This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Too Lazy To Read The Wikileaks Data? Here It Is, In Easily Digestable Video Format
Too lazy to comb through the thousands of disclosures in the Wikileaks data? Shannon Larratt has created the following youtube video of monthly IED events in Afghanistan, in which a monthly tally of injuries and casualties is kept, both "friendly" and "enemy." The results are dramatic, and reminiscent of the clip showing how the US and Russia nuked their own territory several thousand times in the past 60 years. They are also reminiscent of various admonitions (unheeded) from The Prince Bride.
Here is how Shannon describes the data:
I made this animated map showing IEDs as documented in the recent major data leak facilitated by Wikileaks (overlaid on a NATO map of the area). It starts off slow, but the longer you wait, the more furious the attacks seem to get.
The green explosions are ones in which no one was hurt, yellow ones are injuries only, and red ones are fatal IEDs. On the death and injury tallies, the left column is friendlies (including both allied forces and civilians), and the right column is so-called "enemies". Everything else should be obvious.
I created this with some quick one-off custom software written late at night to do the required animation (loosely inspired by a tool I built in the 90s to animate web server log files, but only very loosely since I no longer have the source code). The reason I mention this is to apologize in advance for any errors.
FINALLY, please do feel free to repost this anywhere you would like. If you need raw video, or want my cleaned CSV files of the IED data, or want a different rendering, feel free tp drop me a line at snowrail@gmail.com or at my zentastic.com website.
Full clip below:
h/t AJ
»
- 18239 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Just a tactic.
Tactic? Since when is paying the enemy not to attack you not a sign of weakness? History has shown that "tactic" has not worked out too well.
Once you've paid the Danegeld you'll never be rid of the Dane.
It's CHEAPER!!!
You either don't address and/or understand the purpose of war:
1) Expand the Power of the Elite
2) Profit
There is no other purpose for war and the second is not achieved with a conflict of short duration, unless the intent is to conquer/enslave to garner any/all wealth (e.g. natural resources, labor).
Agreed. See response post above.
"When we're attacked either by a country or an ideology"
What if a retaliatory war is based on a deliberate false disinformation campaign, blaming parties who are now known to be innocent?
It's pretty hard to attack an idealogy with traditional means.
What if the idealogy (neo-con fascism) has succeeded in its attack on the founding ideaology of America (liberal democracy) and is now misdirecting our wrath elsewhere?
When we are attacked? So far, the US is the attacking force.
Never understood the compulsory of so many US citizens to depict themselves as victims when they are clearly victimizers.
As to not politicize a war, it is a US fantasy. I read it so often now.
War is a political prerogative.
Wars are always politics. They cannot be otherwise.
Our nation is overrun with spineless pussies. This will never happen again, sadly.
Sadly, the AfPak conflict is not unlike the Apache Wars or the Chinese insursion into Tibet. You are talking about modernity verses tribal-religio anachronism. Neither is better than the other. They are only different, but competing over territory.
If we are not going to learn any moral lesson from the Trail of Tears, small-pox infected blankets and the exile of Sku-mdum, then why even place one American solider in harm's way and have this IED hit-parade? If we want the pipelines so bad, just hold a national referendum and deploy 1,000 neutron bombs to sterilize the region. How many kids since 2001 (9 years) have now grown up to hump an RPG or spot for a remote detonator between goat herdings? Macedonia, Muguls, Tsars, British, Soviets and now the USA. Really?
Thomas Jefferson does not live inside the Korengal Valley.
You forget the Russian, Chinese, Pakistanis and Indians hold a nuclear veto on what we can do in the region. They will not allow the West to occupy the region for the long term. All but the Pakistanis hate the majority population the Pashtun and want them subjugated. However, if we stay too long or attack their interests elsewhere, the Chinese or Russians will give the Pashtun weapons to destroy our armoured column and helicopter. It will not be fun trying to evaciate by air huge numbers of US contractors and military personnel.
