Sunday Sweets

The TL Kid's fiance (and yes, Nic and Kaitlin officially got engaged over Xmas) said these are the greatest chocolate cookie: No gmo, no wheat, no butter,granulated sugar and they taste delicious.They do have carob powder (fair trade) and some organic chocolate chips. Here's the recipe if you want to try them.

The recipe is from fellow Denver-ite Julie Baer's cookbook, PaleOMG!

No pots to clean, just one bowl, they take 5 minutes to make and 10 minutes to bake. I'll be curious to hear what you think if any of you make them. The Recipe is below.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome. [more]


* 1 cup thick almond butter (I used Barney Butter Smooth Almond Butter because it's similar to thick nut butters. If you use too oily, the cookies won't come together. You were warned.)
* 1 cup coconut sugar
* 1 egg, whisked
* ½ cup unsweetened cocoa powder (or carob powder)
* 1 teaspoon baking soda
* 1 teaspoon vanilla extract
* pinch of salt
* 1/2 cup Enjoy Life Mini Chocolate Chips


1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees.

2. In a large bowl, mix together almond butter and coconut sugar using a large spoon. Then add egg and mix again until well combined.

3.Add ¼ cup of cocoa powder at a time. At this point, I used my hands to incorporate the cocoa powder into the dough. Add all the cocoa powder and completely combine.

4.Then add baking soda, vanilla, salt and chocolate chips and combined until everything is well mixed. This was all hands for me. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. (This should be a very thick dough at this point. If it's not, you need a thicker almond butter like I said before) 5.Use a cookie scoop to scoop out around 2 tablespoons of dough and make into a round ball. Place on silpat or parchment paper lined baking sheet. This dough will create 13-15 cookies that size.
6.Once you've placed all the balled dough onto the baking sheet, use a fork to press the cookies down just slightly. No need to really flatten them out, just get them to look more cookie shape instead of ball shape. If you press them down too much, they'll come apart when they bake so be careful.
7.Place baking sheet into the oven and bake for 10 minutes.
8.Remove from oven and let cool for 5-10 minutes until removing from baking sheet to place on cooling rack. If you try to remove these from the baking sheet early, they will come apart. So don't be stupid here. Patience is a virtue.

9.Eat up!

< Friday Open Thread | Golden Globes Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Congrats (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 04:14:50 AM EST
    on the soon to be nuptials of your son, Jeralyn!

    Are you doing the paleo diet?

    Yes, congratulations, Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 09:42:16 PM EST
    Have they even thought about setting a date yet, or was it enough for them at this point to finally decide to get engaged?



    no date yet but (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:03:06 PM EST
    it will be soon, they are going to skip the big wedding which I think is great -- just parents and siblings and a local judge or ordained person or something like that. The parties with their friends will come later. They've been living together for a year, and I think they'd rather put their resources towards buying a house, etc. I'm really happy for both of them, I think they make a great couple. He proposed at the Blossom of Lights at the Botanic Gardens the week before Xmas. Very beautiful event. He arranged for a photographer in advance, so we all (family and friends) got to see the photos.

    i think maybe (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    the big wedding is a only something women appreciate?

    i wonder if the traditional "big wedding" could be made more interesting to men? maybe if it involved a uniformed honor guard with swords followed by a ritualistic rite-of-passage with the groom being tortured by Klingons wielding pain-sticks as he walked over hot burning coals?

    flowers and cake and pretty dresses and a corsage?

    maybe it should be traditional for the groom to get a handmade scroll-engraved italian skeet gun? i dunno. i go to weddings and the grooms seem so mopey.


    My niece over the holidays (none / 0) (#71)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 09:44:11 AM EST
    Told us all the same thing. She isn't doing the crippling wedding. She's working on her MBA and told me in her opinion the US wedding industry is a little ridiculous.

    I'm thinking about it (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:51:33 PM EST
    I've gotten as far as buying all this weird stuff like organic coconut oil and sugar and avocado oil, almond butter and almond flour. And now I want an Instant Pot (a slow cooker, pressure cooker and rice cooker in one.) But I'll probably never do any of it, I like gelato too much (and cream cheese and brie.)

    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by linea on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 01:11:56 AM EST
    consider real vanilla extract?

    of all my friends, i seem to be the only one with real vanilla extract in the cupboard.


    Fake report that Willy Nelson is dead (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    Don't click on anything that has it. I did and got snared by some malware.

    Jazz critic and social commentator... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desertswine on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 01:57:33 PM EST
    Nat Hentoff has passed away.  He wrote for the Village Voice for 50 yrs.

    Nat Hentoff, the author, journalist, jazz critic and civil libertarian who called himself a troublemaker and proved it with a shelf of books and a mountain of essays on free speech, wayward politics, elegant riffs and the sweet harmonies of the Constitution, died on Saturday at his home in Manhattan. He was 91.

    People like Hentoff are a rare and vanishing breed.

    That's sad, I used to read him all (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:04:26 PM EST
    the time in the Village Voice decades ago. I can't believe he was 91.

    Trump pronouced (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 02:43:52 PM EST
    that (l) the election was not impacted by the Russian election engineering and, (2) that this was corroborated by the Intelligence Report.

    The first is unproveable, although in a close election, the multi-pronged Russian intrusion cannot be summarily discounted.  The second, is false.  The Intel Report is prefaced with the statement: "no assessment of impact that Russian activities had an impact on the outcome of the 2016 election." Moreover, the body of the report is faithful to that preface.

    It is easy to understand why Trump takes the stance he does: He can't stand the idea that he didn't or couldn't win without anyone's help, And, of course, he fears he will be considered to be a loser masquerading as a winner.  

