An Arabian blogger's defense of censorship (2005)

The hyperlinks no longer work but I'm republishing this post from my old blog (December 2005) for future reference. I was reminded of these notes and the reference to Stephen Carter by David Brooks' reflections in Atlantic upon the death of Gertrude Himmelfarb. When I revisit these old links I wish I had copied more content but now that the original link is gone, all that went with it is lost forever.

Now this is an interesting read. Nomaadic writing at "a secret blog from Arabia" tells why he doesn't object too much when he runs into blocked internet sites. For those of us for whom a completely unrestricted internet is a model of freedom in the highest form, this is more than alien, it can be downright offensive. But the arguments are pretty straightforward. If they make sense to this writer, they are not too far off the charts for many others who do not express themselves as openly. The comment thread bears out this observation. Those who disagree with the writer do not treat him as anything close to an extremist or a madman.
As I read this post, I couldn't help thinking how many conservative Americans would be able to understand and agree with his thinking, if only he were advancing their agenda rather than that of a conservative and concerned Muslim.

This image appeared at blocked sites in 2005.

Most people surfing the web from within the borders of the UAE may have at least once in their travels come across this blue and red proxy banner asking for your apology. The official line being, that the website you had been trying to access is blocked as a result of its content going against the ‘ethical, religious and cultural values’ of this country. While some label this block as an intrusion into the private lives of individuals and a restriction of personal liberty, others view it as an essential instrument to help maintain some kind of social order (or at least the illusion of order) in a country that is still rapidly evolving from traditional Muslim conservatism to Western liberalism.

Evidently, the camps between being ‘pro-proxy’ and ‘anti proxy’ can be sharply defined along the lines of cultural differences. Typically, those who are against the proxy are Western liberals based here and abroad and who have been witness to a history of fighting for the freedom of speech and the application of universal ‘democratic’ rights. Conversely, those who are pro-proxy are usually Local, Arabs and others from a Muslim background.
[...]
...we should remember that the West has had years to evolve to the level of liberalism and freedom of expression that it practices today. On the other hand, the UAE is still a young country and lifting the block here is the equivalent of placing your child in front of the TV, giving her a remote control and a selection of pornographic DVDs to watch.From an Islamic point of view, the argument against the removal of a proxy is even more potent. As Islam is not a token religion, to block pornographic websites and simular material is viewed as a highly positive thing to do. As the UAE is officially an 'Islamic' country then Etisalat has every right to exercise levels of censorship. [Etisalat is a multinational Emirati based telecommunications platform operating in 15 countries across MENA] 
[...]
...I find it ironic that many offensive (and inoffensive websites) are blocked to protect the integrity of this society, but I can still turn on MTV at 1pm in the afternoon and watch two women simulate lesb!an sex in the latest pop video. There should either be censorship of material that is deemed anti-Islamic across all the media or no censorship at all. I prefer the former. What we don’t need is a vague one sided application of censorship that appears to be based on arbitrary reasoning, instead of a genuine concern for the fabric and well being of this society.

It's an eye-opener, folks. This doesn't strike me as any fire-breathing extremist. Make of it what you will. I think it may be an example of what an ordinary man on the street could be thinking in many parts of the Arab world.

That one phrase, "Islam is not a token religion" jumped off the page at me. I immediately thought of Stephen Carter's The Culture of Disbelief, sub-titled How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion. In it are page after page of the many ways that what we like to think of as liberal democracy have eaten away at core values of many faiths.

When the Supreme Court of the United States, ostensibly the final refuge of religious freedom, struck down a Connecticut statute requiring employers to make efforts to allow their employees to observe the sabbath, one Justice observed that the sabbath should not be singled out because all employees would like to have "the right to select the day of the week in which to refrain from labor." Sounds good, except that, as one scholar noted, "It would come as some surprise to a devout Jew to find that he has 'selected the day of the week in which to refrain from labor,' since the Jewish people have been under the impression for some 3,000 years that this choice was made by God." If the Sabbath is just another day off, then religious choice is essentially arbitrary and unimportant, so if one sabbath day is inconvenient, the religiously devout employee can just choose another.

In America, of course, where there is a multiplicity of faiths and a long (if blood-stained, bigoted and uneven) history of tolerance, we aim to make space for as many differences of faith as possible, by treating those variations more as differences of opinion than variations on truth. The result is, as Carter points out, that "the religiously devout come to treat their faith communities as simple interest groups, involved in a general competition for secular power [so] it should come as no surprise if everybody else looks at them the same way."
Before we jump to quick judgement of this blogger's point of view, we might reflect on whether the alternative has resulted in unmitigated blessings.

Alaa Al-Aswani: The surprise that awaits Sisi (& Trump?)

Alaa Al-Aswani is one of Egypt's leading public intellectuals. I transcribe his weekly columns at Deutsche Welle for future reference. This column which is about Egypt it carries a warning for America as well. Our president and Sisi were cut from the same cloth.

When David Cameron was Prime Minister of Britain (2010-2016) newspapers published his photo while working in his office, and a modern coffee maker price of 140 pounds appeared next to him .. Then public opinion erupted in Britain and the messages poured down on Cameron website, all of which ask one question: "Did you buy the precious coffee machine from your own money or from the British people's money?"

Alaa Al-Aswani is one of Egypt's leading public
 intellectuals. I transcribe his weekly columns
 at Deutsche Welle for future reference

Cameron was not angry and did not accuse the questioners of being traitors who financed their goal of bringing down the British state, but he said: "The taxpayer has the right to make sure that his money is spent in a proper way." He then published a copy of the invoice showing that he purchased the coffee machine with his own money.

Days ago, a court in New York sentenced President Donald Trump to return two million dollars to his charitable organization because he took from this amount and used it to fund his campaign in violation of the law. This strict control of public money exists in all democratic countries. The citizen there owns the public money and does not allow the president to spend it without supervision. Misuse of public money is a serious enough charge to dismiss the president. A citizen in a democratic state is the symbol and sole master of the state, and he chooses the president in fair elections, then he monitors him and may isolate him if he misuses his powers. Do we compare that with what is happening in Egypt?

Al-Sisi borrowed debt until Egypt's debts reached an unprecedented size in its history. Indeed, the Minister of Finance himself said in a television interview that the income of the Egyptian state has become barely enough to pay the debt installments and interest. Consequently, the state only has more debt to cover its expenses. More than half of the villages in Egypt without sanitation and government schools are in dire straits, and government hospitals suffer from severe neglect and a lack of capabilities. Millions of Egyptians lead a life unworthy of human beings. All of these tragedies did not prevent Sisi from spending billions in order to hold loud advertising conferences without benefit other than satisfying Sisi's dream of being a world leader and satisfying his love to talk in front of the cameras.

Even if this was achieved by hosting thousands of people from all over the world and spending lavishly on eating and drinking and flooding them with gifts in order to clap warmly whenever Sisi uttered a sentence even if it was naive or meaningless. Hypocrites in the Egyptian media say that the Sisi festivals are not spent on from the state budget, but rather that they are funded by businessmen. Even if that were true, wasn't it the first time that businessmen spent on hospitals and schools instead of this clowning? Surprisingly, Sisi refuses to hold him accountable for his spending of public money and considers this to be ingratitude and lack of manners from the people, and he stated before that in defiance of: "Yes, I am building new presidential palaces and I will continue to build them." [Does this seem familiar?]

