Soi kèo Châu Á Iraq vs Philippines

Đội tuyển Iraq đang có phong độ thi đấu khá ổn định trong thời gian gần đây. Theo thống kê soi kèo Iraq vs Philippines từ trang kèo Xoi Lac TV cho thấy, mặc dù để thua trong lần ra quân gần nhất, họ vẫn có được 3 chiến thắng sau 4 trận gần nhất. Do đó, nếu chơi đúng phong độ, tuyển Iraq hoàn toàn có thể dễ dàng giành chiến thắng trong trận này.

Soi kèo Iraq vs Philippines

Hơn nữa, được chơi trên sân nhà trong trận đấu này sẽ là một lợi thế đối với Iraq. Thống kê cho thấy, phong độ trên sân nhà của họ ở thời điểm hiện tại là khá ổn định. Với việc Iraq đã giành được 3 chiến thắng sau 4 trận gần nhất. Do vậy, cơ hội thắng trận của đội tuyển Iraq đang được đánh giá khả quan hơn nhiều.

>> Xem lại bóng đá mới nhất <<

Trong khi đó. với việc không giành chiến thắng sau 3 trận gần nhất, tuyển Philippines đang có phong độ thi đấu thiếu ấn tượng. Do vậy,,phải làm khách trên sân của đối thủ Iraq, đây thực sự là một thử thách khó khăn với họ. Nhất là khi tuyển Philippine chỉ thắng 1/5 chuyến hành quân xa nhà trước đó.

Chọn: Iraq

Soi kèo tài xỉu Iraq vs Philippines

Những trận đấu của hai đội tuyển đang có tỷ lệ nổ Tài cao hơn. Theo thống kê cho thấy, trong 4 lần ra quân liên tiếp gần nhất của tuyển Iraq đã nổ Tài. Thêm vào đó, những trận sân khách của Philippine cũng thường nổ Tài. Với việc có 3/5 trận gần nhất đã nổ Tài. Do đó, các chuyên gia dự đoán, kèo Tài sẽ thắng kèo trong trận này.

Chọn: Tài cả trận

Soi kèo Iraq vs Philippines
Soi kèo hiệp 1 Iraq vs Philippines 

Trước khi trận này diễn ra, tuyển Iraq thường nhập cuộc khá chủ động. Khi mà có 4/6 trận gần nhất, họ đã ghi được bàn trong hiệp 1. Mặc dù, tuyển Philippines lại đang chơi phòng ngự khá tốt. Với việc có 4/5 trận gần nhất, họ không để thủng lưới trong 45 phút đầu tiên. Tuy nhiên, tuyển Iraq vẫn sẽ sớm ghi bàn dẫn trước và thắng kèo hiệp 1 trận này.

Chọn Iraq thắng kèo hiệp 1

>> Cập nhật kết quả bóng đá hôm nay <<

Đội hình dự kiến Iraq vs Philippines

Iraq: Jalal Hassan, Suad Natiq, Ali Adnan, Hussein Ali Haidar, Osama Rashid, Amir Al Ammari, Inraheem Bayesh, Zidane Iqbal, Merchas Doski, Ali Jasim, Mohanad Ali.

Philippines: Etheridge, Sato, Murga, Rota, Tabinas, Schrock, Manny Ott, Ingreso, Mike Ott, Reichelt, Daniels.

Dự đoán tỷ số trận đấu Iraq vs Philippines

4-0 (Chọn Iraq, chọn Tài cả trận)

The post Nhận định soi kèo Iraq vs Philippines lúc 02h00 ngày 22/3/2024 appeared first on XoilacTV.

Cockerell posts video of Campbell’s speech after WMD ‘dodgy dossier’ architect tries to deflect criticism

Alastair Campbell during his speech

A journalist has shredded former Blair adviser Alastair Campbell’s denial that he derided young people outraged at Keir Starmer’s support for Israel’s war crimes – by the simple step of posting video of his speech.

