If we want to understand the brave new world we are entering with social media, then this story is an important read. Facebook decided to manipulate the posted content of hundreds of thousands of its users without telling them that they were part of an experiment. What Facebook did was to control what its users saw of the posts sent out by their social network: some were only allowed to see positive posts, while others were fed negative posts, as a way to gauge what effect this had on their mood.
How do we know this? Because the results have now been published in an academic journal. It appears it did not occur to either Facebook executives or the academics involved that there were serious ethical issues involved in such research. Facebook even defends its behaviour by stating simply that such experiments are part of the terms of service all users sign up to when joining Facebook.
One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to understand the implications of this kind of research. Through the NSA revelations, we already know that Facebook and all the other providers of services in our increasingly digital lives are entirely subservient to government dictates, and that they are quite willing to hide such collaboration from us, their supposed customers.
As a Facebook user, that does not please me. Facebook really is destructive and evil.
This morning Wally and my husband Cedric covered it in a joint-post:
Facebook: Where creeps spy on you
14 hours ago
THIS JUST IN! FACEBOOK LOVES SHEEP!
14 hours ago
I actually only use Facebook these days to comment on articles. I should do more 'social media' to get the word out and all but Facebook is just so damn creepy.
I am the only community member with their own site who is on Facebook.
People always assume that, for example, Wally's on but just not sharing that publicly.
No.
Everyone hates Facebook -- for obvious reasons -- and I am the only community member with their own website who is on Facebook.
Information Clearing House has another important article, Eric Zuesse's "Ukraine: The International War-Criminal Is Obama, Not Putin:"
July 01, 2014 "ICH" - In February this year, the Obama Administration violently overthrew the freely-elected and Russia-friendly President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. We hired gunmen dressed to appear to be from the Yanukovych government firing into the “Maidan” crowd who were demonstrating against Yanukovych. This made it seem to be violence from him, not from Obama’s team. Obama further justified the overthrow by saying that Yanukovych was corrupt. But virtually all recent Presidents and Prime Ministers of that country have been corrupt. The Prime Minister who had preceded Yanukovych, Yulia Tymoshenko, was even in prison for it. Britain’s Guardian noted in 2004 that, “According to Matthew Brzezinski’s 2001 book Casino Moscow, which devotes a chapter to Tymoshenko entitled ‘The Eleven Billion Dollar Woman,’ she was guarded by an entire platoon of ex-Soviet special forces bodyguards.” However, during the Obama Administration’s 18-24 February 2014 coup in Ukraine (called not a “coup” but a “revolution” by the coup’s supporters), they got her freed from her 7-year prison sentence, and she immediately announced her campaign to become Yanukovych’s successor as President. She was widely regarded as Obama’s preferred person for that post, but instead the person that she chose to lead theinterim government as Prime Minister became Ukraine’s leader (with the expectation that Tymoshenko would soon be elected and then take over), and Tymoshenko wasn’t elected, so Obama was faced with a predicament. Since the person whom she had placed in temporary control did Obama’s bidding, he has been allowed to stay on in the new permanent Ukrainian government, in his same official capacity, ruling Ukraine as the Prime Minister, just as he was during the “interim” government.
The way to remove a democratically elected President (and/or Prime Minister) is by constitutional means; and a coup is not constitutional — not even in Ukraine, and it’s certainly not supposed to be the constitutional means in the U.S. Yet we immediately recognized the coup-government, because we had actually installed it.
Obama’s agent planning and controlling the overthrow (besides the CIA, etc., providing essential support for it), was the Tymoshenko-backer Victoria Nuland, who told our Ukrainian Ambassador to choose (Tymoshenko’s friend) “Yats,” Arseniy Yatsenyuk, to become Ukraine’s leader, or Prime Minister, in the “interim government.” He’s the person who’s still the Prime Minster, even after the figurehead oligarch, Petro Poroshenko, became elected (over Tymoshenko) as Ukraine’s President, in the May 25th election, which was held only in the northwestern part of Ukraine, because Yatsenyuk’s troops were by that time (May 25th) bombing the nation’s southeastern parts, the parts where Yanukovych had won overwhelmingly the 17 January 2010 Presidential election, which was the last Ukrainian election when the entire country voted — the last election in a united Ukraine — the last actual Ukrainian national election.
Barack is a War Criminal. I'm surprised more aren't willing to call him out. I really thought his war on Libya would have done the trick. Apparently not.
Indira A.R. Lakshmanan and David Lerman (Bloomberg) note:
Obama’s ability to influence events in Iraq is limited, though, according to a U.S. intelligence official.
Two U.S. administrations have inspired distrust among both Shiites and Sunnis by invading in 2003, then failing to stabilize the country or compel Maliki to stop his revenge campaign against Sunnis, and finally withdrawing and leaving a polarized state at the end of 2011, the official said.
Now, the administration is exploring a three-pronged strategy, according to U.S. officials involved in the effort. It consists of providing Maliki’s government with limited military aid, pressing him to step down or agree to a more inclusive government and trying with Saudi Arabian assistance to pry Sunni tribesmen away from their de facto alliance with the Islamic State. The officials all spoke on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to speak to the news media.
Obama's ability is limited?
Barack himself is limited.
It reminds me of the idiot Ivan Eland who wrote at Antiwar.com:
Although I am certainly no fan of Obama’s overall performance as president (in the second edition of my book Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, due out in the fall, I rank Obama as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history), he is still cleaning up after George W. Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places (in the book, Bush the Younger gets an even worse score than Obama). In fact, Obama’s foreign policy, despite all of the recent criticism, is really the only shining light in an otherwise dismal presidency.
Whenever I read crap like that, I wonder why Libertarians even bother?
What a deeply stupid man.
Barack's foreign policy "is really the only shining light" -- excuse the F**K out of me?
Libya is shining light?
He illegally destroyed that country.
He is also not 'cleaning up' after Bully Boy Bush in Iraq.
But don't expect the Libirties at Antiwar.com to grasp that. These are the trashy whores -- yeah, I said it -- who have held Nouri up as heroic for years and years -- especially that trashy Scott Horton.