Russia, China, Pakistan, and India are pleased-as-punch that we're up to our eyeballs in this mess. Reagan coaxed USSR into military spending well-beyond its means. RCPI are doing the same to us. And we're too stupid to see this....or are we? What makes a bigger mess? Defaulting on the debt that we've sold.
Russia, China and India hate the Taliban and want them destroyed. If the US continues to screw with Russia and China they might change their minds.
That is amazing. And a wonderful example of how something graphical can convey information so much more meaningfully.
There is basically nothing of importance in the wikileaked docs that we didn't already know, such as...
1. A lot of people, innocent and otherwise are getting killed. Really??
2. Pakistan's intelligence service and elements of its military are in bed with the Taliban. No shit. That's been widely known since the EARLY 90's.
3. The war isn't going well. Again, shocking.
4. The Karzi government is a bunch of corrupt morons. If you say so, until know we thought they were pure as new fallen snow.
What has/will happen as a consequence of releasing all those documents is that a bunch of Afghani civilians that helped us and/or the Karzi government are going to get killed. If you are on the ground in Afghanistan and have access to those docs, it is pretty easy to identify individuals and families that offered help. Right know the Taliban is combing these documents and making a list. Wikileaks will be responsible for many, many people being murdered. The leakers ought to be shown the business end of a firing squad.
Quantum Nucleonics
As I asked before have they released the final 15k documents?
The leak CONFIRMS what was CONJECTURE. Paper trail.
So you think that the Taliban don't know who has been collaborating with the enemy? The Taliban are not aliens dropped from the sky. They are the military wing of the majority population the Pashtun. The Pashtun are 42% of the population in Afghanistan. Add all the Pashtun in Pakistan (16% of 160 million) and the total number is huge. The next biggest population group in Afghanistan is the Tajiks at 27%.
The US built up the new Afghan army and police forces almost entirely of Tajiks. That is the equivalent of China coming to the US and filling the US military and police with blacks. Once the US leaves Afghanistan the Pashtun are going to slaughter the Tajiks for their treasonous actions. This is not the last time the Tajiks aligned themselves with an invader. The Tajiks were the allies of Russia during the last Afghan war. Payback will be swift and brutal.
The psychosis of the western global elite is responsible for many, many people being murdered actually. Wikisneaks is/has been corrupted. The leakers are the firing squad. Pay no attention to the dazzling lights, walk away, starve the beast.
"Chief Victorio, is considered one of the fiercest of the Apaches".
i really really like you, your my new hero, FU cheeky.
can i say, i have finally found my
H O M E L A N D S E C U R I T Y guy.
Pretty flashing green dots reminds me of July 4th.
Is there a reciprocal ROE (rules of engagement) with these folks? I think not.
Broadcast videos of their captured fighters in a bath of pigs-blood will work wonders. No virgins. No paradise. No motivation to continue the work.
I am more equal...
My neighbor is a Ukrainian who was sent to Afghanistan. He worked behind the lines but knew combat troops. He said the Afghanis would leave dead bodies with their genitals stuffed in their mouths to demoralize the Soviet troops. It had an effect.
You really think they altered that particular strategy for the US invaders?
+1. The Viet Cong did the same thing to American troops.
And now some of the world wrings it hands over "American war crimes"?
I was a combat grunt in Vietnam. We often cut the ears and heads off dead NVA.
If you want to know why we're in Iraq/Afghanistan read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Theory
This is Brzezinski's Bible. You know, Brzezinski the Bilderberger, the guy who types in the words that appear on el Presidente Lawn Jockey's teleprompter.
PS: 911 Inside Job
Good going, Attila!
from Wikipedia:
"Later, in 1919, Mackinder summarised his theory as:
"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island controls the world."
Any power which controlled the World-Island would control well over 50% of the world's resources. The Heartland's size and central position made it the key to controlling the World-Island."
Oops! If the US Empire is dumb enough to take this theory as its strategic vision, then they deserve to lose in Afghanistan. "Command the Heartland"-- as if anybody could ever successfully command the great tribal mish-mash of central Asia. Ask the Chinese, ask the Russians. They've been "commanding" their way around the Heartland for 500 years or more. And failing to take the whole thing. Does America have 500 years to fail at this as well?