    It is critical, therefore, that Trump re-shapes the narrative so as to distort the truth and make this the new, un-shakeable truth.  This forged reality is necessary to both Trump and his supporters.  

    As a companion, the Intel Report is impugned. No evidence, no disclosure of classified human or technological assets. Classified information needs to be made public (a seeming change from all the efforts to find a little "c" in somone's emails) or its didn't happen.  The Delphi-type joint intel agency assessments, with high confidence (except a nuanced denigration/discredit assessment of Mrs. Clinton) summarizes and concludes their assessments.

    The Intel Report demands a follow-up independent special investigation.  The Intel Assessments reveal not only the damage of the past, but also, the danger to the future.

     The intel assessment of cyber-intrusions into State and local electoral boards, alone, obligates investigation. The statement that "the type of systems targeted or compromised were not involved in VOTE TALLYING, is not entirely re-assuring. We can have great confidence in the dedicated Republican and Democratic election officials counting capabilities. It is the integrity of the vote being counted that comes into question.

    Classified information needs to be made public (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by mm on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    Yet at the same time, Trump threatens NBC News:

    Trump wants investigation into intelligence leak to NBC

    President-elect Donald Trump said Friday that he wants a probe into a report by NBC News that used information provided by an unnamed senior intelligence official who discussed a report detailing alleged Russian hacking of top Democratic officials.

    "I am asking the chairs of the House and Senate committees to investigate top secret intelligence shared with NBC prior to me seeing it," Trump announced on Twitter.

    Citing its source, NBC reported Thursday that the "U.S. has also identified Russian actors who turned over stolen Democratic material to WikiLeaks."

    Heads he wins, tails we lose.


    Greenwald on the recent intel report on Russia: (none / 0) (#4)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:51:28 PM EST
    My views are not the same as Greenwald's, including that I don't necessarily doubt the basic conclusions of the report (just looking for some specifics on several assertions in it). However, Greenwald is certainly not a Trump supporter or Repub.

    "Journalist Glenn Greenwald said Sunday that the recently released intelligence report on Russian hacking contained no "convincing evidence," and urged journalists to be skeptical of US intelligence claims."

    ""On the key claims that Putin directed this hacking and that he did so to elect Donald Trump, there is no evidence for it ... just CIA assertions over and over, and that just simply isn't enough," Greenwald said."

    For PeterG (and a different subject): as for Snowden, he is not to be trusted. He has a history of being dishonest. A close relative of mine was in the same army unit with him, was his supervisor at times, and knows a decent amount about the type of guy he was at that time and the untrue things he has said about his time in the army.

    i just now read (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 04:55:58 PM EST
    the en.wikipedia article on glenn greenwald (and was very impressed) and then i watched the cnn-greenwald interview. i feel the points he makes in the interview to be thoughful and reasoned. he has a much more nuanced opinion than green26 presents. i urge people to watch the full interview.

    The quotes I posted come right out of the CNN (none / 0) (#9)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    interview with Greenwald. The CNN article I linked has a link to the interview. Greenwald's comments on the role reversals are interesting. We already saw that on TL today. On Snowden, Greenwald was a hero and always right. Today, he was doubted. Greenwald would say that is in part because people tend to believe what they want to believe.

    Maybe it is because (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    each situation is different, and the Left does not generally endorse people carte blanche across the board, being suspicious of heroes and authority.

    Your post is another instance of "appeal to authority" in that you assume that the Left grants authority status to Snowden and GG, and that accordingly they should agree with GG on another topic.  Conservatives like strong men and authorities, etc.  Not so much on the Left.


    Perhaps, but as Greenwald indicates, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    it may also be because the left doesn't want to believe or support anything that may support Trump or Putin. My view is that it's generally because of what Greenwald said.

    You're certainly (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    welcome to your opinion but if you look back both Hillary and Obama were against Snowden long before Trump ran for president.

    Who's talking about Snowden? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:53:48 PM EST
    I'm talking about Greenwald, except for passing a bit of info along to PeterG.

    I think Glenn (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:15:18 PM EST
    is very intelligent and brave. He was a civil liberties lawyer before becoming famous for his journalistic endeavors. I consider him a friend from my early days of blogging (even though I haven't communicated with him personally in probably a decade or more).  My views don't match his on every issue but he's entitled to express his views without ridicule or being misquoted. Readers here can of course disagree with him, but no personal insults of him will be tolerated. (I'm not saying you insulted him, I haven't read TalkLeft's comments today), just giving you and everyone else a heads-up.

    im sorry (none / 0) (#12)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:46:58 PM EST
    i did not mean to imply the quotes you provided were incorrect. i simply wanted to clarify that the interview as a whole was more nuanced than a few qoutes can provide and to encourage people to watch the cnn-greenwald interview before responding

    and thank you. providing the link to the video was couteous and helpfull.


    I took no offense (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:51:08 PM EST
    In fact, I appreciated your post. You lent credibility to what I was trying to say.

    Greenwald is a cut above on nuance (none / 0) (#39)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:08:07 PM EST
    and general information.  However, he has several axes to grind vs. Pres. Obama and Hilary, and it has unfortunately biased his view of the cyber attack by the Russians. I agree with Greenwald vis-a-vis Snowden's release of information about NSA spying, but I don't think that means that those who don't, i.e., the President and Hilary are never victims or that expose of information that hurt her is misguided.

    Our intelligence agencies have solid data that even made President-elect see their views after the briefing.  Look at his post-briefing statements.


    There was a lot more debate at this site (none / 0) (#15)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 05:59:23 PM EST
    about Snowden and all the implications of his revelations than you're portraying, Green.