What is the difference between the English citizen who revolted against the Prime Minister for a coffee machine and the Egyptian citizen who sees his president owes his name and then drains billions of presidential palaces and propaganda conferences. The difference is that the democratic countries have no repression, but in Egypt, a comment you write on Facebook will send you to prison .. In addition, the citizen in democratic countries grew up as the owner of the real country, but we in our country are treated as guests of the ruler.

Since the military assumed power in Egypt in 1952, the Egyptians have become helpless. The decision is always made by the president, and the Egyptians have no choice but to obey. How much have we paid for the presidents' ignorance, vanity, and love for appearing. Did Abdel Nasser consult the Egyptians in the decision to unite with Syria, in the nationalization of private companies, in the war in Yemen, or in the expulsion of international forces in 1967, which resulted in a war that resulted in the greatest defeat for Egypt in its history? Did Sadat consult the Egyptians in concluding a peace agreement with Israel? Did Mubarak consult them in any decision he made, and did Al-Sisi consult them before he drowned them in trillions of debts? Did he consult them on his projects, which he admitted to most of them, that they are done without feasibility studies? The Egyptian citizen starves as a result of policies he did not participate in making and dies in wars he has not decided to fight, and he and his children will remain indebted as a result of loans that no one has consulted about. Don't the Egyptians understand all of this?

There is a special nature for Egyptians that will be discovered by those who read Egyptian history. They understand everything that is happening in their country and realize the enormity of the injustice they are subjected to, but they seem to be completely surrendered and submissive until the dictator continues in his injustice and reassures that his rule has settled forever. Then the greatest surprise will occur and the people will rise up to uproot tyranny from its roots. The people seemed to surrender to injustice and corruption during the Mubarak era to the point that they mocked the opposition more than once and when social media circulated the call to demonstrate on January 25, mercenary regime mockers mocked them, then the surprise occurred, the Egyptians rose up and forced Mubarak to step down and then forced the military council to arrest Mubarak And try him.

Sisi now appears completely reassured after he messed with the constitution to remain in power to what God wills and threw tens of thousands of his opponents in prisons. There is no doubt that Sisi believes that he can make the country and the people whatever he wants and there is no doubt that the people have prepared for Sisi the biggest surprise and he will announce it soon.

Democracy is the solution

Notes on India's CAB Bill (Citizenship Amendment)

Noted for future reference...
As a surge of ethnic nationalism washes across the globe India's latest permutation takes the form of legislation aimed at discriminating against Muslims. The Wikipedia link to The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, of the Parliament of India will change over time so that link will be a more timely way to track what happens next. Meantime, I'm noting this Facebook exchange for future reference in response to my query about the meaning and implications of this latest example of bigotry enshrined in law.

RP -- To all my Indian American friends who support Modi and his domestic policies, just imagine if the US government decides to take away your American citizenship on the grounds that you are not American enough and there is already a homeland for Hindus where you can go back to. See if you will find that legally and morally acceptable. That's exactly what is happening to Indian Muslims gradually. And please also note that most Indian Muslims have lived in India for generations and for a much longer time than any of us has been in the US.

JB -- The intent is clearly malevolent. But the spin that is being sent out is that the new law (or regulation or whatever it is) applies to *immigrants* with *asylum* status, not "citizens" already -- something like DACA but with Muslims not included.
Does that mean there are or may be second or third generation Indians from other countries who remain in asylum status, and are therefore still not citizens? (No birthright citizenship, apparently...)
Modi and a surge of Hindu nationalism is obviously surging, but how much of the spin is factual?

RP to JB -- the asylum facade is a ruse for a more malevolent plan for disenfranchising Muslims in India - a Hindu fascist grand plan, in my opinion. Life long Indian Muslim citizens have also fallen in the citizenship trap. I will let others who know more elaborate. PS, NA please weigh in.

PS to JB -- there are indeed second and third generation Tibetan refugees who are not citizens. But the law does not apply to them. It applies specifically to refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and from these countries those refugees who are Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist. It offers fast track citizenship to these. As you say, the intent is malevolent. As to the spin, it cannot afford to be too persuasive. Because they do want to convey to their supporters that this is pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim. And yet have plausible deniability about its anti-Muslim content.

So Ahmediyas from Pakistan, Rohingyas from Myanmar, Hindus from Sri Lanka, or Muslims from Nepal or Sri Lanka are not going to be beneficiaries. These are countries which share borders or at wirstva short stretch of international waters with us. Afghanistan does not share a border with us.

I don’t want to go into the background for the law (north east India and Bangladesh figure in that), because that was not the question. You did concede it was malevolent in intent.

SR to JB [get a pinch of salt] -- *CAB Bill - simple FAQ*

1. Does the CAB Bill affect any of the Indian citizens.??
Ans. _No. It has nothing to do with Indians in any way_

2. Who does it apply to?
Ans. _Only to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists & Christians from *3 countries who are facing religious persecution* in those countries AND who are already in India before 1st Dec 2014.

3. Which 3 countries?
Ans. _Pakistan, Bangladesh & Afghanistan_

4. In what way does it benefit Hindus, Sikhs, Jains & Christians from these 3 countries?
Ans. _Their residency requirement has been reduced from 11 to 5 years. And they can claim citizenship as a right under this law_

5. Does this mean that Muslims from these 3 countries can *never* get Indian citizenship?
Ans. _No. But they will go thro’ the usual process of acquiring citizenship thro’ naturalization rules….11 years of residence etc._

6. Will illegal muslims immigrants from these 3 countries be automatically deported under this bill?
Ans. _No. The usual process applies. Their application for naturalization may or may not be granted depending on their eligibility_

7. Can Hindus facing persecution in other countries apply under this law?
Ans. _No_

8. Does this bill apply to other forms of persecution – Political, racial, sexual etc?
Ans. _No. The bill is very specific in its intend – Hindus…religious persecution…3 countries_

9. Why only these 3 countries ? And why only religious persecution of Hindus?
Ans. _These 3 countries have a track record of pervasive, systematic & institutionalized persecution of Hindus_

10. What about Sri Lankan tamils?
Ans. _
(1) The war has been over for the a decade now.
(2) There never was any persecution on religious lines. It was on racial lines.
(3) And over the decades of civil war the Sri Lankans have put an end to institutionalized discrimination of tamils.

11. Doesn’t India have an obligation under the UN to take care of refugees?
Ans. _Yes it does. And it is not shying away from it. But it has no obligation to offer citizenship. Each country has its own rules for naturalization. India is not going to turn away other refugees under this law. It will play host to them under UN rules, in the implicit expectation that some day they will return to their homelands when the conditions improve. But in the case of Hindus from these 3 countries, this law acknowledges the reality that the environment of persecution in these 3 countries is never going to improve_

12. Why shouldn’t Baluchis, Ahmediyas in Pakistan, Rohingayas in Myanmar not be considered for this kindness?
Ans. _ They will be considered under the existing laws. Not under this special category.