Hell, go ask the Mongols; they did "Rule the Heartland" and even then they still didn't rule the world. What stupid, abstract imperial bullshit is this? And why would any intelligent American believe this leftover "Fail Britannica" crap?
But the Empire loves going to war, so I guess one Ridiculous Bullshit Theory is as good as any other for them. Anything to be the next group of White Ignoramuses drawing lines on the map.
Is this where the term "dickhead" came from? Afghanistan :-)
Men are brutal, war is brutal. Best tactic, avoid war.
What if war finds you?
Then you have a choice....fight very hard and well, or, be willing to give up your life to avoid war.
Boiled down, this is what it's all about. Two simple, but not very easy, choices.
iron f**king maiden. up the irons. the war in iraq is blood for oil, pure and simple.
Correct! Oil is but a resource. How many wars have been fought for resources? All of them (even the ones masked with noble veneers). One day we'll be fighting for water.
We are there to steal Russias resources and limit the growth of China and India. The Indian elite are backing the Tajik controlled Afghan government 100%. The Indian elite are selling their lower castes down the river just like they did during the British occupation. The US will turn on India once again. We will see if that finally triggers a backlash against the Indian elite.
I'd have gone with The Trooper myself.
So much stupidity, that I don't have the time to refute individual claims. If insane conspircy theories are the best you can muster then I have doubts about any economic opinions I read here. Perhaps it's not that bad, since some of you might be financial idiot savants. I can even prove the point. I've read through most comments in this thread and haven't heard Islam mentioned once. You cannot intelligently address this region or conflict without even mentioning Islam, at least in passing, but you zipper heads pull it off.
Oh I get it...we're fighting over there because they're Muslim. Now it all makes sense.
Let me get this straight. You're down with exotic, complicated conspiracy theories, but a good ole simple religious war is beyond the Pale? I really am leaning toward the idiot savant explaination.
invading a land for its resource but using another excuse is not a complicated conspiracy theory, it's a history lesson.
Wouldn't invading a land for it's resources actually require seizing those resources? What resources have we seized? I'm guessing we're going to seize Iraqi oil in the same manner we've seized saudi oil. We'll seize it to the tune of $80 dollars a barrel approximately. I know, I know, it's the corporations. We did it so the evil oil corporations could recover the oil for the Iraqi government. You mean those same evil oil corporations that would have been contracted to recover the oil for the Iraqi government whether we invaded or not?
Do I know why we invaded Iraq? No. I don't have access to that information anymore than you do. I have my theories, and yes it involved the forced spread of democracy and a sadly naive George W. Bush. Who thought he could use Iraq's vast wealth to fuel a democracy that would become a shining light in the middle east. It was a PR campaign for democracy conducted by the worst PR firm in history, and the ride ain't over yet.
A good ole simple religious war works for good ole simple people, but the military industrial complex doesn't care one whit about religion, aside from the fact that it buys a certain amount of popular consent. It's a cover story, not a motive.
Islam has nothing to do with our motives.
If you really want to find out why we're in Iraq/Afghinstan you can start by reading this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Theory
Halford Mackinder laid out the plan for conquering the world more than a century ago. Ths is not a "conspiracy theory" it's simple fact. Even the establishment says so. Mackinder was knighted for plan, the one we are now following.
Islam has nothing to do with our motives? Then who killed over 3k people on 9/11. I think I know your answer Booooshhhh. You say it's not about conspiracy theories either, but you link to a conspiracy theory.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Perhaps you can enlighten those that comment with your brilliance by posting an article of your own.
Can Radio Zero get graphics like that? Maybe with bank failures?
WE NEED TO GTFO OF THERE!!!!
WE NEED TO GTFO OF THERE!!!!
WE NEED TO GTFO OF THERE!!!!
WE NEED TO GTFO OF THERE!!!!
