Discussion:
What did the Bard tell you? Re: A_Pence_used_personal_email_for_state_business_and_was_hacked?
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2017-03-07 20:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Trump's aggressive bluster might threaten a catastrophic war - but
Bush, Blair and Howard actually delivered one." [Jeff Sparrow]
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/98637782/
HILLARY LOST! TRUMP WON!
Most of us never liked Hillary. So your gloating is futile.
But people like Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, Warren leading America would
be a nightmare, too.
So we can hope that decent Republicans like Pence, Ryan, McConnell,
McCain, Sasse will push the orange clown aside in the not so distant
future and make America great again.
Max
Yes, just like that melancholy Dane.): When he fell from a poisoned
sword his enemy had held, it was the ultimate vindication that the
evil court had killed his father, the legitimate crown.

On this note, it is worth pointing out that, as the Pentagon is
"preparing" the American people for greater military involvement in
Iraq, an Iraqi who is certainingly in the know, tells La Stampa that
ISIS will not be defeated soon - not by the means of killing anyway -
even as a Kurdistan is about to emerge in triumph as an independent
nation.

The reason clearly is because ISIS is full of former baathists whom
the Bush administration was intentionally trying to ravage, deprive
and destroy.

So ISIS in Iraq are in reality Iraqis too. And therefore where will
they go unless you kill every single one of them who are not Kurds or
Shiite muslims?

And what Barzani told La Stampa was what John Mearsheimer told Al
Jazeera not too long ago. And I'm sure that neighet Barzani nor
Mearsheimer copied each other's thought.

Why ISIL won't be defeated - Al Jazeera English
www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/isil-won-defeated-151208064707882.html
Dec 8, 2015 - John Mearsheimer speaks with Al Jazeera about the war
on ISIL, the Israel ... in traditional warfare because "you do not
defeat an ideology".

ISIL includes ISIS in Iraq - those we are trying to eliminate and
defeat in Iraq.

McCain, and other Establishment Republicans who are working to bring
down Trump and waiting and praying for that to happen are only
defending the older order beginning with George W Bush.

Bush and his compliant successor as well, have been protected by that
order, with the help of the Establishment Democrats in eight more
years.

And no matter what "lies" the current sanctimonious crowd want to
accuse the Trump administration of having committed, it is nothing
compared to the lies committed by those who helped the older order to
killed Iraqis.

The invasion resulted in more than a million deaths; it spread
refugees all over the region; it sucked over a trillion dollars (and
counting) from America's coffers. Today, Iraq remains in flames,
with the rise of Islamic State merely the latest (and by no means
the last) reverberation of a war of choice deliberately embarked
upon by our leaders.

Trump's aggressive bluster might threaten a catastrophic war - but
Bush, Blair and Howard actually delivered one.

To put it another way, these men created the conditions in which
Trumpism emerged. Have a look at the Palazzo report, and the
extraordinary cynicism with which our leaders embarked on armed
conflict. Such people are part of the problem: they're not any kind
of solution.

We can just read the following article by Jeff Sparrow on the eve of
the 14th anniversary of the Iraq War - a war the Trump administration
has inherited and a war our government is again trying to prepare the
American public to support.

A million Iraqis didn't have to die but did because of those lies
which enabled the invaders to slaughter them.

People like Paul Ryan, John McCain you mentioned are part of the
problem - not any kind of solution as Jeff Sparrow has stated.



lo yeeOn

-------------

The stench of the Iraq war lingers behind today's preoccupation with
fake news by Jeff Sparrow

If world leaders can deceive voters about the greatest foreign policy
debacle in a generation, why should a president today worry about
casually lying about the crowds at his inauguration?

Sunday 5 March 2017 20.43 EST

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/the-stench-of-the-iraq-war-lingers-behind-todays-preoccupation-with-fake-news

Australia invaded Iraq purely and simply to cement the alliance with
the US. The purported justifications for war - preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, enforcing international
law, fighting terrorism - were "mandatory rhetoric", nothing more.

So says Dr Albert Palazzo from defence's directorate of army research
and analysis, in a secret report (released under FOI) based on
multiple interviews conducted within military, and extensive access to
classified material.

