You are hereBlogs / jimstaro's blog / Anti - WikiLeaks: "McGruff the Crime Dog-Style Cartoon Sergeant"

Anti - WikiLeaks: "McGruff the Crime Dog-Style Cartoon Sergeant"


By jimstaro - Posted on 26 October 2010

Army Deploys Cartoon Character in Anti-WikiLeaks Campaign

 

10/25/10 - Need to know what SAEDA stands for? Enter "McGruff the Crime Dog-style cartoon sergeant to talk to your soldiers like Third Graders about information security," Gawker writes. (By the way, SAEDA is "Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the Army," shame on you.)

This guy in camo will dish out quizzes, make you memorize acronyms, terrorize and knock you down with a tank if you think you can fudge your way through his session. Watch a video of the interactive training here, or, better still, if you are in the mood to be traumatized, take it yourself. {read rest}

 

Inside the Wikileak documents

Oct. 25: Recently released WikiLeaks documents confirmed that the Pentagon knew about the real civilian death toll in Iraq, and that security forces were torturing detainees. The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill discusses.

 

 

AIR DATE: Oct. 25, 2010: Reaction to Newly Public Iraq War Documents

 

 

SUMMARY

The media is combing through confidential documents on the Iraq War released by the website WikiLeaks, including accounts of abuse against Iraqi civilians and "hard evidence" that the United States turned a blind eye. Margaret Warner gets perspectives on the issue. Transcript

Btw, my first post in the page referred to a little further below has links for three or four AlJazeera video reports on the Iraq War logs released by Wikileaks. The rest of this post is about the above MSNBC video.

Gen. Casey and Iraqi civil war:

Believe it or not, he was right about there not having been sectarian and/or civil war in Iraq and that it wasn't likely that such a war would start. Many westerners would probably have difficulty believing this, but all such people need to do is to carefully read articles like those that I posted links for and excerpts from in a few posts in the following page last night.

http://warisacrime.org/content/afghanistan-war-weekly-october-25-2010

Descriptions of the posts:

Post #2 is primarily about torture.

Post #3 is primarily about death squads and the fact that they actually operated while under US occupying authority. The US knew and more than knew about the death squads in Iraq, and it's far from being something new for the US, which has a long history of employing covert black ops like Salvador Option and Operation Gladio.

Post #4 is for black covert ops of the US and UK in Iraq.

Posts 3 and 4 are definitely the most relevant information regarding whether or not there was civil, sectarian war in Iraq, but post #2 also ends with a link for and excerpt from another article on death squads, just that it was included in the second post because of what the piece says about torture.

The article by Max Fuller in post #3 definitely is the most important reference made in that post; however, I preceded the link for that piece with a link for an article by Mike Whitney because his piece is specifically about Max Fuller's article, makes an excellent intro. or foreword sort of article for Max Fuller's, and is short.

Post #3 also has a Channel 4 article on death squads in Iraq and I added links for the related Channel 4 documentary, but haven't viewed the film yet, so can't say anything about it. The article is nothing when compared to Max Fuller's piece, but I think it can't hurt to read the C4 one, as well.

I have no specific things to say right now about post #4, except that it's for very important information on black covert ops of the US and UK in Iraq; and I mean black, not gray (grey).

These sources I included links for illustrate that General Casey was right about there not having been civil, sectarian war; and the articles I used in posts 2, 3 and 4 are among many enough on the topics of these posts. Many Sunni Iraqis were murdered and criminally arrested, et cetera, but many Shi'ite Iraqis were also killed; and this was not because of any civil or sectarian war. Westerners were fooled through deceitful media into believing that there was civil or sectarian war, but Iraqis were not fooled; and not all westerners treat media as if it communicates Gospel Truth.

However, is this totally right; was there no civil, sectarian war at all? I believe to have gathered that there were some sectarian acts of revenge based on the belief that attacks had been committed on sectarian bases, a consequence the war makers wanted to cause with their covert Salvador Option tactics. But, and if recalling correctly, this violence did not escalate to actual civil or sectarian war. At least one of the articles linked and excerpted in one of my aforementioned posts in another page here (linked further above) gives some strong illustrations of Iraqis not having been fooled. Instead of reacting in vengeful ways, large or huge masses of them joined together, Shi'ite and Sunni, to protest against what they said were and knew to be violent acts covertly committed by or under the authority of the occupying powers.