I AM SICK OF THIS BS CONFLICT!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the most intelligent thing that has been written on this subject. We cannot win this fight, and the best we can hope for is an orderly pull out that minimizes the casualties.
The British were ignominiously kicked out of Afghanistan in November of 1841, when their attempt to install a puppet government as a buffer against Russian incursions into their territory in India failed. They were guaranteed safe passage to India and left their cantonment with 4,500 troops and 12,000 civilians, many of them wives and children and many of them on foot, through the mountains in winter. Ghilzai tribesmen fell on them in the snow of the passes, sniping and raiding. They carried off women and children when they had the opportunity, and killed when they could. The Ghilzais harried them through the mountains and only a few made it out alive. There is a remarkable diary still extant, written by the widow of one of the officers, describing the ordeal.
My former co-worker that served in Desert Storm said that all the servicemen could talk about was "WTF..we're RIGHT HERE!!!...Why not take Saddam out NOW?" Bush 1 was a wimp: had he "manned up", his moron spawn would'nt have had to lie and con us into this quagmire. Bush 2 is the biggest pussy on earth. This blood is on his hands.
Give Americans their trinkets (i-pad, i-phones, crap tv, wal*mart chinese-made shat) and the will blissfully accept any fate the PTB reigns down on their feeble pin-heads.
Obama was one of the few who voted against the clusterfock war in Iraq---but elect him President, and he escalates this nightmare. Go figure. The war profiteers are laughing at us. If there is a GOD (there IS)--he has promised to bring ruin upon those ruining his creation. America is just beggining to reap the bitter harvest that she has sown.
We did not seize Iraq in 1991 for multiple reasons.
1) Bush needed to win a second term and an invasion and occupation of Iaq could have screwed the pooch.
2) We did not want Arab armies occupying Iraq with us. We already had plans with the British for a future invasion.
The US had a long term plan to invade and occupy Iraq. To that end they had brought to the US hundreds of Iraqi refugees that were to be used during a future invasion. Bill Clinton beating George Sr, threw the timeline out the window. The Neocons and Israeli stooges constantly pushed Clinton to invade Iraq. Clinton said he was very proud he did not follow the advice of the Neocons. The famous toppling of the statue of Saddam featured a number of these refugees. They were the middle age ones hitting the statue with the shoes.
Of interest was the worry the US had after the defeat of Saddams forces. The weakening of the Iraqi army and airforce allowed the Shia and Kurds to try and seize power. Fearing Iran, the ally of the Kurds and Shia, the US allowed the Republican guard to use helicopters and tanks to put down the rebellion. Thousands were slaughtered. To this day the Shia and Kurds maintain tight ties to the Iranians. They will never trust the US again after being screwed so badly.
You make the incorrect assumption that no action by anyone else in the region could effect events except the actions of America. No wonder you believe in conspiracies. There are gaps in your knowledge and you've filled them in with the biggest baddest boogie man you can think of, and it's called the military industrial complex.
1)If Bush the first had went into Iraq against the will of Saudi Arabia the public would have given him a conquer's welcome. Sadam's head on a silver platter might have been the only thing that could have overcame "read my lips".
2) Sunni Muslims would not take up arms against other Sunni's in favor of the dirty kuffir. There was never going to be any assistance in the conquest of Iraq from other muslims, except maybe Iran(Shia) who would have hoped to topple the minority Sunni government and install the majority Shias. As a matter of fact part of the deal with Saudi Arabia was to not conquer Iraq. There is a religious mandate that no muslim lands can be occupied by the kuffir.
Bin Ladin wanted the Mujahideen to remove the Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. He was a pretty big deal after Afghanistan 1, but the Saud royal family over ruled him and opted to allow the U.S. to conduct the military action. The stationing of kuffir troops on the Saudi peninsula was the major event that got him on the war path against the great satan. He didn't like us to start with because we abandoned the mujahideen after they kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan, and this was the nail in the coffin, literally for 3 thousand on 9/11.