Campbell had taken exception to a post by left activist @ToryFibs pointing out his mockery of young people:

But Claudia Cockerell, who authored the article to which ToryFibs had referred, politely shot down Campbell by posting the video of the section of his speech in which he said young voters should ‘get off their high horse and vote’ for the so-called ‘Labour leader’ whose only unbroken promise has been his support for Israel even when it is buys slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians in its genocide in Gaza:

And the article in full
https://t.co/huaW936FRg

— Claudia Cockerell (@claudcockerell) February 6, 2024

In fact, Cockerell’s comments didn’t go far enough. Campbell, the architect of the false ‘weapons of mass destruction’ claims under Blair that led to the deaths of a hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, claimed that Keir Starmer was right to refuse to call for a ceasefire – when hundreds are being added daily to the 100,000+ people, mostly women and children, murdered and maimed by Israel – because he should save his ‘political capital’ and that’s why young people should ‘get off their high horse’.

There are much pithier things that could be said in response to that kind of cynical, sneering nonsense.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

Former PM accused of lies and war crimes that led to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths would add ‘greater legitimacy’ to genocide in Gaza, says Times of Israel

Israel plans to install Tony Blair as ‘humanitarian coordinator’ in Gaza in what it hopes will,

provid[e] its war effort with greater legitimacy

according to the Times of Israel, quoting the Ynet news outlet and ‘unnamed senior officials’. The Israeli government has already been in touch with Blair and discussions have been underway for weeks, with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu hoping,

to leverage Blair’s experience as former envoy to the region for the Middle East Quartet to temper international concerns over the civilian cost of Israel’s campaign in Gaza.

International concerns are about the mass murder of Gazan civilians, including over five thousand children – but the Netanyahu regime appears to think that a PR exercise and a new coat of Blair-coloured paint will be enough to let Israel get on with its genocide and ethnic cleansing of Gaza – which leaked intelligence ministry plans show it hopes will lead to clearing all of Gaza’s population that survives the mass bombing permanently into a permanent ‘tent city’ in the desert of southern Egypt.

The paper claims that the emphasis of the appointment will be “providing medical treatment and medicines, and on the possibility of evacuating the wounded and sick from the Strip” – but with no mention of actually ending the slaughter.

Shortly after the 7 October incident in southern Israel Blair – who has an office in Israel – issued a statement that claiming it meant that “decades of conventional western diplomacy around the Israel/Palestinian issue will need to be fundamentally re-thought“, apparently already justifying Israel’s onslaught and attempting to pre-empt international outrage at the mass murder of civilians:

As the full nature of the barbarity and disgusting savagery of Hamas’ attack on Israel becomes clear, which the perpetrators know full well will result not only in grief and tragedy for Israelis but also for the people of Gaza, it becomes clear also that decades of conventional western diplomacy around the Israeli/Palestinian issue will need to be fundamentally re-thought.

Tony Blair

However, eye-witnesses have attributed many, even most, of the Israeli deaths at the kibbutz to indiscriminate Israeli gunfire and shelling. No evidence has been provided for the more lurid Israeli claims of atrocities, with US president Joe Biden’s office being forced to admit he had not seen pictures he had claimed to see of mutilated babies and raped women. Israeli media recently admitted that claims of rape of Israeli women had evaporated.

A video circulated by supporters of Israel, which had been subtitled to suggest that it showed a Hamas operative threatening a woman with rape, has been shown by a Reuters fact check to say no such thing – in fact, the operative was telling another to leave the woman behind because she is female. Israeli survivors of the IDF onslaught – as well as at least one of the hostages so far released by Hamas – have commented on how kindly and politely they were treated by the Hamas fighters.

The plan exposes yet again the arrogance and contempt of the Israeli regime and the UK political establishment. Blair is widely despised as a war criminal because of his role in the 2003 Iraq invasion – and the lies about non-existent ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that he and his team told to justify it – that led to at the least several hundred thousand civilian deaths, with some believing the death toll to be as high as a million.

