Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

but this may be different from aq precisely in lack of top-down coordination, more reliant on inspiring so-called 'lone wolves'

Sort of what I was fumbling towards.

But, I suppose we;ll find out more in the next few weeks.

i'm inclined to believe IS had more to do w/ Tunisia specifically bc they haven't taken responsibility for France or Kuwait. if they were just trying to get credit for any Islamic violence they can, they wouldn't be so discriminating

i'm not sure what the difference is tho. it's not like roof's attack is any less reprehensible just bc it can't be traced back to one specific right wing hate group. 'lone wolf' was a term made up by the american right (at least acc to the ADL) to describe terrorists who act independently enough that they can't be traced back to a parent organization. it would be silly to consider 'lone wolf' attacks exculpatory for right wing organizations when they're an explicit attempt to duck that responsibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/world/americas/isis-online-recruiting-american.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

i don't usually follow this stuff so sorry if you guys already did this

but wau

xp reluctantly have to be creepy liberal again

don’t know if you’re correct about right wing ‘made up’ origin of term ‘lone wolf’, but as term frequently used by obama admin officials (e.g. by eric holder, state dept, dhs, cia, fbi etc), i’m not convinced current usage is necessarily ideologically suspect

there’s a difference between exculpating & recognizing qualitative differences (esp governmentally relevant differences, e.g. for law enforcement purposes)

re ‘ducking responsibility,’ do you mean particular ‘right wing organizations’ (understandable & i’d agree) or ‘right wing organizations’ in general (i’d strongly disagree)?

as strong free speech advocate (even of speech i might find loathsome & vehemently oppose), i consider qualitative differences here important to recognize, otherwise it wd justify indiscriminate level of governmental intervention in & restriction of speech & private association i consider unacceptable/unconstitutional, which wd not just affect right wing

(of course roof’s attack is no less reprehensible!!!!! whether it’s apt to call him a ‘lone wolf’ or not)

i'm specifically referring to this: http://archive.adl.org/learn/ext_us/curtis.html?LEARN_Cat=Extremism

Thanks largely to the power of the Internet, white supremacist Alex Curtis of San Diego, California, became one of the most influential voices on the racist right in the late 1990s.

A leading proponent of "lone wolf " activism, Curtis encouraged fellow racists to act alone in committing violent crimes so that they would not incriminate others. He called for the elimination of nonwhites by "whatever means necessary" and promoted assassination, illegal drug sales and biological warfare as useful strategies. He popularized the so-called "5 words" - "I have nothing to say"- which he urged extremists to use whenever questioned by police as a means of obstructing prosecution. Curtis himself was arrested in November 2000 and charged with three federal counts of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of various individuals. In March 2001, Curtis cut a deal with the government, pleading guilty to the charges in return for the recommendation by prosecutors of a reduced sentence. He received a three-year sentence in June 2001.

thanks for link mordy, see better where you were coming from, but to equate
alex curtis/ dylann roof = "american right"
is roughly analogous to saying
nidal malik hasan = "american muslims"
or ted kaczinski = "american environmentalists"
or valerie solanas = “american feminists”
or weather underground = “american left”

(nb fort hood classified by gov as workplace violence rather than terrorism; i disagree; i consider hasan & roof both terrorists even though they may be ‘lone wolves’)

who knows if roof was inspired by ‘lone wolf’ idea propagated by 'white supremacist Alex Curtis of San Diego, California' in the 90s. according to that nyt article, roof explicitly cited ccc as influence, which (loathsome though it is) is on a level with some loathsome 'anti-zionist' views among some academics— not like alex curtis/ isis explicitly advocating murder (which is NOT to exculpate that disgusting speech! but strictly speaking distinguishes ccc & those antisemitic professors from ’terrorist’ label). but this issue of relation between hateful speech/ orgs and individual murderers prob best discussed elsewhere

there is something which differentiates roof from others: depths of traumatic american history (analogue may be be anti-semitism in europe), still to an extent open wound

lack of recent statistical pattern of related terrorist acts supports view of roof as ‘lone wolf’-- which is NOT to deny existence of related hateful ideology, manifested in different ways in the present, but imo seems qualitatively different situation from e.g. aq or isis (i could be wrong) (anyway this is off topic for this thread)

just got around to reading j's link-- wow indeed (fascinating, absurd, scary)

In early February, a number of other Twitter users, including Mr. Shaikh, read Alex’s timeline and recognized the signs of her growing radicalization. They threw lifelines into the digital sea.