Why did we start the second gulf war. I don't know. Maybe it was simply a son's wish to finish his father's work, and the naive belief that if the Middle East just tried democracy they would like it, even if it was at the point of a gun. It really doesn't matter now, since the big question isn't how we got here, but how we get out.
Dick Cheney, an impotent, cold-war fossil thought of himself as a brilliant statesman and all members of the PNAC concurred - he wanted these wars since their outcome was clearly delineated in his mind and if it didn't turn out so graciously - so what, he would just walk away without so much as a "tsk, tsk". Of course, our politicans vote for war so as not to appear "weak" before the voters. So who loses, the American public and innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. The formula the elites use is "wash, rinse, repeat" - and we suckers fall for it every time...
This AfPak war was about bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda, then it turned into the Taliban, now its the ISI support of the Taliban. Next stop - an armored corp on the Persian frontier? Nearly 10 years in and the USA can't find an a 6'4" Arab with an Army in Pashtun/Tajik land? Good job holding the ground with all that SIGINT.
Please. The purpose of war is to end war.
Now your kids have shell shock from a trillion dollar snipe hunt.
DynCorp, KBR, L3 and WNG salute you and yours.
Cha Ching!
RUN TO THE HILLS!!!
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
Watch Adrian Lamo the BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH9pGZAV18c
He's high. He isn't high on pot.
Something isn't right here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Lamo
The biggest red flag re: Wikileaks is that they released the documents in coordination with the New York Times (an arm of the American Imperial Government).
So, what did we learn from the document dump? Afghanistan is a lost cause (excuse to leave) and Pakistan is slapping us in the face (excuse to...).
The following summary by an oil industry analyst sums up the degree to which Iran is hemmed in by hostile US and NATO military. Emphasis has been added to show the number of countries involved: ‘Iran literally is surrounded by American troops, notes an oil market analyst, Energy and Capital editor Christian A. DeHaemer. There is no evidence of an imminent attack, but he connects a number of recent events and the presence of American soldiers to warn that oil prices might soar — with or without a pre-emptive strike aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear power ambitions. Iran is bordered on the east by Pakistan and Afghanistan, where U.S. troops have been waging a costly war, in terms of money and lives, against Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other terrorists. The Persian Gulf is on Iran’s southern border, and last week’s report, confirmed by the Pentagon, that 11 warships had sailed through the Suez Canal, raised alarm bells that the U.S. is ready to fight to keep the Persian Gulf open. Iran has threatened it could close the waterway, where 40 percent of the world’s oil flows in tankers, if the United Nations or the United States by itself carry out harsh energy sanctions against the Islamic Republic. An Israeli ship has also reportedly joined the U.S. armada.Kuwait, which is heavily armed by the U.S. and is home to American bases, is located on the southwestern border of Iran. The country’s western neighbors are Turkey and Iraq, also home to American bases, and Turkmenistan, the Caspian Sea and Azerbaijan are the Islamic Republic’s northern neighbors. The U.S. Army last year advanced military cooperation with Turkmenistan. An independent Caspian news agency has confirmed unusually heavy activity of American troops along the border with Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Brigadier General Mehdi Moini said last week that his forces increased patrols, including tanks and anti-aircraft units, along the border with Azerbaijanbecause they noticed increased American activity. Iran charged that Israeli forces were also present, sparking a virtual war alert among the Iranian Guards.’ 65
The US naturally intends these forces to be a factor of strength in the coming conflict against Iran. There is, however, another possibility, which is that US units in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere near Iran, which are widely scattered or which are operating in inaccessible areas, could be surrounded by Iranian or pro-Iranian forces, or else could have their supply lines cut by the Iranian side.66 A retired U.S. Navy captain who had served in the nuclear submarine fleet under Admiral Hyman Rickover described in a conversation with this writer on July 18 how he had at one time in his career participated in an exercise which assumed that 35,000 US troops had been cut off in or near Iran. The immediate response was the use of nuclear weapons, he recalled.
