

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

hezbollah in particular has global reach, and has been implicated in actions as far away as argentina. and i think [not sure] i read that they are currently active in venezuela. i expect the proxies to become much more active, so it's not just in the middle east that u.s. military and other u.s. assets, private and public, will be attacked.

also, do we have any info on soleimani's #2? one piece i read on 4G warfare proposed that there is natural selection among guerrilla leadership- as leaders get killed they are replaced by new leaders who have learned from their predecessors' mistakes. of course the irgc are not guerrillas, but i have no confidence that we are better off from this action.

In Iran, and amongst some Iraqi Shi’a and Lebanese Hezbollah, Soleimani is regarded as a Shi’a Jason Bourne, John Wayne, Robin Hood, and Ryan Reynolds beyond his role as the equivalent of US Director National Intelligence and Commander JSOC.

Make no mistake, Soleimani should be dead.

Soleimani’s Qods Force was responsible for the Jan 20th, 2007 Karbala Raid.

5 US personnel were kidnapped and executed before the shooters equipped with US uniforms, weapons, vehicles, IDs escaping and evading over the border into Iran.

It was in direct response to the US arresting and detaining 2 senior Qods Force officers managing the inflow of EFPs and other kinetic support to be used against US forces from Iran.

In the last 16 hours, I’ve spoken to 3 different people directly involved with detaining Iranian Qods Force peeps in Iraq between 2005-2009.

The unconventional war between Iran and the US is about to start it’s 5th decade with catalysts for it stretching back 7/8 decades.

While Soleimani’s profile as Iranian Rambo Robin Hood remains very high, operationally he has been a major disappointment in recent years due to operational setbacks and losses.

Information operations wise, this is a massive loss to Iran. Soleimani is visually #2 in Iran.

Operationally, not so much.

Very roughly akin to ambushing & killing Yamamoto, but very much easier to execute.

An open source target deck exists of Qods Force senior leadership beyond Soleimani.

Perhaps 1-2 have already died in recent years while on working holiday in Syria ;)

A decade ago there was a long chain of successful targeted assassinations against Iranian nuclear programme tech and leadership talent in Iran.

I suspect something similar will occur with Qods Force leadership if/when this continues tit for tat.
——-

Hez and Qods Force certainly have global reach.

But for every successful Israeli Embassy in Argentina bombing, there’s a dozen known and undisclosed clown car failures in places like India and Thailand, countries not exactly known for their counter terrorist prowess.

I think the old adage “the enemy only have to win once(even if wearing clown shoes), we have to win every time” is relevant here.

US forces, diplomats, & NGOs in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon would be at greatest risk of reprisal attacks.

Bahrain, UAE, Eastern Saudi, Kuwait, Sudan, East Africa, and elsewhere to a lesser extent.

It will suck to be static security for US facilities for the next few years. Complacency can get you killed, and it’s very hard to maintain very high vigilance for extended periods of time.

If I had to guess at Iran’s response:

A high profile kinetic attack attempt against US interests in Iraq / Lebanon

Attempts to kidnap Americans

Iranian efforts to undermine Saudi regime go from 8 to 12.

Cyber(the US is much, much, much better but has commercial sector vulnerabilities)

[jk]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

wag the dog.

just started a pool in my office for when we first hear republicans say "we can't change horses in midstream."

[Woodsman]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

Fundamentally, Iran HAS to retaliate and HAS to do so publicly. Because whether the Iranians do retaliate or not, they are practically guaranteed another US attack in response for anything looking like a retaliation, whether Iran is involved or not. The Iranians simply have no other choice and their supreme leader has declared that there will be a retaliation.

There are some obvious guesses as to what these might look like, but it still leaves us a few core problems with what happens next. First, it is quite obvious from the flag waving claptrap that we are "locked and loaded" that Secretary Esper has painted us into an "over-reaction corner" by declaring that "the game has changed" and that the US will take "preemptive action" whenever it feels threatened. So the Iranians simply have no choice but to assume that we WILL over-react to anything even remotely looking like an Iranian response.