Just clarifying your doubts

PS to JB -- let me give just a little more background. In Northeast India, especially Assam, there is enormous resentment against so called Bangladeshi infiltrators. There are indeed many Bangladeshis (Hindus and muslims) who have crossed into Assam and other northeastern states, but there are many Bengalis who have been there for a very very long time too. There was horrific violence in the 1970s, resulting in an agreement (the Assam accord) in 1985 to have a register of citizens, with an amnesty for those who came in before 1971 built in. The register was never quite made - it is an impossible exercise - until now. Took 10 years. Left out huge number of people.
   There have been people left out who produced proof their family has been in Assam forever, been cleared, only to have another notice sent a month later stripping them of citizenship. One person went through this exercise three times. Ultimately decided to move to mainland India. It is astonishingly arbitrary. A person could be okayed, but his or her sibling denied, when they give exactly the same proof.
   Since Hindus Bengalis were also caught up in this weird mess, the pro Hindu federal government (the preferred Indian term is central government rather than federal government), decided to bring in this bill. Especially since they also want to extend the register to all of India - not just the NE. So there will soon be another bill, and for a period nobody will be a citizen, because they will have to produce all sorts of paper work. Which most Indians don’t have. However, the central government hopes that this bill will cover the Hindus. At least that is the dog whistle.
   But if a Hindu without all the documents wants to keep his or her Indian citizenship, he/she will have to say that all the previous claims were lies, that s/he is a Hindu refugee from Bangladesh or Pakistan (even if the said person is a Tamilian from Tamil Nadu who couldn’t speak Bangla or Urdu to save her life), get the refugee status and wait six more years to get citizenship. Alternately the central government may privately tell the bureaucrats to go easy on Hindus and wink at lack of documents (most don’t have these documents), but turn the screws on Muslims. They have official plans for lots of detention centres.

Via Seema who adds: "In two easy steps:

How to destroy a nation."

RP to SR -- sounds very sanitary. However, the exception is for Muslims only. That clarifies my doubts. In Assam, Indian born Muslims including army officers who faught in Indian wars are having to prove their bona fides.

NA -- The FAQ by Sarvadaman Ray above is intellectually dishonest Sanghi whitewashing bullshit (I LOLed at how it ends: "Just clarifying your doubts". Yeah right!). The new CAB bill not only flagrantly discriminates based on religion, it lays the foundation for much uglier communal injustices downstream in combination with the NRC. It's a nasty bill that needs strong resistance. This video explains (in Hindi; esp. argument #3).

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=448885106030986

Why CAB+NRC is so much more toxic, and how it fits into a larger plan, going by Amit Shah's public speeches:

https://www.facebook.com/nandita.rao.16/posts/10162587082300704

JB -- Many thanks for these clarifications. I knew citizenship is a matter of wide variation all over the world -- one of the first things I learned in international relations. And that every country has sovereign right to set (and change) their own rules. I had no idea, however, it might literally take over a decade, an even *then* be denied.
The new law (or reg?) is clearly a sinister move targeting Muslims and all the outcries are surely justified.
I will bookmark this post and comments for future reference since they are so rich in detail. I doubt I will need to cite them for anyone else but I can keep them at the ready as notes for myself.
Again, thanks to all for these informative lessons!

MM Addendum: the amendment in the Citizenship Act 1955 is a sinister plan to take away the citizenship rights of Muslim citizens of India. The Act of 1955 was enacted in the background of independence and partition. A person can be a citizen of India by (i) birth (ii) descent and (iii) registration. The problem for people of India will be to produce documents to prove citizenship when the authorities come knocking on the door. That is where the harassment and misery will begin and a large number of citizens will be declared as non Indian.

Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist. He is currently Al Jazeera America's senior online executive producer. He was formerly the Senior Editor at Time.com. He is originally from Cape Town, South Africa, and has been living in New York City since 1993.
He raises a good question.

Does the international community have a responsibility to protect India’s Muslims from their own government? https://t.co/po7nQdMd1P

— Tony Karon (@TonyKaron) December 17, 2019

NA --  Much better FAQs here:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the CAB/CAA 2019
Untangling the complexities of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019

Citizenship has been defined as the right to have rights. Over the past six years, there have been clear political moves to fundamentally assault and redefine this Constitutional basis of both Indian nationhood and citizenship. Especially now, with the newly drafted proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 and a not thoroughly debated all India-level NPR-National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. CJP is urging people to understand, organise and fight back democratically. Let’s stand up for the Constitution of India. We must unequivocally reject CAB 2019 and at the same time in the same breath, NPR/NRC. For this we need your support. 

How is the Act violative of the Constitution?
The Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution which was established by the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharti case. This case established the supremacy of the Constitution, India’s foundations as a republic, and emphasised the importance of the Preamble that stressed on Equality (of status and opportunity) and Justice (social, economic and political). Inherent values of secularism, equality and non-discrimination are India’s constitutional ideals and aspirations which inspired the country in its struggle for independence. Equality (Article 14), right to life (Article 21) and non-discrimination (Article 15) are key Constitutional principles that this Act violates. Although the word secular was added by 42nd amendment in 1976, the case which was decided in 1973 had made it clear that while interpreting the Constitution, it should be done while taking the Preamble into consideration. 

The Citizenship Amendment Act, hence, is violative of the ‘secular’ fabric of our constitution, as it is making a law while giving preference to certain religions thereby giving an impression that the state is unfavourable towards one religion which a secular state is not supposed to do. 

The Act also stands to violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth). 

Ideally, as per Article 13(2) since the Citizenship Amendment Act takes away/abridges rights conferred under Fundamental rights as mentioned above, it is to be considered as void.

[Much more at the link.]

The Epstein Puzzle

Pieces to a puzzle...

Kuhn styles himself an intellectual & banker, PhD from UCLA BRI. *One* peer sci pub 1966.

He’s a PBS popsci TV personality.

Claims no info on Epstein when they met in 2016. That’s odd. A banker does due diligence for $500K. There’s more under this hood.

— Robert Marc de El Paso (@robertmarc60) December 14, 2019

From the link...

The other donation from Epstein’s charity to Kuhn’s group came in 2017 for $150,000 and that, too, was part of Epstein’s investment into “Closer to Truth,” the series founder explained.

Epstein’s first engagement with Kuhn came a year before the multimillionaire sent in his first donation for the episodes. The two spoke on the phone and met numerous times at his apartment in New York, the shows creator says, after being introduced through a group of scientists, although he declined to name who those scientists were.

Kuhn said he had no knowledge of any of the accusations that were later levied against Epstein at the time of their first introduction in 2016 and in the future encounters he had with him. He called his behavior “reprehensible.”

“The obvious answer is that it’s totally reprehensible what’s been reported and it’s an example of how corruption can be used in human control,” he told CNBC. “It is an example of the corruption of power distorts your own reality and then exercises this power over people who are psychologically defenseless.”

Kuhn later explained that he cannot give away the money Epstein contributed because he’s already spent it on crafting some parts of the episodes but guaranteed he would, in the future, not use donor money to complete the project.

“I wouldn’t take money from anyone else to do this and if I do finish this, then I would do it with my own money,” he said. “I feel an obligation to finish it and wouldn’t ask anyone to fund it with this baggage.”