Is Ukraine a shining light?
Was the foreign policy of grounding a plane of a foreign leader a shining light? (Evo Morales' plane was grounded because Barack just knew Ed Snowden had to be on it. He wasn't on it.)
I could go on and on.
Ivan Eland is an embarrassment to Antiwar.com and a strong reason why this Green Party member doubts there can be a left-right coalition. Not when idiots like Ivan whore.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, July 1, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, Parliament meets
but nothing is decided, John Kerry tries to rewrite history, State Dept
spokesperson Marie Harf attempts to rewrite the present, Barack Obama
sends even more US troops into Iraq, and much more.
Today US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to China Central Television (CNTV -- link is video). Excerpt.
Wang Guan: John Kerry, you just came back from Iraq. Now looking back at the turmoil -- this is something you have been very engaged in. Do you think the previous administration in Iraq in 2003 was, as some call, a grave mistake? And what will the US do next?
John Kerry: Well I am on record historically not only in saying that it was a grave mistake but in running against the president who ordered it and offering an alternative. So I'm-I'm hardly capable of [Kerry laughs] ducking that squarely. Yes, I think it was a grave mistake and I think we are still working through many of the problems associated with it even today. There's a huge, residual hangover, a cloud, that hangs over the region as a consequence of that decision. Now we are working very hard. President Obama's decision was to make certain that we tried to change that and that's why he moved to withdraw the combat troops. And now we're working very, very hard to empower the Iraqis themselves, they have to make this decision. Iraqis have to decide who their government is. And it needs to be a representative, unity government that brings people together and it resolves through it's reforms -- in terms of its relationships to the Kurds, it's relationships to the Sunnis -- Everybody, and the Shia, all have to be feeling as if their needs are being met through the governmental processes and structures that are established. That's what we hope will emerge through the Iraqis themselves and their decisions in the next few days.
"I'm on record historically not only in saying that it was a grave mistake"? "Offering an alternative"?
I'm sorry, that's just not true. I backed John Kerry in the Democratic Party primaries. Many of my friends were for Howard Dean who presented as an anti-Iraq War candidate. I remember their disgust with Kerry in the primaries and after he won the party's presidential nomination.
I like John, I supported his primary campaign and general election campaign (even though he chose John Edwards for a running mate -- Mr. Grabby Hands was also a snake in the grass who fed the press anti-Kerry remarks after the campaign was over). That doesn't mean I stay silent while he rewrites history. I -- and many of his other 2004 supporters -- wish he had called it a "grave mistake" and that his 2004 campaign was "offering an alternative" but that simply was not the case.
August 10, 2004, CNN reported:
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.
Bush's campaign has challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he stood by the October 2002 vote which gave Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The question of going to war in Iraq has become a major issue on the campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found there.
Read the full article. He's bothered by the planning of it. he's whining about tactics. But the war was based on lies, there were no WMDs -- and that was well known by August 2004. But he wasn't calling out the lies of WMD, he wasn't retracting his 2002 vote (except for the ridiculous "I was for it before I was against it" statement).
Today was supposed to be the big day to resolve everything political in Iraq via a session in Parliament. Supposed to be. June 20th, Tamara Keith (Morning Edition, NPR -- link is text and audio) reported on US President Barack Obama's desire for political solutions:
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
OBAMA: We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq. Ultimately this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.
KEITH: How? Obama says a political solution is needed. Problem is Iraqi politics are a mess. The country's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, is Shiite, and his policies have been hostile to Sunnis. The radical group ISIS capitalized on those sectarian divisions, easing their way into Sunni-dominated cities. President Obama wouldn't say whether he thinks Maliki needs to go, but he is calling for a unity government.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
OBAMA: Shia, Sunni, Kurds, all Iraqis must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq's different communities.
What Barack was asking for is similar to the call made by Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Workers Revolutionary Party notes, "World leaders have insisted on a political settlement among Iraq’s Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, revered among the country’s Shiite majority, has urged political leaders to quickly form a government after parliament convenes on Tuesday." Many made similar calls but more directly noting what "unity" really means -- no third term for Nouri. Prensa Latina reported yesterday:
Meanwhile, the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called today the State of Law coalition, led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to provide a new candidate for that office, since he will oppose his election for a third term in Parrliament.
Al-Sadr, whose followers in the so-called Mehdi Army enlisted to fight the ISIL, defined as decisive the parliamentary session to be held Tuesday to start the process of forming the new government and elect a president and two vice presidents.
While Sunni leaders have made clear that there should be no third term for Nouri al-Maliki, many Shi'ite leaders have also made that call -- Moqtada and Ahmed Chalabi being only two. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted yesterday, "Current Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki has made a lot of enemies over the years, and Ammar al-Hakim, a top figure in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), says Maliki has two big obstacles to a third term: Shi’ites, and everyone else."
But he's a prime minister. Two terms! He must be so popular, after all. No. Nouri was never selected by Iraqis. Following the December 2005 parliamentary elections, Iraqi MPs wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari named prime minister. In 2010, Iraqis voters made Nouri's State of Law a loser to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. So how did the non-popular choice emerge a two-time victor?
Nouri was installed as prime minister by the Bully Boy Bush administration in 2006 and kept by Barack's administration in 2010. The US puppet has destroyed Iraq, not brought the people together. Simon Assef (UK Socialist Worker) explained last month:
The Iraqi state that emerged under the occupation was corrupt and deeply divisive. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki deepened the schism by further alienating the country’s Sunni minority and threatening the autonomous Kurdish regions in the north
Disenfranchised Sunnis began peaceful protests in December 2012 in what was known as the “Iraqi Spring”. Security forces attacked the camps, killing dozens of people. Maliki then flooded Sunni areas with his security forces.
Thousands of people were rounded up, tortured and killed.
A deep disaffection with Maliki’s rule precipitated the disintegration of security forces in the face ofIsis . Now his government is close to collapse.