This is not the appropriate place to offer a detailed hypothetical scenario of what the consequences of an Israeli or US attack on Iran might be, but it is already clear that they would be catastrophic. We should bear in mind once again the Brzezinski testimony of February 2007. One factor which has changed is unquestionably the growing strength of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which would almost certainly be brought to bear on Israel if Iran is bombed. To this must be added in the now-declared Israeli policy of carrying out retaliatory strikes against Syria in response to whatever Hezbollah might do to the Israelis. In the London Times of April 18, 2010 we read: ‘Israel has delivered a secret warning to Syrian President Bashar Assad that it will respond to missile attacks from Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese-based Islamist group, by launching immediate retaliation against Syria itself. In a message, sent earlier this month, Israel made it clear that it now regards Hezbollah as a division of the Syrian army and that reprisals against Syria will be fast and devastating. It follows the discovery by Israeli intelligence that Syria has recently supplied long-range ballistic missiles and advanced anti-aircraft systems to Hezbollah. “We’ll return Syria to the Stone Age by crippling its power stations, ports, fuel storage and every bit of strategic infrastructure if Hezbollah dare to launch ballistic missiles against us,” said an Israeli minister, who was speaking off-the-record, last week. The warning, which was conveyed to Damascus by a third party, was sent to reinforce an earlier signal by Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister. “If a war breaks out the Assad dynasty will lose its power and will cease to reign in Syria,” he said earlier this year.’ 67
Based on this report, we must assume that a conflict with Iran would impose the necessity of US combat operations in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, with the status of Pakistan being anybody’s guess. Hostilities would probably involve Yemen, where a pro-Iranian insurrection confronts the Saudi-backed regime, and might also implicate Somalia, and even Sudan. For a bankrupt power with an overstretched and exhausted army like the US today, this means biting off a very large chunk of the globe as a theater of war. Bombing Iran means killing Russian technicians at the Bushehr nuclear reactor and other sites. It may mean killing Chinese present in the oil fields were supervising Chinese oil imports from Iran. Bombing Syria may involve the Tartus naval base of the Russian navy, which is being expanded. From here, the possibilities of grave danger go on and on.
Another way in which the planned attack on Iran could go out of control and lead to a more general war, including a nuclear war by miscalculation, has to do with the erosion of the conventional superiority traditionally enjoyed by Israel in the Middle East.. As long as the Israelis can win on the conventional plane against their Arab neighbors, they may not be tempted to escalate to nuclear weapons of mass destruction. But, if Israel is facing conventional defeat, then the impulse towards nuclear escalation may become irresistible. The failure of the Israeli efforts against Hezbollah in the August 2006 war already suggested that Israel’s conventional edge was no longer what it had been in the past. Now, there are press reports of large transfers of solid-fuel ballistic missiles with reasonably accurate guidance systems into the hands of Hezbollah. If the reports are true, these missiles might represent a lethal threat to the Israeli Air Force, which has always been a cornerstone of that country’s conventional strength. This is the background for the Israeli ultimatum to Syria reported above.
David Moon of the Asia Times has recently called attention to the upgrades in the Hezbollah missile arsenal, and to their far-reaching strategic implications. Moon writes: ‘The recent alleged transfer of a small number of Scud missiles to Hezbollah from Syria only serves to highlight the capabilities of Hezbollah-operated M600 missiles manufactured and supplied by Syria. The M600 is a truck-mounted solid fuel booster pushing a 500 kilogram (1,100 pound) warhead nearly 300 kilometers…. The unanswered question – and the one of most concern – is the number of game-changing launchers Hezbollah has already got hidden away or that it will acquire from Syria.’ 68
In August 2006, Hezbollah launched some 4,000 short range missiles against northern Israel, most of which were Russian-made Katyushas of World War II vintage. These missiles had limited range and were impossible to aim accurately. Accordingly, Hezbollah could only point them in the general direction of Israeli cities. But the new missiles may be much more accurate, and might allow Hezbollah to engage in a counterforce rather than counter-value strategy. Instead of terrorizing Israeli civilians, Hezbollah might be able to target the air fields used by the Israeli Air Force. At the same time, Israel has been developing a layered missile defense in the form of the Iron Dome, David’s Sting, Arrow, and Patriot systems. There are reports that the Israeli air force is ready to flee northern Israel at a moment’s notice and take refuge in bases in the south of their country, where the Hezbollah missile threat is less. But what if Hezbollah acquires accurate missiles which can reach all that Israeli territory? And what happens if Hamas can get a few more effective missiles into the Gaza Strip?