And talk about wagging the dog, the effect of this assassination sets up absolutely perfect conditions for a false flag event the likes of the "USS Liberty" attack. And that makes the Israelis as big a danger to US servicemen and facilities in the entire Middle-East as are the Iranians themselves. How? Well, simple. Fire a missile/torpedo/mine at any USN ship and blame Iran. We've seen this before. If that happens, the US political elites will do what they've done over the last 19 years: let US servicemen die to "protect" Israel at all costs (read up on the USS Liberty if you don’t know about it at http://www.gtr5.com/summary_of_events.htm)

There is also a very real risk of "spontaneous retaliations" by other parties (not Iran or Iranian allies). Ayatollah Khamenei has specifically declared that "Martyr Suleimani is an international face to the Resistance and all lovers of the Resistance share a demand in retaliation for his blood. All friends – as well as all enemies – must know the path of Fighting and Resistance will continue with double the will and the final victory is decidedly waiting for those who fight in this path." He is right because that fact remains that Suleimani - whatever our views on the man, right or wrong - was loved and revered by many people all over the globe, some of whom might just decide to avenge his death. This means that we might well see some kind of retaliation which, of course, will be blamed on Iran but which might not be the result of any Iranian actions at all.

Finally, should the Iranians decide not to retaliate, then we can be absolutely sure that Uncle Sam and his cousins Shmuel and Saud will take that as a proof of their putative "invincibility" and see it as a license to engage in even more provocative actions. Taken together, it would be irresponsible not to assume that Iran will retaliate and do so publicly.

Worse still are the internal political dynamics here at home. Trump has proved powerless against the Neocons running his foreign policy and this is demonstrated by the fact that they have used him to do all sorts of staggeringly stupid things - pretty much every one of his policy decisions towards Israel and/or Syria - and for a very simple reason. If Trump does something dumb and dangerous, he either gets away with it - in which case the Neocons are happy - or he fails and the consequences of his decisions are catastrophic, and so the Neocons align with the Democrats to jettison him and replace him with an even more subservient tool (Pence or Pelosi, it makes no difference to them). They might be able to get us to strike Iran AND get rid of Trump. It's a win-win for the Neocons!

Think about it from the Neocon point of view. Right now, the Democrats seem dead-set on committing political suicide with impeachment and that effectively locks in a Trump second term. The Neocons don’t want that. That said, they've been doing everything in their power to trigger a US attack on Iran pretty much since 1979. So why not have Trump do it? That way, if he "wins" (whatever the Hell that looks like), the Neocons and their Likud paymasters win. If he loses, the Iranians will still be in a world of pain and it makes the job of tossing Trump overboard all the easier. And should the region explode as a consequence, well that's all to the good. It helps Bibi and unites American Jews and evangelicals firmly behind Israel.

And should Israel be attacked, the Neocon sayanim will amp up the hasbara machine to 11 and immediately demand (and, no doubt, obtain) an all-out US attack on Iran and will undoubtedly be supported lock-step by the entire US political establishment and mainstream media. And should it happen that Israel is hit hard, then there's always nukes - ours or theirs - justified by something along the lines of "Iran wants to gas 6 million Jews and wipe the only democracy in the Middle-East off the face of the Earth" or something equally inspiring.

Even before his election, Trump has courted the Israel Lobby with a delectation extreme even by the standards of American politicians. No doubt he's calculating that with the Israel Lobby behind him, he's safe as a kitten, not realizing or caring that he has been used all along. To his (or one of his key adviser's) credit, he did NOT allow the Neocons to start a major war against Russia, China, the DPRK, Venezuela, Yemen, Syria, etc. But Iran is a totally different case as it has long been the "number one" target of the Neocons and Israel ("boys go to Baghdad, real men go to Tehran"). With all wars of choice fought over the last 19 years hopelessly lost, with the credibility of the US and Israeli military in tatters, what better time than now to restore their image by going to Tehran?

