Four Iraqi soldiers were killed and five others injured in an overnight attack by Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq's central province of Salahudin, a provincial security source said on Thursday.
Fierce clashes erupted late on Wednesday night when IS militants attacked an army outpost in the rugged area of Mteibijah near Salahudin's eastern provincial border with neighboring Diyala province, Major Alaa al-Saadi, from Diyala Operations Command, told Xinhua.
Early in the morning, reinforcement troops arrived to the area and began an operation to hunt down the attackers who fled the scene under the dark, Saadi said.
So much for Hayder al-Abadi's defeat of ISIS. He thought he could run for re-election that (false) claim and that the Iraqi people would rush to vote for him. That is not how it turned out. He came in third. Third. The sitting prime minister came in third. He did not end corruption. He did not end ISIS. He did not do anything.
Elections were May 12th and Iraq has still not formed a government. Behind the scenes, the US, via Special Envoy Brett McGurk, is up to its usual tricks.
Elijah J Magnier offers:
On the US sanctions, yesterday some tried to claim Hayder was 'outraged.' No. A puppet doesn't show outrage. REUTERS summed up his meek response correctly.
He's hoping for a second term as prime minister that the US government is trying to get for him. The voters don't want him. He's not going to bite the hand that feeds him.
Poor Hayder al-Abadi. He seemed such a shoe-in to the US government.
Despite coming in third in May’s election, Abadi was seen as having a good chance of keeping his seat. Now, other names are being tossed around including a member of his own party. A serious miscalculation by the US.
Having done nothing for years, he suddenly develops a whimsical interest in fighting corruption in July. Two for show moves did nothing to enhance his reputation, so this month, he tries another move.
Mina Aldroubi (THE NATIONAL) reports:
After his term is over, after protests take to the streets in July, Hayder finally finds corruption? For four years he was prime minister and did nothing about corruption. Now, as he tries desperately to hold onto to his post, he's suddenly interested in corruption?
The Iraqi people didn't buy his for-show measures last month and it's doubtful they'll fall for it now. Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) observes, "But the longer the protests go, and the longer Abadi fails to offer reforms, the less palatable he’s going to end up being for the eventual coalition government. While there is no obvious consensus alternative to Abadi yet, coalition leaders are likely to find that the domestic costs of keeping Abadi in the post outweigh any foreign policy benefits."
Rumors swirl that Hayder's being shut out by his own political party.
Justin Raimondo (ANTIWAR.COM) has an important new column and we're going to close with this excerpt from it:
If you’re paying attention, you’ve probably already heard about the banning from Twitter of anti-interventionist author and former US diplomat Peter van Buren, a whistleblower whose book on the Iraq war exposed the lies at the heart of that devilish enterprise. When van Buren tweeted that his tenure at the State Department required him to lie to reporters, and that the paladins of the Fourth Estate were all too ready to passively record these lies as truth, the Twitter brouhaha took on seismic proportions. Several journalists were involved, attacking van Buren for showing them up, and one – Jonathan M. Katz, supposedly a New York Times writer – reported van Buren to the Twitter Authorities for allegedly threatening “violence.” Van Buren did no such thing: it was a mere pretext to get him banned. And ban him they did – for life. His account was scrubbed: years of informative tweets were erased.
There were two other casualties in this little Twitter war: our very own Scott Horton, who joined the fray and was suspended for using the “b-word,” and Daniel MacAdams, the director of the Ron Paul Institute, whose “crime” was retweeting Scott’s contribution to the discussion.
This occurred in tandem with the purge of Alex Jones from Facebook, YouTube, and Apple platforms – an obviously coordinated effort undertaken to make an example of the infamous performance artist masquerading as a conspiracy theorist.
All this wasn’t good enough for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut), who demanded to know if the plan was to only take down “one web site.” No doubt he has a whole list of sites he’d like to take down. Even more ominously, it was revealed that a direct threat had been made to these companies by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia), who sent out a memo listing all the ways the government could crack down on Big Data if they refuse to go along with cleansing the internet of “divisive” material.
So much for the “libertarian” argument that these companies and the platforms they run are “private,” and not connected in any way to the governmental Leviathan. This is the kneejerk response of outlets like Reason magazine, but it’s simply not a valid position to take. The Communications Decency Act immunizes these companies against any torts that may arise from activities conducted on their platforms: they can’t be sued or prosecuted for defamation, libel, or indeed for any criminal activity that is generated by these Internet domains. That’s because they claim to be mere “carriers,” like the old phone company, and therefore they can’t be held responsible for conversations, postings, or other online materials that involve illegal or otherwise dubious actors.
On the other hand, content-providers like Fox News, CNN, and Antiwar.com are not so privileged: this site, for example, can be sued or held legally responsible by the authorities for any illegal activities supposedly generated on or by Antiwar.com.
The following community sites updated: