Fool me twice


Daniel M Pourkesali
by Daniel M Pourkesali

In a Haaretz interview published today and titled "Is an attack on Iran a big Risk?" Patrick Clawson seems to weigh the possible outcome scenarios of a hostile attack on Iran in the same cavalier and careless manner a prospective violator would consider speeding his vehicle down a freeway.

Of course many of us unsheltered souls, who happen not to have spent the last six years under a rock watching rerun episodes of "Fox Reality" shows on TV, are painfully familiar with this type of "expert" risk-benefit analysis.

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was preceded, facilitated, and followed by one of the largest propaganda campaigns in which the public were subjected to a barrage of misinformation, lies, fear mongering, and mass deception.

Following the 9/11/01 terror attacks, Iraq was made into a WMD menace that had to be dealt with before it would attack Israel, its neighbors or even Europe and the United States. Yet Saddam had just fought a bloody eight-year war against Iran with full support of the U.S. and the Europeans and like those currently in charge of Iran, was fully mindful of the mad notion of attacking Israel given that country's clear military superiority and hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Non-existence of the WMDs aside, some may argue that Saddam's aggressive behavior displayed in attacking both his neighbors Iran and Kuwait was reason enough to remove him although many have already begun to question that wisdom given the hefty price tag.

While nothing we do now can ever reverse the colossal mistake that has manifested itself into the current fiasco in Iraq, there is a lot that can be done to stop a repeat of the same blunder on a far larger scale with respect to Iran. If countries can be bombed in violation of international law solely based on some perceived threat or improper rhetoric uttered by their leaders, then there will be nothing left but mayhem and global disorder.

When a violator is caught speeding down a freeway, the driver is the sole loser; but when one nation unilaterally imposes a war of aggression against another in violation of the U.N. Charter, we are all losers.


Recently by Daniel M PourkesaliCommentsDate
Neither wrong nor illegal
Dec 06, 2010
National Interest
Jun 17, 2009
True intentions
May 13, 2009
more from Daniel M Pourkesali


by Zion on

I`ll let those reading this decide who has been attacking who.
Take care Q.


how childish, Zion

by Q on

going after the BBC? Is that really all you have left? Shooting the messenger, pulling BS out of your behind about my "sources" when you yourself have shown no evidence, or any kind of "source" for anything you are saying. You really have some nerve.

You are the revisionist here. Who do you think you're fooling? Your words are right down this page. You did say that the bombing helped Serbians "free" themselves from a dictator. You did not mention anything about Albanians.

Even, so as my "sources" have pointed out, the war caused most of the atrocities. Since I'm absolutely sure, you couldn't be bothered to read about actual evidence, let me spell it out for your one more time for your ignorant eyes to absorb:

There is little question that the NATO air strikes precipitated the ethnic cleansing and other Serbian atrocities against the Kosovar Albanian population. NATO claims otherwise, of course, but what else could they say? Admit that they made a mistake with untold tragic consequences? Milosevic may have indeed desired such ethnic cleansing all along. Yet, by ordering the evacuation of the unarmed monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, NATO gave him the opportunity. By bombing Yugoslavia, they gave him nothing to lose.

NATO seems to think that if bombing doesn't work, just bomb some more. This is has nothing to do with stopping Serbian atrocities against the Kosvar Albanians. This is simply foreign policy by catharsis, an act of frustration. Destroying bridges in northern Yugoslavia and other attacks against the country's civilian infrastructure will not stop the horrific ethnic cleansing hundreds of miles to the south. Escalating the bombing will only escalate the killing of Serbs and ethnic Albanians alike.

As usual Zion, you consider yourself superior to others. You are too good to actually back up what you say with any shred of evidence. To you these things are true because your "brilliant" mind has thought of them. No need for anyone else to be convinced. Yes, my friend, I am right, and you have neither the ground to stand on, nor the proof for proving otherwise.

Cheapshots seem to be the only thing you have left: attack the messenger when you can't defeat the message.