War criminals appointing war criminals, to legitimise war crime, about sums up the diseased national and international political order – and will do nothing to protect the innocent civilians of Gaza who are being murdered in their thousands in their homes, schools and hospitals to drive them out of their homeland.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

By Tom Engelhardt | (Via Tomdispatch.com ) | – –

You remember. It was supposed to be twenty-first-century war, American-style: precise beyond imagining; smart bombs; drones capable of taking out a carefully identified and tracked human being just about anywhere on Earth; special operations raids so pinpoint-accurate that they would represent a triumph of modern military science.  Everything “networked.”  It was to be a glorious dream of limited destruction combined with unlimited power and success.  In reality, it would prove to be a nightmare of the first order.

If you want a single word to summarize American war-making in this last decade and a half, I would suggest rubble. It’s been a painfully apt term since September 11, 2001. In addition, to catch the essence of such war in this century, two new words might be useful: rubblize and rubblization. Let me explain what I mean.

In recent weeks, another major city in Iraq has officially been “liberated” (almost) from the militants of the Islamic State.  However, the results of the U.S.-backed Iraqi military campaign to retake Mosul, that country’s second largest city, don’t fit any ordinary definition of triumph or victory.  It began in October 2016 and, at nine months and counting, has been longer than the World War II battle of Stalingrad.  Week after week, in street to street fighting, with U.S. airstrikes repeatedly called in on neighborhoods still filled with terrified Mosulites, unknown but potentially staggering numbers of civilians have died.  More than a million people — yes, you read that figure correctly — were uprooted from their homes and major portions of the Western half of the city they fled, including its ancient historic sections, have been turned into rubble.

This should be the definition of victory as defeat, success as disaster.  It’s also a pattern.  It’s been the essential story of the American war on terror since, in the month after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush loosed American air power on Afghanistan.  That first air campaign began what has increasingly come to look like the full-scale rubblization of significant parts of the Greater Middle East. 

By not simply going after the crew who committed those attacks but deciding to take down the Taliban, occupy Afghanistan, and in 2003, invade Iraq, Bush’s administration opened the proverbial can of worms in that vast region. An imperial urge to overthrow Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein, who had once been Washington’s guy in the Middle East only to become its mortal enemy (and who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11), proved one of the fatal miscalculations of the imperial era.

So, too, did the deeply engrained fantasy of Bush administration officials that they controlled a high-tech, precision military that could project power in ways no other nation on the planet or in history ever had; a military that would be, in the president’s words, “the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known.”  With Iraq occupied and garrisoned (Korea-style) for generations to come, his top officials assumed that they would take down fundamentalist Iran (sound familiar?) and other hostile regimes in the region, creating a Pax Americana there.  (Hence, the particular irony of the present Iranian ascendancy in Iraq.)  In the pursuit of such fantasies of global power, the Bush administration, in effect, punched a devastating hole in the oil heartlands of the Middle East.  In the pungent imagery of Abu Mussa, head of the Arab League at the time, the U.S. chose to drive straight through “the gates of hell.”

Rubblizing the Greater Middle East

In the 15-plus years since 9/11, parts of an expanding swathe of the planet — from Pakistan’s borderlands in South Asia to Libya in North Africa — were catastrophically unsettled. Tiny groups of Islamic terrorists multiplied exponentially into both local and transnational organizations, spreading across the region with the help of American “precision” warfare and the anger it stirred among helpless civilian populations.  States began to totter or fail.  Countries essentially collapsed, loosing a tide of refugees on the world, as year after year, the U.S. military, its Special Operations forces, and the CIA were increasingly deployed in one fashion or another in one country after another.

Though in case after case the results were visibly disastrous, like so many addicts, the three post-9/11 administrations in Washington seemed incapable of drawing the obvious conclusions and instead continued to do more of the same (with modest adjustments of one sort of another).  The results, unsurprisingly enough, were similarly disappointing or disastrous.