Jeremy Scahill on death squads:

He speaks excellently and is very right about the Salvador Option, torture and US criminality in general or overall in Iraq, but he's missing some information about the Salvador Option part; and surely also about torture. See the article by Max Fuller and other articles in my posts referred to just above.

There were Shi'ite death squads, but not only Shi'ite. And these squads didn't only target Sunnis. They targeted Sunnis, especially those in socially important positions, who were against the occupation; but also some Shi'ites who were also against the occupation. They killed Sunnis and Shi'ites.

See my other posts mentioned further above, and if not satisfied after reading the sources in those posts, then do some additional Web searches and more articles, by the same and other people, will definitely be found. However, a quick way to get a considerable number of articles very quickly is to use the "Salvador Option and Death Squads" as well as "British Bombers" indexes or sections at www.BRussellsTribunal.org. The former index is linked in the home page and the other index isn't linked there, but I just looked for how to get the link to it and it turns out to be the same index page.

Definitely read articles by Max Fuller and there's also a link near the top of the above index for articles by Sarah Meyer of the UK and, who, until recently deceased, was editor of indexresearch.blogspot.com, which is still available and which was very good or excellent, so there should be good articles by her in relation to Salvador Option in Iraq, as well. And there are plenty of related articles by other people in the "Salvador Option and Death Squads" index.

Re. evidence of Iran supporting Shi'ite Iraqi resistance:

John Mearsheimer says that some people intuitively believed that Iran had been supporting, so I guess he means arming, Shia resistance in Iraq and that the Iraq War logs released by Wikileaks provides "hard evidence" of this.

I haven't seen this part of the war logs quoted at all, but I won't take his word for it that these logs provide the hard proof he's talking about. Listening to some of the AlJazeera video reports I provided links for yesterday in another page here and which is linked in my post prior to this one, above, I was able to notice that some of what's said in the war logs is a repetition of Washington lies, political and military lies of the US, and which were spread through the government extension known as corporate media.

John Mearsheimer and his partner, Stephen Walt, wrote up an article a few or more years ago about the war on Iraq and said that the motive basically was entirely for Israel; adding that there was no evidence for oil having been a motive. That was very odd for authors who are PhDs, for there was a [lot] of evidence showing that oil was most definitely a main motive; if not the top-most motive, then definitely a very main one. The other main motive is global dominance.

The only thing in it for Israel was war profiteering, for Iraq was certainly no threat to Israel; just as Iran and other Middle Eastern countries are not threats to Israel, the sole and very nuclear-armed country in the Middle East.

See the posts I made yesterday and referred to in my above post. Not all of the articles mention anything about the western allegation that Iran was supporting or arming Shia resistance in Iraq, but one or more articles do and others provide supporting information for the "big picture" of what was actually going on in Iraq and which can be summed up as "Salvador Option" of the US and also covert US use of death squads that operated under US command and sometimes with actual back-up from US troops. However, when it comes to IEDs, f.e., it evidently is far more likely that Britain had a lot to do with these, as Britain, England anyway, has a serious history of making and using such explosive devices, including the tech. to remotely fire or trigger these devices.

Iran has clearly been politically involved in Iraq, but if it had anything to do with arming Iraqi resistance fighters or forces, then it wasn't much and what's truly important is the US "Salvador Option" and use of death squads, which were used to enforce US occupation as well as to try to cause civil, sectarian war, which didn't happen. What happened is extremely criminal and murderous US occupation and destruction of Iraq; including, genocidally and with the use of covert black ops.

The rest of what John Mearsheimer says in the interview or discussion on PBS is fine or good, but while there may be logs in the Iraq War logs that claim that Iran was arming Shi'ite Iraqi resistance fighters or groups, I definitely doubt that the U.S. has ever had any actual proof of this. War log entries aren't proof of anything more than themselves. If the text is there, then it's there. But the text is not proof of what it says. It's possible that log entries were erroneously written and that could be either wittingly or unwittingly done. If a writer of a log entry that's erroneous knew it was erroneous, then it'd be a lie. Otherwise, it'd only be an error and the writer would not have known this.

So again, I doubt that these particular log entries provide actual proof that Iran was arming any Iraqi resistance fighters or groups. The only hard proof that they provide is that they were written, and then we assume that they were written by US troops or military members who were in Iraq; instead of having been written by other people, computer programs, or extra-terrestrial aliens.

Maybe Iran did, a little, but where's actual proof? We don't have it.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.