When Fairfax published a major feature last week about Palazzo's
research, the story made barely a ripple on the Australian political
pond, probably because most people already recognise the unparalleled
cynicism and dishonesty by which "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was foisted
on an unwilling nation.

Nonetheless, Palazzo's document still matters, as much for what it
reveals about the politics of today as for its insights into the
chicanery of 2003.

How can Trump tell such barefaced lies? Why not ask a different
question: how did Bush, Blair and Howard get away with the duplicity
with which they manoeuvred us into the Iraq charnel house?

The invasion resulted in more than a million deaths; it spread
refugees all over the region; it sucked over a trillion dollars (and
counting) from America's coffers. Today, Iraq remains in flames, with
the rise of Islamic State merely the latest (and by no means the last)
reverberation of a war of choice deliberately embarked upon by our
leaders.

In 3 April 2002, Tony Blair explained: "We know that he [Saddam] has
stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons, we
know that he is trying to acquire nuclear capability, we know that he
is trying to develop ballistic missile capability of a greater range."

In October 2002, George Bush declared: "[Iraq] possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

In March 13 2003, John Howard said: "We believe that it is very much
in the national interest of Australia that Iraq have taken from her
her chemical and biological weapons and denied the possibility of ever
having nuclear weapons."

If world leaders can deceive voters about the greatest foreign policy
debacle in a generation, why should a president today worry about
casually lying about the crowds at his inauguration?

Not surprisingly, you can detect the faint stench of Iraq lingering
behind today's preoccupation with "fake news".

Contrary to what's often assumed, readers do not mistake stories from
conspiracy-mongering clickbait for mainstream news. They don't click
on rightwing conspiracy site Infowars by accident: a certain audience
gravitates to such sites precisely because they're not mainstream.

To put it another way, with trust in the establishment at an all time
low, the institutional heft of traditional media companies becomes a
liability rather than an asset, enabling Trump to successfully turn
the "fake news" label onto his opponents.

Much of that goes back to Iraq.

"The period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents
one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media,"
says Gary Kamiya. "Every branch of the media failed, from daily
newspapers, magazines and websites to television networks, cable
channels and radio."

"Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were
actively promoted. Fundamental and problematic assumptions about
terrorism and the `war on terror' were rarely debated or even
discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it
wasn't just a failure of analysis. With some honourable exceptions,
good old-fashioned reporting was also absent."

Let's look at the most famous example of how the media was used to
make the Iraq war happen.

On September 8 2002, the New York Times published a major story by
Michael R Gordon and Judith Miller asserting that Iraq had "stepped up
its quest for nuclear weapons and ... embarked on a worldwide hunt for
materials to make an atomic bomb". The piece cited no named sources
whatsoever. Rather, it attributed all its significant claims simply to
anonymous US officials - and, by so doing, it helped launder the Bush
administration's talking points, lending a liberal imprimatur to
unverified (and totally untrue) claims.

When the key members of the Bush administration launched a publicity
blitz to make the war happen, they were able to quote the New York
Times as evidence: in effect, reacting to newspaper revelations for
which they themselves were responsible.

For instance, during a CNN appearance, Condoleeza Rice urged the
public to support an invasion on the basis that "we don't want the
smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". She'd lifted the phrase directly
from Gordon and Miller - who'd taken it from the administration.

Elsewhere, Gordon and Miller referred to Iraq's supposed interest in
acquiring high-strength aluminium tubes as an illustration of its
nuclear ambitions. Again, the claims came from Bush officials. But
when, at the UN General Assembly, Bush told the story, he sounded as
if he were repeating a New York Times scoop.

A similar circularity defined the propaganda campaign conducted in
other countries.

"No serious figure in the debate anywhere believes Iraq does not have
[weapons of mass destruction]," proclaimed the Australian's Greg
Sheridan in March 2003. He was certainly right about that. In 2002 and
2003, journalistic "seriousness" over Iraq was defined by
participation in the feedback loop between the pro-war reporters and
the pro-war politicians, who leaned upon each other like drunks at
closing time, repeating and amplifying the (largely untrue) claims of
the Bush and Blair administrations.

We can see in that an obvious antecedent for Donald Trump's bizarre
relationship with the media today.

. . .