“I know they seem sweet,” wrote one who went by the handle @KindLadyAdilah. “They are grooming you,” she added, “If you went there you would die or worse.”

“Can I just ignore them?” Alex asked, “I swear I have, like since last night, cutting off ties is hard and they gave me stuff.”

On Feb. 13, @KindLadyAdilah advised her to stop accepting their gifts. Alex promised she would tell Faisal to stop sending them.

But a few days later another envelope arrived at her cousin’s house, containing more chocolate and a Hallmark card decorated with a cutout of a kitten. When she opened it, two $20 bills fell out.

“Please go out and enjoy a Pizza TOGETHER,” it says, signed, “Twitter friends.”

Alex spent her Valentine’s Day curled up on her bed, discussing the theological justification for suicide bombings with an ISIS supporter. She does not know his real name or even what he looks like – his profile picture was of a roaring lion. His handle was @SurgeonOfDeath.

by 'american right' i meant the extremist american right, otherwise generally speaking i agree w/ you that "this issue of relation between hateful speech/ orgs and individual murderers" is worth discussing and it's something i think about - esp the fact that in politics today everyone is in a rush to demonstrate that MY ideological allies are not responsible for heinous acts while YOUR ideological allies clearly are. it's offensive to say that social milieu X produces terrorists bc X is comprised of many individuals, but it's accurate to say social milieu Y produces terrorists bc Y is clearly saturated w/ the ideas that inspire terrorism. iow culture is either responsible for the aberrant, heinous crimes that arise from it, or it isn't. (nb i also wonder what it means to say that anyone is responsible for their actions in an age where good/evil has been replaced by theories of mental illness / neurology / determinative social conditions etc)

(means: there's gotta be someone to take the punishment)

Was reading an op-ed over the weekend suggesting that the current Western approach to ISIS is too slow and incremental just like the earlier attitude/approach when Al Queda was setting up in Afghanistan. But of course, the author in urging a larger immediate US involvement did not address any of the complicating factors--the Iraqi government's failure to be a government for all; Syria's issues and its supporters and the other countires impacted...etc. I am seeing some neo-cons and even more moderate types suggest that Western nations simply help Kurds, Sunnis and "moderate Syrian rebels" directly.

nb fort hood classified by gov as workplace violence rather than terrorism; i disagree;

brief analysis i've read said this was because the fort hood victims were military and not civilian and so attacking them can't legally be defined as terrorism. or something like that.

i mean, clearly it was terrorism by any commonsensical definition

the perpetrator of the fort hood massacre was in the military. it does look a lot more like other workplace shootings (god help this country) apart from his, you know, being a radicalized muslim

victims were military and not civilian and so attacking them can't legally be defined as terrorism

but wasn't uss cole bombing classified as terrorism? maybe not technically, not sure

the perpetrator of the fort hood massacre was in the military

this prob has more to do with it, maybe something to do with military court procedure. yet there was link b/w hasan & al-awlaki, which imo strengthens case for terming him terrorist (also makes him less lonewolfy)

Keep thinking where exactly attack in Ottawa (was that last year?) fits into all this, it was 'inspired by ISIS' (and later praised by them, I believe) but carried out by an obviously damaged and inadequate individual.

look i'm just saying that how a particular bureaucracy chooses to file its paperwork about a given event has some meaning but not much in changing how people comprehend it

the cole bombing was called terrorism because... idk, it wasn't an act of war.

