Monday, November 19, 2007

Fabricating the case against Iran

The United States is torturing Iraqis to provide information that implicates Iran in the insurgency. Information obtained by torturing people is known to be unreliable, because people will tell the interrogator anything to make the torture stop. So why do we continue to do it? It doesn't make any sense. Nothing the United States does makes any sense.

From The Guardian

Micah Brose, privately contracted interrogator working for US forces in Iraq.
Photograph: David Smith


Micah Brose, a privately contracted interrogator working for American forces in Iraq, near the Iranian border, told The Observer that information on Iran is 'gold'.

...

Brose, 30, who extracts information from detainees in Iraq, said: 'They push a lot for us to establish a link with Iran. They have pre-categories for us to go through, and by the sheer volume of categories there's clearly a lot more for Iran than there is for other stuff. Of all the recent requests I've had, I'd say 60 to 70 per cent are about Iran.

'It feels a lot like, if you get something and Iran's not involved, it's a let down.' He added: 'I've had people say to me, "They're really pushing the Iran thing. It's like, shit, you know." '


So it sounds like we aren't finding what we're looking for. That's because it's not there. No matter how hard we want blame Iran for the U.S. screw up, there's nothing there to find. So you have to fabricate something. WMD Redux. We're just torturing people for nothing.

It makes me sick to be American. This is not who we are. The Jews have taken over the United States and they're trying to turn it into Israel. Torture is standard operating procedure in Israel. Being evil is standard operating procedure in Israel. Anything at all can be justified in Israel. Even Israel itself can be rationalized. Why not torture too?

This whole stinking mess is about Israel's supposed right to exist. Just screw everyone else, right?

4 comments:

RickB said...

I would say this is actually one of the prime functions of torture (its main being to terrorise opponents and celebrate/demonstrate total dominance) it is to create answers that confirm ones world view and thus justify and aid policy. Which makes it an obvious tool for of a neo-con administration that has boldly asserted it makes reality as it sees fit.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Servant,

I definetly respect you idealism, for despie of being American you are going agianst the neo-con fanatcism.

However, I think that you are commiting a logical fatal error.

Your prime concern must be Iraq and nothing but Iraq. For it is the nation that has been torn, slaughtered and shattered to pieces because of some bizzare whimsies on part of the neo-con ideologues.

Advocating Iran won'texactly help there. For we all know that Iran is the main elemnt desytbilising Iraq, and it is the Irani quds legions and intelligence brigades that are commiting the worst kind of mas murderes some thing that makes the the crimes of Hitler trivial.

It is acknolwdged by the Iranians themselves ( check the statements of the deputy of Khatemy, Ayatollah Mohamed Aptahy) that Iran invaded Iraq along with U.S through iranian revolutionary guards brigades and Iranised Iraqi terrorists who wetre kicked out of Iraq during the Iraq- Iran for taking on fantic religous ideologies which happen to be the shiite version of Al-Queda and Wahabi terrorists.

Have you ever asked yourself why Iran is commiting those crimes?

Answwer is quite simple, for thousands of years Iranians have had a strong illogical urge to be a part of the Arab world. Arabs treat them on the basis of the principal of " good fence good neighbour" simply because they the peoples are fundamnetally different. Persia is a prt of the indian cultural sphere rather than the Arab world.

However, Iran by presenting itself as the vaneguard of political shiism it can become a player in the middle east.

And it there that Iraq and the Arabs became enemies of Iran. For the secular Iraqi project in the seventies and eighties and the ambitious socila and technological development plans, made the Iranian extremly envious. Thus Iran tended to emphathise a politcal project where identity is formed on basis of religon, and from there it started fuel sectarian ensions in Iraq starting from sevnties. Given that the word shiite or sunni was not allowed to be mentined in Iraq as 85% of IRAQI WHETHER SUNNIS OR SHIITES WERE Arabs AND EVEN THE CHRISTIANS THE MAJORITY OF THEM CONSIDERED THEMELVES ARABS. However a group of Iraqis loyal to Iran because of political conventions or iranianlegion adopted a shiite verson of the sunni terrrorist cult of Al-Quesda, but here it is patroned by a nation-Iran.