Within the closed ecosystem of the far right media, you could thus
hear a weird echo of Greg Sheridan on Iraq: "no serious figure in the
debate anywhere doesn't believe Sweden to be a crime-ridden hell hole."

As the catastrophic incompetence of Bush and his cronies became more
and more obvious, most of the "progressive" journalists and pundits
who'd backed the Iraq invasion walked (or perhaps tiptoed) back their
support.

So where George W Bush cultivated certain elite liberals (the late
Christopher Hitchens comes to mind) to sell his program, Trump, by
necessity as much as by choice, identifies as an opponent the
mainstream media in its entirety - "the enemy of the people", as he
recently put it.

Yet that rhetoric still draws on the hysterical, threat-laden
discourse that accompanied the march to war in Iraq.

"I accuse the media in the United States of treason".

That's not Steve Bannon or another Trumpite writing today. It comes
from a Washington Post op ed published in 2002 by Dennis Pluchinsky, a
senior intelligence analyst working for the US Department of State.

Back then, that sort of stuff was remarkably common.

Recall the fate of the Dixie Chicks, boycotted and subjected to a
barrage of abuse for daring to criticise Bush. Recall NBC dumping Phil
Donahue for "presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and
sceptical of the administration's motives". Recall the FBI's systemic
surveillance of anti-war activists and organisations. Recall White
House press secretary Ari Fleischer responding to critics by
explaining Americans "need to watch what they say, what they do. This
is not a time for remarks like this; there never is" and attorney
general John Ashcroft telling civil libertarians: "Your tactics only
aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our
resolve."

If we've forgotten that period, it's probably because many of those
who once urged Bush to crack down on dissenters now worry that, under
President Trump, they might be targets themselves.

For instance, the American essayist Andrew Sullivan recently declared
Trump "literally delusional, clinically deceptive" and warned that the
President "responds to any attempt to correct the record with rage and
vengeance".

But in 2002, Sullivan was one of the many Bush supporters engaged in
precisely that kind of intimidation against those who opposed the
march to war.

"The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for
Bush - is clearly ready for war," he wrote. "The decadent Left in its
enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts
to a fifth column."




The extremity of the Trump presidency tends to recast past
administrations in the pastel glow of nostalgia, providing an
opportunity that the politicians of yesteryear have been quick to
grasp. Tony Blair's been nosing around the British Labour party once
more, George Bush spoke up to defend the media against Donald Trump
and John Howard, when he's not championing western civilisation, says
Trump emerged as a response to political correctness.

In that context, it's important to emphasise that many of the worst
things Trump promises (torture, racial profiling, detention without
trial, etc) were implemented during the Bush years. Trump's
aggressive bluster might threaten a catastrophic war - but Bush, Blair
and Howard actually delivered one.

To put it another way, these men created the conditions in which
Trumpism emerged. Have a look at the Palazzo report, and the
extraordinary cynicism with which our leaders embarked on armed
conflict. Such people are part of the problem: they're not any kind
of solution.

-------------

Fall of Mosul won't spell end of ISIS, Iraq may split apart - Kurd
leader
https://www.rt.com/news/379509-kurdish-independence-iraq-isis/

. . .

The much-awaited fall of Mosul will not result in ISIS' defeat in
Iraq, which is likely to split like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and
other states torn by political or ethnic rifts, the leader of Iraqi
Kurdistan said in an interview with Italian media.

Masoud Barzani, president of the Iraqi Kurdistan region since 2005,
told La Stampa newspaper that the liberation of Mosul, where US-backed
Iraqi troops continue their advance on Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL), will not bring the defeat of the terrorist group.

"The fall of Mosul will not result in the defeat of IS, they will opt
for other offensive tactics, both inside and outside the city," he
argued. "To beat them, you have to defeat them on different levels,
including in ideology, economy and social issues. Their terror will
last for a long time."

--------

La Stampa - Il Presidente del Kurdistan Massoud Barzani: Questo Iraq e
ormai finito ...

