Tuesday, October 17, 2017

On Rose's last few rough days

Women fight on. And to the men out there, stand up. We need you as allies.

I support Rose McGowan.

I find her very brave.

In addition to everything else, she's had a rough few days and I'm going to comment on that.

After Twitter silenced her for calling out Ben Affleck (he knew what Weinstein was doing), she called for 24 hours of silence on Twitter.

Some saw that as White priv.  I don't think that's what it was.

I do think it was misguided.

But I don't think she meant harm.

CODEPINK called for a hunger strike in 2006.

Ava and C.I. noted the obvious: The last thing women need is to be told not to eat.

They're also two feminists who have regularly noted that silence should never be a response because women are silenced far too often in life.

Those are strong points and they are not points I would've reached on my own.

A dialogue is needed always.

And hopefully a dialogue has helped Rose and other women over the weekend.

Rose also got some feedback on saying that women were the "n" of the world.

I really disagree with the feedback here if it went beyond, "Please, don't."

Rose didn't mean offense.

She did cause some.

But she's someone who grew up admiring John Lennon.  (I have no problem with Lennon and like many of his songs.)  John and Yoko Ono have a song called "Woman is the N**ger of the World."

It was a statement for its time.

It was also a statement by a man born in England and a woman born in Japan -- neither was Black, neither meant offense and, it summed up a feeling of it's day -- for non-Blacks (possibly for some Blacks).

It's probably wise for us to move away from that sort of thing today. 

But to do that, we need to have a dialogue.

Hopefully, we can.

I stand with Rose McGowan. 

And I stand with open communication and dialogue.

We all (myself included) have a lot to learn.

This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, October 17, 2017.

"Oil prices continued to climb Tuesday amid fighting in Iraq that threatened production from northern Iraq and as the relationship between the United States and Iran risked more strain," notes Christopher Alessia (MARKETWATCH).  What's going on?

Kelly McEvers (ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, NPR) explained it yesterday afternoon:

There's a confrontation going on over the Iraqi city of Kirkuk, and it's between two factions who have been trained and equipped by the United States. On one side are the Iraqi Kurds, and on the other side is the Iraqi central government. Both have been key allies in the U.S. fight against ISIS. The showdown has been a long time in the making, but it really heated up when Kurds recently voted to secede from Iraq. And when it finally boiled over last night, Iraqi forces moved very quickly into what had been a Kurdish stronghold.

She was speaking to THE NEW YORK TIMES' David Zucchino:

DAVID ZUCCHINO: As it turned out, they had managed to split the Kurds by cutting a deal with one faction of the Kurds to have them pull back and let government forces come through. But the other faction, the one that actually rules the autonomous area, decided to stay and fight. And so there was an outbreak of hostilities. But because half of the Kurdish factions just kind of surrendered and withdrew, it made it very easy for the Iraqi forces, the government forces to really sweep through very quickly.

MCEVERS: So does that mean that Iraqi forces from the central government in Baghdad are now in control of the city of Kirkuk?

ZUCCHINO: They absolutely are. They went to the governor's compound, where there were two flags. One was the Iraqi flag and one was the Kurdish flag. And they took down the Kurdish flag, left the Iraqi one and then went around the city taking down all the Peshmerga posters and flags and replacing them with their own. And there was a huge celebration. People poured out into the streets, mostly Turkmen and Arabs, firing guns and honking horns and parading with flags. And it went on for hours.

They managed to split the Kurds by cutting a deal with one faction of the Kurds . . .

Oh, the Talabani betrayers.

They always betray.

Usually because the US government pays them off and, yes, they were paid off yet again.

Jalal Talabani cashed in nicely in 2012 when he betrayed the Iraqi people.  The Shi'ites, the Sunnis and the Kurds came together, remember, to call for a no-confidence vote on then-prime minister and forever thug Nouri al-Maliki.  They followed the Constitution and got the needed signatures and all Jalal was supposed to do was officially present the petition in Parliament (at which point the Parliament would vote).  But pressure and rewards via then-Vice President Joe Biden and Jalal refused to follow the Constitution and quickly took his back stabbing fat ass off the Germany.

The Talabanis have betrayed the Kurds yet again.

How long before that corrupt family is run out of Iraq?

THE NEW ARAB reports:

A deal was struck between the Talabani faction of the PUK, which commands many of the Peshmerga based in southern Kirkuk - a group still grieving over the loss of former leader Jalal Talabani earlier this month - and the Baghdad government.
PUK Peshmerga withdrew from their positions without resistance - though reportedly under fire in several hotspots. Exactly what they were offered in return remains to be seen. The deal has appears to have been confirmed publicly - a statement from the KRG prime minister's office explicitly accused the PUK of betrayal. Those in the PUK who wanted to stay and fight, notably Kirkuk's former Governor Najmaldin Karim and Peshmerga commander Kosrat Rasol Ali, were cut out of the decision-making process, and by the time they were aware, it was too late. The Kurds has lost Kirkuk. 

Bought off yet again, the Talabanis betray the Kurds.

  1. Pavel,Talabani's son,lived all his life in US&EU but returned to Kurdistan only a week to sell Kerkuk out to enemies Im ashamed to read it

  2. Is this how you continue the legacy of Talabani? He would be ashamed of you PUK. You sold kurdish unity, people of Kurdistan will remember.

Agreement signed by PUK's Pavel Talabani & PMF's Hadi Al-Amiri according to Gorran federal MP Massoud Haider.

Ala Talabani called Hashd al Shaabi ‘our brothers’, hours after reports of Hashd beheading Pehsmerga.

Lahur and Bafel Talabani ordered the PUK Pesh withdrawal from Kirkuk. Lahur was America’s line to YPG. Read US statement in light of that.

US statement?

US President Donald Trump yesterday lied and stated, "We're not taking sides."

On THE NEWSHOUR (PBS), Judy Woodruff spoke with Emma Sky (who "served as an adviser to General David Petraeus while he was commander of U.S. forces in Iraq from 2007 to 2010"):

JUDY WOODRUFF: Emma Sky, we heard President Trump say today the U.S. is not taking sides in this.
Is that accurate, that the U.S. isn’t taking sides? What is the U.S. role here?

EMMA SKY: Well, the U.S. has stipulated over and over again that its policy is to support a united Iraq.
So you can see the U.S. has given support to Iraqi security forces, but also to the Kurdish Peshmerga, to fight against ISIS. The U.S. policy for the last few years has really been focused on ISIS and not on the day after ISIS.
But what we’re witnessing at the moment is that different groups are already moving to the day after, which is the power struggle for control of different territories in Iraq.
And Barzani believed that during the fight against ISIS, he became stronger because he got weapons directly from the international community. And, as Feisal said, he was able to extend his control over the disputed territories.

He’s also facing domestic problems within Kurdistan. There are tensions between the different Kurdish groups, and some believe that Barzani has overstayed his term as president.

Yeah, you can't make the policy a united Iraq and still be neutral.

A lie.

The Iranian-back militias did not win.  The Kurdish fighters withdrew as ordered by the Talabanis.

The following community sites updated:

  • No comments:

    Post a Comment