Assume for a minute that this analysis is correct and that Trump is the Neocon’s/Israeli’s "disposable President." That then makes the US armed forces (and the US, generally) disposable, too. From the Neocon/Israeli point of view, there are no real risks into throwing the US into a war with Iran. And what would the likely outcome of a US war on Iran be? Fundamentally, for the Neocons, "winning" means regime change or, failing that, destroying the Iranian economy. All Iran has to do to "win" is simply survive the onslaught.

If the old adage that the enemy only has to win once but we have to win every time is relevant here, then it's obvious that the Iranians don’t have to defeat CENTCOM or NATO or the IDF and the KSA's forces. They don’t even need to engage in large scale military operations. All they need to do is remain "standing" once the dust settles down. Ho Chi Minh once told the French "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours, but even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." And this is exactly why Iran will eventually prevail, likely at a huge cost of lives and infrastructure, but that will still be a victory.

But lest Americans imagine they can wage war without consequences to themselves, they should understand that a war against Iran would be a qualitatively (and even quantitatively) different war than the war against Iraq. It can be safely assumed that any such attack will result in a massive Iranian retaliation against US forces and facilities all over the region and a certain closure of the Strait of Hormuz. If we seriously plan to strike inside Iran, we would be faced with an explosion which would make all the wars since WWII look minor in comparison.

The one positive in this potential shitstorm is that Russia and/or China will not get directly involved militarily in this one. And neither will we use this crisis as a pretext to attack Russia and/or China. The Pentagon clearly has no stomach for a war (conventional or nuclear) against Russia and neither does Russia have any desire for a war against the USA. The same goes for China. However, it is important to remember that Russia and China have other options, political and covert ones, to really hurt us and help Iran. Russia and China will help Iran with intelligence, weapons systems, advisers, and economically, in overt and covert ways. Finally, both Russia and China have the means to "strongly suggest" to other targets on the US "country hit list" that now would be the perfect time to strike at US interests (say, in Far East Asia).

And then there is the UNSC where Russia and China will block any US resolution condemning Iran. Not that we give a damn about the UN or international law, for that matter, but most of the rest of the world very much does. This asymmetry is further exacerbated by our pitifully short attention span (weeks at most) when compared with Russia and China (decades and centuries). So why does that matter? Well, if the Iraqis officially declare that the US is an occupation force (which clearly it is), an occupation force which engages in acts of war against Iraq (which clearly it does) and that the Iraqi people want America and its transparently hypocritical talking points about "democracy" to pack-up and leave, what can we do about it? We can resist it, of course, but once that tiny fig leaf of "nation building" is gone and replaced by yet another ugly and brutal US occupation, the political pressure on the US to get the Hell out will become extremely hard to manage, both outside and even inside the USA. Here the moral dimension of war is decisive and far surpasses the physical dimension.

Why? Because Iran's best option - and they have many at their disposal - is to use its political influence to unite Iraqi political forces to officially demand the removal of US troops in Iraq. Kicking the US out of Iraq will mean that they can no longer occupy eastern Syria either, as their troops will be in danger between two hostile states. If the Americans leave Syria and Iraq, that will be the ultimate revenge for Iran and without having fired a single shot. To use this colossally reckless event to kick the US out of Iraq and Syria would be one of the most painful things Iran could do to us. It would also defend Iranian citizens and Iranian society from a direct US attack far more effectively than any "kinetic" response. Such an outcome would enable the Iranians to effectively frame Soleimani's assassination in a way that would give them absolute command of the moral high ground and would resonate across the "Arab Street." They would rightfully be able to claim that the "martyr’s blood" has liberated the Middle-East from the infidel's occupation.

The Iraqi Parliament is scheduled to debate a resolution demanding the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. While there is ZERO chance that we will gentlemanly agree to any such demands, it serves the purpose of placing the conflict in the political realm. That is – by definition – much more desirable than any form of violence, however justified it might seem to both sides. It remains to be seen if the Iraqi MPs have the spine to publicly demand what every country in the Middle East (and many of us here at home) have long wanted - Yankees, go home. Should that happen, it will be a total victory for Iran and yet another in a series of abject (self) defeats by our political and military leadership. And if one cares about preventing the senseless loss of more blood and treasure, it is the best of all possible scenarios.