    That bit about "a hero and always right" is just your own lurid caricature; probably based on some stereotype you have of the left "always" being opposed to any government measures related to defense.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#17)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:18:23 PM EST
    I just provided some additional info on Snowden, info that I know is accurate. Made no other comment on him. Certainly, never said anything about a hero and always right. You are just making up stuff. What is wrong with some of you?

    Okay, now see you must have been talking about (none / 0) (#18)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:19:49 PM EST
    Greenwald, not Snowden.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:35:41 AM EST
    "On Snowden, Greenwald was a hero and always right" is a ham-handed distortion of the varied nature of the discussions that went on here re Greenwald and Snowden.

    Do you disagree (none / 0) (#76)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:50:26 AM EST
    that Greenwald was a hero to most on the left, when he was working with Snowden's material to disseminate it? That's what I was referring to.

    Snowden is also admired and supported (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    by a lot of right-libertarians.

    His supporters and detractors don't just line up on either side of the left-right fault line.


    Who on (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    "the left" has praised Greenwald or Snowden? The only person that I've seen publicly praise them is Jill Stein. Like I said above Hillary and Obama had no use for them. And it's a fantasy that that's anywhere near a majority however I am sure that is what conservative propaganda tells you.

    Oh BS (3.67 / 3) (#80)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:43:32 AM EST
    Snowden and Greenwald both got huge praise for leaking the US gathering of information. There was praise all over TL too. Sorry, we just aren't going to agree on this one.

    LOL (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    So you can't name anyone other than posters on a blog and perhaps too as people have learned more about Snowden they have changed their minds about him.

    Yes, I know you embrace the Putin agenda but don't try to blame the rest of us for what you do.


    Google would be your friend (1.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    See if you can get any other posters to agree with your view on this.

    Never have supported Putin. You have Putin on the brain.


    Insults? (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:13:05 PM EST
    I agree with her (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#90)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:47:12 PM EST
    You don't support Putin, but you sure spend a lot of time acting like his defense attorney. How much is he paying you?

    Not from me (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:13:34 PM EST
    If true, so what? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:17:35 PM EST
    Just because the Left may have liked what he did in one instance does not mean they have to like everything he does.

    This argument, stems from your reflexive use of "appeal to authority" line of argumentation.  Generally recognized as a weak argument.

    But I can tell you don't really have much use for or identification with the Left, no?  If so, why not just associate yourself with people share your opinions.  I doubt you are changing anyone's mind here; but you sure take up a lot of space.

    And, please spare me the I voted for Hillary defense.  I, for one, do not believe it.


    A few things in response (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:50:25 PM EST
    I just pointed out that the left pretty much loved Greenwald over Snowden disclosures. If you agree with that, then our discussion on that point is done. Said nothing about the left or anyone having to love him on everything.

    Don't have a clue what your appeal to authority thing means. I cite what other people and experts say, because I think most of them know more than either you or I, and many others on TL, know about certain subjects.

    Correct, I don't identify with the left on all or most of what they believe in. As an independent, I agree with many things that the left does. Do you know understand what independent means?

    My goal is not to change peoples' minds on TL. It is to learn and have discussions about topics that interest me. It works best with smart and polite people who are willing to have a discussion and exchange information. I also love Jeralyn's posts and summaries. I have learned more from her in the last decade than anyone I can think of.

    Don't care if you don't think I voted for Hillary. I did. My wife just took the Hillary sign out of our window this weekend. The condensation was making it stick to the window.


    Oops. forgot link to CNN article (none / 0) (#5)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 03:52:58 PM EST
    What is the expression about opinions? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    Gee, I wonder why Greenwald (none / 0) (#98)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 08:59:54 PM EST
    Is climbing out of his skin over this? Couldn't have anything to do with him shopping any of that Russian hack shat around, and then Liberal readership attacking him for it and ending their readership of The Intercept. He's drowning now, and did it to himself. But he keeps doubling and tripling down. He didn't do anything "wrong", he's fine, he's fine with what he's done and where it's leading him professionally. He couldn't be finer. Integrity, ethics, and standards are all overrated.

    U.S. Reacting at Analog Pace to a Digital Risk (none / 0) (#6)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    NY Times article today. Everything below is quoted from article.

    Why did it take the Obama administration more than 16 months to develop a response?

    the long lag times between detection and reaction are stunning.

    government officials were not fully alert to the possibility that Mr. Putin might try tactics here that have worked so well for him in Ukraine, the Baltics and other parts of Europe.

    It was telling that within an hour of the release of the report on Friday, the secretary of homeland security, Jeh Johnson, declared for the first time that America's election system -- the underpinning of its democracy -- would be added to the list of "critical infrastructure." This after years of cyberattacks on campaigns and government agencies.

    In the intelligence report's most glaring example of the government's lagging response, it says that "in July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee networks" and stayed there for 11 months, roaming freely and copying the contents of emails that it ultimately released in the midst of the election. Classified briefings circulating in Washington indicate that British intelligence had alerted the United States to the intrusion by fall 2015.