Despite the doubts about such a form of global warfare that candidate Trump raised during the 2016 election campaign, the process has only escalated in the first months of his presidency.  Washington, it seems, just can’t help itself in its drive to pursue this version of war in all its grim imprecision to its increasingly imprecise but predictably destructive conclusions.  Worse yet, if the leading military and political figures in Washington have their way, none of this may end in our lifetime.  (In recent years, for example, the Pentagon and those who channel its thoughts have begun speaking of a “generational approach” or a “generational struggle” in Afghanistan.)

If anything, so many years after it was launched, the war on terror shows every sign of continuing to expand and rubble is increasingly the name of the game.  Here’s a very partial tally sheet on the subject:

In addition to Mosul, a number of Iraq’s other major cities and towns — including Ramadi and Fallujah — have also been reduced to rubble. Across the border in Syria, where a brutal civil war has been raging for six years, numerous cities and towns from Homs to parts of Aleppo have essentially been destroyed. Raqqa, the “capital” of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, is now under siege. (American Special Operations forces are already reportedly active inside its breached walls, working with allied Kurdish and Syrian rebel forces.) It, too, will be “liberated” sooner or later — that is to say, destroyed.

As in Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi, American planes have been striking ISIS positions in the urban heart of Raqqa and killing civilians, evidently in sizeable numbers, while rubblizing parts of the city.  And such activities have in recent years only been spreading.  In distant Libya, for instance, the city of Sirte is in ruins after a similar struggle involving local forces, American air power, and ISIS militants.  In Yemen, for the last two years the Saudis have been conducting a never-ending air campaign (with American support), significantly aimed at the civilian population; they have, that is, been rubblizing that country, while paving the way for a devastating famine and a horrific cholera epidemic that can’t be checked, given the condition of that impoverished, embattled land.

Only recently, this sort of destruction has spread for the first time beyond the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa. In late May, on the island of Mindanao in the southern Philippines, local Muslim rebels identified with ISIS took Marawi City. Since they moved in, much of its population of 200,000 has been displaced and almost two months later they still hold parts of the city, while engaged in Mosul-style urban warfare with the Filipino military (backed by U.S. Special Operations advisers). In the process, the area has reportedly suffered Mosul-style rubblization.

In most of these rubblized cities and the regions around them, even when “victory” is declared, worse yet is in sight. In Iraq, for instance, with the “caliphate” of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi now being dismantled, ISIS remains a genuinely threatening guerilla force, the Sunni and Shiite communities (including armed Shiite militias) show little sign of coming together, and in the north of the country the Kurds are threatening to declare an independent state. So fighting of various sorts is essentially guaranteed and the possibility of Iraq turning into a full-scale failed state or several devastated mini-states remains all too real, even as the Trump administration is reportedly pushing Congress for permission to construct and occupy new “temporary” military bases and other facilities in the country (and in neighboring Syria).

Worse yet, across the Greater Middle East, “reconstruction” is basically not even a concept. There’s simply no money for it. Oil prices remain deeply depressed and, from Libya and Yemen to Iraq and Syria, countries are either too poor or too divided to begin the reconstruction of much of anything. Nor — and this is a given — will Donald Trump’s America be launching the war-on-terror equivalent of a Marshall Plan for the region.  And even if it did, the record of the post-9/11 years already shows that the highly militarized American version of “reconstruction” or “nation building” via crony warrior corporations in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been one of the great scams of our time.  (More American taxpayer dollars have been poured into reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan alone than went into the whole of the Marshall Plan and it’s painfully obvious how effective that proved to be.)

Of course, as in Syria’s civil war, Washington is hardly responsible for all the destruction in the region. ISIS itself has been a remarkably destructive and brutal killing machine with its own impressive record of urban rubblization.  And yet most of the destruction in the region was triggered, at least, by the militarized dreams and plans of the Bush administration, by its response to 9/11 (which ended up being something like Osama bin Laden’s dream scenario).  Don’t forget that ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaeda in Iraq, was a creature of the American invasion and occupation of that country and that ISIS itself was essentially formed in an American military prison camp in that country where its future caliph was confined.