If it doesn't happen, then all bets are off. The momentum triggered by this latest act of recklessness will result in many more deaths world-wide. As it stands now, I expect that there is roughly an 80% chance of full scale war in the Middle-East. God help us all.

[GRG55]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

Woody, this isn't a "new" war. Not by a long stretch. Dates back before the Crusades my friend.
And how long have you been under the delusion US soldiers and US diplomats weren't already at grave risk? The Pensacola Naval Air Station and Fort Hood folks, as merely two examples, might have a different view. And remember Fort Hood was a decade ago.

You concern yourself with the expected escalation of individual acts of terrorism; tit-for-tat retaliation.
As though there is some acceptable level of violence below which we can keep explaining it away as "not representative of Islam", (as the Saudi Royals and Donald "the-Saudis-are-our-friends" Trump tried to do after Pensacola). Acts of so called "lone wolf" terrorists with "no direct connection to ISIS (or pick your favourite alternative)". While anybody who questions this official nonsense is labelled Islamophobic.

The events at Fishmongers Hall should put paid to that. An event attendee, Usman Khan, who had been granted a one day exemption from being banned from London (apparently he suffered from an incurable predilection to plot the bombing of innumerable prominent public targets) to attend a "Learning Together " prison based education program, killed one of his Cambridge benefactors and attendees, Jack Merritt. Despite his good works and his humanity Mr Merritt was, after all, an infidel.

The Merritt family pleaded with Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn and other politicians not to "politicize" their son's death. Perhaps not realizing that Usman Khan, like every terrorist, knew full well he was undertaking a political act when he killed him.

We now live in a world of security barricades and armed personnel protecting Europe's Christmas markets. And apparently its all our fault, not those that plot and execute the attacks. So it is with the increasing number of attacks on Europe's Christian churches. And all manner of other examples.

The obsession with discrete terrorist acts, escalating or not, blinds people to the ideology behind the Islamic terror attacks, the dawa proselytizing. That is real source and the real threat.

War is a political act. This hit is no more, no less political than any other act of war. It is just one more in a long, unending string...that would have continued even if this one had not happened. Yet.

[Mega]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

He Has Iran where he needs them...............Trump is not "Jimmy".......he was not about to allow a re-run of the Hostage crisis again.

I think he has "Faxed" them very clearly that is NOT GOING to HAPPEN.

I have my problems with American overseas policy, but Iran is NO friend of mine.

As for them striking back, going to send state of the art F14's in?

Mike

[Woodsman]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

Woody, this isn't a "new" war. Not by a long stretch. Dates back before the Crusades my friend. And how long have you been under the delusion US soldiers and US diplomats weren't already at grave risk? The Pensacola Naval Air Station and Fort Hood folks, as merely two examples, might have a different view. And remember Fort Hood was a decade ago....

"Delusional [dih-loo-zhuh-nl], adjective:
1. Having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.
2. Psychiatry - maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness."

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. Just as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was an Iraqi soldier, a member of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. In other words, we killed an Iraqi general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq, a state we created through our invasion and dissolution of the Ba'athist Iraqi Republic and the farcical "purple thumb" elections. Recall that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a Status of Forces Agreement and in effect expelled the US from the country. That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in international law. Despite that, we continue combat operations in Iraq, only against the very forces we established, trained, and financed. These same Iraqi forces also conduct operations along side us against the Islamic State and al Qeada aligned jihadis in Iraq. The Iranian Soleimani and the Iraqi al-Muhandis were both instrumental in the destruction of the Islamic State and al Qaeda jihadis in Iraq and in Syria. We, the United States, along with our Israeli, Turkish and Gulf allies created, armed and supported those same jihadis. And we've also been destroying those same jihadis alongside Soleimani's and al-Muhandis' fighters.