Dear Servant, Since you and the rest of your beautiful commerades have decided to stand for what you belive is just and right despite of having the odds and mainstream against you, then I have assumed that ou have enough courage and integerity to revise yourself., and correct your mistakes.


America has commited a terrible mistake by invading Iraq along with Iran. Now America has a moral responsbility to correct its mistake and restore order as well as the legitimate government ot Iraq. And In order to do this Iran' hands must be cut off Iraq. So the American army has to bomb the terrorists in Iran

Servant said...

Dear Amre -

Thank you for adding information to the dialog. The point of the blog is to share points of view, especially for the benefit of Americans learning geography through the adventures of empire.

I suspect the quality of the information you contributed for a couple of reasons. First you spin reality into something else almost as well as our neocons if not better. From glancing at a few of your blog posts I suspect that facts present no obstacles for your style of rhetoric.

Documenting American atrocities against Iraqis is not advocating Iran. The scope of my criticism is the means that Americans use to produce the results they wish to obtain. I assert that no one can use evil means without being corrupted by evil. One cannot separate evil means from noble ends, because one defines the other. Cite any instance when evil means were used to obtain wholesome ends where the results were not worse than at the beginning.

As to who uses whom as puppets and proxies in Arab relations, I'll leave that to the people who live there to resolve.

U.S. has no business being there now. U.S. had no business backing Saddam in 1980 when Iraq invaded Iran. You got that one backwards, which is why I suspect facts are no obstacles for you.

The U.S. is not responsible for repairing anything in the Middle East. In fact we have demonstrated a level of incompetence that is greater than any the world has ever seen.

The U.S. should take the advice which Lao Tsu gave to a young Chinese Emperor:

The wise man does nothing, yet every thing is done.

Anyone who wants the U.S. to solve problems for them must surely be an idiot, since we have provided decades worth of evidence that the U.S. can only create problems. We do not know how to solve anything.

I'm not saying you're full of shit or anything. I'm just saying I am suspicious.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Dear Servant,

I think I have got your point, moreover I understand it , though I didn't expect I would

Anyway, the underlying logic of my point was very simple, when you break nto my house and kill my father then house a mad dog inside, then it is you who should throw the mad dog away.

So instead for calling to bomb Iran as you have ideological resstrictions against the use of war to achieve noble ends( freeing Iraqis from Irani terror and fanaticism) you should call for getting the Irnians out of Iraq and for restoring the legitmate government.

Iraq invaded Iran in self defence.

Now here are some facts which any fact check would definetly sustain.

After the theocratic Islamic revolution of Khomeini took over in 1979. .

1)Khomeni called for a shiite revolution in Iraq

2)Khomeini called for t the shiite in the far south to toppele the Iraqi regime.

3)Bani sadr the first president of the Islamic republic of Iran stated the revolution will only stop in Baghdad.

4)Iraq filed 100 offcial complaints to the U.N about Irani border harrasments.

Iranians simply thought they could threaten Iraq to assert the influence. Iraq was eventually left with no choice but to attack Iran. Lucky fo them their interets were aligned with the American ones back then. But anyway American aid was not that cruical as 90% of Iraqi equipmnet were french and Russian.. Given that Israel and U.S were selling ARMS TO iRAN. Remeber the Iran-contra?

One thing that has always baffled me which is the western left and anti war movment subconscial prejudice against Arabs and their causes, however the case is totally different when it comes to the non-Arab iran and its skewed version of shisim which is viewd as an extension of the hip and trendy Indian spirituality.

Finally than you for that wonderful blog and the pleasure that is bestowed on the readers by that bunch of idealistic bloggers

Kind regards
Amre