The discovery that Epstein was funding a science-based TV show is the latest example of how many who met him overlooked the financier’s previous legal disputes, which included being sentenced to a Florida jail in 2008 for soliciting a prostitute. He was sentenced to 18 months and ended up serving 13 months.

Epstein’s group finished 2018 giving out $891,000 in contributions, according to tax documents, including $10,000 to the New School in New York and $100,000 to a nonprofit called Humanity +, which describes itself as a group “dedicate[d] to elevating the human condition.”

The financial support for Kuhn’s show also gives a glimpse into how Epstein, behind the scenes, used his wealth to invest in nontraditional projects and to get access to leaders in various intellectual communities. Epstein donated regularly to Harvard and was known to have scientists as allies within the university.

Epstein had ties to a variety of scientists. According to a report by Buzz Feed News, Epstein had links to Martin Novak, a Harvard mathematical biologist, Lawrence Krauss, a legendary physicist, and George Church, a genetics professor at Harvard.

Outside of the close allegiances he had with scientists, Epstein was known to have clients in the business community, including longtime investor Leon Black. Epstein also came into contact with billionaire Bill Gates, who has since called the meetings a “mistake.”

Another past associate of Epstein’s was Donald Trump. Before he became president, Epstein and Trump reportedly used to party together but the two later had a falling out.

I came upon this link a few hours later...

ABC’s Epstein Story Didn’t Kill Itself
December 12, 2019

Epstein’s crimes shocked the public, and his arrest, trial and mysterious death were major stories for much of 2019. But last month, leaked footage emerged showing that corporate media knew much about these crimes years previously. Discussing one of his accusers, ABC News anchor Amy Robach was caught on camera lambasting executives at her network for killing her investigations into the sex offender because of Epstein’s connections. The clip was originally leaked to infamous right-wing troll James O’Keefe, who has a long history of producing bogus stories, but ABC employees, including Robach herself, have confirmed its authenticity. In the video, Robach complains:

I’ve had the story for three years. I’ve had this interview with [Epstein complainant] Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. First of all I was told, “Who is Jeffrey Epstein? No one knows who that is. This is a stupid story.” Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew, and threatened us in a million different ways. We were so afraid we wouldn’t be able to interview Kate and Will that it also quashed the story. And then Alan Dershowitz was also implicated in it because of the planes.   “The planes” is a reference to the celebrity attorney’s frequent trips on Epstein’s infamous private jet, which he used for trafficking. 

More at the link, ending with this:

ABC’s decision to spike the Epstein exposé in order not to embarrass or implicate his powerful associates, thereby effectively enabling his crimes, is a perfect example of the danger of access journalism. Robach predicted, “There will come a day where we will realize Jeffrey Epstein was the most prolific pedophile this country has ever known.” Thanks to our corporate media system, that day was delayed by at least three years.

~~~~~

I came across another piece of the puzzle sometime in July with this story headlined Real Hedge-Fund Managers Have Some Thoughts on What Epstein Was Actually Doing.

For decades, Epstein has been credulously described as a big-time hedge-fund manager and a billionaire, even though there’s not a lot of evidence that he is either. There appears little chance the public is going to get definitive answers anytime soon. In a July 11 letter to the New York federal judge overseeing Epstein’s sex-trafficking case, Epstein’s attorney offered to provide “sealed disclosures” about Epstein’s finances to determine the size of the bond he would need to post to secure his release from jail pending trial. His brother, Mark, and a friend even offered to chip in if necessary. 

Naturally, this air of mystery has especially piqued the interest of real-life, non-pretend hedge-funders. If this guy wasn’t playing their game — and they seem pretty sure he was not — what game was he playing? Intelligencer spoke to several prominent hedge-fund managers to get a read on what their practiced eyes are detecting in all the new information that is coming to light about Epstein in the wake of his indictment by federal prosecutors in New York. Most saw signs of something unsavory at the heart of his business model. 

To begin with, there is much skepticism among the hedgies Intelligencer spoke with that Epstein made the money he has — and he appears to have a lot, given a lavish portfolio of homes and private aircraft — as a traditional money manager. A fund manager who knows well how that kind of fortune is acquired notes, “It’s hard to make a billion dollars quietly.” Epstein never made a peep in the financial world.

There is more at the link, but this is the most interesting part:

Given this puzzling set of data points, the hedge-fund managers we spoke to leaned toward the theory that Epstein was running a blackmail scheme under the cover of a  

How such a scheme could hypothetically work has been laid out in detail in a thread on the anonymous Twitter feed of @quantian1. It’s worth reading in its entirety, but in summary it is a rough blueprint for how a devious aspiring hedge-fund manager could blackmail rich people into investing with him without raising too many flags.

Here is what appears at the anonymous blogger's link:

Let's take as our starting points two givens.
(A.) You are a committed, unrepentant pedophile
(B.) Because of your old job in private banking, you are very connected to lots of very, very wealthy people
We'll also assume a goal:
(Z.) You want to become very rich
The obvious route is, well, obvious: you could just be a pimp, offering underage prostitute services to very rich people. This has two problems: you're very disposable (see: DC madam), and it's also not super lucrative. You can't charge millions of dollars up front.

The second level though follows instantly: You don't need to charge up front, just get them to have underage sex, and then blackmail them afterwards for hush money. Better ROI, but you're still a liability, and producing and receiving big bribe money raises big questions.
So, what to do? Well, the second idea has some merits.

•  First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home (check), 

•  invite top academics, artists, politicians to encourage people to come (check), and

•  supply lots of young women (check)

You don't even have to do anything, and most people invited might even be totally unaware of the real purpose of the parties! But, sooner or later, some billionaire will get handsy, she'll escort him to a room with a hidden camera, things happen. Morning after, you strike.
You inform him she was really 15, but you offer him a nice, neat way to buy your silence:

•  a large allocation to your hedge fund, which charges 2/20 (check).

• To ensure nobody else asks questions, you also take the extraordinary step of demanding power of attorney (check)

• The fund is offshore in a tax haven (check) and

•  nobody will see the client list (check).

• Of course, you don't really know anything about investing, instead making up some nonsense about currency trading (check), and

• nobody on Wall Street has ever traded with you (check)

The fund itself doesn't need investment personnel (check),

• only some back office people to process the wires (check).

• You don't want to money from non-pedophiles, or they'll notice you've just put it in a S&P 500 fund, so you reject all incoming inquiries (check)

A $20 million wire from Billionaire X to you with no obvious reason will raise many questions, and the IRS will certainly want to know what you did to warrant it. A $5 million quarterly fee for managing $1 billion in assets? Nobody bats an eye.
•  Because of this structure, you're extraordinarily secretive about client lists (check)

•  because they aren't clients, they're pedophiles paying you bribes, and they also are very secretive, which is why no letters or return streams ever leak (check)

Occasionally you may also try this trick on other people: important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. They don't invest in the fund, but it's nice to have them in your pocket. Others (academics, artists, etc.) can just be bought with money as a PR smokescreen.
And, of course, the scam can be kept going as long as people are willing to pay, which is forever. If you're ever caught, just lean on some of your other friends in government to lean on the prosecutor to get you a sweetheart deal. There's almost zero risk.

And the last piece of the puzzle is the evidence. You'd want it somewhere remote, but accessible: a place the US can't touch but you have an excuse to visit all the time to update. Remember that offshore fund?
I bet there's a *very* interesting safe deposit box there.
Two small points of clarification:

1. This scheme works just as well if the billionaires are in on it from the getgo as a way to buy sex; I assumed that was obvious but I guess not.
2. There’s no need to invoke the Mafia/Russia/Mossad/CIA/etc, that’s just needlessly overfitting.

Addendum, January, 2020...

Jeffrey Epstein was blackmailing politicians for Israel’s Mossad, new book claims

Via Middle East Monitor

The deceased American financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell were Israeli spies who used underage girls to blackmail politicians into giving information to Israel, according to their alleged Mossad handler. 

The couple reportedly ran a “honey-trap” operation in which they provided young girls to prominent politicians from around the world for sex, and then used the incidents to blackmail them in order to attain information for Israeli intelligence. 

The claims are being made by the alleged former Israeli spy Ari Ben-Menashe in a soon-to-be-released book “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales” in which he said that he was the handler of Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell, who was also an Israeli espionage agent and was the one who introduced his daughter and Epstein to Mossad. 

“See, f**king around is not a crime. It could be embarrassing, but it’s not a crime,” Menashe wrote in the book. “But f**king a fourteen-year-old girl is a crime. And he was taking photos of politicians f**king fourteen-year-old girls—if you want to get it straight…They [Epstein and Maxwell] would just blackmail people like that.”

The statements made by Ben-Menashe are so far unsubstantiated, but if proven true they would provide significant evidence of Israel being involved in the blackmail of senior and prominent politicians and figures in the US.

This would only add to the state’s already-revealed track record of manipulating Western nations’ political systems, as was seen in the revelations of the Israeli lobby’s attempt to “take down” British and US politicians revealed in the past few years.

Addendum, July, 2020...

What did she see? How many girls and women did Epstein abuse? What went on at Epstein’s private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Here are the secrets we might learn from Ghislaine Maxwell’s case pic.twitter.com/6QZ8MfHkRM

— Bloomberg QuickTake (@QuickTake) July 4, 2020

Addendum, June, 2022...

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1533082314321842179.html

A Poet, a Preacher and Me

This is a backup copy of a Veteran's Day post from my old blog. 

~~~

Philip Britts, Bruderhof poet, died at the age of 32 (1917-1949). This stanza appears in The Eternal People. It awakens in me some distant memory...

The war of the eternal people is a hard war,
And to be one of them is a hard undertaking.
For the enemy attacks each one in his own heart,
And must be fought continually, each in his own blood.
And the hardness of the fight is that the enemy attacks in disguise.
He comes as a friend or a champion,
And is beautiful or desirable,
But he is a traitor, and his beauty turns to hideousness.
And the problem of the eternal people is to recognise the enemy,
For when he is revealed his power is broken.
This is the victory of the invisible King,
That he unmasks the enemy, and overcomes him.
When the enemy seeks to divide them,
When the enemy tries to deceive them,
He is stronger than the enemy.
And with his burning love he drives him out.

My maternal grandfather, C.M. Chumbley, was a Presbyterian minister. His only book, The Man Invincible (1939), is unknown and out of print, but it is a vital part of my development. In the manner of Clarence Jordan's Cotton Patch Gospels, he retells Bible stories in the vernacular, by way of reaching those who might not otherwise be reading a Bible. This was for him an expression of evangelism.
In this excerpt he describes the first temptation of Christ...

After the baptism, under the direction of the Spirit, Jesus went forth to meet the Tempter - Satan, the Prince of the Earth in this present "evil age." Here, as in the Eden attack, Satan doubtless appeared in some visible form, as some creature that would appeal to Jesus as appropriate to the particular role he undertook for the time. Most certainly he did not appear as a serpent upon this occasion. That would be out of the reckoning. Had he so appeared he would have been recognized at once and have had his trouble for nothing. He is entirely too shrewd for that. 

Here, in the first effort, he is appealing to a hungry man - one who has not tasted food for forty days. He must arouse interest and sympathy as well as appeal to the bodily needs of the Man. To this end he probably assumed the form of a beggar, one of the most familiar objects to be encountered in that country. What an appeal the needy made to His compassionate heart we know from many Scriptures. 

The beggar, approaching, said, "I know what was done yonder by the Jordan. I wasthere and saw you baptized, and witnessed what seemed to happen: how the heavens seemed to open and the dove to come down upon you; and I know you thought you heard a voice saying, 'Thou are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' But are you sure that all these things happened? Do you know you are the Son of God? No. You do not! That's the very question that's been worrying you these last forty days. Now, I'll tell you what you can do to prove it for yourself and me. and if you are really the Son of God you can feed yourself and me. Here's the way. if you are the Son of God turn this stone into bread; then we'll both know and we can both eat of the bread." 

The Man of Galilee looked the Tempter straight in the eyes and said with quiet emphasis, "No need to argue that point, for it is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone.' That applies to you and to me. Both are hungry, but what God says is the end of all controversy. The Book says, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' When God tells me to make bread, then I will; but not till then. And if it is His will that I starve, I starve. Get out." 

Methinks there were smiles in heaven as the beggar shuffled away with a woe-begone expression on his disappointing countenance; not because a hungry man was turned away unfed but because Satan was detected and rebuked. We feel pretty sure that old Solomon was highly elated over the wit of his far-off descendant.

These two writings both date from the thirties. They could have been written simultaneously, because dates of publication are only a couple of years apart. World War Two would happen within a decade. The questions they raise have to do with discernment.Identifying an enemy who looks and acts like an enemy is easy. It is more difficult to detect an enemy who looks and acts like a friend.
And sometimes what seems to be the most obvious course of action is not what it appears.

Those of us who have the temerity to ask discerning questions about war, or read the words of those labeled enemies, are not being disloyal, just careful that if we err, we do so on the side of the angels. There is no danger that America is on the brink of becoming a model of pacifism. Should that unlikely scenario come to pass, then it might be wise to examine the virtues of war.