And in case you think any lessons have been learned from all of this, think again.  In the first months of the Trump administration, the U.S. has essentially decided on a new mini-surge of troops and air power in Afghanistan; deployed for the first time the largest non-nuclear weapon in its arsenal there; promised the Saudis more support in their war in Yemen; has increased its air strikes and special operations activities in Somalia; is preparing for a new U.S. military presence in Libya; increased U.S. forces and eased the rules for air strikes in civilian areas of Iraq and elsewhere; and sent U.S. special operators and other personnel in rising numbers into both Iraq and Syria.

No matter the president, the ante only seems to go up when it comes to the “war on terror,” a war of imprecision that has helped uproot record numbers of people on this planet, with the usual predictable results: the further spread of terror groups, the further destabilization of state structures, rising numbers of displaced and dead civilians, and the rubblization of expanding parts of the planet.

While no one would deny the destructive potential of great imperial powers historically, the American empire of destruction may be unique.  At the height of its military strength in these years, it has been utterly incapable of translating that power advantage into anything but rubblization.

Living in the Rubble, a Short History of the Twenty-First Century

Let me speak personally here, since I live in the remarkably protected and peaceful heart of that empire of destruction and in the very city where it all began.  What eternally puzzles me is the inability of those who run that imperial machinery to absorb what’s actually happened since 9/11 and draw any reasonable conclusions from it.  After all, so much of what I’ve been describing seems, at this point, dismally predictable.

If anything, the “generational” nature of the war on terror and the way it became a permanent war of terror should by now seem too obvious for discussion.  And yet, whatever he said on the campaign trail, President Trump promptly appointed to key positions the very generals who have long been immersed in fighting America’s wars across the Greater Middle East and are clearly ready to do more of the same.  Why in the world anyone, even those generals, should imagine that such an approach could result in anything more “successful” is beyond me.

In many ways, rubblization has been at the heart of this whole process, starting with the 9/11 moment.  After all, the very point of those attacks was to turn the symbols of American power — the Pentagon (military power); the World Trade Center (financial power); and the Capitol or some other Washington edifice (political power, as the hijacked plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania was undoubtedly heading there) — into so much rubble.  In the process, thousands of innocent civilians were slaughtered.

In some ways, much of the rubblization of the Greater Middle East in recent years could be thought of as, however unconsciously, a campaign of vengeance for the horror and insult of the air assaults on that September morning in 2001, which pulverized the tallest towers of my hometown.  Ever since, American war has, in a sense, involved paying Osama bin Laden back in kind, but on a staggering scale.  In Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere, a shocking but passing moment for Americans has become everyday life for whole populations and innocents have died in numbers that would add up to so many World Trade Centers piled atop each other.

The origins of TomDispatch, the website I run, also lie in the rubble. I was in New York City on that day. I experienced the shock of the attacks and the smell of those burning buildings.  A friend of mine saw a hijacked plane hitting one of the towers and another biked into the smoke-filled area looking for his daughter.  I went down to the site of the attacks with my own daughter within days and wandered the nearby streets, catching glimpses of those giant shards of destroyed buildings.

In the phrase of that moment, in the wake of 9/11, everything “changed” and, in a sense, indeed it did.  I felt it.  Who didn’t?  I noted the sense of fear rising nationally and the repetitious ceremonies across the country in which Americans hailed themselves as the planet’s most exceptional victims, survivors, and (in the future) victors.  In those post-9/11 weeks, I became increasingly aware of how a growing sense of shock and a desire for vengeance among the populace was freeing Bush administration officials (who had for years been dreaming about making the “lone superpower” omnipotent in a historically unprecedented way) to act more or less as they wished.

As for myself, I was overcome by a sense that the period to follow would be the worst of my life, far worse than the Vietnam era (the last time I had been truly mobilized politically).  And of one thing I was certain: things would not go well. I had an urge to do something, though no idea what.

In early October 2001, the Bush administration unleashed its air power on Afghanistan, a campaign that, in a sense, would never end but simply spread across the Greater Middle East. (By now, the U.S. has launched repeated air strikes in at least seven countries in the region.) At that moment, someone emailed me an article by Tamim Ansary, an Afghan who had been in the U.S. for years but had continued to follow events in his country of birth.