    Almost immediately, a low-level special agent with the F.B.I. alerted the Democratic National Committee's information technology contractor, which doubted the call and did nothing for months. The F.B.I. failed to escalate the issue, even though it was clear from the start that the attackers were almost certainly the same Russians who had mounted similar campaigns against the State Department, the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    IMO (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:05:38 PM EST
    too many people are stuck in old left right paradigms. This is either about being pro Putin or not. Some on the far left are Pro Putin and apparently the majority on the right are pro Putin. We are seeing the horseshoe theory of politics play out in real time.

    who on the (none / 0) (#20)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 06:49:50 PM EST
    far left (progressive) in anerica is unreservedly pro-putin?

    even in europe you would be hard-pressed to find "pro-putin stuges" as you call them. the communist party of greece is hardly a seriois example. even the "far-left-populist" party Die Linke in germany, while eager for the normalization of relations with russian, has called the russian invasion of eastern ukraine and annexation of crimea "illegal." ^

    ^ Die Linke has supported a replacement of NATO with a collective security system including Russia as a member country prior to the ukraine/crimea incident and is still hopeful for the normalization of relations with russia (as we should all be). hardly "pro-putin."


    the knee jerkers (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    that are sounding like Putin's defense attorney.

    with all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 07:45:26 PM EST
    we dont even know if the president and elected senators are getting factual information.

    i imagine the worflow goes something like this: (a) low-level analysts rejecting information that runs contrary to their world-view, (b) a mid-level manager who edits the report so it doesnt conflict substantially with previous reports and make his department look bad, (c) a military general who makes a few revisions so it's clear that financing the next generation submarine-launched ballistic missile is stressed, (d) president has the report (already edited) revised for political purposes (e) congress gets a briefing.

    on our end, "the evidence is highly classified" and really amounts to information that is randomly maybe true and randomly not. seems to me the FBI should be investigating cyber-crimes not america's "intelligence community" which too often has served as a political propaganda division.

    in my opinion.


    linea: "with all due respect, we dont even know if the president and elected senators are getting factual information."

    And with all due respect, your statement above is completely unrealistic. Are you under the assumption that the president is being misled by the U.S. Intelligence Community? If so, on what basis do you conclude that?

    Additionally, the reason why the FBI is not the lead agency here is because its jurisdiction is primarily domestic, and this action crossed international boundaries and involves overseas players. The bad actor(s) here appear to have operating at the direction of Russian military intelligence (GRU).

    My flight home is getting incredibly rough and choppy, and my laptop's sliding and bouncing on the tray-table, so I'm shutting down. The North Pacific is very stormy tonight with some serious 100+ mph headwinds, so what's normally a 5-hour flight from California is instead going to take us a bit under 7 hours. Another 4.5 hours to go.



    i love you and all (none / 0) (#31)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:04:30 PM EST
    but your assertion that the FBI isnt involved in international criminal investigation is simply wrong. the FBI works actively with InterPol, has offices in europe, and deploys investgative units worldwide. for example, the FBI's Child Abduction Rapid Deployment (CARD) teams will immediately respond to assist local law enforcement in europe in searching for the missing children of american tourists and also offers their services for other investigational needs across europe.

    the hacking of the DNC servers by russian actors is clearly within the perview of the FBI.

    im sorry your flight is rough and choppy.


    What applies to child abduction (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:13:07 PM EST
    does not applies to matters of international/foreign spying and intelligence.

    Donald is right about the basic mandate of the FBI vs. that of the intelligence agencies.It is the CIA, e.g.,that has operations all around the globe.  


    actually, that's not correct (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:40:55 AM EST
    See here

    Rather, I said that it's presently not the lead agency on this investigation. In fact, the FBI dropped the ball very early on, when it failed to notify DNC HQ in person about the hacking in a timely manner which conveyed the urgency of the situation, instead leaving only a message on the switchboard voicemail.

    Sorry Donald but that is not (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:39:47 AM EST
    the reason the FBI is not the main actor. The FBI (like the DEA and other agencies) is absolutely involved in investigating international crime -- from cyber crimes to  money laundering to international terrorism to drugs etc. All over the world. In fact, it's the lead agency on cybercrimes.

    Obama created a directive codifying the respective roles of the FBI, HSA, and intelligence agencies. It's Directive 41.

    Federal lead agencies. In order to ensure that the Cyber UCG achieves maximum effectiveness in coordinating responses to significant cyber incidents, the following agencies shall serve as Federal lead agencies for the specified line of effort:

    •   In view of the fact that significant cyber incidents will often involve at least the possibility of a nation-state actor or have some other national security nexus, the Department of Justice, acting through the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force, shall be the Federal lead agency for threat response activities.

    •    The Department of Homeland Security, acting through the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, shall be the Federal lead agency for asset response activities.

    •    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, through the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center, shall be the Federal lead agency for intelligence support and related activities.

    Another example: See former DEA chief of operations Thomas Harrigan's 2011 testimony to Congress on the FBI's involvement in international crime-fighting.

    FBI Resolution Six (R-6) Agents, co-located with DEA Agents, coordinate drug and gang investigations conducted in Mexico. They are also responsible for supporting domestic cases for U.S. prosecution, cultivating liaison contacts within Mexico, and supporting bilateral
    criminal enterprise initiatives. Working closely with counterparts assigned to the Mexican
    Embassy, Legal Attaches, the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), and the Southwest Intelligence
    Group, as well as with our federal partners in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
    and components within the Department of Justice (DOJ), i.e. the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the United States Marshals Service (USMS), we leverage all
    available resources and expertise. Close coordination with impacted state and local law
    enforcement and Mexican counterparts allow real-time access to intelligence and information
    that facilitated more than 800 convictions related to Mexican DTOs in 2009 alone.

    The FBI has been investigating international gang activity like the MS-13 for over a decade.

    In partnership with the Policía Nacional Civil (PNC) of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, the FBI established the Transnational Anti-Gang (TAG) Task Force Initiative to combat transnational gangs in Central America and the U.S. Each TAG task force is staffed with PNC and FBI personnel.

    Perhaps you are thinking of the distinction between the FBI's acting in a preventive role vs its role investigating completed crimes. The difference between law enforcement agencies like the FBI and intelligence agencies used to be that the FBI historically was not a preventive law enforcement agency. It traditionally got involved after a crime was committed.  By contrast, the role of intelligence agencies like the CIA has been to   gather information regardless of whether a crime has been committed. That changed quite a while ago. 9/11 was key. I don't think they do it well. Their so called preventive stings often (in my view) end up being entrapment.