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/03/05/esteri/barzani-questo-iraq-ormai-finito-noi-curdi-avremo-uno-stato-kklCznGTpvremDwyW9Wb1N/pagina.html
lo yeeOn
2017-03-07 20:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Trump's aggressive bluster might threaten a catastrophic war - but
Bush, Blair and Howard actually delivered one." [Jeff Sparrow]

The Bard has to wait for his turn!:) See below.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/98637782/
HILLARY LOST! TRUMP WON!
Most of us never liked Hillary. So your gloating is futile.
But people like Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer, Warren leading America would
be a nightmare, too.
So we can hope that decent Republicans like Pence, Ryan, McConnell,
McCain, Sasse will push the orange clown aside in the not so distant
future and make America great again.
Max
Yes, just like that melancholy Dane.): When he fell from a poisoned
sword his enemy had held, it was the ultimate vindication that the
evil court had killed his father, the legitimate crown.

On this note, it is worth pointing out that, as the Pentagon is
"preparing" the American people for greater military involvement in
Iraq, an Iraqi who is certainly in the know, tells La Stampa that ISIS
will not be defeated soon - not by the means of killing anyway - even
as a Kurdistan is about to emerge in triumph as an independent nation.

The reason clearly is because ISIS is full of former baathists whom
the Bush administration was intentionally trying to ravage, deprive
and destroy.

So ISIS in Iraq are in reality Iraqis too. And therefore where will
they go unless you kill every single one of them who are not Kurds or
Shiite muslims?

And what Barzani told La Stampa was what John Mearsheimer told Al
Jazeera not too long ago. And I'm sure that neighet Barzani nor
Mearsheimer copied each other's thought.

Why ISIL won't be defeated - Al Jazeera English
www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/isil-won-defeated-151208064707882.html
Dec 8, 2015 - John Mearsheimer speaks with Al Jazeera about the war
on ISIL, the Israel ... in traditional warfare because "you do not
defeat an ideology".

ISIL includes ISIS in Iraq - those we are trying to eliminate and
defeat in Iraq.

McCain, and other Establishment Republicans who are working to bring
down Trump and waiting and praying for that to happen are only
defending the older order beginning with George W Bush.

Bush and his compliant successor as well, have been protected by that
order - with the help of the Establishment Democrats and the MSM - for
more than a decade.

And no matter what "lies" the current sanctimonious crowd want to
accuse the Trump administration of having committed, it is nothing
compared to the lies committed by those who helped the older order to
killed Iraqis.

The invasion resulted in more than a million deaths; it spread
refugees all over the region; it sucked over a trillion dollars (and
counting) from America's coffers. Today, Iraq remains in flames,
with the rise of Islamic State merely the latest (and by no means
the last) reverberation of a war of choice deliberately embarked
upon by our leaders.

Trump's aggressive bluster might threaten a catastrophic war - but
Bush, Blair and Howard actually delivered one.

To put it another way, these men created the conditions in which
Trumpism emerged. Have a look at the Palazzo report, and the
extraordinary cynicism with which our leaders embarked on armed
conflict. Such people are part of the problem: they're not any kind
of solution.

We can just read the following article by Jeff Sparrow on the eve of
the 14th anniversary of the Iraq War - a war the Trump administration
has inherited and a war our government is again trying to prepare the
American public to support.

A million Iraqis didn't have to die but did because of those lies
which enabled the invaders to slaughter them.

People like Paul Ryan, John McCain you mentioned are part of the
problem - not any kind of solution as Jeff Sparrow has stated.

lo yeeOn

--------

The stench of the Iraq war lingers behind today's preoccupation with
fake news by Jeff Sparrow

If world leaders can deceive voters about the greatest foreign policy
debacle in a generation, why should a president today worry about
casually lying about the crowds at his inauguration?

Sunday 5 March 2017 20.43 EST

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/06/the-stench-of-the-iraq-war-lingers-behind-todays-preoccupation-with-fake-news

Australia invaded Iraq purely and simply to cement the alliance with
the US. The purported justifications for war - preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, enforcing international
law, fighting terrorism - were "mandatory rhetoric", nothing more.

So says Dr Albert Palazzo from defence's directorate of army research
and analysis, in a secret report (released under FOI) based on
multiple interviews conducted within military, and extensive access to
classified material.