The Socialist offers this take, "Since 2006, the western-supported Shia prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, presided over sectarian discrimination, torture and imprisonment without trial. Maliki deployed sectarian rhetoric to take attention away from the atrocious conditions facing all Iraqis. The forcing of a leading Sunni minister into exile triggered popular protests in Sunni areas in December 2012 and early 2013, which the authoritarian regime brutally suppressed. " How bad is the situation in Iraq? Yassamine Mather (UK Weekly Worker) observed, "The sharp improvement in the relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic (and subsequently between the United Kingdom and Iran) has been remarkable - Washington is seriously considering military cooperation with Iran over the civil war in Iraq."
All Iraq News reports 73 MPs failed to attend the session (255 did attend). Nouri's publicist Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) maintains, "Despite talk of a boycott ahead of the opening, all but members of Ayad Allawi's Sunni bloc showed up." Wow, who knew Ayad Allawi's bloc won 73 seats.
They didn't. (2010's Iraqiya splintered. Ayad Allawi's section formed Al-Wataniya which won 21 seats in the April elections. Osama al-Nujaifi grabbed another section, Muttahidoon, which won 23 seats. The third section was Al-Arabiya and it won 10 seats and it's Saleh al-Mutlaq's section. Not only do you not get 73 if you add all three together, but Muttahidoon and Al-Arabiya were present for the session.)
Jane Arraf's in a difficult spot. She's whored for Nouri forever and day, writing one long lie after another. Her latest b.s. may set a new low even for her. Why the Christian Science Monitor employs the woman who was an apologist for Saddam Hussein and now is an apologist for Nouri al-Maliki is beyond comprehension. Arraf has lied so much and done so over and over, so very often. She is a one woman propaganda mill, whether 'reporting' for CNN or Al Jazeera or the Christian Science Monitor or NPR or PRI. Never has one 'reporter' done so much and informed so little.
While Iraqis were killed by Nouri for peacefully protesting, Jane looked the other way except for the occassional Tweet. When her Tweet about Nouri's forces killing a protester could have provided context for the Hawija massacred, Jane ignored Tweet and never reported on it. Never noted that the Tuesday massacre kicked off the Friday before when Nouri's forces killed a peaceful protester.
Jane's latest is another sewer of lies and distortions and that's apparently what she's decided she'll stick with.
You'll note the little media whore can't hide how one-sided she is. For example, in the bad article that the Christian Science Monitor should never have published, she quotes Nouri's State of Law twice in the first five paragraphs as they attack Kurdish politicians. Where in the entire article is the Kurdish response?
A one-sided whore risks heavy hip injuries, let's all hope Jane's prepared for her tawdry future.
All Iraq News reports MP Mahdi al-Hafidh presided over this first session of Parliament since the April 30th elections and did so because he's the eldest MP. Alsumaria reports a fight quickly broke out between the Kurdistan Alliance and the National Alliance with the Kurds demanding the millions Baghdad has been denying them in federal reveunes. (Nouri's denied them their rightful share of the 2014 budget in an attempt to blackmail them into doing what he wants.) Rod Nordland (New York Times) reports on the altercation:
Actually, the salaries haven't been paid for months. When Baghdad began denying the Kurds the federal money months ago, Kurdish politicians made the decision to stop paying officials so that government workers could be paid. At any rate . . .
Things had looked better earlier on -- former Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and former Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq arrived together. Thug Nouri, Iraqi National Alliance Ibrahim al-Jaafari, former vice president Khudir al-Khuzaiye and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy Nickoly Mladenov arrived.
al-Hafidh called a brief recess. After which, Raheem Salman, Oliver Holmes, Isra' al-Rubei'i, Ahmed Rasheed, Ned Parker, Alexander Dziadosz, Gabriela Baczynska, Yara Bayoumy, Alexander Dziadosz, Peter Graff, Paul Taylor and Anna Willard (Reuters) report, "Sunnis and Kurds walked out of the first session of Iraq's new parliament on Tuesday after Shi'ites failed to name a prime minister to replace Nuri al-Maliki" and less "than a third of lawmakers returned from the recess." Al Jazeera states "only 75" MPs returned after the recess. That clearly means many Shi'ites also failed to return. Yamei Wang (Xinhua) states it most clearly, "Many of the 255 lawmaker who attended the opening session simply walked out after a recess suggested for more talks between the political rivals, creating a lack in the quorum required for the session."
Alsumaria reports State of Law is insisting the problem was all the Sunni blocs and their proposing both al-Nujaifi and Salem al-Juburi for Speaker of Parliament. Osama al-Nujaifi held a press conference after the session and stated his bloc attended the session under the belief that the prime minister-designate would be named and that they have nor formerly made a nomination for Speaker of Parliament, that they were waiting to see who was named prime minister-designate before nominating anyone for Speaker of Parliament. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports:
After the session, a newly-formed Sunni political gathering, named Alliance of National Powers, said in a statement that the Sunni lawmakers walked out of the parliament session because there was no agreement between the political blocs about the nomination of the new top posts: speaker, president and prime minister, in addition to the lack of a clear governmental program that may ensure a change in the governance of the country.
The alliance, includes the political blocs of the outgoing speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, secular Salih al-Mutlak, Salim al- Jubouri and others, said that the Sunni alliance's lawmakers had attended the parliament session because they want to "show a respect to the constitutional timetable, but they found it appropriate to limit their presence in the opening session of the Council of Representatives (parliament) on taking their oaths only, and then to give a chance for dialogue to reach a satisfactory political solution."
The statement also called for the Iraqi lawmakers to differentiate between Islamic State (IS) terrorist acts and the " legitimate popular protests that have escalated by the authority's repression and disregard and went on to the extent of an armed rebellion."
"Any attempt to describe the protesters as terrorists is a tendentious and condemned description that does not serve the stability of our country," the statement warned, referring to the militant groups of the Sunni tribes and the previous anti- U.S. Sunni armed groups who took up their arms recently against the Shiite-led government.
The political solution did not come -- at least not today. At the State Dept press briefing today, spokesperson Marie Harf tried to spin it into a win:
Harf can spin all she wants, this was a big set back for US diplomatic efforts.