Flashback to 2006 -- Ted Haggard redux

I saved this from 2006 but the hyperlinks no longer work. Now that Sharlett's work has become a documentary this has new resonance. It also illustrates how much has changed in the last thirteen-plus years.

~~~~~

A year and a half ago I put together a post about mega-churches inspired by an article in Harpers by Jeff Sharlett. The subject of the story was the conspicuous success of Pastor Ted's New Life Church in Colorado.

Pastor Ted, who talks to President George W. Bush or his advisers every Monday, is a handsome forty-eight-year-old Indianan, most comfortable in denim. He likes to say that his only disagreement with the President is automotive; Bush drives a Ford pickup, whereas Pastor Ted loves his Chevy. In addition to New Life, Pastor Ted presides over the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), whose 45,000 churches and 30 million believers make up the nation’s most powerful religious lobbying group, and also over a smaller network of his own creation, the Association of Life-Giving Churches, 300 or so congregations modeled on New Life’s “free market” approach to the divine. Pastor Ted will serve as NAE president for as long as the movement is pleased with him, and as long as Pastor Ted is its president the NAE will make its headquarters in Colorado Springs.

In light of this week's developments regarding Pastor Ted, the article reads with a somewhat different resonance. Different how? I'm not sure.

It's possible that the Harper's piece served to kick-start Ted Haggard, his church and affiliated organizations to very high-profile exposure. Too much exposure, it seems. Jeff Sharlett met and interviewed the man long before last week...

...since I wrote about Ted Haggard and his church, New Life, in the May, 2005 issue of Harper's...Ted has been decidedly less than friendly. I always wondered why. Although my article was critical, it led to a surge of more mild-mannered media for Ted, one of the most powerful but least-known evangelical bigs in America. Barbara Walters asking him about heaven, Tom Brokaw doing his "on the other hand" routine. 

But too much attention can be a bad thing. Details are still coming in, but it seems a gay man in Denver named Mike Jones was watching TV recently when he saw one of his regular sex partners, whom he knew only as "Art," on the tube: Ted, welcome to celebrity. 

I just talked to Jones on the phone. He's not vindictive, nor particularly political; he's voted for Republicans and Democrats. He struggled with his decision, out of compassion for a man in the closet. He was motivated, he said, simply by being a gay man who's been around long enough to know how Ted's politics play out in the ordinary lives of people Jones cares about. That's about as good a motive for outing someone as I've ever heard. This afternoon, Ted announced that he was temporarily stepping down from his positions of authority. A press conference of national evangelical figures that planned to express support for Ted has been called off. Jones has made available recordings he says are of Ted asking him to procure meth, and an envelope in which he says Ted mailed him money.

Thanks to Fred Clark for catching this before me. His comments are worth reading.

All that language -- forgiveness, deliverance, confession, repentance -- really means here only that Haggard needs to go back to living a lie. If he agrees to live that lie, and with clenched teeth to continue proclaiming that others must join in living that lie, then Haggard will be "accepted" back "into fellowship." 

Haggard is now seeking "spiritual advice and guidance," and there are tens of thousands of Very Nice Christian people praying for him. But his spiritual guides and advisors are all going to tell him to follow that script. Those people praying for him are all praying for him to follow that script. And that script is evil. That script is a lie. 

For Christ's sake, enough with the lies. The last thing Haggard needs is to be "accepted" into a fellowship that cannot accept who he really is. Both he and that fellowship have just been given an opportunity to abandon lies. I'm praying that they will recognize that opportunity and take it.

Bitter medicine, indeed. I doubt the people who need to swallow it are paying attention. Too bad. What he's saying, of course, is that the Church must accept homosexual people as equals, sinners as part of the larger flawed population comprising the Body...then work on shortcomings.
Some churches are in that fold, but not all by a long shot.

This Tom Hartmann link is what led me to recover this post from my old blog.

Message from an Iranian patriot, September 4, 2007

I have no idea if this will ever be needed, but I went to the trouble of copying it over a decade ago and it makes several good points. To my surprise the original source is still web-accessible, but many links are long gone, and my old blog no longer has a custodian, so this is a backup copy should I ever want to visit it again. 

Michael J. Totten is one of the best war journalists working today. I have linked several times to his excellent reporting. This morning he promotes an article he wrote being published in the October issue of Reason Magazine. An excerpt can be found at his blog.

Being a nut for the obscure, I found myself following a longish comments thread attached to the post. Wading through the mire of carping, one-upsmanship and backbiting that is the mark of most such threads (despite occasional efforts on the part of the blogmaster to keep comments on track --herding cats, as it were...) I came upon the passionate, articulate outpouring that appears below. Read here the words of someone who is an Iranian patriot with a commendable gift of expression.

These words are aimed at the many and growing number of Americans whose attitudes about a potential military conflict between the US and Iran are being deliberately whipped into a frenzy by...I'm not sure by whom.

It is clear that a critical mass in favor of a war with Iran is being encouraged by someone or some group. Fox network, "fair and balanced reporting" notwithstanding, is not the source. But patriotic snake-oil has always been a good seller with a lucrative profit margin. Better than umbrellas in April.

And I don't think thoughtful military leaders are to blame. Responsible, thoughtful military types really do prefer peace to war, despite what many people believe. They know that their jobs are secure in the same way that physicians and dentists know they don't need to promote sickness and tooth decay to keep their jobs.

No, something else is at work. But I still haven't decided what it is. Meantime, read what follows. It reminds me of the words of an Old Testament prophet, but this is a cyber-epistle...

[What follows is one of many comments at the link. Posting now, twelve years later, I am amazed the link still works. I'm copying it anyway in case the link goes dark.]

MJT: "Some people can't be freed at gunpoint, at least not quickly or easily and without massive convulsions. This is the main reason I don't favor an American invasion of Iran at this time..."

Hey Mike (and a lot of you guys), what about a US invasion of Iran NEVER... Why the bleeeepity bleep don't all you helpful American liberal interventionists and hard headed neo con realists please mind your own business for a change and let Iran work itself out in its own time?

This country has been through and is going through quite enough, thank you, and it really doesn't need more violence. Change may come but - God willing - not through the barrel of a gun again (even a nice photogenic flowery one).

If the argument for a putative intervention or attack is grounded in President Ahmedinejad's caustic musings and GW Bush's recent "impending nuclear holocaust" notions, it's a crap argument.

Personally I think that many of the comments Ahmedinejad has made about Israel, Jews and the Holocaust are deeply offensive, undignified, unnecessary, stupid and cruel - not least to the 25,000 Jews who still chose to live here in Iran, but I also think that these facile pronouncements are now being overplayed and used to justify/further some extremely dangerous strategic agendas in an already volatile region.

Regarding the Iranian nuclear issue: My personal opinion is pursuing The Bomb, with all the global grief it would/is entailing, is a hugely expensive waste of money for a country with an already shaky economy -- and it could indeed trigger an unnecessary scramble by other regional states for the same thing (notably by everyone's favourite fat bastard Wahhabi chums, the Saudis) - and Bomb or no Bomb, I am not at all keen on the idea Chernobyl-era Russian made nuclear reactors being built all over a country with as many tectonic fault lines as Iran. I have filmed inside a Chernobyl type reactor once, at Ignalina in Lithuania. Not good.

Nevertheless, Iran has a technical and legal right to develop nuclear power as a signitory of the NPT. So why shouldn't it explore alternative energy sources?

Aha... I bet I know the answer.... Iran as a country has no need for alternative energy sources as it is sitting on all that oil and gas – so the nuclear programme must obviously be a cover for making deadly atomic weapons. Am I right, guys?