    The distinction between acting preventatively and waiting until a crime was committed is why there used to be a "chinese wall" between intelligence and law enforcement -- it came tumbling down after 9/11. I've argued it should be restored ever since. Here's one detailed sourced post on Bush's initiatives to turn the FBI into an intelligence gathering agency and the reasons for the "wall". There are good reasons to distinguish between  powers accorded intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies. For example, it prevents the Government from making an end run around the Fourth Amendment

    I'm not following this Russia thing too closely, but I do know that the FBI acts internationally on crime and has since I can remember -- and certainly not just on child abduction issues as someone else suggested.


    here's a declassified legal memo (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:58:03 AM EST
    on the differing roles and the wall and how it changed.

    Thank you for the clarification, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:28:44 AM EST
    The law enforcement aspect is what I was thinking of. The FBI first got involved in this investigation early on, but as the scope widened into a more serious national security matter, the NSA and DHS moved into the forefront.

    I agree with you that the FBI is not very good as a preventive agency. Historically, that wasn't its role prior to 9/11, and the reorientation of its mission to proactive rather than reactive was never going to be accomplished overnight. The change will become more apparent as older FBI personnel retire, and younger agents who were recruited and hired after 9/11 move into leadership positions with the agency.



    You could have stopped ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 09:03:40 PM EST
    ... after the words "I imagine", because that's all it is.  Moreover, the fact that you don't like intelligence agencies is irrelevant.

    Yman, why are you so rude? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 09:32:15 PM EST
    I'm not as busy at work as I've been. Perhaps I may have time to step it up a bit on TL with some of you rude posters.

    Your comment is not appropriate on this site. Please stop.


    that's not even one I would (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    delete and I agree Yman is rude. It takes name-calling or a personal attack to get deleted -- or spats between two people the rest of us don't want to wade through. Please do not step it up, you'll just get banned.

    All of you, please disagree without ridicule. And Linea, your opinions are veering into zone of baseless conspiracy -- don't post those here. If you find an article you think is credible on the post, post a link in proper html format and quote a few lines you agree with. So far, you've just accused the CIA of something having to do with Russia, made claims about what "the left" believes and doesn't, and factually misrepresented the structure of ISIS. ISIS is not al Qaida or the former al Nusra or the FSA Rebels and none of those groups support ISIS. (Generally, the only people supporting ISIS who are not in ISIS are Fanboys on Twitter and they are not worth quoting.)


    I think my wife would like me banned (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:06:33 AM EST
    from the Internet.

    Must've been all (none / 0) (#92)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:23:10 PM EST
    those money shot pictures of Alan Dershowitz.

    im very sorry (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:06:21 AM EST
    very sorry.

    i didnt feel Yman's post was rude, just disnissive. i did mean "i imagine" as exactly that. that we dont know. but it was obviously badly written and im sorry.

    and you are right. while i have read english and non-english news articles on al-Nusra and the FSA Rebels they all seem to merge in my mind as ISIS. im clearly misrepresenting the structure of ISIS. i will avoid commenting on this topic in the future.


    the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:16:55 PM EST
    by Donald was deleted for name-calling of Glenn. No name-calling and personal attacks here.

    Why do you say this? (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:10:02 AM EST
    and apparently the majority on the right are pro Putin.

    You have no way of knowing if that is true and "apparently" is just a way to parse an opinion.

    It is just as possible that the majority on the right oppose any hacking of anyone by anybody but are unwilling, based on the failures of the intelligence agencies re Iraq and WMD's, are unwilling to jump to conclusions that lead to harming relations with a country that could be an ally in the war on terror.

    In the meantime Greenwald, certainly no "rightie," writes:

    "On the key claims that Putin directed this hacking and that he did so to elect Donald Trump, there is no evidence for it ... just CIA assertions over and over, and that just simply isn't enough," Greenwald said."

    What do you base your ongoing (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:20:30 AM EST
    assessment that Saddam had WMDS on, if not,  in part, based on (cherry-picked) intelligence reports?

    Are you saying the U.S intelligence services are less reliable than information from one of Saddam Hussein's former flunkies who had everything to gain by telling people what they wanted to hear?


    I am saying that the same agecies who (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    told Bush what he wanted t hear, that Saddam had WMD's, are saying that Russia hacked a private email system abd gave the information to the American voter.

    Which the Left has grasped to try and harm Trump.

    You didn't believe them then but you do now.



    And you believed them then (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:09:34 PM EST
    and don't believe them now.

    Funny how that works.

    The difference being that the left isn't now trying to throw young American men and women into the fire in a destabilizing and destructive and unnecessary war.

    If I thought you capable of it, I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#94)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:53:57 PM EST
    funny how that works - from both sides....

    Now the CIA and even the FBI are trusted and the "go to" authorities.


    Both sides, eh.. (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    so, you make a moral equivalence between the right lying us into a war and the left calling into question the legitimacy of the recent election?

    It's called (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 08:05:00 PM EST
    Fool me once.

    Shame on you.

    Fool me twice.

    Shame on me.

    And currently we have a President giving nukes to a terrorist state, ISIS is burning people alive and Hezbollah is supporting terror in Israel.

    I wish that we were no worse off now than we were then.

    And make no mistake. Obama is the daddy rabbit of all this. His lack of leadership and action have thrown fuel on the flames.


    I'd say Peter Rabbit Bush (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 08:37:49 PM EST
    and his little bunny helpers like you might be called to account for very much of what we have to deal with now.