More Like Virtual Reality

by Zion on

You are right Q, I am quite clueless about the way things happen in the reality you seem to reside in, where all the cliché leftist revisionisms of what has happened and why are absolute truth and BBC is a credible unbiased source of information.
You are right. I just want to point out that I never said the people of Serbia were happy or supportive of the war while it was happening. I talked about the much asked for international intervention to stop the ethnic cleansings by the victims of those cleansings, who were not Serbian, and the rest of the world. Now many of them understand why the war was necessary and what a crucial role it played in eventually allowing them to get rid of that regime and that nightmare. It is little surprise also that those who eventually came to power thanks partly to the war.
You are right, I do not understand your reality where a fascist regime engaging in the worst acts of ethnic cleansing since WWII in Europe would just fail in the next elections and shamefully step aside once it realizes how people are dissatisfied with it. Then again, in your world, those who oppose United States and Israel, no matter how brutal and fascitic, do get a soft spot in your eyes. Well Q, I hope you can get to reside in your reality and enjoy it as long as you can.


Zion this is getting rediculous, you don't know anything

by Q on

and here you are wasting everybody's time with what is clearly an uniformed, illogical, opportunistic narrative complete with re-fantasized history to suit your political agenda.

Sorry, Zion "reality", however little of it you know, does not work this way. I know you really really really want to believe this, but people of Serbia did not ask or approve of being bombed.

I realize YOU have decided they needed to be bombed, but I hate to tell you, they did not. Neither did the Iraqis and neither do the Iranians. If you want to kill them, you have find a more crediable excuse.

Without a military defeat that shattered his image of power and weakened his polic-government grasp over his people, there would have been no chance for the people, and student movement to take advantage of and free their country.

What students? Are you talking about the Serbians who were willingly occupying bridges and roads to serve as human shields to protect them from allied bombing?

The bombing actually killed more people than Milosevic had supposedly killed before the bombing began. Furthermore, as a result of the bombing, both Milosevic's Army and the KLA felt justified in committing major atrocities. Some 90% of all killings (by NATO, Serbia and KLA) happened after the bombings began. These were all foreseeable by NATO, but the western powers were more interested in proving NATO still has a role in post-USSR Europe, and hence justify their enormouse military spending. US got to test many new military toys including depleted uranium shells, UAV drones, cluster bombs, and experimental aircraft, which not only killed many innocent people, but left serious environmental devestation in place.

Many have observed that no real chance was givne to a peaceful solution before the war.

Milosevic did not step down until after a democratic election which was greatly harmed by the bombing and which commenced over a year after the war was over.

As for another of your convinient lies, in reality, Milosevic was quite unpopular leader right before the crisis, he was headed for defeat until the bombings began. Almost all Serbian democracy activists warned that Milosevic would be strengthened by the bombing and it happend thus exactly.

BBC Journalist John Simpson who was in Belgrade during the bombing observed this first hand:

It is no good trying to make the distinction President Clinton did when he tried to speak directly via television to the people of Serbia that the only person to blame was President Milosevic and that the United States and its allies have no quarrel with the people of Serbia.

Even those who are most strongly anti-Milosevic do not buy that one. They feel they are on the receiving end of the bombs and missiles.

Political differences between Serbs get smaller each time the air raid sirens go and, as I am writing this, the sirens are going once more. President Milosevic is about to consolidate his domestic political position yet again courtesy of another round of Nato missiles.

Read the whole thing and educate yourself before you open your mouth.

Milosevic became so emboldened that he was able to change the consitution and stand for a second term (under new rules), and in fact, he was now popular enough to call for early elections, one year before the deadine. Even the election itself was really close, much closer thanks to the bombings. Milosevic nearly stayed in power thanks to his increased popularity.

The man who eventually defeated Milosevic, Kostunica and his democratic opposition strongly condemned the NATO action as illegal and criminal many times.


I'm now beginning to understand the real problem you have. You are too young. I don't know if you are actually a teenager but you sure think like one: absolutely convinced your singular ideological model for world affairs is correct and everyone else is wrong. You are not interested in the truth or "reality", you simply want to be right and prove that Israel is "good" and Islam is "bad". As such, I'm not sure I should be wasting time on you. Maybe you will grow up and actually enter a library instead of getting all your info from Wikipedia and Zionists online. Maybe if you live through actual war like I have, you will know what the F you are talking about. I'm not holding my breath though, "kalleh shaghs" like you never really grow up.

We are back to my original points which you have dodged artfully. Bombings of Serbia were illegal and immoral acts, as you have naively pointed out, not even sanctioned by the UN.