Well, this stance isn't consistent. In fact, it reeks of hypocrisy. The Iranian quest for nuclear power began under the Shah in 1959 with US assistance, under the so-called “Atoms for Peace” programme. Ultimately, the plan was for Iran to have some 23 nuclear reactors in place by 2000.

Indeed, by 1976 the Ford administration was offering the Shah the chance to buy a facility for reprocessing plutonium from nuclear fuel -- and thus for a complete nuclear fuel cycle. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

A nuclear powered Iran seemed such a cool idea back then. But who was pushing the plan from Washington's end? There were two main movers.... ah, what fun... There was the White House Chief of Staff, who at the time was none other than… Dick Cheney, and Ford's Secretary of Defense: Mr. Donald Rumsfeld.

So what's changed? Basically we uppity Iroonis had ourselves a revolution and kicked out a vicious, corrupt US puppet regime (sadly replacing it with a turbanned Persian version) and Iran is no longer a compliant partner in US' Israel-centric, Petro-dollar bankrolled plans for the region. Well... So what? Let us Iranians rot in splendid isolation...

No can do. But why?

Aha... is it that Iran is apparently led by a madman anti-Semite who says he wants to kill all the Jews? He's a mini midget Hitler Mark 2, albeit in a cheap looking polyester suit -- and he said all those mean things about Israel, right?

Well excuse me...Are people here seriously advocating yet another a devastating military conflict in this long suffering part of the world because of what one increasingly weak man - with a track record of shooting his mouth off and playing to the gallery - may have said to a bunch of provincial students at some mooky conference, all because he wanted to sound like a tough guy with authentic revolutionary street cred?

You can't start wars just because of what someone says... Let's rewind...

....Back to August 1984 - it's the height of the Cold War and MAD - Ronald Reagan quipped into an open mic "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes..."

Even in jest, this was highly irresponsible language from The Gipper, but would that have been Causus Belli for the Soviets? According to today's thinking, the righteous SS-20s ought to have been ramming into the Eastern seaboard.

Fast Forward...

It's May 8 2006, the day after Ahmedinejad's notorious (disputed) statement, Shimon Peres said in an interview with Reuters that "The president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map."

Now conventional wisdom has it that Israel already possesses several hundred nuclear warheads – Iran posseses none - and we can assume any number of those Israeli nukes are aimed at Iran right now. Mr. Peres was rightly criticised for these crass remarks by the Israeli media... sitting here, typing away in Tehran, I'm in Shimon's cross hairs, scary stuff when I think about it. But I wouldn't want to start a war over mere words.

And what about John McCain's recent attempts at a humorous cover version of the Beach Boys surfer classic? “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” he warbled. Not big, John, not clever - not even especially funny. But equally, not worth a single human life.

Besides, Ahmedinejad’s toxic ideas are most certainly NOT all shared by significant and powerful sections of the Iranian regime, who sconsider his brand of culturally and historically naive demagoguery an embarrassing liability.

However, for some mysterious reason, these alternative points of view have received scant, if any, coverage in the western media, even though they come from more important people than the President.

For example, Supreme Leader Khamenei`s main foreign policy advisor, Ali Akbar Valayati, refused to take part in Ahmedinejad’s Holocaust conference. In contrast to Ahmadinejad`s remarks, Velayati said that Holocaust was a genocide and a historical reality.

Similarly, back in November 2005 – days after the infamous Ahmedinejad student speech about Israel - Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei himself, rejected any attack on the Jewish state, calling instead for a referendum in Palestine. I looked it up for you. He said:

"We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights.... The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government."

Even Mr. Ahmadinejad tried to downplay the impact of his ill conceived comments. For example, in a very interesting  interview with Time magazine in September last year.

TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it? 

Ahmadinejad: People in the world are free to think the way they wish. We do not insist they should change their views. Our position toward the Palestinian question is clear: we say that a nation has been displaced from its own land. Palestinian people are killed in their own lands, by those who are not original inhabitants, and they have come from far areas of the world and have occupied those homes. Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?

Maurice Motamed, who is currently the only Jewish MP in Iran's parliament expressed his own sadness at the President's earlier remarks "Denial of such a great historical tragedy that is connected to the Jewish community can only be considered an insult to all the world's Jewish communities, " he said.

It was a theme picked up by former President Mohammad Khatami in February 2006. He said "We should speak out if even a single Jew is killed. Don't forget that one of the crimes of Hitler, Nazism and German National Socialism was the massacre of innocent people, among them many Jews."

Well, "many" is something of an understaement isn't it? Try six million, Mr Khatami. All those innocent people gone for ever. For nothing. What an evil, criminal waste.

And talking of criminal wastes... what about 1,000,000 lives? Not Jewish or American lives, this time. Iranian ones. Iranian soldiers. Iranian volunteer fighters. Don't worry folks.... they are not coming over the hill to get you. They are all already dead. And the American government helped kill them.

I went to Behesht- e-Zahra war cemetary the other day, as I always do when I visit Tehran, To pay repects to my brothers in the mud. This terrible, beautiful place is vast. It's the size of a small city, and I found myself walking through the massed ranks of headstones in tears.

As far as I am concerned those boys were heroes... and many of them were just boys. By the end of the imposed war the conscrition age was 14. But they did the right thing and I, who am of that generation, feel a shitty guilt for being alive while they are not. Believe me, my cyber friends, we have tasted enough of war to never want to see another. But we, the living, would fight for Iran all over again if we have to. I haven't time for Ahmedinejad and his gang and their nasty ways. I like American people, they are so friendly, so polite and so, well, childishly sweet when they are abroad. But this is our country, our land and the US Army is not welcome here. I made my way through the endless avenues of martyrs and I pondered the international situation. Leave us alone, I thought: We'll kill you if you come.

Remember, Iran is a country that was attacked with maximum force by Saddam Hussein in 1980 and yes, the best part of a million men were killed or maimed in 8 years of horrific fighting. Iran seemed to be up against the whole world at times: The Russians provided Saddam thousands of tanks, Hind-B helicopter gunships, Mig jets and Scud ballistic missiles, rocket launchers, artillery pieces -- all on credit. French Exocet missiles, Super Etendard bombers and Mirage fighter planes were also sold on tick (Yes, folks, that’s why the Russkis et Le Fromage Gobbling Surrender Monkeys backed Saddam prior to Gulf Wars 1 and 2 – they wanted their money back). The Brazilians flogged Iraq armoured cars and APCs, the Chinese sold yet more rocket launchers and jet planes, the Czechs APCs and more tanks, London flogged Radar sets, South Africa G-4 and G-5 artillery systems, Poland (Poland?!) sent over 900 tanks and 750 APCs, the list seems endless…

The Germans and US provided the precursor chemicals and technologies to manufacture nerve gas and blister agents (that's WMDs to you) that were used without restraint and dropped on our Iranian troop concentrations, located with the help of American supplied satellite photographs. In November 1983 a US National Security Directive stated that the U.S would do "…whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq from losing its war with Iran. What was"necessary and legal" somehow included illegally shipping Huey and Hughes helicopters, howitzers and bombs to Iraq via 3rd parties: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, all in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. From 1984 the CIA began supplying the Iraqis with the necessary intelligence to calibrate their mustard gas attacks. In March, 1986 the United States along with Great Britain blocked all UN Security Council Resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 1986 the US became the only country that refused to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not surprising really, as between 1985 and 1989 the US had also secretly exported 21 batches of lethal strains of Anthrax and further shipments of weapons grade Botulinum to Baghdad.