His piece, which appeared at the website Counterpunch, would prove prescient indeed, especially since it had been written in mid-September, just days after 9/11.  At that moment, as Ansary noted, Americans were already threatening — in a phrase adopted from the Vietnam War era — to bomb Afghanistan “back to the Stone Age.”  What purpose, he wondered, could possibly be served by such a bombing campaign since, as he put it, “new bombs would only stir the rubble of earlier bombs”?  As he pointed out, Afghanistan, then largely ruled by the grim Taliban, had essentially been turned into rubble years before in the proxy war the Soviets and Americans fought there until the Red Army limped home in defeat in 1989.  The rubble that was already Afghanistan would only increase in the brutal civil war that followed. And in the years before 2001, little had been rebuilt.  So, as Ansary made clear, the U.S. was about to launch its air power for the first time in the twenty-first century against a country with nothing, a country of ruins and in ruins.

From such an act he predicted disaster. And so it would be. At the time, something about that image of air strikes on rubble stunned me, in part because it felt both horrifying and true, in part because it seemed such an ominous signal of what might lie in our future, and in part because nothing like it could then be found in the mainstream news or in any kind of debate about how to respond to 9/11 (of which there was essentially none). Impulsively, I emailed his piece out with a note of my own to friends and relatives, something I had never done before. That, as it turned out, would be the start of what became an ever-expanding no-name listserv and, a little more than a year later, TomDispatch.

A Plutocracy of the Rubble?

So the first word to fully catch my attention and set me in motion in the post-9/11 era was “rubble.”  It’s sad that, almost 16 years later, Americans are still obsessively afraid for themselves, a fear that has helped fund and build a national security state of staggering dimensions.  On the other hand, remarkably few of us have any sense of the endless 9/11-style experiences our military has so imprecisely delivered to the world. The bombs may be smart, but the acts couldn’t be dumber.

In this country, there is essentially no sense of responsibility for the spread of terrorism, the crumbling of states, the destruction of lives and livelihoods, the tidal flow of refugees, and the rubblization of some of the planet’s great cities.  There’s no reasonable assessment of the true nature and effects of American warfare abroad: its imprecision, its idiocy, its destructiveness.  In this peaceful land, it’s hard to imagine the true impact of the imprecision of war, American-style. Given the way things are going, it’s easy enough, however, to imagine the scenario of Tamim Ansari writ large in the Trump years and those to follow: Americans continuing to bomb the rubble they had such a hand in creating across the Greater Middle East.

And yet distant imperial wars do have a way of coming home, and not just in the form of new surveillance techniques, or drones flying over “the homeland,” or the full-scale militarization of police forces. Without those disastrous, never-ending wars, I suspect that the election of Donald Trump would have been unlikely. And while he will not loose such “precision” warfare on the homeland itself, his project (and that of the congressional Republicans) — from health care to the environment — is visibly aimed at rubblizing American society. If he were capable, he would certainly create a plutocracy of the rubble in a world where ruins are increasingly the norm.

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com. His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, as well as John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2017 Tom Engelhardt

[Note for TomDispatch Readers: There’s no way I can thank you enough for your remarkable response to my recent summer appeal for funds to keep TomDispatch rolling along. You are simply the best! If any of you meant to send in a few dollars but forgot, check out our donation page. I’m 73 years old today and still going reasonably strong. That is, I suppose, a miracle of sorts. I’m planning to take the weekend off, so the next TD post will appear on Tuesday, July 25th. In the meantime, I’m expecting TomDispatch to accompany me not just into my 74th year, but my 75th as well thanks to the continuing generosity of all of you! Tom]

Via Tomdispatch.com

——-

Related video added by Juan Cole:

Democracy Now!: “Amnesty Accuses U.S. Coalition of War Crimes in Mosul: Scale of Death Much Higher Than Acknowledged”