Larry Everest (Revolution) points out:
However, in light of the threat to the Iraqi state, the U.S. rulers feel they have little choice, given the threat posed by ISIL to the regional order, but to send advisors, warships, and intelligence assets to prevent the reactionary Maliki regime from collapsing, even as they are maneuvering to forge a government more to their liking, and to prevent increased Iranian influence. But this choice is also full of dangers and uncertainties. For instance, the Iraqi army may be too rotten to successfully prop up. Another possible problem, the Maliki government seems to be counting on rallying the Shi'a population for a holy war against the Sunnis, and this could turn into a horrific, U.S.-supported bloodbath, further stoking Sunni Jihadism and shaking Sunni states. Then there's Iran. While it has been an enormous problem for the U.S. and its key ally Israel, the U.S. seems to be exploring at least a tactical alliance with Iran to save the Iraq state, but this too could end up strengthening Iran in the longer term.
Yes, the White House is propping up Nouri.
As Elaine ("Iraq") and Mike ("Even more troops into Iraq") noted last night, Barack can't even keep his word on how many US troops he'll send into Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:
The United States has deployed 300 more troops to Baghdad in the last two days, with some of them assigned to secure Baghdad’s international airport, the Obama administration announced Monday.
One senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy that the troops were moved to Baghdad after American officials determined that Islamist fighters had consolidated their grip on the western outskirts of the capital in recent days. The movement “convinced us this would be prudent,” the official said.
Jason Ditz weighs in here. Patrick Martin (WSWS) explains:
Another 300 US troops arrived in Baghdad Sunday, swelling the reinforcements rushed to Iraq to nearly 800 in the three weeks since the fall of Mosul, the country's third-largest city, to Sunni Islamist forces. President Obama formally notified Congress of the additional troop movement in a letter Monday.
A Pentagon spokesman said the latest contingent of US troops would be equipped for combat and deployed mainly to secure Baghdad International Airport, a critical lifeline for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Together with the soldiers, the US military is dispatching helicopter gunships and reconnaissance drones.
Two previous increments of US troops included 275 to provide security at the huge US embassy in Baghdad and 300 special forces soldiers to coordinate tactical operations by the Iraqi army and collect targeting information for future US bomb and missile attacks on fighters of Islamic State (formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the main Sunni Islamist group spearheading attacks on the Maliki regime. Three special forces teams have deployed north of the capital in the last few days, into the area of the heaviest fighting.
Nouri al-Maliki continues his War Crimes as he continues to bomb residential areas of Falluja. In the six month long spree of War Crimes, Nouri has killed and wounded many. Alsumaria reports 1 person was killed and twelve more injured in the latest attack on Sunni civilians.
National Iraqi News Agency reports a Lakes Region of Alexandria roadside bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured, Major General Jamil al-Shmmari says 13 suspects were killed in Mansuriyya, and air force bombings of Albu Hassan Village and Amerli Village left 30 people dead. All Iraq News notes a mortar attack on a Ramadi market left 4 people dead and six more injured, and security forces state they killed 50 suspects in Mosul.
The United Nations counts at least 2661 violent deaths in Iraq for the month of June:
For those confused, the UN is saying 2417 killed in 17 Iraqi provinces. When you add the 244 in Anbar to the 2417 you get 2661. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes:
The Antiwar.com figures show 5,456 killed, including 3,627 militants, and 2,553 wounded, including 93 militants. The low militant wounded figure is because militants wounded are not widely reported, and so it is a dramatic under count.
iraq
npr
morning edition
tamara keith
prensa latina
socialist worker
simon assaf
weekly worker
yassamine mather
the socialist
revolution
larry everest
wang guan
Today US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to China Central Television (CNTV -- link is video). Excerpt.
Wang Guan: John Kerry, you just came back from Iraq. Now looking back at the turmoil -- this is something you have been very engaged in. Do you think the previous administration in Iraq in 2003 was, as some call, a grave mistake? And what will the US do next?
John Kerry: Well I am on record historically not only in saying that it was a grave mistake but in running against the president who ordered it and offering an alternative. So I'm-I'm hardly capable of [Kerry laughs] ducking that squarely. Yes, I think it was a grave mistake and I think we are still working through many of the problems associated with it even today. There's a huge, residual hangover, a cloud, that hangs over the region as a consequence of that decision. Now we are working very hard. President Obama's decision was to make certain that we tried to change that and that's why he moved to withdraw the combat troops. And now we're working very, very hard to empower the Iraqis themselves, they have to make this decision. Iraqis have to decide who their government is. And it needs to be a representative, unity government that brings people together and it resolves through it's reforms -- in terms of its relationships to the Kurds, it's relationships to the Sunnis -- Everybody, and the Shia, all have to be feeling as if their needs are being met through the governmental processes and structures that are established. That's what we hope will emerge through the Iraqis themselves and their decisions in the next few days.
"I'm on record historically not only in saying that it was a grave mistake"? "Offering an alternative"?
I'm sorry, that's just not true. I backed John Kerry in the Democratic Party primaries. Many of my friends were for Howard Dean who presented as an anti-Iraq War candidate. I remember their disgust with Kerry in the primaries and after he won the party's presidential nomination.
I like John, I supported his primary campaign and general election campaign (even though he chose John Edwards for a running mate -- Mr. Grabby Hands was also a snake in the grass who fed the press anti-Kerry remarks after the campaign was over). That doesn't mean I stay silent while he rewrites history. I -- and many of his other 2004 supporters -- wish he had called it a "grave mistake" and that his 2004 campaign was "offering an alternative" but that simply was not the case.
August 10, 2004, CNN reported:
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.
Bush's campaign has challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he stood by the October 2002 vote which gave Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
The question of going to war in Iraq has become a major issue on the campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found there.
Read the full article. He's bothered by the planning of it. he's whining about tactics. But the war was based on lies, there were no WMDs -- and that was well known by August 2004. But he wasn't calling out the lies of WMD, he wasn't retracting his 2002 vote (except for the ridiculous "I was for it before I was against it" statement).