The attack on our soldiers at Fort Hood was carried out by an American citizen born in Arlington, Virginia. The DoD classified the massacre at Fort Hood as "workplace violence", pending prosecution of Hasan in a court-martial. Nidal Hasan was charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. During his detention and court hearings, Hasan continued to receive paychecks and his medical expenses were paid by the military. At trial, Hasan justified his actions during the Fort Hood shooting by claiming that the US military was at war with Islam. He told the court that he had "switched sides" and regarded himself as a Mujahideen waging "jihad" against the United States. Anwar al-Awlaki praised Hasan's actions, calling him a hero. Following his trial, Hasan wrote a letter to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), requesting to be made a citizen of the Islamic State and signing his name as a "Soldier of Allah." Throughout Hasan's service, crimes, detention, and trial, the United States law defined terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” The U.S. Senate report on the Fort Hood massacre described the event as "the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001." Hasan was never charged with terrorism under any statute.

Usman Khan was a British subject born in the United Kingdom at Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire. Khan dropped out of school and preached for al-Muhajirou, a militant Salafi jihadist network based in the United Kingdom. Khan's home in Stoke-on-Trent was raided by counter-terrorist police in 2008 and following a 20-month investigation, he was not charged with terrorism. Khan then became a community organizer, helping to put together a sharia law conference in 2009. He then traveled to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, a major theater of militancy and terrorism. Following his return from Pakistan, Khan was one of a group of nine men arrested in 2010 who were the focus of an MI5 anti-terror operation. He pleaded guilty in 2012 to al Qeada-inspired terrorism offences, including plans to bomb the London Stock Exchange, the Houses of Parliament, the US embassy, two rabbis at two synagogues, the Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, the home of then London Mayor Boris Johnson, building a terrorist training camp, attending terrorism related operational meetings, preparing to travel abroad, and assisting others in traveling abroad for terrorist activities. Following his trial, Khan received an indeterminate sentence with a minimum term of eight years.

After appeal, the Court of Appeal dropped the sentence in 2013. Khan was then sentenced to a single 16-year term, subject to automatic release after serving eight years. Khan was allowed to leave Belmarsh Prison in December 2018, upon which he was provide accommodations by the Stafford Borough Council. There Khan successfully completed the UK's principal rehabilitation scheme for terrorism convicts, the "Healthy Identity Intervention Programme." He also completed the "Desistance and Disengagement Programme," which British authorities claim to address the root causes of terrorism. Khan was considered a "success story" and following completion of a Cambridge University rehabilitation program called "Learning Together," he was featured as a case study of the program's effectiveness, and was under consideration for admittance to Cambridge as an undergraduate. To commemorate his success, Khan was granted special permission to participate in Cambridge University's "Five Year Celebration" where he attended storytelling and writing workshops. It was there where Khan stood up, threatened to detonate what turned out to be a fake suicide vest, and then brutally murdered Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, two Cambridge University rehabilitation employees who had earlier befriended and helped him, by stabbing them in the chest with two knives taped to his wrists.

The attack on our sailors and airmen at the Pesacola NAS was carried out by Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, a second lieutenant in the Royal Saudi Air Force who was assigned to Pensacola for initial pilot training, basic aviation, and English-language instruction in August 2017 under an agreement between the KSA and the US government which provides for such training following completion of an extensive background and security investigation, after which applicants are granted access to secure facilities and information. On 11 December 2019, the Saudi government revealed that Alshamrani appears to have embraced radical ideology as early as 2015. A Twitter account believed to have been used by Alshamrani indicates that four radical Islamist religious figures appear to have shaped his extremist thought. The account also expressed support for radical Islam and terrorism, sectarianism, support for the Taliban and hatred for the West. These facts were apparently not reviewed in the investigation of Alshamrani subsequent to his acceptance in the training program.