Serbians never wanted, asked for, or appreciated being bombed for their own sake. You have no evidence for this, only fantasy speculation. You make up a lie that "Milosevic's defeat" emboldened the opposition. You did not even pretend to support it with evidence but it doesn't matter because everything that the democratic opposition has said points to this being a false statement.

Count this as the (I lost count, but let's say 11th) time I have corrected your lies and distortions.

So I ask you again, why is it that all that is done to resist dictators, thugs and fascists is a criminal act in your eyes, and anything you do defend turns out to help keep one gang of such criminals in power one way or another?

Too stupid to respond to. I pointed out your inharent fallacy last time you asked this, but I see you are too dense to realize it.


It`s called reality

by Zion on

No Q, no matter who has made such statements and for what politically correct reason (if anyone!), the reality is that without the much asked for and much delayed Nato attacks on Milošević regime and army, there would have been no end to the massacres and the ethnic cleansing. Without a military defeat that shattered his image of power and weakened his Gestapo like grasp over the people, there would have been no chance for the people, and specially the student movement to take advantage of, and to free their country. The same way that the lack of military support today has left the people of Lebanon defenseless against the power lust of the criminals of Hizballah. The same way that lacking the resolve to use force when necessary left a different people, the people of Czechoslovakia, defensless against the identical similar gang of criminals back 70 years ago.

So I ask you again, why is it that all that is done to resist dictators, thugs and fascists is a criminal act in your eyes, and anything you do defend turns out to help keep one gang of such criminals in power one way or another?


Islamist etiquette

by Fred on

Trying to engage Islamists, especially their capo and lobbyists, in any spirited civil debate is akin to entering Boston Marathon while chained to a refrigerator.  Back in the Islamist captive Iran they win their arguments in their multitudes of torture chambers Islamist style and when and where that option is denied them they take the high road fortified with their usual insults and innuendoes


and I wonder how desperate you really are...

by Q on

I wonder if the only tool in your arsenal is changing the subject and making BS accusations whenever you have been called on your numerous logical and factual inconsistencies.

Quick... forget the UN thing and let's talk about how Q supports fascist dictatorships!

This is the depth of your desperation:

all acts you call criminal

Really? Based on sample of 1 you are able to discern all acts I call criminal???

overthrowing or helping overthrow fascistic dictatorships and giving nations the chance to be free

Zion, therein lies the problem. Like the corrupt and imperialistic leadership of Israel, you like to pretend you know better what other people want and how they want it delivered. This is an ingraned sense of superiority which exhibits itself in violent offensive foreign policy for the sake of "democracy." The only difference is that you still haven't figured out these "wars for democracy" are just PR excuses and have no relation to democracy.

What part of "the newly democraticly elected leadership of Serbia that overthrew Milosevic considers the bombings criminal" don't you understand?

You have the nerve to sit on your ass and speculate that bombings give people "a chance to be free?" In opposition to what people themselves say? This is the line that every aggressor in the world has ever used: "I'm doing it for them!" Now that's criminal!



by n3m 1s1s (not verified) on

If the US thinks it can wreak havoc on the other side of the planet and their citizens can continue to disavow responsibility then they might be in danger of an unpleasant shock to wake them from their continued sleepwalk.

Everyone is as culpable as the government that was elected twice.


I wonder

by Zion on

Why is it Q that all acts you call criminal end up overthrowing or helping overthrow fascistic dictatorships and giving nations the chance to be free, and all that you support helps dictators and torturers remain in power?


Zion, you respect UN now? I hadn't realized

by Q on

Thanks for condemning Israel dozens of time as the UN has.

The answer is Yes, the bombing of Serbia was a criminal act by NATO and recognized as such not only by peace activists world wide but also as the official position of the revolutionary Serbians who overthrew Milosevic.

Once again, reality doesn't fit into your limited, poorly researched ("good" versus Islam) world view.

Hypocrisy? Yes, but as usual on your own part.



by Zion on

The reality is that the war on Iraq has nothing to do with the file on Iran. Anyways, I only have a question: `The war on Milošević`s Serbia was also not sanctioned by the UN. Was that also a criminal act? Or are things criminal only when they hurt the interests of, or threaten, the Islamic republic in Iran?`


Bravo !

by . (not verified) on

Bravo with your wonderful analysis. The problem is that Mr Clawson and the like are in the back pocket of zionists. They say wahtever is necessary to keep the money coming!