Today was supposed to be the big day to resolve everything political in Iraq via a session in Parliament. Supposed to be. June 20th, Tamara Keith (Morning Edition, NPR -- link is text and audio) reported on US President Barack Obama's desire for political solutions:
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
OBAMA: We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in tens of thousands of troops and committing the kinds of blood and treasure that has already been expended in Iraq. Ultimately this is something that is going to have to be solved by the Iraqis.
KEITH: How? Obama says a political solution is needed. Problem is Iraqi politics are a mess. The country's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, is Shiite, and his policies have been hostile to Sunnis. The radical group ISIS capitalized on those sectarian divisions, easing their way into Sunni-dominated cities. President Obama wouldn't say whether he thinks Maliki needs to go, but he is calling for a unity government.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
OBAMA: Shia, Sunni, Kurds, all Iraqis must have confidence that they can advance their interests and aspirations through the political process rather than through violence. National unity meetings have to go forward to build consensus across Iraq's different communities.
What Barack was asking for is similar to the call made by Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Workers Revolutionary Party notes, "World leaders have insisted on a political settlement among Iraq’s Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish communities and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, revered among the country’s Shiite majority, has urged political leaders to quickly form a government after parliament convenes on Tuesday." Many made similar calls but more directly noting what "unity" really means -- no third term for Nouri. Prensa Latina reported yesterday:
Meanwhile, the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called today the State of Law coalition, led by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to provide a new candidate for that office, since he will oppose his election for a third term in Parrliament.
Al-Sadr, whose followers in the so-called Mehdi Army enlisted to fight the ISIL, defined as decisive the parliamentary session to be held Tuesday to start the process of forming the new government and elect a president and two vice presidents.
While Sunni leaders have made clear that there should be no third term for Nouri al-Maliki, many Shi'ite leaders have also made that call -- Moqtada and Ahmed Chalabi being only two. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) noted yesterday, "Current Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki has made a lot of enemies over the years, and Ammar al-Hakim, a top figure in the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), says Maliki has two big obstacles to a third term: Shi’ites, and everyone else."
But he's a prime minister. Two terms! He must be so popular, after all. No. Nouri was never selected by Iraqis. Following the December 2005 parliamentary elections, Iraqi MPs wanted Ibrahim al-Jaafari named prime minister. In 2010, Iraqis voters made Nouri's State of Law a loser to Ayad Allawi's Iraqiya. So how did the non-popular choice emerge a two-time victor?
Nouri was installed as prime minister by the Bully Boy Bush administration in 2006 and kept by Barack's administration in 2010. The US puppet has destroyed Iraq, not brought the people together. Simon Assef (UK Socialist Worker) explained last month:
The Iraqi state that emerged under the occupation was corrupt and deeply divisive. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki deepened the schism by further alienating the country’s Sunni minority and threatening the autonomous Kurdish regions in the north
Disenfranchised Sunnis began peaceful protests in December 2012 in what was known as the “Iraqi Spring”. Security forces attacked the camps, killing dozens of people. Maliki then flooded Sunni areas with his security forces.
Thousands of people were rounded up, tortured and killed.
A deep disaffection with Maliki’s rule precipitated the disintegration of security forces in the face of
The Socialist offers this take, "Since 2006, the western-supported Shia prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, presided over sectarian discrimination, torture and imprisonment without trial. Maliki deployed sectarian rhetoric to take attention away from the atrocious conditions facing all Iraqis. The forcing of a leading Sunni minister into exile triggered popular protests in Sunni areas in December 2012 and early 2013, which the authoritarian regime brutally suppressed. " How bad is the situation in Iraq? Yassamine Mather (UK Weekly Worker) observed, "The sharp improvement in the relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic (and subsequently between the United Kingdom and Iran) has been remarkable - Washington is seriously considering military cooperation with Iran over the civil war in Iraq."
All Iraq News reports 73 MPs failed to attend the session (255 did attend). Nouri's publicist Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) maintains, "Despite talk of a boycott ahead of the opening, all but members of Ayad Allawi's Sunni bloc showed up." Wow, who knew Ayad Allawi's bloc won 73 seats.
They didn't. (2010's Iraqiya splintered. Ayad Allawi's section formed Al-Wataniya which won 21 seats in the April elections. Osama al-Nujaifi grabbed another section, Muttahidoon, which won 23 seats. The third section was Al-Arabiya and it won 10 seats and it's Saleh al-Mutlaq's section. Not only do you not get 73 if you add all three together, but Muttahidoon and Al-Arabiya were present for the session.)
Jane Arraf's in a difficult spot. She's whored for Nouri forever and day, writing one long lie after another. Her latest b.s. may set a new low even for her. Why the Christian Science Monitor employs the woman who was an apologist for Saddam Hussein and now is an apologist for Nouri al-Maliki is beyond comprehension. Arraf has lied so much and done so over and over, so very often. She is a one woman propaganda mill, whether 'reporting' for CNN or Al Jazeera or the Christian Science Monitor or NPR or PRI. Never has one 'reporter' done so much and informed so little.
While Iraqis were killed by Nouri for peacefully protesting, Jane looked the other way except for the occassional Tweet. When her Tweet about Nouri's forces killing a protester could have provided context for the Hawija massacred, Jane ignored Tweet and never reported on it. Never noted that the Tuesday massacre kicked off the Friday before when Nouri's forces killed a peaceful protester.
Jane's latest is another sewer of lies and distortions and that's apparently what she's decided she'll stick with.
You'll note the little media whore can't hide how one-sided she is. For example, in the bad article that the Christian Science Monitor should never have published, she quotes Nouri's State of Law twice in the first five paragraphs as they attack Kurdish politicians. Where in the entire article is the Kurdish response?
A one-sided whore risks heavy hip injuries, let's all hope Jane's prepared for her tawdry future.
All Iraq News reports MP Mahdi al-Hafidh presided over this first session of Parliament since the April 30th elections and did so because he's the eldest MP. Alsumaria reports a fight quickly broke out between the Kurdistan Alliance and the National Alliance with the Kurds demanding the millions Baghdad has been denying them in federal reveunes. (Nouri's denied them their rightful share of the 2014 budget in an attempt to blackmail them into doing what he wants.) Rod Nordland (New York Times) reports on the altercation:
“We
need our salaries!,” shouted a Kurdish representative, Najiba Najib,
complaining that the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad had not been
paying Kurdish officials since the Kurdistan region all but broke away
last month. When extremists with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
drove the Iraqi Army from northern Iraq, the Kurds took the opportunity to seize control of Kirkuk. The Kurds have long laid claim to the oil-rich city, and insisted that they intend to keep it.
“You
brought ISIS into our country and took the Iraqi flag down in Kirkuk
and put your flag up!,” shouted Mohammed Naji, a Shiite politician, at
Ms. Najib. “Go and sell your oil to Israel.”
Actually, the salaries haven't been paid for months. When Baghdad began denying the Kurds the federal money months ago, Kurdish politicians made the decision to stop paying officials so that government workers could be paid. At any rate . . .
Things had looked better earlier on -- former Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and former Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq arrived together. Thug Nouri, Iraqi National Alliance Ibrahim al-Jaafari, former vice president Khudir al-Khuzaiye and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Envoy Nickoly Mladenov arrived.
al-Hafidh called a brief recess. After which, Raheem Salman, Oliver Holmes, Isra' al-Rubei'i, Ahmed Rasheed, Ned Parker, Alexander Dziadosz, Gabriela Baczynska, Yara Bayoumy, Alexander Dziadosz, Peter Graff, Paul Taylor and Anna Willard (Reuters) report, "Sunnis and Kurds walked out of the first session of Iraq's new parliament on Tuesday after Shi'ites failed to name a prime minister to replace Nuri al-Maliki" and less "than a third of lawmakers returned from the recess." Al Jazeera states "only 75" MPs returned after the recess. That clearly means many Shi'ites also failed to return. Yamei Wang (Xinhua) states it most clearly, "Many of the 255 lawmaker who attended the opening session simply walked out after a recess suggested for more talks between the political rivals, creating a lack in the quorum required for the session."
Alsumaria reports State of Law is insisting the problem was all the Sunni blocs and their proposing both al-Nujaifi and Salem al-Juburi for Speaker of Parliament. Osama al-Nujaifi held a press conference after the session and stated his bloc attended the session under the belief that the prime minister-designate would be named and that they have nor formerly made a nomination for Speaker of Parliament, that they were waiting to see who was named prime minister-designate before nominating anyone for Speaker of Parliament. Mu Xuequan (Xinhua) reports:
After the session, a newly-formed Sunni political gathering, named Alliance of National Powers, said in a statement that the Sunni lawmakers walked out of the parliament session because there was no agreement between the political blocs about the nomination of the new top posts: speaker, president and prime minister, in addition to the lack of a clear governmental program that may ensure a change in the governance of the country.
The alliance, includes the political blocs of the outgoing speaker Osama al-Nujaifi, secular Salih al-Mutlak, Salim al- Jubouri and others, said that the Sunni alliance's lawmakers had attended the parliament session because they want to "show a respect to the constitutional timetable, but they found it appropriate to limit their presence in the opening session of the Council of Representatives (parliament) on taking their oaths only, and then to give a chance for dialogue to reach a satisfactory political solution."
The statement also called for the Iraqi lawmakers to differentiate between Islamic State (IS) terrorist acts and the " legitimate popular protests that have escalated by the authority's repression and disregard and went on to the extent of an armed rebellion."
"Any attempt to describe the protesters as terrorists is a tendentious and condemned description that does not serve the stability of our country," the statement warned, referring to the militant groups of the Sunni tribes and the previous anti- U.S. Sunni armed groups who took up their arms recently against the Shiite-led government.
The political solution did not come -- at least not today. At the State Dept press briefing today, spokesperson Marie Harf tried to spin it into a win:
QUESTION: Thank you. I’d like to start in Iraq. I’m
sure you saw that Sunni and Kurdish lawmakers walked out of the
parliament today; so much for hoping to start the creation of a
government by July 1st. Wondering what if any steps you’ve seen since
then that would give the Obama Administration any kind of hope that this
process will move quickly.
MS. HARF: Well, we never said they should put a deadline so they should
form a new government entirely by July 1st. The Secretary used that
date in terms of when they should begin government formation. But let’s
be clear – this needs to happen as soon as possible. It was important
that Iraq’s new parliament convene today, as they pledged to do. That
was a good thing. But we do hope that Iraq’s leaders will move forward
with the extreme urgency that the current situation deserves. The acting
speaker did ask the parliament to meet again in one week on July 8th to
present candidates for the speakership and two deputy speakers,
followed by candidates for the prime minister and – president and prime
minister.
And look, time is not on Iraq’s side here. They need to do this as
quickly as possible. They could do it before the 8th. It would be better
if they did it before the 8th. But certainly need to live up to their
commitments here to continue meeting to get a government in place as
soon as possible.
QUESTION: So I guess my question is more: Have you seen anything since the walkout which was several hours ago?
MS. HARF: In the last few hours. Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah, well, I mean, that’s not nothing. I’m sure there are U.S. officials there --
MS. HARF: Absolutely, yes.
QUESTION: -- at parliament or involved in the – not involved in the process, but on the sidelines --
MS. HARF: Talking to the different parties.
QUESTION: Exactly.
MS. HARF: Yep.
QUESTION: So what kind of assurances or words or thoughts have those people heard from the Iraqis that this is going --
MS. HARF: Well --
QUESTION: -- that even if they wait until July 8th, that anything will happen on July 8th?
MS. HARF: Well, I think there is a broad sense that Iraq’s leaders
understand the urgency here. Now, I think we will know very soon whether
they really understand it and whether they’re willing to back up that
sentiment with actions. And as we said, it was an important step that
the parliament did convene today, as they said they would. But we need
to see a government formed as soon as possible, and ideally, that would
happen before the 8th.
Conversations are ongoing. I don’t have any specifics to read out for
you, but needless to say, with everyone we are very much making clear
that this needs to happen very, very quickly.
QUESTION: I’m not sure if you saw some of the comments that the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. made today --
MS. HARF: I did.
QUESTION: -- at Carnegie. He basically described starting looking to the governments of Syria, Russia, and Iran
for additional help, even if just advice, even if just trying to
solidify the borders. Wondering if this is a signal that the United
States is losing its influence in this region, and also what you think
of the fact that these are at best unreliable, uneasy allies; at worst,
flat-out enemies.
MS. HARF: Well, I think a few points. The first is, I mean, all you
have to do is look at what we’re doing with the Iraqis today to
demonstrate that we have a very close partnership with them. Whether
it’s the assessment and advisory teams that have gone in that the
President announced several weeks ago, whether it’s our diplomatic folks
on the ground working with the different parties, I mean, clearly, we
play an important role here, and the Iraqi leaders have asked the United
States in a number of different ways to help them get out of this
crisis, to fight the threat, and to help push the parties towards a
better government, quite frankly.
But look, we have said any country who is willing to assist the Iraqis
in this fight in a nonsectarian, inclusive way towards an inclusive
process, that’s what all the countries need to do. Look, when it comes
to Syria, we’ve been very clear that Iraq’s security problem cannot be
solved by the Assad regime, who, in large part, is responsible for the
security situation that spilled over into Iraq and has led us to where
we are today.
QUESTION: Just following up on that point --
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- do you have any kind of explanation for why Secretary
Kerry’s message seems to have gone so unheeded? It wasn’t just that the
parliament sort of broke up without a decision, but there was actual
chaos.
MS. HARF: Well, they agreed to meet in a week.
QUESTION: But there was chaos. There was one of the Shiite lawmakers --
MS. HARF: Democracy is messy at times. It is. And I would disagree with
the notion that his message went unheeded. He – the three different
parties in Iraq said they were committed to the process. He had
conversations with the Kurds, with the Sunni, with the Shia leaders, who
said they were committed to forming a government as soon as possible.
As I’ve said, we now need to see actions back up those words. But the
parliament did meet, as complicated and messy as this process is at
times, and committed to meeting again in a week. But they need to move
very quickly, and I think we will see in the coming days whether they
are willing to do so.
QUESTION: But what he did say --
MS. HARF: And we also can’t make decisions for them. This is about them
stepping up and making decisions for their country. This is not about
anybody else making decisions for them.
QUESTION: But it puts the timetable back a bit, and they were supposed
to meet today and hopefully get to a speaker, and then as set out under
the constitution, those --
MS. HARF: Well, they did --
QUESTION: -- 30-day periods.
MS. HARF: They met today. Today was the day we wanted them to meet.
They met. They committed to meeting again in a week. And as I said,
ideally they would do this before the 8th. So I think we’re making clear
that they don’t need to wait a week, but this is a complicated process.
There are a number of different moving pieces here in terms of picking –
and it’s important, quite frankly, to pick leaders that are going to
govern inclusively, to make sure you take the time to do that, but to do
that very quickly.
QUESTION: But – and I don’t have his transcript in front of me, but
what he did say at his press conference in Baghdad was that the fate of
Iraq hangs in the next couple of days, within the week. And so now we’re
seeing it go beyond the week, and I think that’s the point that we’re
trying to make.
MS. HARF: Well, I think the point he was trying to make is that the
fate of Iraq is very much hanging in the balance right now, that Iraq’s
leaders have a fundamental choice about the future of their country: Do
they come together? Do they form a government? Do they say, “We are
going to fight this threat together, we are going to figure out how to
do that”? Or do they continue governing and working together in a
sectarian way and alienating each other and sowing the sectarian
divisions that have led to so much of the violence we’ve seen in Iraq?
So look, the Secretary can talk to them, and he has and he will. So are
our diplomats on the ground. But they have to make the tough decisions
now.
QUESTION: No, I understand that. But what he specifically said is that
he wanted to see some steps towards progressive action within the week.
Now --
MS. HARF: He did. And he said he wanted the government formation to begin on the 1st, which it has. The process started today.
QUESTION: But that’s not because he wants it. That’s because the
constitution requires it. And yet they came together and absolutely
nothing happened. There was a major walk-out.
MS. HARF: They came together – okay. If they – look, I feel like
anything that happened today people would have talked about in a
negative way. They met.
QUESTION: Because it’s a negative thing.
MS. HARF: They agreed to meet again. Well, convening of a parliament
when – as they pledged to do, is something that we think is important.
They pledged to meet again. They did not make – as we’ve said, they
didn’t make progress in terms of moving towards government formation,
and they need to do so quickly.
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: There was the assumption that this was going to lead to at
least the choosing of a speaker, which would have triggered the timeline
for filling the other spots. And that wasn’t met.
MS. HARF: Well, that certainly is the first part of the process.
QUESTION: As Lara indicated, that wasn’t met.
QUESTION: That’s what the constitution requires.
MS. HARF: I understand what the constitution requires, and we want that
to happen as soon as possible. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
But look, it would have been better if they chose a speaker today. I
agree with you. It would be better if they did it before the 8th. But we
also understand this is a difficult process. It has a lot of moving
parts. We want them to do so in a way, while showing urgency, that would
get to an inclusive government that puts Iraq on the right path. We
think that can be done quickly. We think it should be done quickly.
Again, today was an important step, but there is clearly a huge amount
of work that still needs to be done.
Harf can spin all she wants, this was a big set back for US diplomatic efforts.
Larry Everest (Revolution) points out:
However, in light of the threat to the Iraqi state, the U.S. rulers feel they have little choice, given the threat posed by ISIL to the regional order, but to send advisors, warships, and intelligence assets to prevent the reactionary Maliki regime from collapsing, even as they are maneuvering to forge a government more to their liking, and to prevent increased Iranian influence. But this choice is also full of dangers and uncertainties. For instance, the Iraqi army may be too rotten to successfully prop up. Another possible problem, the Maliki government seems to be counting on rallying the Shi'a population for a holy war against the Sunnis, and this could turn into a horrific, U.S.-supported bloodbath, further stoking Sunni Jihadism and shaking Sunni states. Then there's Iran. While it has been an enormous problem for the U.S. and its key ally Israel, the U.S. seems to be exploring at least a tactical alliance with Iran to save the Iraq state, but this too could end up strengthening Iran in the longer term.