"terrorism" doesn't have a stable meaning anyway. "some kind of political violence outside or beneath war" ok ok but everyone excludes or includes things for their own reasons. scott roeder and dylan roof are terrorists if you ask me, but nobody did. their linkages, either material or ideological, connect them to our own domestic partisan power structure so just don't see them in the same category.

basically agree with what you're saying

(though how paperwork filed may be relevant to victims' families; & as you note, it's always instructive to look at & question exclusion/inclusion & for what reasons, how events are named/framed by government officials & others)

Sad lol @ hamas vs. ISIS

Israel has always supported more extreme Islamists over more secular alternatives, so I don't think this presents a dilemma for Tel Aviv.

what i got from this op-ed is that ppl who actually lived in iran before emigrating are much more skeptical of negotiations than their children who grew up in the secular american bubble: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/03/opinion/what-do-iranian-americans-think-of-the-nuclear-deal.html - maybe kinda a geopolitical version of the adage that a conservative is just a liberal that has been mugged

also reminds me of something i've mentioned on ilx before that the most hard right-wing ppl in my community are russian immigrants who remember the USSR

ppl who actually lived in iran before emigrating

These would be the Iranian equivalents of embittered Cuban émigrés living in South Florida. It's hard to understand why they would have any special insight or expertise in nuclear negotiations.

They would naturally have a deep and instinctive mistrust of the mullahs, but whatever agreement might be reached would not be predicated on their trustworthiness anyway, but would presumably spell out specific and verifiable conditions that must be met on a timetable or the agreement is voided.

well... that's an awfully big presumably

The Cuba embargo is a diplomatic fiasco that's endured 55 years and accomplished nothing, politically driven by 1st generation Cuban-American resentment and Florida's swing state status.

Maybe in 2034 (1979+55) the ice will start cracking.

xp: we think alike.

oh, come on, mordy. the details that have been leaked so far show that is precisely the approach being taken, and it makes perfect sense that it would be structured that way.

that was the claim of the framework but there is a lot to suggest that snapback mechanisms are going to be far less effective than advertised, and maybe i should have total faith in the US negotiating team but from recent leaks i do worry that they'll sign an agreement that releases all sanctions immediately, that doesn't give inspectors the right to look at military sites, that won't disclose information about previous IAEA violations, etc.

otoh congress gets to vote on it so it kinda doesn't matter what the US negotiating team comes up w/

Sadatesque! http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Saudi-prince-to-visit-Israel-in-unprecedented-overture-407973

article disappeared from site (though can find it cached); apparently may have been false online rumors/hoax?

too bad

yeah

Saudi-led coalition air strikes and clashes killed at least 176 fighters and civilians in Yemen on Monday, residents and media run by the Houthi movement said, the highest daily toll since the Arab air offensive began more than three months ago....

On Monday, about 63 people were killed in air strikes on Amran province in the north, among them 30 people at a market, Houthi-controlled state media agency Saba said.

In the same province, about 20 fighters and civilians were killed at a Houthi checkpoint outside the main city, also named Amran, about 50 km (30 miles) northwest of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, local residents said.

Arab alliance war planes also killed about 60 people at a livestock market in the town of al-Foyoush in the south.

Also in the south, residents reported a further 30 killed in a raid they said apparently targeted a Houthi checkpoint on the main road between Aden and Lahj. They said 10 of the dead were Houthi fighters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0PH0R220150707

It's as if the Sauds shared the ISIS desire for a Sunni-Shia götterdämmerung.

In the absence of strenuous and vociferous US condemnation of such bombing (seems unlikely to occur) I suspect the US will be blamed for this only slightly less than the Saudis will be.

saudis can own their own bombing imho

they are John Kerry's cherished pals.

fuck unesco

So? Any takes on the deal yet? Early takes, perhaps mistaken: 1) 65 days to reintroduce sanctions is great. 2) No deal was ever going to be punishing enough for Bibi and our sunni allies anyway.