Prior to the attack, Alshamrani hosted a dinner party at which he and three other Saudi students had watched videos of other US mass shootings. All foreign students on the base were accounted for and no additional arrests were made. Students from Saudi Arabia have been ordered by their Saudi commanding officer to remain on the base. The FBI agent leading the investigation said that all of the Saudi students are cooperating with the investigation of Alshamrani. The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed "its deep distress" after the incident and offered "its sincere condolences to the victims' families, and wishes the injured a speedy recovery." Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud called President Donald Trump and the President reported that the king expressed his "sincere condolences" to those involved. Trump further elaborated that the king had said that the Saudi people were angered by the attack and that the perpetrator "in no way shape or form represents the feelings of the Saudi people who love the American people."

Which is expected, considering the United States considers Saudi Arabia a critical ally and finances its military to the tune of some $50 billion USD a year. Yet Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of fundamentalist ideology and the largest source of funding for organized international terrorism. For instance, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals who were nurtured and financed through the good offices of the US Saudi Arabian embassy and Saudi intelligence officials. Saudi agent Omar al-Bayoumi provided substantial assistance to Saudi hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000. At the same time he was aiding the hijackers, Bayoumi was getting large salary increases from a Saudi defense front company tied to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, where he worked as a ghost employee. Another alleged Saudi intelligence officer who handled the hijackers, Osama Bassnan, worked closely with Bayoumi. The CIA reported that Bassnan received funding and a fake passport from Saudi government officials, from the Saudi ambassador to the United States who later became the Saudi intelligence minister. Saleh al-Hussayen, a Saudi interior ministry official, stayed at the same hotel in Herndon, Virginia with the Pentagon cell hijackers on Sept. 10, 2001. When FBI agents discovered this, they attempted to confront him over his previous denials of meeting with or even knowing the hijackers, but failed to do so as he had been spirited out of the country along with dozens of other Saudi VIP suspects at Saudi Ambassador Bandar’s request and with the approval of President George W. Bush.

If I am to be accused of delusional thinking for pointing out the futility and counterproductive nature of the United States' undeclared war against Iran, and the schizophrenic, incompetent and ham-fisted prosecution of it, then I have to wonder how would one characterize the conduct of our leadership as I describe in the preceding paragraphs?

And if this is indeed a conflict that goes back to the Crusades, why not then not have the Roman, Orthodox, and Protestant churches resolve their schism and reunite as one holy, catholic, and apostolic church so as to lead a united Russia and the West in a new Crusade? Following the recapture of Constantinople and the restoration of the Hagia Sophia to a Christian cathedral, we can then lay siege to Jerusalem, in time returning not only the Holy Land to Christendom, but ridding the whole of the Mediterranean world - Turkey, Iran, the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa - of the barbarian Islamic scourge once and for all.

While no more fantastical a plan than that currently being advanced and prosecuted by the Neocons in the Departments of State and Defense, it at least has the advantage of being consistent, logical, and with goals clearly in the interests of the citizens of the United States and of those other states comprising what we once called Western Civilization.

[Mega]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

[kriden]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

Idiots scream: "IT'S AN ACT OF WAR!"
Yeah, so? An act of war only matters if you choose to go to war over it. Even then, it only matters if you win. For example, the USA committed acts of war against Germany & Japan before Pearl Harbor.
Is Iran going to declare war?
"Iran will almost certainly go after US personnel in Iraq and elsewhere."
Which is... totally unlike what they've been doing for the past 17 years. 🙄🙄🙄
Typical
- They kill us: (crickets)
- We kill them: "InSaNe EsCaLaTiOn!!!"

[jk]

Re: Once Again, Ultimately a Bad Bet

fwiw this thread may be of interest:

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/stat...21769777909761

iirc i just read that another 2800 troops are being sent... somewhere. iraq? wherever, into what is truly a deadly swamp. the thin edge of a newer, bigger, middle-east "surge" that we will be "forced" to implement as the tit-for-tat escalates? another war of choice, extending the endless war of the last couple of decades. i agree with woody's remarks on this.

cui bono?

woody points to neocons and the likud, but surely there are profiteers as well, military-industrial, oil interests for starters. who else?