Yes, the White House is propping up Nouri.
As Elaine ("Iraq") and Mike ("Even more troops into Iraq") noted last night, Barack can't even keep his word on how many US troops he'll send into Iraq. Nancy A. Youssef (McClatchy Newspapers) reports:
The United States has deployed 300 more troops to Baghdad in the last two days, with some of them assigned to secure Baghdad’s international airport, the Obama administration announced Monday.
One senior U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject, told McClatchy that the troops were moved to Baghdad after American officials determined that Islamist fighters had consolidated their grip on the western outskirts of the capital in recent days. The movement “convinced us this would be prudent,” the official said.
Jason Ditz weighs in here. Patrick Martin (WSWS) explains:
Another 300 US troops arrived in Baghdad Sunday, swelling the reinforcements rushed to Iraq to nearly 800 in the three weeks since the fall of Mosul, the country's third-largest city, to Sunni Islamist forces. President Obama formally notified Congress of the additional troop movement in a letter Monday.
A Pentagon spokesman said the latest contingent of US troops would be equipped for combat and deployed mainly to secure Baghdad International Airport, a critical lifeline for the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Together with the soldiers, the US military is dispatching helicopter gunships and reconnaissance drones.
Two previous increments of US troops included 275 to provide security at the huge US embassy in Baghdad and 300 special forces soldiers to coordinate tactical operations by the Iraqi army and collect targeting information for future US bomb and missile attacks on fighters of Islamic State (formerly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the main Sunni Islamist group spearheading attacks on the Maliki regime. Three special forces teams have deployed north of the capital in the last few days, into the area of the heaviest fighting.
Nouri al-Maliki continues his War Crimes as he continues to bomb residential areas of Falluja. In the six month long spree of War Crimes, Nouri has killed and wounded many. Alsumaria reports 1 person was killed and twelve more injured in the latest attack on Sunni civilians.
National Iraqi News Agency reports a Lakes Region of Alexandria roadside bombing left three Iraqi soldiers injured, Major General Jamil al-Shmmari says 13 suspects were killed in Mansuriyya, and air force bombings of Albu Hassan Village and Amerli Village left 30 people dead. All Iraq News notes a mortar attack on a Ramadi market left 4 people dead and six more injured, and security forces state they killed 50 suspects in Mosul.
The United Nations counts at least 2661 violent deaths in Iraq for the month of June:
Baghdad, 1 July 2014 - According to casualty figures released
today by UNAMI, a total of at least 2,417 Iraqis were killed and another
2,287 were injured in acts of terrorism and violence in June*.
The number of civilians killed was 1,531 (including 270 civilian
police), while the number of civilians injured was 1,763 (including 276
civilian police). A further 886 members of the Iraqi Security Forces
were killed, and 524 were injured (not including casualties from Anbar
operation).
“The staggering number of civilian casualties in one month points to the urgent need for all to ensure that civilians are protected. As large parts of the country remain under the control of ISIL and armed groups, it is imperative that national leaders work together to foil attempts to destroy the social fabric of Iraqi society”, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq said. “What can be achieved through a Constitutional political process cannot be achieved through an exclusively military response. Security must be restored, but the root causes of violence must be addressed”, he also stated.
Anbar excluded, Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 1,090 civilian casualties (375 killed, 715 injured), followed by Ninewa (470 killed, 327 injured), Salahadin (365 killed, 323 injured), Diyala (158 killed, 134 injured), Babil (92 killed, 99 injured), Kirkuk (58 killed, 83 injured).
*CAVEATS: Data do not take into account casualties of the current IA operation in Anbar, for which we report at the bottom the figures received by our sources.
Operations in Anbar
According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the total civilian casualties in Anbar up to 29 June, inclusive, were 244 killed and 588 injured, with 91 killed and 268 injured in Ramadi, 124 killed and 224 injured in Fallujah, and 29 killed and 96 wounded in Al-Qaim.
“The staggering number of civilian casualties in one month points to the urgent need for all to ensure that civilians are protected. As large parts of the country remain under the control of ISIL and armed groups, it is imperative that national leaders work together to foil attempts to destroy the social fabric of Iraqi society”, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Iraq said. “What can be achieved through a Constitutional political process cannot be achieved through an exclusively military response. Security must be restored, but the root causes of violence must be addressed”, he also stated.
Anbar excluded, Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 1,090 civilian casualties (375 killed, 715 injured), followed by Ninewa (470 killed, 327 injured), Salahadin (365 killed, 323 injured), Diyala (158 killed, 134 injured), Babil (92 killed, 99 injured), Kirkuk (58 killed, 83 injured).
*CAVEATS: Data do not take into account casualties of the current IA operation in Anbar, for which we report at the bottom the figures received by our sources.
Operations in Anbar
According to information obtained by UNAMI from the Health Directorate in Anbar, the total civilian casualties in Anbar up to 29 June, inclusive, were 244 killed and 588 injured, with 91 killed and 268 injured in Ramadi, 124 killed and 224 injured in Fallujah, and 29 killed and 96 wounded in Al-Qaim.
For those confused, the UN is saying 2417 killed in 17 Iraqi provinces. When you add the 244 in Anbar to the 2417 you get 2661. Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) notes:
The Antiwar.com figures show 5,456 killed, including 3,627 militants, and 2,553 wounded, including 93 militants. The low militant wounded figure is because militants wounded are not widely reported, and so it is a dramatic under count.
iraq
npr
morning edition
tamara keith
prensa latina
socialist worker
simon assaf
weekly worker
yassamine mather
the socialist
revolution
larry everest
wang guan
No comments:
Post a Comment