Will it get through congress?

well, think iran deal likely an awful mistake but what the fuck do i know :/

some of the stuff i'm seeing seems pretty good.

• snapback just requires majority vote - out of United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and Iran that's a strong US/UK/France/Germany/EU block even if there's Iran/Russia/Chinese recalcitrance
• 98% reduction in low-enriched
• reduction by 2/3rds of centrifuges and remaining centrifuges go to continually monitored storage site

it seems like IAEA has a lot of authority in the deal which is good since they've sounded the alarm about the Iranian nuclear program in the past. tracking uranium mining + centrifuge construction will last for up to 20 years...

a big thing is going to be whether iran agrees w/ obama (and p5+1) about what this deal contains. after the framework there was a lot of celebration about a muscular deal that iran started shooting down piece by piece. eg it seems from what i'm reading like natanz is not going to be allowed to continue to spin centrifuges but iirc that was a khomenei redline. i'd even be okay w/ IAEA giving up anytime/anywhere inspections for anytime w/ a little advance warning inspections (i don't think iran can shut down an entire nuclear program in the few weeks they might stall before letting IAEA in), but i'm not seeing the conditions for inspections addressed anywhere as well. so there's still a lot to look at but if i understand correctly bc they went over the deadline congress now gets 60 days to look over the agreement so we'll probably know in a few weeks a little more accurately about what this deal contains. i'm not prima facie opposed.

just saw russia leaked the deal here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeednews/iran-nuclear-talks?utm_term=.jy3NAqRjx&sub=3841349_6250584

gonna read it when i get a few minutes

i like the way one journalist put it: they get to keep the house but we're taking all the furniture

I suspect all the correct answers were given this morning:

@HFACDemocrats
Former US Senator @JoeLieberman will testify t 10:00amEST on #Iran and implications of the nuclear agreement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqJaPxJgKE

someday

for a much more cynical take on the deal - obviously everyone understands that the dream that this deal w/ moderate Iran in terms of funding Assad/Hezbollah/Houthis/Hamas/etc calling for death to America/Israel hosting Holocaust cartoon contests etc is pretty fantastical. i do accept that halting nuclear proliferation, esp in the middle east, is an important enough issue that it deserves precedence even if all the other issues are not engaged. i'd like someone to ask Obama what his strategy is for combatting Iranian aggression in the Middle East after this deal - i think at today's press conference he started to answer a question about how we'd handle new Iranian arms going to Syria/Lebanon but i missed the full answer bc i had to get out of the car :(

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/syrian-atrocity-photos-are-real-fbi-says-photo-124080891291.html

A top State Department official said the FBI report, a copy of which was obtained exclusively by Yahoo News, could provide fresh impetus for international war crimes prosecutors to bring criminal charges against top Syrian officials.

But, by refocusing attention on Syrian abuses, it could also complicate Obama administration efforts to persuade Congress to back the Iranian nuclear deal signed today in Vienna.

Iran has been a major backer of the Assad regime, and Assad himself today sent a congratulatory telegram to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying he expected the accord to lead to more support “with greater drive.”

After more than a year of analysis by the FBI lab in Quantico, Va., the five-page report was completed last month. It focused on 242 of the grisly photos — there were more than 55,000 in all — showing emaciated, bruised and scorched bodies, some lined up in a warehouse with ribs protruding, in scenes that have been compared to images from the Nazi Holocaust.

They were taken by a former official government photographer-turned-defector who, using the codename “Caesar,” smuggled them out of Syria two years ago on thumb drives concealed in his shoes.

I think this is good too:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/07/15-middle-east-iran-deal-obama-hamid

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jul/15/iran-deal-rouhani-vs-reality/

Listening to the speeches that American President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani each gave their nations about the nuclear agreement in Vienna, one has the impression that the two leaders are living in alternate universes.