When Fairfax published a major feature last week about Palazzo's
research, the story made barely a ripple on the Australian political
pond, probably because most people already recognise the unparalleled
cynicism and dishonesty by which "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was foisted
on an unwilling nation.

Nonetheless, Palazzo's document still matters, as much for what it
reveals about the politics of today as for its insights into the
chicanery of 2003.

How can Trump tell such barefaced lies? Why not ask a different
question: how did Bush, Blair and Howard get away with the duplicity
with which they manoeuvred us into the Iraq charnel house?

The invasion resulted in more than a million deaths; it spread
refugees all over the region; it sucked over a trillion dollars (and
counting) from America's coffers. Today, Iraq remains in flames, with
the rise of Islamic State merely the latest (and by no means the last)
reverberation of a war of choice deliberately embarked upon by our
leaders.

In 3 April 2002, Tony Blair explained: "We know that he [Saddam] has
stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons, we
know that he is trying to acquire nuclear capability, we know that he
is trying to develop ballistic missile capability of a greater range."

In October 2002, George Bush declared: "[Iraq] possesses and produces
chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.

In March 13 2003, John Howard said: "We believe that it is very much
in the national interest of Australia that Iraq have taken from her
her chemical and biological weapons and denied the possibility of ever
having nuclear weapons."

If world leaders can deceive voters about the greatest foreign policy
debacle in a generation, why should a president today worry about
casually lying about the crowds at his inauguration?

Not surprisingly, you can detect the faint stench of Iraq lingering
behind today's preoccupation with "fake news".

Contrary to what's often assumed, readers do not mistake stories from
conspiracy-mongering clickbait for mainstream news. They don't click
on rightwing conspiracy site Infowars by accident: a certain audience
gravitates to such sites precisely because they're not mainstream.

To put it another way, with trust in the establishment at an all time
low, the institutional heft of traditional media companies becomes a
liability rather than an asset, enabling Trump to successfully turn
the "fake news" label onto his opponents.

Much of that goes back to Iraq.

"The period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents
one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media,"
says Gary Kamiya. "Every branch of the media failed, from daily
newspapers, magazines and websites to television networks, cable
channels and radio."

"Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were
actively promoted. Fundamental and problematic assumptions about
terrorism and the `war on terror' were rarely debated or even
discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it
wasn't just a failure of analysis. With some honourable exceptions,
good old-fashioned reporting was also absent."

Let's look at the most famous example of how the media was used to
make the Iraq war happen.

On September 8 2002, the New York Times published a major story by
Michael R Gordon and Judith Miller asserting that Iraq had "stepped up
its quest for nuclear weapons and ... embarked on a worldwide hunt for
materials to make an atomic bomb". The piece cited no named sources
whatsoever. Rather, it attributed all its significant claims simply to
anonymous US officials - and, by so doing, it helped launder the Bush
administration's talking points, lending a liberal imprimatur to
unverified (and totally untrue) claims.

When the key members of the Bush administration launched a publicity
blitz to make the war happen, they were able to quote the New York
Times as evidence: in effect, reacting to newspaper revelations for
which they themselves were responsible.

For instance, during a CNN appearance, Condoleeza Rice urged the
public to support an invasion on the basis that "we don't want the
smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". She'd lifted the phrase directly
from Gordon and Miller - who'd taken it from the administration.

Elsewhere, Gordon and Miller referred to Iraq's supposed interest in
acquiring high-strength aluminium tubes as an illustration of its
nuclear ambitions. Again, the claims came from Bush officials. But
when, at the UN General Assembly, Bush told the story, he sounded as
if he were repeating a New York Times scoop.

A similar circularity defined the propaganda campaign conducted in
other countries.

"No serious figure in the debate anywhere believes Iraq does not have
[weapons of mass destruction]," proclaimed the Australian's Greg
Sheridan in March 2003. He was certainly right about that. In 2002 and
2003, journalistic "seriousness" over Iraq was defined by
participation in the feedback loop between the pro-war reporters and
the pro-war politicians, who leaned upon each other like drunks at
closing time, repeating and amplifying the (largely untrue) claims of
the Bush and Blair administrations.

We can see in that an obvious antecedent for Donald Trump's bizarre
relationship with the media today.

. . .