    As much as you prefer to continue backtracking and tap dancing and ducking and dodging and whitewashing history.

    Your statement about Iran having nukes just underscores that you're still addicted to shucking and jiving.

    And people started being burned alive and blown to bits right as soon as the Iraq invasion happened. Which was also when Al Queda first made their appearence in Iraq.

    Meanwhile, you're still selling the Kool-Aid even if no one's buying.


    Well (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    Jim polling shows that roughly 4 times as many Republicans approve of Putin as approve of Obama. 37% approval from the GOP for Putin and 10% for Obama. As far as the majority goes, where are the Republicans who are speaking out against Putin? Where are the Republicans who are against Trump nominating a Putin stooge for SOS? Where are the Republicans on supporting an independent investigation into Trump's ties to Putin? Outside of a tiny minority Republicans are making excuse after excuse after excuse.

    I'm laughing my head off. You've spent literally years here at this blog apologizing for George W. Bush and saying that there were WMDs found in Iraq.

    Let's not forget Snowden is in Russia. There's a reason Greenwald might want to protect his source. And let's not forget McCain and Graham say it was a problem and they're hardly "left".

    However what you need to accept is that the old left right paradigms are gone. You are either pro Putin or you're anti Putin. There's intersection between the right and the far left on this issue. Horseshoe theory of politics.


    Don't make things up: (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 11:36:50 PM EST
    "You've spent literally years here at this blog apologizing for George W. Bush and saying that there were WMDs found in Iraq.

    Nope, my point, made repeatedly, was that Bush acted correctly based on the information he had. That's a fact, not an apology.

     The Left claimed that IA's were wrong. Now the Left claims they are right.

    We do know that Iraq's No.2 air force dude said they were sent to Syria at the last moment. We do know that Hans Blix said satellite shots show a lot of truck traffic crossing the boorder at the same time. And we know that old WMD's have been found. At some point they were new. We also know that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger. (They should have waited and Obama would have just given them some.)

    I have already stated that Russia probably hacked a private email system and fed the info to WikiLeak who passed it on. Politics and motives aside the information was true and the American voters had every right to know what some high level Democrats thought of each other and minorities.

    As Greenwald pointed out, certainly no fan of Trump or a Republican, the IA's provided nothing but thousands of words saying, "Trust us."  They have shown nothing else. But the world has changed. If they have something they should show it. Too much is at stake and we deserve proof and facts. He noted that.

    "The same lesson in 2002 when a group of bipartisan senators assured the nation that the intelligence community convinced them that Saddam (Hussein) has weapons of mass destruction ... and the same lesson we learned in 2013, when, just months before the (Edward) Snowden reporting, James Clapper, Obama's top national security official, lied to the faces of the country when he said that he wants to assure everybody that the NSA doesn't collect data," he said.

    "The lesson is we don't blindly and uncritically accept the claims of the intelligence community, especially provocative claims about a foreign adversary, without seeing convincing evidence presented by them that those claims are true," Greenwald added.

    Saying that more Republicans approve of Putin rather than Obama is the rankest of false dichotomies. Neither Obama or Putin are in a contest with each other.

    As for:

    "There's a reason Greenwald might want to protect his source."

    He didn't say his source said anything. But what he did say was that the IA's are BSing us.

    Trump has now called for an investigation on who leaked what to NBC. Let's have one. Enough of this "unnamed sources" nonsense. It helped get us into one war. We don't need another.

    GA, you and some others have spent a month slinging insults. While you may think it cute, it merely shows that you're a partisan Democrat willing to so and say almost anything in the mistaken belief that it makes you look good. It doesn't.

    Remember that the Republicans were in love with the FBI when they thought Hillary would be arrested any moment and thrown into jail.

    When Comey waffled they were outraged and you were thrilled and the Republicans hated him. Then Comey flipped and you hated him and the Republicans loved him.

    As for the hacking, I don't know who did it and am against anyone doing.

    But the facts remain. The information was true.

    And the Bellamy Brothers nails it.


    Your point (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 07:45:51 AM EST
    is that the intel agencies are not to be trusted because they were wrong on WMDs, then turn right around and insist they were right all along. Be careful with that ole "mental muscle".

    Jim's conflicting 'stories' (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 08:47:44 AM EST
    are like someone going through all their old clothes and trying things on and taking them off and then saying "What the heck, I'll just keep them all!"

    Once he's committed himself to a lie, he just can't bear to part with it.


    Somebody (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 09:02:33 AM EST
    should tell him those yellowcake bellbottoms are not a good look for him.

    et al (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 09:59:13 PM EST
    joe.... I haven't the vaguest what you think you read.

    jondee... Facts don't change.


    Facts may not change (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 10:10:26 PM EST
    but your stories about them sure do.

    And then they change back again.

    Behind your thicket of verbiage, I sense a lot of confusion.

    Maybe nutritional supplements might help.


    Somehow (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 11, 2017 at 07:25:37 AM EST
    joe.... I haven't the vaguest what you think you read
    comforts me, a sure sign that I remain tethered to reality.

    Off topic (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 09:36:27 PM EST
    Am I remembering correctly you're a Clemson girl?

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 08:43:34 AM EST
    I did not watch the game.

    I didn't either (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 02:24:27 PM EST
    But I saw on the Twitter where Armando tweeted Alabama couldn't score in the time left but Clemson could. Then he tweeted that Clemson was going to win this.

    Not a Clemson fan, but any day that "Bama (none / 0) (#105)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    gets beat is a good day in my book.

    It was a great game and terrific finish (none / 0) (#107)
    by Green26 on Tue Jan 10, 2017 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    Was rooting for Clemson too. Very good teams. Very athletic and physical and fired up. The hotshot Clemson receiver is going to go high in the draft. Some of their other receivers made great catches too. No 10, the Clemson linebacker, is a very good and smart player. Obviously, the Clemson qb is very good. I like the Clemson coach. Seems like a terrific guy.

    "the evidence is highly classified" (none / 0) (#24)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 08:41:56 PM EST
    shorter intelligence community:

    Our telephone intercepts of high-ranking Russian officials and cyber-hacks of the Kremlin email system prove conclusively that, not only are the Russians duplicitous evil bastards, but the spy on America and seek to undermine the security of our most cherished and beloved organizations!

    So goes another one (none / 0) (#25)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 08:45:06 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/jfrgutv  NY Daily News

    For 25 years, China Fun was renowned for its peerless soup dumplings and piquant General Tso's chicken.

    What left a bad taste in the mouths of its owners and loyal patrons was the restaurant's sudden Jan. 3 closing, blamed by management on suffocating government demands.

    "The climate for small businesses like ours in New York have become such that it's difficult to justify taking risks and running -- nevermind starting -- a legitimate mom-and-pop business," read a letter posted by the owners in the restaurant's front door.

    "The state and municipal governments, with their punishing rules and regulations, seems to believe that we should be their cash machine to pay for all that ails us in society."

    boo hoo! (none / 0) (#27)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    "the only way i can make a profit on Zazzle selling custom silkscrean teeshirts is to import young filipino boys in shippimg containers and chain then to the walls of my basement. but the government wont let me!"

    boo hoo!

    if you cant run a business with the rules that are in place, than you have a bad business model. what are you, a democratic-socialist? lol


    interesting article Trevor (none / 0) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:24:47 PM EST
    and as a sole proprietor, I tend to agree the paperwork to have employees is overwhelming. Obviously, while I can operate efficiently with no employees (just contract help) a restaurant is different. It's tough out there for mom and pop shops and I think they will suffer even more over the next four years as the UnPresident Elect only cares about appealing to billionaires -- as if they will bail him out when his ideas turn out to be catastrophic to all. There will be many more closures of places like China Fun.

    I think the Trump people (none / 0) (#57)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:04:46 AM EST
    believe in far fewer regulations, including fewer regulations of small businesses.

    I would agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    you are in tune with the Trump people enough to know their views.

    I understand the need (none / 0) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:07:39 AM EST
    for consumer safety, but regulations, at all levels, local, state and Federal can be oppressive.
    Locally, my county has been upping the ante with a Consumer Affairs Bureau, with inspectors out and about writing up fines. That it coincides with the severe budget deficit within the County leaves many entrepreneurs feeling they are under assault.

    The compliance issues are squeezing out the Mom & Pop businesses.


    Where is the US? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:07:38 PM EST
    "Russian warplanes have carried out airstrikes to support Turkey's offensive in northern Syria against the Islamic State, an important evolution in a budding Russian-Turkish partnership. The deepening ties threaten to marginalize the United States in the struggle to shape Syria's ultimate fate."

    NY Times article.

    where is the US? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 11:25:23 PM EST
    Hopefully staying out of it militarily.

    Green, Turkey's not really (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 01:38:48 AM EST
    interested in ISIS. Even the Times article says they want to "prevent the Syrian Kurds from setting up an autonomous region." It's goal is not to unseat Assad.

    The U.S. has backed the Kurds, who are fighting against Turkey for autonomy.

    On an increasingly complex battlefield shaped by ­long-simmering rivalries, the United States is now caught between two vital partners, the Kurds and its NATO ally Turkey. Despite U.S. pleas for an end to the fighting, both sides have vowed to protect their respective interests in Syria, underscoring the limits of U.S. influence and how much the Syrian war is a contest of competing aspirations.

    "We in the U.S. and Europe may see ISIS as the primary threat," said Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But for everyone else, it is a struggle for national, ethnic or sectarian power and identity."

    "The U.S. can only do so much in this environment," he added. "It is not going to persuade Turkey to give up its national interests, and it will not persuade any Kurdish factions not to serve their interests."

    Turkey is very unhappy about our support for the Kurds.

    Turkey, which regards the YPG as an affiliate of Ocalan's Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, is enraged at the U.S. support for the Syrian Kurds, and this month called on President-elect Donald Trump to sever U.S. support for the militia when he takes office. As Russia, Syria and Turkey move closer toward a settlement to the overall Syrian conflict, the United States could also find itself at odds with Russia over its military role in Syria.

    To assuage Turkish concerns and avert tensions between Arabs and Kurds, the U.S. military is channeling weapons and ammunition to an umbrella organization called the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes Arab fighters as well as the Kurds. The goal, the U.S. military says, is to build an Arab force capable of taking and holding Arab cities such as Raqqa, thereby diluting the influence of the Kurdish fighters.

    I thought this was a joke (same article), but it's not (it sounds as if the Kurds are channeling Bernie Sanders)

    On a rare visit by foreign journalists to northern Syria, Kurds were eager to explain Ocalan's political theory, a mix of Marxism and the utopian dreams of a dead American leftist from Vermont named Murray Bookchin.

    It seeks to abolish states and eliminate the need for governments by putting communities in charge of their own affairs. Referred to somewhat vaguely as "democratic confederalism" or the "democratic nation," the theory places a heavy emphasis on egalitarianism, women's rights and being kind to animals.

    I don't think it's legal for the U.S. to bomb inside of Syria. From Lawfare Blog:

    While the U.S. and coalition partners may rely on consent of the Iraqi government for operations in Iraq, operations in Syria--whether airstrikes or special operations raids--potentially violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...." Notwithstanding the debate over the legality of humanitarian intervention, traditionally, uses of force are legal only when the host government consents in advance, when the Security Council authorizes force under Chapter VII, or within the narrow confines of Article 51 self-defense.