As Moon writes, ‘Israelis express concern that this missile [the M600, also known as the Fatah 110] will be directed at population centers. A more accurate and more dangerous threat to Israel militarily is for Hezbollah to rain down rockets on its most dangerous enemy – the Israeli Air Force – principally on airfields in northern Israel. However, with upwards of 40,000 Katyusha rockets stockpiled, Hezbollah still retains the terror option. If Hezbollah’s plentiful M600s were fired in high-volume volleys, the Arrow system could be overwhelmed. If the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps] launched Iranian high-value Shahab-3Bs and variants timed with Hezbollah’s M600s, the Islamic republic could deal telling blows to strategic targets…. Hezbollah is said to be flush with the Russian-made SA-7 “Grail”, the SA-14 “Gremlin” and the SA-18 “Grouse”. These shoulder-fired SAMs are a point defense for covering mobile missile launchers like the M600 when exposed during the firing and retirement cycle. Also in the bargain came the SA-8 “Gecko”, a mobile launcher with a range of about 16 kilometers and a height of 12,000 meters. Mix these new capabilities with Syria’s new radar system supplied by Tehran… For Israel, the cost of setting back Iran’s nuclear program a few years before dealing decisively with Hezbollah and Syria is now at an all-time high.’ 69
If Iran and Hezbollah can coordinate their missile salvos, Moon thus suggests, it might be possible for them to overwhelm the Israeli antimissile defenses, and to inflict grave damage on the airfields where the Israeli air force is based. This potential for conventional defeat or simply for grave losses conjures up another prospect of an escalation into the nuclear realm by the Israelis as the sole remaining means of saving the day. On the surface, it would seem that the atomic bombing of southern Lebanon and even more so of Gaza would make no sense for the Israelis, since the radioactive debris and fallout would descend in large measure on Israeli territory and Israeli population centers. But there are also unconfirmed reports that the Israelis may have developed their own version of the neutron bomb, something last discussed widely in the United States during the Jimmy Carter administration. This might avoid most of the radioactive fallout problem. In any case, using the neutron bomb against Hezbollah would unquestionably represent the first use of atomic weapons, and would clearly cross the nuclear threshold. At that point, the Middle East and the world would have entered a new and uncharted terrain, replete with incalculable risks of general war and nuclear war.
In the meantime, we would like to interrogate the proverbial fly on the wall during this week’s meeting of Obama with British Prime Minister Cameron at the White House. Was their discussion really consumed by the vicissitudes of BP and the Lockerbie incident, or was there also some discussion of cooperation in military aggression against Iran? Given the way the wind is blowing, the latter hypothesis appears persuasive. Someday we may find new and more scandalous Downing Street memoranda devoted to this meeting. But let’s not wait around.
Political mobilization against this new war danger is imperative. There is a conference in Albany, New York within a few days which bills itself as a national gathering of the United States peace movement. If this movement still exists in reality, it will respond to the situation around Iran with a call for mass mobilization against the new warmonger-in-chief Obama and his new and wider war, before the end of the summer. It is important to promote primary election or third-party challenges, especially against Democratic members of Congress who have voted for or otherwise supported war appropriations over the past two years. Most important would be the presence of a qualified, serious, antiwar challenger against Obama in the Democratic primary election process, starting in Iowa and New Hampshire in January 2011, which is just six short months away. A third-party peace candidate of real presidential caliber would also be a godsend. Those who are intelligent enough to understand these necessities had better get busy right now. One thing is certain: Noam Chomsky and the various left-liberal paladins of impotence are not going to take the lead on this one.
Even though the forces that may initially respond to such calls for mobilization may be relatively limited, they can perform the indispensable function of alerting larger parts of public opinion at home and abroad that a tragic and genocidal crime is being prepared behind the scenes. If we recall the fateful summer of 2002, when the Iraq war was being cooked up, the warlike intent of the US administration was signaled through a bellicose speech by Cheney at the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August, followed by a coordinated media campaign of war psychosis starting in September.70 So far, Obama and Biden have not started a campaign of open war propaganda concerning Iran. This time around, it may be possible for those of us still in the reality-based community to get out in front of the war party rather than having to run to catch up with them.71
It is genuinely appalling to realize that we are now back to something resembling the desperate situation of 2002, with Iran as the target this time around. One rule of thumb which many learned during the Bush-Cheney years is that the attack is likely to start during the dark of the moon. This suggests a possible timetable built around August 10, September 8, or October 7 of this year, or perhaps some time later. It may come as an October surprise, as de Borchgrave seems to suggest.
gee, G E O see your still a big bag of laughs.
Yes I know..
Reality can cripple the delusional..
Great stuff as usual. TS Eliot wants to know, will we go out with a bang or a wimper
Depends on the "we" you're talking about. Europe is going to go with just a little bang at the end. The real action is going to be what the rest of the West does after Europe becomes an oversized Lebanon.
Hezbolla, Hamas and Iran combined have far less military capability than North Korea. It would be pure luck that any of them could hit the broad side of a barn with their pathetic rockets. They are rockets since most are un-guided. Blowing their military capabilities beyond reality is an old trick to fool the sheep.
oh! i thought it was because of centuries of being stuck in a religeous oppressif retarded disfonctionnal regime that only tries to expand itself on heroin markets(300 000 tons/year) and hashish and end up constantly pleading through left wing media to bail them out of the constant crisses that they impose on themselves and everybody else
People are jumping all over the place praising Wikileaks and furious at Washington.
Are you F*cking Kidding me? War atrocities and corruption, for real?
And in the end what?
Barack Obama enlists Afghan war leaks in support of policy switch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/27/barack-obama-afghan-war-logs1
Reports Bolster Suspicion of Iranian Ties to Extremistshttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575391664183556930.html
More wars leaked on you. And man,
"Wikileaks Afghanistan: Osama bin Laden alive" from telegraph, haha holy shit man yes!
I'd buy that for a dollar, of a few tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, yes!
"Congress voted to extend funding for the war in Afghanistan by an additional $59 billion. A subsequent resolution to pull U.S. forces, including military trainers, out of Pakistan failed by a wide margin"
Yes, leak more of that!
I am sure that this video may well be worth the look see and in time I just might get to it. However, since it is premised upon what is in essence a censors developed take on other censors I have to wonder how complete or accurate this representation actually is. Yes I am an self proclaimed information whore, but that does not mean support for approved or disapproved information contextualized and presented by a censor. Be it subscribing to the NYT, the FT or giving Wikileaks derived Gerber page views. Especially since Wikileaks has made the work of impartially shedding light into the dark & dank areas of mass manipulation all the more difficult ever since they jumped the shark of attempted impartiality to full fledged partisanship completing the journey from skeptic to self appointed censor with a closed and guarded book.
The Cold War episode aboot Afghanistan:
(you may have to 'budge' the cursor to get it to play)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8889997458243686565#
You get the impression that they transferred the weight of the cold war against communism to one of Islam in Afghanistan.
There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration.I read and understand the entire article and I really enjoyed it to be honest.
cheap vps | windows vps | forex vps
A good pretext to shut down the internet. Conspiracy theory: Is wikkileaks a CIA ploy?
These wars, and there will be more, be they in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, or Cechnya, will not end until Radical Islam is discredited as a political philosophy, and their leaders destroyed or removed from influence. Watch the video 'Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West', (2005). Go long on Defense stocks that pay a good dividend since there is no end in sight.