The plump Gulf State Sheikhs bankrolled the entire Iraqi war effort, so Iran began to try and hit Kuwaiti oil tankers that were carrying “Iraqi” oil. In March 1987 the US re-flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers as US vessels and effectively joined the war as a combatant on Iraq’s side. On May 17th that same year, the warship USS Stark was attacked for no apparent reason. But not by Iran. An Iraqi Mirage F-1 fired off 2 Exocets: 37 American sailors were killed, 21 wounded. "We will not be intimidated," said then Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. "We will not be driven from the Gulf." He described the attack on the Stark as a "horrible error." Saddam Hussein was quick to apologize for the "unintentional incident." He paid money to compensate. And the US remained on Iraq’s side.

In 1988 the American guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes, sailing under the robust stewardship of a man called Commander William C Rogers, found itself inside Iranian territorial waters. Rogers was desperately trying to engage some Iranian navy speedboats, so keen was he for his state-of-the-art vessel to see some action. Suddenly the Vincennes' hi tech radar locked onto an approaching target and its "highly trained" crew shot down an Iranian plane.

Unfortunately the aircraft in question was a civilian Airbus, Iran Air 655 on a sheduled flight to Dubai, carrying some 290 civilians – including 66 children. Everyone on board was killed. At a press conference on July 3rd 1988, the then Vice President, George Bush Snr said of the incident "I will never apologize for the United States of America— I don’t care what the facts are."

In 1990 Mr. Bush awarded Commander Rogers the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989." No mention was made of the Airbus incident.

So I think we have had quite enough help from America.

Iran has been accused of “interfering” in Iraq and I have no doubt this is true. But it would be highly surprising if any country didn’t try to influence events in a neighbouring state which had at one time launched an unprovoked war, but was now near collapse and currently occupied by over 100,000 potentially hostile troops.

Besides, seen from Tehran, the US has done more than its fair share of “interfering” in Iraq, and while Washington shrilly accuses the Iranians of backing Shia militias, it is an open secret that the US are aiding and abetting Kurdish, Baluch, Azeri and Khuzestani separatist factions inside Iran’s borders. While Iran’s shadowy IRGC “Qods” force has been accused of black ops in Iraq, we also read that US special forces have been on the ground in Iran for months, selecting targets for possible bombing. The BBC programme Newsnight has reported that Israeli Private Military Companies were subcontracted by the US to train Kurdish-Iranian dissidents (who were, it transpires, not informed of their instructors’ origins).

What’s good for the goose, Tehran might argue, is good for the gander.

But the idea that Iran wants – or will ever be in a position – to liquidate Israel, reinstate some sort of a martyrdom crazed Shi’ite Caliphate and conquer the entire Middle East, whilst merrily handing out James Bond style briefcase sized mini-nukes like candy to any random Salafist nut job who comes begging, all the while aiming its low-tech knock-off North Korean Scud clone ICBMs at Europe is comical. Or rather it would be, were it not for the fact that a great number of people in the West actually believe this scaremongering, dangerous propaganda.

That the US is relying on highly questionable, duplicitous players linked to Maryam Rajavi’s cultish People’s Mojahedeen (MEK/NCRI) for its intelligence on Iran, is resonant of the Ahmad Chalabi debacle. This organisation is still on the State Dept's list of terrorist groups and membership entails unusual features such as female led combat units, compulsory divorces, moral confession cleansing sessions and forced separation of kids from their parents.

The group was armed and supported by Saddam Hussein. Utterly discredited inside Iran, they group fought alongside Iraqi soldiers throughout the Iran-Iraq war. Indeed in 1991 these traitors were used as shock troops by Saddam Hussein during the murderous Anfal campaign against the Kurds. Rajavi exhorted her followers to "save your bullets for the Revolutionary guards -- we can crush these Kurds under our tank tracks."

Being duped into an ill conceived war based on shit “intelligence” and outright lies has got us where we are today in Iraq: decent American and British servicemen and women are being killed and maimed daily for no obvious end benefit, the wretched country has become something of a Jihadi theme-park. Many of those ordinary day-to-day Iraqis we came to liberate – if they are not being slaughtered in cycles of revenge whose origins no-one can remember – are living an imitation of life in a shattered economy, under the constant threat of full blown sectarian civil war.

There is absolutely no need to replicate this tragic situation on an even grander, bloodier scale next door.

Do not worry about Iran, my friends. We are nice, decent and a threat to no-one. Like water, the people here will find their own level.

But this time we'll do it our way and without your help.

Thank You.

    Posted by: Microraptor at September 6, 2007 12:44 AM

Twitter Crowd-sources Trump's Authoritarian Behavior

I think it never really dawned on me before how sloppy and stupid the rise of authoritarianism can be. It makes sense, of course. If brute force is the strategy, smarts aren't essential. But to see it up close is to appreciate that I missed an important theme in history books.

— Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) October 6, 2019

Walter Shaub @waltshaub said...

"I think it never really dawned on me before how sloppy and stupid the rise of authoritarianism can be. It makes sense, of course. If brute force is the strategy, smarts aren't essential. But to see it up close is to appreciate that I missed an important theme in history books."

Irina and others reply:

>  You guys keep not understanding that average voters don't understand how government works. They don't understand laws. They see no difference between Hunter Biden got cushy job for 50k a month because his last name is Biden and Pentagon planes were diverted to Trump Hotel. Anyone who canvas and registers voters in non urban non college college educated areas will tell you. You want to find out. Go volunteer for a month in purple/red areas of your state. The thing is we Liberals/Progressive/Dem feel guilty and condescending if we admit the truth.
>  I’ve done this for years in Oklahoma. You are 100% right. Furthermore many people have almost no concept of evidence, of one statement’s supporting another. Reasoning and facts and truth count for nothing. This isn’t acceptable to say but I’ve been there and I’m old so I’ll say it
>  Lack of critical thinking skills

>  There’s no reason to assume that the majority of humans would possess these skills, especially if they’re valued and trained as party of society/family/education. We are very smart animals.
That’s a relative status, not an absolute.

>  Look at films of Mussolini - he's a clownish figure, strutting around with his chest pumped out. He looks ridiculous.People don't take it seriously, while the takeover consolidates power.
Look at cowardly Rubio, and Roy Blunt today: "He was just joking"

>  Look at Trump and Boris Johnson. Two repulsive & clownish characters chosen for the death of Democracy.

>  The incident with the journalist who was coming back to the US and was confronted by a Customs official who insisted he "admit he wrote propaganda" before he could get his passport back was disgusting to the core. I hope that "official" loses his/her job.
>  That's actually what got me thinking about this. A dumb thug taking the reporter's passport and mocking him is like a big dumb kid in 7th grade grabbing someone's lunch. In normal times, that customs agent might've been afraid of losing his job. But dumb thugs are unleashed now.

>  I just read the story, which I wouldn't have if not for your post, so the question really is...have these bad actors always been in our society but largely un-noticed until social media? The far-right lost their minds over Obama. What was happening then? Was I just unplugged?

>  I think that 45 has given them "permission" to show their true selves. He sets the example and it's not a good one for democracy.

>  As the article in Defense One says, there have been other incidents of this jackboot behavior. When the rank and file see Trump denigrating the free press, they think it's acceptable behavior. We're about 5 minutes from, " Your papers are not in order."

>  These days, we are all getting a bit of an education.

>  You think the flood of lies is educational?

>  Yes. We have been blind to the brutality going on under our noses and it has now metastasized.

>  Just think about how Adolf Hitler persuaded normal good Christian Germans to turn on their Jewish neighbors to torture and kill them in the Holocaust.
History is repeating this to some degree ...in America

>  A long term commitment to allow somebody else to do all your thinking begins with a commitment to do none of your own. When we’re ready to let all this corruption slide, we’re halfway there.