Within the closed ecosystem of the far right media, you could thus
hear a weird echo of Greg Sheridan on Iraq: "no serious figure in the
debate anywhere doesn't believe Sweden to be a crime-ridden hell hole."

As the catastrophic incompetence of Bush and his cronies became more
and more obvious, most of the "progressive" journalists and pundits
who'd backed the Iraq invasion walked (or perhaps tiptoed) back their
support.

So where George W Bush cultivated certain elite liberals (the late
Christopher Hitchens comes to mind) to sell his program, Trump, by
necessity as much as by choice, identifies as an opponent the
mainstream media in its entirety - "the enemy of the people", as he
recently put it.

Yet that rhetoric still draws on the hysterical, threat-laden
discourse that accompanied the march to war in Iraq.

"I accuse the media in the United States of treason".

That's not Steve Bannon or another Trumpite writing today. It comes
from a Washington Post op ed published in 2002 by Dennis Pluchinsky, a
senior intelligence analyst working for the US Department of State.

Back then, that sort of stuff was remarkably common.

Recall the fate of the Dixie Chicks, boycotted and subjected to a
barrage of abuse for daring to criticise Bush. Recall NBC dumping Phil
Donahue for "presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and
sceptical of the administration's motives". Recall the FBI's systemic
surveillance of anti-war activists and organisations. Recall White
House press secretary Ari Fleischer responding to critics by
explaining Americans "need to watch what they say, what they do. This
is not a time for remarks like this; there never is" and attorney
general John Ashcroft telling civil libertarians: "Your tactics only
aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our
resolve."

If we've forgotten that period, it's probably because many of those
who once urged Bush to crack down on dissenters now worry that, under
President Trump, they might be targets themselves.

For instance, the American essayist Andrew Sullivan recently declared
Trump "literally delusional, clinically deceptive" and warned that the
President "responds to any attempt to correct the record with rage and
vengeance".

But in 2002, Sullivan was one of the many Bush supporters engaged in
precisely that kind of intimidation against those who opposed the
march to war.

"The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for
Bush - is clearly ready for war," he wrote. "The decadent Left in its
enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts
to a fifth column."




The extremity of the Trump presidency tends to recast past
administrations in the pastel glow of nostalgia, providing an
opportunity that the politicians of yesteryear have been quick to
grasp. Tony Blair's been nosing around the British Labour party once
more, George Bush spoke up to defend the media against Donald Trump
and John Howard, when he's not championing western civilisation, says
Trump emerged as a response to political correctness.

In that context, it's important to emphasise that many of the worst
things Trump promises (torture, racial profiling, detention without
trial, etc) were implemented during the Bush years. Trump's
aggressive bluster might threaten a catastrophic war - but Bush, Blair
and Howard actually delivered one.

To put it another way, these men created the conditions in which
Trumpism emerged. Have a look at the Palazzo report, and the
extraordinary cynicism with which our leaders embarked on armed
conflict. Such people are part of the problem: they're not any kind
of solution.

-------------

Fall of Mosul won't spell end of ISIS, Iraq may split apart - Kurd
leader
https://www.rt.com/news/379509-kurdish-independence-iraq-isis/

. . .

The much-awaited fall of Mosul will not result in ISIS' defeat in
Iraq, which is likely to split like Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and
other states torn by political or ethnic rifts, the leader of Iraqi
Kurdistan said in an interview with Italian media.

Masoud Barzani, president of the Iraqi Kurdistan region since 2005,
told La Stampa newspaper that the liberation of Mosul, where US-backed
Iraqi troops continue their advance on Islamic State (IS, formerly
ISIS/ISIL), will not bring the defeat of the terrorist group.

"The fall of Mosul will not result in the defeat of IS, they will opt
for other offensive tactics, both inside and outside the city," he
argued. "To beat them, you have to defeat them on different levels,
including in ideology, economy and social issues. Their terror will
last for a long time."

--------

La Stampa - Il Presidente del Kurdistan Massoud Barzani: Questo Iraq e
ormai finito ...

http://www.lastampa.it/2017/03/05/esteri/barzani-questo-iraq-ormai-finito-noi-curdi-avremo-uno-stato-kklCznGTpvremDwyW9Wb1N/pagina.html
Loading...