    Here are 10 more wars that the war against ISIS may unleash. Which ones are you advocating we fight?

    My view is we should just get out of the region entirely and let them battle it out.


    ha! (none / 0) (#55)
    by linea on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 01:59:17 AM EST
    re: "My view is we should just get out of the region entirely "

    when i write this, im call foolish and naive.


    My view is that the US has to be involved (none / 0) (#56)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:00:55 AM EST
    in the Middle East for various reasons. Making mistakes in Iraq and Syria have increased and complicated problems for the area, the US and the world.

    Isn't the US already involved military in Syria to some extent? Certainly, in the air.

    As a general rule, I don't think it's a good idea to let Russia, or Iran, gain more influence in the region. Not that those things can or should be countered at all times.

    Skimming the list of 10 wars, I support nos. 10 and 3. If groups like ISIS are  allowed to grow unchecked or the US steps away from the region and the areas where ISIS is, the list of wars will be more like 25 in the future, is my view.


    Turkey (none / 0) (#62)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:10:30 AM EST
    Has always been an enigma, but it appears to have been morphed into a dictatorship and its goals are more easily determined.
    Just another bad actor in the Middle East.

    And no need to be in NATO for much longer as they cement ties with Russia.


    ROTFLMAO (4.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:42:44 AM EST
    You're worried about Turkey and their ties to Russia when your party is led by a Putin stooge the majority of the elected officials approve of Putin?

    Turkey has always marched to its own drummer. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 08:10:20 AM EST
    That country nearly caused a major rift within NATO in July 1974 when its military invaded Cyprus, in response to what Ankara claimed was a prospective attempt by Greece to annex that country following the Athens-inspired military coup which overthrew the Makarios government in Nicosia. In fact, Greece and Turkey -- both NATO members -- nearly went to war with one another over the crisis.

    What followed afterward was a clear case of ethnic cleansing, as Greek Cypriots were driven from their homes in northern Cyprus, and Turkish Cypriots left to south and moved north. To this day, Turkish troops occupy the northern half of the island, which is majority Turkish Cypriot and is called the Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Ankara), leaving the southern half to the Greek Cypriots.

    Turkish democracy has always been fragile, with a well-documented history of coup d'etats. As Jeralyn noted, the Turks are far more concerned with the Kurds than with ISIS. Further, the Turks have historically been very wary of Russian intentions in the Black Sea region and the Middle East, and they zealously guard their airspace from Russian intrusion. In November 2015, they shot down a Russian military jet which they claimed had strayed over their territory on its southern frontier.

    It's probably a mistake to believe that Turkey is in league with Russia. While the situation bears watching, what's currently taking place is a détente between the two nations, and not a wholesale reorientation of military alliances. Turkey is far more interested in furthering its economic ties with the European Union, and that's the direction it's looking, not to Moscow.



    you tell me (none / 0) (#33)
    by linea on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:27:25 PM EST
    why would america spend years, and billions of dollars, to have the CIA and Saudi Inteligence train anti-assad forces, give them plane-loads of cash, supply high-tech anti-tank weapons and cia advisors... and then drop bombs on them simply because they are indistinguishable from al-qaeda?

    The US bombs ISIS in Iraq (none / 0) (#34)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 08, 2017 at 10:43:02 PM EST
    Why wouldn't the US bomb ISIS in Syria? Why would the US let Russia do it for Turkey? Bombing with US planes doesn't cost Billions.

    sorry (none / 0) (#49)
    by linea on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 12:39:39 AM EST
    im dropping this topic as it has been pointed out to me that i CONFLATE al-Nusra, the FSA rebels, al-Queda, and ISIS.

    Another interesting NY Times article/topic (none / 0) (#59)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 04:16:07 AM EST
    "In Election Hacking, Julian Assange's Years-Old Vision Becomes Reality". All below are quotes from the article.

    And the current imbroglio over Russia, WikiLeaks and their role in Mr. Trump's victory -- or, more to the point, Hillary Clinton's loss -- might be viewed as the realization of the vision Mr. Assange had when he started WikiLeaks over a decade ago.

    Mr. Assange spelled it out in prescient terms in an essay he posted online in November of 2006, the year of WikiLeaks' founding.

    But in the essay he also wrote in more ambitious terms about forcing regime change through data and technology rather than through the old, barbaric means of assassination.

    As Mr. Assange saw it, power was held by vast networks of conspirators who shared vital information in secret, giving them a superior understanding of reality that enabled them to hold on to power. The technology revolution, he wrote, was providing the conspirators with the means to achieve what he called an even "higher total conspiratorial power."

    But it was also making them more vulnerable to sabotage, so that a governing conspiracy could be "slowed until it falls, stupefied; unable to comprehend and control the forces in its environment."

    As an example, he pointed to "two closely balanced and broadly conspiratorial power groupings," the Democratic and the Republican Parties in the United States.

    NY Times article.

    IMO (none / 0) (#60)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 05:39:57 AM EST
    he is describing acts of terrorism.

    Not all Wikileaks (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 06:14:18 AM EST
    releases are created equal.

    While all of their releases have been factual (I believe) Some actually endanger lives of many people around the world. Some very nasty unintended consequences, for their stripping away all veils of secrecy.


    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:44:30 AM EST
    You've spent a ton of time here spreading Wikileaks propaganda and Putin propaganda but now you're going to whine about what they do?

    It (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 07:39:13 AM EST
    seems like you are applying a bit of moral relativism here.  

    I want to make them (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 09, 2017 at 09:39:17 AM EST
    But will probably have to order the coconut sugar and the chips :(